How can Free Will exist with Omnipotence?

They aren't physically incapable of making another choice, they are free to make any choice they want. But stepping outside of time and looking forward allows you to see what choice they freely made before they make it. They still made it freely.

 

Easy answer: No. Mr. Omnipotence would have to shut his omnipotence off somehow for a given creature to have free will.

 

That says it all.

 

You are yet to demonstrate the ability to choose any color, as long as it is black, as a demonstration of free will.

 

Prior to the realization of omnipotence you can say that actions exist in a state of superposition, once omnipotence is realized that the "wave function" collapses into a definite state.

 

only because your limiting yourself to linear thought. They can choose any color it just happened to be they chose black, they can chose to pick any other color the fact that they didn't is besides the point.

 

They are unable to choose another color.

Just as how choice is an illusion if your life is predetermined.

I am done explaining this simple point again and again. If you are incapable of understanding the painfully obvious, they well have fun with you black car.

 

What about the omnipotence paradox? This is an age old argument. Is God omnipotent? Is it possible? Can God draw a square circle or create a stone so big He can't lift it? If God can do one He can't do the other and therefore can't be "omnipotent". The question seems to be can omnipotence even exist?

 

In one small matter I am as omnipotent as any god. I know for certain that I will never willingly buy the X-factor boxed set for myself. Do you think that means I am *UNABLE* to do so?

 

I believe I have free will. Though I am also an atheist.

 

Did you see the Sam Harris video that Wolverine posted ?

 

First, I agree with everything you've said.

Second, this post made me realize that although our discussion has mostly been about omniscience vs. free will (which would be the correct comparison), the thread title does actually reference omnipotence instead, which I hadn't noticed before. So while omniscience precludes the concept of free will, omnipotence by itself does not (although as pointed out, it has problems of its own).

However, this brings up an interesting contradiction. If there existed an omnipotent being, he should have the power to give himself omniscience. And as Ozymandias pointed out, the mere possibility of omniscience would preclude free will (I had previously left this concept out of the discussion in an attempt to keep it as simple as possible, as there were many already struggling to understand). In addition, the two existing in combination would cause another issue - how can a omnipotent being "choose" to do something contrary to his omniscient knowledge about himself?

I don't see how either omnipotence or omniscience are logically possible - they are both paradoxical.

 

I did not. I'll have to take a look later.

Is there something specific in it that you are alluding to?

 

The "past, present, and future" will only have one unchangeable outcome anyway so what difference does someone being able to watching it make ?

 

I'm suggesting that Sam Harris is right, that everything you perceive as 'choices' are really just 'illusions.' I have had this belief long before I knew who Sam Harris was though. He articulates his position on the matter better and more in depth than I do.

 

You did watch all three parts correct? Not that it matters but I posted the video and I wanted to make sure because I didn't post the videos seperately you have to click on the next part once it ends and the third one was hard to find the first time I went through it.

Wolverine is correct though you should really read the book.

 

Sorry, yeah you did post it and I did watch the videos.

 

No. This is a silly comparison.

It maight actually be relevant if you had a rather large book detailing every thought and action you will take over the course of your entire life.

 

It is an thesis based on his new book, Free Will. He says that because the nerual proccess for a thought occurs before we are aware of the thought, that free will does not actually exist.

 

Why is it silly? There is something about which I appear to have a choice, yet the outcome is known for certain. In fact, from a certain point of view, it's not unreasonable to say that I *am* unable to choose to buy that dvd. Still I would insist that it's my choice. Regardless of how my brain might work, there is an option it will select, in a way that can quite reasonably be called free.

 

You are able to choose another color. The fact that I already know you didn't is besides the point.

 

It is silly. You are comparing a single act to knowing the outcome and the choices if your entire life.

You are comparing apples and oranges as a red herring.

 

You cannot choose the other choice.

Those six words are not difficult to choose.

You are still yet to actually demonstrate your argument without repeating the same self-contradictory nonsense.

 

It's not silly. It's not a comparison, its an example, and the fact that you're whining about the example rather than addressing the point behind it makes me think YOU are trying a red herring approach.

Apples and oranges are two quite similar items in a lot of ways, and if narrowing an argument down to one example is a "red herring" then: (1) you're guilty of many red herrings yourself, (2) no it isnt, and (3) stop acting like an idiot.

 

It is silly. You are comparing a single act to knowing the outcome and the choices in your entire life.

You are comparing apples and oranges as a red herring.