Ethics and freethought  permalink

Omniscience and Free Will

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 112
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Outrider (U14729772) on Monday, 6th June 2011

    By request from Deecee on the Aggressive Creationism thread...

    In the event that an omniscient, omnipotent god creates a reality, all events in that reality must have been foreseen by it (omniscient) and a result of its actions (omnipotence).

    Any 'decision' an individual believes they make has already been pre-ordained by God creating the particular version of all possibilities in which that decision was made and not the contrary.

    O.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by gordon (U14788405) on Monday, 6th June 2011

    Outrider

    I'be been reading the other thread.

    I amazed at the extent creationsts will go to in mangling and mis-representing science in considerable detail while, at the same time, they just throw in the premise (as Deecee did) that their God is somehow 'external' to the Universe it created and is, therefore, exempt from the conditions that those of us in the Universe must endure.

    We have all their posturing over left-handed amino acids, RNA, the evolution of turtles, spurious PhD's, worldwide flood events, a 6,000 year old Earth and statistical techniques etc etc etc - and yet they expect us to just meekly accept their notion of an 'off-Universe' creator as if it were an obviously logical conclusion. They will stoop to any lengths in an effort to maintain their God - even if it means distorting realities ordenying knowledge.

    Like most of us I cannot explain or know everthing, and I realise that because I don't something it doesn't mean that whatever it is will always be unexplainable or unknowable - the 'goddidit' position of creationists is hopeless no matter how they dress it up..

    Gordon

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Monday, 6th June 2011

    If god is omniscient, then he is nothing more than a puppet since he knows what he will do every second of forever, and cannot change any of it.

    However, the Garden of Eden, Genesis 6:6, etc proves that god does not know the future, which is a must for omniscience.

    However god positively loathes freewill as in kicking Satan out of heaven for it, and A&E out of Eden for it. No tyrant can stand free will.

    The god of the bible is a weak local god (of the jews) so the idea that he is omnipotent is laughable.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Juan Toomany (U14258110) on Monday, 6th June 2011

    Hi Gordon,

    Like most of us I cannot explain or know everthing, and I realise that because I don't something it doesn't mean that whatever it is will always be unexplainable or unknowable - the 'goddidit' position of creationists is hopeless no matter how they dress it up. 

    Or why does something unexplainable (at present) actually need an explanation. I have never understood the logic that something unexplainable is proof of a creator. As you say, it just proves that we don't know everything.

    Regards Juan

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by TooManyPosts (U2440869) on Monday, 6th June 2011

    Being omniscient does not necessarily mean knowing the future. It could be that the set of all knowledge does not include future events.

    To use a sort of analogy, even one with total knowledge cannot know what colour jumper I was wearing in 1937 simply because I hadn't been born yet and so this event does not 'exist'. Nor might future events until they actually happen.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Outrider (U14729772) on Monday, 6th June 2011

    Being omniscient does not necessarily mean knowing the future. It could be that the set of all knowledge does not include future events 

    I'd contend that part of the definition of omniscience is to be aware of all possible events - if knowledge is limited by time, then God's ability to predict exactly what a moral law is is compromised, because he cannot foresee all possible circumstances.

    Free-will either limits god's omniscience (before or after the fact) or is denied by omniscience.

    To use a sort of analogy, even one with total knowledge cannot know what colour jumper I was wearing in 1937 simply because I hadn't been born yet and so this event does not 'exist'. Nor might future events until they actually happen. 

    As an analogy, that doesn't work - you are comparing events that have yet to happen with events that definitively did not happen. Knowledge of the former is a viable ability of an omniscient deity - to see what will be - but the latter is not a viable situation - to see what already has not happened.

    O.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by TooManyPosts (U2440869) on Monday, 6th June 2011

    In reply to Outrider:

    As an analogy, that doesn't work - you are comparing events that have yet to happen with events that definitively did not happen. Knowledge of the former is a viable ability of an omniscient deity - to see what will be - but the latter is not a viable situation - to see what already has not happened. 
    I am comparing two events that do not exist. What colour jumper I wore on 1st August 1937 and the colour jumper I will wear on 1st August 2011. Having total knowledge needs only to apply to facts and events that exist. The result of a dice roll in two hours time need not already exist in order to be known.

    In order to 'know' the future it must be set. It very well might be but this is far from a rock solid premise. And it is required if one is to insist that having total knowledge entails knowing the future.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by TooManyPosts (U2440869) on Monday, 6th June 2011

    In reply to Outrider:

    I'd contend that part of the definition of omniscience is to be aware of all possible events - if knowledge is limited by time, then God's ability to predict exactly what a moral law is is compromised, because he cannot foresee all possible circumstances. 
    You are assuming that God would be a consequentialist? God could be a deontologist and so needs not consider consequences. There again, he could be a consequentialist but restricted to reasoning and making judgments as to what the outcomes will be, same as with a human moral consequentialist. But this has nothing to do with what it means to have total knowledge.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by deecee4 (U14860437) on Tuesday, 7th June 2011

    Hi Outrider

    Thanks for starting this thread.

    In the event that an omniscient, omnipotent god creates a reality, all events in that reality must have been foreseen by it (omniscient)... 

    That is my view, yes.

    and a result of its actions (omnipotence). 

    No, I don’t agree. Omnipotence is having ‘unlimited power’ (please note: within logical constraints...more on that later, no doubt). That means having the ability to withhold the exercise of that power, should one wish. All events in a reality can be known by God without being determined by Him.

    Any 'decision' an individual believes they make has already been pre-ordained by God creating the particular version of all possibilities in which that decision was made and not the contrary. 

    No. God has not pre-ordained all events. God is aware of the choices we will make, and therefore the consequences that will follow. That does not mean he has created determined them.

    Let me try an illustration. I see my young son approach a warm heater. I warn him not to touch the heater and explain that he will hurt himself if he does. He persists in approaching the heater. I warn him again, however I am prepared to allow him the free will to learn the hard way if he disregards me. Now let’s say I ask him whether or not he will touch the heater, and he replies, “Yes”. I know he will touch the heater, because he has told me so. I have not ordained the action, however I have fore-knowledge of it. I also know the outcome. Not a perfect analogy, but I hope it at least clarifies where I’m coming from.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Outrider (U14729772) on Tuesday, 7th June 2011

    Quantum of Synonyms - M7

    I am comparing two events that do not exist. What colour jumper I wore on 1st August 1937 and the colour jumper I will wear on 1st August 2011 

    No, you are comparing an event that definitively did not happen with one that merely, to our limited human comprehension, has not happened yet.

    Having total knowledge needs only to apply to facts and events that exist. 

    Yet time is merely another dimension - that our vision is limited in it does not automatically mean that God's vision is limited in it.

    In order to 'know' the future it must be set. It very well might be but this is far from a rock solid premise. 

    For it not to be there must be some way to alter the results of the incident events of reality - since every thing in reality is an effect of a prior cause (ultimately, of God the first cause, according to Christian mythology), then that destiny is pre-ordained.

    Theology posits the idea of 'free will' but offers no mechanism by which this could or can be achieved - our brains are organic computers, processing inputs in the binary form of firing neurons, and there is no evidence of anything capable of escaping the cycle of drawing conclusions from prior events and updating the programme accordingly.

    You are assuming that God would be a consequentialist? God could be a deontologist and so needs not consider consequences. 

    Either of these would require humanity to be capable of free will; without the ability to 'choose' anything that is not a product of prior experience, humanity has no control over its own destiny, and so cannot be judged for either their (in)ability to adhere to rules or the resultant consequences of their (in)actions. Withough choice, judgement is arbitrary and regardless of the individual - God would be judging a situation, not a person.

    O.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Juan Toomany (U14258110) on Tuesday, 7th June 2011

    Hi deecee4,

    Surely, if all actions that will happen are known to god then they determined regardless of who determines them. In other words, if god knows I am going to have cornflakes for breakfast on this day next year then when that day comes was it my choice or not.

    Regards Juan

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Outrider (U14729772) on Tuesday, 7th June 2011

    God is aware of the choices we will make, and therefore the consequences that will follow. That does not mean he has created determined them. 

    God knows the decisions my son will make during his life. Those decisions, in part or in full, are influenced by my decisions, my actions, and those of all the other people with whom he intersects.

    Their actions, in turn, were influence by the decisions of all the people that had gone before.

    Unless they make the decision that knows will be made in advance, God cannot be right about the decisions my son will take, because the circumstances will differ. At the very least this indicates that any actions taken, and any events that occur, do so with God's tacit acceptance (as, in his omnipotence, he could prevent it).

    However, further than that, the posited God is the creator. At the moment of creation he instigated a process with innumerable possible outcomes, and narrowed them down to one particular set. Each decision we make as part of this creation is part of his plan, and therefore was set in motion by him at creation.

    A model, if you will:

    God has almost completed his conception of creation, and there is one more decision to be made. At some point a man will have to choose between two flavours of ice cream, chocolate and vanilla: there are no implications to this choice, he will enjoy both and continue his life otherwise unaffected, the leftover ice-cream will be eaten by an equally unfussy other customer.

    God decides to create the universe in which that decision is ultimately to eat the chocolate ice cream.

    Come the day, is the customer really making the decision, or has God already made it for him? That is the implication of omniscience and creation.

    O.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by TooManyPosts (U2440869) on Tuesday, 7th June 2011

    In reply to Outrider:

    No, you are comparing an event that definitively did not happen with one that merely, to our limited human comprehension, has not happened yet. 
    This is nothing to do with what humans can or can't comprehend. No human comprehension is required in order for an event that exists (say the colour jumper I wore yesterday) to exist, and no amount of human comprehension will make an event that doesn't exist, exist.

    Yet time is merely another dimension - that our vision is limited in it does not automatically mean that God's vision is limited in it. 
    The length of a piece of wood is a dimension yet if I asked you to sand the part that is 3m from the base when the piece of wood is only 2m long, you couldn't do it. The dimension 'length' exists but the coordinate '3m from base' does not. Time could work a similar way. It exists but the specific coordinate '20 years from now' does not.

    For it not to be there must be some way to alter the results of the incident events of reality - since every thing in reality is an effect of a prior cause (ultimately, of God the first cause, according to Christian mythology), then that destiny is pre-ordained. 
    What are the prior events which fix the die I am about to roll to land on 3?

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by deecee4 (U14860437) on Wednesday, 8th June 2011

    Hi deecee4,

    Surely, if all actions that will happen are known to god then they determined regardless of who determines them. In other words, if god knows I am going to have cornflakes for breakfast on this day next year then when that day comes was it my choice or not.

    Regards Juan

     
    Hi Juan

    It was, and is, your choice. God’s foreknowledge of your choice doesn’t determine it.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by deecee4 (U14860437) on Wednesday, 8th June 2011

    Hi Outrider

    At the moment of creation he instigated a process with innumerable possible outcomes... 

    ...I’m with you to this point...

    ... and narrowed them down to one particular set. 

    I’m not sure this is totally correct. God has foreknowledge of the decisions we will make, and of the consequences of each choice. I believe God is also active in the universe, and is able to and does intervene at certain times. But this intervention does not eliminate our free will; it perhaps mitigates the outcomes somewhat.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Outrider (U14729772) on Wednesday, 8th June 2011

    No human comprehension is required in order for an event that exists (say the colour jumper I wore yesterday) to exist, and no amount of human comprehension will make an event that doesn't exist, exist. 

    But there is a difference between claiming omniscience is not obviated by an event that cannot possibly happen (your wearing of a jumper at a time prior to your own birth) and the claim that omniscience is not obviated by an event that merely hasn't happened yet.

    The length of a piece of wood is a dimension yet if I asked you to sand the part that is 3m from the base when the piece of wood is only 2m long, you couldn't do it. 

    Again, you posit a limitation not on the ability but on the article - there is no part to be sanded, that is not a limitation on the carpenter.

    The dimension 'length' exists but the coordinate '3m from base' does not. Time could work a similar way. It exists but the specific coordinate '20 years from now' does not. 

    If this is so, if God cannot predict future events, then how are we to accept his commentary on what will be good or just at those times, as he has no knowledge of the events (this calls into question our ability to trust his moral guidance, and requires us to make judgements based on the knowledge we do have) and it also calls into question the alleged prophecies contained within the holy texts (up to and including the 'prophecy' that Jesus will return)

    What are the prior events which fix the die I am about to roll to land on 3?  

    Primarily - the start position within your hand, your hand's position in relation to the surface you are rolling onto, the coefficient of restitution between the material of the die and the surface, the force put into the roll, the direction of that force, the friction between the hand and the die that causes spin, the gravitational field strength at the altitude you are at when you roll, the air temperature and humidity...

    Not all of these will have the same level of impact, and there are other minor influences as well. Some of these are the product of other inputs going back in a cycle (the force you impart into the die, for instance, is a product of your experience in rolling other die, your assessment of the space for the die to roll into, your gross motor control etc.)

    O.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Outrider (U14729772) on Wednesday, 8th June 2011

    I’m not sure this is totally correct. God has foreknowledge of the decisions we will make, and of the consequences of each choice. I believe God is also active in the universe, and is able to and does intervene at certain times. But this intervention does not eliminate our free will; it perhaps mitigates the outcomes somewhat. 

    God has foreknowledge of my son's actions. My son's actions are based upon what he learns from my actions. Therefore, unless my actions are fixed in advance, my son's actions cannot be foreknown by god.

    O.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by TooManyPosts (U2440869) on Wednesday, 8th June 2011

    In reply to Outrider:

    But there is a difference between claiming omniscience is not obviated by an event that cannot possibly happen (your wearing of a jumper at a time prior to your own birth) and the claim that omniscience is not obviated by an event that merely hasn't happened yet. 
    Why? Even if you knew that a particular tree was destined to be turned into planks of wood a few years into the future, you cannot sand any of them right now. That is just as impossible as asking you to sand a plank of wood from that tree 20 years ago.

    Again, you posit a limitation not on the ability but on the article - there is no part to be sanded, that is not a limitation on the carpenter. 
    Nor is there a limitation on the carpenter were you to ask them to sand the part that is 20 years old, when the plank is newly-made.

    If this is so, if God cannot predict future events, then how are we to accept his commentary on what will be good or just at those times, as he has no knowledge of the events 
    This isn't a problem if morality is deontological. You are assuming that it must be consequentialist. And if an omnipotent God existed it would be they would could create an objective moral code. You would have to accept that Xing is immoral and Ying isn right, because it is a fact.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Outrider (U14729772) on Wednesday, 8th June 2011

    Why? Even if you knew that a particular tree was destined to be turned into planks of wood a few years into the future, you cannot sand any of them right now. That is just as impossible as asking you to sand a plank of wood from that tree 20 years ago. 

    The point is, though, that in order for God to know that my son will fall off the coffee-table at the age of four, he has to know that the tree will be available to be cut, which means he has to know that the forest will be there, which means he has to know what decision the owner of the land will make in the 1950's when offered money for the land.

    In order for my son to fall off the table, God has to know in advance that landowner will not sell the land to a developer. If God does not know that, he cannot know what my son will do - in order to be omniscient, God has to predetermine our decisions, so we have no free will.

    This isn't a problem if morality is deontological. You are assuming that it must be consequentialist. And if an omnipotent God existed it would be they would could create an objective moral code. You would have to accept that Xing is immoral and Ying isn right, because it is a fact. 

    How does God know that Xing is immoral and Ying is moral if he doesn't know all the situations in which Xing or Ying might occur? If there is an absolute morality, why do God-given moral precepts change with time? Why are we no longer prohibited from eathing pork, for instance?

    O.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Juan Toomany (U14258110) on Wednesday, 8th June 2011

    Hi deecee4,

    It was, and is, your choice. God’s foreknowledge of your choice doesn’t determine it. 

    So what does determine it?

    If it will be my free choice then how does god know what I am going to choose?



    Regards Juan

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by TooManyPosts (U2440869) on Wednesday, 8th June 2011

    In reply to Outrider:

    The point is, though, that in order for God to know that my son will fall off the coffee-table at the age of four, he has to know that the tree will be available to be cut, which means he has to know that the forest will be there, which means he has to know what decision the owner of the land will make in the 1950's when offered money for the land. 
    Whether it is possible to know a future event is the issue. I think God need not have knowledge of non-existing events in order to be omniscient.

    How does God know that Xing is immoral and Ying is moral if he doesn't know all the situations in which Xing or Ying might occur? 
    You are assuming that there exists an objective morality that God can only 'know' or 'not know'. An omnipotent Deity could have created or be able to alter this objective moral code. So he would know that murder is wrong say because he created the objective moral property that murder is wrong. And as I keep saying, one doesn't need to consider consequences in order to construct a moral code. Consequentialism is just one form of morality.

    If there is an absolute morality, why do God-given moral precepts change with time? Why are we no longer prohibited from eathing pork, for instance? 
    Who says they have changed?

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Ian Aston (U14356498) on Wednesday, 8th June 2011

    Outrider,

    Message 1:

    That is predicated on there being something called "the future". I would say there is only what is happening, the future is conceptual only.

    To me the idea of omnipresence has always been more corrosive to religion than the others, for it leads to non-duality. If it is everywhere then it is everything, for there is no room for anything else, then free will becomes irrelevant and everything is just what is happening, sin goes out of the window, etc.

    Ian

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Outrider (U14729772) on Thursday, 9th June 2011

    Quantum of Synonyms - M21

    Whether it is possible to know a future event is the issue. I think God need not have knowledge of non-existing events in order to be omniscient. 

    They are not non-existing events, though - they are extrapolations from the current state. God is omniscient, and therefore is not beholden by data limits or the Uncertainty Principle. God knows exactly where each and every energy quanta in the universe is, what state it's in, and what direction (if any) it's travelling in.

    From that, God can deduce what the immediate knock-on effect of the next instance will be. If there is no free will and we are all determinate biological machines then this is simply a repeat process to derive the complete history of the universe.

    If, by contrast, despite the absolute lack of any conceptual mechanism by which we could effect 'free will' we somehow have the ability of choice, then either God knows what choice we will make at any given point (in which case God can deduce the state of the universe at any point in time as a consequence of current state) or we are unknowable to God, in which case he cannot intrinsically judge us because he doesn't know what we're thinking.

    You are assuming that there exists an objective morality that God can only 'know' or 'not know'. 

    If there isn't an objective morality, then God's opinion is no more inherently valid than anyone else's when given the situation and the information - and if God's omniscient doesn't stretch to future events then his moral guidance dispensed in the ancient past cannot have taken into account events of which he was not aware.

    An omnipotent Deity could have created or be able to alter this objective moral code. 

    He could have created it, true - that doesn't invalidate the fact that he does so either with complete knowledge of all the possible future circumstances or in an arbitrary fashion.

    He could have changed it, but that undermines the inherently 'good' nature of an absolute morality.

    Consequentialism isn't a requirement - the argument works just as well if morality is based off, say, intention.

    The argument that morality lies in following God's laws - regardless of intent or consequence - is still based upon the idea that God is capable of determining what is good or bad, unless you suggest that God can be capricious and arbitrary, but it is still in line with an absolute morality to follow the requirements?

    Who says they have changed? 

    The New Testament and the Qu'ran, for two...

    Ian Aston - M22

    Ian, I'm not ignoring your post, but I hope you'll find a response to your points in above portion of this post.

    O.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by deecee4 (U14860437) on Thursday, 9th June 2011

    God has foreknowledge of my son's actions. My son's actions are based upon what he learns from my actions. Therefore, unless my actions are fixed in advance, my son's actions cannot be foreknown by god. 

    Foreknowledge of an action does not determine that action. In your example, your son’s free will is not limited by God’s foreknowledge, even if you suspect it is limited by prior ‘comditioning’.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by deecee4 (U14860437) on Thursday, 9th June 2011

    Hi Juan

    So what does determine it? 

    Your free will. Your choice.

    If it will be my free choice then how does god know what I am going to choose? 

    Is that not the point? He is omniscient. He knows what you are going to choose, He does not determine what you are going to choose.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Outrider (U14729772) on Thursday, 9th June 2011

    Deecee,

    God's foreknowledge of my son's actions must be conditional on those events upon which my son's actions are predicate - which includes my actions. Therefore, for God to know my son's actions in advance, he must know all the choices that I am going to make.

    Those actions and choices are, therefore, predetermined.

    O.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Juan Toomany (U14258110) on Thursday, 9th June 2011

    Hi deecee4,

    Is that not the point? He is omniscient. He knows what you are going to choose, He does not determine what you are going to choose. 

    But if I don't know that I am going to have cornflakes for breakfast a year today and god does how does he know that and how can he be sure I won't change my mind.

    So I go to the cupboar to get my usual cereal, Coco Pops, and then remember that I ran out and haven't been to the shop yet so I have cornflakes instead. But god new this a year ago and yet you say it was my choice. It seems to me that all the events that led up to the moment I had Cornflakes instead of Coco Pops was mapped out for me.

    Regards Juan

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by TooManyPosts (U2440869) on Thursday, 9th June 2011

    In reply to Outrider:

    If there isn't an objective morality, then God's opinion is no more inherently valid than anyone else's when given the situation and the information 
    I didn't say that there wasn't an objective morality (though there might not be). What I pointed out was that you are assuming that if it exists then God can only know it or not know it, rather than it being the case that it exists because he created it, and also he can alter it. It isn't just his opinion it is the fact that he can make something to be an objective moral fact.

    - and if God's omniscient doesn't stretch to future events then his moral guidance dispensed in the ancient past cannot have taken into account events of which he was not aware. 
    Correct, but I don't see what difference that makes. An objective moral rule that he made back then could be absolute.

    He could have changed it, but that undermines the inherently 'good' nature of an absolute morality. 
    Why?

    The argument that morality lies in following God's laws - regardless of intent or consequence - is still based upon the idea that God is capable of determining what is good or bad 
    Once again you seem to be talking of there being some existing objective morality that God can only 'determine' not change or be created by him in the first place.

    The New Testament and the Qu'ran, for two... 
    If this specific God changed their mind on something, you'd have to ask them why, if the answer isn't contained in any scripture.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Outrider (U14729772) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    I didn't say that there wasn't an objective morality (though there might not be). What I pointed out was that you are assuming that if it exists then God can only know it or not know it, rather than it being the case that it exists because he created it, and also he can alter it 

    If God created, and can alter, the morality, then it isn't objective, it's subjective - it's subject to God's whim.

    He could have changed it, but that undermines the inherently 'good' nature of an absolute morality.  Why? 

    Assuming an objective morality, where a particular action or thought is morally the best decision in a particular situation, to change morality means that that action can't inherently be the most moral. If morality is subject to change at God's whim it can't be inherently good.

    Once again you seem to be talking of there being some existing objective morality that God can only 'determine' not change or be created by him in the first place. 

    I appreciate I've only explained this in this post, but I'll reiterate - if morality is subject to God's whim then it's, by definition, subjective.

    O.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Juan Toomany (U14258110) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    Hi deecee4,

    for new read knew

    Regards Juan

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by deecee4 (U14860437) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    Deecee,

    God's foreknowledge of my son's actions must be conditional on those events upon which my son's actions are predicate - which includes my actions. Therefore, for God to know my son's actions in advance, he must know all the choices that I am going to make.

    Those actions and choices are, therefore, predetermined.

    O. 
    Firstly, your son’s decisions are not conditional on any prior events. They may be influenced by them, but we don’t hold the father legally responsible for the crimes of the son. Secondly, how to you equate God’s knowing all of these actions with God determining them? I know much about the decisions my son makes, including the consequences, but I don’t make up his mind for him.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by deecee4 (U14860437) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    Hi deecee4,

    Is that not the point? He is omniscient. He knows what you are going to choose, He does not determine what you are going to choose. 

    But if I don't know that I am going to have cornflakes for breakfast a year today and god does how does he know that and how can he be sure I won't change my mind.

    So I go to the cupboar to get my usual cereal, Coco Pops, and then remember that I ran out and haven't been to the shop yet so I have cornflakes instead. But god new this a year ago and yet you say it was my choice. It seems to me that all the events that led up to the moment I had Cornflakes instead of Coco Pops was mapped out for me.

    Regards Juan
     
    Hi Juan

    No, not mapped out. Just known in advance. There’s a big difference.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Outrider (U14729772) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    Firstly, your son’s decisions are not conditional on any prior events 

    They are - if, for instance, I never meet his mother, he'll never be born. If I don't buy him books he won't be an avid reader by the time he goes to school... They are not determined by my actions, but they are influenced by them.

    we don’t hold the father legally responsible for the crimes of the son. 

    This isn't about legal responsibility, but using it as an example don't we mitigate sentencing for people, in some cases, based upon their upbringing?

    Secondly, how to you equate God’s knowing all of these actions with God determining them? 

    God knows what decisions my son will make at given point in time. Those decisions are only being made at that time because of events that have gone before, so God can only know what my son's decisions will be - what they will be about, even - if he knows what decisions I will already have made at that point.

    I don't make my son's mind up for him, but if there were an omniscient, omnipotent God, he would have made up all of our minds for us in advance. See the ice-cream choice analogy earlier in the thread.

    O.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Major Higgs-Boson (U225196) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    No, not mapped out. Just known in advance. There’s a big difference. 

    If every event leading up to the one in question is known in advance and you join all those known-in-advance events together then surely this looks remarkably like being "mapped out" don't you think?

    Maybe you have some other description.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Tasty (U14660579) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    I will put several post together to save time:

    Message 1 (plus others). Posted by Outrider (U14729772) In the event that an omniscient, omnipotent god creates a reality, all events in that reality must have been foreseen by it (omniscient) 
    That is the fallacy of begging the question. There are many views on what constitutes God's omniscience, and many that say God is not omniscient in action, but just potential and others that say God knows all possible outcomes, but not the specific ones until the actions have been chosen or ordained by some force or choice, and there is middle foreknowledge which I come to later.

    and a result of its actions (omnipotence). 
    You are confusing omnipotence with foreordination (predestination). Omnipotence merely means unlimited power, it says nothing of predictive abilities or their use. Power is not some other skill or ability, it's just power.

    Any 'decision' an individual believes they make has already been pre-ordained by God 
    This view is predestination and many Christians or other believers do not hold to that view at all, and hold as does the bible, that man has freedoms and with that responsibilities for his choices.

    creating the particular version of all possibilities in which that decision was made and not the contrary. 
    There are millions of possibilities, but that does not mean God has chosen the specific choices of the individual for each one, and it does not mean they are set immovable in the future.

    Yet time is merely another dimension - that our vision is limited in it does not automatically mean that God's vision is limited in it.  
    But there would be no vision if the physical future does not exist anywhere yet, just as the past reality is no more. If there is nothing to see, it makes no difference if the seer is God or a man, they both just get blanks and end with endless possibilities open which have not been chosen yet.

    since every thing in reality is an effect of a prior cause (ultimately, of God the first cause, according to Christian mythology), then that destiny is pre-ordained.  
    You need to put aside your biased agenda and snide remark like "Christian mythology" which is revealed in this other post showing you lack objectivity and rationality in your rather bitter world view which seems to be heavily preventing you from seeing the irrationality of many of your arguments: www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Theology posits the idea of 'free will' but offers no mechanism by which this could or can be achieved - our brains are organic computers, processing inputs in the binary form of firing neurons, and there is no evidence of anything capable of escaping the cycle of drawing conclusions from prior events and updating the programme accordingly.  
    You apparently see the world like a clockwork machine and this it seems is where you've formulated your false ideas. Man, God, and higher worlds (spirit worlds) are not just laws, they are given open freedoms, that is why theologically man is spirit, not just flesh, and man is spiritually made in the image of God, so he can freely know higher reality and make informed free choices that are not just base animal instincts, therefore breaking away from carnal urges and random circumstances and able to make his own destiny to a large part and also to be found accountable for his choices which were not fated or preordained to happen like some clockwork parody you imagine.

    humanity has no control over its own destiny, and so cannot be judged for either their (in)ability to adhere to rules or the resultant consequences of their (in)actions. 
    This is a rather school boy type of protestation. We are not clockwork, we have a mind, one that can make choices that are not genetically fated and neither is how we deal with life's circumstances fated, which is why in theology man is predominantly responsible for his actions and sins, like murder, theft, hate, violence, scheming, greed, abuse and manipulation.

    God knows the decisions my son will make during his life. 
    Does he? What makes you so sure he can (1) see all his free choices before they are made, and (2) cares to look in the first place?

    Those decisions, in part or in full, are influenced by my decisions, my actions, and those of all the other people with whom he intersects.  
    So what, so are all of our lives, but that is not the issue, it's what we CHOOSE to do with those circumstances, how we play the hand we have, and how we change things for our own will to come forth. We are the masters of our own future to most extent, and we are therefore personally responsible for the majority of choices we make in this life.

    Each decision we make as part of this creation is part of his plan, and therefore was set in motion by him at creation.  
    Completely false, as Christian teachings set you out as free moral agent, with a mind that can resists your genes, or environment, a higher freedom by the will of God. You are not an dumb animal, or a clockwork machine, and if you claim you are, then why complain if you are treated like one?

    God decides to create the universe in which that decision is ultimately to eat the chocolate ice cream.

    Come the day, is the customer really making the decision, or has God already made it for him? That is the implication of omniscience and creation.  

    I'm sorry to say, we are back to your sixth form college arguments and poor they are indeed. There are trillions of variables not set out or clockwork in this life. Even in quantum physics, we do not know the full extent of random forces and vibrations and wavelengths and their end unpredictable results. Secondly, from a theological position, you are wrong again. Man has a spirit in the image of God, not enslaved to genetics or clockwork reactions. Man can make his own path, and with that freedom he becomes responsible for his choices.

    I think you have taken a view of life in the most naïve way and then tried in some desperation to take it to come reductionist level so you can comfort yourself with your rejection of God. To do this, you have had to abandon all the rational arguments, and go for the shallow and school boy like ones you find on superficial sites like Wikipedia and other atheist driven agendas.

    If this is so, if God cannot predict future events, then how are we to accept his commentary on what will be good or just at those times, as he has no knowledge of the events 
    That is a non sequitur. Good or evil are not denoted by ones ability to see the future, they are in law.

    (this calls into question our ability to trust his moral guidance, and requires us to make judgements based on the knowledge we do have) 
    Another false claim. Why would it question God's judgements and laws? Reality is the same even if he choose not to see some future events, good and evil do not evaporate.

    and it also calls into question the alleged prophecies contained within the holy texts (up to and including the 'prophecy' that Jesus will return) 
    How so if the same God is the one that can influence reality in any way he wants.


    The point is, though, that in order for God to know that my son will fall off the coffee-table at the age of four, he has to know that the tree will be available to be cut, which means he has to know that the forest will be there, which means he has to know what decision the owner of the land will make in the 1950's when offered money for the land.  
    That is a very simplistic clockwork view of the world. Let's say for the sake of your argument, God did see your son fall off a table. Why would he have to know all things prior to this? If I go into a vast library, I can pick up a book from anywhere I like, choose a page from anywhere I like, and read a single line or even a single word from anywhere I like and get that fact I want from that page.

    I do not need to know all the library to know one fact. I can selectively choose what to know and choose what to ignore, we do it all the time when we do an internet search. We ignore the deluge of side material and home in on the fact we want. If I can do this, then surely God can do it to a much more amazing level and no need to know all things to know one thing.

    Whether it is possible to know a future event is the issue. I think God need not have knowledge of non-existing events in order to be omniscient.  They are not non-existing events, though - they are extrapolations from the current state.   
    But they are only potential events, not actual anywhere, the future does not exist anywhere except in the mind, and it's the mind that materialised reality in to the physical we now experience.

    God is omniscient 
    Depends on what type of omniscience you mean. Listen to this 20 minute talk by Dr Craig. It's near the end of the list can called "2009/12/22 God's Omniscience and the Kalam Argument " You can right click it from the list and download it as an MP3: www.reasonablefaith....

    Dr Craig posits 'middle knowledge' by which he means, God knows all possible futures, but not the choices before they are made from each person, they have freedom to choose their path, but God's knows what will become for each of the endless paths, but, we still have freedoms to choose our own path and that is not set or knowable until we choose it. Some more articles here: www.reasonablefaith....

    and therefore is not beholden by data limits or the Uncertainty Principle. God knows exactly where each and every energy quanta in the universe is, what state it's in, and what direction (if any) it's travelling in. 
    But none of these exist in the future, they are now, not then and humans have freedoms that are not clockwork, so their actions are not entirely predictable until they choose a path.

    From that, God can deduce what the immediate knock-on effect of the next instance will be. If there is no free will and we are all determinate biological machines then this is simply a repeat process to derive the complete history of the universe. 
    Correct, but we do have free will, that is why in theological arguments, man is responsible for most of his choices, good or evil and will be judged on them in this life.

    I think your main error is to (1) think man and all the universe are clockwork and fated and (2) to think the physical future exists somewhere, when it does not even exist yet, so cannot be seen, as there is nothing to see.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by TooManyPosts (U2440869) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    In reply to Outrider:

    If God created, and can alter, the morality, then it isn't objective, it's subjective - it's subject to God's whim. 
    The length of a plank of wood would be subject to an omnipotent deity's whim - it could change it to being 2m long, or 1m long, as it wished. That doesn't change the fact that when it is 2m long it is 2m long. And if Xing is currently wrong then it is currently objectively wrong, even if it is possible that 500 years from now it might get changed so that it no longer will be.

    Assuming an objective morality, where a particular action or thought is morally the best decision in a particular situation, to change morality means that that action can't inherently be the most moral. If morality is subject to change at God's whim it can't be inherently good. 
    I see what you mean. But that isn't an argument against Divine Command Theory.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Juan Toomany (U14258110) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    Hi Tasty,

    That is the fallacy of begging the question. There are many views on what constitutes God's omniscience, and many that say God is not omniscient in action, but just potential and others that say God knows all possible outcomes, but not the specific ones until the actions have been chosen or ordained by some force or choice, and there is middle foreknowledge which I come to later. 

    Surely thats not omniscience - if you have to wait till it happens to know what it was.

    There are millions of possibilities, but that does not mean God has chosen the specific choices of the individual for each one, and it does not mean they are set immovable in the future. 

    But I can do that - I know there of millions of choices and I can tell you what the person has chosen when they have or after the event. That doesn't seem remarkable to me.

    It seems to me like fudging to remove the responsibility from god for mans wrong doings. Because it is not possible for man to have free will if our actions are known in advance.

    Regards Juan





    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by deecee4 (U14860437) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    They are - if, for instance, I never meet his mother, he'll never be born. 
    Then he won’t be making any choices, making this all academic.

    If I don't buy him books he won't be an avid reader by the time he goes to school... They are not determined by my actions, but they are influenced by them. 
    That’s correct.

    This isn't about legal responsibility, but using it as an example don't we mitigate sentencing for people, in some cases, based upon their upbringing? 
    The legal system is based on our approach to life, more or less. Yes mitigation is sometimes argued, however it rarely, if ever, allows the culprit off scot free. My point is that in real life we hold people accountable for their actions, certainly more than we do their parents.

    God knows what decisions my son will make at given point in time. Those decisions are only being made at that time because of events that have gone before... 
    Yes, but that still doesn’t dictate the actual decision.

    ...so God can only know what my son's decisions will be - what they will be about, even - if he knows what decisions I will already have made at that point. 
    Yes.

    I don't make my son's mind up for him, but if there were an omniscient, omnipotent God, he would have made up all of our minds for us in advance.  
    No. God knows of your decisions, your decisions, your father’s decisions, etc etc ad infinitum. But no matter how far back you take this, this knowledge does not demand any determination on God’s part.

    Knowledge in advance of an event does not mean that event was predetermined.

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by deecee4 (U14860437) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    Hi Major HB

    If every event leading up to the one in question is known in advance and you join all those known-in-advance events together then surely this looks remarkably like being "mapped out" don't you think? 

    No. God knows what our choices will be. That doesn’t mean he determines them.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Outrider (U14729772) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    <quote>That is the fallacy of begging the question</quote>

    What question is it begging?

    <quote>many that say God is not omniscient in action</quote>

    Knowledge is not active, knowing does not require conscious activity, it is a state. Either God knows everything or he does not - if he could go and find things out if he wanted then he is not omniscient.

    <quote>God knows all possible outcomes, but not the specific ones until the actions have been chosen or ordained by some force or choice</quote>

    Then he doesn't know. I know when a coin is flipped it's either coming down heads or tails, that's not omniscience that's just awareness. I know that if I offer you a choice of chocolate or raspberry mousse you're going to either choose chocolate, raspberry or elect not to have dessert - that's not omniscience.

    <quote>You are confusing omnipotence with foreordination (predestination).</quote>

    No, I'm concluding foreknowledge from omniscience, and demonstrating that therefore, given omnipotence, those events of which God's foreknowledge exist are not accidents or events beyond God's control - therefore, not only did God foresee them, but they are either a direct result of his actions or, at worst, they are tacitly accepted by God. I think the logic of the premises leads to the former.

    <quote>This view is predestination and many Christians or other believers do not hold to that view at all, and hold as does the bible, that man has freedoms and with that responsibilities for his choices.</quote.

    You mean there are some Christians out there who haven't considered the logical consequences of the premises they accept? Who would have thought... and what does that prove, exactly?

    <quote>There are millions of possibilities, but that does not mean God has chosen the specific choices of the individual for each one, and it does not mean they are set immovable in the future.</quote>

    There are millions of conceivable possibilities, but only one of them occurs in any given 'decision'. God knows what that one will be, and (according to Christian doctrine at least) created the universe in which that one chosen event occurs.

    <quote>But there would be no vision if the physical future does not exist anywhere yet, just as the past reality is no more</quote>

    But the fact that time is merely a further dimension, entire and complete in and of itself, means that it is there already. Our inability to pierce it with our limited senses does not mean that the omniscient deity cannot sense it in its entirety.

    <quote>You need to put aside your biased agenda and snide remark like "Christian mythology" which is revealed in this other post showing you lack objectivity </quote>

    That you lost the other argument doesn't mean you should come here with frustration or anger. My 'agenda' is a quite clearly demonstrated point about why I think the Christian depiction of God and Free Will are inconsistent, and my 'bias' is open: I have an opinion and am voicing it, just as you are. That's not 'bias' that's 'having an opinion'.

    As to 'Christian Mythology' - unless you are a Biblical literalist, it's a mythology. The question is merely how much of its basis is truth, as it's not unreasonable to assume that a variety of mythological stories from various cultures arose to account for actual events.

    <quote>and rationality in your rather bitter world view which seems to be heavily preventing you from seeing the irrationality of many of your arguments</quote>

    That would the thread where multiple posters pointed out that I'd been more patient with you than they would have and had wasted my time? That would the one where in your calm, objective, rational manner you took Halucigenia to task as 'poisoning the well with rather pathetic epithets like [evolution] "deniers" is a typical propogandist fallacy, and it's sad you cannot post without inserting such juvenile snipes'.

    That would be the thread where feelin_blue offered the unrequested testimonial - "Outrider I have to say that you sound like the voice of calm and reason against Tasty's rants".

    People will make up their own minds, given the link, if they wish, but it seems to me that most people aren't assuming that I'm bitter or irrational. I may be wrong, that's the point of putting up a debate on a public forum, to hear other ideas and find out if there's a concept that you're missing, but I'm not irrational.

    <quote>You apparently see the world like a clockwork machine and this it seems is where you've formulated your false ideas. Man, God, and higher worlds (spirit worlds) are not just laws, they are given open freedoms, that is why theologically man is spirit, not just flesh, and man is spiritually made in the image of God</quote>

    I do have a mechanistic view of the universe, yes, based on what we have evidence for. You claim that 'Man, God, and higher worlds are not just laws' but you have no evidence for that, do you? There is a separate discussion on another thread - here [www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb... - that I invite you to join on the concept of whether choice is illusory.

    "Theologically", you continue, "man is spirit, not just flesh, and man is spiritually made in the image of God." What is that opinion based upon? What reason do you have for holding to that line of thinking? As I see it, it's a result of scripture, because there is no measurable phenomena that leads to that conclusion; that could, if were being harsh, be considered irrational. Instead we call it a 'faith' position, but it's a baseless assertion. That doesn't automatically mean that it's wrong, but it has to be at least a questionable position.

    <quote>This is a rather school boy type of protestation. We are not clockwork, we have a mind, one that can make choices that are not genetically fated and neither is how we deal with life's circumstances fated</quote>

    If we are not 'clockwork' - a mechanistic result of previous occurences - then would you be able to offer a mechanism that explains why we aren't and how it operates? Or are you just telling me what conclusions you think Theology has or should come to without being able to justify why? I know that theology claims that we have free will - I learnt that at school, and it seemed an emtpy claim then, so I guess this is a 'schoolboy type of protestation'. That doesn't make it invalid, though - you having an argument would make it invalid.

    <quote>Does he? What makes you so sure he can (1) see all his free choices before they are made, and (2) cares to look in the first place?</quote>

    1 - if he can't see all the choices then he isn't omniscient - and qualifications of 'omniscience' reduce the concept to the point where it doesn't constitute 'omniscience' at all

    2 - if he needs to look to know, then he isn't omniscient

    <quote>So what, so are all of our lives, but that is not the issue, it's what we CHOOSE to do with those circumstances</quote>

    But you need to demonstrate that the concept of 'choice' has any real meaning - hence the other thread to which I referred you.

    <quote>Completely false, as Christian teachings set you out as free moral agent, with a mind that can resists your genes, or environment, a higher freedom by the will of God.</quote>

    But that explicit Christian teaching is at odds with the explicit Christian teaching that God is omniscient and omnipotent - one or the other has to be false (or both, obviously, but from a logical point of view one or the other). Either God knows everything we will do in advance (omniscience) or we have choices free of God's explicit or implicit control (free will) but both cannot be true.

    It seems that you find it more tenable to suggest that God is limited than man is - can I ask you what your justification for that interpretation is?

    <quote>You are not an dumb animal, or a clockwork machine, and if you claim you are, then why complain if you are treated like one?</quote>

    Who's complaining? I would note that lacking free-will doesn't mean that humans lack a higher reasoning capacity than most 'dumb animals' and are therefore capable of forms and levels of fear and misery that most animals aren't - so I think we should be treating humanity in a different manner to the remainder of the natural world to minimise suffering because suffering is not enjoyable, and if we're going to be here to follow the journey of our bodies we might as well enjoy it.

    <quote>I'm sorry to say, we are back to your sixth form college arguments and poor they are indeed. There are trillions of variables not set out or clockwork in this life. Even in quantum physics, we do not know the full extent of random forces and vibrations and wavelengths and their end unpredictable results.</quote>

    It's a simplification - there are hundreds of ice-cream flavours and dozens of implications of even such a simple choice, but as a demonstration of principle it still holds. You've not explained why you think that, in this case, you've selected the ice-cream and God hasn't.

    <quote>Secondly, from a theological position, you are wrong again. Man has a spirit in the image of God, not enslaved to genetics or clockwork reactions. Man can make his own path, and with that freedom he becomes responsible for his choices.</quote>

    How? What is the nature of choice that man has that isn't merely the expression of his experience determining a course of action based on sensory impressions of the immediate moment? You can claim 'choice' on behalf of man from a theological position, but you need to establish why you think it's there beyond 'my book says so'.

    <quote>I think you have taken a view of life in the most naïve way and then tried in some desperation to take it to come reductionist level so you can comfort yourself with your rejection of God</quote>

    And I think you desperately need to feel that I'm 'bitter' and need 'comforting' for my rejection of your deity, and all the others, but that's a topic for a different thread. I'm happy enough, thanks, I'm just curious as to how you rationalise omniscience in your deity with free-will in your life, as the two seem mutually contradictory in the given set-up.

    Now if God were omniscient but weren't the creator, that might be possible - he could know your actions but he didn't determine them as part of the set-up of the universe, but then that still doesn't actually offer a mechanism for this 'free-will' concept to have any meaning.

    <quote>To do this, you have had to abandon all the rational arguments, and go for the shallow and school boy like ones you find on superficial sites like Wikipedia and other atheist driven agendas</quote>

    I'll note your entirely rational assertion that wikipedia has an atheist agenda and leave it that, I think.

    <quote>That is a non sequitur. Good or evil are not denoted by ones ability to see the future, they are in law</quote>

    Then you adopt a position of absolute morality? Fair enough, that does counter that one point I concede. If there is an absolute morality, though, doesn't that put limits on God's omnipotence? It's a logically less tenable argument, but I've heard it made before.

    <quote><quote>it also calls into question the alleged prophecies contained within the holy texts (up to and including the 'prophecy' that Jesus will return)</quote>How so if the same God is the one that can influence reality in any way he wants.</quote>

    If God makes 'prophecy' with the intent of waiting until a time of his choosing and then intervening to make the event happen, surely it's not a prophecy but merely a statement of intent? If I suggest that tomorrow there will be a car-crash in the high-street, but then go out tomorrow and drive my car into someone else's I suspect no-one would consider that I had made a valid prophecy...

    <quote>That is a very simplistic clockwork view of the world</quote>

    You're confusing 'simple' and 'simplistic'. Yes it's simple, it boils down to a few easily defined concepts - that doesn't make it invalid.

    <quote>Let's say for the sake of your argument, God did see your son fall off a table. Why would he have to know all things prior to this?</quote>

    The Christian mythology, misguided as it is, does not see my son as inherently special: it says that God is watching all of our four year old sons, and all our other sons, and daughters and aunts and uncles and grandparents... everyone. At once. God is omniscient, there are no books in your library that God has not read... and read before they were written, as it happens.

    Omniscience means that God knew Othello would murder Desdemona in a jealous rage not only before Shakespeare knew it, but before anyone knew Shakespeare.

    <quote>We ignore the deluge of side material and home in on the fact we want. If I can do this, then surely God can do it to a much more amazing level and no need to know all things to know one thing</quote>

    You are confusing looking for information you don't know with God focussing on one piece of information from all the information he does know. How can God choose to know about my son falling off the table without knowing about the event in advance to realise he needs to know about it?

    <quote>But they are only potential events, not actual anywhere, the future does not exist anywhere except in the mind</quote>

    Time is a dimension, the future is already there and we will be passing through it soon, experiencing it as we go.

    <quote>God knows all possible futures, but not the choices before they are made from each person</quote>

    But that's not omniscience, I can know probabilities, statistics can tell us probabilities. Are you suggesting the Christian god is just a bookmaker? Omniscience is all knowing, not all assessing-the-possibilities-and-having-a-guess-on-the-relative-likelihoods-of-specific-events.

    <quote>But none of these exist in the future</quote>

    This seems to be the crux of your argument, so you have to demonstrate two things - why you think the future isn't there just because we've not experienced it yet, and why you think that the future isn't entirely dependent upon what's happening right now: what else is around to influence tomorrow?

    <quote>I think your main error is to (1) think man and all the universe are clockwork and fated and (2) to think the physical future exists somewhere, when it does not even exist yet, so cannot be seen, as there is nothing to see.</quote>

    1 - What mechanism is there whereby 'choice' is not purely determined on prior events and the current situation? We are the product of previous events, stored as memory, overwriting an inherent nature. None of that, by definition, is under our control. Whence, then, choice?

    2 - If (1), as seems likely, is true, then (2) isn't needed, however. Given that we already demonstrate that mass warps time and space, it is reasonable to assume that time and space are aspects of the same concept, and mathematically we see that this assumption of four-dimensional space fits the observable phenomena that we can measure. From this it is reasonable to assume that time is a dimension, and that the limitation on seeing into it lies with us.

    O.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Outrider (U14729772) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    <quote>They are - if, for instance, I never meet his mother, he'll never be born. </quote>Then he won’t be making any choices, making this all academic</quote>

    He won't be making them anyway, which is sort of the point of the thread, but... Yes, it's academic, but this is an academic point. Do you accept that his actions are a natural succession from my own, and therefore in order to fully understand his possible actions at a given moment in time God has to have a complete understanding of mine to know what the influences are?

    <quote>My point is that in real life we hold people accountable for their actions, certainly more than we do their parents</quote>

    But we consider circumstances, the events that lead up to an event, in order to determine motive. Actions are a consequence of previous events - I am just noting that no-one seems to be able to offer what more there is as an influence than 'previous events'. Personality is a conglomeration of experience (of previous events) and nature (the previous event of our conception) and it is our personality that reacts to the current situation when we use the word 'choice'.

    Given that there is no other apparent mechanism, our personalities are a result of prior events. God is, in Christian philosophy at least, the first cause and therefore initiates the events that ultimately lead to any 'choice'.

    If God initiates the mechanistic process, and is omniscient (either immediately or across time) he will know (or can inerrantly extrapolate from the start conditions) what the 'choice' will be.

    <quote>Knowledge in advance of an event does not mean that event was predetermined.</quote>

    If God has knowledge of what 'choice' I will make tomorrow, I cannot make a different choice - then God's knowledge would be wrong. If God knows all of our choices the day before we make them, we still can't choose any differently or God would not be inerrant, would not be omniscient.

    So when God created the universe, he did so knowing what all the choices would be, and we cannot change that. God created a specific universe, and we are living out the plan that he foresaw in that - and, by implication, pre-approved.

    O.

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Juan Toomany (U14258110) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    Hi deecee4,

    Knowledge in advance of an event does not mean that event was predetermined. 

    I think it does. If god, or anyone for that matter, can know what I will do tomorrow with 100% certainty (guaranteed to be right), when I myself cannot be sure of what I am going to do then, my life tomorrow is predetermined. But if it is not predetermined then I could do something that god did not expect couldn't I?

    If Mr. Nasty see an old lady stuffing her pension money into her purse he may or may not decide to steal it, if he has true free will, but an omniscient god cannot have two possible outcomes. So my question is, as there can only be one outcome, the one known by god, what choice had Mr. Nasty got?

    But are you saying that god knows what my future actions will be because he has the immense capability of being able see everyones past and present choices (good or bad), how they interact and hence, with 100% accuracy, predict our future actions?

    Regards Juan

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by deecee4 (U14860437) on Sunday, 12th June 2011

    Hi Juan

    I think it does. If god, or anyone for that matter, can know what I will do tomorrow with 100% certainty (guaranteed to be right), when I myself cannot be sure of what I am going to do then, my life tomorrow is predetermined. 
    Not so. The decision you will make tomorrow isn’t made until tomorrow. God knows what your decision will be, because He has all knowledge, including of the future, however that doesn’t equate to determinism.

    But if it is not predetermined then I could do something that god did not expect couldn't I? 
    No. Because God is omniscient. He knows the future. Nothing will surprise Him. Again that doesn’t mean He determines our actions and decisions, just that he knows what they will be.

    But are you saying that god knows what my future actions will be because he has the immense capability of being able see everyones past and present choices (good or bad), how they interact and hence, with 100% accuracy, predict our future actions? 
    Not ‘predict’. ‘Know’.

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by deecee4 (U14860437) on Sunday, 12th June 2011

    Hi Outrider

    Do you accept that his actions are a natural succession from my own,  
    Only partially. They are influenced by conditioning to some extent, but ultimately the decisions are his own.

    and therefore in order to fully understand his possible actions at a given moment in time God has to have a complete understanding of mine to know what the influences are? 
    God knows the decisions you will make. He knows the decisions your son will make, and he knows the conditioning your con will receive from you and yours.

    That takes us no closer to God predeterming those decisions.

    If God initiates the mechanistic process, and is omniscient (either immediately or across time) he will know (or can inerrantly extrapolate from the start conditions) what the 'choice' will be. 
    Correct. He will ‘know’. That doesn’t mean ‘determine’.

    If God has knowledge of what 'choice' I will make tomorrow, I cannot make a different choice - then God's knowledge would be wrong. If God knows all of our choices the day before we make them, we still can't choose any differently or God would not be inerrant, would not be omniscient. 
    Again, none of that demonstrates we don’t have free will. The future is mapped out because God knows our choices, not because He made them for us.

    So when God created the universe, he did so knowing what all the choices would be... 
    Yes, but again that doesn’t mean He made them for us.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by Tasty (U14660579) on Sunday, 12th June 2011

    Message 40 in reply to message 35. Posted by Outrider (U14729772) many that say God is not omniscient in action Knowledge is not active, knowing does not require conscious activity, it is a state.   
    You miss the point. If I were psychic, I have potential knowledge, but to have actual knowledge I need to seek information. God can know all things, but that does not mean he has chosen to know all things. Omnipotence means all powerful, but that does not mean all energy available has been used fully, it just means there is infinite potential if it's required.

    Either God knows everything or he does not - if he could go and find things out if he wanted then he is not omniscient. 
    If there were facts that he's chosen not to see, that are available as a reality, then it would be omniscience in potential, but not actual knowledge. This is very different to say Mr Smith, an atheist, who is someone who has almost no knowledge and little hope of ever getting any in his current mindset.

    God knows all possible outcomes, but not the specific ones until the actions have been chosen or ordained by some force or choice Then he doesn't know.   
    If it does not exist anywhere, then there is nothing to know. So he would be omniscient in all that IS knowable.

    You are confusing omnipotence with foreordination (predestination). No, I'm concluding foreknowledge from omniscience   
    Then we have identified one of your major errors. Potential power is not knowledge or ability. Humans can for example make an atom bomb that releases massive levels of energy, but humans cannot make a life form from scratch, not even a bacterium. The point of this illustration? Well, it shows that power or energy are not related to any other ability, like foreknowledge, morality, or creating life or anything else. Energy is energy, that is all.

    and demonstrating that therefore, given omnipotence, those events of which God's foreknowledge exist are not accidents or events beyond God's control 
    No sequitur, see last point.

    - therefore, not only did God foresee them, but they are either a direct result of his actions or, at worst, they are tacitly accepted by God. I think the logic of the premises leads to the former. 
    Well free will is not a result of just environment. It springs from out will and mind and our ability to follow our will, therefore making us responsible for our own path to most extents.

    This view is predestination and many Christians or other believers do not hold to that view at all, and hold as does the bible, that man has freedoms and with that responsibilities for his choices. You mean there are some Christians out there who haven't considered the logical consequences of the premises they accept?    
    No, I mean there are Christians who do not accept a fundamentalist Calvinist world-view, and so reject it as untenable theologically and rationally. See Dr Craig's position on 'middle knowledge' for more details, and also Monilism.

    There are millions of possibilities, but that does not mean God has chosen the specific choices of the individual for each one, and it does not mean they are set immovable in the future. There are millions of conceivable possibilities, but only one of them occurs in any given 'decision'.    
    Correct, but if the many decisions of non-clockwork free will have not even come into the mind of the person or been made, then there is nothing to see, they do not exist anywhere to see them until they are created in the mind of the one who is going to carry them out.

    God knows what that one will be, and (according to Christian doctrine at least) created the universe in which that one chosen event occurs. 
    Where do you get this from? Please state your biblical source.

    But there would be no vision if the physical future does not exist anywhere yet, just as the past reality is no more But the fact that time is merely a further dimension, entire and complete in and of itself, means that it is there already. Our inability to pierce it with our limited senses does not mean that the omniscient deity cannot sense it in its entirety.   
    Ah, now I see where you second major error comes in. Let me get this straight, are you actually saying you think there is another physical world, in fact, endless gazillions of them, with this world in one nano-second further on, and so on, for eternity and God (or some psychic) just has to peek into that other world, to then come back to this one, and say "I know X will happen at X date because I saw it in N galaxy trans-dimension XXXXXX, and it was "just so"? If you do think this, where do you get this from, it's not biblical or anything that could have come from any big bang and it defies all known empirical evidence.

    If, and it's a big if, that is your position, I think you have departed into science fiction. There is no empirical evidence that there is another other place and time than now. I note you didn't mention the links I gave. Surely you would do well to get clued up on the actual arguments about time and space before posting more?

    You need to put aside your biased agenda and snide remark like "Christian mythology" which is revealed in this other post showing you lack objectivity That you lost the other argument doesn't mean you should come here with frustration or anger.   
    Oh dear me, talk about projecting your own mind onto others. Let me remind you, you were the one to lose on logic and rationality alone, leaving aside your repeated ad hominem abuses which reached a crescendo at the end with you unable to defend your claims with any logic at all and trying your bes to mask this humiliation by being as offensive as you could get away with on a message board.

    My 'agenda' is a quite clearly demonstrated point about why I think the Christian depiction of God and Free Will are inconsistent, and my 'bias' is open: I have an opinion and am voicing it, just as you are. That's not 'bias' that's 'having an opinion'. 
    That was not my point. If a person is full of bitterness and hate towards an idea or Christ/God, then they often lose the ability to thinking straight and see the errors in their own arguments. I believe in sincerity this is what happened to you in the other debate, and this was demonstrated empirically by your increasingly offensive Christ hating and belligerent remarks which revealed what was really going on in your mind behind the scenes, that is why I left you to it and realised I was never going to get any honest, rational or logical debate from you.

    As to 'Christian Mythology' - unless you are a Biblical literalist, it's a mythology. The question is merely how much of its basis is truth, as it's not unreasonable to assume that a variety of mythological stories from various cultures arose to account for actual events. 
    Christians do not see the bible as "myths", or Jesus as some "mythical person". To say such is just a snide inflammatory means to show your contempt and adds nothing to any of your points or claims.

    and rationality in your rather bitter world view which seems to be heavily preventing you from seeing the irrationality of many of your arguments That would the one where in your calm, objective, rational manner you took Halucigenia to task as 'poisoning the well with rather pathetic epithets like [evolution] "deniers" is a typical propagandist fallacy, and it's sad you cannot post without inserting such juvenile snipes'.   
    So do you think using propaganda is good? Well that tells me a lot. If others want to see what I criticised him for in that post they can read it for themselves: # 1469: www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb... (By-the-way, he did not counter argue any of my points, so they all stand uncontested for the record)

    People will make up their own minds, given the link, if they wish, but it seems to me that most people aren't assuming that I'm bitter or irrational. I may be wrong 
    For those who want to see they can read my replies and your repeated evasive and then offensive replies here:

    # 587: www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 601 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 656 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 711 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 847 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 1217 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 1218 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 1219 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 1255 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 1308 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 1368 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 1372 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 1373 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 1397 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 1398 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 1400 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    # 1438 www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    *This last post is where I was so tired of your recurrent diversions to rather repetitive ad hominem attacks that I left you to it. You lost the debate on god and design logically and rationally, and then lost it even more when you showed your true inability to debate maturely as your posts predictably degenerated into ranting childish abuse like saying "troll, so scurry back under your bridge" as well as deceit and baiting like another well known posted does when he's lost. You also refused to deal with the most basic logical objections to your design "flaw" hypothesis even when you were asked over and over again. They were: If you make those claims you need to answer these tree basics (which you never will):

    #1 The most basic foundation is to set an objective standard of perfection, that can be scientifically measured, quantified and observed.

    # 2 Next, you need to demonstrate how the end design did not meet its specific design brief, and failed that brief using the tools of science and reasoning.

    # 3 Once you have done the above two points, you can then formulate a hypothesis of why you think a specific design is faulty and was not executed as the brief demanded for its specific purpose. 

    You never did deal with them, so I will leave it with the readers to make their own mind up about your "reasoning" and debate tactics.

    Now, back to THIS thread. . .

    You apparently see the world like a clockwork machine and this it seems is where you've formulated your false ideas. Man, God, and higher worlds (spirit worlds) are not just laws, they are given open freedoms, that is why theologically man is spirit, not just flesh, and man is spiritually made in the image of God I do have a mechanistic view of the universe, yes, based on what we have evidence for.   
    Then you need to do some more research, especially in quantum physics and the unpredictable things that happen there. Like I said to you in the other post, the devil is in the detail, and if you do not look at it, you will invariably come to faulty conclusions.

    You claim that 'Man, God, and higher worlds are not just laws' but you have no evidence for that, do you? 
    (1) YOU posited God and his omniscience, so we have God for the sake of argument, so he is the reason, he is not a machine, so has freedom. (2) You brought Christian into this too, so to take theology in, man is made in God's image with some basic freedoms, and moral freedoms is one of them.

    "Theologically", you continue, "man is spirit, not just flesh, and man is spiritually made in the image of God." What is that opinion based upon? What reason do you have for holding to that line of thinking? As I see it, it's a result of scripture, because there is no measurable phenomena that leads to that conclusion 
    I note your evasion and gearing up to move the goalposts as you did before. How predictable. You posited God and Christianity as the basic foundation to your post and your arguments of free will. I do not have to prove either exist, I only have to formate a logical and rational argument based on those premises. I have, and now you don't like it, so you move to silly demands that I have to now have to go back and prove YOUR propositions when they were never the argument.

    YOU posit God exists. YOU posit humans exist. YOU posit some humans are Christians. YOU started this post to try and claim there is no freedom with an omniscience God.

    Now, if you are going to be honest, then you have by default to accept the basic points that God is not a machine, and so man is not either, as man's mind is spiritual, as well as emotional, cognitive and brain linked and related biblically. Man is in God's image scripturally and theologically, so ipso facto, man has a measure of freedoms that are not (1) only genetically programmed instincts or (2) entirely driven by environmental or chemical means. This is why men in theology are responsible for many of their actions, and will be judged. Whereas animals do not have that greater awareness, conscience and consciousness or the freedom that mankind has.

    Instead we call it a 'faith' position, but it's a baseless assertion. 
    A bit like most of your posts then.

    We are not clockwork, we have a mind, one that can make choices that are not genetically fated and neither is how we deal with life's circumstances fated If we are not 'clockwork' - a mechanistic result of previous occurences - then would you be able to offer a mechanism that explains why we aren't and how it operates?   
    Yes, a mind, one that can think and refuse to follow basic urges. My stomach may tell me to go and eat, but I can say, 'shut up, I will eat at 7pm'. I have freedom to follow urges, or to be masters of them. Are you really saying you think child rapists and murderers are not morally responsible for their chosen actions, and so not to be condemned? That they are just innocent victims of irrefutable circumstance?

    Or are you just telling me what conclusions you think Theology has or should come to without being able to justify why? 
    You are proposing a theological argument, so you should at least be capable of accepting a theological reply. If you cannot, then you are just baiting posters, when you know a priori that no matter how they reply you will reject it, as you've programmed your mind to auto-reject all reasonable and rational arguments because you fear where they may lead.

    I know that theology claims that we have free will - I learnt that at school, and it seemed an emtpy claim then, so I guess this is a 'schoolboy type of protestation'. 
    Why is it empty? You brought God up, and he is not a machine, so if man is in his image, it's pretty basic logic to see man would have some freedoms that are not mechanistic or preordained. It seems your arguments are shipwrecked already and you don't want to play any more. This is sad because it's a great opportunity for you to learn and grow.

    That doesn't make it invalid, though - you having an argument would make it invalid. 
    Your statement is illogical.

    Does he? What makes you so sure he can (1) see all his free choices before they are made, and (2) cares to look in the first place? if he can't see all the choices then he isn't omniscient   
    That is non sequitur, because if the choices do not exist yet, then they are nowhere to be seen.

    - and qualifications of 'omniscience' reduce the concept to the point where it doesn't constitute 'omniscience' at all 
    If one knows all there is to know, then one is omniscience in action, as well as potential. But one cannot know things that do not exist anywhere and are not preordained, there is nothing to know. Another poster has pointed this out. I can do the same, did God know what I had for breakfast in the year 1734BC? If God says, "no", then does that mean he is not omniscience? Of course not! I never existed then, and if a future decision is not fate, and only is created to exist at the moment it's decided, then it cannot be seen in the future, because it never existed in the future prior to that event to be seen, as it was not some planned event or fated to come into existence.

    2 - if he needs to look to know, then he isn't omniscient 
    If there is nothing to see, then your point is void.

    So what, so are all of our lives, but that is not the issue, it's what we CHOOSE to do with those circumstances But you need to demonstrate that the concept of 'choice' has any real meaning   
    Actually I don't but you do. You are the one to attack God and freedoms by starting this thread. You need to (1) prove God is just a machine and (2) prove man is also a machine in God's image. You also need to empirically prove man's mind is a machine and where it resides and how it is only a machine. I would also on a side note, be interested to know why you then think a child raping serial killer is not to be condemned, as he's just an innocent victims of machine reality and so should be left to just get on with it, as it's all fate, is it not?

    Completely false, as Christian teachings set you out as free moral agent, with a mind that can resists your genes, or environment, a higher freedom by the will of God. But that explicit Christian teaching is at odds with the explicit Christian teaching that God is omniscient and omnipotent - one or the other has to be false    
    A triple shot of your fallacies in one small sentence, at least you are condensing them now.
    (1) Can you show me this source of this "explicit" teaching on omniscience as you define it (down to infinite subatomic ends and results of all things, locations, positions and possibilities)?
    (2) How exactly is free moral agency "at odds" with omnipotence and omniscience?
    (3) You inserted a false dichotomy of true or false, one or the other, why?

    Either God knows everything we will do in advance (omniscience) or we have choices free of God's explicit or implicit control (free will) but both cannot be true. 
    Incorrect again. You falsely assume, all we do in advance exist and is knowable, this is a leading question fallacy. If much of the future of free agents is not real or knowable, then God does not need to know it to be omniscient because there is nothing to know.

    Secondly, our freedoms have nothing to do with God's choice to control or not. We can still have freedoms and God can still decide to override some of them if he so wills, none of this refutes our core free nature.

    It seems that you find it more tenable to suggest that God is limited than man is - can I ask you what your justification for that interpretation is? 
    It's one you just made up, commonly known as a straw man.

    You are not an dumb animal, or a clockwork machine, and if you claim you are, then why complain if you are treated like one? Who's complaining? I would note that lacking free-will doesn't mean that humans lack a higher reasoning capacity than most 'dumb animals' and are therefore capable of forms and levels of fear and misery that most animals aren't - so I think we should be treating humanity in a different manner to the remainder of the natural world to minimise suffering because suffering is not enjoyable, and if we're going to be here to follow the journey of our bodies we might as well enjoy it.   
    That is an interesting evasive reply. If you are just a dumb animal (as most atheists seem to think) then why can't a God just put you down or turn you into a lampshade if he so wills? Why are you trying to run from your end?

    There are trillions of variables not set out or clockwork in this life. Even in quantum physics, we do not know the full extent of random forces and vibrations and wavelengths and their end unpredictable results. It's a simplification - there are hundreds of ice-cream flavours and dozens of implications of even such a simple choice, but as a demonstration of principle it still holds. You've not explained why you think that, in this case, you've selected the ice-cream and God hasn't.   
    You've gone all evasive again. Are you going to deal with the point on quantum physics or not?

    Secondly, from a theological position, you are wrong again. Man has a spirit in the image of God, not enslaved to genetics or clockwork reactions. Man can make his own path, and with that freedom he becomes responsible for his choices. How? What is the nature of choice that man has that isn't merely the expression of his experience determining a course of action based on sensory impressions of the immediate moment?   
    A self conscious mind higher than flesh and basic instincts.

    You can claim 'choice' on behalf of man from a theological position, but you need to establish why you think it's there beyond 'my book says so'. 
    Because theology is about God if you were not aware, and the billions of Christians see the bible as their communication from God about him and his son, Jesus, and man's part in the grand scheme of things. It's sad you cannot produce a sound logical counterargument on free will v. determinism, so opt for the evasive approach to question your own premise an then expect others to prove it.

    That is a non sequitur. Good or evil are not denoted by one's ability to see the future, they are in law Then you adopt a position of absolute morality?   
    I adopt a position of a God who made all things, as having the right, power and merit to make laws to his own agenda and will when and where he wants for whatever reasons he wants and to change or modify them as he wills. So, God has absolute moral authority to make moral statements that are fundamentally valid and true.

    If there is an absolute morality, though, doesn't that put limits on God's omnipotence? It's a logically less tenable argument, but I've heard it made before. 
    Morality has nothing to do with power or available energy.

    it also calls into question the alleged prophecies contained within the holy texts (up to and including the 'prophecy' that Jesus will return) How so if the same God is the one that can influence reality in any way he wants.  If God makes 'prophecy' with the intent of waiting until a time of his choosing and then intervening to make the event happen, surely it's not a prophecy but merely a statement of intent? 
    A biblical prophecy is a prediction of a future event. It does not matter if God makes it happen, or humans, or natural events, or Satan. What matters is it comes true, then it's a true prophecy.

    If I suggest that tomorrow there will be a car-crash in the high-street, but then go out tomorrow and drive my car into someone else's I suspect no-one would consider that I had made a valid prophecy... 
    Why not? They would just call it prediction, but that's just semantics.

    That is a very simplistic clockwork view of the world You're confusing 'simple' and 'simplistic'. Yes it's simple, it boils down to a few easily defined concepts - that doesn't make it invalid.   
    Maybe you can tell us how these are set in the quantum world of physics as "easily definable" and of course, empirically provable, mathematically or pragmatically and how all these fate our minds to a preordained end result?

    Do you really, really think all my words on this page are exactly preordained from millions of years ago, and they have to by default of physical fate be typed here, no matter what, just as they are, word for word, set in the structure of the universe since aeons ago? That would be more miraculous and improbable than a God creating the universe and all life.

    Let's say for the sake of your argument, God did see your son fall off a table. Why would he have to know all things prior to this? The Christian mythology, misguided as it is, does not see my son as inherently special: it says that God is watching all of our four year old sons, and all our other sons, and daughters and aunts and uncles and grandparents... everyone. At once.   
    Can I have a specific reference for this "Christian" claim of yours?

    God is omniscient, there are no books in your library that God has not read... and read before they were written, as it happens. 
    But that was not the point was it, so why are you evading again? The point was, God does not need to see the future to know one event. Like I do not need to read all books, to read one sentence in one book. You have ignored this.

    Omniscience means that God knew Othello would murder Desdemona in a jealous rage not only before Shakespeare knew it, but before anyone knew Shakespeare. 
    But you assume it existed somewhere to know, what if it didn't? If it only came into existence at the time Shakespeare started to think of the ideas, and then God saw his path, after he started to follow it? If the future of free will is not set, then it cannot be seen as something set, so it does not exist like a set future event like an earthquake brewing or God intervening or world trends that are progressive culminations of other known trends.

    We ignore the deluge of side material and home in on the fact we want. If I can do this, then surely God can do it to a much more amazing level and no need to know all things to know one thing You are confusing looking for information you don't know with God focussing on one piece of information from all the information he does know.    
    That is another leading question fallacy. How do you know he knows it? If some information is just 'out there somewhere' and we or God choose not to look at it, then it's not already known, it's available but not yet known.

    How can God choose to know about my son falling off the table without knowing about the event in advance to realise he needs to know about it? 
    I have already told you, so why ask again? How can I know of any specific fact without knowing the rest of the history of the universe in graphic detail? Easy, I just look where I am interested to look. And why does God "need to know about it"? He doesn't, it's just a question from you, not some cosmic necessity. If you ask my what time does the number 55 bus come, I can look it up, I do not need to know all things to know this one thing, and neither would God.

    But they are only potential events, not actual anywhere, the future does not exist anywhere except in the mind Time is a dimension, the future is already there and we will be passing through it soon, experiencing it as we go.   
    Sounds like Star Trek. Can we have the real version now? Where is this fantasy future you dream about? And on what empirical basis do you claim it exists somewhere? I have to say I disagree with that totally, and it's contrary to much theology too. I gave you an interesting take on this with that link, and if you'd listened to it, you would not be repeating the same fallacies. Please listen to it:
    "2009/12/22 God's Omniscience and the Kalam Argument " You can right click it from the list and download it as an MP3: www.reasonablefaith....

    God knows all possible futures, but not the choices before they are made from each person But that's not omniscience   
    It is if that is all there is to be known, don't you get that?

    Say I am God, and I make a universe where many things are predictable and set, but some, like human free will has variables that I designed into it so as NOT to be fated, or predictable, but truly and genuinely free, then even I cannot predict them by the way I have designed them, because of the fact that they are not fated, so there is NOTHING to see until the person creates it in their OWN mind, it does not exist anywhere prior to this event, then once it's created I can see it and it's general path, but they are the master of its initial creation. I have given them this power; therefore they ARE responsible for their use of this privilege.

    I can know probabilities, statistics can tell us probabilities. Are you suggesting the Christian god is just a bookmaker? 
    No, he's a God, and if something is designed to be non-clockwork, then so it will be. If it's designed to be capable of freedoms that are not in existence anywhere until they are formed in the mind of the person, then no one can predict their ends because they do not exist yet and are not predictable things.

    Omniscience is all knowing, not all assessing-the-possibilities-and-having-a-guess-on-the-relative-likelihoods-of-specific-events. 
    And by 'all knowing', it has to follow logically it can only be applied to things that are (1) knowable and (2) exist. If they do not, then one cannot locally know them.

    But none of these exist in the future This seems to be the crux of your argument, so you have to demonstrate two things - why you think the future isn't there just because we've not experienced it yet   
    There is no empirical, logical or rational evidence to show all possible futures exist somewhere else. Why would they, and where is the empirical evidence? Who made them? There is none scientifically, and non theologically.

    and why you think that the future isn't entirely dependent upon what's happening right now: what else is around to influence tomorrow? 
    The human mind, quantum physics and plenty more that is not understood or clockwork.

    I think your main error is to (1) think man and all the universe are clockwork and fated and (2) to think the physical future exists somewhere, when it does not even exist yet, so cannot be seen, as there is nothing to see. 1 - What mechanism is there whereby 'choice' is not purely determined on prior events and the current situation? We are the product of previous events, stored as memory, overwriting an inherent nature. None of that, by definition, is under our control. Whence, then, choice?   
    I am not just memories, or past, I am now, I have a conscious self awareness that no animal has, and one that can choose to do as he pleases with many situations, that is the prime difference. I find it mindbogglingly you can actually fantasize that all these words on your screen as FATE from aeons ago, or that all that even happens each day is fate, all of it, every last thing. There is no evidence of that at all with humanity, and none with quantum physics, so where do you get these weird ideas from?

    2 - If (1), as seems likely, is true, then (2) isn't needed, however. Given that we already demonstrate that mass warps time and space, it is reasonable to assume that time and space are aspects of the same concept, and mathematically we see that this assumption of four-dimensional space fits the observable phenomena that we can measure. From this it is reasonable to assume that time is a dimension, and that the limitation on seeing into it lies with us. 
    You misunderstand the term "dimension" when time is being debated. It's not a place, it's just a term. All that is known to exist, exists as now, here and now, you seem to be posting the tenseless or B-Theory of time, which Dr. Craig covers in many replies and in some of those MP3, which is why you need to listen to them. Maybe you should read this too: en.wikipedia.org/wik... It's even got your ice cream shop in it!

    The past is not in some hidden place. Do you really think my long dead granny is somewhere in a kitchen physically baking scones or making a coal fire?

    PS. I just saw this from you for someone else, but felt I needed to reply: If God has knowledge of what 'choice' I will make tomorrow, I cannot make a different choice - then God's knowledge would be wrong. If God knows all of our choices the day before we make them, we still can't choose any differently or God would not be inerrant, would not be omniscient. 
    Wrong, wrong and more wrong. Here is the real argument:

    (1) "If God has knowledge of what 'choice' I will make tomorrow", I CAN make a different choice, and God would have seen that too, "then God's knowledge would be" right!
    (2) "If God knows all of our choices the day before we make them, we still" CAN choose differently, because we are free and God would have seen that choice too.

    The fundamental error you are making is to assume that God is telling you and the world this stuff he's seen, when he's not! You don't even believe in him, so you would now know what he knows and you would just carry on as you desire, and he would know this too. Your freedom is never violated if he sees or chooses not to see because he has not told anyone who can tell you and influence you, so you are still 100 per cent free to do as you want. Even if you change your mind 1001 times just to be clever, he would have seen that too, and not violated your freedoms.

    ### Let me give you a simple illustration to show your error. Say I am psychic, and I know you will go and have a coffee in a coffee shop, and then I see you move your arm and knock your coffee on the floor and get embarrassed. All this is your free will in action. Just because have seen this, does not make it happen, or force you to do this. Remember, I have NOT told you any of this, so you are still functioning under your free will.

    ### Point two, if I tell you all this, then you can change the future, which also ironically proves it was not set or fated. You can deliberately be more careful and then not spill your coffee, but you can only do this if I or someone tells you what was seen on your current path.

    ### This is the basic Christian position. God sees you on a current free will path of sin and destruction, by your own free will. Now God intervenes in the bible and says "I see you ending up in hell, but, the good news is you are the master of your fate and can change what I saw on your current chosen path by your use of your own free will to a new path". Now, it's in your hand, do you want to spill your coffee or do you want not to. You have been empowered by being warned, so now have the power to change your decision, not by force, but again by free will. It's all up to you where you end up theologically, heaven or hell, it's your choice.

    So when God created the universe, he did so knowing what all the choices would be 
    No, he did so allowing humans to make their own choices, and then be responsible for them, that is the Christian position.

    , and we cannot change that. 
    We can, it's called free will.

    God created a specific universe, and we are living out the plan that he foresaw in that - and, by implication, pre-approved. 
    Wrong as my post above demonstrated.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by Juan Toomany (U14258110) on Sunday, 12th June 2011

    Hi deecee4,

    Not so. The decision you will make tomorrow isn’t made until tomorrow. God knows what your decision will be, because He has all knowledge, including of the future, however that doesn’t equate to determinism. 

    You haven't explained how god can know my future when the decision hasn't yet been made or whether it is possible for me to do something different to what god knows I will do.

    No. Because God is omniscient. He knows the future. Nothing will surprise Him. Again that doesn’t mean He determines our actions and decisions, just that he knows what they will be. 

    The same question, How does he know what they will be if the decisions have not yet been made?

    Not ‘predict’. ‘Know’. 

    I'm not sure there is any difference between 'knowing in advance' or predicting.

    But if you wish:

    But are you saying that god knows what my future actions will be because he has the immense capability of being able see everyones past and present choices (good or bad), how they interact and hence, with 100% accuracy, know our future actions?

    Regards Juan


    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by Juan Toomany (U14258110) on Sunday, 12th June 2011


    Hi deecee4,

    In message 34 you said:

    No, not mapped out. Just known in advance. There’s a big difference. 

    And now you say:

    Again, none of that demonstrates we don’t have free will. The future is mapped out because God knows our choices, not because He made them for us. 

    Can you explain the contradiction?

    Regards Juan

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by Outrider (U14729772) on Sunday, 12th June 2011

    So when God created the universe, he did so knowing what all the choices would be...   Yes, but again that doesn’t mean He made them for us. 

    But it does, because God chose to make this universe this way, not in some other fashion with different decisions. God chose the 'me' that makes these decisions.

    O.

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Juan Toomany (U14258110) on Sunday, 12th June 2011

    Hi deecee4,

    And, if our futures are mapped out for us, then we have no choice but to follow the map. So where does our free will fit in?

    Regards Juan

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by Outrider (U14729772) on Sunday, 12th June 2011

    <quote>If I were psychic, I have potential knowledge, but to have actual knowledge I need to seek information. God can know all things, but that does not mean he has chosen to know all things.</quote>

    Omniscience is all knowing, not being able to find out anything he wants. If that's the definition of 'all-knowing' then we're all omniscient - we can all go and find out what we want to find out.

    <quote>If it does not exist anywhere, then there is nothing to know. So he would be omniscient in all that IS knowable.</quote>

    But it does exist - our limitations on seeing it do not apply to God.

    <quote>Potential power is not knowledge or ability. Humans can for example make an atom bomb that releases massive levels of energy, but humans cannot make a life form from scratch, not even a bacterium. The point of this illustration? Well, it shows that power or energy are not related to any other ability, like foreknowledge, morality, or creating life or anything else.</quote>

    RIght - so how, exactly, does 'knowing all there is to know across time' not equate to 'foreknowledge' from a human perspective? Omniscience is not a 'potential' - it is the claim that God knows all.

    <quote>Well free will is not a result of just environment. It springs from out will and mind and our ability to follow our will, therefore making us responsible for our own path to most extents.</quote>

    Except that you can't demonstrate 'mind' or 'free will'. You can't explain a mechanism or derive a definition of what 'choice' is that isn't merely processing of previously derived information against experience and a natural (i.e. inherited) state.

    <quote>Correct, but if the many decisions of non-clockwork free will have not even come into the mind of the person or been made, then there is nothing to see, they do not exist anywhere to see them until they are created in the mind of the one who is going to carry them out.</quote>

    Which, of itself, is true. However, that means that God, therefore, is not omniscient. Personally I don't buy the 'free will' claim, but this thread is based on the premise that you can either have free will or omniscience, but not both - here you are deducing from free will that God cannot know everything.

    <quote>Let me get this straight, are you actually saying you think there is another physical world, in fact, endless gazillions of them, with this world in one nano-second further on, and so on, for eternity and God (or some psychic) just has to peek into that other world, to then come back to this one, and say "I know X will happen at X date because I saw it in N galaxy trans-dimension XXXXXX, and it was "just so"? </quote>

    No. I'm saying that time is a dimension, just as the three mutually perpendicular spacial dimensions are, and the fact that our perception is insufficient to see accurately into it is irrelevant to its existence. There are not multiple universes each fractionally separated in time, there is a single universe which exists in (at least) four dimensions, in its entirety.

    I didn't mention your links - they were from Dr Craig who is a theologist, and when I want commentary on cosmology and dimensional physics I review the work of physicists.

    <quote>If a person is full of bitterness and hate towards an idea or Christ/God, then they often lose the ability to thinking straight and see the errors in their own arguments.</quote>

    I am neither bitter nor hateful - I fear what religion represents in the world. My ability to think straight was demonstrated in the other thread where the commentary offered by third parties suggested that I was being patient and you were being irrational.

    <quote>this was demonstrated empirically by your increasingly offensive Christ hating and belligerent remarks which revealed what was really going on in your mind behind the scenes</quote>

    Now who's 'projecting your own mind onto others'?

    <quote>Christians do not see the bible as "myths", or Jesus as some "mythical person".</quote.

    Biblical literalists see the bible as a literal depiction of reality. The remainder of Christianity sees the bible as a work intending to convey the meaning, spirit and intentions of their deity in stories with more or less basis in truth - that's a mythology. If you don't like the term, I suggest you look inside and find out why, perhaps you think that invalidates the lessons somehow, I don't know.

    <quote>So do you think using propaganda is good?</quote>

    No, I reject the concept that the phrase 'evolution-denier' is propoganda at all.

    <quote>By-the-way, he did not counter argue any of my points, so they all stand uncontested for the record</quote>

    So I didn't rise to your baiting... that proves a level of self-control not in keeping with your depiction of me as hateful and irrational, don't you think?

    <quote>Now, back to THIS thread</quote>

    Oh, there's a new thread...? That must be why you 'left' the old one (but brought half of it here with you... because of my bitterness, yes?)

    <quote>YOU posited God and his omniscience, so we have God for the sake of argument, so he is the reason, he is not a machine, so has freedom.</quote>

    Justification, please, for the assumption that God has freedom.

    <quote>You brought Christian into this too, so to take theology in, man is made in God's image with some basic freedoms, and moral freedoms is one of them.</quote.

    Yes, I raised the point - the point being that the two are mutually incompatible. Restating the Christian claims doesn't actually make a point.

    <quote>Now, if you are going to be honest, then you have by default to accept the basic points that God is not a machine, and so man is not either, as man's mind is spiritual, as well as emotional, cognitive and brain linked and related biblically</quote>

    Why do I have to accept that? I don't accept that there is a God, or that he's omniscient. I am claiming (and you appear to be supporting the idea) that Christians believe God is omniscient. Similarly, Christians believe that humans have free will.

    Regardless of the mechanisms by which free will comes about, those two ideas are incompatible. The free will argument - whether humans have it or not - is a separate but linked issue which has sprung up in parallel fashion on the thread: feel free to address it or not as you choose.

    <quote><quote>Instead we call it a 'faith' position, but it's a baseless assertion. </quote>A bit like most of your posts then</quote>

    Is that one of the bits of detail that the devil is in?

    <quote>My stomach may tell me to go and eat, but I can say, 'shut up, I will eat at 7pm'</quote>

    And what experience are you using to make that decision? On what are you basing the conclusion that you should wait until 7pm to eat?

    <quote>Why is it empty? You brought God up, and he is not a machine, so if man is in his image, it's pretty basic logic to see man would have some freedoms that are not mechanistic or preordained.</quote>

    If man is truly made in God's image, and all we know about man suggests that he is in fact a biological machine, can we deduce that God therefore probably is as well?

    Either you need to reason from logic why God is not mechanistic, or you need to demonstrate that man isn't a machine, otherwise it's perfectly valid to assume that man, God or both are mechanistic - regardless of whether one was made in the image of the other, or vice versa.

    <quote>Another poster has pointed this out. I can do the same, did God know what I had for breakfast in the year 1734BC? If God says, "no", then does that mean he is not omniscience?</quote>

    But you are contrasting a logically impossible situation - you interacting with a point in space-time that you do not occupy - with a possible situation that you merely are not aware of - a point in space time that you occupy but which, at this point in space-time, you are not aware of.

    <quote><quote>But you need to demonstrate that the concept of 'choice' has any real meaning </quote>Actually I don't but you do.</quote>

    I'm suggesting that the sense and concept of 'choosing' are facets of liimitations to our perception of time and are illusory. I, therefore, don't need to demonstrate that 'choice' has any real meaning, but if you are contesting the fact then you do.

    <quote>You need to (1) prove God is just a machine and (2) prove man is also a machine in God's image</quote>

    Not to demonstrate the point of the original thread I don't, I just need to demonstrate that time is already laid out - from there, choice is non-existent.

    For the idea of 'do we have free will' (which might answer the question "Given that God can't be omniscient if humanity has free will, which does exist?") I don't need to demonstrate anything about God, I just need to demonstrate that the concept of choice is meaningless. I think I've made a reasonable case for this, and I'm awaiting responses to it to see if I need to rethink it.

    <quote>(1) Can you show me this source of this "explicit" teaching on omniscience as you define it (down to infinite subatomic ends and results of all things, locations, positions and possibilities)?
    (2) How exactly is free moral agency "at odds" with omnipotence and omniscience?
    (3) You inserted a false dichotomy of true or false, one or the other, why?</quote>

    That's what this whole thread is about - read it.

    <quote>You falsely assume, all we do in advance exist and is knowable, this is a leading question fallacy</quote>

    Well, firstly, if it's an assumption it's not a question, and secondly there is no 'leading question' fallacy: leading question is legal term. I am, therefore, not really sure where you were going with that.

    <quote>If much of the future of free agents is not real or knowable, then God does not need to know it to be omniscient because there is nothing to know</quote>

    True. However, I think I've demonstrated that 'the future' - that part of space time to which our awareness is currently blind - is real, and therefore knowable to an omniscient being even if not to us.

    <quote>Secondly, our freedoms have nothing to do with God's choice to control or not. We can still have freedoms and God can still decide to override some of them if he so wills, none of this refutes our core free nature.</quote>

    If God chooses to 'overwrite' choices then it can't be free will, surely? To be fair I don't know of anyone that actually suggests that, so it may be a purely hypothetical question, but still.

    <quote>That is an interesting evasive reply. If you are just a dumb animal (as most atheists seem to think) then why can't a God just put you down or turn you into a lampshade if he so wills? Why are you trying to run from your end?</quote>

    I think you'll find that the answer to that lies in the 'atheist' part... Morally I'd object because my mechanistic nature doesn't mean that I don't have the capacity to enjoy life whilst I'm here, and it's reasonable (given that we all appear to prefer pleasure) to try to maximise the enjoyment of all sentient creatures.

    <quote>You've gone all evasive again. Are you going to deal with the point on quantum physics or not?</quote>

    You keep avoiding the point on the ice-cream demonstration, why shouldn't I follow suit? The thing with quantum physics is that it's a little like the weather - at different levels of perspective it can be either predictable or chaotic. In the case of the weather, as we learnt more about it we realised it was entirely orderly, just incredibly complex. I don't see any reason why the quantum world should be any different: what appears random can have an underlying order of which we are not, yet, aware.

    <quote><quote>How? What is the nature of choice that man has that isn't merely the expression of his experience determining a course of action based on sensory impressions of the immediate moment?</quote>A self conscious mind higher than flesh and basic instincts</quote>

    "Higher than flesh"? What does that mean? How does it interact with the flesh to achieve choice, or to manifest choices in reality? What reason do you have to believe that such a thing exists?

    <quote>Because theology is about God if you were not aware, and the billions of Christians see the bible as their communication from God about him and his son, Jesus, and man's part in the grand scheme of things.</quote>

    I know that's what Theology is about - or, at least, about gods and their possible existence - but that doesn't establish why you think there is free will, it merely says which section of the library you go to for research on the topic.

    <quote>It's sad you cannot produce a sound logical counterargument on free will v. determinism</quote>

    I point out why time as a complete dimension means that omniscience is incompatible with free will, and your response is that I can't make a logical counterargument, free will and omniscience both exist because of theology...

    <quote>Do you really, really think all my words on this page are exactly preordained from millions of years ago, and they have to by default of physical fate be typed here, no matter what, just as they are, word for word, set in the structure of the universe since aeons ago? That would be more miraculous and improbable than a God creating the universe and all life.</quote>

    Preordained is a term with an implication of a conciousness behind it, which I don't think was a deliberate attempt on your part, I just want to avoid any confusion at a later time - I think they are the inevitable consequence of the start conditions of the universe, that the specific way in which the earliest particles were moving and the underlying forces of nature operate mean that the universe will play out as it must.

    If the exact same start conditions and laws were relaunched, then after the same exact period of time we two would be having this same discussion in this same fashion.

    I don't see, though, why it should be seen as somehow more improbable - it merely follows from the idea that the scientific laws that govern everything we can detect govern everything that we so far can't detect as well. Why is having everything in the universe behave as we think it does already seem more improbable to you than a spontaneously occuring complex intelligence choosing to make the universe for no explicable purpose?

    <quote>But that was not the point was it, so why are you evading again? The point was, God does not need to see the future to know one event. Like I do not need to read all books, to read one sentence in one book. You have ignored this.</quote>

    I haven't ignored this - you see the future as non-existent because you aren't aware of it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. The future exists, in its entirety, starting from just now, and continuing out of sight in both directions. We move through it in only one direction, and with very little control over the rate at which we do so, but it's there.

    <quote>But you assume it existed somewhere to know, what if it didn't?</quote>

    If it didn't then Einstein's theory of relativity wouldn't work. Two people, side-by-side at the same time, set off on journeys. One of them travels extremely quickly and one extremely slowly, and they reconvene when they have finished their journeys. The amount of time they have spent travelling is not the same - they have moved through time at different rates and to different extents: the future is not waiting for us all around a figurative corner, it is a dimension in which we can travel in a limited fashion.

    <quote>How do you know he knows it? If some information is just 'out there somewhere' and we or God choose not to look at it, then it's not already known, it's available but not yet known.</quote>

    It's what I deem omniscience to mean - to know everything. I can sort of see the justification for thinking God might not know the future, if you believe that the future somehow doesn't exist yet (see above) but to say that omniscience doesn't even mean that God knows everything from now but has access to a really good library (effectively) I think undermines the intent of the claim.

    <quote>Sounds like Star Trek. Can we have the real version now? Where is this fantasy future you dream about? And on what empirical basis do you claim it exists somewhere? I have to say I disagree with that totally, and it's contrary to much theology too.

    To be fair, though, physics has at least as much to say, if not more, on whether time is a dimension in the same sense as height and depth.

    <quote>I gave you an interesting take on this with that link, and if you'd listened to it, you would not be repeating the same fallacies. Please listen to it: "2009/12/22 God's Omniscience and the Kalam Argument "</quote>

    Craig starts from the assumption (1:30 - 1:50) that the future doesn't exist, which isn't in keeping with what we actually know about time.

    <quote><quote>But that's not omniscience </quote>It is if that is all there is to be known, don't you get that?</quote>

    I get that, I just don't think that it's all there is to be known.

    <quote>Say I am God, and I make a universe where many things are predictable and set, but some, like human free will has variables that I designed into it so as NOT to be fated, or predictable, but truly and genuinely free, then even I cannot predict them by the way I have designed them, because of the fact that they are not fated, so there is NOTHING to see until the person creates it in their OWN mind, it does not exist anywhere prior to this event, then once it's created I can see it and it's general path, but they are the master of its initial creation.</quote>

    This implies, as I read it, that God doesn't know the decisions people will make until after they've been made - again, I'd question how that qualifies as omniscience?

    <quote>if something is designed to be non-clockwork, then so it will be.</quote>

    But can it be? Is there a mechanism for choice? I know that's a different debate, but it seems inextricably interlinked.

    <quote>There is no empirical, logical or rational evidence to show all possible futures exist somewhere else. Why would they, and where is the empirical evidence? Who made them? There is none scientifically, and non theologically.</quote>

    Theologically I wouldn't feel qualified to comment on, but scientifically yes there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that time exists as a dimension: relativistic effects of both speed and gravity - with experimental results - show that time is a dimensional consideration.

    <quote>I am not just memories, or past, I am now, I have a conscious self awareness that no animal has, and one that can choose to do as he pleases with many situations, that is the prime difference.</quote>

    You were conceived with some inherent tendencies - some we all share as humans, some we don't, and we have those combinations in various degrees. They are innate, and we don't 'choose' them.

    From there, our senses take in information and we start to build up experience which shapes us, we update our own understanding and processing based on those experiences, and continue to do so throughout life. That we are aware of part of that process as it happens doesn't change the fact that it's happening. You say you can choose, but that choice is a calculation of chances of eliciting the desired response (those desires having been established by inherited tendencies coloured by experience) against the percieved obstacles (again, from experience) with the available talents and tools (experiences and sense of the outside world)... where is something in there that isn't experience colouring inheritance? Where does 'choice' come in, what's the mechanism for 'free will'?

    Certainly we can give different weights to different experiences, but the weightings we give it are determined by the mood we are in at the time we experience it, how it shapes up against other experiences... there is nothing else that contributes to the process.

    Even if there were some detached 'spirit' input from somewhere, regardless of the fact that we've not found any mechanism for it to affect thinking, what does it add to the decision? Either it takes information and processes it according to understanding (which is also based on experience) or it inserts a random element - in which case free will is not 'will' at all, but merely the expression of a random element in a complex system: chaos theory.

    <quote>You misunderstand the term "dimension" when time is being debated. It's not a place, it's just a term. All that is known to exist, exists as now, here and now, you seem to be posting the tenseless or B-Theory of time</quote>

    I don't think I'm misunderstanding - I think yourself and Dr Craig are misunderstanding the physics in question.

    <quote>Let me give you a simple illustration to show your error. Say I am psychic, and I know you will go and have a coffee in a coffee shop, and then I see you move your arm and knock your coffee on the floor and get embarrassed. All this is your free will in action. Just because have seen this, does not make it happen, or force you to do this. Remember, I have NOT told you any of this, so you are still functioning under your free will</quote>

    Ok, so you don't tell me, and tomorrow comes around: can I not go to the coffee shop? What then of your psychic premonition? Either you were wrong (which in itself isn't a problem) or you weren't psychic after all. Now if it were God, either he was wrong (and I assume you follow the classical Christian line that God is inerrant?) or God was not psychic - which means God cannot see the future.

    I appreciate that this has been part of your contention all along, but that future is there.

    <quote>Point two, if I tell you all this, then you can change the future, which also ironically proves it was not set or fated.</quote>

    If I change the future, what did you see? You saw something that wasn't real, that never existed... what are the implications for Omniscience in that?

    <quote>Wrong as my post above demonstrated</quote>

    You may feel that, but I disagree. Your arguments apppear to be predicated on the idea that the future is somehow not yet made, that it doesn't exist and that the past is spontaneously destroyed behind us; that isn't what the evidence suggests.

    O>

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.