< Previous: Nothing Behind the Altar Up: Site Index Next: Coming Soon to an Apocalypse Near You >
Why Does God Let Satan Roam Free?

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour."

—1 Peter 5:8

"Only-begotten Son, seest thou what rage
Transports our Adversary? whom no bounds
Prescribed, no bars of Hell, nor all the chains
Heaped on him there, nor yet the main Abyss
Wide interrupt, can hold..."

—John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book III

One of the aspects of Christian theology that has always made the least sense to me is why God, having defeated Satan, now permits him to roam freely across the Earth tempting people to do evil. Why wouldn't an all-powerful creator have imprisoned the Devil and all his demons permanently so that they could not exert any influence on human beings or earthly affairs? Surely, his doing so would have saved the souls of at least some people who, in the current scheme, fell prey to temptation and ended up eternally damned. Christianity says that eternal damnation is Satan's sentence anyway, so why would God delay that sentence and permit him to roam free so that he could drag as many people as possible down with him?

The first possible explanation is that Satan escaped because God was not powerful enough to restrain him. John Milton gives this explanation in the verse above, yet even he must have recognized the illogic of it. According to Christianity, God is omnipotent and Satan is not. In Milton's own story, the only reason Satan was able to escape Hell is because God, quite literally, gave the keys to one of the prisoners.

A second possibility: God lets Satan roam free merely as a way of twisting the knife further on his own punishment. A different chapter of Paradise Lost proposes this explanation:

So stretched out huge in length the Arch-Fiend lay,
Chained on the burning lake; nor ever thence
Had risen, or heaved his head, but that the will
And high permission of all-ruling Heaven
Left him at large to his own dark designs,
That with reiterated crimes he might
Heap on himself damnation, while he sought
Evil to others, and enraged might see
How all his malice served but to bring forth
Infinite goodness, grace, and mercy, shewn
On Man by him seduced, but on himself
Treble confusion, wrath, and vengeance poured.

This, too, cannot be correct. Satan's malice did not only produce grace and mercy for humankind, as Milton claims. Instead, according to Christianity's own theology, it will result in a huge majority of human beings suffering the wrath of God and being cast down into the fiery abyss along with him. This explanation does not accord with even basic Christian beliefs, so it must be thrown out.

A third explanation holds that God permits freedom for the Devil so as to give human beings the ability to choose freely between right and wrong, and to teach them that disaster always results when they turn away from God's commands:

God allowed Satan, the epitome of evil, to enter the Garden of Eden and discuss his view of life with Adam and Eve. They then had to make a choice. They chose to follow Satan rather than God. Satan's tragic delusion of mankind has been the result.

This is the first explanation that is even vaguely plausible. If Satan's role were merely to act as a devil's advocate, so to speak, it might even work. But the problem with it is that, by Christian teaching, Satan is the "great deceiver". He does not present his position honestly, but instead tries to trick humanity into sin through lies and treachery. A choice made in ignorance, because the chooser was deceived about the likely result, is not free at all. Thus, God's permitting Satan to roam free does not further his goal of giving humans a free choice between good and evil - instead, it actually decreases their freedom, by making it possible for them to fall through misstep or mistake rather than as a conscious, willed choice.

Surely, we do not need the temptation of Satan in order to be free. If we have free will, then a person still has the ability to choose evil, regardless of whether there is outside temptation urging them that way. (In the last of the Left Behind books, set in Christ's millennial kingdom, vast numbers of people still turn to evil even though Satan is locked away from the world at that point.) And, presumably, God does not want us to choose evil, even if he does leave that option open. Why, then, would he not remove as many enticements to evil as possible, to ensure that the greatest number of people make the right choice? God's decision to let Satan roam free, in the Christian worldview, can only be seen as an act of incompetence or malice. It ensures that more people end up damned than otherwise would have been. If there was any evidence that any of this was true, such a plan of action would cast serious doubt on the goodness of the planner, and raise the question of whether a deity who unleashed a being as evil as Satan on the world would be truly deserving of our devotion or our worship.

August 7, 2007, 8:38 pm • Posted in: The LibraryCommentOptions

Bookmark This:   Del.icio.us del.icio.us   Digg Digg   Reddit Reddit   StumbleUpon StumbleUpon  

125 Comments

Interesting topic. I have to admit, its not something I've ever really given much thought to---either when I was a christian or after I became a nonbeliever.

None of the options you've listed seem particularly plausible. I'll be interested to hear if any of our christian friends can come of with more reasonable alternatives.

One observation I made from reading the Gospels are their frequent references to Jesus confronting and casting out demons from people. The casting out of demons was supposed to be one of the ways that Jesus demonstrated his power.

Now, if Satan were real and presumably clever, it would make far better sense for Satan to keep his host of demons as far from Jesus as possible. If there are no demons for Jesus to cast out, then the fame of Jesus is lessened. Even more so, Satan could have cause the sick, the blind, the lame etcetera to be cured before Jesus came into contact with them.

God allows satan to currently roam about the earth, as he was cast out of haven, by jesus and gods angels. (revelation) he is allowing satan activity for a short while only, and will in time, lock up satan and his group of fallen angels (demons) for 1000 years, after which they will have a very short time free.

Revelation 20:1-3

20 "And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 And he hurled him into the abyss and shut [it] and sealed [it] over him, that he might not mislead the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After these things he must be let loose for a little while."

Hell (as in eternal damnation) is not a biblical teaching, it is a doctrain thought in some churches though. the bible speaks of the dead as not having a consciousness.

ecclisiaties 9:5
"For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all"

so in short, at this current time satan is confided by god to the vacinity of the earth (not allowed in haven) he will soon (at a time determined by god) be bound up and abyssed, for 1000 years (our literal time presumably )and then be allowed once again to be free. (so free a second time) and then finally removed.

god allows satan to be free to satisfy the issues satan has brought up with god. (in genisis and a second time in job)once that issue (universal sovereignty) has been settled, satan will be destroyed once and for all.

Humans have always possessed free will. you are correct in observing that god allows humans choice and subsequent folly's to be used as an example of reasons that serving god, and living by his principals is whats best for mankind. (humans choice bring about war and other man made problems, verus a paradise type condition god originally created in the garden of eden, which god plans to restore in the future)

its nice to see non-religious types (if that is a safe assumptions) still considering spiritual things. hope this answer helped.

David Ellis: As Ebonmuse said, the only explanation that is even vaguely plausible is the notion that Satan was merely playing "devils advocate" to god's position. This is the epitome of a false dilema that is utterly confounding to me, in that believers do not see the paucity of this argument. Christians (myself a former culprit) tout this false dilema out ad nausea when confronted with explaining away god's responsibility in the ultimate fate of human beings. It is their panacea when backed into a corner - "we have free will. God has given us the choice to accept his mercy and teachings, or to deny him/her/it and follow the road to perdition." As Ebonmuse very aptly pointed out, Satan is the ultimate deciever. How in the world are we as mere mortals to ever make an informed decision if the information we have to work with is skewed and misleading? This is a point that I have never heard dealt with in any honest way by a believer. I find an odd and yet sad parallel in the form of supporters of the ongoing quagmire that is the Bush administration and the Iraq war. When confronted with criticism about the handling of the war they (supporters of the administration) continually claim that everyone was working with the same intelligence in the lead up to the war. As such, those who question the decisions and dissent today are equally at fault. Again, if the information presented to those who have a decision to make (people in congress, or human kind regarding their eternal fate) on a terribly important issue is misleading or false in any way, can they really be held accountable for making a bad decision? I await a convincing response.

Another possibility is that Satan doesn't exist :)

Another possibility is that Satan doesn't exist :)

Sssshhhhh!

There is another reason that is actually quite clearly stated somewhere in Romans (I'm too lazy to look it up right now). God wants everyone under condemnation - everyone- so that all are dependent on him for salvation; he will not share the glory with anyone else.
The NT, as it's understood in many Protestant denom's, clearly teaches against "earning" one's way to heaven. So, for god to get all the glory, everyone has to fall. And the harder the fall, the greater his glory when he either:
a)judges the sinners who've heaped up their condemnation
or
b)forgives a whole lot of sin, thus displaying his great mercy for which he will receive thanks and praise from his beneficiaries, and the angels, for all eternity

It's all pretty self-serving and, naturally, humans are mere pawns in this cosmic contest of egos.

**One other reason I've heard was that Satan wanted to rule by force, where JC/god wanted to rule by love. History is just god allowing the working out of the two views with the results on display for all to see that love is better blah blah blah. I don't remember if I got that idea from Milton or Mormonism.

its nice to see non-religious types (if that is a safe assumptions) still considering spiritual things. hope this answer helped.

Actually, your explanation was not all that helpful. It seemed to me that you did not address any of Ebon's original arguments for and against the restraining of Satan.

God allows satan to currently roam about the earth, as he was cast out of haven, by jesus and gods angels. (revelation) he is allowing satan activity for a short while only, and will in time, lock up satan and his group of fallen angels (demons) for 1000 years, after which they will have a very short time free.

Revelation 20:1-3

20 "And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 And he hurled him into the abyss and shut [it] and sealed [it] over him, that he might not mislead the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After these things he must be let loose for a little while." . . . etc . . .

I hear you saying that God let the Devil free for a certain amount of time, but the whole post to which you responded was dedicated to three reasons against this idea. I could restate them here, but it would be redundant for me to say anything except "read the original post," as it thoroughly addresses your argument and points out it's flaws. You've yet to offer any new information or perspective on the issue.

To use an analogy: Imagine that we are trying to raise the speed limit on a particular street. We'd go over the benefits of raising that speed limits and the possible drawbacks in an attempt to show the city council that the current speed limit is unacceptable and raising it would be the best solution. In that instance would pointing to the sign and saying "see look, it says 25 right there, so that's the speed limit," be an effective counterargument? I think you can see that it wouldn't be as everyone is already familiar with the status quo, and have presented arguments as to why it's not acceptable. One might feel that maintaining the speed limit is the best option, but they would to better to demonstrate why rather than merely stating that it is currently 25.

So, to be persuasive, try addressing each of Ebon's arguments systematically, one at a time. Remember, most people on this board are "non-religious" and as such, typically don't consider the Bible an authoritative source so bible quotes don't hold any weight unless they demonstrate some kind of empirical explanation (ie, it should give a good reason for the speed limit and not simply states it).

Thanks for posting, I look forward to your response.

If Satan really is the "ultimate deceiver" then Christians who believe in Satan's existence might ask themselves whether they've fallen for Satan's ultimate deceit. I mean, the central promise of the new testament is that Christians will be rewarded with eternal life. But wait -- in Genesis God was so concerned that humans might eat of the tree of life and live forever that he placed cherubim with flaming swords to block the way to that tree. It seems pretty clear from Genesis that God doesn't want human to have eternal life.

Just as the serpent of eden smooth-talked Adam and Eve into eating the apple of knowledge (which apparently raised the risk of humans becoming gods like those elohim in heaven), Satan appears to be at it again. This time using a "new" testament to convince people to grab for that other tree God forbids to us, tree of eternal life.

I mean, if you take your Bible literally, and if you really believe Satan is the ultimate deceiver, wouldn't it be prudent to worry that he may have pulled off the ultimate deceit with Christianity?

The whole moronic 'satan' legend has no other possible conclusion than to paint god as a sadistic psychopath who gets off on torturing humans.

jk, does that stand for just kidding? Come on, the 1,000 years bit? I guess 1,000 years sounded really long to the ignorant itinerant scribes who penned this slop. They never dreamed anyone would be reading it now. But even so, why the need for the drama? If god is all-powerful, why not just snuff satan and get it over with?

Oh, right. They needed an antagonist for their story.

Satan is the best friend the church ever had. He's what they get to blame all their problems on

If these two entities, God and Satan, do exist, why are they such drama queens? They both sound very maladjusted and I do not identify with either one. And why am I being pulled into their mutual struggle? Just keep me out of it. You two children go play outside.

This whole Satan and God thing, where God allows Satan to carry on his mischief, reminds me of the Austin Powers movies. Instead of killing Austin Powers outright, Dr. Evil rigs an elaborate death trap but doesn't stay to watch Austin actually die. Of course, he always gets away. I particularly like when Dr. Evil's son asks, why don't you just shoot him right now? And Dr. Evil says, "Scott, you just don't get it, do ya?". Well, its the same thing with god and the devil. If you don't understand why god lets him loose, maybe you "just don't get it."

Hello All,

As many of you well know, satan is the adversary or tempter. Presumably God allows this tempter to roam free to test or refine the character of humanity. If I were to venture a guess as to the reason why God could do this I would say that perhaps God wishes that people learn to deal with temptation and aversity and learn lessons from it. Regarding those who fall into Satan's deception I would say, under this answer, that they did not meet standard. Not a very nice "omnibenevolent" type of God, but who on earth reads the Bible and thinks "now there's a softie!". Not me.

Cheers,

Matt

Actually, quite a lot of people think god is omni-benevolent.

Anyway, why does god need to allow Satan to tempt us? He already knows what we'll do (omniscience and all that) so if he allows us to be tempted into harming others, then he is culpable.

As a former religious fundamentalist, I will offer the explanation that was given to me by the Church of God:

If we were not tempted by a 'trial of fire' in this life, then we would only be as angels are created. Since God did not want another set of mere angels (ie holy autobots), he created this entire testing phase so that when we pass it, then we will be evolved on a higher plane of existance than the angels.

We are tested by Satan, who is a higher form of life than we are, in order to build our faith in God. Without this faith in God, then we cannot reach the next level of our existance. God gives us the power to resist Satan by the gift of the Holy Spirit which is part of the Trinity. By accepting Jesus as our personal Savior and being baptized in the Holy Spirit as evidenced by the speaking in tongues, then we have the power to understand and resist Satan and his scheme to prevent our eternal life in a higher plane of existance with God himself.

The world is not as it would appear to be and the wisdom of man is foolish in the eyes of God and His Wisdom is foolish to man's pitiful logical reasoning.

As I am now an Atheist, I obviously no longer accept any of that reasoning, but it is a better Xian rebuttal than any that I have seen posted so far.

So..... just trying to follow that would-be Xian rebuttal:

God wants us to have eternal life with him in a high plane of existence and worshipping him, kind of like angels, but he didn't want to make more angels. He wanted something on a higher order, but choose rather then to just create them in that higher order. So instead he made people and tried to let them choose. In the process of choosing, he made the devil in order to try and make us not choose him (even though choosing him is the desired result). He wants us to have faith, yet does not create us with an inborn faith, opting instead for free will, which of course he would later punish us for for not choosing him, even though he created someone to help us not choose him. So God tries to give us ways to resist satan (the being he created in the first place), so in other words, he tries to give us a gift to resist the very thing he set against us in the first place.

Very clearly, I must just not be seeing something. It's like god is some retarded child. In case I missed something, I'll try again in bullet point:

- God wants us to be higher than angels in some plane of existence
- God does not create us there, but puts us on earth instead
- God wants us to choose him in order to get there
- God creates something to try and make us not choose him
- God creates 'gift' to help us avoid that thing that makes us not choose him that he also made
- God punishes all who do not choose him and rewards those who do
Conclusion:
- God doesn't want more autobots, but only chooses to associate with those who's opinions do not differ from his wishes. Therefore God, is in fact, completely retarded

"Hell (as in eternal damnation) is not a biblical teaching..."

I'm sorry, jk, but you're very much mistaken about this. I've recently been in a debate about hell with a liberal Christian, and I went through the Gospels to find the places where Jesus talks about hell, damnation, eternal fire, etc. They're quite extensive. The list is here (sorry for the self-linkage, everyone, but it really is relevant).

This seems to be a common belief among many Christians: the idea that the Bible doesn't talk about Hell, or doesn't describe it as a place of fire and torture, or doesn't do so extensively enough for it to be significant. At least, I've been running into it a lot lately. But I really don't know where it comes from. At the risk of sounding snarky, it does seem as if atheists and other non-believers are often more familiar with the history of religion and the details of religious teachings than the believers themselves are.

Hi OMGF,

Actually, quite a lot of people think god is omni-benevolent.

You are correct that many would jumpt to defend the idea of God's omnibenevolence, but I think that if these people want to base their idea of God on the Bible, they will have a hard time reconciling Omnibenevolence with God as described in the Bible. I think that I would have jumped to defend Omnibenevolence too before giving it careful thought. I suppose that a way to reconcile the Bible with Omnibenevolence is to define Omnibenevolence in just the right way. That seems contrived to me, so I think it is more appropriate to discard Omnibenevolence.

Anyway, why does god need to allow Satan to tempt us? He already knows what we'll do (omniscience and all that) so if he allows us to be tempted into harming others, then he is culpable.

I don't know if it is reasonable to discuss what an Omnimax God "needs" to do. Presumably an ultimate-ultimate being does not need to do anything and the best estimate I could venture as to such a God's motivation would be that God wanted to. Of course this is not helpful to the argument at all beause it reall does not add much helpful information, but it would seem that an Omnimax God needs nothing at all.

With that being said, I suppose that it is possible that the process of testing humans produces something in humans that God values for some reason. Charachter, wisdom, perseverance, tenacity, who knows... but possibly something along those lines. Of course the logical next question is, "Why couldn't God create beings which already have those attributes?". Well, in the universe we find ourselves in, that is impossible because when Baby humans are created, they lack the capacity for such qualities. So the next question is "Why not make the universe differently, so that it is possible?" And the answer to that is perhaps such a universe is not logically cohesive. I certainly cannot show that it is not and I doubt that I could show that it is. Another possible answer is that it is possible but this way is preferable to God. Perhaps the "journey" is very important. Of course, that is a hard one to swallow because sometimes the "journey" really is miserable. On the other hand, I have never lived in a world without suffering, so maybe it is not that great. Then again... heaven is supposed to be without suffering...

See... I don't need any help to have an argument. I can do it all by myself! :)

In all seriousness, I think the only satisfying answers are:

1) A universe with beings such as ourselves and which is free of suffering is not logically possible, like a square triangle (or the FSM, curse his marinara saturated noodles!) On a side note, did you catch that Kirk Cameron & Ray Comfort vs The rational reaction squad debate? The FSM made a cameo there, I think.

2) God is not limitless in his creative abilities. Maybe God "ran out" of power after creating this universe and cannot fix these things as easily as we might like, or something along those lines.

I recognize that these are probably not satisfying in that they suddenly fill you with the compulsion to become a theist or Christian, but they are logically cohesive answers which (I think) are free of contrivances.

Cheers,

Matt

Hi Greta Christina,

I'm sorry, jk, but you're very much mistaken about this. I've recently been in a debate about hell with a liberal Christian, and I went through the Gospels to find the places where Jesus talks about hell, damnation, eternal fire, etc. They're quite extensive. The list is here (sorry for the self-linkage, everyone, but it really is relevant).

This seems to be a common belief among many Christians: the idea that the Bible doesn't talk about Hell, or doesn't describe it as a place of fire and torture, or doesn't do so extensively enough for it to be significant. At least, I've been running into it a lot lately. But I really don't know where it comes from. At the risk of sounding snarky, it does seem as if atheists and other non-believers are often more familiar with the history of religion and the details of religious teachings than the believers themselves are.

I think that JK may have focused on the *eternal* aspect of the punishment of Hell. I think there are few christians who think that there is *no* punishment, but there is a diversity regarding what that punishment is. One of the key differences is whether the "damned" suffer eternally or suffer for some time and then are destroyed. There are several logical reasons derived from scripture which support the concept of destruction. There are also reasonable exegetical (def. of or having to do with interpreting the bible) reasons to hold this belief.

As a matter of fact, of the arguments I have heard, the best ones have been in favor of the idea of annihilationism, the idea that the damned are sent to hell where there punishment is destruction. If you are interested, I can dredge up some links for you.

Cheers,

Matt

"I think that JK may have focused on the *eternal* aspect of the punishment of Hell. I think there are few christians who think that there is *no* punishment, but there is a diversity regarding what that punishment is. One of the key differences is whether the "damned" suffer eternally or suffer for some time and then are destroyed."

You could be right; that may well be what he meant. But Jesus's words in the Gospels do still talk about "eternal fire," "eternal punishment," and "eternal sin." It's less frequent than the general references to hell and burning, but it does show up more than once. (And I haven't even looked at Paul -- I was just sticking with Jesus's words in the Gospels.)

There may be better arguments for "hell as destruction" or "temporary hell followed by destruction" (and sure, I'd be curious to see them!)... but it's still just not the case that there's no biblical teachings about eternal damnation. If it's internally contradictory... well, surprise, surprise.

"God doesn't want more autobots, but only chooses to associate with those who's opinions do not differ from his wishes."

I'm just now tracking on this, and am giggling. It's like God is a CEO who says he doesn't want to be surrounded by yes-men, but fires anyone who disagrees with him. (And in this case I mean "fires" literally.)

Hi Matt,

If I were to venture a guess as to the reason why God could do this I would say that perhaps God wishes that people learn to deal with temptation and aversity and learn lessons from it. Regarding those who fall into Satan's deception I would say, under this answer, that they did not meet standard.

I'd like to point something out: Your position here implies that Satan is God's agent - that he did not rebel of his own free will, but rather, God deliberately set him up to fall so that he could be the agent of temptation. And furthermore, if some humans didn't meet the standard necessary to withstand that temptation, then who could be responsible for that other than God? Why wouldn't he just create us all so we could withstand temptation? It seems to me your position leads straight to Calvinism.

Not a very nice "omnibenevolent" type of God, but who on earth reads the Bible and thinks "now there's a softie!". Not me.

I'd venture to say that most atheists would agree with you there, and that that is in large part the reason why many of us are atheists.

Hi Greta,

Here is the link to a debate where I found the arguments I found interesting:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=95317

but it's still just not the case that there's no biblical teachings about eternal damnation.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably selling something! :)

Cheers,

Matt

Mrnaglfar--

The Mormons hold a belief that may sound less retarded. The belief is that we were in fact angels before we were born as humans and knowingly accepted this test. By passing this test, we will be on the road to godhood ourselves. By resisting Satan and the trials of temptation offered in this life, we will become gods.

With this belief, at least the old saying of 'you asked for it, you got it' would be applicable. In fact, this is the only belief that makes sense at all to me as religious basis for our existance. I am not saying that it is true, but if it were, then at least we all knew what the hell we were getting into and can blame no one but ourselves for our greed to become a god.

We could have been happy go lucky singing hymnals in heaven, but instead we are down here in a material world with spiritual beings dead set on preventing our godhood.

We should have taken the other pill...

Hi Ebonmuse,

Good to speak with you again! I hope all is well.

I'd like to point something out: Your position here implies that Satan is God's agent - that he did not rebel of his own free will, but rather, God deliberately set him up to fall so that he could be the agent of temptation.

If God created Satan with the intent that he would rebel and provide a means for trying the souls of mankind, then it was a setup. If God created Satan with another intent, and there is such thing as "free will", then it was not a set-up. It is within the realm of possibility that God did not set-up Satan but decided to let him roam free after the rebellion because God saw that it affords people the opportunity to develop character traits he values.

And furthermore, if some humans didn't meet the standard necessary to withstand that temptation, then who could be responsible for that other than God?

That all depends on the nature of humans. If humans really are nothing more than a sum of their genes and environments and they have no ability to control their own destiny then I think it is reasonable to hold God responsible. If, however, people can actually change their destiny and identity through choices, then I think it is reasonable to hold the people accountable.

Why wouldn't he just create us all so we could withstand temptation?

It may be logically contradictory, or it may not be a suitable process to achieve God's ends (whatever those may be). Maybe God thinks that is boring; of course it is not very nice at all to get kicks at the eternal expense of another! :(

It seems to me your position leads straight to Calvinism.

A pox on me if it does! Of course, the ideas espoused by Calvin and company are within the realm of possibility...

I'd venture to say that most atheists would agree with you there, and that that is in large part the reason why many of us are atheists.

I must say I am shocked! I would not expect that the reason that many people believe God does not exist is because they think he is mean. Certainly you must be referring to the contradictions between what the Bible teaches and what popular Christianity seems to espouse about God. Am I correct, or have I misunderstood?

Cheers,

Matt

Jeff

The Mormons hold a belief that may sound less retarded. The belief is that we were in fact angels before we were born as humans and knowingly accepted this test. By passing this test, we will be on the road to godhood ourselves. By resisting Satan and the trials of temptation offered in this life, we will become gods.

So just so we're on the same page, which part of that is more rational?

Matt,

If God created Satan with another intent, and there is such thing as "free will", then it was not a set-up.

If god knows all, there cannot be free will. If there is free will, we get punished for using it and god only ends up associating who those who do as he says, making it kind of pointless no?

If, however, people can actually change their destiny and identity through choices, then I think it is reasonable to hold the people accountable.

If people are capable of changing, they can be to a degree, held responsible. But under that logic, god is still far more responsible for creating them the way they are, and the world the way it is, and having his whole 'divine plan'. Think of the Saw movies; same basic idea.

Maybe God thinks that is boring

Maybe god doesn't exist. Seems a little more plausible. Or maybe it's the wrong god, which of the thousands are we talking about?

I would not expect that the reason that many people believe God does not exist is because they think he is mean.

There is no empirical evidence for god, yours or otherwise. Period. None. That's a good reason to not put faith in something.

HI Mrnaglfar,

Good to speak with you again.

If god knows all, there cannot be free will.

I disagree. I think that knowing the future is different than manipulating the future. Now, if God knows the future because God manipulates it to suit what he "knows" is going to happen, then free will is negated, however this is not foreknowledge as much as it is a "set-up". I think that the nature of God's hypothetical "foreknowledge" is such that God can know the future without necessarily working to bring it about. That is to say, hypothetically, God can know what you are going to write in response to this post of mine without influencing your decision in any way. Such is the nature of foreknowledge, I think.

If there is free will, we get punished for using it and god only ends up associating who those who do as he says, making it kind of pointless no?

It is only pointless if one thinks about free will only in terms of accepting God versus rejecting God. It is possible that there are other aspects of free will which reccomend it to God and the ability to choose "evil" is simply an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence. It is possible that God's plan was not to have to have this choice between good and evil and it is a byproduct of seeking some other aim.

If people are capable of changing, they can be to a degree, held responsible. But under that logic, god is still far more responsible for creating them the way they are, and the world the way it is, and having his whole 'divine plan'. Think of the Saw movies; same basic idea.

I am confused because in the first part of your statement you seem to acknowledge that humans can be held responsible if they have control over who they are, then in the second part you still want to hold God responsible despite the fact that you have acknowledged, hypothetically, that humans are the ones responsible for their destiny. Are you trying to propose a third option in which humans are marginally responsible for who they are but mostly are destined, due to their makeup, to mostly be a certain way?

If the latter is the case, then I think that the *amount* of change or decision that God "requires" also must be considered. For example, if humans are only responsible for, say, 10% of who they are and God only requires a standard that involves a 5% change or independent choice, then I think that God has set a reasonable standard and a human can still be held responsible. Or another way of saying the same thing:

Suppose God's "requirement" is that someone recieve a score of 50 on a 100 point examnination. Let us suppose that people due to their own control of their destiny, have the ability, apart from what God has granted them naturally in their biological makeup, are able to achieve that score, then it is fair to hold them (us actually) accountable for failure.

Maybe god doesn't exist. Seems a little more plausible. Or maybe it's the wrong god, which of the thousands are we talking about?

Why do you say things like this? Surely you must know that I recognize your atheism and that you feel this way. It is implicit in all of your posts. The reason I ask is because little comments like that come across as though they were meant to be flippant or inflammatory. If you really think that I had not thought of the idea that God does not exist, then I withdrawl my statement, but if you were just throwing out a little jab there, I want you to know that those sort of statements do not foster a pleasent intellectual climate. To put it in perspecitve, I am sure that you do not like it when Christians come here with their own "cheap shots" such as "you are only atheist because you want to be immoral" or "you really know there is a God, you just want to rebel against him". I know those comments are probably very irritating and I try my best to be sensitive. I respectully request that you do the same.

There is no empirical evidence for god, yours or otherwise. Period. None. That's a good reason to not put faith in something.

Those are the reasons which I am more used to hearing. I think that if you feel there is insufficient evidence to believe in God, it is your perrogative as a choosing person to not believe in God.

Cheers,

Matt

Hello Matt R (Why do I feel compelled to include the R?)

My only contention or need for clarification for my own understanding of the above is the part about freewill and god's foreknowlege.

God can know what you are going to write in response to this post of mine without influencing your decision in any way. Such is the nature of foreknowledge, I think.

The question is HOW does god know what I will do? It seems that any way he has of knowing leads directly to my actions being predictable, moreover, 100% predictable. If our actions are 100% predictable by god (or anyone) then we are not free, we are very complex systems, but not free. Even god's being outside of spacetime can't overcome the problem that our actions are already set in stone in some future. Without freewill, we are left with Calvinism. I know you don't like that idea from your comment above. But, that idea does have some pretty strong biblical support.

Oh, btw, I am an atheist...you know, just in case you didn't realize it ;)

Hey Polly,

I hope things are well with you, and I did know that you are on the "A-Team". :)

Without freewill, we are left with Calvinism. I know you don't like that idea from your comment above. But, that idea does have some pretty strong biblical support.

As far as I know, most Christian scholars hold to reformed theology and therefore there are probably quite good arguments to be made for the postition from scripture. I have found them unconvincing so far, but I am still young....

The question is HOW does god know what I will do? It seems that any way he has of knowing leads directly to my actions being predictable, moreover, 100% predictable. If our actions are 100% predictable by god (or anyone) then we are not free, we are very complex systems, but not free. Even god's being outside of spacetime can't overcome the problem that our actions are already set in stone in some future. Without freewill, we are left with Calvinism. I know you don't like that idea from your comment above. But, that idea does have some pretty strong biblical support.

Assumptions:

1) God can only foreknow 100% that which is 100% predictable
2) 100% predictablility is incompatible with free choice
3) Actions being "set in stone" in some future precludes free choice

I think that the first assumption is valid because by definition that which has been predicted is predictable. It is important to recognize this as the definition of "predictable" and separate it with the connotation of "deterministic" which the word "predictable" sometimes is tagged with in discussions such as these. So, while something may be predictable, it may or may not be deterministic. Those words speak to two qualitatively different characteristics of a thing.

Assumption two is the crux of the matter, I think. If one already thinks that free will does not exist, then there is no way to show that foreknowledge does not preclude free will (obviously), but if one does believe that there is such thing as free will, then I think it may be possible to imagine scenarios in which something is predictable yet free.

Let us suppose that I know a man who always takes the same way home from work always has always will. He always approaches his house from the north side of the block. There are routes to take him on an approach from the south side of the block, but he always chooses to take the north approach. Suppose I observe him every day for five years and note this trend, and start to make bets on it. Suppose for the next 20 years until the man retires, I successfully predict his route (and make lots of cash in the process). I have achieved 100% accuracy and his behavior was 100% predictable. But since there were other choices, other approaches to his house, could it truly be said that he lacked a choice in the matter. I think it would be more accurate to say that he freely chose the same thing every time.

You may say that my "predicting" was different than God's "foreknowledge" but I will remind you that your argument was that "If our actions are 100% predictable...then we are not free". There is nothing logically contradictory about my scenario and it is possible. By definition, the man was 100% predictable because I was never wrong in my prediction, yet he had another choice regarding which way to go home.

It is also possible that if God is outside of time (whatever that means) that he has the ability to "fast forward things" to look ahead, then put them back where they started and let things go on as they will. In this way, God is not creating a concrete future from which we cannot swerve, just causing reality to play out as it will, with all the free choices being made, then rewinding things so that we can experience them. Presumably since time is being altered, we would have no perception of the whole process.

Regarding assumption three, it is important to note that there is only one course of action which a person will eventually take. In a way, our future is in stone since there is only one future for us. This does not preclude our free will. To put it another way, the fact that we can only make one choice from a number of options does not mean that those options did not exist, it just means that it is only logically possible to choose one.

It is also possible that God derives his foreknowledge from the fact that reality has already happened for him. It is possible that from his extra-temporal perspective, he has already seen the free choices we will make and therefore knows them.

I w

Hello Matt R,

You may say that my "predicting" was different than God's "foreknowledge" but I will remind you that your argument was that "If our actions are 100% predictable…then we are not free". There is nothing logically contradictory about my scenario and it is possible. By definition, the man was 100% predictable because I was never wrong in my prediction, yet he had another choice regarding which way to go home.

But, it is different in that you have the possibility of being wrong or those people betting you are being swindled. (You wouldn't swindle people would you? No, of course not) Though you've been proven right so far, you cannot be 100% sure, looking forward that you will always be right. God makes claims about the eternal future and claims to know for sure (100%). The only way he could, is if there is no other option, either by a limitation of options or a limitation in our ability to choose differently. So, I thing it is, and must be, different for god.

It is also possible that if God is outside of time (whatever that means) that he has the ability to "fast forward things" to look ahead, then put them back where they started and let things go on as they will. In this way, God is not creating a concrete future from which we cannot swerve, just causing reality to play out as it will, with all the free choices being made, then rewinding things so that we can experience them.

But, if we have freewill the second time around, it should be possible that we'd choose differently so that the it's not a perfect replay. Even if we do everything exactly the same (which I think is unlikely) god still shouldn't be able to predict the results with 100% certainty the next time around because each "replay" is unique. Even while "fastforwarding" the first time, we had to be aware and choose. I don't think you can have a "dry run."

(I'm not 100% sure I believe in freewill; but, I like to think I'm free.)

Hi Polly,

But, if we have freewill the second time around, it should be possible that we'd choose differently so that the it's not a perfect replay. Even if we do everything exactly the same (which I think is unlikely) god still shouldn't be able to predict the results with 100% certainty the next time around because each "replay" is unique. Even while "fastforwarding" the first time, we had to be aware and choose. I don't think you can have a "dry run."

I am not suggesting that God has lots of "different runs" of reality, but that there is only one reality that happens and God can affect time's effect on that reality. There is only one "run" of reality which God can move through freely temporally.

Cheers,

Matt

Free will does not exist with an omni-everything god. I know that Matt R doesn't hold to an omni-everything god, so the question becomes whether god knew the future when he created this universe. I suppose that in terms of free will, if god knew all that would happen at the time of creation, then Polly is correct and we live in a deterministic universe.

Since this is supposed to be about Satan, if god truly lets Satan roam free, but already knows our choices, then it is superfluous to let Satan run free and tempt us. Worse than that, if Satan tempts me into killing someone else, then that person has just become an innocent bystander in something that god foreknew would happen and set in motion. god becomes a muderer in this situation. In short, this god is not worthy of worship.

"So, while something may be predictable, it may or may not be deterministic. Those words speak to two qualitatively different characteristics of a thing."

In natural systems, very small divergences in initial conditions are known to produce large differences in outcomes, as time goes by. If God allows any sort of true non-determinism to enter the system, it is incongruous with his having a detailed "Plan" which he has defined must come true.

In your example, an omniscient God would also need to know beforehand that the man *would* choose the north route to begin with. You didn't predict that. Let's say that if the guy walks the north route every day, he stays out of trouble. If the guy goes the south route every day, he walks past a schoolyard and develops some disturbing pedophiliac fantasies that he nurtures for those long years. Again he has to choose freely if he will act on them, but let's say that he is an impressionable guy and has a 50% chance of doing something nasty if he is allowed to walk that south route for all of 25 years.

And how would Satan feature in this example? Is he allowed to put up a "free beer" sign to trick the man into walking the south route more often?

"It is also possible that if God is outside of time (whatever that means) that he has the ability to "fast forward things" to look ahead, then put them back where they started and let things go on as they will."

Ie. God not only condones all suffering in the world, he has checked it out beforehand and "seen that it is good". How is this benevolent again?

Matt R,

There is only one "run" of reality

I may have misunderstood your first example. When you say "fastforward" to look ahead and "rewind" back. It sounds like god can look at the universe like a video tape, watch the ending, and then go back to the beginning knowing what's going to happen. Is my understanding of what you're saying correct? I highlighted the relevant parts of your response below.

...he has the ability to "fast forward things" to look ahead, then put them back where they started and let things go on as they will. In this way, God is not creating a concrete future from which we cannot swerve, just causing reality to play out as it will, with all the free choices being made, then rewinding things

N-Joy,
Polly

Matt R

I just noticed you've got a few posts directed at you. Sorry to pile on. No pressure, here. I realize I butted into an ongoing exchange.

Polly, windy, OMGF,

Hello, this conversation is good but I sadly have to take an internet hiatus for some time. I am sure all interest in this will have blown over by my return, but I have said fundamentally all I have to say about the matter. If you still disagree with me after what I have posted, it is unlikely that anything else I say will change your mind.

Cheers,

Matt

Strike that last comment. The hiatus has been avoided.

OMGF,

Since this is supposed to be about Satan, if god truly lets Satan roam free, but already knows our choices, then it is superfluous to let Satan run free and tempt us.

It is possible that the temptation is not to satiate God's curiosity but to bring about changes in people which God values and which are not possible otherwise. If this is the case then God's foreknowledge is irrelevant.

Cheers,

Matt

What changes would those be that can not be obtained without the collateral damage?

Hi Windy,

In natural systems, very small divergences in initial conditions are known to produce large differences in outcomes, as time goes by. If God allows any sort of true non-determinism to enter the system, it is incongruous with his having a detailed "Plan" which he has defined must come true.

This may or may not be true. It would be interesting to think about, however it has little bearing on how God's postulated foreknowledge effects free will. Keep in mind that I am not investigating the reconciliation of "God's predetermined plan" and free will, but "God's foreknowledge" and free will.

In your example, an omniscient God would also need to know beforehand that the man *would* choose the north route to begin with. You didn't predict that.

To the contrary, in my little scenario, I *did* predict that, with 100% accuracy. In fact that was the whole point of the story, to show that something can be predicted without becoming deterministic. Please be careful to note the specificity of this specific argument. It was designed to counter Polly's claim that something cannot be 100% predictable and without being deterministic.

And how would Satan feature in this example? Is he allowed to put up a "free beer" sign to trick the man into walking the south route more often?

IF there is such a being, then it is allowed to do worse than this, by my observation.

Ie. God not only condones all suffering in the world, he has checked it out beforehand and "seen that it is good". How is this benevolent again?

You covered quite a few things in your paragraph there. You even managed to put in a plug for the POE. Although I am comfortable discussing a wide variety of theological paradoxes, and indeed enjoy it, I find that it is more orderly and coherent to do so one at a time. If you place too many divergent arguments in one response, we will mire down quickly.

Cheers,

Matt

Hi OMGF,

What changes would those be that can not be obtained without the collateral damage?

Overcoming moral temptation seems to produce many positive character traits. To name two, I think it produces moral resolve and moral self-control.

Whether these things can be produced wihtout "collateral damage" depends on two things: whether God is omnipotent, and if God is omnipotent, whether it is logically possible to produce these traits in people by divine fiat. If God is omnipotent, and it is possible to produce these traits in people by divine fiat then it may be possible to make these changes without collateral damage.

It is also imporant to note that humans also seem to produce collateral damage all by themselves, but presumably Satan would entice more of this to happen, so it is significantly different.

Cheers,

Matt

Polly,

I may have misunderstood your first example. When you say "fastforward" to look ahead and "rewind" back. It sounds like god can look at the universe like a video tape, watch the ending, and then go back to the beginning knowing what's going to happen. Is my understanding of what you're saying correct? I highlighted the relevant parts of your response below.

Sort of... except that the video does not have a script and it writes itsself as it goes.

Another possibility which would afford and Omnimax God foreknowledge even in the case of free will is that such a God would know exactly what it would be like to be each individual and would therefore know what each individual would freely do as it progresses through life. In this manner, God could produce a "video" of how things will play out in his mind and simply look ahead. In this case, God would not need to alter time to see the future.

Cheers,

Matt

Matt R,

Overcoming moral temptation seems to produce many positive character traits. To name two, I think it produces moral resolve and moral self-control.

Do the victims in a bombing brought on by Satan have increased moral resolve and self-control? god seems rather callous.

To the contrary, in my little scenario, I *did* predict that, with 100% accuracy.

What Windy was saying is that god would have to predict that this man would take the North route the very first time, not after being able to observe the man for years taking the North route. I don't think you've answered the objection. Your answer to Polly touches on this more closely, although there is a debate as to whether we freely choose things when Satan tempts us with lies.

Matt wrote:

Keep in mind that I am not investigating the reconciliation of "God's predetermined plan" and free will, but "God's foreknowledge" and free will.

and

You covered quite a few things in your paragraph there. You even managed to put in a plug for the POE. Although I am comfortable discussing a wide variety of theological paradoxes, and indeed enjoy it, I find that it is more orderly and coherent to do so one at a time.

I think these issues are intertwined. If the only possible effect of "free will" would be introducing a little variety in our daily lives, it would hardly be a problem of such philosophical and theological interest.

Please be careful to note the specificity of this specific argument. It was designed to counter Polly's claim that something cannot be 100% predictable and without being deterministic.

I noticed that, but I think that you were only able to predict the man's movements due to being lucky in your choice of person to observe. For every man that does things exactly the same way every day for 25 years, there are hundreds who don't.

If you throw a thousand dice at the same time and rethrow only the ones that come up sixes, you will eventually end up with a die that has produced a very impressive number of sixes in a row. You could say that you had "predicted" this die would come up all sixes, without it being pre-determined, but you can only do this by conveniently forgetting all those other dice.

Thanks for continuing the discussion anyway!

I'm back from the weekend

Matt,

I think that knowing the future is different than manipulating the future

If one knows the future, one is incapable of manipulating it; the two ideas cannot work hand in hand. If you know the future, and it gets changed, then you don't really know the future. It's something along the lines of the "can god create a rock so large he cannot lift it idea?". If God is all powerful, is he all powerful enough to change his mind (provided he knows the future, along with his own future)? If he could change his mind, he doesn't know all, if he cannot change his mind, he is not all powerful.

It is possible that there are other aspects of free will which reccomend it to God and the ability to choose "evil" is simply an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence.

I suppose there are circumstances under which this, or anything else, could be possible, but there's a danger in that people can start inventing any possible scenerio they feel like in order to make their point seem more true. It's why I added that bit at the end that seemed like a jab to you; without needing evidence to support a belief, there's no end to what one can make up in order to justify that belief. Evil could be a byproduct of some other aim a possible god could have, but the possibility also exists that god would just want to torture people because he's a sadist, or we're worshiping the wrong god or the right god in the wrong way. Homosexuality could be the cause or not enough homosexuality could be the cause. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Are you trying to propose a third option in which humans are marginally responsible for who they are but mostly are destined, due to their makeup, to mostly be a certain way?

Mhmm.

If the latter is the case, then I think that the *amount* of change or decision that God "requires" also must be considered.

But what amount does god require? What areas does that amount lie in? Why would god create those bad things if they would displease him? The only way a religious mind could begin to answer those questions is to consult their holy book. But this leads to another problem, which book is to be consulted and which parts of it? If the bible was consulted as the actual authority on all matters like this, anyone working on Sunday should be killed. If you don't believe that's right, either a) You're morally flawed according to the religion or b) You cannot take the book literally at all. I say that last part because once you stop accepting the bible, or whatever, as the literal word of god then it comes down to the arbitrary questions of which parts can we take literally? Which parts are figurative, and what are they supposed to mean? etc etc.

OMGF,

Do the victims in a bombing brought on by Satan have increased moral resolve and self-control? god seems rather callous.

The victims of a bombing, being dead, would not reap any benefit in this life that I can think of, and you are correct in your observation that God seems rather callous. Based on my experience in life, things do seem rather callous. There is the idea in some circles that God has in mind when each person's "time" is to come, so one may argue that if someone is a victim of a bombing, then it was part of God's plan. This may be the case, but I do not think that I can defend this idea effectively. Certainly not now since I am not sure that I can accept the idea that God has everything already planned to occur how God wants it.

What Windy was saying is that god would have to predict that this man would take the North route the very first time, not after being able to observe the man for years taking the North route. I don't think you've answered the objection. Your answer to Polly touches on this more closely, although there is a debate as to whether we freely choose things when Satan tempts us with lies.

I am completely tracking on what Windy said and I recognize the qualitative difference between the "prediction" in the little story and "foreknowledge". The story was designed to show that something can be predictable without being deterministic. This point became important as a result of Polly's statement:

If our actions are 100% predictable by god (or anyone) then we are not free, we are very complex systems, but not free.

Polly seems to be saying that if actions are 100% predictable, then they are not free. I was showing a hypothetical and logically possible scenario in which actions were 100% predictable and free. I will allow that maybe Polly was making a different point than the one I countered. It is possible.

Does that make my argument make more sense?

Cheers,

Matt

Hi Windy,

You are absolutely correct that those other issues are very interesting and important. They are very interesting and some of my favorite to discuss. Perhaps I overstepped the bounds of civility with my little "lecture". It is just hard for me to know what to do with a POE argument in the middle of a free will discussion. I suppose just not addressing it would be fine. Apologies if my post was offensive.

I noticed that, but I think that you were only able to predict the man's movements due to being lucky in your choice of person to observe. For every man that does things exactly the same way every day for 25 years, there are hundreds who don't.

You are right that as a person, lacking "foreknowledge" the type of predicting I do is different than the type of predicting that a foreknowing God would do. I feel like I addressed the sort of foreknowledge that God has in later responses to Polly. My little example was more of a rhetorical "appetizer" to show how something can be predictable and still involve free will.

I am not sure that it matters "how" someone predicts something in this argument. What do you think?

Cheers,

Matt

Mrnaglfar,

If one knows the future, one is incapable of manipulating it; the two ideas cannot work hand in hand. If you know the future, and it gets changed, then you don't really know the future.

I think that this hinges on how one characterizes the act of "knowing". If one characterizes it in the sense that God knows only one possible outcome of reality and if that does not happen, then he did not konw, then I think your argument works. However if one understands "knowing" to have more of a connotation in which God knows what will ensure from the result of any number of different outcomes in the present reality, then God would know not the future to come in light of contingencies.

For example a deterministic God would have to make X happen at juncture A in order for the only outcome He knows (a) to be real.

But maybe God sees it such that at Juncture A, if X happens then outcome (a) would be real, or if Y happens (b) would be real, and so forth.

The latter is a much richer form of foreknowledge and, I think, avoids determinism.

I suppose there are circumstances under which this, or anything else, could be possible, but there's a danger in that people can start inventing any possible scenerio they feel like in order to make their point seem more true. It's why I added that bit at the end that seemed like a jab to you; without needing evidence to support a belief, there's no end to what one can make up in order to justify that belief. Evil could be a byproduct of some other aim a possible god could have, but the possibility also exists that god would just want to torture people because he's a sadist, or we're worshiping the wrong god or the right god in the wrong way. Homosexuality could be the cause or not enough homosexuality could be the cause. Do you see what I'm getting at?

I got it. Sometimes I do not catch on to the more subtle things. I agree that in a search for actual facts, simply defining what is possible will not get us all the way there. Many topic, though, carry the "it isn't possible that x could happen...". I feel like this is one of those types of arguments in which Polly has said that free will is not possible if God has foreknowledge. To counter this argument, I do not feel that I have to show that free will or foreknowledge or even God actually exist, but only to show that they are logically compatible. That is why I am dealing with what is possible more than what actually is.

I recognize the difficulties there are in knowing whien it comes to the divine.

But what amount does god require? What areas does that amount lie in? Why would god create those bad things if they would displease him? The only way a religious mind could begin to answer those questions is to consult their holy book. But this leads to another problem, which book is to be consulted and which parts of it? If the bible was consulted as the actual authority on all matters like this, anyone working on Sunday should be killed. If you don't believe that's right, either a) You're morally flawed according to the religion or b) You cannot take the book literally at all. I say that last part because once you stop accepting the bible, or whatever, as the literal word of god then it comes down to the arbitrary questions of which parts can we take literally? Which parts are figurative, and what are they supposed to mean? etc etc.

Marvelous! Absolutely marvelous! Yes! This is exactly the case. As soon as one can no longer understand Scripture in a meaningful way, then they are adrift in a sea of metaphysical speculation. The question you have posed is exactly the one I am working through currently. I have a very hard time taking some parts of the Bible literally and I really am not sure how to handle the Bible right now.

So I do not have an answer for you except that the dilemma you have articulated is the same one which I encountered when I started having difficulty with the Bible.

One possible answer to the problem is that the fundamentalist literal reading of scripture has been forced on the Bible and is not correct. This solution focuses on understanding the intent of the author when writing. This works out for some of Genesis which may have originally been intended as myth, but runs into problems, IMO, in some of the history accounts where people certainly seem to be trying to convey objective truth.

So.... I don't have a good answer for you and I certainly am not inclined to act like it is not a dilemma.

Cheers,

Matt

Hello Matt,

I will allow that maybe Polly was making a different point than the one I countered. It is possible.

You got it right, that's the point I was making. But, I'm not convinced by the counterexample for the reason I mentioned above, i.e. that it's not truly 100% predictable by a human, but just a really safe guess.
Anyway, I think we're at an impasse. (And, I fear I may have added a layer of confusion to the discussion.) But, if you have anything else, I'll read it and think about it as I've been following everything (off and on)up til now.

N-joy,
Polly

Matt R,

Polly seems to be saying that if actions are 100% predictable, then they are not free. I was showing a hypothetical and logically possible scenario in which actions were 100% predictable and free.

I would counter that simply because you got it right doesn't mean that the man's actions were 100% predictable. Maybe he didn't come home from work any way on one day because he had to stay late, or he was sick so that he didn't go in. Did you take that into account? Not being able to predict when he got sick and didn't go in at all, would mean that you don't have 100% predictability. What if something had barred him from using the North route and forced him to use the South route against his will? Well, then your prediction would fail. That it didn't fail in this hypothetical doesn't mean that the man's actions are 100% predictable. IOW, I think you should be leary of making claims to 100% of anything.

I feel like this is one of those types of arguments in which Polly has said that free will is not possible if God has foreknowledge. To counter this argument, I do not feel that I have to show that free will or foreknowledge or even God actually exist, but only to show that they are logically compatible. That is why I am dealing with what is possible more than what actually is.

If god is omnipotent and omniscient, then free will is indeed impossible. The reason is because god knows all that will happen and knew it when he created the universe. If he did not like what would happen, he would have created it differently and we would be living in a different deterministic universe. He created this one, however, and our actions were set in stone.

The god that you describe as knowing eventualities is sort of bound by the dimension of time. god can predict what will happen if X happens and keep the string going until infinity I presume, but god can not know which one will actually happen? This doesn't seem to make sense to me, however, because if god can't know whether X or Y will happen at junction A, then god similary can't know that X1, X2, X3 will follow X. IOW, god has no predictive power, only the power to conjure up all the possible scenarios; he is unable to choose the correct scenario in your scheme.

Hi Polly,

I thought I posted another idea last night but it must not have made it from my computer to the website. I have two other possible processes by wish God could know for certain what everyone could do while preserving free will.

It is possible that God knows each individual as well as the individual knows him/herself. If that were the case, God would know exactly how the individual would behave in any given circumstance, thus allowing God to know what the person would do. Add this to the possibility that God knows all the other movements in the universe and God could presumably develop an understanding of what the future will hold.

I think that would preserve free will and foreknowledge.

Also, did you have any more comments of my analogy of the videotape? It also works if one imagines it as a computer program (analogy borrowed from Taner Edis in Ghost in the Universe). I do not think that the future has to be scripted for God to "fast forward" time then return it to the "start point" and let it continue.

Also, another way of looking at foreknowledge is through contingencies. Perhaps God sees the future as a myriad of possibilities which stem from our current choices. For example, God might know that if I do X then Y will result. This is different from the sort of "foreknowledge" which I think people usually think about, but I think it certainly can be called foreknowledge. I think that this view would also preserve free will.

You got it right, that's the point I was making. But, I'm not convinced by the counterexample for the reason I mentioned above, i.e. that it's not truly 100% predictable by a human, but just a really safe guess.

So if, in my example where I was never wrong, the action was still not trully 100% predictable, then how are you defining 100% predictable. If by *truly* predictable you actually mean "can only have one possible outcome" then by definition you have presented a logical impossibility.

I have some more ideas, but want to hear what you have to say about these first.

Cheers,

Matt

Hi Matt:

I can only respond to your last comment right now. I'll have to re-read and think about some of the other points, especially the "video tape" analogy.

So if, in my example where I was never wrong, the action was still not trully 100% predictable, then how are you defining 100% predictable. If by *truly* predictable you actually mean "can only have one possible outcome" then by definition you have presented a logical impossibility.

I think we do have differing ideas about predictability. An example:
When talking to a stock broker, every time you're shown a graph of the historic performance of a stock, there's a little blurb, "Past performance does not guarantee future results." This sums up nicely why I don't think the man is "truly" predictabe. It may be reasonable to infer, and you may have been right 100% in the past, but with respect to the future there is room for error. There has to be, or that indicates that something is lacking in this situation. I think that there is more than one choice, probably an infinite number of choices. So, prediction of the future cannot be 100% foolproof, because something different can always happen.
OTOH, if you're saying that god has already looked through the future to the end of time and has watched this poor sap do the same thing every day, so he has not only access to past data, but to the future data as well, then we can move the conversation onto your other points and consider how that information is obtained - through mechanistically predetermined futures, or some other means that allows for choice.

Hi Matt,

Also, did you have any more comments of my analogy of the videotape? It also works if one imagines it as a computer program (analogy borrowed from Taner Edis in Ghost in the Universe). I do not think that the future has to be scripted for God to "fast forward" time then return it to the "start point" and let it continue.

Each choice has to be a unique and unreproducible event, if it's to be free. Like identical twins, everything can be the same, but the individuality of the choice must be unique. That's not to say that the choice made must be different, only that it must have that possibility of being different. Without that possibility of a different outcome, then the choice, in my simplistic view, cannot be free. If a god can predict it with 100% certainty then, by (my) definition, it's not free. So, perhaps we should debate the merits of that criterion.

Re the program analogy: How would god fast forward without giving people the choice? How could he guarantee that those choices in his program are going to be the same as the "real" people. It's funny that you use a computer program as an analogy, because I think that's exactly the kind of environment it would have to be for god to know the future. And like a program, the variables will act according to the algorithms programmed into the computer.

Matt,

I think that this hinges on how one characterizes the act of "knowing". If one characterizes it in the sense that God knows only one possible outcome of reality and if that does not happen, then he did not konw, then I think your argument works. However if one understands "knowing" to have more of a connotation in which God knows what will ensure from the result of any number of different outcomes in the present reality, then God would know not the future to come in light of contingencies.

For example a deterministic God would have to make X happen at juncture A in order for the only outcome He knows (a) to be real.

But maybe God sees it such that at Juncture A, if X happens then outcome (a) would be real, or if Y happens (b) would be real, and so forth.

The latter is a much richer form of foreknowledge and, I think, avoids determinism.

Everyone else is kind of touching on this, but I will too. Either a god would be able to know the future or he wouldn't; there's no inbetween. Sure, the option exists that all possible outcomes could be known. Each choice of everything would effect the outcomes of all others, even slight alterations require an entire rewrite of what is now possible. So in that sense, a god could have a mental list of all the above options, but being that the list is so vast in size it could hardly be considered an all-knowing. A good example would be like me knowing all the clothing you have in your closet, and all conceivable ways new clothing could reach you, or be made and reach you, or any way at all you could have the option of wearing anything possible. That list would be able to tell me what combination of things you could possible wear the next day, but it would do me little good in predicting what you would actually wear. That's just being well informed, not all knowing.

Though here's another little thing for you to consider; does free will truly exist? More importantly, how could one tell the difference between free will and no free will? Maybe determinism just feels like free will; that free will is a helpful delusion. I've given the matter much thought, and as far as I've come up with, I see no reason free will need exist, much less how I could detect the difference between determinism or free will. I remember a paraphrase from a Richard Dawkins lecture, regarding a philosopher asking a common man why people used to assume the sun rotated around the earth and not the other way around. The answer was of course "because it just looks like the sun is moving", to which the reply was "how do you suppose it would have looked if the earth was rotating and the sun was not?". In the same way I could ask "how would the world seem if there was/wasn't free will?"

In short, I suppose what I'm trying to say is this; Even if there is a god who is not all knowing, how does that imply we have free will? Another possibility is that things are determined to happen as they are, yet even a god does not know the outcome. It's all just speculation into a near endless list of possibilities.

I was thinking some more about this, and it seems we all agree that if god has 100% predictability, then the universe is determined. All of us save Matt R of course. Perhaps a scientific example would work? Have you studied quantum mechanics? It's like a particle in a box. The particle could be in many various states, and god could figure out the possible states and the probabilities of each, but he won't know which state the particle is in until he opens the box. At that point, the probability function collapses into a single state. In order to have 100% predictability, god has to have already collapsed the possibilities into one, which implies determinism.

Back to the OP, the real reason god allows Satan to roam free is because every superhero needs a supervillian or else it just gets boring. Did anyone else here watch Frisky Dingo? It's like Xander Crews in the second episode needing a supervillian to fight in order to justify spending his money on being Awesome X.

Hi Polly,

I think we do have differing ideas about predictability. An example:
When talking to a stock broker, every time you're shown a graph of the historic performance of a stock, there's a little blurb, "Past performance does not guarantee future results." This sums up nicely why I don't think the man is "truly" predictabe. It may be reasonable to infer, and you may have been right 100% in the past, but with respect to the future there is room for error. There has to be, or that indicates that something is lacking in this situation. I think that there is more than one choice, probably an infinite number of choices. So, prediction of the future cannot be 100% foolproof, because something different can always happen.

No, we are on the same page here. I understand that fact that in my little scenario the method through which I gain the "ability" to "predict" is not foolproof. However, let us suppose that for all eternity I continued to predict the right behavior, even though there is a possibility that the man could behave contrary to my "prediction".

Also, let us consider another scenario. When I make up my mind to do something in the future, then go do it. I could tell my friend what I am going to do and be right about it. This does not make the system determinate, as I have other choices, however. It is possible for a person to be 100% correct concerning predictions about their own behavior without sacrificing free will (assuming it exists in the first place).

The best way for me to sum up my point in these examples is that it is not the fact that something has been predicted that has the potential to make it deterministic, but the *way* it has been "predicted". In my original example, I was 100% correct in my prediction, but no one said that it was deterministic because we all recognize that the man still had other options and I could be wrong. This shows that the act of prediction is not the problem.

The only objection mounted to my example was that no one thinks that this is *how* God predicts. So this shows that it is not actually the act of prediction, but the *method* of prediction which is crucial.

Regarding the "Video/Computer program" scenario:

I feel like the really crucial part of this explanation is to think of time as a continuous thread made of many different fibers woven together. Each object and event in our universe is an individual fiber and the fibers are woven together in a certain pattern depending on how the objects and events interact in our universe. Now, imagine that there is a thing called "universal heat". This universal heat is a force acting at a higher dimension, so it is not detectable to us in the universe as thermal heat, but it does act on the "time thread" in a peculiar way. If universal heat exceeds 0 degrees UHU (universal heat units) then time will proceed in the forward direction. If it drops below 0 degrees UHU, it will proceed in the backwards direction, unraveling as it goes. Time will also accelerate with increasing speed with increasing positive values of UHU. Let us also suppose that God is outside of the thread watching as events unfold. God has the ability to control UHU to suit God's purposes.

Now, suppose there was a pastor alone on his deathbed and he were to ask God today what would happen to his family a year from now, God could increase the UHU accordingly see the state of the thread one year "downstream", then decrease UHU below 0, return to the spot where the question was asked, and answer the question correctly.

God has not meddled with the thread in the year that he went "downstream" so he did not impinge on any free will. The threads comprising the string interacted freely to constitue the string. A possible objection is that maybe when God goes back to the original point on the string and then lets it wind itself, it may wind itself differently. I do not think there is any way to substantiate that claim other than by making an assumption that it must be that way for a will to be free, but that is circular. But, even if that claim were valid, the scenario still works. It is possible that once the string is woven, it cannot be unwoven. If this is the case then God could know the future and even communicate that knowledge to people, but events would then work out so that the knowledge of the future could not change the future. This would make the "second run" deterministic. This is fine, though, because the "first run" had free will.

Cheers,

Matt

Mrnaglfar,

Everyone else is kind of touching on this, but I will too. Either a god would be able to know the future or he wouldn't; there's no inbetween. Sure, the option exists that all possible outcomes could be known. Each choice of everything would effect the outcomes of all others, even slight alterations require an entire rewrite of what is now possible. So in that sense, a god could have a mental list of all the above options, but being that the list is so vast in size it could hardly be considered an all-knowing. A good example would be like me knowing all the clothing you have in your closet, and all conceivable ways new clothing could reach you, or be made and reach you, or any way at all you could have the option of wearing anything possible. That list would be able to tell me what combination of things you could possible wear the next day, but it would do me little good in predicting what you would actually wear. That's just being well informed, not all knowing.

As I said, it is a different way of looking at it.

In the same way I could ask "how would the world seem if there was/wasn't free will?"

The only way to know that is to know *if* we do have free will or not and then go from there, otherwise any answer is just speculation. I will say, though, that it is possible that free will and no free will would look the same to the being possessing the free or deterministic will.

n short, I suppose what I'm trying to say is this; Even if there is a god who is not all knowing, how does that imply we have free will?

It does not. As a matter of fact, when I started this thing I noted that this is only relevant if free will actually exists.

It's all just speculation into a near endless list of possibilities.

Sort of. We can eliminate the ones that are logically impossible. Outside of the logically impossible possibilities, it is probably just speculation. Of course, I am just speculating...:)

Cheers,

Matt

Matt,

No, we are on the same page here. I understand that fact that in my little scenario the method through which I gain the "ability" to "predict" is not foolproof. However, let us suppose that for all eternity I continued to predict the right behavior, even though there is a possibility that the man could behave contrary to my "prediction".

But, if you could be wrong, then you don't have 100% prediction powers.

Also, let us consider another scenario. When I make up my mind to do something in the future, then go do it. I could tell my friend what I am going to do and be right about it. This does not make the system determinate, as I have other choices, however. It is possible for a person to be 100% correct concerning predictions about their own behavior without sacrificing free will (assuming it exists in the first place).

I'm sorry, but that is a determined situation. You are the one that had sway over the possibilities and you chose one and went with it. After your choice was already made, you related it to another. I don't see how that isn't determined.

In my original example, I was 100% correct in my prediction, but no one said that it was deterministic because we all recognize that the man still had other options and I could be wrong. This shows that the act of prediction is not the problem.

Being 100% correct about a prediction (or even a series of predictions) does not mean that you have the ability to be 100% correct at all times, nor does it mean that the situation was 100% predictable. If I guess the outcome of a coin flip 5 times in a row, does that mean that the situation was 100% predictable or that I was just right 100% of the time in that limited situation?

The only objection mounted to my example was that no one thinks that this is *how* God predicts. So this shows that it is not actually the act of prediction, but the *method* of prediction which is crucial.

That's not true at all. We've all protested against not just the way god predicts, but the fact that 100% predictive powers lead to a determined system. It is not possible to be 100% certain of anything unless it has already happened or is determined to happen.

Now, suppose there was a pastor alone on his deathbed and he were to ask God today what would happen to his family a year from now, God could increase the UHU accordingly see the state of the thread one year "downstream", then decrease UHU below 0, return to the spot where the question was asked, and answer the question correctly.

God has not meddled with the thread in the year that he went "downstream" so he did not impinge on any free will.

No, he has demonstrated that the universe is deterministic by doing this. He can not answer correctly if we have free will, because someone could choose to do something different from what he has foreseen.

If this is the case then God could know the future and even communicate that knowledge to people, but events would then work out so that the knowledge of the future could not change the future. This would make the "second run" deterministic. This is fine, though, because the "first run" had free will.

No, because for god to have foreknowledge he would have already had to run the string out to its end. Either that, or he does not have 100% foreknowledge of what we will say/do/think, etc.

Sort of. We can eliminate the ones that are logically impossible. Outside of the logically impossible possibilities, it is probably just speculation. Of course, I am just speculating…:)

Good, let's do so. It is logically impossible for god to have 100% foreknowledge without this universe being deterministic. In order for god to have 100% foreknowledge, everything had to have already happened, thus we are living out a pre-determined script. If we truly have free will, then we can deviate from the script, which would mean god does not have 100% predictive powers. There is no way out of this logical conundrum. If you assert that the "first run" happened with free will, then god does not have 100% predictive powers, because he does not predict anything, he relates what he has already seen.

OMGF,

But, if you could be wrong, then you don't have 100% prediction powers.

___________________________
Being 100% correct about a prediction (or even a series of predictions) does not mean that you have the ability to be 100% correct at all times, nor does it mean that the situation was 100% predictable. If I guess the outcome of a coin flip 5 times in a row, does that mean that the situation was 100% predictable or that I was just right 100% of the time in that limited situation?

Yes, that is correct. I also agree that If I was extremely lucky or intuitive and was never wrong about coin flipping in my entire life, then it would be hard to tell if I had predicted the flip or if I was just insanely "lucky". Regardless, if a happening is predicted this does not *necessarily* connote determinism.

I'm sorry, but that is a determined situation. You are the one that had sway over the possibilities and you chose one and went with it. After your choice was already made, you related it to another. I don't see how that isn't determined.

Clarification: I did not mean to suggest that there were two choices being made in this scenario, there is only one being made. Your comment made me think that you thought I was basing one choice on another. That is not what I intended to communicate. I also do not see how predicting what I will do tomorrow makes the action deterministic since I am the one using my (hypothetical) free will to decide what that action will be. This seems closer to the definition of choice than determinism. I think it would be deterministic if I only had one course of action and could not choose.

That's not true at all. We've all protested against not just the way god predicts, but the fact that 100% predictive powers lead to a determined system. It is not possible to be 100% certain of anything unless it has already happened or is determined to happen.

Well certainly you have protested that 100% predictability produces determinism, but that was not what was happening in the little scenario in which I predicted the actions of the man. No one thought that I had 100% predictability in that situation. This comment makes me think that I am not communicating here. If you like, we can dump the whole little analogy of me predicting the man's movement as it is not critical to the argument since we all agree that the quality of prediction in the scenario is different than the foreknowledge which God is popularly supposed to have.

In order for god to have 100% foreknowledge, everything had to have already happened, thus we are living out a pre-determined script.

Two questions:
1)Why?
2)Determined by who? And if the answer is God, why does it have to be God?

He can not answer correctly if we have free will, because someone could choose to do something different from what he has foreseen.

What makes you think that with an exact repeat of the same history, people *would* do anything differently, even if they could?

No, because for god to have foreknowledge he would have already had to run the string out to its end.

God did run the string to it's end.

Cheers,

Matt

Perhaps -- for the sake of argument -- a statement that resolves the seeming contradictions here might go something like, God does know in advance what will happen but has no need to make an effort at stab-in-the-dark prediction in order to know it in advance, having witnessed the whole process of events for her/himself already, a sequence in which free will did play a substantive role after all. How could s/he witness something yet to take place -- as far as we're concerned?

Well, a look at Heisenberg and Hawking can also be illuminating here. Heisenberg uncovers certain irregularities in the quantum world, as opposed to the cosmic sphere, that suggest a few rather startling conclusions, primarily leading to the supposition that, with space and time both being curved, time itself exists on two levels, linear time (the unfolding of past, present and future with which we're all famiuliar) and so-called imaginary time (Hawking adopts this term) for a dimension where past, present and future exist simultaneously.

Coupled with this supposition are Heisenberg's discoveries in quantum physics and particle behavior (and being a layman myself, I cannot duplicate the mathematical formulae that apparently lead to these conclusions) that, in addition, another supposition's possible that there are an additional nine or ten dimensions to the humble three-plus-time that earth's humanity knows already, and that there may even be alternate universes in which a whole array of alternate scenarios have already been played out through a multitude of contingencies. The random images of such alternate universes and of additional dimensions that emerge from Heisenberg's particle experiments have made a number of scientists, including Einstein, somewhat uneasy (Einstein's "God does not play dice with the universe", for instance). But Hawking and some others have presented persuasive arguments in Heisenberg's favor (with some viewing even the essential physical "playing out" of cyber science that posters experience every day merely by communicating with each other as a clincher in Heisenberg's favor).

Theoretically, with one hitherto unknown dimension (at least) affording access to past, pesent and future simultaneously, one could posit knowledge of future events, thanks to that access, even though, in the familiar linear time dimension, the future has not even been played out yet.

Cheers,

G Riggs

Granted, many a scientist today will remind us that some of the possible conclusions stemming from Heisenberg's experiments remain theoretical -- but hey, they're still fun!:-)

Cheers,

G Riggs

G Riggs,

You have articulated very well the concept of transcending time. I think my inability to adequately explain it has led the stalemate we are now currently encountering. If God exists in a higher dimension, then the concept of knowing the "future" could be analogous to a two dimensional being asking if a human could look "up".

Cheers,

Matt

My own personal take on this is (and I'm guessing that more traditional believers may not be too comfortable with this?) that God still can not guess which way a person may go in making a free choice; it's just that s/he knows each and every choice that person will make before any of us do in our own humble three dimensions plus linear time.

Cheers,

G Riggs

Matt R,

I also agree that If I was extremely lucky or intuitive and was never wrong about coin flipping in my entire life, then it would be hard to tell if I had predicted the flip or if I was just insanely "lucky". Regardless, if a happening is predicted this does not *necessarily* connote determinism.

I'm not arguing that a successful prediction means determinism. I'm arguing that a situation with chance for failure does. You do see the distinction, do you not?

That is not what I intended to communicate. I also do not see how predicting what I will do tomorrow makes the action deterministic since I am the one using my (hypothetical) free will to decide what that action will be. This seems closer to the definition of choice than determinism. I think it would be deterministic if I only had one course of action and could not choose.

If you choose to do A tomorrow and the "predict" that you will do A. You have indeed made a deterministic system if you do in fact do A with no alternative. Otherwise, it's the same situation as above. A correct prediction doesn't mean determinism, but a correct prediction with no chance of being wrong does.

No one thought that I had 100% predictability in that situation. This comment makes me think that I am not communicating here.

Yes, I made both arguments.

You did not have 100% predictability in that situation, and looking back and saying, "I predicted A, and A was right" doesn't mean that A had 100% predictability to begin with.

Two questions:
1)Why?
2)Determined by who? And if the answer is God, why does it have to be God?

For the reasons already listed quite a few times. You can not have 100% predictive powers unless the event has already happened or is determined to happen.
As to who determined it, I would say that god did in most theological discussions. The reason is because god created the universe. If the universe is deterministic, it is because it was created that way, and the creator is god.

What makes you think that with an exact repeat of the same history, people *would* do anything differently, even if they could?

I don't think they would do anything different, because it is all determined. In fact, they can't, because then god would be wrong.

My own personal take on this is (and I'm guessing that more traditional believers may not be too comfortable with this?) that God still can not guess which way a person may go in making a free choice; it's just that s/he knows each and every choice that person will make before any of us do in our own humble three dimensions plus linear time.

Then god does not have predictive powers. If god must sit around and watch time unfold as we make our choices, then god has the power to look through time, but not anything else. He can't predict our choices at all. He has foreknowledge only because he has pre-observed what has happened.

"[P]re-observed", precisely, OMGF -- in my opinion, granted -- and "[P]re-observed"'s a useful term, BTW. I imagine that -- as I've already said -- some believers might look askance at the notion that any guess that God makes in the absence of "pre-observing" would be strictly that: a guess and no more. But it's the only way that I can see that preserves the centrality of moral responsibility and free will. Essentially, God has no real way of knowing our future actions any more than our friends might, barring direct pre-observation, of course -- IMO.

Cheers,

G. Riggs

Here's an interesting suggestion as to why god would let satan roam free; Maybe god just doesn't give a shit. It would certainly explain a lot. Perhaps god isn't particularly concerned with people, doesn't care about every little detail in our lives or our futures. Perhaps he has more important matters to tend too and just doesn't give a shit.

Interesting discussion. It seems to me that, in holding my "soul" hostage, any god, even a non-omniscient god, has obviated every possibiility of free will. After all, surrendering one's money to a person threatening you with destruction is hardly a charitable donation.

Furthermore, to argue that evil exists for the sake of free will is to argue that free will is a higher good than goodness itself. To test this argument, you need only think of the parent who allows their three-year-old child to attempt to cross a busy street alone. When that child is killed, do we forgive the parent by citing free will? No. We prosecute, and rightfully so.

Not preventing an evil of which one possesses foreknowledge makes one party to -- and culpable for -- the evil.

Hi OMGF,

If you accept G. Rigg's explanation of the matter, then I am happy.

Cheers,

Matt

G. Riggs

Again, very good explanation.

Cheers,

Matt

G. Riggs,

"[P]re-observed", precisely, OMGF — in my opinion, granted — and "[P]re-observed"'s a useful term, BTW. I imagine that — as I've already said — some believers might look askance at the notion that any guess that God makes in the absence of "pre-observing" would be strictly that: a guess and no more. But it's the only way that I can see that preserves the centrality of moral responsibility and free will. Essentially, God has no real way of knowing our future actions any more than our friends might, barring direct pre-observation, of course — IMO.

The unfortunate stumbling block for this is something I talked about earlier though, and that involves how much power god has. If god only has enough power to start the universe on its course blindly and see what happens, then it's possible to have "free will" (although as Thump points out it's not really free if you are resigned to hell for not choosing as god suggests.) If god, however, had the ability to create the universe with foreknowledge and create the universe as he saw fit, then the scenarios were all played out before god did the act of creating (played out in his mind.) This would set us on an irreversible course (deterministic).

Matt R,
It comes down to how much power god has. If god is omniscient, then the universe is deterministic. If god is omnipotent, then the same holds. If god has no predictive powers, then it is not deterministic. If god has 100% predictive powers (can't be wrong) then it is deterministic.

Every believer will respond differently on this. I'm not sure if this scandalizes Matt:-), but personally I don't believe in a God that has total foreknowledge before creation. Nor do I believe in one who's omnipotent. I only believe in one who's omniscient -- and who spends a lot of time biting his finger nails nervously;-).

Cheers,

G Riggs

I don't believe in a God that has total foreknowledge before creation.... I only believe in one who's omniscient

Huh?

I know I'm coming back late. There've been lots of developments.

I'm going to play devil's advocate (so to speak) here:
Perhaps, such a god is merely "cocky." He's completely sure that whatever comes up he can handle it in such a way that it gets resolved to only one of two ways. So, no prediction, just omni-confidence.
Perhaps there's only a narrow band of choices that can be made and, as the functions of the choices approach eternity they only graph out to +infinity or -infinity. (Anyone care to nominate me for the "worst analogy using math" of the year award?)

I've been thinking about the idea of limited foreknowledge WITH absolute assurance about the future. Perhaps, the only way to reconcile this idea is to say that people are free but their choices are limited (by circumstance, brainpower, creativity, time, etc.) and those limitations invariably limit the sum of all choices to one of two destinations.

That's about as far as I can go toward reconciling an omnimax god and freewill. Kind of like the way, some people know the end of a chess game way before it's over from the average person's reckoning. There are only a finite set of options and none of them lead to victory for one player. In life, the players are free, but the game is fixed from the beginning - Like Pharoah, or Esau in Romans 9.
(Is it fair? HELL no.)

If someone were to ask me how I reconcile free will with MY view, which is materialism, I'd be hard-pressed. Adam's essay, "A Ghost in the Machine" has a pretty good argument, but I don't know. I'm still agnostic on the existence of freewill.
I don't think the uncertainty of quantum mechanics, bubbles up to human choice. The behavior of atoms and molecules are predictable by the usual laws of the macro universe.

Huh?

Hey, OMGF. No one ever said I was a traditional believer:-)

As usual, I'm awful here at explaining myself. It's just that I don't take any canon of any belief tradition literally. For me, there are a tiny, tiny handful of accounts from a number of adepts hailing from various different millennia and cultures who have experienced deity directly, and those accounts have been "handled" to death. Ultimately, the only things in deity that seem real to me now are the notion that s/he knows in advance what will happen (for reasons already given) and that s/he can inspire altruism. That's it. I don't see anything in the earliest source texts on the most countercultural adepts that convinces me that s/he is directly responsible for the day-to-day details of daily life, good or bad. In this respect, I guess I subscribe to the Deism of Lord Cherbury.

I'm afraid I can't put it any better than that. [shrug].

Cheers,

G Riggs

OMGF,

It comes down to how much power god has. If god is omniscient, then the universe is deterministic. If god is omnipotent, then the same holds. If god has no predictive powers, then it is not deterministic. If god has 100% predictive powers (can't be wrong) then it is deterministic.

First off, let me tell you something I probably should have told you at the beginning of our discussion. I think that God is probably not omnipotent. I am also agnostic regarding whether or not God actually does know the future. I am unconcerned regarding whether or not people *actually* have free will. I am inclined to think that there is some degree of choice humans have, but also recognize the possibility of a grand illusion. All this to say that this has been an academic and theoretical debate for me (and you since you don't believe in God at all!).

With that being said, I still do not see completely why omnipotence, omniscience, or foreknowledge necessarily entail determinism. This may be something that I am just not going to understand and I am okay with that, however if you feel like explaining it to me I will be interested to listen.

Cheers,

Matt

Hello Matt,

As far as why an absolute, detailed knowledge of everything that's going to happen is incompatible with true freewill, I'm out of explanations...for now. I tried to comprehend your superstring analogy. I confess that went right over my head. So, I did the next best thing and tried to come up with what I thought you were saying. What did you think of some of those other options I presented? Are those anything like what you were saying?

Yes, for me, also, this is not about whether a god exists or not. I knew already that your idea of god is not the "omnipotent" kind that most envision. So, yo