Free Will and Omnimax GOD and the test

[AncientGlory]

First of all, saying that God knows what you would do in the future does not entails that God decides the things you are going to do in the future. There may be things that you do based on your free-will, God only have the knowledge about these things. Omniscience of God does not mean that God decides what you are doing. It, instead , merely says that God have the complete knowledge of what you decide. Ergo, there is no contradiction.

If GOD created us and if he knows all our actions, where is the chance for free choice? If X has A and B choices, yet if GOD already knows choice is A, then that is how he made us and our choice is pre-determined. In this sense there was no choice in the first place. Therefore there was no free will, the path was already seen by GOD. If there is an actual chance to take a free choice, then until we take that choice, GOD cannot know which choice we take. This makes it impossible for GOD to exist out of time.

Second, omnipotence of God, by definition, means that God can do every possible thing, at least according to my knowledge of Christian theology. Omnipotence of God does not declare that God can do impossible things. So, God can't create round squares, God can't create rocks that are heavier than he can lift, for example. You are correct in saying that God can't stop the acts that we do based on our free-will. However, given the above reasons, it does not invalidates the omnipotence of God.

The question in hand was not to challenge GOD to do an impossible or illogical thing. But can GOD having infinite power interfere with actions of an mortal. It becomes possible if the mortal has no free will. Therefore this is not an impossible thing as long as humans does not have free will. Therefore in my opinion unless you define all powerful being, interfering on a mortal's actions as an impossible task, free will invalidates omnipotence.

 

[ex-muslim Ahmed]

good thread

 

[AncientGlory]

good thread

Cheers.

 

[kalanah]

 

[brave]

If GOD created us and if he knows all our actions, where is the chance for free choice? If X has A and B choices, yet if GOD already knows choice is A, then that is how he made us and our choice is pre-determined. In this sense there was no choice in the first place. Therefore there was no free will, the path was already seen by GOD. If there is an actual chance to take a free choice, then until we take that choice, GOD cannot know which choice we take. This makes it impossible for GOD to exist out of time.


god knows what will be the choice of man doesnt mean it is pre-determined.god doesnt insist to go as what he determine.its the in the hand of human 100%.the thing is he knows what is going to happen next.it is like a teacher knows which student may get good marks,avaage marks and the worse. even their is a saying gona harena kote dannewa pol pale kanne thamai kiyela...its like that.

 

[AncientGlory]

god knows what will be the choice of man doesnt mean it is pre-determined.god doesnt insist to go as what he determine.its the in the hand of human 100%.the thing is he knows what is going to happen next.it is like a teacher knows which student may get good marks,avaage marks and the worse. even their is a saying gona harena kote dannewa pol pale kanne thamai kiyela...its like that.

Was it not GOD who made a man as a disbeliever? Isn't it his will? If it is GODs will then at what point did he get the chance to choose?

 

[ela_eluwa120]

The question in hand was not to challenge GOD to do an impossible or illogical thing. But can GOD having infinite power interfere with actions of an mortal. It becomes possible if the mortal has no free will. Therefore this is not an impossible thing as long as humans does not have free will. Therefore in my opinion unless you define all powerful being, interfering on a mortal's actions as an impossible task, free will invalidates omnipotence.

If we accept that the omnipotence of God does not declare that God can do impossible things, things like creating round squares for example, then we are automatically accepting that God could not create free agents while deciding the acts that his creatures are to do.

Even if God interferes with what I am doing, by the time he interferes, I have already, based on my free-will, decided and started what I am doing. So, God may reduce my free-will by interfering and stopping what I am doing. But, he can't abolish my free-will completely. Even in this example, what God removes is my circumstantial freedom, not my metaphysical freedom.

Thus, free-will invalidates omnipotence only if we define omnipotence as having the ability to do possible and impossible things. However, if we are going for such definition, we are departing away from the original definition of the word "omnipotence" and thereby using the word "omnipotence" to mean something else.

 

[ela_eluwa120]

The question in hand was not to challenge GOD to do an impossible or illogical thing. But can GOD having infinite power interfere with actions of an mortal. It becomes possible if the mortal has no free will. Therefore this is not an impossible thing as long as humans does not have free will. Therefore in my opinion unless you define all powerful being, interfering on a mortal's actions as an impossible task, free will invalidates omnipotence.

I think your argument is simply saying that a given mortal is not free if God does interfere with his actions. But, it seems that this argument is also consistent with the statement "Eventhough God can interfere with mortals' actions, God does not interfere with mortals' actions". Omnipotence simply says that God can interfere with mortals' actions. Omnipotence implies nothing about whether or not God does interfere with mortals' actions. So, mortals' have freewill if God choose not to interfere with mortals' actions. Since it is up to God to decide whether or not he is going to interfere, it follows that the mere non-interference of God is not a sufficient reason to believe "free-will invalidates omnipotence".

 

[AncientGlory]

If we accept that the omnipotence of God does not declare that God can do impossible things, things like creating round squares for example, then we are automatically accepting that God could not create free agents while deciding the acts that his creatures are to do.

Even if God interferes with what I am doing, by the time he interferes, I have already, based on my free-will, decided and started what I am doing. So, God may reduce my free-will by interfering and stopping what I am doing. But, he can't abolish my free-will completely. Even in this example, what God removes is my circumstantial freedom, not my metaphysical freedom.

Thus, free-will invalidates omnipotence only if we define omnipotence as having the ability to do possible and impossible things. However, if we are going for such definition, we are departing away from the original definition of the word "omnipotence" and thereby using the word "omnipotence" to mean something else.

You are right. In this sense free will will not invalidate omnipotence. I have made a mistake. It invalidates omnimax nature as a whole when coupled with the theory of intelligent design.

omnipotence it seems depends on what you define as a possible and impossible thing. GOD created sun and by the time of creation he knows it is gonna die in 9billion years or so. Can he change the course of sun and make it live another 9billion? Is it a possible thing? If he is gonna change it is he invalidating his own omnipresence and omniscient nature?

It is important to notice that Coldbreath in his original claim said "All knowing and Almighty" GOD invalidates free will. I was addressing that topic and somehow was under the impression maybe I was talking about an omnimax GOD. That was wrong for me to do so in my part.

I think your argument is simply saying that a given mortal is not free if God does interfere with his actions. But, it seems that this argument is also consistent with the statement "Eventhough God can interfere with mortals' actions, God does not interfere with mortals' actions". Omnipotence simply says that God can interfere with mortals' actions. Omnipotence implies nothing about whether or not God does interfere with mortals' actions. So, mortals' have freewill if God choose not to interfere with mortals' actions. Since it is up to God to decide whether or not he is going to interfere, it follows that the mere non-interference of God is not a sufficient reason to believe "free-will invalidates omnipotence".

I agree with you, free will will not validate omnipotence nature itself. However I was addressing the point you made saying "omnipotence does not invalidate free will given the reason omnipotence means GOD can only do possible things". If you agree that omnipotence simply says that GOD can interfere with mortals actions why would it not invalidate free will? Can here implies a definite ability to interfere and therefore free will becomes false. I say mere non-interference of GOD is not a sufficient reason to believe fee will exists. GOD can choose to interfere anytime. If and only if one can say GOD will not interfere or cannot interfere then only the free will exists.

However the point you brought earlier is valid. If GOD creates an agent with free will, interfering with his actions becomes and impossible task. In this case omnipotence will not invalidate free will because one of the most favorable definitions of omnipotence says, Ability to do every "possible" thing.

 

[ex-muslim Ahmed]

god knows what will be the choice of man doesnt mean it is pre-determined.god doesnt insist to go as what he determine.its the in the hand of human 100%.the thing is he knows what is going to happen next.it is like a teacher knows which student may get good marks,avaage marks and the worse. even their is a saying gona harena kote dannewa pol pale kanne thamai kiyela...its like that.

If the precision and accuracy of God is equal to a mere teacher and stupid "Gona" why should I believe in such a loser-God?? I have seen many teachers gone wrong many times and many "Gona"'s avoiding pol pale and heading for something better.

 

[ela_eluwa120]

I agree with you, free will will not validate omnipotence nature itself. However I was addressing the point you made saying "omnipotence does not invalidate free will given the reason omnipotence means GOD can only do possible things". If you agree that omnipotence simply says that GOD can interfere with mortals actions why would it not invalidate free will? Can here implies a definite ability to interfere and therefore free will becomes false. I say mere non-interference of GOD is not a sufficient reason to believe fee will exists. GOD can choose to interfere anytime. If and only if one can say GOD will not interfere or cannot interfere then only the free will exists.

However the point you brought earlier is valid. If GOD creates an agent with free will, interfering with his actions becomes and impossible task. In this case omnipotence will not invalidate free will because one of the most favorable definitions of omnipotence says, Ability to do every "possible" thing.

God is, by definition, said to be omnipotent, and therefore it entails that God can interfere with what a mortal does, even when a mortal freely initiates his actions. However, the very idea of omnipotence of God says nothing about whether or not God does interfere with what a mortal does. So, we can not conclude a priori that God interferes with mortals' actions and there by, according to you, removing the free-will of mortals.

When it comes to the question of whether or not God does interfere with mortals' actions, the possibility is, after all, open and fifty-fifty. But, what if God does interfere with mortals' actions? Does it mean that mortals do not have free-will? I think, no.

Coconut trees usually lean towards the ocean as you have seen when driving along the Galle road. However, coconut trees, themselves, by their free-will, do not choose to lean towards the ocean. Coconut trees do not have the free-will to lean towards the land side, as opposed to the ocean. But, if coconut trees have the free-will to lean towards the land side, they are very well to do so. Nothing prevents them from doing it. (Here, we are, for the sake of argument, assuming that no body cuts down the land side leaning coconut trees)
The point is, coconut trees do not have the metaphysical freedom to choose or decide for which side they are leaning. But, they have the circumstantial freedom in the sense that if they can choose to lean towards either side, nothing prevents them from doing it.

Having circumstantial freedom means "if you have the free-will to do X, you can do X." But, as you can clearly see it, this sentence says nothing about whether the "if clause" is true or false.

In ordinary discourse, when we say "free-will", we really mean the metaphysical freedom. So, when God interfere and prevents us from doing what we choose to do, he is really eliminating our circumstantial freedom, not our free-will. When God interfere, he is merely preventing us from exercising our free-will, he is not removing our free-will. Free-will is there eventhough we can not exercise it.

 

[dilankandy]

In ordinary discourse, when we say "free-will", we really mean the metaphysical freedom. So, when God interfere and prevents us from doing what we choose to do, he is really eliminating our circumstantial freedom, not our free-will. When God interfere, he is merely preventing us from exercising our free-will, he is not removing our free-will. Free-will is there eventhough we can not exercise it.

This is one of many definitions of free will. I'm not familiar with this one. But according to materialistic view, the free will is defined as " In absence of OPPOSITION " - "Leviathan". This definition clearly violates previous one. I'm not a materialist but this is a very compelling argument.

If anyone has read Immanuel Kant, he tried solve this question of free will by defining that GOD and FREE WILL are things that exist outside of time-space or in other words realm of appearance or the realm of mathematics and science. Since every action is pre-governed by a cause (verify this your self!), every thing that happens, happen according to the law of natural causality. Therefore it is impossible for anything in this realm of appearance to have a free will.

I don't agree with Kant's idea completely because he (also Descartes) presupposed the notion of a GOD to perfect their explanation. (I'm a person who doesn't favor presuppositions in an experiment. because it can lead a person to a faulty conclusion or a multidimensional contradictions.)

And also remember that all theologists and philosophers followed the philosophical method instead of scientific method, which by definition is not open for perfection. Scientific method is to conclude according to facts or experimental data AND then come up with a hypothesis. But in philosophical way you come up with a hypothesis and then try to find facts that support it, which is problematic in its nature.

Anyway Kant's resolution to this was that actions in the realm of appearance are determined. But in the realm of Independent reality, beings are self determined there fore we are the law givers of our self hence the existence of free will. This sound s like a lot of bullshit to me anyways.

Here I think the question has to be rephrased that " Upon creation, if GOD establishes the motion of every single object and being, then does free will exist in this realm? "

 

[AncientGlory]

God is, by definition, said to be omnipotent, and therefore it entails that God can interfere with what a mortal does, even when a mortal freely initiates his actions. However, the very idea of omnipotence of God says nothing about whether or not God does interfere with what a mortal does. So, we can not conclude a priori that God interferes with mortals' actions and there by, according to you, removing the free-will of mortals.

Omnipotent GOD invalidates free will for two reasons in this case. If GOD has the ability to interfere with what you want to do, it means you do not have free will because (1) GOD can interfere any moment (2) You do not know whether GOD has already interfered or is interfering.

Free will is not removed because we conclude that GOD is gonna interfere, but because of above two reasons.

In ordinary discourse, when we say "free-will", we really mean the metaphysical freedom. So, when God interfere and prevents us from doing what we choose to do, he is really eliminating our circumstantial freedom, not our free-will. When God interfere, he is merely preventing us from exercising our free-will, he is not removing our free-will. Free-will is there eventhough we can not exercise it.

Who exactly are "we" that you mention here? So it has come to the word game where we should have defined "free will" first. I was talking about the definition you can find in any online dictionary. Which simply states "ability to do what you want without the interference of divine will, fate etc."

If you cannot exercise your free will, how can you have free will? Free will should be a continuous process. If at any point of time it is taken away then that invalidates the whole concept.

 

[AncientGlory]

Here I think the question has to be rephrased that " Upon creation, if GOD establishes the motion of every single object and being, then does free will exist in this realm? "

This is exactly what I am asking.

 

[ela_eluwa120]

Omnipotent GOD invalidates free will for two reasons in this case. If GOD has the ability to interfere with what you want to do, it means you do not have free will because (1) GOD can interfere any moment (2) You do not know whether GOD has already interfered or is interfering.

Free will is not removed because we conclude that GOD is gonna interfere, but because of above two reasons.

Lets explore what are the possible ways available for God to interfere.

First, if God wants us to do X, God may will us to do X. God may, in other words, make us willing to do X. (Type 1 interference)

Second, God may force us to do X "against our will". So, in this case, even-though we are willing to do Y, not X, we are forced to do X. (But, still we are willing to do Y. Our will to do Y is not removed or abolished) (Type 2 interference)

Since the term "interference" encompasses both type-1 and type-2 interferences, things can be confusing.. So, we need to be careful.

In the case of type-1, our free-will is lost. God can't do this sort of interference while letting us have free-will. It is like creating round squares. A logically impossible act.

In the case of type-2, we have free-will although God externally prevent us from exercising our free-will.

In my former post, when I was using the term "interfere", I was referring to the "type-2 interference".

 

[AncientGlory]

Second, God may force us to do X "against our will". So, in this case, even-though we are willing to do Y, not X, we are forced to do X. (But, still we are willing to do Y. Our will to do Y is not removed or abolished) (Type 2 interference)

"Willing to do something" and "free will" are different things. In general willing to do something deals with accepting "OK I will do it". In your example willing to do Y, deals with having a likeness to do Y. We are forced to do X but we still like to do Y. Our likeness for Y has not changed.

Free will on the other hand is a notation for having the choice to do Y,X, or Z without the interference of anyone. If you force me to do Y, you take away my alternative. I want to have the choice to do X disregard I'm willing to do X or not.

 

[brave]

Was it not GOD who made a man as a disbeliever? Isn't it his will? If it is GODs will then at what point did he get the chance to choose?

no.every baby born as a muslim.no where it tells that he made man as a non believer.its there choice.

 

[ex-muslim Ahmed]

no.every baby born as a muslim.no where it tells that he made man as a non believer.its there choice.

yeah right!

every baby born as a muslim! but there should be a human intervention to perform circumcision, what a loser god ! The loser could not even "create" man without fore skin! yeah right! Almighty!

 

[dilankandy]

no.every baby born as a muslim.no where it tells that he made man as a non believer.its there choice.

Yeah, And I (we) was born with all the knowledge about everything in my (our) brain and as I (we) grew up I (we) forgot all of it.

 

[ColdBreath]

Very interesting!! Plus, as AG pointed out, this deserves reputation. Nonetheless, few points are worth noting.

First of all, saying that God knows what you would do in the future does not entails that God decides the things you are going to do in the future. There may be things that you do based on your free-will, God only have the knowledge about these things. Omniscience of God does not mean that God decides what you are doing. It, instead , merely says that God have the complete knowledge of what you decide. Ergo, there is no contradiction.

Thank you. This is the best explanation I ever heard about the concept of God.

Second, omnipotence of God, by definition, means that God can do every possible thing, at least according to my knowledge of Christian theology. Omnipotence of God does not declare that God can do impossible things. So, God can't create round squares, God can't create rocks that are heavier than he can lift, for example. You are correct in saying that God can't stop the acts that we do based on our free-will. However, given the above reasons, it does not invalidates the omnipotence of God.

Understood. But still... if 'God can't stop the acts that we do based on our free-will' then the almighty gets invalidated.

For me the whole theory is self contradicting some where. Maybe I don't know enough.