david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (02/22/84)
Byron Howes: > ... If the Deity is omniscient, then it knows what we > are going to do today, tomorrow, or for eternity. It doesn't *matter* > whether or not we are made to do it. To an all-knowing diety, the > outcome and all outcomes are *known.* The human notion of "free will" > is irrelevant in the face of that knowledge. Why? I am being serious. Why is the notion of free will irrelevant in the face of the knowledge that God already knows what choice you are going to make? Why does this destroy the concept of free will? ---------------------------------------- As a side note on the free-will vs. omniscience discussion, I saw a "Nova" last night which, coincidentally, was about the very subject we are discussing. It starred Dudley Moore who had talks with St. Augustine, Albert Einstein, and Isaac Asimov (playing himself). The name of the show was "about time", or something like it. Anyway, they tried to resolve the very issue of free will (outside spiritual realm, even, so no "omniscience" implied here). The answer, at least the one a gleaned from the show, was that the question cannot properly be addressed. I think, perhaps, that this is going to have to be our answer in this particular discussion. It's like asking, "What was God doing before time began?" The questioner is cheating by using the word "before" in his question; trying to put God within time to explain what happens outside it. But here is another experiment. I just thought this one up, so it's my idea and you can shoot it down if someone else already thought of it: suppose that there are two possible futures for you based on the result of a (free-will) decision. Assume again, that God (omniscient) sees both of these futures at once. To make this work, we will have to assume that God sees an infinite number of futures. Question(s): 1) Does this violate any Christian concept of God that I am not aware of? 2) Does this also violate the existence of free will, as Byron/Darrell/ Jon see it? If so, why? Note that this is not necessarily my view, but just trying to promote this discussion on a rational level. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (02/23/84)
David Norris asks why omniscience makes free will irrelevant. I think
that is a fair question. First, however, let me clear up a misconcep-
tion that somehow has crept into this discussion. To say that free
will is irrelevant is not to say that it doesn't exist, but merely to
say that it has no meaningful consequences. The concept of free-will
is not destroyed, but becomes superfluous when viewed at the global
(omniscient) level.
As I have read this (and other) discussions, the reason that G*d gave
man free will was so that man could choose to obey and love G-d or
not. G-d, being omniscient, already knows the outcome of that choice --
that is to say that G-d knows already whether any given human will
choose to love him or not. This does not deny the existance of a
process of choice, or that it is somehow important at the local (human)
level. As the outcome is known to G-d, however, irrespective of
the choice process, the choice process becomes superfluous to the
ultimate disposition of the soul. This last, of course, is also
already known.
--
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
Byron Howes
UNC - Chapel Hill
({decvax,akgua}!mcnc!unc!bch)