NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I never actually used that word.

Meh! Thats fine, but it is still relevant to the discusion as a whole I would say.


You can't know the future if the future isn't already determined. If God knows that I'm going to eat a sandwich for lunch, he can't possibly know (not predict) this if this event isn't already pre-determined.

You see that does not make sense to me. How can the future be determined, it being still in the future, and yet to happen?

I think a part of the problem here is how we view time. When we talk about it, our semantics enforces this idea of linear time onto us.

That's not relevant, most theists believe God is transcendent and not within our time frame. If God knows the future of our time frame, that must mean our time frame is linear and we are determined.

The thing about fate it is very dependent on your own thoughts. If you believe fate exists it probably does and your life is determined already. However, if you don't then it probably doesn't and you are the decider of your fate. Another aproach is that your fate is only decided if you know whats going to happen already. Think Odepius Rex. If he didn't go to the oracle those awful things wouldn't have happened. So opinion thought proccess and knowledge are the deciders of fate. So unless God told you so or gave you a vision he does make your life determined, even then there is still some wiggle room.

How so?

If the same being who created the universe also knew of every event that was going to transpire in said universe, prior to the event taking place, it would be disingenuous to say that the being had not predetermined everything that was to transpire.

It kick-started the events which led to human choices, and knew in advance what those choices were. Predetermination.

No not really. I have a dream, that I will be driving down a certian road, at a certian time, and have a flat tire at a certian interchange.

Years latter it happens exactly as in my dream. Has my dream predeterminied future events, or shown me future events?

Knowledge does not = predetermination.

You see that does not make sense to me. How can the future be determined, it being still in the future, and yet to happen?


Then perhaps you should be asking: "how could God possibly know the future?" if the idea of determinism is so nonsensical to you.


I think a part of the problem here is how we view time. When we talk about it, our semantics enforces this idea of linear time onto us.

Again, I don't think time being linear or not is particularly important. In fact, the idea of God knowing the future forces us to believe that God experiences time in the exact opposite, in a non linear fashion. What's important is this:

Assume God knows the future
If God knows that A will happen in the future, then A will happen in the future.
It is impossible for A not to happen in the future if God knows that A is going to happen unless God is in fact wrong and does not know the future.
Thus if God really does know the future, only A can happen and nothing else.
Thus the future is determined.

I think you're acting as if Gods knowledge of the future is causal. It's not causal, it merely implies that the future is determined.

Then perhaps you should be asking: "how could God possibly know the future?" if the idea of determinism is so nonsensical to you.



Again, I don't think time being linear or not is particularly important. In fact, the idea of God knowing the future forces us to believe that God experiences time in the exact opposite, in a non linear fashion. What's important is this:

Assume God knows the future
If God knows that A will happen in the future, then A will happen in the future.
It is impossible for A not to happen in the future if God knows that A is going to happen unless God is in fact wrong and does not know the future.
Thus if God really does know the future, only A can happen and nothing else.
Thus the future is determined.

I think you're acting as if Gods knowledge of the future is causal. It's not causal, it merely implies that the future is determined.

Heh you keep telling me that linear time is not important and yet here you demonstrate exactly why I think it is.

'Assume God knows the future
If God knows that A will happen in the future, then A will happen in the future.
It is impossible for A not to happen in the future if God knows that A is going to happen unless God is in fact wrong and does not know the future.
Thus if God really does know the future, only A can happen and nothing else.
Thus the future is determined.'

All of this is good, but look at the words you use, it shows that you are thinking of Gods knowledge in a linear way.

What if Gods knowledge does not work in that way, what if God sees all time at the same time, then it could mean that when God see's your future action, to God it is a present action.

In which case, the word future is only valid for you, and so any talk of knowing the future becomes meaningless, and thus so does the idea of predetermination.

So in fact the whole of your premises above are only meaningfull if God experiances time as we do. As I do not belive that this is the case, then knowledge and predetermination for God, does not make any sense to me.

What if Gods knowledge does not work in that way, what if God sees all time at the same time, then it could mean that when God see's your future action, to God it is a present action.


That's exactly the type of God I'm talking about as a matter of fact. Hence me repeatedly saying that God experiences time in a non linear fashion and is transcendent.


In which case, the word future is only valid for you, and so any talk of knowing the future becomes meaningless

Of course not. The word future is very meaningful to us, since there is a future for us, and that is what we are talking about. Whether God sees future past and present all in the same way is completely irrelevant to us, since WE experience time in a linear way thus making it meaningful to talk about the future and the past.


So in fact the whole of your premises above are only meaningfull if God experiances time as we do.

This is completely wrong and I'm wondering if you have even read what I've said. My premise is based on the exact opposite, I have said many times that God experiences time in a non linear way and is transcendent.

Let me develop it:

God experiences time differently to humans.
Thus the future, past and present are all the same to him.
1)Assume that what we describe as 'the future', God is able to experience as if it were present.
2)Assume that God is observing A, to us A is 20 years in the future but to God A is easily observable by him right now.
Thus, if we were to wait 20 years, we would also observe A like God was doing 20 years ago.
It is not possible for us to not observe A in 20 years time, unless God was not actually doing so and was wrong about A (implying that he is not omnipotent and would not be able to tell us what would happen in our future).
Thus nothing other than A can happen in 20 years time if 1) and 2) are to hold true.
Thus our future has been determined.

Heh you keep telling me that linear time is not important and yet here you demonstrate exactly why I think it is.

'Assume God knows the future
If God knows that A will happen in the future, then A will happen in the future.
It is impossible for A not to happen in the future if God knows that A is going to happen unless God is in fact wrong and does not know the future.
Thus if God really does know the future, only A can happen and nothing else.
Thus the future is determined.'

All of this is good, but look at the words you use, it shows that you are thinking of Gods knowledge in a linear way.

What if Gods knowledge does not work in that way, what if God sees all time at the same time, then it could mean that when God see's your future action, to God it is a present action.

In which case, the word future is only valid for you, and so any talk of knowing the future becomes meaningless, and thus so does the idea of predetermination.

So in fact the whole of your premises above are only meaningfull if God experiances time as we do. As I do not belive that this is the case, then knowledge and predetermination for God, does not make any sense to me.

Semantic quibbling. It's irrelevent.

Even if all time is 'now' to god, if he can see it ALL, then it is concrete.

So - it doesn't matter how WE see it, it means our 'future' has already been 'seen' and is 'set'.

Perspective is irrelevent.

Maybe it would be useful to take it out of the vague, esoteric view and imagine a more concrete example.

if I construct a time machine and travel back to April of 1865 to observe the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, does the fact that I already know the event will occur have any impact whatsoever on John Wilkes Booth's actions? Does it affect his freewill? He chose to be on that balcony, to shoot the President and to jump out of the box, all completely independent of any action of mine despite my knowledge that he would do so.

Does the very fact that I know he'll do it mean he has no freewill? Does it mean that, from his perspective, it's predestined?

I say no. I say that his choice may be 'locked in' in the sense that if all I do is observe then his choices will flow exactly as history recorded them, but it remains that the choices were still HIS to make.

Maybe it would be useful to take it out of the vague, esoteric view and imagine a more concrete example.

if I construct a time machine and travel back to April of 1865 to observe the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, does the fact that I already know the event will occur have any impact whatsoever on John Wilkes Booth's actions? Does it affect his freewill? He chose to be on that balcony, to shoot the President and to jump out of the box, all completely independent of any action of mine despite my knowledge that he would do so.

Does the very fact that I know he'll do it mean he has no freewill? Does it mean that, from his perspective, it's predestined?

I say no. I say that his choice may be 'locked in' in the sense that if all I do is observe then his choices will flow exactly as history recorded them, but it remains that the choices were still HIS to make.

How can it be his free choice, if his action must happen?

If you go back to watch it, is there a chance that - this time - he won't do it? No - it has happened. The probablity that you'll go back and see it NOT happen is zero.

Now imagine applying that to every person, every action, every grain of sand, every mote of dust. Choice is an illusion, if there can actually be an entity that already knows time from end-to-end.

I say no. I say that his choice may be 'locked in' in the sense that if all I do is observe then his choices will flow exactly as history recorded them, but it remains that the choices were still HIS to make.

Right, in this case it depends how you define free will. Some people define it as the existence of choice, where John did have the choice of not doing the murder. Other people define it as ability, in this case although John did have a choice, he did not have the ability to choose otherwise.

Let me develop it:

God experiences time differently to humans.
Thus the future, past and present are all the same to him.
1)Assume that what we describe as 'the future', God is able to experience as if it were present.

Yes.

2)Assume that God is observing A, to us A is 20 years in the future but to God A is easily observable by him right now.

No. Because to God time is not linear, so all is now, there is no past or future for God.

Thus, if we were to wait 20 years, we would also observe A like God was doing 20 years ago.

No. Not like God was doing 20 years ago, like God is doing now.


It is not possible for us to not observe A in 20 years time, unless God was not actually doing so and was wrong about A (implying that he is not omnipotent and would not be able to tell us what would happen in our future).

Well that now makes no sense, because God did not view A 20 years ago, God is viewing A now, as you do it.


Thus nothing other than A can happen in 20 years time if 1) and 2) are to hold true.

Thus our future has been determined.

Again no. Because God's knowedge of A, is not based in the past, so it cannot have been PRE-determined.

How can it be his free choice, if his action must happen?

If you go back to watch it, is there a chance that - this time - he won't do it? No - it has happened. The probablity that you'll go back and see it NOT happen is zero.

Now imagine applying that to every person, every action, every grain of sand, every mote of dust. Choice is an illusion, if there can actually be an entity that already knows time from end-to-end.

His action MUST happen only in the context of the fact that he chose to make it happen. Remember, it's only inevitable from the point of view of an observer who does not influence the event.

Right, in this case it depends how you define free will. Some people define it as the existence of choice, where John did have the choice of not doing the murder. Other people define it as ability, in this case although John did have a choice, he did not have the ability to choose otherwise.

I would say he lacks that ability only within the limited frame of reference we have as the observers with foreknowledge. That's really a limitation on US rather than he, since we don't know w hat his options WERE, only the one he CHOSE.

For example, for all we know, even up to the moments before the shot, he might have been struggling with the decision, trying to choose between going through with it, or perhaps aborting the whole t hing and heading to a brothel. Maybe he had to decide whether to use his pistol or try to attack with a blade. Maybe he had to decide whether to go for General Grant first or just go straight for the President. We'll never know how many different options lay before him or which ones he considered. Only the outcome. That limitation is ours, not his.

Ahhhh now it's getting interesting, and I have to go home!

Still I have my 40th birthday bash to propare for this weekend, so to the beermobile!

His action MUST happen only in the context of the fact that he chose to make it happen.


Doesn't add up.

His 'choice' is an illusion.

If you go back and watch a hundred times, how many times will it not happen?

The answer is - it will happen every time. We know this, because we've seen the map of reality in which it is a concrete and fixed event. It has happened, it can't 'not happen'.

So - the apparent 'choice'? Must have been an illusion.


Remember, it's only inevitable from the point of view of an observer who does not influence the event.


Not at all.

That gives us two options:

1) All events have already been seen, and there is (at least) one observer who does not influence events (in which case - set in stone). Or:

2) An interventionist observer - in which case, our choices are pre-determined EXCEPT when an intervention happens. In which case, our 'choices' are actually being made by some other (interventionist) entity.

Either way, we can't make a choice - on our own - that can possibly change what has been SEEN to happen.

Hence - it seems most logical to assume we DO have choices, but there's no way for anyone or anything to ever see the ones yet to be made.

No. Because to God time is not linear, so all is now, there is no past or future for God.


That doesn't disagree with anything I said at all in any way whatsoever. Please read what I am saying more carefully. I didn't say 'to God', I said 'to us'. To us what God is experiencing is 20 years in the future. To him it isn't, but that doesn't matter in the slightest.


No. Not like God was doing 20 years ago, like God is doing now.


Irrelevant and getting slightly annoying with this semantic pedantry.


Well that now makes no sense, because God did not view A 20 years ago, God is viewing A now, as you do it.


Again you really are being annoying, no offence. Since I knew you would be this pedantic and semantic, I deliberately explained everything very carefully (but apparently not carefully enough). Read this please: TO US TO US TO US TO US TO US TO US TO US TO US. I'm not talking about Gods perspective in this case, I'm talking about our perspective, our perspective of time is entirely linear even if Gods isn't. If we were to go back 20 years ago in our time frame, God would still be observing A, since God is always observing A.


Again no. Because God's knowedge of A, is not based in the past, so it cannot have been PRE-determined.

I didn't actually use the word 'PRE-determined'. If God is observing A, that means in our time frame, A will happen in 20 years time. You are being a bit silly, you seem to be assuming that just because God experiences time in a non linear fashion, that must mean that our time frame itself is non linear. This is of course nonsense, because of course there is a future for us and a past for us.

Doesn't add up.

His 'choice' is an illusion.

If you go back and watch a hundred times, how many times will it not happen?

The answer is - it will happen every time. We know this, because we've seen the map of reality in which it is a concrete and fixed event. It has happened, it can't 'not happen'.

So - the apparent 'choice'? Must have been an illusion.


No I don't think so, because while you can make a case that it's set in stone and WILL happen each time, that's only true because Booth himself made it true. It doesn't matter if we observe it once or a thousand times, we're still witnessing the same event, a result of a series of choices made one time by that person.


Not at all.

That gives us two options:

1) All events have already been seen, and there is (at least) one observer who does not influence events (in which case - set in stone). Or:

2) An interventionist observer - in which case, our choices are pre-determined EXCEPT when an intervention happens. In which case, our 'choices' are actually being made by some other (interventionist) entity.

Either way, we can't make a choice - on our own - that can possibly change what has been SEEN to happen.

Hence - it seems most logical to assume we DO have choices, but there's no way for anyone or anything to ever see the ones yet to be made.

I would go with option 1 with the caveat that they're set in stone by the person making the decisions, not by destiny or by God or by any other external force.

No I don't think so, because while you can make a case that it's set in stone and WILL happen each time, that's only true because Booth himself made it true. It doesn't matter if we observe it once or a thousand times, we're still witnessing the same event, a result of a series of choices made one time by that person.


So you say - yet you agree that, in a thousand attempts, he WILL behave the same way, every time.

Do you think that - if you jumped back in time, you might one time find yourself in a situation where the shot is fired - but misses?

I don't think so - because the fact that the bullet hits is concrete. It can't change. If you track forwards in time to that point, the bullet always WILL hit, if you track backwards, the bullet always HAS hit.

So - where's the choice?

There is no choice, in that scenario.


I would go with option 1 with the caveat that they're set in stone by the person making the decisions, not by destiny or by God or by any other external force.

It doesn't matter. Set in stone is set in stone. It can't be changed and thus - there is no choice.

I view it as God knowing what choices you were going to make before the beginning of time and figuring it in to the grand scheme of things ahead of time.

I view it as God knowing what choices you were going to make before the beginning of time and figuring it in to the grand scheme of things ahead of time.

Which still means it's all mapped out, and you can't actually leave the pre-ordained track.

So, if I'm an Atheist, and I could have converted with just a little sign, and I end up going to hell for my lack of belief...

It's God's fault for being an asshole. He knew what I needed, he knew what choices I would make, and he still let me burn. Bastard.

Interesting! I'm actually a Christian seminary student of a major denomination, which means I'm in school and training to become a member of the clergy. I'm open for any questions if you want. Feel free to ask whatever you like!

Okay...

Why?

How do you pronounce Cthulhu anyways?

From wikipedia:

Cthulhu is an enormous fictional creature, one of the Great Old Ones in H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos.[1] It is often cited for the extreme descriptions given of its appearance, size, and the abject terror that it invokes. Because of this reputation, Cthulhu is often referred to in science fiction and fantasy circles as a tongue-in-cheek shorthand for extreme horror or evil.[citation needed]

Cthulhu has also been spelled as Tulu, Clulu, Clooloo, Cighulu, Cathulu, Kutulu, Q’thulu, Ktulu, Kthulhut, Kulhu, Thu Thu,[2] and in many other ways. It is often preceded by the epithet Great, Dead, or Dread.

Lovecraft transcribed the pronunciation of Cthulhu as "Khlûl'hloo".[3] S. T. Joshi points out, however, that Lovecraft gave several differing pronunciations on different occasions.[4] According to Lovecraft, this is merely the closest that the human vocal apparatus can come to reproducing the syllables of an alien language.[5] Long after Lovecraft's death, the pronunciation kə-THOO-loo (IPA: /kəˈθuːluː/) became common, and the game Call of Cthulhu endorsed it.

Cthulhu first appeared in the short story "The Call of Cthulhu" (1928)—though it makes minor appearances in a few other Lovecraft works.[6] August Derleth, a correspondent of Lovecraft's, used the creature's name to identify the system of lore employed by Lovecraft and his literary successors, the Cthulhu Mythos.

Which still means it's all mapped out, and you can't actually leave the pre-ordained track.

So, if I'm an Atheist, and I could have converted with just a little sign, and I end up going to hell for my lack of belief...

It's God's fault for being an asshole. He knew what I needed, he knew what choices I would make, and he still let me burn. Bastard.

Faith is the test. And by what you're saying, you're failing. You have so many things that prove He is who He says He is, from sub-atomic particles to the vast expanse of the universe and all the wonders in between. And unless you live in a country that will try to kill or imprison you for it, you have access to His Word. If you're genuinely wanting to "see" proof, your proof is already available to you. You still bear the responsibility if you choose to ignore it.

You have to see friend that in some places in Africa and the Middle East and other parts of Asia, even in Europe they still have a similar thinking. However slavery in the Ancient World was a heck of a lot different from the barbarity of slavery here in the Americas. The thing was in the time of the Bible slavery was quite benign. It was a mutual relationship the slave worked for the master and in return the master must (recognizing the humanity of the slave) must provide the slave with a comfortable place in his home and he must provide food and clothing for the slave treat the slave as a member of his household. A slave in ancient times who fell on hard times would even sell himself in to slavery. Slaves even had the ability to become kings as is evident in King Solomon's servant Jeroboam who became king of Israel's northern kingdom and Sundiata Keita who became the first king of Mali in West Africa. The slavery in America was cruel in that the humanity of the slave was not recognized. The giving of daughters in marriage was not considered bad at all in ancient times and in many developing countries around the world today. If there was a poor family one way to make a lot of money was to give your daughter to a rich man for a dowery. You would not give your daughter to any old person mind you, but you tried to find a good man who you know will take care of her. To the Western mind this would seem quite barbaric but to a woman in Saudi Arabia this would be quite natural. In cases of rape, the Old Testament of the Bible has an eye for eye attitude toward things in that you get what you get. So if a man raped a girl who was not married he was now responsible for her and therefore had to marry her. But if he did it to a woman who was either engaged or married he must be put to death because he took another man's wife.

You actually believe that, don't you?

The only God worth worshipping is Volk Han.





And maybe the Ultimate Warrior........

If a being had perfect knowledge of what was going to happen in the future, that would imply that the future was determined, as how could one know what was going to happen unless nothing else could happen?
I posited that possibility, and pointed out that, in such a case, there might be no such thing as free will (merely the subjective illusion of it), but that has nothing to do with the god and what he/she/it knows or doesn't know. Therefore, the omniscience of the god has no effect on the free will of humans. It is the nature of reality itself that effects free will.

Faith is the test. And by what you're saying, you're failing. You have so many things that prove He is who He says He is, from sub-atomic particles to the vast expanse of the universe and all the wonders in between. And unless you live in a country that will try to kill or imprison you for it, you have access to His Word. If you're genuinely wanting to "see" proof, your proof is already available to you. You still bear the responsibility if you choose to ignore it.

You're missing the point - either because you didn't get it, or because you're ignoring it for a chance to preach. I don't much care which.

The point is - I can't CHOOSE to believe something if the evidence suggests it's not true.

What sort of evidence would you need to make you believe that 'god' was an invented entity and that 'satan' was the one true god? The evidence supports it just as well as it does the more conventional 'god is god' proposition.

What it comes down to is - we each have a capacity for belief. In some of us, this seems to be easily filled... in others, it seems much harder. It's not unreasonable to believe that EVERYONE could believe, if they just found the right evidence.

Knowing that, any god that would create a person, KNOWING that they would need a world of evidence to believe, that would FAIL to provide that kind of evidence, and that would then punish someone because they lacked belief - is a douche.

Sorry about my last post. I reread it later and realised how badly written it was. That's what I get for posting at work while thinking about my lover.
At least they were happy thoughts (I hope). :D

Okay, I see how you make a difference between knowledge and predictive ability. In that sense, you are correct, I have no knowledge that my book will fall and I will lose my page (I'm reading an old sci-fi novel that has a spine worn so badly that it won't hold a memory of the page I'm on), but I can predict with a reasonable amount of accuracy that such would be the case.

I don't think it would be omniscience if it was based on a predictive aspect. It would just be extremely good guesses. This may seem like a hair-splitting thingy, but to me it's an important qualitative distinction.
I am less demanding than you. I am willing to allow a "close enough" margin. "Omniscient or as near as makes no difference."

By the way, i'm defining omniscience as something other than really good guesswork. If I understood your distinction between knowing and predicting, then you could say that it is a god with perfect knowledge, rather than a god who makes extremely accurate, though possibly flawed, predictions based on extremely widespread, but not perfect, knowledge of the initial conditions. To me, omniscience, means knowing everything that is in reality. Past, present and future. And always being correct in that knowledge.
Well, it's true I don't apply the exact same standards as you, but they are "close enough." ;) However, I would dispute one detail: You say that a god whose "omniscience" is predictive would be making predictions based on "extremely widespread, but not perfect knowledge of the initial conditions." But the initial conditions -- i.e. the past -- is the one part of all this such a god could have perfect knowledge of, because that is the part that actually exists, unlike a future which hasn't been created yet.

If omniscience is based on a transcendent being's ability to exist outside of time and space, and our future is predetermined, it's all simple and clear, right? God is basically just looking at the entire timescape from 'transcendect place'. But I also see it happening the other way. If we start with the idea that god is omniscient, we have to accept that even if a multiplicity of universes is potentially possible, god already has the knowledge of which one will be realised. And if any other potential reality is realised, the omniscience is flawed. So, god's omniscience does not cause a predetermined universe, but it creates a situation where only one universe is possible, and then we act out that universe so that god won't be wrong.
Alternatively, what if the god was in the box along with the cat? What if the god/observer was part of the paradox and had perfect knowledge of every potentiality because he/she/it exists transcendently in all potentialities with concurrent perfect awareness of all potentialities? Until the waveform collapses, as it were, all the realities are equally existent, and thus, so would be an omniscient god's perfect and all-inclusive knowledge of all such existent realities, all real and all now and all known to the omniscient.

The problem with cosmically transcendent gods is that once they start transcending time and space, there really is no limit to how far they can go. It becomes difficult for the human imagination to keep up, unless one does a lot of drugs or is as crazy as me. :tongue:

If god does not know which potential universe will be realised, but has a really good prediction as to which one will be realised, there is still a chance of novelty. We know the tree will grow to the sun, but the tree has enough free will (if we think of will in tree terms) to grow in ways that are spontaneous, organic and novel.

In my view, the universe seems to have knowable bits. We know that gravity will act in an attractive manner between two masses. We can then use this knowledge to make accurate predictions about the future. We are often correct, and often wrong. To me, this is evidence of actual novelty in our reality. If god wanted such an orderly universe, why did he make people so weird?
To you it may be evidence of novelty in the universe. To me it is more likely merely evidence of the limits of our knowledge. We failed to predict how the tree would grow because we did not have full information about all the factors that were affecting the tree's growth during the time we were observing it. That says a lot about us, but nothing at all about the universe.

You ask me how I know we that we aren't living in a predetermined universe. I don't. I just have this overwhelming feeling that I exercise free will. I act in accordance with it, and everyone I meet seems to also be acting in accordance with a belief in free will. Even those who say they believe in a predetermined universe.
I am actually a big believer in overwhelming feelings. History shows us that anything a human being can imagine turns out to be possible in some form or another. How we feel things to be working generally turns out to be how they really do work, once we get enough data to actually see how the "system" is working. Where our instincts and impulses diverge from reality is mostly in our interpretations of what they mean, and this is generally due to lack of data. We may be right about how things work but completely wrong about why they work that way. We settle on concepts of the world as final and definitive, because they are based on all the knowledge we have at the time we make them, but we soon get more knowledge and have to revise those "definitive" histories and theories constantly.

So, it is probably true that free will is real. But what free will actually is and how it actually interacts with the universe are entirely different questions, about which we do not have sufficient data to draw any conclusions, in my opinion.

How can it be his free choice, if his action must happen?

If you go back to watch it, is there a chance that - this time - he won't do it? No - it has happened. The probablity that you'll go back and see it NOT happen is zero.

Now imagine applying that to every person, every action, every grain of sand, every mote of dust. Choice is an illusion, if there can actually be an entity that already knows time from end-to-end.
Boothe's action is only set in stone from your perspective, looking back on it after the fact.

From Boothe's perspective, before the fact, nothing is set in stone because none of it has happened yet.

I agree with you that, IF the future already exists in the only form it will ever take, then the difference between god's perspective and mine is irrelevant to whether my fate is set or not.

But in the time travel instance, perspective is of the highest relevance because it raises the question of who free will matters to. From your perspective, Boothe's fate is sealed, but from Boothe's perspective, he is still creating his own fate by exercise of free will. So whose view matters more -- yours or his? Whose view do you think would matter more to him?

<snip>


It doesn't matter. Set in stone is set in stone. It can't be changed and thus - there is no choice.
No choice NOW. But was there a choice THEN? You act as if the end determines the beginning. Boothe created the unchangeable history, but before he did that, his options were limitless, he could have done anything. Your hindsight does not change that, any more than it can change the fact of what Boothe did eventually choose to do. So while it is true that NOW his choice can never be changed, it does not follow that he NEVER had any other option but to do what he did before he did it. Therefore, the unchangeable nature of the past does not erase free will/choice.

No choice NOW. But was there a choice THEN? You act as if the end determines the beginning. Boothe created the unchangeable history, but before he did that, his options were limitless, he could have done anything. Your hindsight does not change that, any more than it can change the fact of what Boothe did eventually choose to do. So while it is true that NOW his choice can never be changed, it does not follow that he NEVER had any other option but to do what he did before he did it. Therefore, the unchangeable nature of the past does not erase free will/choice.

Well - this is two arguments really - the nature of time, and the nature of god.

The nature of time creates the conflicts IF it is linear. If cause MUST equal effect, then time travel might theoretically be possible, by moving back and forth in that 'axis'. But - it creates it's own limitations - if you can travel back, you can't change anything. If you travel forward, you can FEEL like you're chaning something, but someone travelling back from even LATER, would tell you that you're not.

If time is linear, it's already concrete, because a traveller from far enough in the future could tell you what comes next at any point. Any appearance of choice is an illusion.

If it's not linear - it's a whole new ball game. The nature of time is different, the jumper from the future can be describing one of a number of possible outcomes. You could have choice, maybe, with each choice creating a different future. Time travel 'backwards' might work, 'forwards' would be a longshot. Plus - the risk of paradoxes... jumping back in time could affect your own ability to jump back in time, etc.

So - 'choice' is ONLY choice if time is NOT linear. Otherwise - it can APPEAR to be like choice to the participant, but it's an illusion. You were always going to do... whatever.

If it's non-linear, what about the nature of God?

An omniscient god that watches us from a remote point and sees ALL time makes a liar of choice in a linear timeline - because, no matter WHERE along that line you look, it's already been seen how it transpired.

An omniscient god that watches us from a remote point on a NON-linear timeline... doesn't interfere with freewill - we could still have 'choice'... but he doesn't actually know what's coming next any better than you or I. Because, there are all the potential futures, and he sees them all. In order for us to have choice, he sees ALL the possible eventualities of EVERY possible action or decision.

So:

non-omniscient god + linear timeline = illusion of choice

non-omniscient god + non-linear timeline = possibility of actual freewill

omniscient god + linear timeline = illusion of choice

omniscient god + non-linear timeline = possibility of freewill.


Either way, gods that claim prophecy must be full of it. Allegedly omniscient of no, given the infinite number of outcomes, prophecy is shit. Prophecy can ONLY work if either: 1) time is linear (illusion of freewill) or time is non-linear but our choices are pre-destined (illusion of freewill).

Boothe's action is only set in stone from your perspective, looking back on it after the fact.

From Boothe's perspective, before the fact, nothing is set in stone because none of it has happened yet.

I agree with you that, IF the future already exists in the only form it will ever take, then the difference between god's perspective and mine is irrelevant to whether my fate is set or not.

But in the time travel instance, perspective is of the highest relevance because it raises the question of who free will matters to. From your perspective, Boothe's fate is sealed, but from Boothe's perspective, he is still creating his own fate by exercise of free will. So whose view matters more -- yours or his? Whose view do you think would matter more to him?

Perspective is irrelevent. It either happens or it don't. If I know it has already happened, there's no way it can have suddenly NOT happened.

Perspective is irrelevent. It either happens or it don't. If I know it has already happened, there's no way it can have suddenly NOT happened.
Did you stick your fingers in your ears while shouting that? :tongue:

You're just stubbornly refusing to even try to imagine what the Lincoln assassination might look like from any perspective other than yours. Here, let me toss up this lob:

If Boothe, at the last moment, changed his mind BACK THEN, then you'd know TODAY that he never shot Lincoln and that there's no way he ever could have done differently. And you'd be just as off base as you are now. You see, in hindsight, looking at the past, you cannot ever know what options were available to the people on the other end of the timeline, looking at it as the future.

The event of the Lincoln assassination is like a wall between the reality before the event and the reality after the event. You exist in the post-event reality, and that is all you can see, and that reality includes Boothe shooting Lincoln. Up to the moment he pulled the trigger, however, Boothe existed in the pre-event reality, which DID NOT include him shooting Lincoln. Until he actually did shoot Lincoln, he could have chosen to do anything at all other than shoot Lincoln. And if he HAD chosen to do something other than shoot Lincoln, then YOUR reality today would include what he did choose to do and nothing else.

So let's say you travel back in time to a few minutes before Boothe shoots Lincoln. You do not interfere, you merely observe. Since he has not yet shot Lincoln, the reality of the universe does not include him shooting Lincoln, so there is now ("now" being that moment on April 14, 1865, in which you are standing near him, which for both you and him is the present (at present)) -- as I say, there is "now" no guarantee that he is going to shoot Lincoln. If in that moment of possibility, potentiality, choice, he chooses something else, then the future-today-now-August 16, 2008, reality that you (time traveler) returns to will be a reality that does not and never did include Boothe shooting Lincoln, on account of he didn't.

Your limitations in 2008 have zero effect on Boothe's available choices in 1846. However, the choices Boothe made in 1846 DO limit the experiences available to you in 2008 -- at least in regard to Boothe and Lincoln.

Now, mind you, this is, of course, all presupposing that the future DOES NOT already exist but is created by our actions in each present moment. If that is the way the world works, then whatever Boothe chooses to do in 1846 will be the only possible reality you can know when you look at the past from the vantage point of 2008. But it in no way implies that what you know Boothe did is the only thing Boothe could have done.

So the point is that you cannot know that Boothe's actions were predetermined, or destined or whatever you want to call a lack of free will, just by looking at history. History tells you what Boothe did. It does not tell you that Boothe HAD to do what he did.

Well - this is two arguments really - the nature of time, and the nature of god.

The nature of time creates the conflicts IF it is linear. If cause MUST equal effect, then time travel might theoretically be possible, by moving back and forth in that 'axis'. But - it creates it's own limitations - if you can travel back, you can't change anything. If you travel forward, you can FEEL like you're chaning something, but someone travelling back from even LATER, would tell you that you're not.

If time is linear, it's already concrete, because a traveller from far enough in the future could tell you what comes next at any point. Any appearance of choice is an illusion.

If it's not linear - it's a whole new ball game. The nature of time is different, the jumper from the future can be describing one of a number of possible outcomes. You could have choice, maybe, with each choice creating a different future. Time travel 'backwards' might work, 'forwards' would be a longshot. Plus - the risk of paradoxes... jumping back in time could affect your own ability to jump back in time, etc.

So - 'choice' is ONLY choice if time is NOT linear. Otherwise - it can APPEAR to be like choice to the participant, but it's an illusion. You were always going to do... whatever.

If it's non-linear, what about the nature of God?

An omniscient god that watches us from a remote point and sees ALL time makes a liar of choice in a linear timeline - because, no matter WHERE along that line you look, it's already been seen how it transpired.

An omniscient god that watches us from a remote point on a NON-linear timeline... doesn't interfere with freewill - we could still have 'choice'... but he doesn't actually know what's coming next any better than you or I. Because, there are all the potential futures, and he sees them all. In order for us to have choice, he sees ALL the possible eventualities of EVERY possible action or decision.

So:

non-omniscient god + linear timeline = illusion of choice

non-omniscient god + non-linear timeline = possibility of actual freewill

omniscient god + linear timeline = illusion of choice

omniscient god + non-linear timeline = possibility of freewill.


Either way, gods that claim prophecy must be full of it. Allegedly omniscient of no, given the infinite number of outcomes, prophecy is shit. Prophecy can ONLY work if either: 1) time is linear (illusion of freewill) or time is non-linear but our choices are pre-destined (illusion of freewill).
All of your points above were already addressed in the thread.

1) It has already been argued that knowledge =/= predetermination because there is no reason to believe that an entity's knowledge of a future event causes that event to happen, nor that one entity's knowledge of the future affects another entity's choices about what to do today. And you have not here given me any reason to believe that if an omniscient god knows in advance the outcomes of my choices, that somehow means my choices are not made freely. Without that connection being established, the statement that an omniscient god makes a lie of choice is nonsense. How can HIS omniscience have any effect on MY choices?

2) Your own examples show that god's omniscience (supposing it exists) has fuck-all to do with free will or choice. As I have been saying all along, it is not the characteristics of a god that determine whether people have free will. It is the nature of reality, or in this case, time that determine this. Delete all reference to "god" in your above post, and your argument could stand just as well as "linear time = illusion of choice / non-linear time = possibility of freewill." So it has nothing to do with god, and whether you have free will or not, it's not god's fault.

3) I already suggested a way in which a god could be omniscient of every possible potentiality simultaneously.

4) Finally, why do you suppose that a linear timeline is a complete timeline? Why do you suppose that the future already exists? Why can't it be linear AND created as we go along? I mean that TIME exists, but the things we do during it don't exist until we do them. Why can't time be a track along which we travel but without having every action and decision already determined before we get to it? If you travel backward in time and change things, you could change the future you return to, easily, just like shifting a train onto a different track. If you travel forward in time, you will land in a reality that is formed by all the actions and choices made by all the people who were not time traveling between the time you set off and the time you arrived at. (To be honest, while forward time travel might be scientifically more problematical, I personally find it theoretically less of a problem than backward time travel.)

5) The one overarching problem with all your arguments, however, is that you still have not shown me what god(s) has/have to do with any of it.

At least they were happy thoughts (I hope). :D

If you knew Sinuhue the way I know her, you would know that there can be only happy thoughts, unless I think of her absence.

I am less demanding than you. I am willing to allow a "close enough" margin. "Omniscient or as near as makes no difference."

Well, it's true I don't apply the exact same standards as you, but they are "close enough." ;) However, I would dispute one detail: You say that a god whose "omniscience" is predictive would be making predictions based on "extremely widespread, but not perfect knowledge of the initial conditions." But the initial conditions -- i.e. the past -- is the one part of all this such a god could have perfect knowledge of, because that is the part that actually exists, unlike a future which hasn't been created yet.

I was assuming that it was possible for god to forget or somehow have an incomplete knowledge of the past.

Alternatively, what if the god was in the box along with the cat? What if the god/observer was part of the paradox and had perfect knowledge of every potentiality because he/she/it exists transcendently in all potentialities with concurrent perfect awareness of all potentialities? Until the waveform collapses, as it were, all the realities are equally existent, and thus, so would be an omniscient god's perfect and all-inclusive knowledge of all such existent realities, all real and all now and all known to the omniscient.

But the omniscient god would also have to know which reality will be chosen before the waveform collapses.

The problem with cosmically transcendent gods is that once they start transcending time and space, there really is no limit to how far they can go. It becomes difficult for the human imagination to keep up, unless one does a lot of drugs or is as crazy as me. :tongue:

I'll take another toke.

To you it may be evidence of novelty in the universe. To me it is more likely merely evidence of the limits of our knowledge. We failed to predict how the tree would grow because we did not have full information about all the factors that were affecting the tree's growth during the time we were observing it. That says a lot about us, but nothing at all about the universe.

Evolutionary mutations and the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle are both other examples of actual novelty. In the second it is explicitly impossible to make predictions. I simply chose people because they are the funnest and most accessible source of novelty.

I am actually a big believer in overwhelming feelings. History shows us that anything a human being can imagine turns out to be possible in some form or another. How we feel things to be working generally turns out to be how they really do work, once we get enough data to actually see how the "system" is working. Where our instincts and impulses diverge from reality is mostly in our interpretations of what they mean, and this is generally due to lack of data. We may be right about how things work but completely wrong about why they work that way. We settle on concepts of the world as final and definitive, because they are based on all the knowledge we have at the time we make them, but we soon get more knowledge and have to revise those "definitive" histories and theories constantly.

So, it is probably true that free will is real. But what free will actually is and how it actually interacts with the universe are entirely different questions, about which we do not have sufficient data to draw any conclusions, in my opinion.

Debating like this draws us closer to the truth.

2) Your own examples show that god's omniscience (supposing it exists) has fuck-all to do with free will or choice. As I have been saying all along, it is not the characteristics of a god that determine whether people have free will. It is the nature of reality, or in this case, time that determine this. Delete all reference to "god" in your above post, and your argument could stand just as well as "linear time = illusion of choice / non-linear time = possibility of freewill." So it has nothing to do with god, and whether you have free will or not, it's not god's fault.


Nobody however is arguing that. It's being argued that God's knowledge of the future indicates or implies that the future must be determined for him to exist, not that his knowledge is causal. And that is where a lot of confusing arises.

The bad God is any concept of a spook or mystery God, who one day will or has saved us from our sins and our suffering. This is just an excuse to provide justification for enslavement.

The good God is recognizing that we ourselves are Allah, individually and collectively. Only we ourselves can save ourselves from sins, suffering and free ourselves from our chains of enslavement.

The Original, Asiatic Black Man and all descended rightfully from him are God.

If you knew Sinuhue the way I know her, you would know that there can be only happy thoughts, unless I think of her absence.



I was assuming that it was possible for god to forget or somehow have an incomplete knowledge of the past.
Were you also further assuming he couldn't go look it up? :tongue:


But the omniscient god would also have to know which reality will be chosen before the waveform collapses.
No, I don't think so. I think that at the moment before the waveform collapses, all the potential realities are real; they actually exist, whole and complete, so regardless of which of them pop out of existence like soap bubbles at the moment the human being makes his/her choice, the omniscient god's knowledge of the entirety of every one of them is complete and perfect and instantaneous and real and true. The god may well know which one you will choose, but that does not mean that the others are less real or less true.

Also, it brings us back to the issue of whether the god's foreknowledge makes the human's choice un-free, which I don't think it does.


I'll take another toke.



Evolutionary mutations and the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle are both other examples of actual novelty. In the second it is explicitly impossible to make predictions. I simply chose people because they are the funnest and most accessible source of novelty.
*most fun*. "Funnest" isn't a word. And I thought you were talking about trees, not people. ;)


Debating like this draws us closer to the truth.
How do you know? ;)

Nobody however is arguing that. It's being argued that God's knowledge of the future indicates or implies that the future must be determined for him to exist, not that his knowledge is causal. And that is where a lot of confusing arises.
A) It was earlier argued by someone else that foreknowledge is somehow causal or otherwise limiting on human free will.

B) "God's knowledge of the future indicates or implies that the future must be determined for him to exist" Huh? That's not how I've been reading the arguments. I've read them as saying that the future must already be determined in order for the god to be omniscient about it, not in order for the god to exist at all. That is why I have repeatedly pointed out that, if the future is already determined, then humans don't need a god to deny them free will. The predetermined universe will do that for them naturally.

C) The arguments that say that god's omniscience either doesn't exist or else denies free will, are also taking a blaming tone towards the god, as if his omniscience alone is enough to deny humans free will. They seem not to want to address the idea that a predetermined universe would eliminate free will even if there were no such thing as a god. I say this indicates that (1) god is important to what they are trying to say, even if they can't quite make him fit into the equation, and (2) that there is an assumed causal relationship between a god's omniscience and humans not having free will.

Did you stick your fingers in your ears while shouting that? :tongue:


No, I tossed it out as a one-liner, rathe than hitting all the same points again, that I had hit in the other post.


You're just stubbornly refusing to even try to imagine what the Lincoln assassination might look like from any perspective other than yours. Here, let me toss up this lob:

If Boothe, at the last moment, changed his mind BACK THEN, then you'd know TODAY that he never shot Lincoln and that there's no way he ever could have done differently. And you'd be just as off base as you are now. You see, in hindsight, looking at the past, you cannot ever know what options were available to the people on the other end of the timeline, looking at it as the future.

The event of the Lincoln assassination is like a wall between the reality before the event and the reality after the event. You exist in the post-event reality, and that is all you can see, and that reality includes Boothe shooting Lincoln. Up to the moment he pulled the trigger, however, Boothe existed in the pre-event reality, which DID NOT include him shooting Lincoln. Until he actually did shoot Lincoln, he could have chosen to do anything at all other than shoot Lincoln. And if he HAD chosen to do something other than shoot Lincoln, then YOUR reality today would include what he did choose to do and nothing else.

So let's say you travel back in time to a few minutes before Boothe shoots Lincoln. You do not interfere, you merely observe. Since he has not yet shot Lincoln, the reality of the universe does not include him shooting Lincoln, so there is now ("now" being that moment on April 14, 1865, in which you are standing near him, which for both you and him is the present (at present)) -- as I say, there is "now" no guarantee that he is going to shoot Lincoln. If in that moment of possibility, potentiality, choice, he chooses something else, then the future-today-now-August 16, 2008, reality that you (time traveler) returns to will be a reality that does not and never did include Boothe shooting Lincoln, on account of he didn't.

Your limitations in 2008 have zero effect on Boothe's available choices in 1846. However, the choices Boothe made in 1846 DO limit the experiences available to you in 2008 -- at least in regard to Boothe and Lincoln.

Now, mind you, this is, of course, all presupposing that the future DOES NOT already exist but is created by our actions in each present moment. If that is the way the world works, then whatever Boothe chooses to do in 1846 will be the only possible reality you can know when you look at the past from the vantage point of 2008. But it in no way implies that what you know Boothe did is the only thing Boothe could have done.

So the point is that you cannot know that Boothe's actions were predetermined, or destined or whatever you want to call a lack of free will, just by looking at history. History tells you what Boothe did. It does not tell you that Boothe HAD to do what he did.

I'll try to explain better in my response to your other post responding to my other post. :)

All of your points above were already addressed in the thread.

1) It has already been argued that knowledge =/= predetermination because there is no reason to believe that an entity's knowledge of a future event causes that event to happen, nor that one entity's knowledge of the future affects another entity's choices about what to do today. And you have not here given me any reason to believe that if an omniscient god knows in advance the outcomes of my choices, that somehow means my choices are not made freely. Without that connection being established, the statement that an omniscient god makes a lie of choice is nonsense. How can HIS omniscience have any effect on MY choices?

2) Your own examples show that god's omniscience (supposing it exists) has fuck-all to do with free will or choice. As I have been saying all along, it is not the characteristics of a god that determine whether people have free will. It is the nature of reality, or in this case, time that determine this. Delete all reference to "god" in your above post, and your argument could stand just as well as "linear time = illusion of choice / non-linear time = possibility of freewill." So it has nothing to do with god, and whether you have free will or not, it's not god's fault.

3) I already suggested a way in which a god could be omniscient of every possible potentiality simultaneously.

4) Finally, why do you suppose that a linear timeline is a complete timeline? Why do you suppose that the future already exists? Why can't it be linear AND created as we go along? I mean that TIME exists, but the things we do during it don't exist until we do them. Why can't time be a track along which we travel but without having every action and decision already determined before we get to it? If you travel backward in time and change things, you could change the future you return to, easily, just like shifting a train onto a different track. If you travel forward in time, you will land in a reality that is formed by all the actions and choices made by all the people who were not time traveling between the time you set off and the time you arrived at. (To be honest, while forward time travel might be scientifically more problematical, I personally find it theoretically less of a problem than backward time travel.)

5) The one overarching problem with all your arguments, however, is that you still have not shown me what god(s) has/have to do with any of it.

The connection of 'god' - especially omniscient designs for 'god' - is the capacity for an entity to be able to already SEE all of time mapped out.

If time is non-linear, and it's ALL been seen, the 'god' entity CAN know all possible outcomes, but freewill (while possible, under that circumstance) means that god cannot 'predict' anything. Prophesy must be a nonsense.

If time is linear, and it's ALL seen, the 'god' entity CAN know exactly how everything is going to transpire, prophecy can be 'real'... but your choices are only illusions, because 'god' entity already knows what you 'did'.

Explicitly: omniscient creator + linear time = your 'choice' has already been viewed, you can't change it. So - not really a choice.

The incomplete timeline thing doesn't work if there is an alleged omniscient 'god' entity that can see it ALL. It can't be both incomplete AND completely witnessed.


The other point - the idea that you could change the past is paradoxical. If you could change it, it wouldn't be the past. Or - THIS wouldn't be the present. It's a cute sci-fi gimmick to enable alterations to previously executed actions, but it doesn't 'work' in real terms.

A) It was earlier argued by someone else that foreknowledge is somehow causal or otherwise limiting on human free will.


I never saw it being argued as causal.


B) "God's knowledge of the future indicates or implies that the future must be determined for him to exist" Huh? That's not how I've been reading the arguments. I've read them as saying that the future must already be determined in order for the god to be omniscient about it, not in order for the god to exist at all. That is why I have repeatedly pointed out that, if the future is already determined, then humans don't need a god to deny them free will. The predetermined universe will do that for them naturally.


That's not what I meant, I mean that the only way God can exist in that way (knowing the future) is for the universe to be determined. Although you could of course further argue that since God created the universe, you must then assume that God then determined the universe also.


C) The arguments that say that god's omniscience either doesn't exist or else denies free will, are also taking a blaming tone towards the god, as if his omniscience alone is enough to deny humans free will.

But you can blame God, since he made the universe.

"Real (Acausal) God is not the awful 'Creator', the world-making and ego-making Titan, the Nature-'God' of worldly theology. Real (Acausal) God is not the First Cause, the Ultimate 'Other', or any of the Objective Ideas of mind-made philosophy. Real (Acausal) God is not any Image created (and defined) by the religious ego. Real (Acausal) God is not any Power contacted (and limited) by the mystical or the scientific ego. Real (Acausal) God is not any goal that motivates the social ego.

"Real (Acausal) God Is Truth (Itself)---or That Which, when Most Perfectly 'Known' (or fully Realized), Sets you entirely Free.

"Real (Acausal) God Is Eleutherios, the Divine Liberator."

---from The Liberator (Eleutherios),

by The Avataric Great Sage, Adi Da Samraj

Perspective is irrelevent.
Well, not if "now" is the only reality.

The connection of 'god' - especially omniscient designs for 'god' - is the capacity for an entity to be able to already SEE all of time mapped out.

If time is non-linear, and it's ALL been seen, the 'god' entity CAN know all possible outcomes, but freewill (while possible, under that circumstance) means that god cannot 'predict' anything. Prophesy must be a nonsense.
No, because as I said, if all potentialities are real, then all knowledge of those potentialities is true, and all prophecies concerning them are likewise true, even if some of them never happen. They are true when they are made.

If time is linear, and it's ALL seen, the 'god' entity CAN know exactly how everything is going to transpire, prophecy can be 'real'... but your choices are only illusions, because 'god' entity already knows what you 'did'.
You still have not shown me how (A) god knowing it has anything to do with my lack of free will. I'll say it again: IT IS TIME BEING LINEAR AND COMPLETE THAT PREDETERMINES MY FUTURE, NOT GOD'S KNOWLEDGE ABOUT TIME. I'll say this again, too: IF TIME IS LINEAR AND COMPLETE, THEN EVEN IF THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOD, MY FUTURE IS STILL PREDETERMINED AND THUS I HAVE NO FREE WILL. And I'll add this: IF YOU CAN DELETE GOD FROM THE PICTURE WITHOUT CHANGING MY FREE WILL OR LACK THEREOF, THEN GOD, OMNISCIENT OR NOT, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE WILL.

I wrote those in caps because people keep ignoring those points instead of addressing them.

Explicitly: omniscient creator + linear time = your 'choice' has already been viewed, you can't change it. So - not really a choice.
Explicitly: I disagree that the viewer of your future is the reason you have no choice. If your future were not already in existence, there would be nothing for a god to view. So obviously, if a god can view your future choices, then your future already exists, AND WOULD EXIST EVEN IF THERE WERE NO GOD.

I mean, I'm not looking at Mount Everest right now. Does that mean there is no Mount Everest? If I look at Mount Everest, does that cause Mount Everest to pop into existence? No, and no. There is a mountain there, whether I look at it or not.

Likewise, IF your future choices already exist, then they exist, whether god views them or not. And if they exist, then you have no free will, whether there is such a thing as an omniscient god or not.

You have been arguing that your future already exists and god views it and it is because of that viewing that you have no free will. But I say that makes no sense. In that scenario, what would eliminate your free will would be the fact that your future already exists, not the observations of a god.

The incomplete timeline thing doesn't work if there is an alleged omniscient 'god' entity that can see it ALL. It can't be both incomplete AND completely witnessed.
A train track exists, and it is complete, because it runs all the way from the first station to the last station. But the train is only a third of the way along it. Does the fact that the track is complete automatically mean that the train's journey is complete too? Or does the train face multiple potentialities in its future along that track, with the only constant being that it will be on that track to the end? That is what I mean when I say that time can be complete even if our future in it is not. Time = the track. Our lives = the train.

The other point - the idea that you could change the past is paradoxical. If you could change it, it wouldn't be the past. Or - THIS wouldn't be the present. It's a cute sci-fi gimmick to enable alterations to previously executed actions, but it doesn't 'work' in real terms.
I told you that if you change the past then, "THIS wouldn't be the present." I accounted for that part of the problem in exactly that way.

I never saw it being argued as causal.
Well, I did. :tongue:


That's not what I meant, I mean that the only way God can exist in that way (knowing the future) is for the universe to be determined. Although you could of course further argue that since God created the universe, you must then assume that God then determined the universe also.
Yes, one could further argue that. I'm surprised none of the believers in this omniscient god have done so.

EDIT: In fact, I'm starting to feel sorry for this god, if the only person claiming that his omniscience is not proof that humans have no free will is a person who does not worship him.


But you can blame God, since he made the universe.
Ah, but if they are not saying that his knowledge is the causal factor, then they can't legitimately argue that his knowledge is what negates their free will, now can they?

1) It has already been argued that knowledge =/= predetermination because there is no reason to believe that an entity's knowledge of a future event causes that event to happen, nor that one entity's knowledge of the future affects another entity's choices about what to do today.
The causation fallacy aside, "knowledge" is of things that have happened. Prediction is of things of the future. If an entity called "God" has "knowledge" of things, even of our future, then from that entity's perspective they have happened. If any entity has knowledge of things in the future, then there is a perspective from which they have happened. So there is no room for them not to happen.

Out of curiosity, suppose that someone knows every event that ever happened, yet their predictions aren't always correct. Would you call them omniscient?

Alternatively, what if the god was in the box along with the cat? What if the god/observer was part of the paradox and had perfect knowledge of every potentiality because he/she/it exists transcendently in all potentialities with concurrent perfect awareness of all potentialities? Until the waveform collapses, as it were, all the realities are equally existent, and thus, so would be an omniscient god's perfect and all-inclusive knowledge of all such existent realities, all real and all now and all known to the omniscient.

And as the waveform never collapses, "God" is the cat; yes. I like that.

Out of curiosity, suppose that someone knows every event that ever happened, yet their predictions aren't always correct. Would you call them omniscient?
No; and such an entity would not be omnipresent, either.

That doesn't disagree with anything I said at all in any way whatsoever. Please read what I am saying more carefully. I didn't say 'to God', I said 'to us'. To us what God is experiencing is 20 years in the future. To him it isn't, but that doesn't matter in the slightest.

You know I have been reading every word and understand what you mean, it is clear though that you have not gotten me at all.

When you make mention of past, present and future, when you say things like:

'2)Assume that God is observing A, to us A is 20 years in the future but to God A is easily observable by him right now. '

What gets me about this, is you show how you misunderstand me. When I reply I get the old 'you're not getting me', which is kinda ironic huh.

So lets try this way. No to us what God observes now is not 20 years in our future, because that would indicate some sort of linear time frame for God. More like in 20 years time, that action that you will make, God sees that.

Not now, not 20 years, as we would percive it, in our past but now as you are doing the action, God is seeing it.



Irrelevant and getting slightly annoying with this semantic pedantry.

Yes it is sligthly annoying when people misunderstand you;¬).

Pedantic, certianly, we have to be so in order that we both understand each other. If we don't explain and then agree n whatever words and terms we use, then we are not going to get anywhere.

Irrelevent, not at all in fact it is 100% relevenat to what I'm talking about.

'Thus, if we were to wait 20 years, we would also observe A like God was doing 20 years ago.'

So again, no because God was not viewing A 20 years ago, God is veiwing A now as you do it.



Again you really are being annoying, no offence. Since I knew you would be this pedantic and semantic, I deliberately explained everything very carefully (but apparently not carefully enough). Read this please: TO US TO US TO US TO US TO US TO US TO US TO US. I'm not talking about Gods perspective in this case, I'm talking about our perspective, our perspective of time is entirely linear even if Gods isn't. If we were to go back 20 years ago in our time frame, God would still be observing A, since God is always observing A..

Yes to us that would be how it all looks, but not to God. This is the distinction that I am trying to make.

But if you are trying to claim that how God views time is irrelevant to this discusion then you are wrong, both are very relevant.



I didn't actually use the word 'PRE-determined'. If God is observing A, that means in our time frame, A will happen in 20 years time. You are being a bit silly, you seem to be assuming that just because God experiences time in a non linear fashion, that must mean that our time frame itself is non linear. This is of course nonsense, because of course there is a future for us and a past for us.

Well hat hardly matters, as it is pre-deterimation that we are arguing about, whether or not you actualy used the word is imeaterial.

It's like discussing the number eight, and only ever saying 'the number between 7 and 9', we all know we are talking about the number eight even if the word is never uttered.


So you claim that because God has 'fore'knowledge then all of our actions are 'pre'-determined.

My counter claim, is that both of these labels are wrongly applied to God, and only work for us, and how we percive time.

If God is outside of time, then 'fore' and 'pre' are meaningless to any knowledge that we can claim God has, thus rendering both the terms 'foreknowldge' and 'predeterimend' meaningless in such a debate.

So God's knowledge of our future actions, are not 'fore' and thus we do not labour under 'predetermination'.

A semantic argument to be sure, but shit, if we are to communicate using words then surly we must use words and terms that makes sense huh.

So you say - yet you agree that, in a thousand attempts, he WILL behave the same way, every time.

Do you think that - if you jumped back in time, you might one time find yourself in a situation where the shot is fired - but misses?

I don't think so - because the fact that the bullet hits is concrete. It can't change. If you track forwards in time to that point, the bullet always WILL hit, if you track backwards, the bullet always HAS hit.

So - where's the choice?

There is no choice, in that scenario.



It doesn't matter. Set in stone is set in stone. It can't be changed and thus - there is no choice.

That makes little sense. We are talking about an event that has already happened, we all know it happend, and we all know what happend.

In this respect these events can be seen a little like a tape recording.

So what you have just said is because we can re-wind a tape again and again, and again, and replay a certian portion of it over and over and over, because it doesn't change then that tape was made without the will of whoever the voices belonged to. Now does that make sense?

Perspective is irrelevent. It either happens or it don't. If I know it has already happened, there's no way it can have suddenly NOT happened.

Perspective is alway relevant. I'm actulay supprised that you claim otherwise.

Imaging the ski jumper plying his trade. To himself, he is flying through the air, to the observer below him, he is falling.

No to us what God observes now is not 20 years in our future, because that would indicate some sort of linear time frame for God.

Well you're just completely wrong on that. THERE IS A LINEAR TIME FRAME, it's just that God is OUTSIDE OF THIS TIME FRAME (assuming he's transcendent), so therefore he can observe our time from a non linear perspective, but we can't.


More like in 20 years time, that action that you will make, God sees that.


That's exactly what I said! You've just worded it differently.


'Thus, if we were to wait 20 years, we would also observe A like God was doing 20 years ago.'

So again, no because God was not viewing A 20 years ago, God is veiwing A now as you do it.


Entirely irrelevant in every possible way imaginable. Even if God is viewing A as I do it, that doesn't change anything. To our perspective, God was also observing A 20 years ago in our time, regardless of whether 20 years ago has no meaning to God, since we are not talking about God's time frame (or lack there of), we are talking about our time frame.


Yes to us that would be how it all looks, but not to God.

As I have said a million times already, and which is also irrelevant.


But if you are trying to claim that how God views time is irrelevant to this discusion then you are wrong, both are very relevant.


It's not relevant how he does it. The only thing that matters is that he is capable of observing things that we aren't capable of.


So you claim that because God has 'fore'knowledge then all of our actions are 'pre'-determined.


Never used the word 'fore'knowledge (of course to anyone else who debates these things, they would have no problem with the semantics of knowledge and forknowledge, since it's pretty easy to work out what you actually mean).


My counter claim, is that both of these labels are wrongly applied to God, and only work for us, and how we percive time.


And I'm claiming that it is entirely irrelevant, whatever you want to call what he does, it still indicates that our time frame is determined.


If God is outside of time, then 'fore' and 'pre' are meaningless to any knowledge that we can claim God has

It's meaningless to God, but not to us. Whether it's meaningless to God does not counter anything that I say.


, thus rendering both the terms 'foreknowldge' and 'predeterimend' meaningless in such a debate.


Wrong. Pre and and fore are very meaningful to us, since we are discussing our time frame the terms have meaning. Again, just because it's meaningless to God doesn't mean it's meaningless to us.


So God's knowledge of our future actions, are not 'fore' and thus we do not labour under 'predetermination'.


No, because to us in our time frame he existed at the dawn of our time, previous to the creation of the universe (just because there's no previous to God doesn't mean there isn't one for us), therefore it's meaningful for use the term pre.


A semantic argument to be sure, but shit, if we are to communicate using words then surly we must use words and terms that makes sense huh.

Words are not some objective existing thing with a fundamental essence behind them, they are merely tools used to express ideas. If you don't think a word is accurate, it doesn't mean you have to whine about it, as long as you know what the person means then there's no need for it.

That makes little sense. We are talking about an event that has already happened, we all know it happend, and we all know what happend.

In this respect these events can be seen a little like a tape recording.

So what you have just said is because we can re-wind a tape again and again, and again, and replay a certian portion of it over and over and over, because it doesn't change then that tape was made without the will of whoever the voices belonged to. Now does that make sense?

That's not what I'm saying. Your tape recorder is probably more akin to a hollywood movie camera. It's all been planned out long before the film is even in the camera, the actors have their lines, and their marks - and they're not going to diverge. Even as the film is being recorded, the CHARACTER (not the actor) has no choices, because he/she has already been 'seen' to follow an ordained path.

Your taperecorder analogy falls down ebcause we have been talking about an omniscient god, who can have already seen all of our actions. Thus - 'recorded live' is something of a deception.

Perspective is alway relevant. I'm actulay supprised that you claim otherwise.

Imaging the ski jumper plying his trade. To himself, he is flying through the air, to the observer below him, he is falling.

Irrelevent.

No matter if you think he's flying or falling, he's either in the air or he's not. Perspective is irrelevent to the actual REALITY of an event. Perspective only relates to how we SEE those events.... by definition.

In this debate, perspective is what allows you the ILLUSION of freewill. That doesn't make your will any more free, in real terms.

Well you're just completely wrong on that. THERE IS A LINEAR TIME FRAME, it's just that God is OUTSIDE OF THIS TIME FRAME (assuming he's transcendent), so therefore he can observe our time from a non linear perspective, but we can't.

Heh and now you are just not reading what I write.

I mean how do you get that from this:

'..because that would indicate some sort of linear time frame for God.'

That's exactly what I said! You've just worded it differently.

No it is differant.


Entirely irrelevant in every possible way imaginable. Even if God is viewing A as I do it, that doesn't change anything. To our perspective, God was also observing A 20 years ago in our time, regardless of whether 20 years ago has no meaning to God, since we are not talking about God's time frame (or lack there of), we are talking about our time frame.

Yes of course we are talking about our time frame, but the point is for something to be predetermined, then it must have been decided before the event occours. To God this is not so, only to our perspective, so in fact it is not 'free will' that is illusional, but 'predetermination' that is.



It's not relevant how he does it. The only thing that matters is that he is capable of observing things that we aren't capable of.


Ohh I soooo disagree with that. Are you saying then that only the observed is relevant, the observer has no relevance at all? What does that do for quantum science?


Never used the word 'fore'knowledge (of course to anyone else who debates these things, they would have no problem with the semantics of knowledge and forknowledge, since it's pretty easy to work out what you actually mean).

Again I have not said that you have used the word, but are you now denying that IS what we have been discussing?


And I'm claiming that it is entirely irrelevant, whatever you want to call what he does, it still indicates that our time frame is determined.

No, you have not yet proved that to me. How is it determined, and by who or what?



It's meaningless to God, but not to us. Whether it's meaningless to God does not counter anything that I say.

It does when you want to argue that it is God's knowledge that makes our freewill an illusion, or our future acts pre-determined.


Wrong. Pre and and fore are very meaningful to us, since we are discussing our time frame the terms have meaning. Again, just because it's meaningless to God doesn't mean it's meaningless to us.

That is right, I agree with this. But if it is meaningless to claim that God has 'fore' knowldge, then what does that mean to any 'pre'-determination, of our future acts. Do you see where I'm coming from now?


No, because to us in our time frame he existed at the dawn of our time, previous to the creation of the universe (just because there's no previous to God doesn't mean there isn't one for us), therefore it's meaningful for use the term pre.

Yes of course, in regard to us, but not in regard to God.


Words are not some objective existing thing with a fundamental essence behind them, they are merely tools used to express ideas. If you don't think a word is accurate, it doesn't mean you have to whine about it, as long as you know what the person means then there's no need for it.

Now what are you talking about? Yes of course a word is not the thing in and of itself. C.A.R. is not an actual car.

By the same token though, you would not expect to be talking about Cars, whilst calling them Trains would you, that's just confussing.

That's not what I'm saying. Your tape recorder is probably more akin to a hollywood movie camera. It's all been planned out long before the film is even in the camera, the actors have their lines, and their marks - and they're not going to diverge. Even as the film is being recorded, the CHARACTER (not the actor) has no choices, because he/she has already been 'seen' to follow an ordained path.

Your taperecorder analogy falls down ebcause we have been talking about an omniscient god, who can have already seen all of our actions. Thus - 'recorded live' is something of a deception.


Well this is what you originaly said, and what I replied to.

'So you say - yet you agree that, in a thousand attempts, he WILL behave the same way, every time.

Do you think that - if you jumped back in time, you might one time find yourself in a situation where the shot is fired - but misses?

I don't think so - because the fact that the bullet hits is concrete. It can't change. If you track forwards in time to that point, the bullet always WILL hit, if you track backwards, the bullet always HAS hit.

So - where's the choice?

There is no choice, in that scenario.'

My tape recorder was only as an anology of this. What you are talking about are events already in our past. A lot differant from knolwdge of future events.

In this example, because the choice has already been made, the action has already been performed, then yes any going back in time to witness it, will be just lke viewing a video recording, the actions have been performed, they cannot now be changed.

This is totaly differant from knowledge of future events.




It doesn't matter. Set in stone is set in stone. It can't be changed and thus - there is no choice.

Heh and now you are just not reading what I write.

I mean how do you get that from this:

'..because that would indicate some sort of linear time frame for God.'



No it is differant.


Because I never said: '..because that would indicate some sort of linear time frame for God', you did.


Yes of course we are talking about our time frame, but the point is for something to be predetermined, then it must have been decided before the event occours.

To our perspective, it was. Even saying that it's possible to have a transcendent perspective of time (like God), is already in itself showing that the universe is determined. That's really the whole point.


To God this is not so, only to our perspective, so in fact it is not 'free will' that is illusional, but 'predetermination' that is.


It's not an illusion, for us past, present and future exists. To us such things are real and not imaginary, since God is transcendent and outside of this universe, they do not exist where he is, so if HE were to believe that HIS existence was predetermined then it would be an illusion since that's not the reality for where he is, however we are not talking abut HIS universe, we are talking about ours.


Ohh I soooo disagree with that. Are you saying then that only the observed is relevant, the observer has no relevance at all?

Yes.


What does that do for quantum science?


That's a whole different ballpark altogether, and is not being discussed here.


No, you have not yet proved that to me. How is it determined, and by who or what?


God made the universe. He created the time frame. If he is able to see what we describe as the future, that indicates that he created it (since he created everything). Since he created that, then from our perspective, he created the future, and thus from our perspective the universe is determined, and from our perspective we have no free will.


It does when you want to argue that it is God's knowledge that makes our freewill an illusion, or our future acts pre-determined.


I didn't say it MAKES our freewill an illusion, I said it INDICATES or SHOWS that free will is an illusion.


That is right, I agree with this. But if it is meaningless to claim that God has 'fore' knowldge, then what does that mean to any 'pre'-determination, of our future acts. Do you see where I'm coming from now?


It's meaningless (more accurately, irrelevant) to him ideas about pre and fore, I'm not saying it's universally meaningless. It has meaning to us. Why are you not getting this?


Yes of course, in regard to us, but not in regard to God.


No, not if we were operating under Gods perspective. Then we would simply say, determined, rather than pre-determined. But we're not, we're operating under our perspective.


Now what are you talking about? Yes of course a word is not the thing in and of itself. C.A.R. is not an actual car.

By the same token though, you would not expect to be talking about Cars, whilst calling them Trains would you, that's just confussing.

But you really shouldn't be getting confused.

the choice has already been made...

Using what you've been saying. To God, every choice has already been made, thus it's concrete and unchangeable (unless God decides to change it).

Irrelevent.

No matter if you think he's flying or falling, he's either in the air or he's not. Perspective is irrelevent to the actual REALITY of an event. Perspective only relates to how we SEE those events.... by definition.

In this debate, perspective is what allows you the ILLUSION of freewill. That doesn't make your will any more free, in real terms.

Well I agree with that. Yes perspective relates only to how we see events, not to what is objectivly happening.

Yet when we discuss what is objectivly happening from more that one perspective, is it not folly to declare that only one is valid?

I guess some of us here must have seen 'The Dog Whisperer'?

A show in which a dog trainer explains how dog owners can over come doggie problems by, yep giving the owner a glipse of things from the dogs perspective.

By understanding both how humans and dogs view the same actions, the owner comes into some very real knowldge of how to handle the dog.

Both are not only valid, but nescacry for fuller understanding.

As to free will and the illusion of it, what you are saying here is by our perspective it seems that it is illusionary, and so that must be the objective truth of the matter, yet above you say that perspective is not always the same as objectivly true, which one is it my freind?

As to free will and the illusion of it, what you are saying here is by our perspective it seems that it is illusionary, and so that must be the objective truth of the matter, yet above you say that perspective is not always the same as objectivly true, which one is it my freind?

You've completely misunderstood what he's saying. From our perspective, free will is very real and counter-intuitive to say it isn't. He's saying that it is our perspective in fact which is the illusion.

Because I never said: '..because that would indicate some sort of linear time frame for God', you did.

Again, are you just not reading what I write, am I being unclear, or what?

I know I said that, what I can't work out is where you get this:

'Well you're just completely wrong on that. THERE IS A LINEAR TIME FRAME, it's just that God is OUTSIDE OF THIS TIME FRAME'

From what I said which was this:

'..because that would indicate some sort of linear time frame for God'

Which was in turn in relpy to you claiming that when God views 'A 20 years ago.... blah blah blah.'

You can clearly see that I did not claim that there isn't a linear time frame, I just said that there wasn't for God.


To our perspective, it was. Even saying that it's possible to have a transcendent perspective of time (like God), is already in itself showing that the universe is determined. That's really the whole point.

Okay yes we can call the universe determined, we all know that there are laws which goveren how things work, this can be said to be determination. Not though over the choices that each indivdual makes. Our choices are not so, and I still cannot see how that is that case.



It's not an illusion, for us past, present and future exists. To us such things are real and not imaginary, since God is transcendent and outside of this universe, they do not exist where he is, so if HE were to believe that HIS existence was predetermined then it would be an illusion since that's not the reality for where he is, however we are not talking abut HIS universe, we are talking about ours.

Huh? Heh I don't know what you ar talking about but I was talking about the idea that our 'free wil' is an illusion.


Yes.

That's a whole different ballpark altogether, and is not being discussed here.

Okay so by what art, science or practice do we determine exactly when and where the obsever is irrelevant, and when he is relevant?


God made the universe. He created the time frame. If he is able to see what we describe as the future, that indicates that he created it (since he created everything). Since he created that, then from our perspective, he created the future, and thus from our perspective the universe is determined, and from our perspective we have no free will.

Ahhh I think we are getting somewhere. Yes I can agree that from our perspective it may look like free will is illusonary. That is only from our perspective, so how can we prove this to be objectivly true?


I didn't say it MAKES our freewill an illusion, I said it INDICATES or SHOWS that free will is an illusion.

Fair point.


It's meaningless (more accurately, irrelevant) to him ideas about pre and fore, I'm not saying it's universally meaningless. It has meaning to us. Why are you not getting this?

I am getting this, why are you not getting me?


No, not if we were operating under Gods perspective. Then we would simply say, determined, rather than pre-determined. But we're not, we're operating under our perspective.

Yes indeed we are.



But you really shouldn't be getting confused.

Why ever not? We all do from time to time. I find much of life confussing, and yet some things come more easily to me.

Using what you've been saying. To God, every choice has already been made, thus it's concrete and unchangeable (unless God decides to change it).

Yes if, we only view things from our perspective, and not try out other ideas. Here's another way of looking at it using your idea above.

What if what you say is correct, that God has already viewed all of the choices, so what I am actualy typeing now are the words that God saw me type way before the big bang, or whenever(from my human perspective).

Now what if indeed God does change his mind, what if God changes his mind at exactly the same time(from my perspective) as I do, what if in fact it is my changeing my mind, that makes God change his mind, what if my mind was the mind of God, so that in a very real way all of my desictions are God? Now multiply that idea by the amount of 'souls' in all of the universes.

You've completely misunderstood what he's saying. From our perspective, free will is very real and counter-intuitive to say it isn't. He's saying that it is our perspective in fact which is the illusion.

Heheh well you might be correct, I certianly did not get that. But I'll wait until he clarifies that for me himself.

Again, are you just not reading what I write, am I being unclear, or what?

I know I said that, what I can't work out is where you get this:

'Well you're just completely wrong on that. THERE IS A LINEAR TIME FRAME, it's just that God is OUTSIDE OF THIS TIME FRAME'

From what I said which was this:

'..because that would indicate some sort of linear time frame for God'

Which was in turn in relpy to you claiming that when God views 'A 20 years ago.... blah blah blah.'

You can clearly see that I did not claim that there isn't a linear time frame, I just said that there wasn't for God.


Fine, can you re-clarify exactly what you meant by: "No to us what God observes now is not 20 years in our future, because that would indicate some sort of linear time frame for God."


Okay yes we can call the universe determined, we all know that there are laws which goveren how things work, this can be said to be determination. Not though over the choices that each indivdual makes. Our choices are not so, and I still cannot see how that is that case.


I'm sorry, but why are you just randomly asserting the nature of the universe? By determined, I mean everything is determined. If God has already created our future, then there is no way we can deviate from that created future, otherwise it wouldn't exist and God didn't create it.


Huh? Heh I don't know what you ar talking about but I was talking about the idea that our 'free wil' is an illusion.


No you said that pre-determination is an illusion. You're saying it's an illusion because pre is not meaningful, except that's wrong. It is very meaningful to us, thus the idea of something being pre-determined is very possible to us. Thus it's meaningful (and perhaps more appropriate for us)to say God pre-determined our future, in the sense that it was pre-the creation of us in our time.


Okay so by what art, science or practice do we determine exactly when and where the obsever is irrelevant, and when he is relevant?


If it is shown that an observer can at a quantum level effect quantum phenomenon, then it may be possible to conclude that free will can exist. All this means is that we must then assume that God does not have full omniscience.


Ahhh I think we are getting somewhere. Yes I can agree that from our perspective it may look like free will is illusonary. That is only from our perspective, so how can we prove this to be objectivly true?


Ok, now I don't mind if you find what I'm about to say in this case confusing: From our perspective, we seem to have free will. However, our perspective is an illusion, and the objective reality is that the universe is determined (relying on the assumptions about God earlier). So although it may seem counter-intuitive to our perspective, if we were to speak from our perspective of time, we would have to call reality pre-determined, even though it may go against what we actually seem to perceive. Basically there's two different meanings of 'our perspective', what it actually is (free will exists) and what it should be (there is no free will).



I am getting this, why are you not getting me?


If you're getting me then you shouldn't be saying that the idea our universe is predetermined is meaningless.



Why ever not? We all do from time to time. I find much of life confussing, and yet some things come more easily to me.

Put it this way, I really don't understand why you're getting confused.

Yes if, we only view things from our perspective, and not try out other ideas. Here's another way of looking at it using your idea above.


If you view it from any perspective, that is the reality.


What if what you say is correct, that God has already viewed all of the choices, so what I am actualy typeing now are the words that God saw me type way before the big bang, or whenever(from my human perspective).

Now what if indeed God does change his mind, what if God changes his mind at exactly the same time(from my perspective) as I do

God does not operate under our time frame (as you've been saying), so when he changed his mind at the exactly the same time as you did, he also changed it way before the big bang, and way in the future. His mind has always been changed.


, what if in fact it is my changeing my mind, that makes God change his mind, what if my mind was the mind of God, so that in a very real way all of my desictions are God? Now multiply that idea by the amount of 'souls' in all of the universes.

This doesn't make sense. If God is the collective souls of life on earth, then our conversation ceases to be relevant, since this God does not have knowledge of the future.

If you view it from any perspective, that is the reality.

Heh are you sure? So you are saying that subjective perspective = objective reality?



God does not operate under our time frame (as you've been saying), so when he changed his mind at the exactly the same time as you did, he also changed it way before the big bang, and way in the future. His mind has always been changed.

To our perspective, but not to God's. Which one is the objectively true one?


This doesn't make sense. If God is the collective souls of life on earth, then our conversation ceases to be relevant, since this God does not have knowledge of the future.

Naa it only doesn't make sense because you are adding to what I said. I did not say that God is ONLY the collective souls of life on earth. Lets just say that is only one aspect of what God is.

I'll use the same example of which parents make the best parents... Those who prepare their offspring for the world, watch them mature, guide them to not make the same mistakes more than once, and then get out of the way as their children make their way in the world. The best parents do not demand blind devotion, just a phone call once in a while. So thing long and hard about what you want from your ideal parents, and you may be one step closer to finding your "best" G_D.

Heh are you sure? So you are saying that subjective perspective = objective reality?


I didn't come to that conclusion from subjective perspective. I came to it from logical reasoning.


To our perspective, but not to God's. Which one is the objectively true one?


Perspective isn't the truth, perspective only effects what we call something. To God it's merely happening, to us it happened in the past, the present, and the future. Both are true.


Naa it only doesn't make sense because you are adding to what I said. I did not say that God is ONLY the collective souls of life on earth. Lets just say that is only one aspect of what God is.

Then you need to be more specific. Does God know our future, including our future actions, or not?

My tape recorder was only as an anology of this. What you are talking about are events already in our past. A lot differant from knolwdge of future events.

In this example, because the choice has already been made, the action has already been performed, then yes any going back in time to witness it, will be just lke viewing a video recording, the actions have been performed, they cannot now be changed.

This is totaly differant from knowledge of future events.


Not an analogy of it. Fail.

You and I are discussing things 'that happened in the past'. You say that is a lot different from knowledge of future events. You then go on to agree with my central premises - the action HAS already been performed, and cannot now be changed.

To an omniscient 'god' entity, with the capacity to view ALL time simultaneously - there is no difference between yesterday and tomorrow - effectively ALL events are PAST events. So EVERYTHING - even the stuff you won't 'decide' to do till tomorrow, has already been seen to be performed, and thus cannot be changed.

See now why there's no choice?

Both are not only valid, but nescacry for fuller understanding.


Understanding isn't necessary for something to happen. If I drop a rock off a bridge, it WILL fall, no matter if I understand why, or not.


As to free will and the illusion of it, what you are saying here is by our perspective it seems that it is illusionary, and so that must be the objective truth of the matter, yet above you say that perspective is not always the same as objectivly true, which one is it my freind?

Yes. Perspective is where illusion comes in. Obviously.

The objective truth isn't necessarily the same as objective truth, so perspective can often be illusion. There isn't a conflict there.

If linear time is capable of being viewed remotely (in this debate, by an omniscient god - but it could equally apply to any technology or entity), in it's entirety - then freewill is only the ILLUSION of choice.

I don't think any god is good. People should rely on themselves to make their decisions without the "help" of a god. Especially since there isn't any evidence of one existing.

I don't think any god is good. People should rely on themselves to make their decisions without the "help" of a god. Especially since there isn't any evidence of one existing.

There's lots of 'evidence'. It just doesn't do a very convincing job of arguing in favour of gods over any other explanation, and is certainly piss-poor at 'proving' the existence of any one god (or pantheon) in particular.

The causation fallacy aside, "knowledge" is of things that have happened. Prediction is of things of the future. If an entity called "God" has "knowledge" of things, even of our future, then from that entity's perspective they have happened. If any entity has knowledge of things in the future, then there is a perspective from which they have happened. So there is no room for them not to happen.
But that has nothing to do with the god. As I've been saying over and over for day, IF the future already exists, or has "already happened," then IT -- that reality -- is what causes us to be living out a predetermined destiny. It would be the same even if there were no god to have perfect knowledge of it.

IF divine omniscience requires the future to already exist in order for the god to be omniscient about it, then all that matters to the question of free will is that pre-existing future. All questions of god's omniscience become irrelevant to human life, because if there were no god, our destinies would still be pre-chosen for us, simply by the fact of their existence.

EDIT: I think I should try to explain what I have been doing here. I have been looking at this question from several vewpoints. First, the viewpoint of a complete, linear timeline, in which all of our futures already exist. Second, the viewpoint of an incomplete timeline which is being created as we go along, as result of our actions in the present. Third, the viewpoint of multiple potential futures co-existing from one moment of choice to another. Fourth, I have vaguely suggested that it may be possible to change the future, even if it does already exist. Fifth, I have suggested, equally vaguely, it may be possible to have knowledge of things that really have not happened yet, particularly if time is not linear.

I keep switching from one to the other in response to different questions/comments, and I realize that can be confusing. I apologize for that. Also, none of those viewpoints is actually mine.

The only viewpoint I've expressed that is mine is the one that says that, under all of these scenarios, a god's omniscience has nothing to do with human free will.

As to how I personally do think the universe works, I really don't care, so I give relatively little thought to the question. I am inclined towards a cyclical universe/timeline, which I have mentioned in passing twice in this thread (thrice now), but not gone into because it opens a whole 'nother can of worms about free will, and has even less to do with any god.

And as the waveform never collapses, "God" is the cat; yes. I like that.
My cat likes it too. :D

The only viewpoint I've expressed that is mine is the one that says that, under all of these scenarios, a god's omniscience has nothing to do with human free will.

Using the example of the proposition T, the argument that infallible foreknowledge of T entails that you do not answer the telephone freely can be formulated as follows:

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

I stole it from here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

Just so we're all on the same page...

I stole it from here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

Just so we're all on the same page...

That argument is contrived and doesn't work because it places the cause-effect backward. It says, essentially, that one must answer the phone for no reason other than God believes they'll do it.

In reality, God believes T precisely because the individual chooses T, and God's knowledge of this event is infallible.

That argument is contrived and doesn't work because it places the cause-effect backward. It says, essentially, that one must answer the phone for no reason other than God believes they'll do it.


No - you must answer the phone because god believes you'll do it AND god is infallible.

If 'god' has seen you do it, and 'god' can't be wrong. Then you WILL do it. So - any choice you feel at that time is irrelevent - you were always going to answer that phone.

It isn't the argument that places cause-effect backwards, it's the argument of an omniscient infallble god who KNOWS the future. Your'e claiming the effect can be witnessed before the cause might even exist.


In reality, God believes T precisely because the individual chooses T, and God's knowledge of this event is infallible.

You say 'reality'... then present a perspective argument.

What god 'believes' or what you 'believe' are irrelevent in this case. It is that fact that your actions are arguing to have already been KNOWN, by an infallible witness. You can't do any different, no matter what you, or 'god', believes.

No - you must answer the phone because god believes you'll do it AND god is infallible.

If 'god' has seen you do it, and 'god' can't be wrong. Then you WILL do it. So - any choice you feel at that time is irrelevent - you were always going to answer that phone.

It isn't the argument that places cause-effect backwards, it's the argument of an omniscient infallble god who KNOWS the future. Your'e claiming the effect can be witnessed before the cause might even exist.



You say 'reality'... then present a perspective argument.

What god 'believes' or what you 'believe' are irrelevent in this case. It is that fact that your actions are arguing to have already been KNOWN, by an infallible witness. You can't do any different, no matter what you, or 'god', believes.
then god is not omnipotent. (if you don't understand that statement then just tell me)

then god is not omnipotent. (if you don't understand that statement then just tell me)

Omnipotent is irrelevent. It's not whether he's all-powerful that is the issue.

Unless you are arguing that god can see the future, can see the absolute way in which things will transpire, and then somehow surprise himself by doing something different.

In which case, he's not omniscient. Or infallible.

Omnipotent is irrelevent. It's not whether he's all-powerful that is the issue.

Unless you are arguing that god can see the future, can see the absolute way in which things will transpire, and then somehow surprise himself by doing something different.

In which case, he's not omniscient. Or infallible.

Ya I was more making an argument against A biblical god that is both omniscient and omnipotent. But you got my point exactly and explained it better than I've been able too.

Ya I was more making an argument against A biblical god that is both omniscient and omnipotent. But you got my point exactly and explained it better than I've been able too.

I try. :)

There are so many weaknesses in the 'christian god' design, I tend to try to debate WITHIN the confines of the theology, rather than viewing the whole mass. When you actually dissect the 'my god is bigger' content, it becomes kind of like kicking puppies.

So - I was allowing 'omnipotent' and 'infallible' to stand, while I attacked the 'omniscient' entity. But, you're right - the whole thing just falls apart over internal conflicts when you really try to explore principles, like self-determinism.

I try. :)

There are so many weaknesses in the 'christian god' design, I tend to try to debate WITHIN the confines of the theology, rather than viewing the whole mass. When you actually dissect the 'my god is bigger' content, it becomes kind of like kicking puppies.

So - I was allowing 'omnipotent' and 'infallible' to stand, while I attacked the 'omniscient' entity. But, you're right - the whole thing just falls apart over internal conflicts when you really try to explore principles, like self-determinism.

Ya so true and those aren't the only self contradictions either.

I stole it from here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

Just so we're all on the same page...
Pfft. Remind me, if I ever have a kid, not to let him/her attend Stanford. The problem with all of that is that the if's are arbitrary. You talked about logical consistency before. The argument you quoted is a logical house of cards.

That argument is contrived and doesn't work because it places the cause-effect backward. It says, essentially, that one must answer the phone for no reason other than God believes they'll do it.

In reality, God believes T precisely because the individual chooses T, and God's knowledge of this event is infallible.

Can the individual choose not-T?

Pfft. Remind me, if I ever have a kid, not to let him/her attend Stanford. The problem with all of that is that the if's are arbitrary. You talked about logical consistency before. The argument you quoted is a logical house of cards.

Please explain the logical flaws.

Can the individual choose not-T?



Please explain the logical flaws.
I already did. The if's are arbitrary. That is the flaw.

IF god is this or that and operates in such and such a way. IF time works in such and such a way. IF this or that condition must exist in order for god to do such or t'other. Etc. Alter any detail of all those if's and the whole argument just poofs like a soap bubble. This makes it the equivalent of saying that IF god has blue eyes, then he must be blue-eyed and cannot be said to have brown eyes. It is such a closed loop of an argument that it proves nothing but itself.

Now I have to say that I'm getting annoyed with this thread, because all people are doing now is trying to find new ways of wording arguments that have already been addressed -- some of them several times. Arguments based on strict rules about how time works in order to enforce a certain set of condtions and actions upon god and human beings have already been challenged several times over by suggesting that it is just as logical for time to work in other ways. But IF (;)) time does work in another way, then your assumptions about the relationship between god's knowledge and your freedom cannot be proven. You have to invent an entirely new argument to account for your version of how what god knows affects what you do. To me, that indicates that your version of how what god knows affects what you do is not sound. It only works under one set of conditions.

I already did. The if's are arbitrary. That is the flaw.

IF god is this or that and operates in such and such a way. IF time works in such and such a way. IF this or that condition must exist in order for god to do such or t'other. Etc. Alter any detail of all those if's and the whole argument just poofs like a soap bubble. This makes it the equivalent of saying that IF god has blue eyes, then he must be blue-eyed and cannot be said to have brown eyes. It is such a closed loop of an argument that it proves nothing but itself.

Now I have to say that I'm getting annoyed with this thread, because all people are doing now is trying to find new ways of wording arguments that have already been addressed -- some of them several times. Arguments based on strict rules about how time works in order to enforce a certain set of condtions and actions upon god and human beings have already been challenged several times over by suggesting that it is just as logical for time to work in other ways. But IF (;)) time does work in another way, then your assumptions about the relationship between god's knowledge and your freedom cannot be proven. You have to invent an entirely new argument to account for your version of how what god knows affects what you do. To me, that indicates that your version of how what god knows affects what you do is not sound. It only works under one set of conditions.

It's not arbitrary if we assume that the model we see, and the assumptions we've taken, are true.

If we imagine a god that isn't omnipotent, infallible and omniscient - then the debate may change and the house of cards may fall down - but that has been addressed AND it seems to be THAT kind of 'god' that this debate is following.

If we imagine a model for time that isn't linear, maybe we can look at different options - but why should we, when all the evidence (our daily cause-and-effect) suggests it IS linear?

Until someone builds a time-machine, we can't create a better model - because we don't know that there ARE any flaws in the model we have, much less - what they are. The only reason to change it would be to accomodate the kind of hypotheticals we are talking here.

Until someone finds a way to 'prove' the nature of 'god' debates about the nature of god must always take place within the assumption of parameters.


Yes - this argument is pretty specific to the Abrahamic 'god', or some equivalent entity. It does fall apart if we don't assume that - if there is either a lack of gods, or that they can't (or don't care to) view the future. But as you pointed out earlier - if the timeline is fixed, God is actually irrelevent. All our 'god' is, in this argument... is an allegedly untrickable quality control, that can verify the product.

God neither knows nor predicts the future, He exists unbounded by time, and thus views all events as happening in an eternal now. He knows our actions because He witnesses our acting, at every individual action, in the same 'instant'.

No - you must answer the phone because god believes you'll do it AND god is infallible.

If 'god' has seen you do it, and 'god' can't be wrong. Then you WILL do it. So - any choice you feel at that time is irrelevent - you were always going to answer that phone.

I know that's the argument made by that series of premises but I dispute that it accurately reflects reality. The choice made by the phonecaller is what determines what God knows, and that element isn't accounted for.

Yes, I know that the argument structure is trying to say that God's infallible knowledge of the event makes the event inevitable and thus not chosen, but that's a flawed premise. It's like saying the chicken came before the egg without actually showing how that is.


It isn't the argument that places cause-effect backwards, it's the argument of an omniscient infallble god who KNOWS the future. Your'e claiming the effect can be witnessed before the cause might even exist.

Actually it seems to me that it's the argument you presented that's making the claim. It says God's knowledge of the event makes it inevitable and leaves out completely the 'trigger' which is the person choosing to make the call.

Can the individual choose not-T?


They've already chosen T as a precondition to the argument. They could have chosen not-T in which case the argument itself would have been different to accommodate that choice.

The argument is fluid. It exists only on the presupposition of an event-chosen by a person-to argue that somehow that choice never existed.

the only good god is a dead one.

seriously the only good church is a dead one, I have Little against Gods and deities, what I really detest is churches, congregations and organized religion.

They've already chosen T as a precondition to the argument. They could have chosen not-T in which case the argument itself would have been different to accommodate that choice.

The argument is fluid. It exists only on the presupposition of an event-chosen by a person-to argue that somehow that choice never existed.

No. They haven't chosen T as a precondition. The precondition is that god has knowledge of T, which is necessary if god is omniscient.

No. They haven't chosen T as a precondition. The precondition is that god has knowledge of T, which is necessary if god is omniscient.

God's foreknowledge of T isn't a useful starting point since knowledge, by definition, requires an event to know about. Therefore the choice to make the phonecall itself is a precondition of God's knowledge of it.

Unless you are arguing that god can see the future, can see the absolute way in which things will transpire, and then somehow surprise himself by doing something different.

I believe according to Newtonian physics if you could know the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at any given moment, you could accurately predict all of their interactions for the rest of time.

But quantum mechanics blows that out of the water. According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it is impossible to look at a sub-atomic particle and know both where it is and where it's going at the same time. The more accurately you fix its position, the more uncertain you make its velocity and vice versa. The best we can do is calculate probabilities.

So, at best 'God' could only see possible futures.

God's foreknowledge of T isn't a useful starting point since knowledge, by definition, requires an event to know about. Therefore the choice to make the phonecall itself is a precondition of God's knowledge of it.

Then you are saying that god cannot know about an event until after it has happened. Are you saying that god does not know what I am going to do in exactly twenty years time?

Then you are saying that god cannot know about an event until after it has happened. Are you saying that god does not know what I am going to do in exactly twenty years time?

I'm saying that He knows about it but ONLY because you will choose it.

In 20 years, 8 months, 3 days, 4 hours and 17 minutes you choose to place a phonecall T then He knows about it now, but you may just as easily choose to eat a ham sandwich S. He knows which you'll choose, S or T, based on your choice alone.

I'm saying that He knows about it but ONLY because you will choose it.

In 20 years, 8 months, 3 days, 4 hours and 17 minutes you choose to place a phonecall T then He knows about it now, but you may just as easily choose to eat a ham sandwich S. He knows which you'll choose, S or T, based on your choice alone.

Please show how the bolded is logically true.

If god knows what I will do in the future (which you believe), and he can't possibly be wrong (which you believe), then it would be impossible for me to do otherwise.

So, my choice at that point would be illusory.

I know that's the argument made by that series of premises but I dispute that it accurately reflects reality. The choice made by the phonecaller is what determines what God knows, and that element isn't accounted for.


It is allowed for - it just can't be shown to be so.


Yes, I know that the argument structure is trying to say that God's infallible knowledge of the event makes the event inevitable and thus not chosen, but that's a flawed premise. It's like saying the chicken came before the egg without actually showing how that is.


The irony, it burns.

You say the premise is flawed. You say it isn't so. But - unless you're going to change the parameters - perhaps admit that there is no god, or that he's not infallible, or that he simply can' see future events - then you are hidnered by the assumptions. IF 'god' iexists, is omniscient, and infallible - then everything he has 'seen' MUST transpire.

That's not a flaw in the argument, that's a flaw in the claims you make about your 'god'.

I believe according to Newtonian physics if you could know the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at any given moment, you could accurately predict all of their interactions for the rest of time.

But quantum mechanics blows that out of the water. According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it is impossible to look at a sub-atomic particle and know both where it is and where it's going at the same time. The more accurately you fix its position, the more uncertain you make its velocity and vice versa. The best we can do is calculate probabilities.

So, at best 'God' could only see possible futures.

Only if we assume that the perception of 'god' is similarly limited to our own.

Please show how the bolded is logically true.

If god knows what I will do in the future (which you believe), and he can't possibly be wrong (which you believe), then it would be impossible for me to do otherwise.

So, my choice at that point would be illusory.

Interesting choice of words: at that point. It's like you're locking in the action of T as if it took place in the past, just because God sees it. The problem is that just as God can see everything as if it were in His past, so too can He see them as the future. I discard the premise that His observation of the event somehow locks it in.

It is allowed for - it just can't be shown to be so.

Then the argument fails for that reason. It's the argument form that's inadequate to the task, not God.


The irony, it burns.

You say the premise is flawed. You say it isn't so. But - unless you're going to change the parameters - perhaps admit that there is no god, or that he's not infallible, or that he simply can' see future events - then you are hidnered by the assumptions. IF 'god' iexists, is omniscient, and infallible - then everything he has 'seen' MUST transpire.

That's not a flaw in the argument, that's a flaw in the claims you make about your 'god'.

Why would I need to shoehorn a new set of parameters into an argument that already fails by not taking into consideration all of the factors? It's an argument that's contrived to derive the conclusion that there's no freewill, without actually analyzing the situation for what it is.

*shrug*

I discard the premise that His observation of the event somehow locks it in.


Again, his observation indicates that the event is already locked, otherwise it would be absolutely impossible for God to observe T (unless you can show otherwise). That doesn't mean God's knowledge is causal, have you read the thread?

When all else fails, turn to atheism.

Again, his observation indicates that the event is already locked, otherwise it would be absolutely impossible for God to observe T (unless you can show otherwise). That doesn't mean God's knowledge is causal, have you read the thread?

Which begs the question: if God's knowledge isn't causal, then what locks it in?

Which begs the question: if God's knowledge isn't causal, then what locks it in?

God, since he created the universe (not the same as God's knowledge causing it). Or the universe is naturally determined.

God, since he created the universe (not the same as God's knowledge causing it). Or the universe is naturally determined.

So God having created the universe is the cause of my picking up a phone and making a call (T)?

So God having created the universe is the cause of my picking up a phone and making a call (T)?

Not the way i do it, lol...

So God having created the universe is the cause of my picking up a phone and making a call (T)?

Here's one of many ways of putting it, and one that works even if God is operating in linear time. God's knowledge is infallible. For every particle he created, God knew the exact course each would take, what it would bump into, what it would create a link with, what it would break away with etc (since he set each particle on its initial course), if he doesn't know this then he isn't infallible either. Thus he will be able predict the position of every particle at any given point in time, and by knowing the position of every particle in the universe, you know exactly all the events are occurring. Therefore he necessarily knows that T will happen, since he will know the position of each particle at any given point. You do not have the free will to change the course of each particle, since your own brain chemistry is determined by particles originally initiated in a set direction and speed by God, so any change you make to other particles has already been determined. Are you following so far?

Interesting choice of words: at that point. It's like you're locking in the action of T as if it took place in the past, just because God sees it. The problem is that just as God can see everything as if it were in His past, so too can He see them as the future. I discard the premise that His observation of the event somehow locks it in.

Actually, my entire post would mean exactly the same thing if you took those words out.

Does god have a knowledge of future events?

Is god wrong?

If you answer yes to both these questions, then god must have an infallible knowledge of the future. It has to happen exactly as He knows it will happen. As you say, god can see the future just as if it were the past. We cannot change god's perfect knowledge of the past, nor His perfect knowledge of the future. His observation does not lock it in. It is his observation and infallibility that does the trick.

Here's one of many ways of putting it, and one that works even if God is operating in linear time. God's knowledge is infallible. For every particle he created, God knew the exact course each would take, what it would bump into, what it would create a link with, what it would break away with etc (since he set each particle on its initial course), if he doesn't know this then he isn't infallible either. Thus he will be able predict the position of every particle at any given point in time, and by knowing the position of every particle in the universe, you know exactly all the events are occurring. Therefore he necessarily knows that T will happen, since he will know the position of each particle at any given point. You do not have the free will to change the course of each particle, since your own brain chemistry is determined by particles originally initiated in a set direction and speed by God, so any change you make to other particles has already been determined. Are you following so far?

Like when Einstein tried to find a way to predict the exact speed of every atom to predict dice rolls...

Btw, did the egg come before or after the chicken in this theory?

Btw, did the egg come before or after the chicken in this theory?

Depends what egg and chicken are actually referring to in this scenario.

Here's one of many ways of putting it, and one that works even if God is operating in linear time. God's knowledge is infallible. For every particle he created, God knew the exact course each would take, what it would bump into, what it would create a link with, what it would break away with etc (since he set each particle on its initial course), if he doesn't know this then he isn't infallible either. Thus he will be able predict the position of every particle at any given point in time, and by knowing the position of every particle in the universe, you know exactly all the events are occurring. Therefore he necessarily knows that T will happen, since he will know the position of each particle at any given point. You do not have the free will to change the course of each particle, since your own brain chemistry is determined by particles originally initiated in a set direction and speed by God, so any change you make to other particles has already been determined. Are you following so far?

Yes, but there's a premise in there that I don't agree with.

Well, maybe I don't, so I'll ask for clarification first.

Are you saying that our choices are determined by the predictable behavior of the particles of our brains?

Actually, my entire post would mean exactly the same thing if you took those words out.

Does god have a knowledge of future events?

Is god wrong?

If you answer yes to both these questions, then god must have an infallible knowledge of the future. It has to happen exactly as He knows it will happen. As you say, god can see the future just as if it were the past. We cannot change god's perfect knowledge of the past, nor His perfect knowledge of the future. His observation does not lock it in. It is his observation and infallibility that does the trick.

God's observation and infallibility only guarantee that He will accurately predict what we will choose to do. This doesn't have any actual influence on that choice.

Are you saying that our choices are determined by the predictable behavior of the particles of our brains?


I'm saying this: if you were to plop a bunch of atoms in the universe in a certain way, and then wait a year and see what happens and record the result, and then go back in time and plop the atoms in the universe in exactly the same way, wait a year and observe the result, the result will be exactly the same. If you did it an infinite amount of times, each outcome will be the same. Now lets say that these particles happen to be all the ones God placed in the creation of the universe. If you were to wait several billion years, and record the choice you make regarding T, then go back in time and have God put the particles in exactly the same position, then go forward several billion years and observe again what your choice of T was it would be exactly the same (since some of those particles will always form into that exact signal your brain made). So again, if you do this an infinite amount of times, your choice about T will always be the same, thus there is no way in which you would not choose T, and so your choice is locked in place.

I'm saying this: if you were to plop a bunch of atoms in the universe in a certain way, and then wait a year and see what happens and record the result, and then go back in time and plop the atoms in the universe in exactly the same way, wait a year and observe the result, the result will be exactly the same. If you did it an infinite amount of times, each outcome will be the same. Now lets say that these particles happen to be all the ones God placed in the creation of the universe. If you were to wait several billion years, and record the choice you make regarding T, then go back in time and have God put the particles in exactly the same position, then go forward several billion years and observe again what your choice of T was it would be exactly the same (since some of those particles will always form into that exact signal your brain made). So again, if you do this an infinite amount of times, your choice about T will always be the same, thus there is no way in which you would not choose T, and so your choice is locked in place.

IDk, when you go into Infinite Probabilities, almost anything can happen, no matter which way you put the atoms in...Even if the probability of something different happening is infinitesimal, if you do it an infinite number of times, that probability can still come into play...

IDk, when you go into Infinite Probabilities, almost anything can happen, no matter which way you put the atoms in...Even if the probability of something different happening is infinitesimal, if you do it an infinite number of times, that probability can still come into play...

Yes but the probability is not infinitesimal, it's 0.

God's observation and infallibility only guarantee that He will accurately predict what we will choose to do. This doesn't have any actual influence on that choice.

God's omniscience and infallibity do not have to cause the choice. All they have to do is set it up so that no other choice is possible. Which is what happens if we assume an omniscient god with infallible knowledge.

This is why the god I believe in does not have perfect omniscience.

I'm saying this: if you were to plop a bunch of atoms in the universe in a certain way, and then wait a year and see what happens and record the result, and then go back in time and plop the atoms in the universe in exactly the same way, wait a year and observe the result, the result will be exactly the same. If you did it an infinite amount of times, each outcome will be the same. Now lets say that these particles happen to be all the ones God placed in the creation of the universe. If you were to wait several billion years, and record the choice you make regarding T, then go back in time and have God put the particles in exactly the same position, then go forward several billion years and observe again what your choice of T was it would be exactly the same (since some of those particles will always form into that exact signal your brain made). So again, if you do this an infinite amount of times, your choice about T will always be the same, thus there is no way in which you would not choose T, and so your choice is locked in place.

This assumes no outside factors. I have an outside factor that WOULD influence that behavior and that is the spirit which each living thing possesses.

God's omniscience and infallibity do not have to cause the choice. All they have to do is set it up so that no other choice is possible. Which is what happens if we assume an omniscient god with infallible knowledge.

This is why the god I believe in does not have perfect omniscience.

When you say "All they have to do is set it up" that implies an active participation. This is where I disagree.

I'm saying this: if you were to plop a bunch of atoms in the universe in a certain way, and then wait a year and see what happens and record the result, and then go back in time and plop the atoms in the universe in exactly the same way, wait a year and observe the result, the result will be exactly the same.
But that just isn't true.

This assumes no outside factors. I have an outside factor that WOULD influence that behavior and that is the spirit which each living thing possesses.


OK forget particles. How about this:

1) God is omnipotent and omniscient to the extent that he knows what we would describe as the future.
2) God is infallible/cannot be wrong.

For us, presently A is occurring.
God, observing an event 10 minutes in the future, sees A transform into B

There are two possible scenarios:

a) In 10 minutes time, A does not change, or changes into something else, then 1) and 2) must be false:
b) In 10 minutes time, If A transforms into B, then 1) and 2) are correct.

Therefore only b) can happen if 1) and 2) are to hold true.
Assume A transforming into B is a choice (call this choice 1), and a choice could be made for it not to be transformed, or to transform into something else.
Since only choice 1 can occur if 1) and 2) are to hold true, then choice 1 is locked in place and no other choice can be made. Thus there is no free choice.

This is true independent of who or what is making the choice.

But that just isn't true.

The only way this cannot be true is if quantum physics is so unpredictable that not even God can predict it (rather than JUST humans with limited minds).

Which begs the question: if God's knowledge isn't causal, then what locks it in?

God's knowledge is irrelevent, as I've carefulyl explained a halfdozen times.

All 'god's knowledge' does, is attribute a (supposedly) infallible witness to the event. The event is 'locked in' if ANYONE has actually 'seen' the event... which is why you can't change the past.

If time can be witnessed (by anyone, although this is usually a special ability claimed by the religious, about their 'gods'), then it is locked. God's alleged infallibility is just the icing on the cake.

This assumes no outside factors. I have an outside factor that WOULD influence that behavior and that is the spirit which each living thing possesses.


Not only do you not believe that, but we both know it would be non-scriptural.

It's interesting - what you are (in effect) arguing, is that the individual human 'spirit' is more powerful than the 'god' you believe in.

Let me ask you a question - if god decides that you WILL do something tomorrow, can you choose not to?

It's not arbitrary if we assume that the model we see, and the assumptions we've taken, are true.
Sorry, I got this far and almost laughed coffee up onto my keyboard.

<snip> ...if the timeline is fixed, God is actually irrelevent. All our 'god' is, in this argument... is an allegedly untrickable quality control, that can verify the product.
Precisely. Therefore, all reference to his omniscience in reference to our free will is kind of pointless. The two conditions co-exist. They do not affect each other.

Only if we assume that the perception of 'god' is similarly limited to our own.
Everything you and several others have argued about conditions that must exist in order for this god to have omniscience have been dependent on limiting the god's perception.

God's omniscience and infallibity do not have to cause the choice. All they have to do is set it up so that no other choice is possible. Which is what happens if we assume an omniscient god with infallible knowledge.

This is why the god I believe in does not have perfect omniscience.


When you say "All they have to do is set it up" that implies an active participation. This is where I disagree.
Apparently, I thought about this in my sleep, because I woke up today with the thought that, if we follow the scenarios outlined in this thread, then it is not the god's omniscience that affects free will. It's his omnipotence instead.

God's knowledge is irrelevent, as I've carefulyl explained a halfdozen times.

All 'god's knowledge' does, is attribute a (supposedly) infallible witness to the event. The event is 'locked in' if ANYONE has actually 'seen' the event... which is why you can't change the past.

If time can be witnessed (by anyone, although this is usually a special ability claimed by the religious, about their 'gods'), then it is locked. God's alleged infallibility is just the icing on the cake.
Haha, so god isn't the ultimate arbiter of fate, but you and I are? :cool:

As nice as it would be to feel like I have that much power, I just do not agree.

does it really matter which god is the true god? all major religionshave the same basic morals.

I worship both the IPU and the FSM.
Ramen.

Sorry, I got this far and almost laughed coffee up onto my keyboard.


Why? Basing your model on what can actually be observed, rather than on speculation and wishful thinking, is about as un-arbitrary as it gets.


Precisely. Therefore, all reference to his omniscience in reference to our free will is kind of pointless. The two conditions co-exist. They do not affect each other.

They do not affect each other, no. Omniscience has no DIRECT impact on freewill, or otherwise. On the other hand, omniscience and infallibility leave no potential for choice, in combination.

Even omniscience is enough, IF a certain future is once witnessed. Once that has happened, there is no choice - but it's not BECAUSE of the omniscience... just because it was witnessed.

Apparently, I thought about this in my sleep, because I woke up today with the thought that, if we follow the scenarios outlined in this thread, then it is not the god's omniscience that affects free will. It's his omnipotence instead.

Nope. It's just his ability to witness. He has to be 'scient', not necessarily OMNIscient.

And his infallibility is the lock.

Everything you and several others have argued about conditions that must exist in order for this god to have omniscience have been dependent on limiting the god's perception.

No, they haven't - and I challenge you to show me where I suggested anything even remotely like it.

Haha, so god isn't the ultimate arbiter of fate, but you and I are? :cool:

As nice as it would be to feel like I have that much power, I just do not agree.

I don't agree, either. Which is why I didn't say that.

There is only one God...
His name is, unsuprisingly, God.
Take that, you pagans!

There is only one God...
His name is, unsuprisingly, God.
Take that, you pagans!

God's name isn't God. Read your own holy book.

watch the Zeitgeist movie that will explain everything in great detail,

makes you feel ragin after.

I know I may not change anyone's mind today but I can plant a seed in someone today. The Old Testamentis actually not biased at all, as a matter of fact if it were biased the Bible would not denote all the times the Israelites sinned. It would not have had God calling them stiff necked and so on and so forth. The New Testament and the Old go hand in hand they can not do with out each other, the whole bible is really for all people, when Christ died for us he opened God up to everyone not just the Jews. If you understand the Old Testament you will understand the New.

What about those ~1500 years when NT didn't exist?

What about those ~1500 years when NT didn't exist?

BLASPHEME!!! BURN IT!!!:tongue:

KAL! THE LORD KAL IS THE GREATEST GOD! ALL SHALL BOW DOWN TO THE POWER OF THE VOID GOD!
*ahem*
I have no real comment, wishing not to be flamed :p but I'm going to pay attention to this thread, hoping for the return of Red Baptism (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540953) so that I can have a laugh.

i'm a christan and i say faults but we are human and the i sevre can do all things and that is the beginning and the end

What about those ~1500 years when NT didn't exist?

The Law (from the OT) serves as a signpost.. It alerts us to the problem of sin.. Jesus (now we get to the NT) is the solution, i.e. God's love in action.

It's funny you asked, because Scott Hahn was just on TV talking about this with Father Mitch on EWTN. Good timing.

The Law (from the OT) serves as a signpost.. It alerts us to the problem of sin.. Jesus (now we get to the NT) is the solution, i.e. God's love in action.

It's funny you asked, because Scott Hahn was just on TV talking about this with Father Mitch on EWTN. Good timing.

But the previous post was talking about how the two texts required one another, and you can't have the one without the other.

Which is - of course - shits and giggles to the people who pottered around with the book we call the 'old testament' for centuries, with apparently no worries.

But the previous post was talking about how the two texts required one another, and you can't have the one without the other.

Which is - of course - shits and giggles to the people who pottered around with the book we call the 'old testament' for centuries, with apparently no worries.

Oh they worried, the God from the old testament was pretty vengeful, lol...

Oh they worried, the God from the old testament was pretty vengeful, lol...

Yeah, but their worries weren't about "Shit, I wish we had another book". (Obviously, since that would have been a heresy, and would have been just one more reason to piss of Old Grumpy).

Their worries were more along the lines of... "I think my sheep might have just eaten that cotton coaster... if I wear it's wool, while Jehovah smite me?"

Why? Basing your model on what can actually be observed, rather than on speculation and wishful thinking, is about as un-arbitrary as it gets.
For the same reason I rolled my eyes when I read this sentence. The first one was ironic. I criticized an argument for relying too much on assumptions, and you defended it by saying it would be okay if we assume our assumptions are true, apparently not realizing the irony. You may not be aware of it, but that's funny. Now, in the above sentence, you're just being obtuse, again apparently not realizing it, so... not as much laughter.

They do not affect each other, no. Omniscience has no DIRECT impact on freewill, or otherwise. On the other hand, omniscience and infallibility leave no potential for choice, in combination.
You keep saying that to me, and I keep telling you that I disagree (and I've even explained why a few times). Why do you keep saying it to me? Do you feel a predetermined impulse to do it, as if a god somewhere observed a future of you saying the same thing to me over and over, to no effect, and now you have to prove yourself right by actually doing that, as if you had no ability to do anything else?

Even omniscience is enough, IF a certain future is once witnessed. Once that has happened, there is no choice - but it's not BECAUSE of the omniscience... just because it was witnessed.
No.

I have already explained why.

Nope. It's just his ability to witness. He has to be 'scient', not necessarily OMNIscient.

And his infallibility is the lock.
No.

I have already explained why.

No, they haven't - and I challenge you to show me where I suggested anything even remotely like it.
Screw your challenges. It's the entire fucking thread, almost. Go read it, if you've forgotten what's in it, and then think about what I said about it, i.e. that the conditions you impose require the god's perception to be limited.

I don't agree, either. Which is why I didn't say that.
And which omni-infallible god was it that predetermined that you would lose your sense of humor and become unable to tell when someone is kidding about an off-the-cuff remark?

The only way this cannot be true is if quantum physics is so unpredictable that not even God can predict it (rather than JUST humans with limited minds).

No: he was claiming that the same distribution of material particles always leads to the same outcome. That is not true: the distribution of particles only delimits a set of possible outcomes; which of those outcomes will eventuate is independent of the material distribution ("random", if you like; or "freely chosen", if that phrasing sounds better; but not determined by the material distribution).

A good god would end suffering. If he's out there, he should really get around to that.

Being unlimited (or even unlimited being) doesn't negate the meaning of words.

Only if we assume that the perception of 'god' is similarly limited to our own.
What exactly do you mean? I mean is this more of the 'God trumps science' argument? I was simply stating that quantum mechanics effectively annuls the possibility of an omniscient entity existing because you can't fix a sub-atomic particles' velocity and location simultaneously.

OK forget particles. How about this:

1) God is omnipotent and omniscient to the extent that he knows what we would describe as the future.
2) God is infallible/cannot be wrong.

For us, presently A is occurring.
God, observing an event 10 minutes in the future, sees A transform into B

There are two possible scenarios:

a) In 10 minutes time, A does not change, or changes into something else, then 1) and 2) must be false:
b) In 10 minutes time, If A transforms into B, then 1) and 2) are correct.

Therefore only b) can happen if 1) and 2) are to hold true.
Assume A transforming into B is a choice (call this choice 1), and a choice could be made for it not to be transformed, or to transform into something else.
Since only choice 1 can occur if 1) and 2) are to hold true, then choice 1 is locked in place and no other choice can be made. Thus there is no free choice.

This is true independent of who or what is making the choice.

I disagree, because that choice is a precondition to the event. God is infallible in that he will always accurately predict what you choose to do. But the element of choice remains.

God's knowledge is irrelevent, as I've carefulyl explained a halfdozen times.

All 'god's knowledge' does, is attribute a (supposedly) infallible witness to the event. The event is 'locked in' if ANYONE has actually 'seen' the event... which is why you can't change the past.

If time can be witnessed (by anyone, although this is usually a special ability claimed by the religious, about their 'gods'), then it is locked. God's alleged infallibility is just the icing on the cake.

Which leads us full circle back to the John Wilkes Booth analogy. If I look back in time to the event, does the fact that I've observed it in any way alter the fact that Booth chose to assassinate Lincoln? No.

Not only do you not believe that, but we both know it would be non-scriptural.

Tell you what, I'll tell you what I believe, mkay? And the idea of us having spirits is perfectly Scriptural.


It's interesting - what you are (in effect) arguing, is that the individual human 'spirit' is more powerful than the 'god' you believe in.

No, I'm arguing that the spirit is an influence from outside this world and yet affects the behavior of entities within it.


Let me ask you a question - if god decides that you WILL do something tomorrow, can you choose not to?

If He chooses to override my freewill by deciding I WILL do something then of course my choice is taken away.

Apparently, I thought about this in my sleep, because I woke up today with the thought that, if we follow the scenarios outlined in this thread, then it is not the god's omniscience that affects free will. It's his omnipotence instead.

I'd say omnipotence has the potential to do so, but He refrains from exercising it in order to preserve our freewill.

No: he was claiming that the same distribution of material particles always leads to the same outcome. That is not true: the distribution of particles only delimits a set of possible outcomes; which of those outcomes will eventuate is independent of the material distribution ("random", if you like; or "freely chosen", if that phrasing sounds better; but not determined by the material distribution).

Huh? It's more than merely distribution anyway, it's specifically and exactly setting the position, speed, size and direction of each particle to an extent where no other factor can affect the outcome other than factors you have created yourself.

I disagree, because that choice is a precondition to the event. God is infallible in that he will always accurately predict what you choose to do. But the element of choice remains.


I'm sorry but this didn't make any coherent sense at all. The choice is a requirement, yes. But if that choice is anything else, then God cannot predict the future, so that precondition HAS to be true in order to believe in that sort of God.

if I construct a time machine and travel back to April of 1865 to observe the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, does the fact that I already know the event will occur have any impact whatsoever on John Wilkes Booth's actions? Does it affect his freewill? He chose to be on that balcony, to shoot the President and to jump out of the box, all completely independent of any action of mine despite my knowledge that he would do so.
The original argument, concerning God, depends only on the property that he knows everything, at every time, with 100% accuracy. Your argument predicates itself on assumptions about our travelling through time.

This assumes no outside factors. I have an outside factor that WOULD influence that behavior and that is the spirit which each living thing possesses.



When you say "All they have to do is set it up" that implies an active participation. This is where I disagree.

Will or active participation has nothing to do with it. Imagine, instead of a person making a phone call, T was the act of a rock falling down a cliff. There is no will of sentient beings involved.

Now, god has observed the rock falling in the future at some exact time in some exact way

Either the rock falls exactly that way at exactly that time, or god is wrong.

God is not wrong, therefore the rock can onlyfall that exact way at that exact time.

Apparently, I thought about this in my sleep, because I woke up today with the thought that, if we follow the scenarios outlined in this thread, then it is not the god's omniscience that affects free will. It's his omnipotence instead.

Can you explain that?

A good god would end suffering. If he's out there, he should really get around to that.

An omnibenevolent god would also be inconsistent with the idea of free will.

I disagree, because that choice is a precondition to the event. God is infallible in that he will always accurately predict what you choose to do. But the element of choice remains.

No. If we are defining the difference between predicting and knowing as Murayvets defined it upthread, an omniscient god does not predict. He knows. If he predicted, there would be the chance, however slim, that he was wrong.

I'm sorry but this didn't make any coherent sense at all. The choice is a requirement, yes. But if that choice is anything else, then God cannot predict the future, so that precondition HAS to be true in order to believe in that sort of God.

Except that any other choice will result in God seeing THAT eventuality instead. In other words, the cause is the choice. The effect is what God sees.

Will or active participation has nothing to do with it. Imagine, instead of a person making a phone call, T was the act of a rock falling down a cliff. There is no will of sentient beings involved.

Now, god has observed the rock falling in the future at some exact time in some exact way

Either the rock falls exactly that way at exactly that time, or god is wrong.

God is not wrong, therefore the rock can onlyfall that exact way at that exact time.


Irrelevant, as rocks never have a choice regardless of whether they're being observed or not.


An omnibenevolent god would also be inconsistent with the idea of free will.


Quite the opposite. An omnibenevolent God MUST enable freewill or those whom He claims to love (us) would be no more than puppets.


No. If we are defining the difference between predicting and knowing as Murayvets defined it upthread, an omniscient god does not predict. He knows. If he predicted, there would be the chance, however slim, that he was wrong.

The difference is semantic once we accept the axiom that God is omniscient.

We still on this one huh!

Except that any other choice will result in God seeing THAT eventuality instead. In other words, the cause is the choice. The effect is what God sees.

You keep assuming choice exists, when the idea is to determine if choice exists at all.

Irrelevant, as rocks never have a choice regardless of whether they're being observed or not.

I was trying to point out that the whole contradiction between omniscience and a nondetermined universe still exists regardless of the existence of will. In fact, this would be necessary as will would then be an illusion.

Quite the opposite. An omnibenevolent God MUST enable freewill or those whom He claims to love (us) would be no more than puppets.

Then he can't be omnibenevolent as he allows us to be evil to each other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

The difference is semantic once we accept the axiom that God is omniscient.

One allows for novelty (god could be wrong, and therefore not infallible), while the other doesn't (god is never wrong, so we have no free will).

You keep assuming choice exists, when the idea is to determine if choice exists at all.

Of course it does. next time you go out for a drink, choose your tipple, then change your mind. If you do that, then you have made not one, but two choices.



Then he can't be omnibenevolent as he allows us to be evil to each other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

Umm that don't make much sense to me. If the biggest freedom is to do as you choose, then the biggest love is to let us all do as we choose.


One allows for novelty (god could be wrong, and therefore not infallible), while the other doesn't (god is never wrong, so we have no free will).

Again, I don't see how that automaticaly follows.

Say I go into the kitchen for a sandwhich, I look in the fridge and see bacon and cheese. After a ponder for as long as it take to get the cup out, put the coffee in the cup, and switch the kettle on I decide on bacon!

Now I have made a choice between bacon and cheese, I have weighed up the pros and cons of each and decided.

How has God knowing that I would pick bacon, mean that I made no such choice?

Of course it does. next time you go out for a drink, choose your tipple, then change your mind. If you do that, then you have made not one, but two choices.

You are apparently correct. Therefore, we can only deduce that god is not omniscient.

Umm that don't make much sense to me. If the biggest freedom is to do as you choose, then the biggest love is to let us all do as we choose.

So, if I let someone kill and rape other people, I am showing the greatest love possible for them? Let's open all the prisons!

Again, I don't see how that automaticaly follows.

Say I go into the kitchen for a sandwhich, I look in the fridge and see bacon and cheese. After a ponder for as long as it take to get the cup out, put the coffee in the cup, and switch the kettle on I decide on bacon!

Now I have made a choice between bacon and cheese, I have weighed up the pros and cons of each and decided.

How has God knowing that I would pick bacon, mean that I made no such choice?

Read this:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

Tell me when you're all caught up.

You keep assuming choice exists, when the idea is to determine if choice exists at all.

And frankly, the argument structure you presented earlier assumes that choice doesn't exist.


I was trying to point out that the whole contradiction between omniscience and a nondetermined universe still exists regardless of the existence of will. In fact, this would be necessary as will would then be an illusion.


Unless will (for the individual) originates from outside the universe.


Then he can't be omnibenevolent as he allows us to be evil to each other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

Of course He can, if freedom is the higher good. Also put it in perspective. If I do some evil to you, like steal your car or spit on your pizza when I have a disease, what does it matter from an eternal perspective?


One allows for novelty (god could be wrong, and therefore not infallible), while the other doesn't (god is never wrong, so we have no free will).

If God is assumed to be infallible then knowledge = prediction from His point of view. And you seem to be setting up the axiom there that infallibility results in no freewill, which I reject as an axiom as it's the subject of debate.

You are apparently correct. Therefore, we can only deduce that god is not omniscient.

Na-uh!


So, if I let someone kill and rape other people, I am showing the greatest love possible for them? Let's open all the prisons!

If you do so out of a desire not to restrict them to allow them perfect freeom, then yes.
If you do so out of apathy, then no.



Read this:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

Tell me when you're all caught up.

Ohh I'll get around to it. But I spy already that an argument can be made for God being outside of time.

Except that any other choice will result in God seeing THAT eventuality instead.

You can't just change the analogy to suit you. God has ALREADY seen the eventuality, therefore it would be impossible to make another choice unless God was delusional.


In other words, the cause is the choice. The effect is what God sees.


The cause of what? God seeing your choice has always been an effect of his omniscience, not a cause of determination. It's the fact that God can see your choice before you have even made it that INDICATES that you are determined to make a choice which you cannot deviate from. If you make any other choice then God is delusional.

Which leads us full circle back to the John Wilkes Booth analogy. If I look back in time to the event, does the fact that I've observed it in any way alter the fact that Booth chose to assassinate Lincoln? No.


You're misunderstanding. Witnessing it doesn't change it, but it does mean that it CAN'T change.


Tell you what, I'll tell you what I believe, mkay? And the idea of us having spirits is perfectly Scriptural.


Don't construct strawmen. The idea that our 'spirits' (which, I would say, is another scriptural concept you fail to understand) can change the order of reality, is non-scriptural - and I don't believe that even you believe it's true.


No, I'm arguing that the spirit is an influence from outside this world and yet affects the behavior of entities within it.


You're not arguing that, because that doesn't match the context.

The other poster presented a view of the evolving universe following a set pattern. You argued that the human 'spirit' allows you to step outside of a set pattern.

The concept of this thrust of the debate is that 'god' has already witnessed the set pattern of reality. Thus, you are arguing that your 'spirit' is a more powerful force than the pattern, or the witness.


If He chooses to override my freewill by deciding I WILL do something then of course my choice is taken away.


And if he says that he has seen you doing something, and you DO do it, then your choice is also absent.

You're either arguing for a weak, fallible god, no god at all... or no freewill.

You can't just change the analogy to suit you. God has ALREADY seen the eventuality, therefore it would be impossible to make another choice unless God was delusional.


Which is where the claims of an infallible 'god' bite the argument in the ass.

If he can't be wrong, the lack of choice must be real.

If the lack of choice is wrong, then the properties claimed for god in the initial description, are false.

It can't be reconciled - those that claim an infallible, omniscient god - and ALSO claim free agency - are choosing to ignore a fatal contradiction.

What about those ~1500 years when NT didn't exist?
not to mention the part where god was exclusive to the jews up until jesus.

what was wrong with the rest of humanity--untold millions of people--before jesus?

not to mention the part where god was exclusive to the jews up until jesus.

what was wrong with the rest of humanity--untold millions of people--before jesus?

God was exclusive to Jews even during the alleged life of Jesus, too - if you believe the Gospels.

The 'Great Commission' stuff didn't exist in Jesus' lifetime. (It's also not present in the earliest and best evidences of scripture - it seems to have been redacted in, probably as the nascent 'church' changed focus.)

You can't just change the analogy to suit you. God has ALREADY seen the eventuality, therefore it would be impossible to make another choice unless God was delusional.


No, what I'm saying is that He sees the change of mind. The final product, if you will.


The cause of what? God seeing your choice has always been an effect of his omniscience, not a cause of determination. It's the fact that God can see your choice before you have even made it that INDICATES that you are determined to make a choice which you cannot deviate from. If you make any other choice then God is delusional.

This is the part where the argument breaks down: "you are determined to make a choice which you cannot deviate from" in that it implies some outside force whether you determine that to be God or predestiny or whatever.

You're misunderstanding. Witnessing it doesn't change it, but it does mean that it CAN'T change.


Only in the same sense that an action once taken, can't be undone (because it's in the past.) That doesn't mean I didn't chose to take that action.


Don't construct strawmen. The idea that our 'spirits' (which, I would say, is another scriptural concept you fail to understand)


LOL


can change the order of reality, is non-scriptural


I heartily disagree.


- and I don't believe that even you believe it's true.


*shrug*


You're not arguing that, because that doesn't match the context.

The other poster presented a view of the evolving universe following a set pattern. You argued that the human 'spirit' allows you to step outside of a set pattern.

The concept of this thrust of the debate is that 'god' has already witnessed the set pattern of reality. Thus, you are arguing that your 'spirit' is a more powerful force than the pattern, or the witness.


The problem is that terms like 'universe' and 'reality' are being bandied about and I suspect we don't all have a consensus on what, exactly, they mean.


And if he says that he has seen you doing something, and you DO do it, then your choice is also absent.

Again, it's the same as saying that somehow just because you might know I had lunch at Chipotle today, and I can't go back and change it, that somehow I didn't chose to eat there. Obviously, that's absurd.


You're either arguing for a weak, fallible god, no god at all... or no freewill.

Or I don't accept some of your axioms.

God was exclusive to Jews even during the alleged life of Jesus, too - if you believe the Gospels.

The 'Great Commission' stuff didn't exist in Jesus' lifetime. (It's also not present in the earliest and best evidences of scripture - it seems to have been redacted in, probably as the nascent 'church' changed focus.)
and perhaps still is.

which would mean that no one would have it right--according to jesus

oh i guess not no one. there are some christian jews out there who adhere to both religions.

No, what I'm saying is that He sees the change of mind. The final product, if you will.


Then you're determined to change your mind. Whatever God sees, you cannot deviate from.


This is the part where the argument breaks down: "you are determined to make a choice which you cannot deviate from" in that it implies some outside force whether you determine that to be God or predestiny or whatever.


What's the problem with that? How is that causing the argument to break down? We're already assuming for the sake of argument that God exists and is fully omniscient. God determined the universe if he did exist yes, that's not the same as his knowledge causing determination, he must determine the universe first before he knows what he has determined.

And frankly, the argument structure you presented earlier assumes that choice doesn't exist.

No, it doesn't. If you are reading that, then you are reading it wrong.

Unless will (for the individual) originates from outside the universe.

It still doesn't matter. if god can have infallible knowledge of every thing this 'will' is going to do, then this will can not do anything except what god knows it will do.

Of course He can, if freedom is the higher good. Also put it in perspective. If I do some evil to you, like steal your car or spit on your pizza when I have a disease, what does it matter from an eternal perspective?

Then god is not omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being would not ignore my suffering simply because it is incredibly tiny compared to eternity. His eye is on the sparrow, is it not?

If God is assumed to be infallible then knowledge = prediction from His point of view. And you seem to be setting up the axiom there that infallibility results in no freewill, which I reject as an axiom as it's the subject of debate.

Did you read Murayvet's definitions of these words upthread? You kinda have to, in order to understand. That's why I mentioned them.

If you do so out of a desire not to restrict them to allow them perfect freeom, then yes.
If you do so out of apathy, then no.

Okay, so if I genuinely want murderers and rapists to be free because I love freedom, then that would be the most moral thing I could do?

Are you sure you want to argue that?

Ohh I'll get around to it. But I spy already that an argument can be made for God being outside of time.

You're getting there. By the way, if god is outside of linear time, it does not mean that the argument I linked to is wrong.

Again, it's the same as saying that somehow just because you might know I had lunch at Chipotle today, and I can't go back and change it, that somehow I didn't chose to eat there. Obviously, that's absurd.

Or I don't accept some of your axioms.

If you have done an action in the past, you are no longer able to not do that thing. You can no longer choose not to have eaten at Chipotle's.

So what axiom do you think is wrong?

Then you're determined to change your mind. Whatever God sees, you cannot deviate from.


And if that determination came from me in the first place? Freewill.


What's the problem with that? How is that causing the argument to break down? We're already assuming for the sake of argument that God exists and is fully omniscient. God determined the universe if he did exist yes, that's not the same as his knowledge causing determination, he must determine the universe first before he knows what he has determined.

I think He determines the rules and parameters of the universe, but doesn't necessarily exercise control over each and every particle in it.

No, it doesn't. If you are reading that, then you are reading it wrong.

Then where does it factor in the source of the choice?


It still doesn't matter. if god can have infallible knowledge of every thing this 'will' is going to do, then this will can not do anything except what god knows it will do.

And why does He know what it will do? Because it chooses to! :) Can't lose sight of the root cause and effect. That argument we keep mentioning tries to assert th at somehow foreknowledge of the event is the cause, by virtue of allowing for no other alternative.


Then god is not omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being would not ignore my suffering simply because it is incredibly tiny compared to eternity. His eye is on the sparrow, is it not?


Unless you can become stronger spiritually by the way in which you respond to those events, essentially turning my evil act into a positive for you.


Did you read Murayvet's definitions of these words upthread? You kinda have to, in order to understand. That's why I mentioned them.


No I haven't. I'll look at it in a little bit.


If you have done an action in the past, you are no longer able to not do that thing. You can no longer choose not to have eaten at Chipotle's.


But that doesn't deny the fact that I still chose to eat there in the first place. It's just that now I have to love with that decision. (And my insides aren't handling it so well... I wish I could...)


So what axiom do you think is wrong?

The idea that God's infallibility and omniscience are inexorably linked to a lack of freewill.

And if that determination came from me in the first place? Freewill.


Free will implies it was possible you may have possibly determined something else, it would be impossible for you to determine something else, thus no free will.


I think He determines the rules and parameters of the universe, but doesn't necessarily exercise control over each and every particle in it.


He doesn't need to. If he knows that the universe will be like A in the future, then the universe will be like A (it doesn't matter how he knows it).

Then where does it factor in the source of the choice?

It is asking whether or not there is choice. If it 'factored in the source of the choice', it would answer its own question. Like I said, you're making the assumption that choice exists when the whole debate is about whether or not choice exists.

And why does He know what it will do? Because it chooses to! :) Can't lose sight of the root cause and effect. That argument we keep mentioning tries to assert th at somehow foreknowledge of the event is the cause, by virtue of allowing for no other alternative.


Like I said, will has nothing to do with it. the argument holds true whether or not the events observed are potentially caused by a will or not.

It does not assert that foreknowledge is the cause of your actions. It asserts that infallible foreknowledge and free will are irreconcilable.

Unless you can become stronger spiritually by the way in which you respond to those events, essentially turning my evil act into a positive for you.

Then an omnibenevolent god would force me to grow spiritually in order to have a 'better' life for me. Again, we run inot the contradiction with free will.

But that doesn't deny the fact that I still chose to eat there in the first place. It's just that now I have to love with that decision. (And my insides aren't handling it so well... I wish I could...)

Right. we can't change the past. if god observed my actions in the past, then we can't change the past, including god's observations. God observed our future in the past, so we can't change god's observations about the future. And because god is always right, god's observations of our future are exactly correct, and we can't change them.

The idea that God's infallibility and omniscience are inexorably linked to a lack of freewill.

Maybe I don't know what an axiom is, but that seems more like the conclusion than an axiom.

Free will implies it was possible you may have possibly determined something else, it would be impossible for you to determine something else, thus no free will.

The trouble with that argument is that the frame of reference is limited to looking only at the reality subsequent to the act of choosing. Even though it talks about God's foreknowledge, the effect (His knowing) still results from the act of choosing. By opening up the frame of reference we allow for the true cause to be introduced, thus, freewill.


He doesn't need to. If he knows that the universe will be like A in the future, then the universe will be like A (it doesn't matter how he knows it).

That's true, just as it doesn't matter how I know Booth shot Lincoln. He still chose to do it. (Can't undo it now, of course, but that's a limited frame of reference.)

The trouble with that argument is that the frame of reference is limited to looking only at the reality subsequent to the act of choosing. Even though it talks about God's foreknowledge, the effect (His knowing) still results from the act of choosing. By opening up the frame of reference we allow for the true cause to be introduced, thus, freewill.

I would presume that god's knowing results from being god, or do you posit that god doesn't know the consequences of our decisions until after we've made them?

That's true, just as it doesn't matter how I know Booth shot Lincoln. He still chose to do it. (Can't undo it now, of course, but that's a limited frame of reference.)

Ahh, but if you knew that Booth WOULD shoot Lincoln, could have stopped him from shooting Lincoln, and, not only was it in your power to stop, but the factors that influenced Booth's life such that he ultimately made the decision to shoot Lincoln were not only within your control, but specifically chosen by you to be exactly the way they are, did Booth really have the choice? Or did you make it for him?

The trouble with that argument is that the frame of reference is limited to looking only at the reality subsequent to the act of choosing. Even though it talks about God's foreknowledge, the effect (His knowing) still results from the act of choosing. By opening up the frame of reference we allow for the true cause to be introduced, thus, freewill.


This is getting silly. Neo Bretonnia, can I ask exactly how you would define the word choice?

It is asking whether or not there is choice. If it 'factored in the source of the choice', it would answer its own question. Like I said, you're making the assumption that choice exists when the whole debate is about whether or not choice exists.

But I don't h ave to make that assumption to know that the argument purposefully limits the frame of reference to exclude any factor causing the choice other than it's having been observed to be inexorably true.


Like I said, will has nothing to do with it. the argument holds true whether or not the events observed are potentially caused by a will or not.

Except the argument is limited to a useless narrow frame of reference.


It does not assert that foreknowledge is the cause of your actions. It asserts that infallible foreknowledge and free will are irreconcilable.


I dispute that assertion. (Obviously.)


Then an omnibenevolent god would force me to grow spiritually in order to have a 'better' life for me. Again, we run inot the contradiction with free will.


And suppose, for whatever reason, forcing you to grow spiritually is an inferior solution to allowing you to do it on your own merit?


Right. we can't change the past. if god observed my actions in the past, then we can't change the past, including god's observations. God observed our future in the past, so we can't change god's observations about the future. And because god is always right, god's observations of our future are exactly correct, and we can't change them.


True, we can't change what has been observed, but but we do determine what's observed in the first place. Booth can't change what he did, but that doesn't mean he didn't choose to do it in the first place. I'd say that's a pretty good reason why we aren't given the ability to see into the future ourselves.


Maybe I don't know what an axiom is, but that seems more like the conclusion than an axiom.

I would agree that it ought to be a conclusion, but the way that was phrased implied it as an axiom (in other words, a given).

I would presume that god's knowing results from being god, or do you posit that god doesn't know the consequences of our decisions until after we've made them?

I don't know that I'd phrase it like that, but I would say God's knowledge of our decisions is dependent upon us making them.


Ahh, but if you knew that Booth WOULD shoot Lincoln, could have stopped him from shooting Lincoln, and, not only was it in your power to stop, but the factors that influenced Booth's life such that he ultimately made the decision to shoot Lincoln were not only within your control, but specifically chosen by you to be exactly the way they are, did Booth really have the choice? Or did you make it for him?

Good point, but if I chose not to exercise that control, allowing things and people to flow as they will, he still chooses.

For that matter, it would even be possible for me to limit his options without denying his freewill. For example, I could warn Lincoln that he'd be killed (assuming we ignore temporal paradoxes) and initiate a sequence of events that makes Booth's task much more difficult, but that's a long way from making him my puppet.

This is getting silly. Neo Bretonnia, can I ask exactly how you would define the word choice?

Choice = the act of exercising one's freewill.

Choice = the act of exercising one's freewill.

Ok, and how do you define freewill?

But I don't h ave to make that assumption to know that the argument purposefully limits the frame of reference to exclude any factor causing the choice other than it's having been observed to be inexorably true....
I would agree that it ought to be a conclusion, but the way that was phrased implied it as an axiom (in other words, a given).

The argument does not purposefully limit anything. Tell you what, here it is again:

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Now, show me how it "purposefully limits the frame of reference to exclude any factor causing the choice other than it's having been observed to be inexorably true....".

T vs 6...

I always wondered if God watched Sesame Street, lol :tongue:

Good point, but if I chose not to exercise that control, allowing things and people to flow as they will, he still chooses.

Which raises the fundamental problem. Can god choose to not be omniscient?

Ok, and how do you define freewill?

Freedom to act, independently of another entity.

The argument does not purposefully limit anything. Tell you what, here it is again:

Now, show me how it "purposefully limits the frame of reference to exclude any factor causing the choice other than it's having been observed to be inexorably true....".

Easy. It lacks an entry point for the decision to pick up the phone and make the call.

Ever seen the Futurama episode where Frye becomes his own grandfather? It's a ridiculous temporal paradox but it's useful to illustrate the following point:

At what point did those genes not derived from Frye's grandmother enter the causal loop? Frye's genes mix with grandma's to produce Frye's dad (or mom) who in turn passed those genes along to Frye who then went back and... etc. How did those genetic traits get into the loop?

How did the trigger to the phonecall enter the causal loop set up by this argument, if you say God's simply knowing about it is NOT the trigger for the event?

Which raises the fundamental problem. Can god choose to not be omniscient?

Sure. And honestly, I could even see that as being a compromise between my perspective and GoG's. If GoG's argument IS correct and applicable (and I'm not conceding that it is here) then is it too far fetched an idea that maybe God could willfully 'blind' Himself to that knowledge for the sake of preserving freewill?

Freedom to act, independently of another entity.


And how exactly can you not exercise that freedom?

Easy. It lacks an entry point for the decision to pick up the phone and make the call.

Ever seen the Futurama episode where Frye becomes his own grandfather? It's a ridiculous temporal paradox but it's useful to illustrate the following point:

At what point did those genes not derived from Frye's grandmother enter the causal loop? Frye's genes mix with grandma's to produce Frye's dad (or mom) who in turn passed those genes along to Frye who then went back and... etc. How did those genetic traits get into the loop?

How did the trigger to the phonecall enter the causal loop set up by this argument, if you say God's simply knowing about it is NOT the trigger for the event?

Are you saying it lacks a description of the causes that resulted in the effect of T (the telephone call)? If that's what you're asking, then my answer is that we can assume that there were a variety of factors involved and that the specific ones don't matter for the purposes of ther argument.

Or are you saying that it lacks a point wherein you get to choose T or not-T? It doesn't have to have this point, as it is seeking to determine that this point would not exist, i.e. that choice is an illusion.

And why do you see it as a loop?

And how exactly can you not exercise that freedom?

You might have lost me there... Isn't that what we're discussing?

Are you saying it lacks a description of the causes that resulted in the effect of T (the telephone call)? If that's what you're asking, then my answer is that we can assume that there were a variety of factors involved and that the specific ones don't matter for the purposes of ther argument.

Or are you saying that it lacks a point wherein you get to choose T or not-T? It doesn't have to have this point, as it is seeking to determine that this point would not exist, i.e. that choice is an illusion.

And why do you see it as a loop?

The former, and why would we assume they don't matter? I'd venture to say they're the crux of the issue.

I see it as a loop in a sort of pictoral sense... God seeing the act in the future, the act being the cause of His seeing it, etc.

You might have lost me there... Isn't that what we're discussing?

Well I've always found the term 'exercise your freedom' to be rather meaningless from an objective viewpoint. If you're free to do what you want, then whatever you do you're exercising that freedom. So it doesn't really describe anything.

Well I've always found the term 'exercise your freedom' to be rather meaningless from an objective viewpoint. If you're free to do what you want, then whatever you do you're exercising that freedom. So it doesn't really describe anything.

Oh, gotcha.

My answer would be that depending on who is right in this discussion, either that freedom exists or it doesn't, which does indeed make the definition meaningless in that way.

Sure. And honestly, I could even see that as being a compromise between my perspective and GoG's. If GoG's argument IS correct and applicable (and I'm not conceding that it is here) then is it too far fetched an idea that maybe God could willfully 'blind' Himself to that knowledge for the sake of preserving freewill?

I suppose that merely only raises the question though as to, even if god does "blind" himself, does that restore free will, or merely create one more entity who does not know how the event will play out.

OK, so let me pose a hypothetical. Let's say I invite you over to my home for a barbeque. I put all the burgers on a tray, and pass it around my assorted guests, by the time it reaches you, two remain, one on the left and one on the right. They are effectively identical, roughly the same size, shape, same preparation, same buns and condiments. I say to you "Neo B, take whichever one you like" (incidentally I am forever amused when we are referred to as Neo A and Neo B collectively. I feel a bit like Thing 1 and Thing 2).

Now you ponder a moment, and reach for the one on the left. Something in your mind made you get the left one. You say this is an example of free will, you chose left, you could have just as easily chosen right. You made a choice.

However, to look at it from a different perspective, let's say, through some freak event, one of my guest, the instant before you choose, is suddenly and inexplicably struck with the knowledge, not only of a complete and total understanding of the physical laws of the universe, but also the complete and total makeup of all reality. Such that this guest not only knows exactly the makeup of the universe, but all rules governing the universe. Thus, just like imagining a near infinitly complex pool table, this guest, knowing the forces acting on every particle, and knowing precisely how those particles will respond to such force, will know exactly what will happen next, in regards to every single particle in the universe. Since all of physics is at its core actions and reactions, and this person knows exactly how everything is acted upon, and how it reacts to such actions, this guest can know exactly how everything will move.

This guest will thus know in that instant before you choose, exactly how you will choose.

And what's more, it doesn't matter if the guest was struck with this knowledge the instant before you chose, or a day, or a year, or at the very start of the universe, because he could plot the course of every atom, ever particle, every packet of energy, from beginning to end, simply by understanding the fundamental principles of the universe. So this person would be omniscient, would know everything that would ever happen, before it ever does.

And once we realize that, that every choice you make, every act you do, every breath you take, is simply the particles of your body reacting in a way consistent with the laws of the universe, then whether or not someone KNOWS the laws is irrelevant. You are simply a bundle of matter and energy that is bound by the laws of physics.

So in that sense, you might THINK you had a choice, it might APPEAR to you that you had a choice, but you didn't. The laws of physics of the universe dictate the choice you make, because your body, as a physical entity bound by physical rules, must obey the rules of the universe, and act in a way determinable based on the forces acting upon you. And those forces, acting in the way they did, led you to pick left, not right. And you had no choice in the matter

My answer would be that depending on who is right in this discussion, either that freedom exists or it doesn't, which does indeed make the definition meaningless in that way.

So can I just say that free will = freedom to act how you please?

The former, and why would we assume they don't matter? I'd venture to say they're the crux of the issue.

I see it as a loop in a sort of pictoral sense... God seeing the act in the future, the act being the cause of His seeing it, etc.

Hence the crux of the paradox. The universe exists the way god wants it to exist, because god can see what happens before it did, and if god wanted to, god would choose differently, but if god chose differently, he would be aware of his own choice before he made it.

So can I just say that free will = freedom to act how you please?

I think that's as useful a definition as any I can come up with on the fly ;)

I think that's as useful a definition as any I can come up with on the fly ;)

Well then if that is your definition, then I'd agree with you, we do have that freedom regardless of whether God knows what we are going to do or not.

Thus, as an addition to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13943373&postcount=937), to say you had a choice in which hamburger to pick, or Booth had a choice whether or not to shoot Lincoln, or I had a choice whether or not to write this thread is as untrue as saying that the 8 ball had the choice not to go into the pocket.

The 8 ball was struck by a force (the cue ball, if you're doing it right), and thus reacted in response to that force as the laws of physics dictate it must. The application of that force to the 8 ball, and the reaction of that force will either result in the 8 ball going into the pocket, or it will not. And no matter how many times you replay that scenario, no matter how many times you redo it, as long as the application is the same, the results will invariable by the same.

The ball has no choice as to whether it will obey the laws of physics, and neither do we.

I suppose that merely only raises the question though as to, even if god does "blind" himself, does that restore free will, or merely create one more entity who does not know how the event will play out.
<snip for brevity>

(incidentally I am forever amused when we are referred to as Neo A and Neo B collectively. I feel a bit like Thing 1 and Thing 2).


LOL me too. Maybe we should make use of that should we ever find ourselves on the same side of a Warhammer table.


<snip for brevity>
And once we realize that, that every choice you make, every act you do, every breath you take, is simply the particles of your body reacting in a way consistent with the laws of the universe, then whether or not someone KNOWS the laws is irrelevant. You are simply a bundle of matter and energy that is bound by the laws of physics.

So in that sense, you might THINK you had a choice, it might APPEAR to you that you had a choice, but you didn't. The laws of physics of the universe dictate the choice you make, because your body, as a physical entity bound by physical rules, must obey the rules of the universe, and act in a way determinable based on the forces acting upon you. And those forces, acting in the way they did, led you to pick left, not right. And you had no choice in the matter

If I agreed that we are essentially nothing more than a predictable pattern of matter and energy I would concede that point instantly.

But where we diverge is in the definition of consciousness. if it's nothing but an immeasurably complex pattern of energy then fine, it still falls within your definition. I do not believe it to be. Our consciousness (or spirit) is not governed my the behavior of that infinitely complex pool table and thus does not act according to any rules or laws that could be predicted.

Which is why I believe it's likely that God can have foreknowledge of our decisions ONLY because He exists outside of time, and not because He can calculate from a pattern.

Some might say that is, by definition, a limit to His Omniscience. I don't think I know enough about it to argue or concede that point.

Well then if that is your definition, then I'd agree with you, we do have that freedom regardless of whether God knows what we are going to do or not.

Then I'm glad you asked... especially if I've been doing a bad job of expressing that!

The former, and why would we assume they don't matter? I'd venture to say they're the crux of the issue.

I see it as a loop in a sort of pictoral sense... God seeing the act in the future, the act being the cause of His seeing it, etc.

Because the argument is true no matter what the causes are. This is shown by the fact that you can replace T with anything and the argument is still valid.

I suppose that merely only raises the question though as to, even if god does "blind" himself, does that restore free will, or merely create one more entity who does not know how the event will play out....
So in that sense, you might THINK you had a choice, it might APPEAR to you that you had a choice, but you didn't. The laws of physics of the universe dictate the choice you make, because your body, as a physical entity bound by physical rules, must obey the rules of the universe, and act in a way determinable based on the forces acting upon you. And those forces, acting in the way they did, led you to pick left, not right. And you had no choice in the matter

This is only true if we assume that human behaviour can be predicted from elemenary particles.

This is only true if we assume that human behaviour can be predicted from elemenary particles.

I see no reason why it shouldn't. We're physical beings in a physical universe, after all. Our minds, in the end, are just complicated circuits.

First of all, the very DEFINITION of God could yield a never-ending debate. Is God an independent, omnipotent, omniscient, ubiquitous entity? Is God the product of some human dependence upon an illusion of security in real security's absence? Is God the sum of every living thing's spiritual energy?
No idea.

What I DO know is that religious unilateralism has caused quite a few wars, quite a few hurt-feelings, and an arguably divided planet.

Can't we all just get along?

I see no reason why it shouldn't. We're physical beings in a physical universe, after all. Our minds, in the end, are just complicated circuits.

Again, you are making assumptions. You are assuming we are solely physical beings. And beyond that, you are assuming that the only behaviour that physical systems can show is that which can be predicted from its most elementary parts. Neither of these assumptions seem to be true.

Again, you are making assumptions. You are assuming we are solely physical beings. And beyond that, you are assuming that the only behaviour that physical systems can show is that which can be predicted from its most elementary parts. Neither of these assumptions seem to be true.

How do you mean they don't seem to be true? I've seen no evidence to the contrary of either.

I see no reason why it shouldn't. We're physical beings in a physical universe, after all. Our minds, in the end, are just complicated circuits.

Halt!

No no no!

There are several problems with the above statement. The most important being Quantum Mechanics (Heisenberg uncertainty principle!). Please remember that our world is NOT a deterministic one.

If you have a radioactive nuclei, you CANNOT predict exactly when it will decay.

So,
1) A PERFECT knowledge of a person elementary particles is NOT possible (Heisenberg uncertainty principle).
2) PERFECT predictions are not possible in the sub-atomic world (ok, only in rare cases) and this will reflect your accuracy in predicting any real-world event.

How do you mean they don't seem to be true? I've seen no evidence to the contrary of either.

If everything could be predicted solely from its constituent parts, tehn we're utterly screwed, as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle explicitly states that we cannot make predictions about the most elementary of particles. Consequently we should be unable to make predictiond about macroscopic things, yet we seem to be able to with astonishing accuracy. This is due to emergent properties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Emergent_properties_and_processes). One cannot predict how an elementary particle will act, but if we put enough of them together, we can predict the behaviour of such a mass.

The same way that a brain cell cannot reason, but a brain can reason and dream.

Halt!

No no no!

There are several problems with the above statement. The most important being Quantum Mechanics (Heisenberg uncertainty principle!). Please remember that our world is NOT a deterministic one.

If you have a radioactive nuclei, you CANNOT predict exactly when it will decay.

So,
1) A PERFECT knowledge of a person elementary particles is NOT possible (Heisenberg uncertainty principle).
2) PERFECT predictions are not possible in the sub-atomic world (ok, only in rare cases) and this will reflect your accuracy in predicting any real-world event.

I'm afraid you don't understand Heisenberg's principle. The uncertainty principle does not state that quantum mechanics do not follow set laws. It merely states it's physically impossible to gain sufficient information to determine what it will do. It does not that determination is impossible once you get the information, merely you can't get the information

If everything could be predicted solely from its constituent parts, tehn we're utterly screwed, as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle explicitly states that we cannot make predictions about the most elementary of particles. Consequently we should be unable to make predictiond about macroscopic things, yet we seem to be able to with astonishing accuracy. This is due to emergent properties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Emergent_properties_and_processes). One cannot predict how an elementary particle will act, but if we put enough of them together, we can predict the behaviour of such a mass.

The same way that a brain cell cannot reason, but a brain can reason and dream.

and again, you misunderstand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It says WE can not make predictions about particles because WE do not have means of getting sufficient information about the particles. It does not mean that particles don't follow deterministic rules. It means that you can't learn precisely the state of any one particle in order to apply the rules, because to learn them would change them.

I heartily disagree.


That's okay. Being wrong is constitutionally allowed to you.

Show me the verses.


The problem is that terms like 'universe' and 'reality' are being bandied about and I suspect we don't all have a consensus on what, exactly, they mean.


If you aren't using 'universe' and 'reality' to mean the same things I am, then you are wrong. I don't feel the need to diaper you.


Again, it's the same as saying that somehow just because you might know I had lunch at Chipotle today, and I can't go back and change it, that somehow I didn't chose to eat there. Obviously, that's absurd.


If I knew YESTERDAY, you might have a point. As it is, you don't.


Or I don't accept some of your axioms.

They're not mine - my 'axioms' are the properties claimed for the 'god' you keep saying you believe in.

and perhaps still is.

which would mean that no one would have it right--according to jesus

oh i guess not no one. there are some christian jews out there who adhere to both religions.

You can't adhere to both religions. Unless you accept that Satanists are also Christians, for example.

I'm afraid you don't understand Heisenberg's principle. The uncertainty principle does not state that quantum mechanics do not follow set laws. It merely states it's physically impossible to gain sufficient information to determine what it will do. It does not that determination is impossible once you get the information, merely you can't get the information

I'm afraid you don't understand ... me. :D


It does not that determination is impossible once you get the information, merely you can't get the information

No, it states that the information does not exist. Think about virtual particles!

The trouble with that argument is that the frame of reference is limited to looking only at the reality subsequent to the act of choosing.

This is why you don't 'get' this argument.

If 'god' is omniscient and infallible, everything has already taken place. Everything.

Using a phrase like "the reality subsequent to the act" is nonsensical in that paradigm.

and again, you misunderstand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It says WE can not make predictions about particles because WE do not have means of getting sufficient information about the particles. It does not mean that particles don't follow deterministic rules. It means that you can't learn precisely the state of any one particle in order to apply the rules, because to learn them would change them.

The uncertainty principle simply says that it is impossible to accurately predict the position and the momentum of an elementary particle. If you want to believe that elementary particles follow deterministic rules, you will have to assume that they do, despite the mathematical evidence that it is impossible to calculate such numbers, and that no one has ever observed anything to suggest that such particles do follow deterministic laws.

By the way, you are conflating the Uncertainty principle with the observer effect.

No, it states that the information does not exist.

No...it doesn't.

Think about virtual particles!

What about them? just because we may not understand the precise mechanisms that govern them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Think about virtual particles!

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he does not need information.

If everything could be predicted solely from its constituent parts, tehn we're utterly screwed, as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle explicitly states that we cannot make predictions about the most elementary of particles. Consequently we should be unable to make predictiond about macroscopic things, yet we seem to be able to with astonishing accuracy. This is due to emergent properties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Emergent_properties_and_processes). One cannot predict how an elementary particle will act, but if we put enough of them together, we can predict the behaviour of such a mass.

The same way that a brain cell cannot reason, but a brain can reason and dream.

That's not really what the uncertainty principle states, though. It states that it is impossible to determine certain properties about a particle simultaneously (E and dt, position and momentum). These are, however, limitations of our observation, rather than necessarily fundamental properties of the particles.

A good analogy would be a 2 dimensional observer perceiving a 3 dimension object, such as a cylinder. The observer would alternately perceive the cylinder as a circular sort of shape, or a rectangular sort of shape. At no time could the observer ever perceive the cylinder as a cylinder, nor could they simultaneously observe both the circular and the rectangular shapes. However, the cylinder would never stop being a cylinder, and the observer's perception of it would have no bearing on what it actually is.

Even if we can't know everything about a particle at a given time, it does not mean that the particle is behaving in any way randomly. It's behavior could very well be totally deterministic, regardless of our ability to actually determine all of its properties at once.

By the way, you are conflating the Uncertainty principle with the observer effect.

Not so much conflating as oversimplifying one and thus really describing another, although the ramifications of both are roughly the same. Though you're correct, one deals with measurement and the other observation, The results of one directly impact the applicability of the other, since you can't measure without observing.

There are many who believe that the observer effect is what causes the uncertainty principle in the first place.

No, it states that the information does not exist. Think about virtual particles!

Won't someone please think about the virtual particles!!!!

That's not really what the uncertainty principle states, though. It states that it is impossible to determine certain properties about a particle simultaneously (E and dt, position and momentum). These are, however, limitations of our observation, rather than necessarily fundamental properties of the particles.

A good analogy would be a 2 dimensional observer perceiving a 3 dimension object, such as a cylinder. The observer would alternately perceive the cylinder as a circular sort of shape, or a rectangular sort of shape. At no time could the observer ever perceive the cylinder as a cylinder, nor could they simultaneously observe both the circular and the rectangular shapes. However, the cylinder would never stop being a cylinder, and the observer's perception of it would have no bearing on what it actually is.

Even if we can't know everything about a particle at a given time, it does not mean that the particle is behaving in any way randomly. It's behavior could very well be totally deterministic, regardless of our ability to actually determine all of its properties at once.

Fine. As I was addressing Neo A's assumption that all human behaviour can be predicted from a human's most elementary constituents, my mistakes in properly explaining the HUP are not important.

The point is that we cannot accurately predict the behaviour of elementary particles. If all behaviour of a physical entity in our universe is a product of the behaviour of these elementary particles, we would then be unable to make any predictions about the physical world. But we can. So something else has to be there. Behaviour must be a function of more than the most elementary particles. Consequently, all human behaviour can not be solely attributable to elementary constituents.

Fine. As I was addressing Neo A's assumption that all human behaviour can be predicted from a human's most elementary constituents, my mistakes in properly explaining the HUP are not important.

The point is that we cannot accurately predict the behaviour of elementary particles. If all behaviour of a physical entity in our universe is a product of the behaviour of these elementary particles, we would then be unable to make any predictions about the physical world. But we can. So something else has to be there. Behaviour must be a function of more than the most elementary particles. Consequently, all human behaviour can not be solely attributable to elementary constituents.

The hole in the argument is, of course, that we can only make those predictions about macrocosmic phenomena. We can calculate the overall mean effect, if you will. And since we're multi-atomic structures, it's not impossible to reason we could do the same with people. Human behaviour could be attributed to elementary constituents, acting en masse.

The point is that we cannot accurately predict the behaviour of elementary particles. If all behaviour of a physical entity in our universe is a product of the behaviour of these elementary particles, we would then be unable to make any predictions about the physical world. But we can. So something else has to be there. Behaviour must be a function of more than the most elementary particles. Consequently, all human behaviour can not be solely attributable to elementary constituents.

We can make predicitions, they're just not necessarily 100% correct 100% of the time. There is a chance that your entire body will make a coordinated quantum leap and appear, fully constituted, on the moon. And we'd never be able to predict that, because we don't understand the full workings of your constituent parts. So in the extremely small chance that it does happen, any prediction I made that it would not, would be false.

It's just that all the weird and freaky and unpredicable due to lack of adequate information things on a micro scale all have a tendancy to average out in the macro scale. Which is why we can use things like Newtonian physics to predict the motion of macro bodies, even though newtonian physics isn't technically correct. It's a fairly good approximation that works to predict macro events with an acceptable level of accuracy.

Just not 100% accuracy, should you ever find yourself suddenly on the moon without a spacesuit.

Fine. As I was addressing Neo A's assumption that all human behaviour can be predicted from a human's most elementary constituents, my mistakes in properly explaining the HUP are not important.

The point is that we cannot accurately predict the behaviour of elementary particles. If all behaviour of a physical entity in our universe is a product of the behaviour of these elementary particles, we would then be unable to make any predictions about the physical world. But we can. So something else has to be there. Behaviour must be a function of more than the most elementary particles. Consequently, all human behaviour can not be solely attributable to elementary constituents.

Of course, even that's not really true. Even if something can't be determined down to the particle level, the aggregate of those particles can be determined. An emergent property of a system is often very deterministic even if its constituent elements aren't. The discovery of this has led in recent years to the application of statistical mechanics and related methodology to the behavior of not only human brains but also complex living systems like ant colonies. The actions of an individual ant are fundamentally random, but taken as a whole it becomes predictable.

Of course, even that's not really true. Even if something can't be determined down to the particle level, the aggregate of those particles can be determined. An emergent property of a system is often very deterministic even if its constituent elements aren't. The discovery of this has led in recent years to the application of statistical mechanics and related methodology to the behavior of not only human brains but also complex living systems like ant colonies. The actions of an individual ant are fundamentally random, but taken as a whole it becomes predictable.

Heh, I tend to apply the same argument to economics.

Heh, I tend to apply the same argument to economics.

It's not totally inaccurate. Analysis of humans as an aggregate is pretty much the same idea.

Of course, even that's not really true. Even if something can't be determined down to the particle level, the aggregate of those particles can be determined. An emergent property of a system is often very deterministic even if its constituent elements aren't. The discovery of this has led in recent years to the application of statistical mechanics and related methodology to the behavior of not only human brains but also complex living systems like ant colonies. The actions of an individual ant are fundamentally random, but taken as a whole it becomes predictable.

"Foundation" should be required reading.

"Foundation" should be required reading.

Asimov is the man. *nod*

What about them? just because we may not understand the precise mechanisms that govern them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

What I wanted to say was that virtual particles "exists" thanks to the uncernanity principle. So, if such principle is just a loss of information (kind of: "you see the particle but you can't tell how fast it goes") it would not account for "solid" object like virtual particles, that, as you said, they do exist.

To put it in simpler terms, you've got a photon flying in the void when, suddenly, a pair of particles appears in front of it and it collides with one of them (granted, it's highly improbable). Could you have predicted this event? No. Even if you had perfect knowledge of the system? Yes.

The hole in the argument is, of course, that we can only make those predictions about macrocosmic phenomena. We can calculate the overall mean effect, if you will. And since we're multi-atomic structures, it's not impossible to reason we could do the same with people. Human behaviour could be attributed to elementary constituents, acting en masse.

Yes. And it could also be impossible to predict human behaviour from its constituent parts. Obviously, human behaviour is predictable to some degree, but at the same time, we do experience novelty when observing other people. All I am saying is that it is an assumption to believe that one day we will be able to predict all of human behaviour.

We can make predicitions, they're just not necessarily 100% correct 100% of the time. There is a chance that your entire body will make a coordinated quantum leap and appear, fully constituted, on the moon. And we'd never be able to predict that, because we don't understand the full workings of your constituent parts. So in the extremely small chance that it does happen, any prediction I made that it would not, would be false.

It's just that all the weird and freaky and unpredicable due to lack of adequate information things on a micro scale all have a tendancy to average out in the macro scale. Which is why we can use things like Newtonian physics to predict the motion of macro bodies, even though newtonian physics isn't technically correct. It's a fairly good approximation that works to predict macro events with an acceptable level of accuracy.

Just not 100% accuracy, should you ever find yourself suddenly on the moon without a spacesuit.

They don't always tend to average out. Sometimes they do. Sometimes we get order out of the chaos instead, like in emergent systems.

And if we don't have 100% accuracy, then your barbeque analogy for Thing 2 doesn't work, does it?

Of course, even that's not really true. Even if something can't be determined down to the particle level, the aggregate of those particles can be determined. An emergent property of a system is often very deterministic even if its constituent elements aren't. The discovery of this has led in recent years to the application of statistical mechanics and related methodology to the behavior of not only human brains but also complex living systems like ant colonies. The actions of an individual ant are fundamentally random, but taken as a whole it becomes predictable.

But again, it does not necessarily follow that such emergent systems would have to follow deterministic laws. if the emergent properties are not dependent on the constituent particles, their behaviour can not be predicted with just that information. (Sorry if I don't use the correct terminology, but I don't have the specialised vocabulary of those who have degrees in this sort of stuff) So if they can be predicted with other information, what would that information be?

"Foundation" should be required reading.

I guess I'm arguing that there will always be a Mule to throw a wrench into the works.

But again, it does not necessarily follow that such emergent systems would have to follow deterministic laws. if the emergent properties are not dependent on the constituent particles, their behaviour can not be predicted with just that information. (Sorry if I don't use the correct terminology, but I don't have the specialised vocabulary of those who have degrees in this sort of stuff) So if they can be predicted with other information, what would that information be?

You bring up a good point. I have to head home, but I'll try and eek out a reply the first opportunity I get.

I guess I'm arguing that there will always be a Mule to throw a wrench into the works.

:)

It would seem more likely that it would be otherwise, to be honest... slight anomoly every now and again, maybe. Swimming against the OVERALL tide is incredibly rare. Significant statistical anomoly? Rarer still.

<snip>

I'd say omnipotence has the potential to do so, but He refrains from exercising it in order to preserve our freewill.
Whatever. I'm just saying that, if there is any quality to the Abrahamic god that could affect human free will, it would be omnipotence, not omniscience.

The original argument, concerning God, depends only on the property that he knows everything, at every time, with 100% accuracy. Your argument predicates itself on assumptions about our travelling through time.
Actually, it seems that most of the arguments concerning God depend on assuming that the mind of an infallible and omniscient being works the same way a normal human's does. I find that assumption odd.

<snip>
Can you explain that?

<snip>
I'll try.

First, obviously, the difference between omniscience and omnipotence is the difference between knowing and acting. Omniscience is passive. Omnipotence is active (potentially).

Second, my big problem with all the scenarios described herein that suggest that god's knowledge of our future is the thing that negates or interferes with human free will, or else that proves that free will doesn't exist, is that god could be deleted from all of them without changing the effect on free will at all. They all posit a pre-existing condition, to wit that the future must already exist for the god to be omniscient about it. As I have said many times, if the future already exists, as a matter of fact, then that fact alone is enough to negate free will. If there were no god, or if god were not omniscient, it would make no difference. An already extant future is what negates free will, with or without a god. To prove whether free will exists or not, you have to prove whether the future exists. You don't have to prove anything about any god.

So how then, can we make a legitimate argument that god has an active effect no free will in any way at all?

Very simply, by looking at other aspects of god. When we shift from omnisicence to omnipotence, we suddenly are reminded that the Abrahamic god is supposed to have created the world, the entire universe, set time in motion, created past, present and future (by creating night and day and seasons, etc). He supposedly created all living beings and all humans. He is the ultimate judge of souls. And someday he will destroy the world he made.

Obviously, such a god would know everything in the universe, because he put it all there. Even if the future does not already exist, such a god would be in a position to know what your future is going to be, because he has the ability to make it so. It is this power that limits all other notions of power among all other beings. It is this will that trumps all other wills.

If this is the kind of god we're talking about, and assuming that this god is still actively involved with this world -- that he hasn't gone on to other projects, like the deist god -- then it seems unlikely that there could be such a thing as free will, because what can possibly exist or happen in this god's universe that is not caused by or generated from the god? What can any creature, spirit, angel or devil do that they are not caused to do or allowed to do by this god?

Even if we accept what Neo Britonnia says, that this god refrains from exercising that power, does that really amount to us having free will? We still exist, can only exist and act and choose, within the context defined by that god and his personal restraint. Even if the god does not interfere with our choices, can we really say we are free to choose, if he could interfere at any moment and as he pleases?

When we focus on omnipotence, omniscience becomes a secondary characteristic of the god. Being all-knowing is a side effect of being all-powerful, not an independent condition of its own. When we focus on omnipotence instead of omniscience, suddenly god's qualities stop being irrelevant to us because now we can argue that the omnipotent god MADE the pre-existing future that we have no choice but to live out and, for that reason, god matters to human free will. That, it seems to me is a stronger hypothetical than the ones that focus on the god merely knowing about the future.

<snip>

Okay, so if I genuinely want murderers and rapists to be free because I love freedom, then that would be the most moral thing I could do?

Are you sure you want to argue that?


<snip>
I don't want to argue it, but if this god we're discussing is truly transcendant, then I think it would be impossible to apply the demands of human morality to him.

Of course, that, then, begs the question of where he gets off dictating morality to humans.

I'm not sure but I think there might be two gods. Does that make me a diagnostic?

I suppose that merely only raises the question though as to, even if god does "blind" himself, does that restore free will, or merely create one more entity who does not know how the event will play out.

OK, so let me pose a hypothetical. Let's say I invite you over to my home for a barbeque. I put all the burgers on a tray, and pass it around my assorted guests, by the time it reaches you, two remain, one on the left and one on the right. They are effectively identical, roughly the same size, shape, same preparation, same buns and condiments. I say to you "Neo B, take whichever one you like" (incidentally I am forever amused when we are referred to as Neo A and Neo B collectively. I feel a bit like Thing 1 and Thing 2).

Now you ponder a moment, and reach for the one on the left. Something in your mind made you get the left one. You say this is an example of free will, you chose left, you could have just as easily chosen right. You made a choice.

However, to look at it from a different perspective, let's say, through some freak event, one of my guest, the instant before you choose, is suddenly and inexplicably struck with the knowledge, not only of a complete and total understanding of the physical laws of the universe, but also the complete and total makeup of all reality. Such that this guest not only knows exactly the makeup of the universe, but all rules governing the universe. Thus, just like imagining a near infinitly complex pool table, this guest, knowing the forces acting on every particle, and knowing precisely how those particles will respond to such force, will know exactly what will happen next, in regards to every single particle in the universe. Since all of physics is at its core actions and reactions, and this person knows exactly how everything is acted upon, and how it reacts to such actions, this guest can know exactly how everything will move.

This guest will thus know in that instant before you choose, exactly how you will choose.

And what's more, it doesn't matter if the guest was struck with this knowledge the instant before you chose, or a day, or a year, or at the very start of the universe, because he could plot the course of every atom, ever particle, every packet of energy, from beginning to end, simply by understanding the fundamental principles of the universe. So this person would be omniscient, would know everything that would ever happen, before it ever does.

And once we realize that, that every choice you make, every act you do, every breath you take, is simply the particles of your body reacting in a way consistent with the laws of the universe, then whether or not someone KNOWS the laws is irrelevant. You are simply a bundle of matter and energy that is bound by the laws of physics.

So in that sense, you might THINK you had a choice, it might APPEAR to you that you had a choice, but you didn't. The laws of physics of the universe dictate the choice you make, because your body, as a physical entity bound by physical rules, must obey the rules of the universe, and act in a way determinable based on the forces acting upon you. And those forces, acting in the way they did, led you to pick left, not right. And you had no choice in the matter
^^^ THAT'S what I've been on about!! If this is how the universe works, then free will (as we have been discussing it here) is an illusion whether anyone, including a god, knows it or not. This is so whether we're talking about particle physics or a linear timeline that is like a fully written script not subject to editing.

Actually, it seems that most of the arguments concerning God depend on assuming that the mind of an infallible and omniscient being works the same way a normal human's does. I find that assumption odd.

We are, allegedly, made in the God's image.

This entire conversation is ironic.

"Do we have free will?"
Who knows? Animals behave as they do in order to fulfill basic survivalistic needs: eating, mating, etc. We could be the same, just more complicated.

If we do have free will, what difference does it really make? Human beings are narcissistic to say the least, no one wakes up each and every day realizing that they have NO control over anything they do. We like to assume that we are in control of ourselves.

To those of you that are arguing in favor of free will, you're becoming redundant. Stop typing, just pick up a Jean-Paul Sartre book.
To those of you that are arguing against free will, it doesn't matter what I tell you...you're not in control of yourselves.

What does Satre say about free will?

We are, allegedly, made in the God's image.
I have photos of me that were made in my image, but they don't think like me.

I have photos of me that were made in my image, but they don't think like me.

How do you know?

How do you know?
Good point. I'll rephrase: I don't expect them to think like me merely because they were made in my image. Therefore, I will not make up rules for what they do and how they do it based only on what I do and how I do it.

This would seem to make me different from a person who might think that if we were made to look like god, we must be like him in other ways, too, and that must mean that he's like us and does the same stuff we do in the same way.

Good point. I'll rephrase: I don't expect them to think like me merely because they were made in my image. Therefore, I will not make up rules for what they do and how they do it based only on what I do and how I do it.

This would seem to make me different from a person who might think that if we were made to look like god, we must be like him in other ways, too, and that must mean that he's like us and does the same stuff we do in the same way.

You're right; you'd differ from others in your expectations.

And someday he will destroy the world he made.


Actually, the Christian faith (which happens to be my faith) claims that the earth will be renewed, remade, etc; that what happened to Jesus (resurrected and glorified) happens to creation. It's about renewal of what's already here, not destruction and re-creation.

Actually, the Christian faith (which happens to be my faith) claims that the earth will be renewed, remade, etc; that what happened to Jesus (resurrected and glorified) happens to creation. It's about renewal of what's already here, not destruction and re-creation.

Sure, whatever. It doesn't change the point I was making.

Actually, the Christian faith (which happens to be my faith) claims that the earth will be renewed, remade, etc; that what happened to Jesus (resurrected and glorified) happens to creation. It's about renewal of what's already here, not destruction and re-creation.

Jesus died, though, right? The whole mortal wounds, go to hell thing? That makes him actually 'dead'. If I was that kind of 'dead', I'd consider it more about 'destruction' than about 'renewal'. You can't be resurrected if you ain't really dead, right?

If the earth is going to go through that kind of 'renewal' - well, the rest of us call that 'destruction'.

Which verses, by the way, talk about this cute fluffy version of armageddon? I'm curious.

I think that in this matter, the means to the end is moot. The end result is what's important.

If I was that kind of 'dead', I'd consider it more about 'destruction' than about 'renewal'. You can't be resurrected if you ain't really dead, right?

And you can't be dead if what you think of as "dead" ain't rightly you.

That's not really what the uncertainty principle states, though. It states that it is impossible to determine certain properties about a particle simultaneously (E and dt, position and momentum). These are, however, limitations of our observation, rather than necessarily fundamental properties of the particles..
It sounds like you believe in an interpretation of Heisenberg's Principle which was popular for a while in the 1920's but was found not to be consistent with the experimental results: the "hidden values interpretation" in which the particles really do have exact positions and momenta at all times, which determine their subsequent behavior; it's just that we can't find out what they are. It's "a beautiful theory, foully slain by ugly facts": the double-slit experiment could not work as it does if that interpretation were true.

Even if we can't know everything about a particle at a given time, it does not mean that the particle is behaving in any way randomly. It's behavior could very well be totally deterministic, regardless of our ability to actually determine all of its properties at once.
The quantum-indeterminate events are resolved "randomly" in the technical sense in which mathematicians use the term "random": whatever determines which way they go, it is INDEPENDENT of the spatio-temporal distribution of the particles (that is, perfect information about the spatio-temporal distribution would tell you nothing more about the outcome). This does not mean, as people tend to think when they hear "random", that there is some kind of Celestial Casino Royale where God and all His angels roll trillions of dice every nanosecond to resolve the "random" outcomes. I prefer to say the quantum-indeterminate events are resolved "freely": that is what an act of "will" consists of, making things go one way rather than another out of the space of possible outcomes which the laws of physics leave open.

Okay, so if I genuinely want murderers and rapists to be free because I love freedom, then that would be the most moral thing I could do?

If that is what you think, then morality being subjective I'll have to agree with you, that you belive it to be so. I don't actualy belive that you belive it to be so though.


Are you sure you want to argue that?

Huh me, not a chance. But don't misunderstand what I mean here. Do you not think that the greatest love say a farther could show his children is to let them be who and what they want to be, to give them them ultimate freedom, to not restrict them?


You're getting there. By the way, if god is outside of linear time, it does not mean that the argument I linked to is wrong.

Ohh gee, thanks. It's hard to talk about, as we are of course effected by time, so when we talk about God's knowledge of our future, the language we must use sort of locks our minds into thinking a certian way. For instance, 'Gods foreknowledge' make no sense at all, as to God there is no 'fore'.

If you aren't using 'universe' and 'reality' to mean the same things I am, then you are wrong. I don't feel the need to diaper you.


If you're so myopic to your own point of view that you can't see that people don't always mean the same thing with such terms then there's little else to talk about here. Frankly, I wasn't even talking about just you and me. That's why I said 'people' as opposed to you and I.

Some people say 'universe' and they mean all that is observable. Some say 'universe' and they include in that other dimensions or planes of existence. Still others have a definition that fits somewhere in between. I'd have expected you to realize that, but maybe I was giving you a little too much credit.

Seems like you're getting a little frustrated.

This is why you don't 'get' this argument.

If 'god' is omniscient and infallible, everything has already taken place. Everything.

Using a phrase like "the reality subsequent to the act" is nonsensical in that paradigm.

No, you think I don't 'get' your argument because I have the audacity to disagree with it. Frankly, you're not trying to see any point of view but your own, and now that it's obvious that I'm not just swallowing your argument wholesale you're starting to get pissy like you so often have before. Diapering me? Please. If my efforts to clarify the terms used in the discussion seem unreasonable to you, then I submit that your little dig there is a fine example of irony.

(This is the part where you say something to get in the last dig. Don't worry you can say what you want, I won't be bothering to read it ;) )

Because the argument is true no matter what the causes are. This is shown by the fact that you can replace T with anything and the argument is still valid.

T being the act of a phonecall or taking a shower or eating a ham sandwich. You're right, the specifics of that part are irrelevent. However, the act of making that choice is not irrelevant. The cause is quite relevant indeed.

I understand that the structure is specifically leaving that out as well. My point is that it's the fundamental flaw in the argument. It appears to be specifically contrived to eliminate that variable.

Whatever. I'm just saying that, if there is any quality to the Abrahamic god that could affect human free will, it would be omnipotence, not omniscience.

Agreed.

If that is what you think, then morality being subjective I'll have to agree with you, that you belive it to be so. I don't actualy belive that you belive it to be so though.

Huh me, not a chance. But don't misunderstand what I mean here. Do you not think that the greatest love say a farther could show his children is to let them be who and what they want to be, to give them them ultimate freedom, to not restrict them?

Ohh gee, thanks. It's hard to talk about, as we are of course effected by time, so when we talk about God's knowledge of our future, the language we must use sort of locks our minds into thinking a certian way. For instance, 'Gods foreknowledge' make no sense at all, as to God there is no 'fore'.

As a father, I don't let my children do things that are so unsafe for them that they risk being unable to experience more happiness in their life. In that regard, I am choosing for them, to a degree, how their life's happiness will be. An omnibenevolent god would have to do this in such a way as to maximise the happiness and goodness of the human experience. This would eventually result in god making choices for us, at least part of the time. When it suits his purpose. That doesn't sound like a very free existence.

T being the act of a phonecall or taking a shower or eating a ham sandwich. You're right, the specifics of that part are irrelevent. However, the act of making that choice is not irrelevant. The cause is quite relevant indeed.

I understand that the structure is specifically leaving that out as well. My point is that it's the fundamental flaw in the argument. It appears to be specifically contrived to eliminate that variable.

Agreed.

No. You are still reading it wrong. Choice is also irrelevant, as we can replace T with an action done by a non-sentient actor, e.g. an earthquake or a leaf falling from a tree, and the argument would still be equally valid.