Free Will or Omniscience? (Sorry if i misspelled omniscience)

[QuantumT]

OP- Omnipotence + Omniscience are fundamentally exclusive from the idea of free will.

If god is omni (I'm lazy), then he created me exactly how he wanted to and know exactly every choice i would make before I even existed, then how can anybody claim I have anything even remotely resembling free will?

Omnipotence is the ability not the motive. An omnipotent being could decide to make a free willed being provided free will was possible without said god.
Omniscience is a small feat if one is outside of time (as I described before).
An OO god would have seen the end before creating the beginning because the end could exist before the beginning to them.

I never really saw how the outside time argument (which sounds like nonsense anyway) changes anything.

I'll demonstrate what I'm trying to get across with an analogy.

Suppose I (god) make a robot (person), then I put it on a 2 dimensional grid. I then program exactly (OO) what it's going to do from the time that I turn it on until it breaks (dies). Would you really argue that the robot has free will, simply because technically it was capable of doing something else, even if there was literally no chance it would do so?

*snip*

Now consider an omniscient Creator.  He creates a being with free will.  Yes he knows what decisions the Creation will make, but that doesn't mean that he created it to make those exact decisions (which, in my opinion would have deprived the Creation of free will).  I think the intention of the Creator is the key.  If every last detail is worked out before the creating then there can be no free will.  It is then just an automoton responding to the Creator's programming  But if more possibilities are left open than there could be.

That's exactly what omniscience means!

Another possibility: God is omnipotent so maybe he can turn his omniscience on and off and could have suspended it while he made people or suspended enough of it to give people some free will while retaining enough so that he still knew the important things.

Am I the only person who things that the vast majority of these arguments sound incredibly contrived?

Let's weigh the 2 positions. On the side of an OO god existing, you have to create all these elaborate arguments to explain things. Here's the alternative:

No such god exists.

And that's the extent of the opposite position.

[Essence]

If god is omni (I'm lazy), then he created me exactly how he wanted to and know exactly every choice i would make before I even existed, then how can anybody claim I have anything even remotely resembling free will?

What if "how he wanted" was "with free will"?  The fact that he knows what you did (outside of time, so 'will do' is meaningless to him) doesn't mean that he chose it for you.  I don't even begin to understand how this is a problem.

[OldTrees]

@QT
Out of time Omniscience works like time travel would.

Hypothetical example
8:00 PM I arrive in the past
8:30 PM I tell Bob that I know maverixk will make a thread titled "Free Will or Omniscience? (Sorry if i misspelled omniscience)"
8:53 PM maverixk makes said thread
9:15 PM I notice said thread
9:30 PM I travel back in time

My knowledge of your choice did not invalidate your choice because my knowledge was dependent on you first making your choice before I would know it.

An OO deity is not forced to decide every action provided free will is possible without an OO deity.

So the OO god that is compatible with free will would look like
1) Creation but not with the extra effort of adding determinism to what would have been free will
2) See History from the end of time

In conclusion: If an OO god makes creation out of materials that would support free will then the creation can either have or not have free will depending on which type of design the OO god desired.

[QuantumT]

If god is omni (I'm lazy), then he created me exactly how he wanted to and know exactly every choice i would make before I even existed, then how can anybody claim I have anything even remotely resembling free will?

What if "how he wanted" was "with free will"?  The fact that he knows what you did (outside of time, so 'will do' is meaningless to him) doesn't mean that he chose it for you.  I don't even begin to understand how this is a problem.

First point, the whole "outside time" thing is just a completely contrived argument made up to confuse people since our language isn't built to deal with it.

On the second point, does he know exactly what I am going to do at the moment of my creation? If he created me exactly as he wanted and he knows everything I'm going to do, I have no free will.

My robot argument is 100% analogous to this situation, so unless you think my robot has free will, then neither do I.

Hypothetical example
8:00 PM I arrive in the past
8:30 PM I tell Bob that I know maverixk will make a thread titled "Free Will or Omniscience? (Sorry if i misspelled omniscience)"
8:53 PM maverixk makes said thread
9:15 PM I notice said thread
9:30 PM I travel back in time

Completely ignoring the fact that travelling backwards in time has a host of causality problems, I propose this timeline:
8:00 PM I arrive in the past
8:30 PM I tell Bob that I know maverixk will make a thread titled "Free Will or Omniscience? (Sorry if i misspelled omniscience)"
8:35 PM Bob tells maverixk.
8:36 PM maverixk tells Bob to get bent.
maverixk never makes thread.
???

[Chromatophore]

Heres another possibility.  God created a multiverse in which all possible outcomes occur.  Our free will determines which universe our consciousness(es) end up in.

[maverixk]

@QT, I think one problem that Essence is having with your argument is that you're proposing that simply knowing what will happen takes away the choice of beings in the moment. It doesn't take away the ability to make a choice regardless of outside circumstances, which is Free Will(if I'm understanding it correctly, it simply makes the life for that sentience a lot less interesting. I think a more logical argument is that of how we make decisions.
     We make decisions based on our past, plus our genetics. Both of which, in this thread's scenario, are determined by God. Therefore, we do not really have the freedom of choosing something different. Sure, at the moment you can say we could pick this or that, but in reality, we won't, we will either choose this because of a certain event in our past or a genetic reason in our head, or we will choose that for the same reason i stated before

[OldTrees]

Hypothetical example
8:00 PM I arrive in the past
8:30 PM I tell Bob that I know maverixk will make a thread titled "Free Will or Omniscience? (Sorry if i misspelled omniscience)"
8:53 PM maverixk makes said thread
9:15 PM I notice said thread
9:30 PM I travel back in time

Completely ignoring the fact that travelling backwards in time has a host of causality problems, I propose this timeline:
8:00 PM I arrive in the past
8:30 PM I tell Bob that I know maverixk will make a thread titled "Free Will or Omniscience? (Sorry if i misspelled omniscience)"
8:35 PM Bob tells maverixk.
8:36 PM maverixk tells Bob to get bent.
maverixk never makes thread.
???

The yellow part never happened. If it did it would not. If it didn't it would not. Therefore it did not. Also the telling Bob part was to make it clear I would still know it in the past. the OO god with two way time travel (instead of us one way things) would not need to risk that.

[QuantumT]

Hypothetical example
8:00 PM I arrive in the past
8:30 PM I tell Bob that I know maverixk will make a thread titled "Free Will or Omniscience? (Sorry if i misspelled omniscience)"
8:53 PM maverixk makes said thread
9:15 PM I notice said thread
9:30 PM I travel back in time

Completely ignoring the fact that travelling backwards in time has a host of causality problems, I propose this timeline:
8:00 PM I arrive in the past
8:30 PM I tell Bob that I know maverixk will make a thread titled "Free Will or Omniscience? (Sorry if i misspelled omniscience)"
8:35 PM Bob tells maverixk.
8:36 PM maverixk tells Bob to get bent.
maverixk never makes thread.
???

The yellow part never happened. If it did it would not. If it didn't it would not. Therefore it did not.

??

It's all really moot anyway, since the analogy fails because you aren't maverixk's creator. My robot is a much better analogy.

[Chromatophore]

Here is another analogy.

A writer is writing a novel.

The writer could decide all of the plot points first.  Then his character would lack free will because he would be forced to make desicion x in chapter y in order for the plot to work out the way the writer decided.

Or the writer could flesh out details of the character, come up with an image of how the character would react in various situations.  In this case the character can take on a life of his own, begin to make decisions independent of the writer, thereby gaining free will.

[QuantumT]

Here is another analogy.

A writer is writing a novel.

The writer could decide all of the plot points first.  Then his character would lack free will because he would be forced to make desicion x in chapter y in order for the plot to work out the way the writer decided.

Or the writer could flesh out details of the character, come up with an image of how the character would react in various situations.  In this case the character can take on a life of his own, begin to make decisions independent of the writer, thereby gaining free will.

But seeing as every action that the character takes is due to the whims the the writer, would you really argue the character has free will?

Again, see my robot analogy.

[maverixk]

Chromatophore, I understand the point you're making, but the I don't think the analogy will hold much  here, especially because of the details of it, like QT has stated.
Not trying to lay the burden of proof on you guys, but can you tell me how a specific event can have more than one result? Please give an example.

[Pineapple]

Fine, mavericxk, if you really want to assume that determinism is true, then we should move on to soft determinism. Basically, we redefine "free will" as "the ability to make our own choice."

In a robot example, we develop a robot that has a choice to push a red button or not. When we make it, we know it'll push the red button. We could change the way it's built so it doesn't push the red button, but why would we do that? We make every robot with the ability to choose for itself. After all, we're omnipotent, we can do that, right?

Now, assume you make the same robot, but this time you don't know if it'll push the button. It's the same robot, so it pushes the button. To emphasize, the robot is no different. The question I'm asking you is, "How does our knowledge of the future affect the way the robot was built, aka its capacity for choice."