If god is omnipotent, can we have free will?

[madphysics]

Careful. You're Opening a can of worms with that phrase. Having an omnipotent God in all aspects EXCEPT ...

That could easily be proverbially "hole in the dam".

 

[Xori]

If He is omnipotent (able to do anything), then shouldn't He be able to create something which is unpredictable, even to Himself? If not, then I guess you could say He is ALMOST omnipotent, except for that one little shortcoming.

That's the same as asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that not even he could move it?"

I'm not sure if this logic disproves omnipotence, but it is illogical in my mind to begin with.

 

[JoeDawg]

Which is why "true" free will can't exist, at least in my opinion. Only the illusion can exist as a result of us being complex machines.

What you call 'true' freewill is simply a misunderstanding of what freewill is. Why you insist on calling it true, I have no idea.

 

[Xori]

What you call 'true' freewill is simply a misunderstanding of what freewill is. Why you insist on calling it true, I have no idea.

Because it is the only definition that can fit the impliciations of the words being used, as well as what people perceive it to mean.

Otherwise, you can say that the computer I'm sitting at right now has free will.

 

[JoeDawg]

Because it is the only definition that can fit the impliciations of the words being used, as well as what people perceive it to mean.

Otherwise, you can say that the computer I'm sitting at right now has free will.

You computer understands its alternatives? Or it just follows instructions?

 

[Xori]

How does it know any difference? It just does what satisfies itself.
It can say "I have free will because I'm choosing to do these things", when from our point of view it really doesn't.

 

[rook_b]

How does it know any difference? It just does what satisfies itself.
It can say "I have free will because I'm choosing to do these things", when from our point of view it really doesn't.

Please forgive and inform me if I have misrepresented you in any way.

Xori, I think your analogy of computers to humans or other animals is incorrect. For it to be pertinent the computer has to "conscious" of some input and able to learn and reason enough about its input to eventually be able to reflect on its own existence. At least that is my guess, though I am sure my ignorance is misleading me and you likely have a different idea about what consciousness is. So I hope you can see what a messy discussion that would become.

Still, your point seems to be that at some higher plain of existence a being may look down on lower beings to see that they really have no choices at all. Ok, that's reasonable enough, but why does it follow that we do not have a "true" free will? Why is your definition of free will more correct than the one I or those you are posting replies to? I define free will as the ability to make choices according to the knowledge I have of the surrounding world. From this viewpoint I have a free will. The only way I lose free will is if an outside force coopts my choices by physically, or possibly mentally, forcing me into an action or belief. But, in order to subscribe to your idea of free will, it seems to me, the only way to have free will is to actually <b>be</b> omniscient.

I mean to say that although it is arguable that there are varying levels of free will (accompanied by varying levels of conciousness) to argue that the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, god undermines our free will is folly.

--james

p.s. Any comments from those spend more time on this forum (JoeDawg) would be appreciated, and I already left my take on this on the top of the second page.

 

[LizzieBenett]

This kind of question dates back to the beginning of the branching off of Christian religions, such as Calvinism, Puritanism, and Antinomianism. John Calvin believed that his god was omniscient and omnipotent, so it was in his power to know and control who would get into heaven and who wouldn't, according to Calvin's doctrine of predestination. Calvinism was adopted by the Puritans, so by law, they believed in predestination. Anne Hutchinson was a Puritan who founded Antinomianism (and got kicked out of Massachusetts/Connecticut/wherever as a result). She believed that since God has already predetermined who would be accepted into heaven, you can practice your free will.
Give that a thought...I hope it helps you come to some sort of conclusion.

 

[NASA Vix]

This is an interesting concept...
It seems that an omnipotent god would have set out a "set-course" upon which each individual will embark. So you could argue, in keeping with this theory, that criminals are simply reaching their destiny..
Should we therefore congratulate Rapists, murders etc, for fulfulling what they were made/designed to do?


Interesting..

 

[OOO]

If there is an omnipotent god, how can we have free will? An omnipotent being would know the future, therefore the future would be set down, and we could not make decisions for ourselves.

If the future was set down, how could god be omnipotent ? Conclusion: If god is omnipotent, he isn't omnipotent.

 

[NASA Vix]

Interesting insights OOO...

 

[OOO]

Interesting insights OOO...

Yes there's quite a lot of insights one can gain from a contradiction...

 

[Quasarus]

If there is an omnipotent god, how can we have free will? An omnipotent being would know the future, therefore the future would be set down, and we could not make decisions for ourselves.

Knowing the future assumes the future is set down.
The future set down does not assume we do not impact the decisions by ourself.

Similarly for a human in the ''Now":
Knowing the past assumes the past is set down.
The past is set down does not assume that the decisions of the selves have not contributed to it.

 

[Quasarus]

I am weak in apologetics.

Ominipotent possibly relates not to All abstract matters but to real things, events and real relations, which cannot be exactly presented by their equivalents in terms of logics.

Correct me if I am wrong or contradict myself.

 

[OOO]

Knowing the future assumes the future is set down.
The future set down does not assume we do not impact the decisions by ourself.

Similarly for a human in the ''Now":
Knowing the past assumes the past is set down.
The past is set down does not assume that the decisions of the selves have not contributed to it.

That doesn't sound convincing. Let's leave the past aside for the moment. If you know the future already then there is no decision to make about it. Using the word decision implies that the future can still be either this way or that way, but then it is not known.

 

[TVP45]

If there is an omnipotent god, how can we have free will? An omnipotent being would know the future, therefore the future would be set down, and we could not make decisions for ourselves.

Your question presupposes there is such a thing as future. The question of time flowing remains open.

 

[madphysics]

Are you suggesting thaty time merely is and always will be now, with the future being now and the past now at the same, excuse me, time?I like that.

 

[Quasarus]

That doesn't sound convincing. Let's leave the past aside for the moment. If you know the future already then there is no decision to make about it. Using the word decision implies that the future can still be either this way or that way, but then it is not known.

We CAN'T 'leave the past aside, because what now seems the future will become the past.

I agree with you. If you know the future then there is no decision to make about it.

On the other side, if you don't know the future that does not entail that the future does not exist. It exists the similar way the past does. And your free will (if there is one) have taken part in it's creation already, if one look's upon it from the future.

 

[TVP45]

Are you suggesting thaty time merely is and always will be now, with the future being now and the past now at the same, excuse me, time?


I like that.

Yes, I think that may well be true. Certainly Physics leaves that door open for now and that fits with my personal theology.