How can Free Will exist with Omnipotence?

The premise of God is Omnipotence and Omniscience. Meaning God is all powerful and all knowing.

In order for the definition of God to remain intact, Free Will must be an illusion. The premise of Free Will is null, God knows what we will do before we do it (Jeremiah 1:5).

In order for the definition of Free Will to remain intact, the idea of God must change to something that is not Omnipotent or Omniscience. The premise of God is null. God is not all powerful, trumped by the physical cognitive neural activity within a self-aware conscience brain.

How can Free Will exist with Omnipotence and Omniscience?

How can Omnipotence and Omniscience exist with Free Will?

 

Free will cannot coexist with omniscience. I explain why in the hell thread.

Free will can coexist with omnipotence, but when that omnipotence mandates a specific future (IE Revelation), it then invalidates free will.

 

Free will doesn't exist. I'm going to flap my arms and fly.

Nope, didn't work.

 

That's...not free will.

 

It's a limitation to free will. I can only do what the laws of physics will allow.

 

By extension, our thoughts and actions are governed by physics, because our minds are a product of our brains, and those too are subject to physical laws.

 

Exactly, otherwise right now I'd be solving the problem of combining quantum physics and relativity. I can't do that. Why? I guess my brain isn't wired the right way no matter how much free will I throw at the problem.

 

To answer the OP, that is a thin line...However, the fact that god knows what you will choose to do, does not mean he controls your choose.

The better question would be, how can your have free will, and god's plan at the same time? This is one of the biggest Christian contridictions. One one hand, you have the idea of free will, and that humans can choose how to live. Then, on the other hand, you have the idea that god has a divine plan that no one can go against and have no choose but to follow.

 

first. what is your daffynition of free will?

 

The ability to choose one's own fate is my personal definition.

 

There's an ant on my desk. I have no idea what it's going to do or even where it intends to go but, I do know I'll be able to see all its moves. I really don't feel like making that ant due my bidding. I could care less. Unless, of course, it gets it's buddies and want's to party on my desk upon which they will be rained down on by a death-wielding, putrid rain.

 

If something is fated then you can't stop it. That's not exactly free.

 

That's my point.

 

well in all fairness we must get the original posters definition. That's where he is now. Looking it up. cause he doesn't know what the h it means.

 

Hmmmmmmm.... you raise a good point. I assumed it was understood, however I should have been explicit in the point you raised here.

 

Good point, I had assumed that the two ideas would be considered as one. However, it appears I should have been more explicit.

 

Free will, the act on will freely.

However if when we do is already known, it is already determined, meaning that in the light of God free will is flase.

 

I'd say actions rather than fate; fate is the illusion of a set purpose, which is real only in the sense that something is set to happen - we, existing as we do, simply don't know what the future holds. This is where free will is revealed as illusory as well, though.. Because if we did know the future, we would simply be acting out a script of sorts. Instead, our part in the unfolding of universal events is one of limited knowledge. Thus, no matter what it is we will actually end up doing, from our own perspective we have free will, because we do not perceive the reasons for our choices, nor their future consequences.

In brief, we are as free as beings such as ourselves can be.

Whether we consider ourselves free is purely a matter of perspective, however.

 

Free will means evil wins.

 

do computers have free will?

no, and neither does the human brain, a purely biological computer.

 

That's why it's silly to pray. When a person prays he's saying that God's divine plans for him suck. If Jesus was God's son then he should have known how it was going to end. So why did he think that he could change the outcome by praying? In the end his prayers were for nothing.

 

Yep, that pretty much describe Yahweh...hovering up there not giving a crap until it's time to bring the pain!

 

I think there's a clear distinction between free thought and free will. There's no contradiction between free thought and omniscience other than most religions punish free thinkers. We're free to think what we want and that alone doesn't contradict God's agency, this is what I think is really being described in the one God holy books. Free will on the other hand suggests an agency and control over ones reality, which in religion is completely devalued by God's will and soul concepts. God's will trumps our own will, therefore, no actual free will. And if our eternal souls are to be punished for wrong doing in this material life, then again the free will doesn't exist because there is ultimately only God's will that has the agency.

I take a more materialist view on free will. The problem with free will isn't our will versus God's will, it's our will versus 7 billion other free wills (more if you want to include other species). Not that I completely buy the free will concept since evidence really seems to suggest that just about all of our decisions are determined. But just for the sake of the discussion.

 

free will is like a flat earth that is the center of the universe.

we humans feel better if we just make stuff up when we don't know the answer.

 

He doesn't have to. Omniscience is complete perfect knowledge. In other words, an omniscient being cannot be wrong - ever. So, if this being knows the outcome of all your actions, you can never do anything other than what it already knows you will do, otherwise it would have been wrong. The omniscient being is not actively controlling you or forcing you to do a specific thing, but because it already knows the outcome of said thing, it is impossible for you to do differently.

Technically, you've just made the exact same argument using different wording. However, I can see how this particular method of describing it could be more beneficial in explaining it to theists who refuse, or are unable, to grasp the argument.