Is omniscience compatible with human freedom?

[Emil]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

I did not say I believe predestination is true. I just said that predestination is inconsistent with free will.

Yes I know. I asked you why you think they are inconsistent.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Emil

Yes I know. I asked you why you think they are inconsistent.

Because, according to predestination, God foreordained the future, and nothing but what he foreordained can occur. We are talking of God's power here, not His knowledge.

[xris]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Predestination is not compatible with free will. But how does that have anything to do with whether omniscience is compatible with free will?

---------- Post added 12-11-2009 at 07:44 PM ----------



Why do you think that is a correct analogy? If it is like a film then yes, there is no free will. But so what? You still have to show it is like a film. All of these analogies (puppet show) fail, because there is not reason to think the analogies are correct.

If you write a book , its your story no one else can claim it for themselves. If you make a film of your life no one can claim your free will was jeopardized by the making of it. Are you saying, because of the possibility that we can have preview of this film, it destroys the notion of free will? Knowledge of an event that will happen, is not the same as predetermining an occurrence by your influence.

Paradoxes are not allowed in the sequences of time , creator or not, you cant change the laws of nature.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by xris

If you write a book , its your story no one else can claim it for themselves. If you make a film of your life no one can claim your free will was jeopardized by the making of it. Are you saying, because of the possibility that we can have preview of this film, it destroys the notion of free will? Knowledge of an event that will happen, is not the same as predetermining an occurrence by your influence.

Paradoxes are not allowed in the sequences of time , creator or not, you cant change the laws of nature.

Were you replying to my post? My question was why you think that the analogy of a film with prescribed parts is analogous to a person's life?

[xris]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Were you replying to my post? My question was why you think that the analogy of a film with prescribed parts is analogous to a person's life?

Yes, if your life could be filmed in its entirety,whats your objection to it being viewed prior to your life. Not the need for it to be possible but the principle that it evokes. I silent observer of events, at the time or prior to its occurrence, is not breaking any laws of free will. If we watch a film of past events, can we influence the ending? Its only down to timing.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by xris

Yes, if your life could be filmed in its entirety,whats your objection to it being viewed prior to your life. Not the need for it to be possible but the principle that it evokes. I silent observer of events, at the time or prior to its occurrence, is not breaking any laws of free will. If we watch a film of past events, can we influence the ending? Its only down to timing.

Oh, but that is very different from the idea that before it is filmed what a person does is prescribed like a part in the film. One film is about the past. That is theoretically possible. But what makes you think that is true of the future? That there is a film we have not yet viewed?

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by ACB

That is what I am disputing. Is such a thing possible, even theoretically? The film analogy breaks down there, because such a thing can never happen in real life.

We need to ask:

1. Does the future already "exist" somehow? (Many people automatically assume it does - "time is an illusion" etc - but this is far from obvious.) If it does not, then it is currently nothing, so God does not need to know it in order to be omniscient.

2. If the future does already exist, does that imply predestination?

3. Is predestination compatible with free will?

ACB,

Whether or not any of this is plausible is an entirely different topic.

The point of this thread, however, was to see if the two notions were consistent.

And why wouldn't predestination be compatible? Again, refer back to my post, #100.

[xris]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Oh, but that is very different from the idea that before it is filmed what a person does is prescribed like a part in the film. One film is about the past. That is theoretically possible. But what makes you think that is true of the future? That there is a film we have not yet viewed?

The analogy of a film that is of the future, it gives record of the future. I have said its not a matter of the possibility but the concept.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

ACB,

Whether or not any of this is plausible is an entirely different topic.

The point of this thread, however, was to see if the two notions were consistent.

And why wouldn't predestination be compatible? Again, refer back to my post, #100.

Predestination or omniscience. Predestination says that whatever happens is already foreordained, and that even if someone wanted to do otherwise he could not. It predestination is religious fatalism. But omniscience is not fatalism. Fatalism is inconsistent with free will, and so is religious fatalism. C

---------- Post added 12-12-2009 at 10:47 AM ----------

Originally Posted by xris

The analogy of a film that is of the future, it gives record of the future. I have said its not a matter of the possibility but the concept.

But there is absolutely no reason the think that the future is fixed as the past is. Characters in a film have no free will. They play their parts. People don't.

[xris]

The future may not be fixed in terms that we cant predetermine. If we have the ability to exert free will and that free will is seen to be done , why is the ability to observe that free will before it occurs in our time frame illogical?