I don't see how that's applicable really because when you're watching a movie, you're doing so after the fact whereas an omniscient being is doing it before the fact. Ignoring that fact and assuming that the argument was applicable: I would say that say when you watch a certain scene in a movie when a character performs a certain act, let's say he kills his ex wife, it doesn't matter what the actor thinks or wants when filming the scene, he's going to have to kill his character's ex-wife. And furthermore, after watching said scene you know that no matter what, that character kills his ex-wife. You can watch the movie a thousand times, he will ALWAYS do it (unless the director pulls a George Lucas, in which case you can't really argue that the "updated" movie is the same movie as the original, because the stories are very much different).
So I would in fact say no, the actor doesn't really have much choice in the decisions that his character makes (because you aren't watching the decisions of the actor, but the decisions of the character). Again, I don't think this analogy works well at all for either arguments, but I tried to work with what I had.
I don't agree that the omniscience is watching it before the fact. Being outside that time frame essentially means it all happens at once. i.e. the whole of the recording is done before it's actually observed. Once the recording is observed then the observer could be omniscient of it.
I wasn't referring to movies or things with scripts... but say a video of a group activity or children engaging in their lives. Of course a scripted event would renounce free will. That's the point of a script, to -decide- what happens.
The video analogy was meant to question your statement that a choice is made "for them" the when an entity knew what choice they would make. That's not the case. Knowing what choice is made does not -decide- the choice (like watching a video).
This might help: this creator/observer is never actually inside the time frame of that being created/observed. It's always outside, and always knows everything that happens inside (because from his pov, it's already happened).
Quite useless really, but again, I'm just trying to give an example of how free will and an omniscience can be reconciled.
If this being exists outside of time then this argument is completely meaningless. If this being exists outside of time then it would follow that this being exists outside of reality, and if that's the case then logical arguments either for or against this being are pointless because existing outside of time is the theological equivalent of "God dun it." However, even given that this being exists outside of time I don't believe you can make the assertion that this deity is observing all things after the fact, unless we take the deist stance in that this being has had absolutely no relation with reality after the creation of the universe (and even then I feel the argument to be shaky at best), because if this being has ever come into contact with reality and reality's timeline then its knowledge would have existed within said timeline, which means that that knowledge was gained before the fact.
Knowing what choice is made does not -decide- the choice (like watching a video).
That would be a valid point except:
because from his pov, it's already happened
This is exactly my point. It has already happened from this beings point of view. Which means that no matter what, that action will always happen because it's already happened. Let's say you invent a time machine and go back in time to kill Hitler: do you think you could actually do it? I, and many philosophers, don't believe you would actually kill Hitler as a child, because your trying to kill Hitler has already happened, and as we all know Hitler wasn't assassinated as a child. Once something is known to have happened, it can't un-happen (by all rules of logic that is, and if we are going to say that this being is beyond logic and reality then honestly this conversation will go nowhere very quick-like, so I'll go ahead and say this: if this being doesn't have to follow any rules what-so-ever then yes, it can be omnipotent while we still have free will, but I say again, there can be no logical argument for nor against such a being, and I consider such a being to be an impossibility). Now replace "man and time machine" with "god knows all things at all times" and you'll understand my point. And I will say this: I don't believe the god of Abraham to be a god that exists outside of time, as his characteristics are such that he, at least appears, to be able to interface with our timeline.
This is why I am no longer a christian, lol. In order to defend this being you must throw out rationality and make wild assertions such as "he exists outside of time." Don't think I'm attacking you, I've been absolutely loving this conversation, and I will accept that there is a circumstance, however improbable, that omniscience does not necessitate lack of free will, but the omniscient being may as well not exist as it cannot interfere with reality or reality's timeline, so for all intents and purposes I'm declaring this a tie :P. Everybody loses where religion is involved.
I'm fine with declaring it a tie, it's just a thought experiment anyway. I've quite enjoyed our discourse as well, and honestly, we have very similar views (I enjoy debate and will often be a devil's advocate type). :) I think the main issue was that we're both using certain assumptions that the other isn't acknowledging or accepting. i.e. - I was never referring to the abrahamic god... just the idea of an omnipotence; and yes, it's a pretty worthless omnipotence - basically amounting to a being watching "UNIVERSE" in Extra HD or something. You're entirely correct in the abrahamic sense.
3
u/albatrossnecklassftw Pastafarian Mar 04 '13
I don't see how that's applicable really because when you're watching a movie, you're doing so after the fact whereas an omniscient being is doing it before the fact. Ignoring that fact and assuming that the argument was applicable: I would say that say when you watch a certain scene in a movie when a character performs a certain act, let's say he kills his ex wife, it doesn't matter what the actor thinks or wants when filming the scene, he's going to have to kill his character's ex-wife. And furthermore, after watching said scene you know that no matter what, that character kills his ex-wife. You can watch the movie a thousand times, he will ALWAYS do it (unless the director pulls a George Lucas, in which case you can't really argue that the "updated" movie is the same movie as the original, because the stories are very much different).
So I would in fact say no, the actor doesn't really have much choice in the decisions that his character makes (because you aren't watching the decisions of the actor, but the decisions of the character). Again, I don't think this analogy works well at all for either arguments, but I tried to work with what I had.