i am sorry, but i feel that the thread on free will has been jacked (in no small part due to my actions) and replaced by a debate on omniscience and its impact on our freedom to choose. as such, i am moving my comments on the matter solely to this thread in an attempt to give jumpinjesus his thread back.
however, in the spirit of expanding the scope of discussion, i have some ideas to put forth (most of them not my own
)
firstoff, some basics.
Quote:
Omniscience is the capacity to know everything, or at least everything that can be known about a character/s including thoughts, feelings, etc. In monotheism, this ability is typically attributed to a god. It is typically contrasted with omnipotence. Omniscience is sometimes understood to also imply the capacity to know everything that will be.
Foreknowledge and its compatibility with free will has been a debated topic between theists and philosophers. The argument that divine foreknowledge is not compatible with free will is known as theological fatalism. If man is truly free to choose between different alternatives, it is very difficult to understand how God could know in advance which way he will choose. Various responses have been proposed (under the assumption that God exists, and is omniscient):
* God can know in advance what I will do, because free will is to be understood only as freedom from coercion, and anything further is an illusion.
* God can know in advance what I will do, even though free will in the fullest sense of the phrase does exist. God somehow has a "middle knowledge" - that is, knowledge of how free agents will act in any given circumstances.
* It is not possible for a god to know the result of a free human choice. Omniscience should therefore be interpreted to mean "knowledge of everything that can be known". God can know what someone will do, but only by predetermining it; thus, he chooses the extent of human freedom by choosing what (if anything) to know in this way.
* God stands outside time, and therefore can know everything free agents do, since he does not know these facts "in advance".
|
full text at
Wikipedia
obviously, this is not a full and conclusive list of omniscience or the responses to it. i chose wikipedia because it is community moderated, so it reflects what people actually think about something, rather than only what webster decides to say.
for a damned interesting (albeit fairly involved) treatise on omniscience and it's effects on us, please see
Omniscience
this article is too long and complex to quote or explain without actually reading it, but to summarize some points:
if omniscience exists, it necessitates that the omniscience is in fact the subject rather than the object. in other words, the being is not omniscient, rather the omniscience exists.
omniscience, being ever constant (never changing) is everlasting. basically, omniscience knows everything, and never forgets anything, so it will always be here, unless it is not truly omniscient.
anyway, he goes on to explain how omniscience necessitates the greatest love possible, and explains why we are what we are.
interesting read, and i hope i still get some responses to this thread