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

Forums - General Discussion - Mind-blow: Our choices are not pre-determined, but God knows

 

Did you find this enlightening?

Yes 13 20.63%
 
No 50 79.37%
 
Total:63
happydolphin on 08 August 2013
ArnoldRimmer said:
happydolphin said:

He can have foreknowledge without establishing the course, but just by knowing. The biblical example I gave was if he was unbound by time, which happens to be the only logical explanation of him knowing without predicting it.

Matter of fact, since we have free will, it is impossible to predict our actions in advance. Simply put.

Many neuroscientists will disagree on this.

Or they would at least point out that there is not one single notion of "free will". Just like "god", the concept of "free will" is much more vague than most people realize.

I'm not much of a scientist but I heard that quantum physicists may actually agree. I don't know anything about quantum physics, but this is what I was told. I don't have a source, but much like you did in your last post, a link would help.



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 08 August 2013
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:

You are misunderstanding what foreknowledge is. Foreknowledge isn't going to time t to witness a particular decision then moving back to a time prior to t to wait for it. It's knowing before witnessing the decision.

You have not made any decisions at time 0, but an omniscient being already knows every outcome. <- this is foreknowledge.

I believe we're both correct, my mistake. Foreknowledge is a word that simply means to known in advance. Whether the actions can be predetermined (your scenario) or not (the one I presented), in both cases the being has foreknowledge.

The question remains, how is it possible for something that can't be predetermined be foreknown? Simply by virtue of being unbound by time. If I know something before it happened, because I was also there when it happened, then I have foreknowledge.

@prof. Not really. Think about it.

You keep making these logically incongruous statements like foreknowledge without predeterminism.  These go hand in hand. One does not exist without the other. What is even more baffling is when you say "unbound by time." If there is no time, the terms foreknowledge and predeterminism have no meaning at all as they are temporally linked. There is no "before" if there is no time. 

@Free Will when concerning neuroscience, studies show that the subconscious controls everything. It simply relays the decision to our conscious to be performed. So if you consider sleep-walking, a subconscious act, you realize that free will cannot exist. Unless you consider sleep-walking a choice. 



appolose on 08 August 2013
dsgrue3 said:

Not a very solid foundation you're on. You're basically saying since he has one option to view decisions in a non-temporal manner, that negates his ability to view them in one. An omniscient being would view them in every manner; as such, the temporal view is certainly subject to the same logical statements I've presented.

Simple example:

Milk or OJ <-- your illusion of choice, the ominscient being already knows you've chosen one of them. You cannot choose a different one than is already known. 

I think this example illustrates the flaw in thinking that foreknowledge necessarily make predeterminism.  The argument runs like this:

I could either have milk or orange juice.

I am going to choose milk.

God knows this is and is never wrong

Therefore, I have no choice but to have the milk.

However, if you take the line about God out:

I could either have milk or orange juice.

I am going to choose milk.

Therefore, I have no choice but to have the milk.

It comes to the same conclusion.  The reason youre going to choose the milk is not because God knows it, but because the argument already states that you are going to choose it (see line 2 in either argument).  The choice creates the foreknowledge, not the other way around.  For example, suppose you created a computer that could predict the weather with 100% accuracy.  Even though it's never wrong, you would know the computer isn't controlling the weather.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Mensrea on 08 August 2013
happydolphin said:

That's the thing.

1. He knows all the characteristics about us, but it doesn't mean he can predict our choices. If the bible is cohesive, then it stands true that we actually have unpredictable free will, no matter how much God knows about us, he couldn't predict our actions.

2. He knows because he was there, not because he predicted it.

It's not "Just God lols", it's a set of either-ors. You can't say we have free will and say that God predicted our actions, that's pure bs. So that's the kind of thought process that needs to be used, not "it's God lols".


I know it's pure BS, that's what I'm saying. I myself don't believe in God, and this specific question is a big part of what led me away. You can't just pick and choose things about God in the bible so you can make it work, and you can't just say God is above rules.  God is supposed to know everything past present and future, so when he made us he knew that he made some of us to fail. I don't know how saying that "he was there" changes any of that. Based on the bible, predestination is unavoidable. 




dsgrue3 on 08 August 2013
appolose said:
dsgrue3 said:

Not a very solid foundation you're on. You're basically saying since he has one option to view decisions in a non-temporal manner, that negates his ability to view them in one. An omniscient being would view them in every manner; as such, the temporal view is certainly subject to the same logical statements I've presented.

Simple example:

Milk or OJ <-- your illusion of choice, the ominscient being already knows you've chosen one of them. You cannot choose a different one than is already known. 

I think this example illustrates the flaw in thinking that foreknowledge necessarily make predeterminism.  The argument runs like this:

I could either have milk or orange juice.

I am going to choose milk.

God knows this is and is never wrong

Therefore, I have no choice but to have the milk.

However, if you take the line about God out:

I could either have milk or orange juice.

I am going to choose milk.

Therefore, I have no choice but to have the milk.

It comes to the same conclusion.  The reason youre going to choose the milk is not because God knows it, but because the argument already states that you are going to choose it (see line 2 in either argument).  The choice creates the foreknowledge, not the other way around.  For example, suppose you created a computer that could predict the weather with 100% accuracy.  Even though it's never wrong, you would know the computer isn't controlling the weather.

They are the same thing. If you have foreknowledge of the event, you have predetermined it - the path is known. This is determinism.

I agree with the logical argument otherwise. 



Around the Network
appolose on 08 August 2013
dsgrue3 said:
appolose said:
dsgrue3 said:

Not a very solid foundation you're on. You're basically saying since he has one option to view decisions in a non-temporal manner, that negates his ability to view them in one. An omniscient being would view them in every manner; as such, the temporal view is certainly subject to the same logical statements I've presented.

Simple example:

Milk or OJ <-- your illusion of choice, the ominscient being already knows you've chosen one of them. You cannot choose a different one than is already known. 

I think this example illustrates the flaw in thinking that foreknowledge necessarily make predeterminism.  The argument runs like this:

I could either have milk or orange juice.

I am going to choose milk.

God knows this is and is never wrong

Therefore, I have no choice but to have the milk.

However, if you take the line about God out:

I could either have milk or orange juice.

I am going to choose milk.

Therefore, I have no choice but to have the milk.

It comes to the same conclusion.  The reason youre going to choose the milk is not because God knows it, but because the argument already states that you are going to choose it (see line 2 in either argument).  The choice creates the foreknowledge, not the other way around.  For example, suppose you created a computer that could predict the weather with 100% accuracy.  Even though it's never wrong, you would know the computer isn't controlling the weather.

They are the same thing. If you have foreknowledge of the event, you have predetermined it - the path is known. This is determinism.

I agree with the logical argument otherwise. 

The foreknowledge does not cause it to happen.  You say the path is known, which implies there was already a path to know.  It exists independently of the foreknowledge.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
dsgrue3 on 08 August 2013
appolose said:

The foreknowledge does not cause it to happen.  You say the path is known, which implies there was already a path to know.  It exists independently of the foreknowledge.

Predeterminism does not imply cause - simply the determination as in knowledge or awareness. This is why the two are comparable. 

I wasn't attempting to say that foreknowledge/predeterminism influences the outcome (if that was unclear).



appolose on 08 August 2013
dsgrue3 said:
appolose said:

The foreknowledge does not cause it to happen.  You say the path is known, which implies there was already a path to know.  It exists independently of the foreknowledge.

Predeterminism does not imply cause - simply the determination as in knowledge or awareness. This is why the two are comparable. 

I wasn't attempting to say that foreknowledge/predeterminism influences the outcome (if that was unclear).


Ah, I see, I think.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
mysticwolf on 10 August 2013

If we have free will, then we can chose to have either cereal or oatmeal for breakfast. The idea is that while we may not know which we will choose, God already knows. However that doesn't mean we have any less free will. He doesn't force us to choose cereal or oatmeal, but he just knows which we will choose.

 

Though I also agree that if we have free will, there is no determined path. However there are branches of possible outcomes. Like cause and effect. I think God watches us, and if we choose one path instead of the other, the list of possible outcomes shortens. Kind of like in the TV show Flashforward.



 Been away for a bit, but sneaking back in.

Gaming on: PS4, PC, 3DS. Got a Switch! Mainly to play Smash

Aielyn on 10 August 2013
happydolphin said:
 Your mind will be blown, but God's omniscience does not require logic: He is omniscient.

This is where you lose pretty much every atheist and agnostic. Logic isn't something that you can just "not require" when it's inconvenient. What you are effectively saying is "God doesn't make sense... but it's OK, because he doesn't have to".

Logic is how one converts facts into knowledge. It allows you to identify inconsistencies. It isn't just a theory, and it isn't restricted in its application.

What you are basically doing is poorly rationalising the fact that you have two beliefs that are inconsistent with each other, because if either one were false, it would topple your entire belief system. Stop and think about it - two of the foundations of your entire belief structure cannot possibly both be true simultaneously. This doesn't mean that most of your belief structure is wrong, it just means that you might need to reconsider your beliefs slightly to address the inconsistency.