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

[Link]

What does "future exist" mean?
Of course it "exists", otherwise we couldn't discuss it.

Future is something we plan for - but is yet to exist. This is the proper definition but we let theologians over complicate things. It will exist, but does not exist.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It would not exist. Only the present exists..

Are you purposely ignoring some of my posts?
I said:
".. think of it as if we are living our lives in slow-motion, and while we
perceive a moving now from past to future, G-d perceives that what we call the future has already happened .. i.e. is not in the slow-motion scenario"

Can you understand that? It is only human perception, that you refer to .. and not that of G-d.

It's a huge difference, because, the future than has many possibilities and doors leading to other paths..

..and that is what we all face, in this created space-time continuum .. but G-d is not part
of His creation.

 

[Link]

I understand what you are saying and the OP as well. Disagreeing doesn't mean not understanding.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I understand what you are saying and the OP as well. Disagreeing doesn't mean not understanding.

What .. you don't agree that G-d is not part of His creation?
You don't agree that His creation is a space-time continuum?
What exactly?

 

[Link]

What .. you don't agree that G-d is not part of His creation?
You don't agree that His creation is a space-time continuum?
What exactly?

God is with his creation and outside. Both. I don't model future existing, I see God beyond time, but I don't see past, present, future time all existing and God outside that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not for God. If you read the OP you will understand.

For you, there is a present and a future. That's subjective to you as a human or any being for that matter in the universe. God transcends all of that including time. He created time, and time is as I explained in the OP, below him and has already taken place. God is not within time, he is above it.

Read the OP.

I know that the future already exists for God but I was not talking about God.
I was talking about humans with regard to free will to choose.
See discussion below.

More than one decision is possible, right up until a decision is made.
There can only be one outcome -- stop for the red light or run the red light -- but before I ran that red light I could have chosen to stop for the red light.

Not if the future already exists. You can only choose the one in the future that exists.

The future does not 'already exist'. Only the present exists.
The future does not exist until it it becomes the present..

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't model future existing..

..then there is no such thing as prophecy .. no such thing as "knowledge of the hour" ?
That can't be right .. G-d is the owner of time .. He is the Infinite One.

 

[firedragon]

I was talking about humans with regard to free will to choose.

Oh okay. Sorry I misunderstood.

Nevertheless, remember, God is one, He is the necessary being, He does not beget, neither is begotten, and there is nothing like him.

That's from Qur'an 112 (I think).

Peace.

 

[Link]

..then there is no such thing as prophecy .. no such thing as "knowledge of the hour" ?
That can't be right .. G-d is the owner of time .. He is the Infinite One.

There are plans of God, somethings are set, most prophecies are what if scenarios. Especially in the Quran.

Somethings are definitive.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..most prophecies are what if scenarios.

Allahu Akbar ! You do not appreciate just how great is Allah SWT.

 

[Link]

Allahu Akbar ! You do not appreciate just how great is Allah SWT.

This is not about God, but about how we model his creation and his relationship to that. If you say future exists, then yes, future is known by God. But does it exist? And if doesn't, does it diminish God's greatness in anyway? I would say it does not. Future is yet to come to be and doesn't exist. It will come to exist.

 

[Ajax]

Read the OP.

I have read it many times and concluded that is completely flawed for the following reasons. Firstly you assume that there is a God, which can not be proven. The existence of God is belief, not knowledge. Secondly you pretend you also know God's attributes, which is impossible, according to theology, which teaches that God knew everything before the "creation" of the universe. You even seem to know that he is in a 4D environment.

You can not present a valid argument where all premises offered in support for the conclusion, are unknown. The premises embody the reasons or facts providing evidence for the conclusion's credibility.
I think I have spent more than enough time in this thread...

P.S. Apparently it is the theists who believe that knowledge results to causation, if you think of the so called "prophecies" given to people.

 

[RestlessSoul]

"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

-The above is the last line from F Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby.

We are falling backwards through time. As we fall, it's the past which becomes clearer; infinite possibility becomes recorded history. Stories come into focus.

The future, however, rushes past us; and we don't see it until it's gone.

 

[danieldemol]

What drives me up a tree is when people insist thy know certain things about God that they really cannot know.

So called "Messengers" did exactly that in my view.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..you pretend you also know God's attributes, which is impossible, according to theology, which teaches that God knew everything before the "creation" of the universe..

Mmm .. infinite concepts are hard to visualize, and are confusing..

You even seem to know that he is in a 4D environment..

This is not theology, it is science.
..as is the big-bang theory.

 

[Ajax]

Mmm .. infinite concepts are hard to visualize, and are confusing..

Visualizing and understanding God's infinite concepts belong to the sphere of fantasy..

This is not theology, it is science.
..as is the big-bang theory.

Again claiming to know that God "lives" in a 4D environment and try to present it in a "serious" argument, is delusion.
No relationship to science.

 

[firedragon]

Firstly you assume that there is a God

Well, of course. That's the topic. It's not a flaw. It's a methodological approach.

You even seem to know that he is in a 4D environment.

Nope. That's an explanation to make it understandable. Read the OP.

Apparently it is the theists who believe that knowledge results to causation

Which philosopher of religion says that? You could be right. Yet, I would like to read the material. So please provide the name and the material or book.

Thanks.

 

[wellwisher]

As far as God and causation, God would be more like nature; spatially integrated and not just differential like science and cause and effect. An integrated eco-system is more than just the cause and effect of the actions of each life form or part. The effect of all their actions has an extended connection beyond themselves, into the eco-system; bigger picture, so all the parts can coordinate. Humans know cause and effect for a specialty action, but often do not think beyond that, as to how this impacts everything else. Mudslinging may have the effect of harming your opponent, but it also has an extended effect of making people misunderstand reality or bear grudges.

Cause and effect is like a plot on a 2-D grid where x=cause and y=effect. A spatial approach is more 3-D, with an z-axis that takes into account the ripple effect of your immediate cause and effect actions and choices. This is sort of like looking at the future; extra logic steps that will be set into motion and have a steady state effect; future.

An analogous example occurs in college. There are plenty of fun social things to do, which are important to emotional and social development. However, one is also there to study, learn and get good grades. Doing too much or too little of one or the other, has a consequence on the other. Your job; spatial goal, is optimize both, which is not as easy as it sounds. At any given time logic may bias one or the other. This is how nature makes an eco-system of many parts, so the whole is more than the sum of its selfish parts; personal 2-D logic.

We live in a more differential world of specialization, which cannot easily integrate extended connections beyond its niche. Cause and effect is better for the parts. For the whole you need a more 3-D approach of cause, effect, cause, and effect, cause and effect. (x,y,z). This extra extrapolation into 3-D is more how a god thinks and it may not appear to be rational; 2-D since it is spatial; 3-D.

As an analogy, spatial thinking is like a 3-D ball. We can approximate this 3-D ball with a larger number of rational planes; 2-D circles of cause and effect, all with a common center, but all at various angles to fill in the sphere. The 3-D is the sum and integration of these rational planes with all the angles=opinions; Below left.

To process this in 3-D, may require we jump around the planes, even in ways that seem irrational, but which make the 3-D Rupix cube puzzle of 3-D truth align better. God working in mysterious ways is often the 3-D shuffling 2-D planes to get a better integration. This is mysterious in 2-D, but consistent in 3-D; cuts against the bias of all the planes. This can make tough meat tender.


.

 

[Ajax]

Which philosopher of religion says that? You could be right. Yet, I would like to read the material. So please provide the name and the material or book.

Thanks.

It's called logic. God knows the future and tells prophets/messengers what will happen in the humans' future for passing on to people. All Abrahamic religions rely heavily on God's prior knowledge of events. Religion without prophecies describing what would happen, is dead.
If you want free will, you can’t worship an omniscient creator.

 

[firedragon]

It's called logic. God knows the future and tells prophets/messengers what will happen in the humans' future for passing on to people. All Abrahamic religions rely heavily on God's prior knowledge of events. Religion without prophecies describing what would happen, is dead.
If you want free will, you can’t worship an omniscient creator.

Nah. You said "it's the theologians who think knowledge is causation". Not that you were making some logical argument. You made a claim.

So you should be able to answer the question without sidestepping it. It's just responsibility.
So please provide the name and the material or book.

Thanks.