God, Free-will, and the knowledge of God - Is his knowledge causation?

[Ajax]

Give me a philosopher who said "knowledge means no free-will".

I never meant that. Stop manipulating my words please.
I said if God knows the future, because he can see it happening now (as present), then he can not change what he sees and therefore does not have free will.
Admit that you don't know if God is omniscient and the problem is solved, or give me clear evidence of his omniscience.

 

[firedragon]

The problem lies with the definition of "determined", and its consequences.

Hmm. Absolutely true.

 

[firedragon]

I never meant that. Stop manipulating my words please.

I never said you said that. So mate, it is you who should stop manipulating anyone's words.

I said if God knows the future

Yeah. That's not the definition determinism. That does not mean there is no free will. one could repeat this a million times.

Admit that you don't know if God is omniscient and the problem is solved, or give me clear evidence of his omniscience.

Irrelevant.

 

[Ajax]

I never said you said that. So mate, it is you who should stop manipulating anyone's words.

So, if I didn't say that, then your question about philosophers' sayings that "knowledge means no free-will" is irrelevant and I treat it as such.

Yeah. That's not the definition determinism. That does not mean there is no free will. one could repeat this a million times.

I don't care how many times it can be repeated. The fact remains that if God can see the future, he can not change what he sees and therefore he has no free will. Period.
Unless you admit that all this about God's omniscience is a fabricated ideology.

 

[firedragon]

So, if I didn't say that, then your question about philosophers' sayings that "knowledge means no free-will" is irrelevant and I treat it as such.

Not at all. At least with that question you might do some research with some true to life well trained philosophers. Not some dogmatic preacher on the internet with no logic in mind.

The fact remains that if God can see the future

Absolutely absurd.

But at this juncture, it's useless to continue discussion with someone who is unwilling to do a little bit of research with a valid source.

I will give you an easy to access valid source.

Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And about free-will and determinism, you could read the militant atheist Daniel Dennet. As I remember the book is called Elbow Room. Excellent book. But that is of course if you are willing to put your time, which I doubt, since these Atheists will never in their life until they die agree with some absolutely illogical assertion you are making. But at least I should give you one or two philosophers just so that if there is a chance in a million, you might put your mind to do some actual reading on this. Also you could read some work by Peter van inwagen.

Pleasure. Now if you wish you could make your parting comment. Thanks for engaging.

 

[Trailblazer]

And I don't exist in the same realm as actors in a movie.

Which does not mean that God does not exist in a spiritual realm that is beyond this realm.
Of course that can never be proven so it is a matter of belief.

You just repeat your claims. Over and over again.
I disagree, I made my case and you aren't saying anything to convince me otherwise.

I am not trying to convince you. I am just presenting what I believe.

 

[Ajax]

Not at all. At least with that question you might do some research with some true to life well trained philosophers. Not some dogmatic preacher on the internet with no logic in mind.


Absolutely absurd.

But at this juncture, it's useless to continue discussion with someone who is unwilling to do a little bit of research with a valid source.

I will give you an easy to access valid source.

Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And about free-will and determinism, you could read the militant atheist Daniel Dennet. As I remember the book is called Elbow Room. Excellent book. But that is of course if you are willing to put your time, which I doubt, since these Atheists will never in their life until they die agree with some absolutely illogical assertion you are making. But at least I should give you one or two philosophers just so that if there is a chance in a million, you might put your mind to do some actual reading on this. Also you could read some work by Peter van inwagen.

Pleasure. Now if you wish you could make your parting comment. Thanks for engaging.

Your problem is that you believe in something that it's existence can not be proven (God), neither it's attributes can ever be understood (according to theologians) and your as well as most older philosophers' writings were based on the assumption that he exists. Plato was the first philosopher to mention soul, but he was wrong. So was Descartes. There is no such invisible, intangible, unfelt, undefined and vague thing named soul.
Despite recent findings to the contrary, I have no problem accepting free will, as long as you don't involve, someone's hypothetical omniscience.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The fact remains that if God can see the future, he can not change what he sees and therefore he has no free will..

That makes no sense .. G-d is ABLE to change what He wills .. and the future is determined by many things, including G-d's will, and ours.

The thing is, you just can't separate human perception from the topic.
i.e. seeing is believing, perhaps

 

[Trailblazer]

Then choices can't be free.

Just because there will be only one outcome, that does not mean that we were not free to make other choices before we made the choice we made, in which case the one outcome would have been different.

Case in point:

You get up in the morning and look in your closet for a shirt to wear.
There is a blue shirt and a red shirt in your closet.
You are free to choose to wear the red shirt or the blue shirt.
There will be one outcome, the red shirt or the blue shirt, but before you chose there were two possible outcomes, red or blue..
It is your choice between red and blue that determined the outcome.

 

[firedragon]

Your problem is that you believe in something that it's existence can not be proven (God), neither it's attributes can ever be understood (according to theologians) and your as well as most older philosophers' writings were based on the assumption that he exists. Plato was the first philosopher to mention soul, but he was wrong. So was Descartes. There is no such invisible, intangible, unfelt, undefined and vague thing named soul.
Despite recent findings to the contrary, I have no problem accepting free will, as long as you don't involve, someone's hypothetical omniscience.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Just because there is only one possible outcome, that does not mean that the choices are not free.

It's not that there is only one possible outcome when it comes to us. We have a multitude of possible outcomes based on our choices. God is a transcended being. He knows what we are doing because our end is his present. For God, it has already passed.

The problem with these missionaries is that they anthropomorphize God. And they even ignore a mathematical conception of a 4D being as stipulated clearly in the OP. Can you see them ignoring it just for their missionary activities?

What I would like is for theists to understand the argument better and embrace it. I hope you understand.

Cheers.

 

[Trailblazer]

Only in a fully deterministic universe can the future be known.

Only in a fully deterministic universe can the future be known by humans, but God has perfect foreknowledge so the future can be known by God.

Simplistically stated: If I go to a restaurant which has 10 dishes to choose from, then there are 10 potential futures. The moment I decide which one to order and then order it, 9 of them are scrapped and 1 of them manifests in the present. And only then.

That's true, but notice that you said "The moment I decide which one to order". That indicates that you had a choice before you decided.

To have a fixed future would mean that those other 9 were already discarded before hand. Meaning it was already decided (by whatever processes) which decision I would make.

Why is the future fixed? Who fixed it?
Why was it already decided ? How was it decided? Who decided it? Why couldn't you have chosen one of the other 9 dishes?

 

[Copernicus]

Not at all. At least with that question you might do some research with some true to life well trained philosophers. Not some dogmatic preacher on the internet with no logic in mind.

Absolutely absurd.

But at this juncture, it's useless to continue discussion with someone who is unwilling to do a little bit of research with a valid source.

I will give you an easy to access valid source.

Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And about free-will and determinism, you could read the militant atheist Daniel Dennet. As I remember the book is called Elbow Room. Excellent book. But that is of course if you are willing to put your time, which I doubt, since these Atheists will never in their life until they die agree with some absolutely illogical assertion you are making. But at least I should give you one or two philosophers just so that if there is a chance in a million, you might put your mind to do some actual reading on this. Also you could read some work by Peter van inwagen.

Pleasure. Now if you wish you could make your parting comment. Thanks for engaging.

Your problem is that you believe in something that it's existence can not be proven (God), neither it's attributes can ever be understood (according to theologians) and your as well as most older philosophers' writings were based on the assumption that he exists. Plato was the first philosopher to mention soul, but he was wrong. So was Descartes. There is no such invisible, intangible, unfelt, undefined and vague thing named soul.
Despite recent findings to the contrary, I have no problem accepting free will, as long as you don't involve, someone's hypothetical omniscience.

I agree with Ajax on this. Dennett is a compatibilist. That is, he believes that free will can be defined in a way that is compatible with determinism. If people were omniscient and knew the future, then free will would indeed be impossible for humans, but they are not omniscient. So the future is indeterminate for humans when they make their choices in unobstructed fashion, other things being equal. They don't know for certain what the outcome of their choice will be, but they make their best guess. God would not have to guess, since omniscience guarantees knowledge of the future, making it determinate. Hence, God can only ever do what he knows he will do, and people can only ever do what God knows they will do. His future is uniquely determinate. Also, God has no power to change the future, since it is fixed in his mind.

 

[firedragon]

I agree with Ajax on this. Dennett is a compatibilist.

Obviously. Every tom, dick and harry knows that. No one said Dennett is a Muslim or a theist who believes in free-will. He is reconciling between determinism and free-will. And what are you agreeing with? Did this guy say Dennett is a compatibilist and I said "no"? He refuses to read anything. This is the problem with dogmatic missionaries. They tend to stick together blindly. Be objective.

He never says "Knowledge of God of the future defines determinism or no-free will". Read Dennett. He is speaking about humans and how free-will is defined. Absolutely opposite to your tribal friend you are trying to defend for no reason.

God would not have to guess

I think you should read the OP.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not that there is only one possible outcome when it comes to us. We have a multitude of possible outcomes based on our choices. God is a transcended being. He knows what we are doing because our end is his present. For God, it has already passed.

I do understand. When I said that there is only one possible outcome I meant that there will be only one outcome, but before that outcome there were other possible outcomes depending upon what choices we made.

Since God is all-knowing and has perfect foreknowledge, God knows the choices we are faced with and what we will choose.

I think I need to edit my post to say: Just because there will be only one outcome, that does not mean that we were not free to make other choices before we made the choice we made, in which case the one outcome would have been different.

 

[firedragon]

I do understand. When I said that there is only one possible outcome I meant that there will be only one outcome, but before that outcome there were other possible outcomes depending upon what choices we made.

That's absolutely correct. Just that, I am humbly requesting you to add the caveat.

Since God is all-knowing and has perfect foreknowledge, God knows the choices we are faced with and what we will choose.

That's not truly correct. It's not that God has foreknowledge. He has ultimate knowledge. Foreknowledge is human subjective terms. Foreknowledge means someone knows the future. God has no future. Our future is not God's future. God transcends time. God is not with us at our current time. God has seen our future already because he transcends time.

Just like the OP explains. It's even possible in the abstract mathematical concept. I just posited it thinking it will be easy for people to understand the concept. But it seems like people are not interested.

We are absolutely free to make our choices. The future is not determined hard. The future for us, is the present for God.

Peace.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's not truly correct. It's not that God has foreknowledge. He has ultimate knowledge. Foreknowledge is human subjective terms. Foreknowledge means someone knows the future. God has no future. Our future is not God's future. God transcends time. God is not with us at our current time. God has seen our future already because he transcends time.

Yes, that is correct.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, that is correct.

Don't misunderstand me. I didn't mean any disrespect. Salamun Alaika.

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't misunderstand me. I didn't mean any disrespect. Salamun Alaika.

Yes, I know that.

 

[Copernicus]

Obviously. Every tom, dick and harry knows that. No one said Dennett is a Muslim or a theist who believes in free-will. He is reconciling between determinism and free-will. And what are you agreeing with? Did this guy say Dennett is a compatibilist and I said "no"? He refuses to read anything. This is the problem with dogmatic missionaries. They tend to stick together blindly. Be objective.

I was agreeing with the impossibility of an omniscient God having free will, since God would know all his own future actions. He would never be able to do anything other than what he already knew he would do. Additionally, omniscience is incompatible with omnipotence, because God would be incapable of changing his own future actions without losing omniscience. OTOH, you may have some version of God in mind that doesn't know its own future. Believers are nothing if not flexible in the properties they attribute to their deities.

As for compatibilism, it is defined as will that achieves the agent's desires, needs, and goals in a way that the agent feels is unobstructed or not unduly obstructed. God would not have the option, since omniscience precludes not knowing the future.

He never says "Knowledge of God of the future defines determinism or no-free will". Read Dennett. He is speaking about humans and how free-will is defined. Absolutely opposite to your tribal friend you are trying to defend for no reason.

I have read Dennett, and I think I understand him a lot better than you do. As for Atlas, he can speak for himself. I just felt that the post I responded to was pretty good. I doubt that we agree on everything. Sorry if I sided with your tribal enemy, but this is a debate forum.

I think you should read the OP.

I did. It wasn't totally coherent. Nobody argues that God's omniscience is equivalent to saying that knowledge is causation, but that's your straw man caricature of people you wish to argue against.