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

[muhammad_isa]

It was a speculation, not a theory, because the speculative claim is not one that can be verified or falsified..

Lots of theories cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt .. such as the big-bang theory,
but nevertheless, they are widely accepted as being more than likely true.

Einstein's theories about time are widely accepted i.e. about its nature
One does not need to be a theist or atheist to understand the math behind it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which is why I think it better to not have any beliefs about God. I'd think it's most likely they'd be wrong.

Maybe better to believe that God exists but not have beliefs about God.
What drives me up a tree is when people insist thy know certain things about God that they really cannot know.

 

[Copernicus]

Lots of theories cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt .. such as the big-bang theory,
but nevertheless, they are widely accepted as being more than likely true.

Einstein's theories about time are widely accepted i.e. about its nature
One does not need to be a theist or atheist to understand the math behind it.

But that misses the point. The theories associated with the Big Bang are not as speculative, because they are based on actual observations and measurements. Stephen Hawking's speculations about multiple universes are not that well-grounded, hence not really "scientific". We should be more careful about treating everything a scientist says as some kind of established theory. Scientists are better informed than the rest of us about their subject matter, but that doesn't mean they are less prone to speculating.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But that misses the point..

Not really .. the topic is about the nature of time .. the mention of multiverse was an
example. The fact that many people have heard of it, and consider it credible would
only imply the example was a good one.

Again, we don't need to believe in G-d to understand the math behind space-time continuum ..
or multiverse.

 

[Copernicus]

Hawking was a cosmologist and physicist, so he was talking about large objects such as black holes and such. That's one concept of a multiverse based on different science from Everett's multiple reality hypothesis associated with quantum theory. They may be connected but they shouldn't be confused, because they are based on very different scales of observability.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They are all "fixed" .. but you assume that they are fixed by something other than our choices,
and you would be wrong.

They are fixed by actions, but the actions can't be "choices". Choice implies freedom and ability to choose between multiple options.
This freedom does not exist in that context. It's mutually exclusive.

You keep ignoring this.

 

[muhammad_isa]

They are fixed by actions, but the actions can't be "choices". Choice implies freedom and ability to choose between multiple options.
This freedom does not exist in that context. It's mutually exclusive.

Wrong again..
You are putting the cart before the horse. You are saying that because the future is fixed, then
we are forced to choose it. Wrong.

The future IS fixed, it's just that we don't know what it is.
Your perception tells you, that if it is known, then we HAVE to choose it .. but that is incorrect.
It is that we WILL choose it.

The past and the future are identical blocks. The moving 'now' is just a perception that confuses you.
The future is a fixed block, by definition. Yet your perception tells you it is not fixed, that it is an empty block.
..but an empty block is no future at all !!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wrong again..
You are putting the cart before the horse. You are saying that because the future is fixed, then
we are forced to choose it. Wrong.

The future IS fixed, it's just that we don't know what it is.

Knowing about it (or not), is of no consequence to the reality of it and its implications.

If the fixed future is that you WILL choose chicken, then how free are you to choose steak instead?

Your perception tells you, that if it is known, then we HAVE to choose it .. but that is incorrect.
It is that we WILL choose it.

I don't see the difference.
Yes, we WILL choose it. Unable and not free to choose differently.
So really, there is no choice. There is only a compulsion (enforced by whatever) masquerading as a choice.

The past and the future are identical blocks. The moving 'now' is just a perception that confuses you.
The future is a fixed block, by definition. Yet your perception tells you it is not fixed, that it is an empty block.
..but an empty block is no future at all !!!

You keep referring to this block universe. You keep ignoring that in that concept, free will doesn't exist.
You keep trying to have your cake and eat it also.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't see the difference.
Yes, we WILL choose it. Unable and not free to choose differently..

No
It is not that we were unable to .. if we had wanted to, we would have chosen something else.

You keep referring to this block universe. You keep ignoring that in that concept, free will doesn't exist.

Repeating that without explaining why achieves nothing.

I have explained to you that the future is a fixed block, just as the past is a fixed block..
Do you understand that?
Do you understand that an empty block represents nothing at all, and that the future
must indeed be a fixed block?

..so saying "a fixed block means no free-will" is absolutely wrong!

 

[firedragon]

Thanks. It looks like you copied that text from something you found on the internet, but you provide no source. The philosophical definition is fine with me, but bear in mind that not all philosophers believe it is incompatible with determinism. For example, see compatibilism. The "Secular Definition" is not really a definition of free will, since many, if not most, compatibilists are atheists. Compatibilists argue that incompatibilists such as libertarian free will advocates and hard determinists simply have an unusual concept of what people ordinarily mean by the expression free will. That is, compatibilists argue over how to define free will, not that determinism is wrong. There is no single "secular or atheistic" definition of free will. Your "secular definition" confuses determinism with incompatibilism.

You could have just asked for the sources. Not imagine it's a cut and paste from somewhere. See, you are not God to know.

Anyway, I will give you two sources. https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/free-will and Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I guess you think that we are mates, which is OK, I guess. I suppose it's an improvement over being called "dude" or "brother".

Please go ahead and complain to the Admins that people are calling you these things.

Cheers mate.

 

[firedragon]

If we had only determinism, we would be automatons.

Foremost Atheists say determinism is the only way to explain where we are going. E.g. Alex Rosenberg. Some Atheists like Daniel Dennett say it's a compabilist model. Which means determinism and free-will coexists and they explain it, and that model is similar to a lot of theist's views without any theism in it. Both of them are highly respected philosophers and hard atheists.

 

[firedragon]

Either that or some people humans do not understand what omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence entails.
I am voting for the second option. The arrogance of some people is beyond incredible. They think they know more than God about 'what God should do' in order to earn omnibenevolence.

That's why the Qur'an speaks of "those who place their desires/ego in the stance of an ilah". Meaning they place themselves in the position of God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No
It is not that we were unable to .. if we had wanted to, we would have chosen something else.

And thereby we would have changed the future meaning it's not fixed.

Repeating that without explaining why achieves nothing.

I have already explained it. It's also explained in every definition you'll find about the concept of the block universe.
You cherry picking it to suite your needs will not change that.

I have explained to you that the future is a fixed block, just as the past is a fixed block..
Do you understand that?

I understand that. You however don't seem to understand the implications thereof.

I'm done here. We're just going around in circles.
Have fun trying to hold on to your cake while also eating it.

 

[firedragon]

I'd think it's most likely they'd be wrong.

Why?

 

[Nakosis]

Why?

Because there is a hell of a lot that I'm ignorant about.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And thereby we would have changed the future meaning it's not fixed..

No we wouldn't have changed anything .. we would just have chosen differently.
It is you who are suggesting conditionals .. such as "if you chose to eat steak"
if .. if .. if .. if

I have already explained it. It's also explained in every definition you'll find about the concept of the block universe.

Nonsense .. perhaps give me a ref. from wikipedia on the block universe..
..or do you want me to quote it?

I'm done here. We're just going around in circles..

As you like .. you know when you are beaten, perhaps..

 

[Copernicus]

No
It is not that we were unable to .. if we had wanted to, we would have chosen something else.


Repeating that without explaining why achieves nothing.

I have explained to you that the future is a fixed block, just as the past is a fixed block..
Do you understand that?
Do you understand that an empty block represents nothing at all, and that the future
must indeed be a fixed block?

..so saying "a fixed block means no free-will" is absolutely wrong!

Good post, Muhammad. This essentially states my compatibilist approach to free will. The concept depends on the fact that human beings are ignorant of the future, which is indeterminate at the point they are making a choice. The future (irrealis) is only a set of imaginary outcomes of an action. Therein lies the choice. Hard determinists argue that there is no choice, because, once the future is known, the agent could not have acted otherwise in actuality. The problem with that is that hindsight is always looking into the past, which is known (realis). We can easily imagine having made a different choice, if circumstances had been different. If only we had known then what we know now. Hard determinists have created the illusion that there is no actual free will, because they confuse realis--fixed knowledge of reality--with irrealis--imagined realities. They ignore the imagined realities, because those never happened except in the agent's imagination.

As a linguist, I know that every language on record makes this distinction between realis and irrealis in its tense and mood systems--usually manifested in markings on verbs--in English, past and present suffixes for realis and modal auxiliary verbs for irrealis. Other languages can mark this distinction in different ways, but it is always there. This distinction is therefore a feature of basic human cognition.

Free will is an essential aspect of human behavior, because it is the yardstick that we use to assign responsibility to human beings for their actions. People are, and should be, held accountable for their actions. That is how they learn to fit in with human society. The problem with hard determinism is that they often attack the concept of human responsibility in their efforts to dismiss the concept of free will as merely an illusion. Free will is real, because selecting among imagined future outcomes is a real choice in the mind of an agent at the point in time when the choice is made. What makes a willful action "free" is the agent's belief that the chosen action was unimpeded by factors not under the agent's control.

 

[firedragon]

Good post, Muhammad. This essentially states my compatibilist approach to free will.

Oh so you are epistemically a compatibilist. Well, that's good to know.

 

[Nakosis]

..so saying "a fixed block means no free-will" is absolutely wrong!

Just to point out, when a determinist uses the word "free-will" they mean something entirely different than what you or I would call free will.

You are fundamentally arguing about a definition.

 

[Copernicus]

Oh so you are epistemically a compatibilist. Well, that's good to know.

Which also makes me a determinist--what is known as a soft determinist rather than a hard determinist. I don't believe in most versions of libertarian free will.