Can an omniscient being possess free will?

[Filthy Tugboat]

Can an omniscient being possess free will?

Omniscience is defined as:

•The state or quality of knowing everything.
mises.org/easier/O.asp

With that definition in mind, it is reasonable to conclude that any omniscient being would know the inifnite future which includes the actions that they will perform for the entire expanse of their existence.

•The question of free will is the philosophical question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, or choices.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

Based on this definition free will is being able to make choices without restriction. So the entirity of this argument is basically addressing the concept that omniscience is a restriction on freewill.

So if you know the infinite future including your own actions then can you make a choice? Is the knowledge of what you will do and why a restriction on how many 'choices' you can make? If you are physically capable of performing countless actions or making countless responses, does omniscience restrict your options to just one? If omniscience does restrict your options in every scenario to just one, how could that be considered free will?

[Ragna]

Can an omniscient being possess free will?

Omniscience is defined as:

•The state or quality of knowing everything.
mises.org/easier/O.asp

With that definition in mind, it is reasonable to conclude that any omniscient being would know the inifnite future which includes the actions that they will perform for the entire expanse of their existence.

•The question of free will is the philosophical question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, or choices.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

Based on this definition free will is being able to make choices without restriction. So the entirity of this argument is basically addressing the concept that omniscience is a restriction on freewill.

So if you know the infinite future including your own actions then can you make a choice? Is the knowledge of what you will do and why a restriction on how many 'choices' you can make? If you are physically capable of performing countless actions or making countless responses, does omniscience restrict your options to just one? If omniscience does restrict your options in every scenario to just one, how could that be considered free will?

I generally think that omniscience excludes free will. But I would like to point something out first. I do believe in free will as our ability to choose; however, I realize these choices come out of the real world causal chain, and that even if we choose according to our personality it is determined by nature and nurture (maybe I'm a compatibilist). What I don't believe is in free will coming out of nothing, or coming out of an immaterial soul which is not subject to real factors.

So If Peter writes a book in which his main character kills somebody, I believe Peter's knowledge implies it was going to happen, and that it forces causality within the book, a causality set by Peter. I don't believe in free will within the book as a choice out of nowhere that the main character would kill somebody, but I accept the character actually "chose" according to his determined nature in his universe. Most people wouldn't call this free will, but if we read the book it would give us a sense of free acting according to the main character's choice in his situation, and not as something forced in the way we understand determinism.

But that doesn't mean Peter was forced to do anything. Peter wrote the book as a choice. However I believe Peter chose to write the book in the same way his main character chose to kill somebody (in fact, in a much more complex way, but whatever), that is, determined.

Going out of the metaphor, God creating the universe and knowing its future wouldn't force him not to have free will, it would force the universe not to have free will if understood as choosing out of nowhere. But as I don't believe in God I don't have to bother answering "was God also determined?", because this question is meaningless for me.

Finally, even if omniscience implies determinism, I don't need to believe in an omniscient being to believe the world is determined. I think prediction, as a form of "omniscience", is theoretically possible through causality.

[Heal The World]

Omniscience is defined as: The state or quality of knowing everything. With this definition in mind, why do you propose that an omniscient being would not know it's own future?

OK fine we would not use the words like God, etc.

I have presented the omniscient being doesnt necessarily need to know his own future, his own future actions. Because this "omniscience" is only talked in a context, for example I see the omniscient being as the one knowing everything about the world, all knowing on the whole universe, he must be beyond the universe. Thus the omniscient being is still omniscient if he does not know his own future decisions and actions. Thats it. The "knowledge" was in context to the world. And he may not be included in that context size.

[Ragna]

Omniscience is defined as: The state or quality of knowing everything. With this definition in mind, why do you propose that an omniscient being would not know it's own future?

OK fine we would not use the words like God, etc.

I have presented the omniscient being doesn't necessarily need to know his own future, his own future actions. Because this "omniscience" is only talked in a context, for example I see the omniscient being as the one knowing everything about the world, all knowing on the whole universe, he must be beyond the universe. Thus the omniscient being is still omniscient if he does not know his own future decisions and actions. Thats it. The "knowledge" was in context to the world. And he may not be included in that context size.

But even if you call it context-omniscience, it's not the usual kind of omniscience people talk about. Actually, most religions need another type of omniscience, but that's not the point here.

[Goat]

Omniscience is defined as: The state or quality of knowing everything. With this definition in mind, why do you propose that an omniscient being would not know it's own future?

OK fine we would not use the words like God, etc.

I have presented the omniscient being doesnt necessarily need to know his own future, his own future actions. Because this "omniscience" is only talked in a context, for example I see the omniscient being as the one knowing everything about the world, all knowing on the whole universe, he must be beyond the universe. Thus the omniscient being is still omniscient if he does not know his own future decisions and actions. Thats it. The "knowledge" was in context to the world. And he may not be included in that context size.

So, to ge4 around the contradiction, you redefine the word?? That doesn't seem reasonable.

[Heal The World]

Omniscience is defined as: The state or quality of knowing everything. With this definition in mind, why do you propose that an omniscient being would not know it's own future?

OK fine we would not use the words like God, etc.

I have presented the omniscient being doesnt necessarily need to know his own future, his own future actions. Because this "omniscience" is only talked in a context, for example I see the omniscient being as the one knowing everything about the world, all knowing on the whole universe, he must be beyond the universe. Thus the omniscient being is still omniscient if he does not know his own future decisions and actions. Thats it. The "knowledge" was in context to the world. And he may not be included in that context size.

So, to ge4 around the contradiction, you redefine the word?? That doesn't seem reasonable.

=
@Goat and Ragna

"The omniscient being (apparently God) have all future knowledge of his own actions" => this is "your" assumption in this thread. No religious person assume the omniscience that have God's own future knowledge, even if some religious person thinks so, I dont care. I haven't defined or twisted "omniscient" but its meaning seems to be peculiar.

[charris]

So, to ge4 around the contradiction, you redefine the word?? That doesn't seem reasonable.

=
@Goat and Ragna

"The omniscient being (apparently God) have all future knowledge of his own actions" => this is "your" assumption in this thread. No religious person assume the omniscience that have God's own future knowledge, even if some religious person thinks so, I dont care. I haven't defined or twisted "omniscient" but its meaning seems to be peculiar.[/quote]
So why not just drop the word 'omniscient' all together and just say that the 'omniscient being' is instead just really good at guessing, or something to that effect?

[Ragna]

@Goat and Ragna

"The omniscient being (apparently God) have all future knowledge of his own actions" => this is "your" assumption in this thread. No religious person assume the omniscience that have God's own future knowledge, even if some religious person thinks so, I dont care. I haven't defined or twisted "omniscient" but its meaning seems to be peculiar.

We're not assuming anything, we're discussing what happens when that is assumed.

Of course you can just drop it for better internal coherence.

Then follow logically: prophecies are untruthful - and so goodbye to most of the credibility of Jesus and the Bible. And then modify the interpretation of the word omniscience derived from this not for only "some religious person", but for the entire Christian theology.

To me it seems like dropping omniscience means dropping theism in favor of deism.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Omniscience is defined as: The state or quality of knowing everything. With this definition in mind, why do you propose that an omniscient being would not know it's own future?

OK fine we would not use the words like God, etc.

I feel this would increase the quality of the debate given the question focuses on two attributes alone rather than a being that carries so much baggage that is often if not always different from person to person. If we used the term God as some tried to do earlier in the thread it leads to unwarranted assumptions that create confusion, something hopefully none of us wish to acheive.

I have presented the omniscient being doesnt necessarily need to know his own future, his own future actions. Because this "omniscience" is only talked in a context, for example I see the omniscient being as the one knowing everything about the world, all knowing on the whole universe

Is this opinion of omniscience warranted by any reason or evidence? As far as I can tell this is just a bold assertion that is completely unwarranted and created simply to support your opinion on free will/omniscience.

he must be beyond the universe.

Is there a 'beyond the universe'? How do you know? Why would an omniscient being need to be 'beyond the universe'?

Thus the omniscient being is still omniscient if he does not know his own future decisions and actions. Thats it. The "knowledge" was in context to the world. And he may not be included in that context size.

I don't understand how you reached this conclusion? By any chance did you begin your reasoning with this conclusion in mind which led to many unwarranted assumptions in order to support the conclusion?

[Filthy Tugboat]

I see. It's more like the chicken and the egg. What if I reside outside of the space/time continuum? Even though I wrote the story on X day does not mean that I made up the story on X day. I have known the story since infinite past and I decided to write the story on X day. I both authored the story in infinite past, knew the story for all eternity, and wrote it on X day.

Totally irrelevant to the point..because it still means that the 'future' is immutable.

But the future is immutable because of me - I wrote it. If I am the cause of the future being immutable, I don't see how that restricts my free will. It restricts me from changing my mind, but it was my choice.

Is the restriction on the ability to change your mind from what is was presumably preset to a restriction on free will?

[Dimmesdale]

[Replying to post 1 by Filthy Tugboat]

For me it's more of a question of how a "fully" (or purely) ACTUAL deity can do anything at all freely (per the classical understanding).

With knowledge I think you could say, a God isn't LOOKING at his actions either in the future or in the past, but as he is present to them NOW. Maybe that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and is obfuscating the issue, but a God being outside of time still leaves some things to the imagination.

More difficult for me to wrap my head around is if God has no potential to actualize but is from eternity to eternity the same and changeless. God never comes to "fruition" in any of his undertakings but is and has always been there.

Don't even get me started on what I think this does to the reality of time. In short though, I kind of think it undercuts it.