[net.religion] Free Will vs. Omnipotence and Omniscience

jonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White) (02/21/84)

This article is another attempt to get David Norris to understand the 
contradiction between omniscience and free will (as I see it, anyway.)  In my 
last article I made the following comments:

>Let me see if I can explain this a little better.  It should be obvious that an
> omnipotent and omniscient being would not be constrained by "our" time.  
> Therefore, God, by definition, is in a constant state of being everywhere 
>(past, present, and future) at once.  Because God exists in the future (as well
> as everywhere else), it stands to reason that there must be a future out there
> for Him to exist in.  That is why I claimed that God must have created the
> entire lifetime of the universe at the moment of creation.  And, of course, if
> the entire lifetime of the universe already exists, all of our individual
> destinies are preordained by God.  Is this clear?

[David]
   No.  Are you saying that none of us have free will, or that God (as 
   Christians think of Him) doesn't exist because we have free will? 

Take your pick.  I'm just trying to explain the contradiction in the clearest
and simplest terms I know how.   As a religious skeptic (not Atheist), I would
choose the latter, but you are free to make your own choice.  :-)

Christians seem to want it all.  Their God has to be not only all powerful and
all knowing, but reasonable enough to give us all free will too.  I'm trying to
show here that an omniscient creator cannot possibly endow His creation with
free will.

[David]
>>   ...it seems to me that any proof that God has some
>>   limit to his power is going to be flawed because it is based on finite 
>>   reasoning.  I often wonder if proponents of such arguments are themselves
>>   unaware of the limits that time imposes on their thinking...

[Jon]
> I have never been impressed by arguments such as this.  What you are basically
> saying is that God is so far beyond our understanding, that it is pointless to
> even try.  

[David]
   (Whoops, gag, choke) Let me get those words out of my mouth!  No, I never 
   said that (although I do believe God is far above our understanding).   

If I misunderstood you, then perhaps you would be kind enough to point out just
exactly what I misunderstood.  Are you saying that my attempt to understand
the limitations of the Christian God is NOT futile?  

Also, David, you failed to respond to my point (which you conveniently 
omitted).  In response to your argument that God was beyond our understanding 
(somehow implying that your conception of this incomprehensible being is more 
accurate than mine!), I mentioned that: "I doubt that you would accept the 
same argument from an adherent of Zeus or the Great Ubizmo."  This may appear
to be a flippant comment, but it shows how weak your rationalization really is.
Unless you want to go through life accepting every deity whose followers claim
is beyond your understanding, you'd better come up with a better excuse for
your God.

[David]
   Perhaps you have not put your view plain enough.  It seems you are offering 
   us a choice:  A) None of us have free will, or B) God is not as omnipotent as
   we (Christians) make Him out to be.  Is that right?  I'll wait for a response
   before "knocking down any strawmen", as we are all fond of saying. 

You are right, except delete the word "as" from statement B.  Omnipotence is an
absolute state; a being cannot be somewhat omnipotent, as opposed to completely
omnipotent.

By the way, I have no training in philosophy or rigorous logic.  I would be
very interested in seeing someone poke holes in my reasoning and resolve this
contradiction.  If Christians allow this contradiction to stand, it is a
devastating blow to their theology.  After all, what is the point of even
trying to live according to God's law if our fates are already decided?  If
God knows in precise detail every action that we are ever going to take, is 
there anything that we can do to change the future actions that God thinks that
we will take?  If we could somehow surprise God and change those future 
actions, His omniscience would be invalidated.

			Jon White
			[decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw

rlw@wxlvax.UUCP (Richard L. Wexelblat) (04/01/84)

I've been away for a while, so forgive me if I'm repeating what others said:

It seems that the contradiction between omnipotence and omniscience occurs
only if we hold a "static" view of these things.  I think it is possible to
concieve of a "process" view of them.  To wit:

At The Beginning (since time is different for God, his times will be 
capitalized (eg. T1).  Human time will be lowercase (eg. t1)), God existed,
and created the universe.  Since He was omnipotent He could do this, and 
since he was onmiscient, He knew everything that Was, Is and Would Be.

Now, at some T1 God creates mankind.  Since he is omnipotent, He knows
what all men will do from now until T-infinity.  But, since He is also
all-powerful, He gives man free will.  Thus, suddenly, He is no longer
omnipotent, since His omnipotence disallows free will (by definition).  So
He is q-omnipotent Now.  Thus we have a God who knows when our sun will go
nova, but does not know that I will go to sleep in 1/2 hour (if I myself
have not decided that yet).

Alternatively, we can look at the question from another angle:  Is God bound
by logic?  IE:  can He create a logical contradiction (P & not(P))?  If He
is all-powerful, then He should be able to.  Or, is He limited by His own
actions.  For instance, if an omnipotent God creates a rock that is too
heavy for Him to lift, does He then become q-omnipotent?

CAVEAT:  I do not necessarily believe any of this.  I just think it's
interesting to discuss.

MEGA-CAVEAT:  I am posting this by the graces of my father, and ITT, his
employer.  To hold them responsible for anything said in this, or any of my
other postings would be incorrect.

--Alan Wexelblat
(currently appearing at: ...decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!rlw.  Please put "For Alan"
 in mail headers.)