my life 2007

Diana,

I’m liking your leave already - two wonderful posts in three days! (Grin)

Your chicken dish sounds great. I’ve just recently discovered the miracle of foil myself. I heard there’s a culinary movement of sorts happening in Europe (well, it was about 3 years ago anyway) of dishes that are cooked in sealed packages or containers at low temperatures for long periods of time. They don’t burn, they don’t dry out, and the flavors don’t cook away. In other words, the Cordon Bleu has discovered the boilin’ bag.

We can get tomatoes similar to what you describe here - they’re sold in clusers of 4 or 5 still attached to the vine. They’re much better than the injection-molded lumps that are billed as beefsteak tomatoes.

Those are some interesting ideas about religion. Paul’s enthusiasm could make spiritual matters seem tangible; his words could be consistent with Doherty’s claim.

That question of free will vs. omniscience was a slippery one for me; I got past it (without thinking it all the way through, I confess) with the position that an omniscient God knows what choices we’ll make before we make them, but does not influence them. He can, however, influence situations to require us to make a decision that we might not have had to make without His intervention.

It’s like baby-proofing a house; you can’t prevent a child from deciding to do something harmful; the best you can do is keep him out of situations where he has the opportunity to make that choice.

Dave

Technically, I think they call it “steaming” when you “bake” something in foil. But who cares? It’s so good. :)

I’ve recently become re-intrigued with the problem of omniscience and free will because of some class discussions we had regarding Oedipus and Slaughterhouse Five. Oedipus knows he is fated to kill his father and marry his mother, so he takes drastic steps to avoid the fate, which is deeply ironic because if he truly understood fate, he would know that nothing he could do would change what would happen. (His parents make the same mistake.)

Vonnegut created the Tralfamadorians, who saw all things at all times at once, and who rejected the notion of “free will,” arguing that things happen as they will and cannot be changed because “the moment is structured that way.”

So I got into another couple of discussions with some thoughtful theists on this point. The “theist” bit is entirely coincidental, by the way. Many agnostics/atheists I know insist there is no clash. I have found ongoing discussions in religious and philosophical scholarly journals about the problem, as well. At least I know I’m not the only person who can’t manage to put the two together comfortably.

I understand that technically, another being knowing what you will do does not impede your choices in any way. However…if that being is never wrong AND knows what I will do (this is my main sticking point), is it possible for me to unchoose what he knows I will do?

If yes, then the being, of course, is wrong and we have a whole ‘nother problem. If no, then wherein lies my choice?

The best I’ve done to reconcile the conditions is to posit that our free will is only free will from our perspective. That is, it is an illusion.

Like I said…it’s an age-old problem. Perhaps I should have been a philosophy major. It seems to be what I enjoy most. That may be why I use literature to prompt philosophical discussions. ;)

d

I was thinking about this again this morning, and posted a fair amount on my other discussion. I was thinking that a good answer to my “How can I unchoose an action an all-knowing, infallible being knows I will make?” may be that it isn’t that I can’t unchoose it, but that he already knows I won’t unchoose it. (Nice, huh?)

But then that still doesn’t solve the problem. Here’s my sticking point now: How can my actions be known without them also being predetermined?

d

Diana,

I think mixing frames of reference is what causes the problem. You have an actor attmepting to exercise free will in the linear time stream and an omniscient observer in eternity who knows the actor’s choice seemingly before the choice is made.

For someone within the time stream to know the choice before it’s made will certainly violate free will. For example, I know you chose to accept a position at the Academy. The only thing that prevents me from being “omniscient” is a few days of time - the time during which you made your choice. I knew with a high level of certainty that you would accept the position, but there was always room for it to go the other way.

My thought is that omniscience cannot occur within time; it must exist outside of time. For an omniscient observer to attempt to influence events within time is a different issue; I suspect that either the observer knows of his efforts and is thus required to make the attmept (in other words, surrendering his own free will), or else gives up his knowledge of the outcome because he’s become an actor within the time stream (surrendering his omniscience).

Frame of reference is important in relativistic physics, so why not here too?

Your answer about knowing you won’t unchoose a pre-known decision reminds me of an argument we had in college at lunch. Somebody asked the question, “Can God make a rock so big He can’t move it?” One answer given was, “Why would he want to?”

Dave

Hi, Dave! Happy Memorial Day. :)

I agree that we’re mixing frames of reference, and therein lies the problem. However, I think mixing the frames of reference are unavoidable here.

I’ve tried looking at the problem as though the omniscient one is “outside of time,” but I’m afraid the concept is completely nonsensical to me. In order for God to act, it is absolutely imperative–because there will be a “before” and an “after” in any act, or even any thought–that he act in time. Also, even if I granted the possibility that anything could exist “outside of time,” I still don’t see how that fixes the problem….:-/

Incidentally…the “Why would he want to?” response simply avoids the question. The question, old as the hills, simply highlights the basic problem of the concept of omnipotence–another notion that I’ve never been able to make sense of. That question is one of the reasons.

I’m still chewing on a way to make sense of how my actions can be known (before I make them) without them being predetermined, though.

d

Diana,

You’re right - if God is going to act in a way to influence us, He must act within time. Or else he set everything in motion and now doesn’t attempt to act on us, but that’s uncomfortably close to predeterminism.

But we’re reaching beyond the question of omniscience now. I still think -knowledge- of our choices can be had from outside time without violating our free will. It’s the attempt to influence our decisions that creates the problem now. (Sorry, I guess I opened that can of worms myself.)

Dave

No worries on the “can of worms.” :) I open these from time to time in various venues. Occasionally, through such methods, I get a bit farther in my reasoning than I did before.

I’m at the point that I can acknowledge that a being’s omniscience in and of itself does not force me to act in any particular way, but I can’t find any other way of understanding how my future actions can be known unless they are predetermined. I simply can’t place “free will” (as I understand it) and “omniscience” (again…as I understand it) in the same box without one destroying the other.

This is one of those bones I pull out and knaw on from time to time, simply because I enjoy the challenge.

Rather like you. ;)

d

PD and Dave–I read with interest your discussion on omniscience and free will. I t used to be a real problem with me. For an eternal being (whom I consider to be God) to have have unlimited knowledge, in absolutely no way that I can fathom, requires him to exercise his ability to know, any more that our ‘free will’ implies that we will ever exercise that part of ourselves. I have seen many people, and I’m sure both of you have too, who don’t seem to exercise free will at all, but rather seem to go through life accepting whatever comes next, /whether they like it or not/. I’m sure that one who is ‘outside of time’, as you so aptly put it, does not always exercise his ability to know, though the bible does indicate a number of instances where he seems to have ‘overridden the free will of others. I’m very interested in this discussion.

Hi, Daddy. :)

Would I be correct in assuming you define “omniscience” not as “all-knowing” but instead as “the ability to know everything"?

Interesting twist. I’ve had and read many discussions in which theists attempted to define “omnipotent” in a way that would make it possible (i.e., not “all-powerful,” but “able to do all logically possible things"). I think the argument for this is reasonable. To wit: the traditional definitions are untenable, but it does not follow that the concept itself is misguided. A god may still exist with these qualities, but they aren’t quite what we imagine they are, necessarily.

Incidentally, I just did a quick look to onelook.com (my favorite metadictionary) for “omniscient.” Their quick definition is one I’ve never heard before: “infinitely wise.” Oddly, only two of the 21 listed offer this definition. The rest have some variation of “all-knowing,” which is the definition I’ve always accepted/assumed. “Infinitely wise” has some possibility, though, I think, except with those doctrines who teach that God knows all man will do and all he thinks and God knows the future, which pretty much pitches us back to the simple “all-knowing” definition, which brings us to your take.

It seems fair to me at the moment (but I’ll chew on it a while :) ). When we say God is omnipotent, we don’t mean he does everything; only that he is capable of it. Thus, when we say God is omniscient, shouldn’t we mean God is capable of knowing all?

I like it. I think I’ll take it to the boards for a whirl and see if anyone smarter than I has a reasonable rebuttal.

The question of God’s overriding the free will of others is a whole ‘nother doctrine. :)

I have a question for you, though. The Bible itself doesn’t speak of “free will,” does it? The concept must therefore be a necessary inference. Can you explain how you derive the notion of free will from the Bible?

d

Well, I was digging the definition for a while, then Doug pointed out some bible verses which do not seem to mesh with omniscience meaning “capable of knowing anything” instead of simply “all-knowing.” To wit:

1 John 3:20: whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

Job 28:22-24:
22: Destruction and Death say, ‘Only a rumor of it has reached our ears.’
23: God understands the way to it and he alone knows where it dwells,
24: for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.

In short, the bible tells us that God sees everything and God knows everything. For this reason, it seems we must stick with the standard definition of omniscient (i.e., “all-knowing").

This logically blows the whole defense, though. If God sees/knows everything then chose to not know any given thing, then the statement “God sees/knows everything” would no longer be true, because–regardless of whether he chose to “not know” something or not–he could no longer be said to know everything.

There’s also the problem of “unknowing” something once you know it.

So we’re back to square one, it seems. Unless I’ve missed something.

d

Diana,

There are times when I think God’s omnipotence trumps His omniscience. If He decides to “unknow” something, then reality is changed to match His knowledge.

Dave

Interesting counter. :)

There’s still a problem concerning God’s knowing everything except what he just knew, which would detract from the “everything” he has to know–whether or not he changed reality to fit. You see?

d

Diana,

He wouldn’t necessarily have to completely forget - He could know that it no longer matches reality, that it was an alternative that no longer applied.

Dave

Either way, Dave…God forgetting something is inconsistent with God knowing everything. “Everything” would include, I think, other possibilities/realities.

d

Diana,

I just realized - God knowing that in -this- reality I’m a software engineer, while in -that- (latent) reality I’m an unemployed drug addict, is predetermination.

Oops. I hate it when I argue myself into a corner.

Dave

I can edit that comment out, then we can pretend it never happened. I’m sorta the “god” of this page. ;)

Diana,

Thanks, but I’m not afraid to own up to my mistakes.

But if you’d care to have a cherub look into why I get a 404 error whenever I click the “Send comment” button I’d appreciate it.

Where should I send the offering to? Will a dozen avocados be acceptable?

Dave

Let me try again. The electricity blinked when I had this about half done a few minutes ago, and I lost the whole thing.

Dave, I’ll start by shooting down your position that God knows all. Read, if you will, the account of Abram, when he went to offer Isaac. When God stayed his hand, God told him ‘now I know that thou fearest God’. If he knew all, he would not have had to try Abram (test him) to see if he would fail. I submit that this is a clear case where God willingly withheld knowledge from himself.

This leaves us with two possibilities. One, God does not /know/ all, but has the /ability / to know all. Two, The ability to know all must include the probability that he is also capable of unknowing that which is already know, which is a sticking point.

In the event that ‘one’ is chosen, we are stuck with the probability that the words in the passages cited were improperly translated in the text, or incompletely translated. Lets look at that for a moment.

The word in Job 28 indicates ‘to know by seeing’ (Strong). That supports my thoughts that he withholds knowledge. In 1Jn.3:20, the number that Strong gives is 1097, which is define by him as “to know", then examples are given which include ‘allow, be aware of, feel (have) know(ledge), perceive, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand. Personally, i believe it refers to ‘understand’, comparing to 1Cor.4,5. You may disagree.

With these things in mind, I remind you, PD, that you wanted to know about “free will” of man. You have also bandied about, or used, the word omniscient in your discussion. Neither word is found in the bible, there fore, we cannot look up a specific definition of these words, as found in the ancient hebrew and greek tongues, especially with respect to their use in the bible.

The answer to your question, then, is this: If God limits himself in his knowledge, that is, if his knowledge comes from seeing, then it follows that individuals have a ‘free’ will, that is, the will given to us to make dicisions based on feelings, knowledge, results, or whatever, is ours to make freely. This is indicated quite often in both the old and new testaments. However, there are many examples as well of God overriding the will of man, because he ckhose that person as a vessel of his (more powerful (will). Perhaps this answers your question, and perhaps not. It is , however, an excellent exercise in word study.

Two mistakes in the previous notes. One, the scripture given should read 1Cor.2:4,5. Second, God did not necessarily “override” the will of chosen vessels, but he did many things to ‘encourage’ their performance, and to ‘discourage’ their freely chosen direction.

Hi, Daddy. :)

After reading your expose, I still assume your working definition of “omniscience” is “capable of knowing any/everything.”

It is with this definition that I went to my favorite bulletin board to advocate this new definition. I ran into much trouble getting people to understand that I was attempting to clarify the definition a bit, and that this is allowable; most of them are even yet arguing against the standard definition (the simple “all-knowing").

However, I ran into a problem I couldn’t surmount: the biblical verses listed above. The bible doesn’t leave room in its descriptions of God for him to be only capable of knowing everything. I’ve listed the two verses I couldn’t, in good conscience, get to fit the preferred definition.

As you acknowledge, there is no mention of “omniscience” or “free will” in the Bible. That leaves us with what the Bible says on the matter to determine where people got these ideas.

As you are well aware, the Bible doesn’t make this easy for us. It is not explained, for example, how God might need to look for Adam and Eve…or why God would require Abram to go through with the sacrifice of his son to prove himself. Etc. However, the Bible very clearly states that God knows everything–whence our word “omniscience.” By the same token, the bible doesn’t say we have free will; however, the doctrine is logically necessary, is it not? Now there’s a problem every time God, say, hardens Pharaoh’s heart, or otherwise influences events.

These are what the unbiased observer would call “contradictions.”

Preemptively: we can call it an “apparent contradiction” only if further evidence reasonably suggests the obvious interpretation is incorrect; otherwise, it is simply a contradiction. If you begin from the perspective that it isn’t a real contradiction simply because you refuse to believe such a thing is possible, please have the integrity to doubt any of the resulting offspring your imagination yields. Confirmation bias only accidentally leads one to objective truth.

d

Mr. B,

I’ve developed the attitude that when God asks a question, either it’s rhetorical or else He wants the person he’s addressing to hear himself give the answer. In the case of Abram, it would be to convince Abram of his own faith. It’s not entirely Scriptural, but it helps me reconcile the idea of an omniscient God with a God who asks questions.

Dave

Very quickly–Please note you and others are still arguing from the english translations, not from the original Hebrew and Greek. kAs you are well aware, there is no such thing as a direct word for word translation from one language to another. For instance, bothe the languages in question had many nuances contained within them, which are translated ‘love’. We have to look at the original definitions of those words to :|see what the nuance was. It is difficult, as you suggested, for me to operate from the viewpoint that the bible may not be perfect, but my need for /properly understanding/ what it says helps me infinitely to overcome this drawback. Remember as well that any current version cannot be defined by a current dictionary, even though it may try, because of the problem wdith translations.

Hi, Daddy. :)

Let’s see if I understand your position here. Essentially, the bible, as originally written, is infallible, but probably all modern translations fall short of the original intent/meaning through problems of translation.

Assuming I am correct, I reject your initial premise that the bible is infallible. Here’s your problem now: with the escape from contradiction you just used, how can you argue for the bible’s infallibility?

Back to omniscience: You wish to argue that the bible is translated inaccurately, and thus my reading of a translation is misleading. OK. Please provide rebuttals to the two verses I listed, specifically addressing the points where the English text states outright that God knows everything. I’m interested in specific explanations concerning the original meanings of the Greek and Hebrew (as appropriate) which would give me reason to doubt that myriad scholars of ancient languages who translated each version were misinformed.

As the old Colgate commercial went, Put your money where your mouth is.

d

I’m not sure I understand either premise you just stated, dear One. It was not my purpose to ‘escape from contradiction’. Rather, I am very interested in what the original language meant. I remember you talking about the movies you saw while in Iraq, which were ‘hot’ copies of the original, the sound changed to –whatever–, with english subtitles that had little or nothing to do with the original intent. Looking at lables o, or instructions in english, of products made in some non-english speaking country will suffice to prove the point.

In order to seek out the specific arguments used to find the exact correct meaning, I have to rely on scholars of the ancient languages. I have chosen men such as W.E. Vine, J.H. Thayer, and Strong,the latter incidentally, of these is considered by most knowledgeable writers of these times as /the / scholar, and is probably more quoted that the ancients. He quotes /them/.

I have no access to the ancients, but I will try to find more accurate information for you, if I may have time. Daddy

Hi, Daddy.

I usually use blueletterbible.com. I believe they reference Strong’s, in which case, I already looked up the nearest English translations of those verses written by /the/ scholar. They said God knows everything. Strong doesn’t leave “But God can choose not to know” wiggle-room, and such wiggle-room is logically inconsistent with “God knows everything,” anyway.

I’ll try to make my objection to your position clearer.

You believe that the Bible is inspired because it is inerrant. I also remember learning that the Bible does not contradict itself, that it is only apparently contradictory.

So I point out what appears to be a contradiction: omniscience is just a modern way of summing up God’s knowledge, which the Bible is fairly clear on. And I provided verses.

You respond that we must consult the original languages to know what was really meant, and even if we do, we’re still stuck with (naturally) a modern translation of the meaning. IOWs, you imply that the Bible still does not contradict itself, and our belief that it does is due to a poor translation.

My question is this: how can you maintain that the bible is inspired because it is infallible, but at the same time argue that the bible is infallible even though you can’t demonstrate this to be the case, because of the problem of translation?

I guess I’m wondering why you mess around with silly details like that instead of skipping straight to the punchline. To wit: the bible is inspired because it is infallible, and the bible is infallible because I believe it is; therefore, the bible is inspired because I believe it is.

It’s really simple.

d