Determinism, Free Will, And God'S Omniscience

[Lamanite]

To bring it back to the OP, our entire world and legal system is based on the notion of choice, and the world would not "work" without it.

One can argue all one wants about us being determined because God knows what will happen in the future, but all that doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the real world.

Next time you get a speeding ticket, tell the judge that you couldn't do otherwise because God knew you would be speeding, and see how far it gets you!

Regarding free will, Schopenhauer has said:

"A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills."

Indeed the idea of free will serves mankind in a very real way. It's better for morality and the maintenance of a safe society if we all act as if we are somehow responsible for our actions, even though to the determinist we are not. Like Einstein said:

I know that philosophically a murderer is not responsible for his crime, but I prefer not to take tea with him."

Ultimately, I still find that omniscience necessitates determinism.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

My favorite t-shirt says "Shrodinger's Cat is Dead" on the front, on the back "Shrodingers Cat is not Dead". Until we know and open the box, its both, and so the question of this discussion in a sense is reconciled until we in effect "open the box" in the next life.

If we follow Shrodinger to God we would observe God trying to observe the Universe(s) with an infinite number of events and probabilities. I don't think "omniscient" would be an appropriate description.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Jeff K.]

Not following Schrodinger to God so much as the conundrum of what might be to those of limited rather than omniscient knowledge.

[Lamanite]

Not following Schrodinger to God so much as the conundrum of what might be to those of limited rather than omniscient knowledge.

The simple question remains; How can anyone be omniscient while free will exists? Omniscience and free will are incompatible ideas. God may appear omniscient relative to us due to his being highly accurate in predicting outcomes, but the ability to determine outcomes for an infinite number events of at a high rate of accuracy does not equal omniscience.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[mfbukowski]

The biggest issue I have with the book is that while trying to explore Mormon thought it ignores a large part of Mormon thought because those thoughts are not philosophical but rather revelatory. It ignores (or attempts to diminish) the clear statements in the scriptures and from the prophets that God does know the future. (Not to say they should be understood in the philosophical sense that God infallibly knows the future.)

This is one of the reasons I advocate a Pragmatic approach - it is compatible completely with both science, logic, and acknowledges revelation as a "valid" way of experiencing the world.

All experiences are just as "valid" as any other- the confusion arises in mixing their contexts. Science is not spirituality, and revelation is not science. The Bible was never meant to be a scientific textbook about, for example, how the earth could be covered by water for 40 days; it is there as a spiritual guide to give meaning to our lives.

Similarly, the methods of empirical observation cannot reveal the existence of God or give our lives meaning or purpose.

Each type of discourse belongs within its own context or confusion results.

[Jeff K.]

The simple question remains; How can anyone be omniscient while free will exists? Omniscience and free will are incompatible ideas. God may appear omniscient relative to us due to his being highly accurate in predicting outcomes, but the ability to determine outcomes for an infinite number events of at a high rate of accuracy does not equal omniscience.

Big UP!

Lamanite

But I don't think omniscience and freewill are necessarily incompatible. I think if you know someone else will do something but don't interfere with their choice, you haven't taken the choice away from them.

[mfbukowski]

Ultimately, I still find that omniscience necessitates determinism.

But do you understand my point that that confuses the objective with the subjective?

As someone recently pointed out- your neighbors may know what is behind door number two- but that does not in any way negate your ability to choose- because YOU do not know what is behind door number 2. That was an excellent analogy!

Point of view - context- is everything, and I think that confusing this point leads to the whole issue of "determinism"- that "we cannot do otherwise" and therefore in some sense are not "free".

My point is that the whole notion of "determinism" having anything to do with knowledge is a confusion of points of view, like arguing if you see the same "red" as I sense, or if salt tastes the same to you as it does to me. Ultimately, I would argue, such talk is nonsense.

[David T]

The question comes when you ask if, in 1981 God knows that John will do A in 2000, is John free to choose not to do A in 2000? If so, is it possible that God's knowledge in 1981 was incorrect? Is it already set in stone in 1981 that John will do A in 2000? If so, is John really free to make his own reality that he will do otherwise than A in 2000?

[Lamanite]

But do you understand my point that that confuses the objective with the subjective?

As someone recently pointed out- your neighbors may know what is behind door number two- but that does not in any way negate your ability to choose- because YOU do not know what is behind door number 2. That was an excellent analogy!

Point of view - context- is everything, and I think that confusing this point leads to the whole issue of "determinism"- that "we cannot do otherwise" and therefore in some sense are not "free".

My point is that the whole notion of "determinism" having anything to do with knowledge is a confusion of points of view, like arguing if you see the same "red" as I sense, or if salt tastes the same to you as it does to me. Ultimately, I would argue, such talk is nonsense.

There are an infinite number of choices throughout the Universe, and I will posit that God is uniquely equipped to see with a very high degree of accuracy how those choices will be made. However, to assign absolute omniscience to God removes the choice and inserts in its place a pre-determined Universe. Although, the appearance of free will may seem evident in the experiential and observable universe, if God is absolutely omniscient, then our existence is predetermined and absolutely fixed.

If God exists knowing what is behind every door and what door everyone of us will choose at every moment throughout time and throughout all eternity, our lives may appear to be free in thought and deed, but we are causally bound and determined as evidenced by an omniscient God.

I believe God is relatively omniscient. Another way to put it is that he is nearly omniscient due to his ability to predict with a high degree of accuracy what choices will be made by all of his creations. But if we cross the line to absolute omniscience the the world of free choice breaks down and we are left with a predetermined existence.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Jeff K.]

I suppose it depends on the purpose of the universe and whether or not you believe omniscience and free will are incompatible. The two schools of thought are

1- Free will and omniscience is incompatible because if you know what someone is going to do, then you in effect control them somehow (which I presume is the antithesis of free will)

2-Free will and omniscience is compatible, just because you know what someone is going to do doesn't mean you are interfering with their decisions, their choice remains theirs.

I go for the second since the first allows for a limited God in the sense that he isn't sure, and the argument will then be over the limits of his knowledge. The latter allows no argument over the limits of God's knowledge and confirms a strong hold on faith being things that cannot be proven but are true, and truth being the knowledge of things as they were, as they are and as they will be. And also as a side note... a need to know and atone for all sins in the past present and future since the atonement must satisfy justice and justice does not call for atoning of more sins than have been committed, which means an omniscient knowledge must be had.

Those are basically what I see as the support or interlocking ideas that lead me to believe in an omniscient God with absolute knowledge versus a God whose knowledge of all things precisely is not absolute.

[Lamanite]

The question comes when you ask if, in 1981 God knows that John will do A in 2000, is John free to choose not to do A in 2000? If so, is it possible that God's knowledge in 1981 was incorrect? Is it already set in stone in 1981 that John will do A in 2000? If so, is John really free to make his own reality that he will do otherwise than A in 2000?

If God ABSOLUTELY KNOWS that John will choose A in 2000, then there is only a perceived choice by John, but the reality is that he is determined to behave a certain way. If God predicts that John will choose A, then the choice remains and God's ability to predict the outcome of our choices gives the appearance of omniscience. For all intents and purposes God is quasi-omniscient and that is all that is necessary for his Plan of Salvation.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[mfbukowski]

The question comes when you ask if, in 1981 God knows that John will do A in 2000, is John free to choose not to do A in 2000? If so, is it possible that God's knowledge in 1981 was incorrect? Is it already set in stone in 1981 that John will do A in 2000? If so, is John really free to make his own reality that he will do otherwise than A in 2000?

As I said, I find that confused. My subjective experience of making a choice has nothing to do with God's subjective experience of knowing what I will do, any more than your seeing my car speeding toward a cliff that I cannot see "makes" me go over it.

The idea confuses what you know with what I know. What you know has nothing to do with what I know.

(I wish I knew half the things you do- so I know this is true!)

[LeSellers]

The question comes when you ask if, in 1981 God knows that John will do A in 2000, is John free to choose not to do A in 2000? If so, is it possible that God's knowledge in 1981 was incorrect? Is it already set in stone in 1981 that John will do A in 2000? If so, is John really free to make his own reality that he will do otherwise than A in 2000?

We have seen this many times in this topic, and elsewhere, as well, so please forgive the redundancy.

God does not know in His future what anyone will do, I suspect that "anyone" includes Himself. But He knows in our future what we will do because, to Him, our future is His present. He can look at the now, and see what we are doing, then, if there is a need for Him to do so, He can reveal that present to us in the relative past (which is our present as we are seeing it at that point). He neither caused the act, nor influenced it. He is only reporting the news, so to speak.

While the phrase is now in some disrepute, God is "outside of time". By this I mean (and I believe I am not alone in this view) that He sees time as we see "left'n'right". We are three-dimensional beings traveling unidirectionally through time. He is (at least) a four-dimensional Being Who can go forward'n'backward through time as He pleases. That is how He "knows the end from the beginning": He sees it as easily as we see the sunrise.

Therefore, if John did A in 2000, we all know it (or John does, at least), and that knowledge had no effect at all on the act: it's already in the past for all of us, including John, because it's now 2011. For God, however, 2000 was in the past in 1981. He knows what happened back then in the same way we know what happened in our own pasts.

I know John Hinckley, Jr., tried to kill Ronald Reagan. My knowledge in 2011 did not make Hinckley pull the trigger in 1981. In 645 BC, God knew Hinckley had pulled the trigger 2600 years in Reagan's future (or would if it had been useful for Him to know it then), and that knowledge did not have any more effect on Hinckley than does mine.

Lehi

[Lamanite]

I suppose it depends on the purpose of the universe and whether or not you believe omniscience and free will are incompatible. The two schools of thought are

1- Free will and omniscience is incompatible because if you know what someone is going to do, then you in effect control them somehow (which I presume is the antithesis of free will)

2-Free will and omniscience is compatible, just because you know what someone is going to do doesn't mean you are interfering with their decisions, their choice remains theirs.

I go for the second since the first allows for a limited God in the sense that he isn't sure, and the argument will then be over the limits of his knowledge. The latter allows no argument over the limits of God's knowledge and confirms a strong hold on faith being things that cannot be proven but are true, and truth being the knowledge of things as they were, as they are and as they will be. And also as a side note... a need to know and atone for all sins in the past present and future since the atonement must satisfy justice and justice does not call for atoning of more sins than have been committed, which means an omniscient knowledge must be had.

Those are basically what I see as the support or interlocking ideas that lead me to believe in an omniscient God with absolute knowledge versus a God whose knowledge of all things precisely is not absolute.

Omniscience does not necessitate God's control of anyone, omniscience as a characteristic of deity implies that God is aware of his and our predetermined existence. So I reject number 1. However, omniscience does necessitate causal determinism, which eliminates free will so option 2 cannot exist. However, as I've said in other posts, free will can exist in a Universe where God is nearly omniscient.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[ELF1024]

Omniscience does not necessitate God's control of anyone, omniscience as a characteristic of deity implies that God is aware of his and our predetermined existence. So I reject number 1. However, omniscience does necessitate causal determinism, which eliminates free will so option 2 cannot exist. However, as I've said in other posts, free will can exist in a Universe where God is nearly omniscient.

I would say that our mortal understanding of God's knowledge and prospective on time is limited, and it is not until we progress further in our spiritual evolution that we will actually understand what it is that God understands.

Omniscient may have been the best word to use, but it seems lacking in some form.

[mfbukowski]

There are an infinite number of choices throughout the Universe, and I will posit that God is uniquely equipped to see with a very high degree of accuracy how those choices will be made.

I would posit that this is one of the places where you go wrong- that somehow those "choices" exist before the choice is made.

Where are they? How do you know they "exist"?

The confusion is talking about "choices" as if they are objective things out there somewhere- and they are not.

God is a being and you are a being- you are not God and he is not you. The difference is that he knows what you will do- but he is still a Being who makes his own choices and sees things from his own perspective.

His knowing "what you will do" does not somehow create "something" in a possible universe which ""exists"- that is a linguistic confusion- a confusion in the way we speak about things- not about "reality".

He makes choices, you make choices, and he sees you driving toward the cliff you cannot see- but he is not stepping on the gas- you are!

[Lamanite]

We have seen this many times in this topic, and elsewhere, as well, so please forgive the redundancy.

God does not know in His future what anyone will do, I suspect that "anyone" includes Himself. But He knows in our future what we will do because, to Him, our future is His present. He can look at the now, and see what we are doing, then, if there is a need for Him to do so, He can reveal that present to us in the relative past (which is our present as we are seeing it at that point). He neither caused the act, nor influenced it. He is only reporting the news, so to speak.

While the phrase is now in some disrepute, God is "outside of time". By this I mean (and I believe I am not alone in this view) that He sees time as we see "left'n'right". We are three-dimensional beings traveling unidirectionally through time. He is (at least) a four-dimensional Being Who can go forward'n'backward through time as He pleases. That is how He "knows the end from the beginning": He sees it as easily as we see the sunrise.

Therefore, if John did A in 2000, we all know it (or John does, at least), and that knowledge had no effect at all on the act: it's already in the past for all of us, including John, because it's now 2011. For God, however, 2000 was in the past in 1981. He knows what happened back then in the same way we know what happened in our own pasts.

I know John Hinckley, Jr., tried to kill Ronald Reagan. My knowledge in 2011 did not make Hinckley pull the trigger in 1981. In 645 BC, God knew Hinckley had pulled the trigger 2600 years in Reagan's future (or would if it had been useful for Him to know it then), and that knowledge did not have any more effect on Hinckley than does mine.

Lehi

God outside of time, is an interesting solution. In Mormon parlance, all exists before God as one "eternal now". Imagining an existence not confined to linear time is really fun and opens up a lot of possibilities.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Jeff K.]

Omniscience does not necessitate God's control of anyone, omniscience as a characteristic of deity implies that God is aware of his and our predetermined existence. So I reject number 1. However, omniscience does necessitate causal determinism, which eliminates free will so option 2 cannot exist. However, as I've said in other posts, free will can exist in a Universe where God is nearly omniscient.

Big UP!

Lamanite

I think the otherside of that equation, rather than saying God is nearly omniscient, aren't we also saying God is slightly ignorant?

[Lamanite]

I think the otherside of that equation, rather than saying God is nearly omniscient, aren't we also saying God is slightly ignorant?

I don't think so. I'm saying that he is operating within the boundaries and natural laws of the Universe. There are limitations on his power, (God must operate under certain rules or he ceases to be God) so he is not absolutely Omnipotent, because he does not have the power to act contrary to the laws of Godhood and remain God. And the existence of free will and an infinite number of events and outcomes, means he is not absolutely omniscient. Nevertheless, he is omnipotent and omniscient enough to make the plan of salvation operable and successful.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Jeff K.]

What if he set up the rules himself, in the premortal existence perhaps? Would that make him omnipotent with self willed weakness?

I think lacking omniscience would indeed make God slightly ignorant since he won't have absolute knowledge, he will merely have a good idea as to what will happen. Perhaps even a very good idea, perhaps even a very very very very very ^(google) idea. But in something or even one thing, He would still shrug and be slightly ignorant of the outcome. And since he won't know what that is, it could be anything, including perhaps the results of the plan of salvation?

Doesn't a lack of omniscience open a whole big can of worms regarding Godly error. If God potentially can make mistakes is He still God? Maybe the word circumcision was actually circumference and He did not know Moses would mishear?

[Mars]

I don't think so. I'm saying that he is operating within the boundaries and natural laws of the Universe. There are limitations on his power, (God must operate under certain rules or he ceases to be God) so he is not absolutely Omnipotent, because he does not have the power to act contrary to the laws of Godhood and remain God. And the existence of free will and an infinite number of events and outcomes, means he is not absolutely omniscient. Nevertheless, he is omnipotent and omniscient enough to make the plan of salvation operable and successful.

Makes me wonder about a subtle but important difference between God being arbitrary and God being omnipotent...

[Lamanite]

Makes me wonder about a subtle but important difference between God being arbitrary and God being omnipotent...

Expound a little, I'm interested in your thoughts.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

What if he set up the rules himself, in the premortal existence perhaps? Would that make him omnipotent with self willed weakness?

I think lacking omniscience would indeed make God slightly ignorant since he won't have absolute knowledge, he will merely have a good idea as to what will happen. Perhaps even a very good idea, perhaps even a very very very very very ^(google) idea. But in something or even one thing, He would still shrug and be slightly ignorant of the outcome. And since he won't know what that is, it could be anything, including perhaps the results of the plan of salvation?

Doesn't a lack of omniscience open a whole big can of worms regarding Godly error. If God potentially can make mistakes is He still God? Maybe the word circumcision was actually circumference and He did not know Moses would mishear?

For all intents and purposes he is omnipotent enough and omniscient enough to be God and to fulfill his role as God and Savior. To know that he is not absolutely omniscient or omnipotent doesn't bother me. I find peace in knowing that he has sufficient knowledge and power to bring to pass his work and glory.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Mars]

Expound a little, I'm interested in your thoughts.

It was really just an impression I had while reading your post.

I guess what I'm thinking is this: Strictly speaking, not being able to do *anything* you want means you're not 'all-powerful' - which is what you were getting at, right? But when you do whatever you want whenever you want then you're no longer doing things according to rules and you're not so much omnipotent as erratic, random, and unpredictable.

In an off-the-cuff analogy, it's similar to the new found freedom experienced by someone who comes of age and leaves the parents' household and strikes out on their own. They may go and try everything under the sun, thinking it's freedom, but someone with experience in life who is watching them do it might think they're being immature about their power.

All of this, of course, in the context that because you can do a thing doesn't mean you will do a thing. Which is it that makes you omnipotent, the act or the ability to act?

[Maidservant]

I've certainly seen artifacts from the past, and an experience of memory of the past which is confirmed by others. Yet to see any such from the future.

I took a while to answer this but I needed more time to mull it over. Not sure if I'm derailing thread also. My point as to how it relates to the thread would be to deconstruct that there is a future that God needs to see, at all. We are assuming future and past, and I am challenging that.

But on your good comment, I finally realized how I wanted to clarify. The artifacts may be from the past, but they are not in the past. By the same token, something that will exist in the future (my piano in my living room) can be said to be from the future, but it isn't there, it's here in my now. But my piano is still from the future, because it will exist there. It will persist through every condition or renewal of the Now. And my piano is from the past, because it existed there. Except not really, it only ever exists in the Now.

The past and the future ARE functions of memory, not matter. And memory is also in the present and is the story we tell about our experience . . . it has very little to do with reality at times, more with perception. But it is a record. And I am still thinking a lot about the ideas of records, and I would say that we have records of past and future. But I'm not done thinking through this stuff.

It's funny because I just wrote two essays or term papers for this last semester that discussed how artifacts (I'm a history major) are located in the present and how history is more about the present than the past.