Omnipotence Negates Free Will

[Rafcio]

If there is no free will like Majin suggests and Tony seems to agree to an unknown degree, then wouldn't that mean that there no free will for omnipotence to negate?

[Majin]

Correct.

It is likely that, if at some point one could understand the totality of the human bodies physical processes (especially the brain), one can calculate our actions.

We would be no different then a computer, except much much more complicated.

However omnipotence and omniscience contradicts itself anyway, so the concept of God being all-powerful negates itself.

[Insin]

Yeah, there's a branch in psychology that pretty much believes that behavior is all predetermined. I believe it's called Determinism. Basically, these psychologists believe that all behavior is shaped by the environment, and treatment of psychological issues should involve manipulating the environment. Psychologists like BF Skinner pretty much argued that all human behavior was determined by conditioning and reinforcement. I'm not certain, but I think this did stem from a similar religious viewpoint akin to the illusion of free will.

[Azn]

Well. Doesnt it say that god was thinking of you and your creation way before you were born. He does everything to affect and shape us into his vision (if this is not correct, w/e.) Then yea, we wouldnt have free will. We may think we do, but we wouldn't

[nejix321]

I think God in fact does know what we going to do before we do.

Let's say someone is gonna commit a Grand Theft Auto, God knows it's gonna happen but it is still up to that individual to commit the crime or not.

All people know the difference between right and wrong but if they're gonna choose to right and wrong is up to them.

[Insin]

You are not really getting my point

It APPEARS to be a choice, because you have no knowledge of the future. But in actuality, it isn't, because it was determined long before you were even born.

[Apoo]

Originally Posted by sarah042

God is omnipotent and you say that because of this power we are under the illusion of free will, then my question would be: What is the point? From what I understand of your point Tony, although we are not ruled by instinct we have no control over our actions or the outcomes then in essence we are just like animals, albeit we seem to rationalise our choices.

That if for you to answer. I'm convinced that free will does not exist, and as well convinced to a very high degree that an omnipotent god does not exist. Weather (and how) you would want to rationalize the contradictions of your faith or not is really up to you.

God leaves this all up to us whether to have a happy or unhappy marriage. Yes he controls the situations and yes he had inputs to our thought processes but in the end he leaves the choice up to us, to look at the glass half empty or half full.

This doesn't really address my argument. The all knowing designer would in fact be responsible for all things that happen. You just admitted that you believe some things are predestined, but that right there means that god is interfering with free will. Any sort of predestination eliminates free will, miracles contradict the concept as well.

For example, the Bible talks about the fall of Lucifer, did God chose for that to happen? Did he plan for Lucifer to get jealous, arrogant? When God created the world and placed Adam and Eve here, he supplied them with the required information, giving them the knowledge they needed to lead good lives. He created them, and he created a perfect world. If God is omnipotent and he created a perfect world was it then part of his perfect plan for them to fall? No I don't think so, he allowed them to make a choice as to whether they would rely on the knowledge he gave them or believe the snake. They choose to believe the snake. Otherwise your point would be God created them knowing that they would fall and he intentionally created an imperfect world.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn if this god is to exist is that he in fact wanted things to happen the way they did. If he didn't, he would have created things differently. Before he acted, he knew the outcome. He knew that Eve would be tempted, he knew that Satan would be tempted; yet he still created these beings as he saw fit, placed them in specific circumstances knowing exactly what would happen. If the fall was not part of his perfect plan, are you saying that a human acted outside of God's plan? Was god not able to foresee the fall? If he wasn't, then his omniscience should be questioned, if he did, then it was part of his plan.

[PC Chris]

Originally Posted by nejix321

I think God in fact does know what we going to do before we do.

Let's say someone is gonna commit a Grand Theft Auto, God knows it's gonna happen but it is still up to that individual to commit the crime or not.

All people know the difference between right and wrong but if they're gonna choose to right and wrong is up to them.

God knows I'm going to steal a car then how do I have free will? if he can see my future he knows I will commit a crime.


It's would be like reading I Am Legend then reading it again and expecting a different outcome.

[Cane_The9lives]

Originally Posted by Majin

Yes there is, free will is basically non-determinism.

However there is an abundance of evidence that things affect our ability to choose, drugs, hard objects to the brain, indoctrination.

There is also an abundance of evidence to suggest that regardless of those influences a certian amount of indeterminism exists.

Originally Posted by Majin

Then you don't know what free will is.

Dont presume to tell me what i dont understand.

Originally Posted by Majin

Free will is more then likely not true, technically true free will mean's that our choices are done without influence from anything.

But that is hardly true, even intuitively we know that.

So what was the point of even making the statement?

Originally Posted by Majin

Nope, evidence shows that things influence our decisions.

Nope, influence in its most basic form does not negate choice, it simply adds to the choice.

I dont believe in absolute determinism.

Originally Posted by Majin

Therefore that goes against free will.

Exactly what definition of free will are you referening?

1.free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.

This definition does not support your arguement.

Neither does this one.
2.Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Originally Posted by Majin

The attempt to influence other people directly means one operates under the assumption free will is not true, if it was, you couldn't influence people, because you cannot under any circumstances sway their decision-making.

You have it backwards.

If free will didnt exist, only then could you not sway their decision making.
If it did, then it would be possible becuase what they do is not predertmined.

Just becuase you can influence someone doesnt mean freewill doesnt exist, you have to take into account that influence doesnt simply reside within the influencer, the influencee is also subconciously taking part in it.
In essence, they choose to be influenced.

Originally Posted by Majin

Nope, you assume reality bends for God, you got evidence for that?

Originally Posted by Insin

For the sake of argument, assume that if God exists, He is omnipotent.

his first post, read it, learn it, know the context of the debate

Originally Posted by Majin

Wrong, if morality is arbitrary to the point it is simply 'whatever God thinks' then there is no morality, and even God is wrong if he ever states something is.

No, whatever god states or believes is reality.

Originally Posted by Majin

God is not above logic to me, if God says X is immoral, then says X is moral, he is wrong.

Then why are you even taking part in the debate?
The context of the debate was that god is above logic, is put plainly clear in the first post.
If you dont assume that god is omnipotent for the sake of the debate, then you are derailing it.

Originally Posted by Tony

Cane:
In my opinion, the concept of omnipotence if inherently flawed. It requires that you be able to perform acts and not perform them at the same time, thus ensuing in a logical contradiction.

Now you are creating a strawman.

The validity of omnipotence is not being debated.
You are supposed to assume for the sake of the debate, that god is omnipotent...questioning omnipotence is steering the debate away from the topic.

Originally Posted by Tony

I have talked to my philosophy teacher about this, and he says that a lot philosophers say that omnipotence is limited to what is logically possible. In my opinion this places a limit on omnipotence, thus voiding the idea, but apparently philosophers now agree that omnipotence cannot go beyond logic, and still be worthy of discussion. The idea here being that if something is beyond logic, it's illogical and therefore pointless to discuss.

Then this entire thread is pointless since the premise is based on an omnipotent god.
If we are not to assume the existance of an omnipotent god, for the sake of the debate becuase of its inherent flaws, then the thread is pointless to begin with.

I would think insin wouldnt appreciate you attempting to defeat the entire purpose of this debate simply becuase you cannot counter an arguement that is based on the idea that god is omnipotent, thus is all of reality.

Originally Posted by Tony

This view allows the christian god to be seen as omnipotent and it forgoes the necessity for god to be all-evil, and all-good at the same time, since this presents a logical contradiction.

There is no contradiction when you look at it in the correct way.
Whatever the bible claims, god is not omnibenevolant, or omni belligerrent.
The bible is riddled with stories of "Gods wrath" and gods love.
So what can be deduced is simply this, he can be one or the other, or "Omni-idifferent" if such a concept even exists.

Originally Posted by Tony

On to our discussion, if God does not adhere to his moral code, then this code becomes meaningless.

No, it only becomes meaningless to a god.
Which generally would be the case with a god.

Originally Posted by Tony

Why is it immoral for me to kill, and this doesn't apply to god? It brings forth the question of what actually is true morality?

Oh i see your problem, you refuse to see god as somthing above mortality.....you continue to try and humanize god.
Why cant you see such an entity as above everything that we as humans perceive?
he is god, the creator of existance, we are nowhere near the level of existance of god.

he is omnipotent, he created us, he is a god.......he does what he wants, its not that hard to understand.
It may seem like a bum rap, but ultimatley god is all, and there is nothing you can say or do that can change what he is.
And there is nothing you can accuse him of being, if he doesnt want to be it.

Originally Posted by Tony

For what reason is god deceiving us? Is it for our benefit, or because god just decided so on a whim?

Exactly what deception do you speak of?
Just becuase he lays down moral codes and laws for us to follow, and he is not required to follow them is no deception.

Think of god as a king(or ancient times, choose your civilization doesnt matter), did the king follow the rules he specfically made for his people?

Lol no f'ing way.
Sure we can percieve morality or immorality of the king by his dismissal of the laws in which he layed out, but he is the king, he is the ruler....to be the ruler generally mans you rule those under you....kings enforce the rules they give out.

Unless you would seriously think a king would punish himself if he broke one of his own rules....not likely.

Originally Posted by Tony

If our moral code is the result of God's whim, then it follows that he can change it at any time--meaning that raping being immoral is not righteous because its righteous, but its righteous because that's the way god feels at the time.

Correct, infallibility is an aspect of omnipotence.

Originally Posted by Tony

If God is lying to us about what is truly righteous, then what else could he be lying about? If his word is not absolute truth, but a mere whim, then how is god all-loving--isn't it just as likely that he is completely untrustworthy like the Cartesian demon?

Uhh his word is absolute truth, simply if he couldnt change his word......he wouldnt be omnipotent.

"Well shucks i already made that immoral, damnit i wish i could redo that"

Seriously tony, you continue to stray away from the idea that discussion requires you to assume as true, in order to properally take part in the debate.

Originally Posted by Tony

If follows that if god provides moral law, and says it to be absolute truth, then this law is in fact absolute.

There is such a thing as absolute law when concerning humans.
He layed down his absolute law, for us to never break, and for us to follow.
Keyword"Us"

Originally Posted by Tony

My deviation from the problem of evil flows from there. God deviating from the the moral guidelines he has given us, would make him a liar, and god creating people to suffer contradicts the concept of an all-loving god.

The bible does not promote an all loving god, revelations is proof of that.
Soddam and gammorah is proof of that.

Christians can say"God is all loving" but they are honestly putting their foot in their mouths. Becuase if they believe the god of the bible is their god, then they couldnt possibly claim him to be all loving, simply on the information contained within it.

I have never thought of god as all loving, even when i was a kid the concept of an all loving god didnt make sense, since i was learning about such stories as revelations, the tail of moses and how he freed his people(specfically the way in which he did it, the plagues brought on by the power of god) God is not all loving.

But on the same coin, he is not all hating.
He can be both, or none at all.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

There is also an abundance of evidence to suggest that regardless of those influences a certian amount of indeterminism exists.

present it.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

Nope, influence in its most basic form does not negate choice, it simply adds to the choice.

I dont believe in absolute determinism.

Influence mean's you sway someones choice, not add to it.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

Exactly what definition of free will are you referening?

1.free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.

This definition does not support your arguement.

Neither does this one.
2.Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

I am using those.

'independant' and 'not simply determined by physical or divine forces' rejects determinism and endorses non-determinism.

Read your definitions more carefully.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

You have it backwards.

If free will didnt exist, only then could you not sway their decision making.
If it did, then it would be possible becuase what they do is not predertmined.

Determinism does not mean lack of influence, it means the exact opposite.

It endorses cause and effect.

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

And anything that influences someone decision-making assumes this 'cause and effect'.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

Just becuase you can influence someone doesnt mean freewill doesnt exist, you have to take into account that influence doesnt simply reside within the influencer, the influencee is also subconciously taking part in it.
In essence, they choose to be influenced.

No.

# a power to affect persons or events especially power based on prestige etc; "used her parents' influence to get the job"
# causing something without any direct or apparent effort
# have and exert influence or effect; "The artist's work influenced the young painter"; "She worked on her friends to support the political candidate"
# a cognitive factor that tends to have an effect on what you do; "her wishes had a great influence on his thinking"
# determine: shape or influence; give direction to; "experience often determines ability"; "mold public opinion"
# the effect of one thing (or person) on another; "the influence of mechanical action"
# one having power to influence another; "she was the most important influence in my life"; "he was a bad influence on the children"
# charm: induce into action by using one's charm; "She charmed him into giving her all his money"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

his first post, read it, learn it, know the context of the debate

No, whatever god states or believes is reality.

Your right i forgot.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

Then why are you even taking part in the debate?
The context of the debate was that god is above logic, is put plainly clear in the first post.
If you dont assume that god is omnipotent for the sake of the debate, then you are derailing it.

No debate can place God above logic if you wish to debate anything about God.

If that were so, you couldn't, in fact, debate about God.

Nor did the first post say that, read it carefully.

[The Antioch]

We all know the story of adam and eve in the garden of eden. We also know that there were two trees placed in the garden and they supplied two different purposes. One was acknowledged as the tree of life and the other as the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

tree of life: is the source of God, depositing divine connection with us (his creation) made in the image of God, established a relationship with us.

tree of knowledge of good and evil: speaks of free will, there is two sides too choose (good or evil). Obviously this tree wasnt supposed to be touched by adam and eve. This tree gives you the knowledge of all that is evil and all that is good. free will to choose from either stems from this very thing. Thats why your mind allows you to think the way it does, but it has its restrictions when it comes to understanding and knowing that God exists. Thats where we as creation have to allow ourselves to humble our minds and not try to know it all and not to rationalize or think logically about this topic of God.....

Thats why you have law in place. but not all abide by it, we all have fallen short in sometime in our life. when thinking you are above the law, clearly outlines your free will to do what you want. that shows free will does exist, when really free will has been misinterpreted. Free will and Freedom and liberty are two different things. you have your will and Gods will. the difference with your will is that you solo life, not knowing what your father in heaven has for you, where as his will, shows you your idnetity and purpose. thats where the free choice upon you comes into play. God doesnt force his will on you, but allows you to see it for yourself.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by The Antioch

tree of knowledge of good and evil: speaks of free will, there is two sides too choose (good or evil). Obviously this tree wasnt supposed to be touched by adam and eve. This tree gives you the knowledge of all that is evil and all that is good. free will to choose from either stems from this very thing. Thats why your mind allows you to think the way it does, but it has its restrictions when it comes to understanding and knowing that God exists. Thats where we as creation have to allow ourselves to humble our minds and not try to know it all and not to rationalize or think logically about this topic of God.....

So your against thinking.

Right....

[Cane_The9lives]

Originally Posted by Majin

present it.

Thats funny, i didnt see you present anything either.

But simple, if i can think of something and do it, that in its most basic form is freewill.
The idea of influence is debatable.

Originally Posted by Majin

Influence mean's you sway someones choice, not add to it.

Your speaking as if influence means to choose for someone.
Influence means you have an effect on the choice, but you dont make the choice...and whether or not that affect was of consiquence is left up to interpretation.

Originally Posted by Majin

I am using those.

'independant' and 'not simply determined by physical or divine forces' rejects determinism and endorses non-determinism.

No wonder i got confused.
The correct term would be indeterminism, when you started talking about non determinism i thought you might be talking about somthing different.

Originally Posted by Majin

Determinism does not mean lack of influence, it means the exact opposite.

It endorses cause and effect.

yes your terminology confused me.

Originally Posted by Majin

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

And anything that influences someone decision-making assumes this 'cause and effect'.

So clarify somthing for me, you believe in determinism correct?
Or do you believe in indeterminism?

Originally Posted by Majin

No debate can place God above logic if you wish to debate anything about God.

If that were so, you couldn't, in fact, debate about God.

I agree with that to an extent.

Originally Posted by Majin

Nor did the first post say that, read it carefully.

Omnipotence means you are above logic.
If god was not above logic, he would not be omnipotent.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

Thats funny, i didnt see you present anything either.

But simple, if i can think of something and do it, that in its most basic form is freewill.
The idea of influence is debatable.

I did, anything that influences a persons decision-making is evidence against free-will.

Drugs for instance.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

Your speaking as if influence means to choose for someone.
Influence means you have an effect on the choice, but you dont make the choice...and whether or not that affect was of consiquence is left up to interpretation.

Contradicts free-will.

Originally Posted by Cane_The9lives

So clarify somthing for me, you believe in determinism correct?
Or do you believe in indeterminism?

Determinism.

However, i have read very interesting articles that on the extreme micro-level, it could in fact be non-deterministic, and becomes deterministic the higher you go.

Quantum mechanics is an interesting field in that regard.

Originally Posted by Cane_the9lives

Omnipotence means you are above logic.
If god was not above logic, he would not be omnipotent.

I would say that it is 'above logic' because it isn't logical, in other words, it doesn't make sense.

[Cane_The9lives]

Originally Posted by Majin

I did, anything that influences a persons decision-making is evidence against free-will.

Drugs for instance.

You dont understand the context of what is generally defined as free will.
Most definitions of free will work on the premise that your decisions are not determined for you by interfering forces.(or is not destined by divine forces)

A certian level of influence does not equate to a determined action.
Drugs only influence you becuase you chose to take them in the first place.
Humans can obstruct their free will, through the use of drugs.
Drugs is not evidence againts freewill, becuase freewill was what got them hooked on the drugs in the first place.
Drugs only influence you becuase you allowed them to, by taking them in the first place.

Originally Posted by Majin

free will


The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily. For many philosophers, to believe in free will is to believe that human beings can be the authors of their own actions and to reject the idea that human actions are determined by external conditions or fate.

This doesnt mean that if influence exists, free will doesnt.......it simply means the influence is not the determining factor, or it isnt by default.

And if its not by default, then freewill exist's

Originally Posted by Majin

Contradicts free-will.

No it doesnt, becuase you can choose to disregard the influence.
You dont allow yourself to be influenced, if thats possible then free will exists.

"Influence" is not determinism.

Originally Posted by Majin

Determinism.

However, i have read very interesting articles that on the extreme micro-level, it could in fact be non-deterministic, and becomes deterministic the higher you go.

I dont believe in determinism, for the mere fact that i can prevent somthing from influencing me.

Thats proof of concept right there.
Doesnt determinism claim you cannot keep somthing from influencing you?