I think you're missing what I mean by knowledge here. If this superhuman supernatural superuber God "knows" something, then it is true, no matter what, since he is omniscient. He knows all. (Under the usual definition of omniscience which we commonly use, meaning he can even know that which would be impossible to know, not the limited definition I was talking about in a previous post. In the limited definition where it is not possible for him to know the impossible, and I would agree that your argument seems perfectly valid in that case. I don't think you think that's what we're talking about though, but I figure I ought to clarify to be perfectly sure). This is different from me saying "I know you will choose X" because I am not God, which doesn't necessarily make what I say true. I suppose the definition I am using of knowledge is the definition that Socrates would have used, only those things which are always true can be considered knowledge. For example, "It is raining" isn't knowledge, even if it is currently raining, because 10 minutes from now it could be false. "It is raining at this moment" can be considered knowledge if it is true, because we will always be able to truthfully say "at that moment it is raining"
The outcome doesn't change regardless of if you know about it before or after the fact.
Yes, but my point is that the outcome
can't change, if it is already true prior to the outcome.
In the same line of thought, if someone before that point could say "You will definitely choose the red sock," that doesn't negate that you made a choice either. Knowing the outcome of a decision doesn't necessitate that you had no choice, it simply means the choice you ended up making was known beforehand.
This is where I would point out the difference between the colloquial "know" and the knowledge I'm talking about. If I know you like the color red at the time of your making the choice, then even if I say "I know you will pick red socks" and you do, that doesn't mean I
knew you would pick the red socks. Whereas if God says "I know you will pick the red socks" then it is 100% absolutely certain that you will pick the red socks.
I think what you're saying is:
God knows you will pick the red socks
OR
God knows you will pick the blue socks
OR
God knows you will pick the green socks and eat them cause they look like green eggs and ham
ect
and the only true one is the one that is true based on which decision you make.
(Also note that due to our informal use of language here, theres an implied "when you make the decision we're talking about" at the end of each option. The options above technically aren't knowledge, since you could pick red socks, and later pick green socks, which would make "you will pick red socks" false, but with the appended phrase they will always be true since we're limiting the scope to the decision we're talking about.)
However, we know that God knows which pair you will pick before the decision is made, since only one of those options is true at all times. To appease jhuni's "special relativity" stuff, we'll even say God has this knowledge at some point outside of the light cone of everyone involved, so that all reference frames can agree he had this knowledge in the past, which we know to be true, since we know he is omniscient. Since one and only one of these possibilities is true, prior to the resolution of the actual decision, the outcome of the decision must reflect the true possibility, and only the true possibility. If the outcome of the decision reflects a false possibility, then we are left with
["God knows you will pick X" is true] is false. If that is false, then God is not omniscient. We now have
Assumption: God is omniscient
Outcome: God is not omniscient
Unless there's some way for omniscient && not omniscient to simultaneously be true, we have a contradiction.
From there, we can say that you
cannot choose any option but the true one (the one god knew you would choose), since if you do, we arrive at a contradiction.
If you cannot choose any option but the predetermined one, you don't have a choice. If you had a choice, you could pick any option, but here you cannot.
If you still disagree, it would be helpful to me to understand your points better if you picked apart the logical argument above some.
Your argument is based on the assumption that those two things can't coexist, yet I've provided an example where they do.
Well, I have a problem with your example in terms of time. If the decision is made at time = t, then your knowledge of the decision comes at some time t + e (e might only be a second or so) then you travel back in time 10 seconds (which presumably happens instantly), then the time of the knowledge of the observer is still t+e, despite the fact he went back in time 10 seconds, and the decision he already has knowledge of will occur at time t+e+10, instead of at time = t, so he doesn't have prior knowledge.
never mind with an omnipresent entity that could easily include existing at all times simultaneously as part of that omnipresence.
Well we could assume some random guy Bob, who can't transcend time or anything, somehow acquires this knowledge of your decision, through some extraordinary means.
whether it's a crystal ball, a psychic vision, a telephone that lets you talk to someone in the past or future
Well, I see the same reasoning for them as I do for an omniscient god.
Assuming: the outcome you see in the crystal ball is true
Person chooses otherwise
=> Outcome from the crystal ball is false, which is a contradiction with our assumption that it was true.
So if the crystal ball vision is true, the person must choose how the crystal ball said he would choose, which again means he can't choose otherwise, i.e. no choice, no free will, w/e you wish to call it.
Oh and the cartoon was funny
None.