Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Time, Omniscience and Free Will

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Do you think that an outside of time being could observe the entire world of time even prior to time existing? Put it this way, God, the outside of time being, is eternal, correct? And the universe of time has existed for 14 billion years, correct? Could God obeserve that 14 billion year world of time prior to it's existing? Of course not, because it didn't exist. The same goes for the future of time, if it doesn't exist, then it can't be observed from any vantage point. But, if you are going to argue that God could eternally observe the entire world of time, then the entire world of time, past, present, and future, must needs be eternal as well. God may not be confined to tensed reality, but he also can't observe time, i.e. a tensed reality, unless it exists. So, if God can observe and thereby know the future eternally, then the future must needs have existed eternally as well.
    So you've said many times now. You're making the same mistake that you made in your previous posts, when you write "prior to time existing." That phrase makes no sense. You keep thinking in a tensed way about tenselessness. God can be thought of as acting sequentially in nothing more than a metaphorical sense. When you try to be too literal about it, you lapse into saying things like "prior to time existing."

    Under this conception of divine timelessness, there is no future or past for God. There is an eternal 'now'. He doesn't observe time 'prior to its existing,' because that makes no sense. He observes every event as it happens, and therefore every event remains ontologically open. If God FOREKNEW an event, then that event could not be different from what it is, but God only knows things in their current unfolding, and so he allows things to unfold freely.

    Here's a passage from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy from the article on 'God and Time', which talks about divine omniscience and free actions, or ontological openness:


    a. GodÂ’s Knowledge of the Future

    The most prominent argument for divine timelessness is that this position offers a solution to the problem of GodÂ’s foreknowledge of free actions. The challenge of reconciling human freedom and divine omniscience is best seen if we presume that God is temporal. If God is omniscient and infallible, he knows every truth, and he is never mistaken. If human beings are free in a libertarian sense, then some actions a person performs are up to her in the sense that she can initiate or refrain from initiating the action. The problem arises if it is supposed that someone will (in the future) choose freely some particular action. Suppose Jeanie will decide tomorrow to make a cup of tea at 4:00 pm. If this is a free act on her part, it must be within her power to make the cup of tea or to refrain from making it. If God is in time and knows everything, then hundreds of years ago, he already knew that Jeanie would make the cup of tea. When tomorrow comes, can Jeanie refrain from making the cup of tea? As Nelson Pike has argued, (Pike 1965) she can do so only if it is within her power to change what it was that God believed from the beginning of time. So, although God has always believed that she would make the tea, she must have the power to change what it was that God believed. She has to be able to make it the case that God always believed that she would not make the cup of tea. Many philosophers have argued that no one has this kind of power over the past, so human freedom is not compatible with divine foreknowledge.

    If God is timeless, however, it seems that this problem does not arise. God does not believe things at points in time and Jeanie does not, therefore, have to have power over GodÂ’s past beliefs. She does need power over his timeless beliefs. This power is not seen to be problematic because GodÂ’s timeless knowledge of an event is thought to be strongly analogous to our present knowledge of an event. It is the occurring of the event that determines the content of our knowledge of the event. So too, it is the occurring of the event that determines the content of GodÂ’s knowledge. If Jeanie makes a cup of tea, God knows it timelessly. If she refrains, he knows that she refrains. GodÂ’s knowledge is not past but it is timeless.

    One might argue that even if God is temporal, the content of his foreknowledge is determined by the occurring of the event in the same way. This claim, of course, is true. There are two items which allow for difficulty here. First, it is only in the case of a temporal God foreknowing Jeanie’s making tea that she needs to have counterfactual power over the past, Second, if God knew a hundred years ago that she was going to make tea, there is a sense in which she can “get in between” God’s knowledge and the event. In other words, the fact that God knows what he knows is fixed before she initiated the event. If it is a free choice on her part, she can still refrain from making the tea. Her decision to make tea or not stands temporally between the content of God’s beliefs and the occurring of the event.

    The position that God is timeless is often cited as the best solution to the problem of reconciling GodÂ’s knowledge of the future and human freedom. If God is timeless, after all, he does not foreknow anything. Boethius, Anselm, Aquinas and many others have appealed to GodÂ’s atemporality to solve this problem.
    https://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      So you've said many times now. You're making the same mistake that you made in your previous posts, when you write "prior to time existing." That phrase makes no sense. You keep thinking in a tensed way about tenselessness. God can be thought of as acting sequentially in nothing more than a metaphorical sense. When you try to be too literal about it, you lapse into saying things like "prior to time existing."

      Under this conception of divine timelessness, there is no future or past for God. There is an eternal 'now'. He doesn't observe time 'prior to its existing,' because that makes no sense. He observes every event as it happens, and therefore every event remains ontologically open. If God FOREKNEW an event, then that event could not be different from what it is, but God only knows things in their current unfolding, and so he allows things to unfold freely.
      In other words, God is the embodiment of the B-Theory of time whereby the future is no different than the past and can’t be changed in that it has forever been coexistent with the entirety of time itself. So, why introduce a deity into the equation?
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        In other words, God is the embodiment of the B-Theory of time whereby the future is no different than the past and can’t be changed in that it has forever been coexistent with the entirety of time itself. So, why introduce a deity into the equation?
        Because part of the equation is about free will.

        Simply, if God created you and knew exactly what you would do for your entire life, did He give you free will?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by siam View Post
          interesting....

          you are right if "eternal" is also conceptually linear....but if "non-space-time" or the observer IN no-time/no-space is non-linear (say, spherical or web-like or something) then all futures would "exist" (as potential realities) but our choices would make them our reality of our time-line.....?....


          likewise these chunks of space-time could "exist" but become active reality by some mechanism?.....is it getting too complicated?......
          I think the only two choices we can conceive are linear or spherical. Even a web either stretches out or doubles back. I can't imagine anything other than a binary choice.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            So you've said many times now. You're making the same mistake that you made in your previous posts, when you write "prior to time existing." That phrase makes no sense. You keep thinking in a tensed way about tenselessness. God can be thought of as acting sequentially in nothing more than a metaphorical sense. When you try to be too literal about it, you lapse into saying things like "prior to time existing."
            Did God exist prior to time? And you'll need to explain to me what you mean by "God can act sequentially in nothing more than a metaphorical sense."
            Under this conception of divine timelessness, there is no future or past for God. There is an eternal 'now'. He doesn't observe time 'prior to its existing,' because that makes no sense.
            Agreed, it makes no sense.

            He observes every event as it happens, and therefore every event remains ontologically open. If God FOREKNEW an event, then that event could not be different from what it is, but God only knows things in their current unfolding, and so he allows things to unfold freely.
            Exactly, so even a timeless God can't know the future of time until it unfolds.
            Here's a passage from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy from the article on 'God and Time', which talks about divine omniscience and free actions, or ontological openness:




            https://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/
            Yes, I know that argument, it's been argued here many times over. But it still doesn't make sense. If time began to exist, if the future is actually open, if time actually unfolds moment by moment, then whether you're a timeless being or not you can't observe, and so know that future, until it does unfold, until it actually does exist. There is only one logical way to know a not yet existing future and that is if it was engineered to unfold the way in which the creator of time determined it to unfold. You can't argue both, it's a logical contradiction to argue that Gods both sees and so knows the future beforehand, and that he also sees, and so comes to know the future when it occurs, which is what the above argument implies. In other words the future either occurs or it's eternal from a gods timeless perspective, but it can't be both.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Ronson View Post
              Because part of the equation is about free will.

              Simply, if God created you and knew exactly what you would do for your entire life, did He give you free will?
              That's the question, not the answer. If god knows each moment of your entire life before you even come into existence then prima facie, free will would be impossible. How can you change anything in your future that is fixed by knowledge prior to your even existing.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                That's the question, not the answer. If god knows each moment of your entire life before you even come into existence then prima facie, free will would be impossible.
                But that is wrong twice over.

                1) I have a son, so I created him (in that sense). I can say with absolute certainty that he would never jump off a cliff. He still has free will to do so, but I know he won't. I didn't make him / wire him in such a manner that the choice to jump off a cliff was impossible in his DNA. Therefore he has free will.

                2) Say you read the autobiography of a deceased historical character and he not only explains every decision he ever made, but his reasoning for those decisions as well. Did that person have free will? Of course he did, despite your "knowledge" of every move he would make in his lifetime.

                How can you change anything in your future that is fixed by knowledge prior to your even existing.
                Unless I am a computer and was programmed to behave a certain way, I will act according to my decisions. Past, present or future. Whatever my fixed future holds will be decided upon by me.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                  But that is wrong twice over.

                  1) I have a son, so I created him (in that sense). I can say with absolute certainty that he would never jump off a cliff. He still has free will to do so, but I know he won't. I didn't make him / wire him in such a manner that the choice to jump off a cliff was impossible in his DNA. Therefore he has free will.
                  That's not even a refutation of what I said, Ronson. It's not an argument, it's simply the assertion of your belief. You believing that you know the future is not the same as actually knowing it.
                  2) Say you read the autobiography of a deceased historical character and he not only explains every decision he ever made, but his reasoning for those decisions as well. Did that person have free will? Of course he did, despite your "knowledge" of every move he would make in his lifetime.
                  You're making the same mistake that Sparko keeps making in equating the past and knowledge thereof with knowledge of the future. You can know the past precisely as you explained it, because it already did occur. If your argument is that for god the future of time exist in the same way for god that the past exist for us, that he knows it because it already occured from his perpective, then from his perspective he's known it eternally, correct. So explain how it is that you can change anything of time that god has eternally known?


                  Unless I am a computer and was programmed to behave a certain way, I will act according to my decisions. Past, present or future.
                  Again, that's just a statement of belief, not an actual argument for free will. For one thing, it's possible that you are a kind of computer. Most phycisists believe the world is determined and being that we are part of the world, that would mean we too are determined.

                  Whatever my fixed future holds will be decided upon by me.
                  And that is a logical contradiction. You're future can not be both eternally fixed and decided upon by you.
                  Last edited by JimL; 07-16-2020, 11:15 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    In other words, God is the embodiment of the B-Theory of time whereby the future is no different than the past and can’t be changed in that it has forever been coexistent with the entirety of time itself. So, why introduce a deity into the equation?
                    No, that's precisely what I haven't been saying. I'm saying that the difference is perspectival, not ontological. A deity is there as the sufficient reason for the existence of time itself and for all of the things that exist within time, including free-willed creatures.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Did God exist prior to time? And you'll need to explain to me what you mean by "God can act sequentially in nothing more than a metaphorical sense."
                      Once more, "prior to time" makes no sense. There is no 'before' to time, just as there is no 'above' to space. Does that make sense? If God transcends time, then his acting sequentially can only be understood metaphorically. In a similar way, if God transcends space, and we say God is 'in' a particular place, we can only mean that in a metaphorical, not a literal, sense.

                      Agreed, it makes no sense.
                      Then why do you keep embedding it in your questions?


                      Exactly, so even a timeless God can't know the future of time until it unfolds.
                      For a timeless God, there would be no future or past. Every moment is eternally unfolding.

                      Yes, I know that argument, it's been argued here many times over. But it still doesn't make sense. If time began to exist, if the future is actually open, if time actually unfolds moment by moment, then whether you're a timeless being or not you can't observe, and so know that future, until it does unfold, until it actually does exist. There is only one logical way to know a not yet existing future and that is if it was engineered to unfold the way in which the creator of time determined it to unfold. You can't argue both, it's a logical contradiction to argue that Gods both sees and so knows the future beforehand, and that he also sees, and so comes to know the future when it occurs, which is what the above argument implies. In other words the future either occurs or it's eternal from a gods timeless perspective, but it can't be both.
                      Time cannot begin to exist. If God is timeless, there isn't a parallel timeline in which God exists and observes our future. God's eternity is not our time. Our natural tendency is to anthropomorphize God and his time and experience. This is impossible. All we can do is to conceive in the barest abstract terms what a 'timeless' deity might be like relative to our experience of time. Although it might strain our imagination, there's no logical contradiction involved here.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        So, why introduce a deity into the equation?
                        I didn't introduce it. It was there in the OP.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          Once more, "prior to time" makes no sense. There is no 'before' to time, just as there is no 'above' to space. Does that make sense? If God transcends time, then his acting sequentially can only be understood metaphorically. In a similar way, if God transcends space, and we say God is 'in' a particular place, we can only mean that in a metaphorical, not a literal, sense.
                          So, nothing existed prior to the existence of time? Or are you suggesting that prior to the existence of time god only existed in a metaphorical sense? Whether god is eternal or not, if he created time, then he existed before time.


                          Then why do you keep embedding it in your questions?
                          I was simply agreeing with you that god can't see time, can't see the future of time, until and unless it exists. If you agree with that, and still insist that god can see the future of time, then time doesn't emerge incrementally, it was created in it's entirety, otherwise god couldn't see it. And if that is true, if all of time came into existence at once, then your will has nothing to do with with the future.



                          For a timeless God, there would be no future or past. Every moment is eternally unfolding.
                          That, again, is a logical contradiction.


                          Time cannot begin to exist. If God is timeless, there isn't a parallel timeline in which God exists and observes our future. God's eternity is not our time. Our natural tendency is to anthropomorphize God and his time and experience. This is impossible. All we can do is to conceive in the barest abstract terms what a 'timeless' deity might be like relative to our experience of time. Although it might strain our imagination, there's no logical contradiction involved here.
                          Actually it is a logical contradiction. You're making the "well we can't logically explain it, put an argument into words, how it is that god could possibly see our futures, but we just believe he can.
                          Last edited by JimL; 07-17-2020, 07:10 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            No, that's precisely what I haven't been saying. I'm saying that the difference is perspectival, not ontological. A deity is there as the sufficient reason for the existence of time itself and for all of the things that exist within time, including free-willed creatures.
                            A deity is not required as a sufficient reason for the existence of time itself. B-Theory is sufficient reason in and of itself. A deity is unnecessary baggage added, presumably, to allow for concepts you want to introduce, such as free will.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                              If God is omniscient and omnipotent, would He not exist outside of time?

                              If God exists outside of time, He can no doubt see the future as easily as seeing the present and the past. Correct?

                              Many an atheist has argued that if such a deity exists then "free will" does not. That if anyone can know the future with certainty then no one has "free will".

                              I never understood the argument. Anybody here care to explain it?
                              No, God doesn't need to be outside time to be omnipotent and omniscient. I don't know what omnipotence even has to do with it. Omniscience doesn't require being beyond time unless you subscribe to a perceptual theory of knowledge, which isn't necessary.

                              People that think free will and omniscience are incompatible make modal errors left and right. God knows what I'll do because I'll do it; it's not that I'll do it because God knows what I'll do. God's knowledge is parasitic on what I'll do. That it's the case that, necessarily, if God knows P, I'll do P, one can't illicitly shift the scope of the modal operator to the necessity of P. You just have to say that I 'will' do P. To reverse this explanatory priority is to land in all kind of weird counterpossibles: the power to make God's beliefs false, etc.
                              Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                              George Horne

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                                No, God doesn't need to be outside time to be omnipotent and omniscient. I don't know what omnipotence even has to do with it. Omniscience doesn't require being beyond time unless you subscribe to a perceptual theory of knowledge, which isn't necessary.

                                People that think free will and omniscience are incompatible make modal errors left and right. God knows what I'll do because I'll do it; it's not that I'll do it because God knows what I'll do. God's knowledge is parasitic on what I'll do. That it's the case that, necessarily, if God knows P, I'll do P, one can't illicitly shift the scope of the modal operator to the necessity of P. You just have to say that I 'will' do P. To reverse this explanatory priority is to land in all kind of weird counterpossibles: the power to make God's beliefs false, etc.
                                For one thing it's not about gods beliefs, it's about gods knowledge. So, you need to come up with a logical reason for how it is that god knows what you will do in the future and have it remain a free choice. If you can't do that, then it's just a "because I said so argument".

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X