By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Why do some believe these characteristics of a Creator?

dsgrue3 on 01 February 2013
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:

I don't know the answer to this question, I have beliefs and theories, but I just don't know. What else do you want? Your goal is just to get me to acknowledge an absolute that I don't even claim to know or understand so you can prove to me I'm wrong for even believing in God. Why are you so obsessed with that?

You should know the answer and that is my point. If there exists an omniscient being, then by definition all outcomes are known - otherwise there are unknowns and that violates the notion of omniscience (ALL-knowing).

I'm not attempting to disprove God (That's absurd. And for the record, I take no issue in the belief of a God). I am attempting to show you that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive principles. 

I've also made the point of active (influencing a decision) vs. passive (knowing the decision), and how this does not negate free will. Along with the time and perspective examples, I've alse said that knowing is not the same as influencing, so your conclusion is overly simplistic in my opinion. I'll post an argument along those lines (I'm about to leave the office and don't have time to write an essay right now)...

Your argument is as follows...

  1. A being with free will, given two options A and B, can freely choose between A and B.
  2. God is omniscient (all-knowing).
  3. God knows I will choose A.
  4. God cannot be wrong, since an omniscient being cannot have false knowledge.
  5. From 3 and 4, I will choose A and cannot choose B.
  6. From 1 and 5, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist.

 

"Premises 1 and 2 in your outline above are the main premises to the argument and are not disputed. The Christian worldview argues that every human being is a free moral agent and is capable of making choices simply by exercising their will, not under compulsion or because of instinct. Also, it is a long held doctrine of Christianity that God is all-knowing. The Bible says that God knows "the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10)." For omniscience to be truly knowledgeable it must be correct knowledge, so premise number 4 is also granted.

However, point number 5 is where the logic falters. Those who argue in this manner make the mistake of thinking that because God possesses knowledge about a specific matter, then he has influenced it. That does not follow at all. Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn't still freely choose the other option.

Let me give you an example. I have a five year old son. If I were to leave a chocolate chip cookie on the table about a hour before dinner time and my son was to walk by and see it, I know that he would pick up the cookie and eat it. I did not force him to make that decision. In fact, I don't even have to be in the room at all. I think I know my son well enough, though, to tell you that if I come back into the kitchen the cookie will be gone. His act was made completely free of my influence, but I knew what his actions would be.

In examining the argument, the assumption is made in premise 3 that because God knows I will choose A somehow denies me the choice of B. That is the premise that Christianity rejects. Omniscience and free will are not incompatible and it is a non-sequitor to claim otherwise."

( http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi038.asp#ixzz2Jg49NDxa )



Below is an interesting resource that includes what you're talking about (fatalism), as well as some proposed compatibilist explanations/solutions to this issue by various philosophers.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/#2.1 

There are many different philosophical discussions and arguments on this on both sides. You seem to think yours is the only one with any points. The depth of the material in the above link will go to show you that, like I said, this topic as a whole is a lot deeper than your simplistic conclusion.

Nope, I have not once said an omniscient being influences your decisions. 

From 1-4 we can logically deduce 5 from your example. You have proven it, then attempted to call the logic faulty. The only way for faulty logic to occur is with false premises. None of those premises are false (or at least you did not address them, even admitted 1,2, and 4.) So it 3 false? Because 1, 2, and 4 are not false.

Slight Modifications:

1. Let W represent a human with free will. 

2. Let G represent an omniscient being.

3. Let C represent a function of choice.

4. W implies C(A,B). 

5. G implies C(A,B) = B. 

6. W implies B by (5).

I have shown that given 1-5, 6 is true. 

You choice is not influenced by an omniscient being, but it is known by him - determinism. Can determinism and free will coexist? Absolutely not.

Simply: God sees a deterministic path which is unalterable. He sees outcome, direction, predetermination. 

               You see a choice.

Free Will from the perspective of Omniscience is violated. Free Will from the perspective of a human is not violated.

In your example of linear time, God does not have to know the future with certainty to be omniscient, since the future does not exist yet (and omniscience is complete knowledge of what IS).

Basically, with the axiom of a non-linear view of time, there are ways around this paradox. With the axiom of God haveing a linear view of time (as you propose), he does not have to know the future to be omniscient, since the future doesn't exist yet (omniscience is the complete knowledge of what is, so does not necessarily include the future if the view of time is linear).

EDIT: You're confusing Anterograde Omniscience (theoretical knowledge of the future) with the overall concept of Omniscience (the complete knowledge of what is). The concept of omniscience also includes discussions of Inherent Omniscience (the CAPACITY to know everything that can be known), or total omniscience (the actual knowledge of everything that can be known), but does not have to include Anterograde Omniscience by definition. Also, to define omniscience you would then have to specify what can be known. With a linear view of time, it could be argued the future cannot be known since it does not exist, which is why there is active debate as to whether the bible describes Anterograde omniscience or not. Many who believe in or argue for Anterograde Omniscience go into the discussion of the perspective of time and how that could result in God knowing the future, as well as whether or not that would negate choice (as you said above, it could appear to negate choice from one perspective, but not another).

...

Omniscience = all-knowing, past, present, future. I'm not confusing anything, you are.

Time is irrelevant for the 500th time. All that need be known is determinism (devoid of time) simply choice (devoid of time).

I guess you missed these points, which is why I've repeated them several times. You're now incredibly annoying. I'm not repeating myself again.

If you cannot understand how these terms are mutually exclusive, which I have proven and you have proven through logical axioms then I care not to indulge in further discussion.



Around the Network
timmah on 01 February 2013
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:

I don't know the answer to this question, I have beliefs and theories, but I just don't know. What else do you want? Your goal is just to get me to acknowledge an absolute that I don't even claim to know or understand so you can prove to me I'm wrong for even believing in God. Why are you so obsessed with that?

You should know the answer and that is my point. If there exists an omniscient being, then by definition all outcomes are known - otherwise there are unknowns and that violates the notion of omniscience (ALL-knowing).

I'm not attempting to disprove God (That's absurd. And for the record, I take no issue in the belief of a God). I am attempting to show you that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive principles. 

I've also made the point of active (influencing a decision) vs. passive (knowing the decision), and how this does not negate free will. Along with the time and perspective examples, I've alse said that knowing is not the same as influencing, so your conclusion is overly simplistic in my opinion. I'll post an argument along those lines (I'm about to leave the office and don't have time to write an essay right now)...

Your argument is as follows...

  1. A being with free will, given two options A and B, can freely choose between A and B.
  2. God is omniscient (all-knowing).
  3. God knows I will choose A.
  4. God cannot be wrong, since an omniscient being cannot have false knowledge.
  5. From 3 and 4, I will choose A and cannot choose B.
  6. From 1 and 5, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist.

 

"Premises 1 and 2 in your outline above are the main premises to the argument and are not disputed. The Christian worldview argues that every human being is a free moral agent and is capable of making choices simply by exercising their will, not under compulsion or because of instinct. Also, it is a long held doctrine of Christianity that God is all-knowing. The Bible says that God knows "the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10)." For omniscience to be truly knowledgeable it must be correct knowledge, so premise number 4 is also granted.

However, point number 5 is where the logic falters. Those who argue in this manner make the mistake of thinking that because God possesses knowledge about a specific matter, then he has influenced it. That does not follow at all. Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn't still freely choose the other option.

Let me give you an example. I have a five year old son. If I were to leave a chocolate chip cookie on the table about a hour before dinner time and my son was to walk by and see it, I know that he would pick up the cookie and eat it. I did not force him to make that decision. In fact, I don't even have to be in the room at all. I think I know my son well enough, though, to tell you that if I come back into the kitchen the cookie will be gone. His act was made completely free of my influence, but I knew what his actions would be.

In examining the argument, the assumption is made in premise 3 that because God knows I will choose A somehow denies me the choice of B. That is the premise that Christianity rejects. Omniscience and free will are not incompatible and it is a non-sequitor to claim otherwise."

( http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi038.asp#ixzz2Jg49NDxa )



Below is an interesting resource that includes what you're talking about (fatalism), as well as some proposed compatibilist explanations/solutions to this issue by various philosophers.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/#2.1 

There are many different philosophical discussions and arguments on this on both sides. You seem to think yours is the only one with any points. The depth of the material in the above link will go to show you that, like I said, this topic as a whole is a lot deeper than your simplistic conclusion.

Nope, I have not once said an omniscient being influences your decisions. 

From 1-4 we can logically deduce 5 from your example. You have proven it, then attempted to call the logic faulty. The only way for faulty logic to occur is with false premises. None of those premises are false (or at least you did not address them, even admitted 1,2, and 4.) So it 3 false? Because 1, 2, and 4 are not false.

Slight Modifications:

1. Let W represent a human with free will. 

2. Let G represent an omniscient being.

3. Let C represent a function of choice.

4. W implies C(A,B). 

5. G implies C(A,B) = B. 

6. W implies B by (5).

I have shown that given 1-5, 6 is true. 

You choice is not influenced by an omniscient being, but it is known by him - determinism. Can determinism and free will coexist? Absolutely not.

Simply: God sees a deterministic path which is unalterable. He sees outcome, direction, predetermination. 

               You see a choice.

Free Will from the perspective of Omniscience is violated. Free Will from the perspective of a human is not violated.

In your example of linear time, God does not have to know the future with certainty to be omniscient, since the future does not exist yet (and omniscience is complete knowledge of what IS).

Basically, with the axiom of a non-linear view of time, there are ways around this paradox. With the axiom of God haveing a linear view of time (as you propose), he does not have to know the future to be omniscient, since the future doesn't exist yet (omniscience is the complete knowledge of what is, so does not necessarily include the future if the view of time is linear).

EDIT: You're confusing Anterograde Omniscience (theoretical knowledge of the future) with the overall concept of Omniscience (the complete knowledge of what is). The concept of omniscience also includes discussions of Inherent Omniscience (the CAPACITY to know everything that can be known), or total omniscience (the actual knowledge of everything that can be known), but does not have to include Anterograde Omniscience by definition. Also, to define omniscience you would then have to specify what can be known. With a linear view of time, it could be argued the future cannot be known since it does not exist, which is why there is active debate as to whether the bible describes Anterograde omniscience or not. Many who believe in or argue for Anterograde Omniscience go into the discussion of the perspective of time and how that could result in God knowing the future, as well as whether or not that would negate choice (as you said above, it could appear to negate choice from one perspective, but not another).

...

Omniscience = all-knowing, past, present, future. I'm not confusing anything, you are.

Time is irrelevant for the 500th time. All that need be known is determinism (devoid of time) simply choice (devoid of time).

I guess you missed these points, which is why I've repeated them several times. You're now incredibly annoying. I'm not repeating myself again.

If you cannot understand how these terms are mutually exclusive, which I have proven and you have proven through logical axioms then I care not to indulge in further discussion.

You're wrong. There are multiple beliefs on omniscience, not all of them include future http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

Omniscience does not by definition have to include Anterograde omniscience (future). Also, the subject of time/perspective CAN BE part of the philophical discussion. You're taking an incredibly deep and nuanced discussion and whittling it down to one overly simplistic statement. As somebody who has actually read on and done some studying on this subject, I can tell you have not done your own due dilligence.



dsgrue3 on 01 February 2013
timmah said:

You're wrong. There are multiple beliefs on omniscience, not all of them include future http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

Omniscience does not by definition have to include Anterograde omniscience (future). Also, the subject of time/perspective CAN BE part of the philophical discussion. You're taking an incredibly deep and nuanced discussion and whittling it down to one overly simplistic statement. As somebody who has actually read on and done some studying on this subject, I can tell you have not done your own due dilligence.

Cool if you want to retard omniscience like you keep retarding god, go ahead. But future knowledge is no different than current or past knowledge given all variables and constraints at a given moment. As you said, God is out of time, can jump in at any place and analyze. I don't need to do any research, you've yet to acknowledge the simple truth that they are mutually exclusive given the accepted definitions for both.

If you want to deal with a retarded defintion of omniscience and a retarded god, then go away. (Note: Retard as in the transitive verb)



Chrizum on 01 February 2013

dsgrue you have an extremely childish and limited method of debating, you are only wasting your own time with this ridicilous tirade. And this is said by a deterministic atheist who believes free will is an illusion.



timmah on 01 February 2013
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:

You're wrong. There are multiple beliefs on omniscience, not all of them include future http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

Omniscience does not by definition have to include Anterograde omniscience (future). Also, the subject of time/perspective CAN BE part of the philophical discussion. You're taking an incredibly deep and nuanced discussion and whittling it down to one overly simplistic statement. As somebody who has actually read on and done some studying on this subject, I can tell you have not done your own due dilligence.

Cool if you want to retard omniscience like you keep retarding god, go ahead. But future knowledge is no different than current or past knowledge given all variables and constraints at a given moment. As you said, God is out of time, can jump in at any place and analyze. I don't need to do any research, you've yet to acknowledge the simple truth that they are mutually exclusive given the accepted definitions for both.

If you want to deal with a retarded defintion of omniscience and a retarded god, then go away. (Note: Retard as in the transitive verb)

@BOLD, there lies the problem, and why this goes nowhere (you already know the only true answer to every question you pose, and that's it).

The Bible is very clear that we are free, and we are responsible for our actions. I don't believe in predetermination due to this. The question is, what does God know, and how? I've postulated a scenario where He may be able to appear to foreknow events if He views time differently than us, while possibly leaving choice intact (again, theory). I've also stated that if Time is fixed to Him as you suggest, then Omniscience would not have to include certain knowledge of the future (not 'retarding' the definition at all if you actually bothered to read the link I posted). Omnisciense as a concept can include discussions of (as I stated) inherent vs total omniscience, and whether to include Anterograde omniscience (future). I'm not retarding anything by stating that.

You keep saying time is irrelevant even though the concept of time and timelessness is a core part of many philosophical and theological theories & discussions on the topic. You clearly know your side of this topic and nothing else.



Around the Network
WereKitten on 03 February 2013
timmah said:
...

@BOLD, there lies the problem, and why this goes nowhere (you already know the only true answer to every question you pose, and that's it).

The Bible is very clear that we are free, and we are responsible for our actions. I don't believe in predetermination due to this. The question is, what does God know, and how? I've postulated a scenario where He may be able to appear to foreknow events if He views time differently than us, while possibly leaving choice intact (again, theory). I've also stated that if Time is fixed to Him as you suggest, then Omniscience would not have to include certain knowledge of the future (not 'retarding' the definition at all if you actually bothered to read the link I posted). Omnisciense as a concept can include discussions of (as I stated) inherent vs total omniscience, and whether to include Anterograde omniscience (future). I'm not retarding anything by stating that.

You keep saying time is irrelevant even though the concept of time and timelessness is a core part of many philosophical and theological theories & discussions on the topic. You clearly know your side of this topic and nothing else.

From an ethical point of view, what would be the difference between "real" free will and agents in a deterministic world that merely thought they had free will?

Let's say I have a lot of money and time and knowledge and I build the matrix and start it. Simulated conscious agents in that simulation act deterministically from my point of view, but make "free" ethical choices in their limited universe. In their universe they can help charity institutions or commit genocide. As such I can tag them as "good" or "evil" in the matrix sense according to a predefined ethical standard I stipulated.

So if everything I care about is such standard, tagging them is possible. And actually, even in a purely material, deterministic world this might be the only definition of ethical choices that makes sense from inside.

The point is that nobody ever experienced free will in its widest sense, and according to physics as we know it there is no such thing. So we must live with what we have: an impression of free will and an ethic system that works on similar, partially unknown states of the universe.



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

dsgrue3 on 04 February 2013
timmah said:

@BOLD, there lies the problem, and why this goes nowhere (you already know the only true answer to every question you pose, and that's it).

The Bible is very clear that we are free, and we are responsible for our actions. I don't believe in predetermination due to this. The question is, what does God know, and how? I've postulated a scenario where He may be able to appear to foreknow events if He views time differently than us, while possibly leaving choice intact (again, theory). I've also stated that if Time is fixed to Him as you suggest, then Omniscience would not have to include certain knowledge of the future (not 'retarding' the definition at all if you actually bothered to read the link I posted). Omnisciense as a concept can include discussions of (as I stated) inherent vs total omniscience, and whether to include Anterograde omniscience (future). I'm not retarding anything by stating that.

You keep saying time is irrelevant even though the concept of time and timelessness is a core part of many philosophical and theological theories & discussions on the topic. You clearly know your side of this topic and nothing else.

This isn't about the Bible. This is about omniscience - all-knowing. Note: all. Omniscience in its purest form is devoid of time, everything is known at every time. That's the definition that I've been using, not the gimped version you keep using. I really don't care to debate gimped versions of definitions subject to ambiguity or interpretation. If you refuse to accept this definition, then we have nothing to discuss. 

Chrizum said:
dsgrue you have an extremely childish and limited method of debating, you are only wasting your own time with this ridicilous tirade. And this is said by a deterministic atheist who believes free will is an illusion.

 

Nice input, slick. If you aren't going to discuss the topic, go away or I'll report you.

 



Chrizum on 04 February 2013
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:

@BOLD, there lies the problem, and why this goes nowhere (you already know the only true answer to every question you pose, and that's it).

The Bible is very clear that we are free, and we are responsible for our actions. I don't believe in predetermination due to this. The question is, what does God know, and how? I've postulated a scenario where He may be able to appear to foreknow events if He views time differently than us, while possibly leaving choice intact (again, theory). I've also stated that if Time is fixed to Him as you suggest, then Omniscience would not have to include certain knowledge of the future (not 'retarding' the definition at all if you actually bothered to read the link I posted). Omnisciense as a concept can include discussions of (as I stated) inherent vs total omniscience, and whether to include Anterograde omniscience (future). I'm not retarding anything by stating that.

You keep saying time is irrelevant even though the concept of time and timelessness is a core part of many philosophical and theological theories & discussions on the topic. You clearly know your side of this topic and nothing else.

This isn't about the Bible. This is about omniscience - all-knowing. Note: all. Omniscience in its purest form is devoid of time, everything is known at every time. That's the definition that I've been using, not the gimped version you keep using. I really don't care to debate gimped versions of definitions subject to ambiguity or interpretation. If you refuse to accept this definition, then we have nothing to discuss. 

Chrizum said:
dsgrue you have an extremely childish and limited method of debating, you are only wasting your own time with this ridicilous tirade. And this is said by a deterministic atheist who believes free will is an illusion.

 

Nice input, slick. If you aren't going to discuss the topic, go away or I'll report you.

 

Report me all you want, you're the one with the extremely degrading tone, not me. I'm done discussing this and so should you because this is going nowhere.