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

[Ajax]

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.

I think you should wear your glasses when reading messages..

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.

 

[firedragon]

I think you should wear your glasses when reading messages..

Alright. So give me the religious philosopher, theist, who said "that knowledge results to causation"

P.S It's because you made this statement - "P.S. Apparently it is the theists who believe that knowledge results to causation"

 

[Ajax]

Alright. So give me the religious philosopher, theist, who said "that knowledge results to causation"

P.S It's because you made this statement - "P.S. Apparently it is the theists who believe that knowledge results to causation"

Do you have a mania with philosophers?
Theologians believe that God's foreknowledge of the future is passed on to people via prophets/messengers... Numerous prophecies regarding the birth and crucifixion of Jesus, the fate of Israel, the destruction of the Temple, even that people are predestined before the foundation of the world to be saved or damned (Acts 13:48, Eph.1:4-5, 2 Thess 2:11-12, 2 Tim.1:9, Rom. 8:29-30). Adam and Eve's exile as well as Judas betrayal of Jesus is being regarded as a theological necessity.
That's all for today. Cheers.

 

[Ajax]

And a last one..
You believe that free will would not be at all impinged upon by the existence of an omniscient God. It would, however, mean that God himself would have no free will since he would know ahead of time what he was going to do and therefore, being omniscient and infallible, could never change his mind or do anything other than what he already knew he was going to do. Except, of course, that God is also supposed to be omnipotent, which would mean that he could change his mind and do something different from what he supposedly “knew” he was going to do. But that would, of course, mean he wasn’t really omniscient after all, otherwise he would have known that he was going to change his mind…

Which is, of course, yet another reason why the common description of God being both omnipotent and omniscient renders him logically impossible. But who needs logic when you have faith, right?

 

[firedragon]

Theologians believe that God's foreknowledge of the future is passed on to people via prophets/messengers

That's not your claim. This is a strawman.

Again, give me the religious philosopher, theist, who said "that knowledge results to causation"

P.S It's because you made this statement - "P.S. Apparently it is the theists who believe that knowledge results to causation"

 

[Copernicus]

No .. you are still talking about 'timelines', and still haven't explained what you mean by that..

We measure time by comparing it to motion (i.e. space)
But both time and space are part of the Creation, so it makes little sense to talk about 'timelines'.
..unless you want to explain further?

Time is measured by us in terms of distances between physical objects at different points in time. Call the measurements "events", and think of each event as having a timestamp on it. Human memory is episodic--associations between past events. It doesn't make any sense to talk about time otherwise. We can only measure time back to the so-called Big Bang, so that is the beginning of our timeline. Assuming that God was the progenitor of the Big Bang, then his act of triggering the event would have occurred in an imaginary timeline where events in his timeline resulted in the beginning of our timeline. Perhaps this is one way of looking at what physicists have described as "imaginary time", which is represented by imaginary numbers in our calculations, but I am getting out of my depth here.

..and when you talk about events being 'fixed', you have already agreed that they were fixed
by our choices, amongst other things, so I don't see the problem.

I don't have a problem with imagining some kind of timeline orthogonal to our own in terms of describing the Big Bang as just another event in some kind of putative multiverse. That doesn't require one to believe that an imaginary intelligent being was needed to cause our universe to come into existence. But let's go with the creator God option for the sake of argument.

There are other possible ways to think of the Big Bang, but I'm trying to imagine one in which an intelligent being might have intentionally "spawned" our universe. Given the putative "omniscience" of that superbeing, it would somehow be made aware of every event occurring in our universe and somehow be able to interfere with--cause miracles to happen--in our universe. The problem is that the beings in our universe would have free will in the sense that they could base actions on the imagined future outcomes of their alternative possible actions. We would be ignorant of the future and choose an action to achieve the most desirable imagined outcome. That being would know what all our choices would be, because it would see the actual outcomes that we could not see.

Are you following so far? Are you beginning to see the difference between God's timeline and ours? God's is logically orthogonal to ours. But if that God were to actually exercise its power to change events in our universe, then it would either know its own future or not. From its perspective, each change made in our timeline would have to be known in advance or not. If known, then such a God could only do what it knew it could do and would itself lack the free will to alter its choices. If not known in advance, then God could not know every event in its created universe, because God would not know what itself would change in its own future. Omniscience would be logically impossible. Ironically, human beings, not knowing the future, have the freedom to choose among imagined alternative actions to influence outcomes in that future. Gods that knew their own future actions would be deprived of free will, since they would have no alternative but to do what they knew they would do.

"cancelling out"? You mean erasing the whole history of mankind from the beginning to its end?
..oh and you can't "cancel out" an Eternal G-d.

No. By that, I meant that, an omniscient God would know its own future actions by definition of "omniscience". He would therefore not be able to change his own future or ours. Yet God is "omnipotent", which means that he would be able to change his future and ours, in theory. So exercising that omnipotence would cancel out his omniscience. Or his omniscience would cancel omnipotence. The two attributes are mutually exclusive of each other. Hence, a being with both of those attributes would be impossible and could not logically exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

You have a valid point.
Although they don't 'insist' they know, they say some things I don't think they can really know, in my view.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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.

Nonsense .. unless you consider Einstein's "ramblings" to be unscientific.

NB it doesn't need to be God .. 'an agent or being' that is not part of this universe will suffice

 

[muhammad_isa]

It would, however, mean that God himself would have no free will since he would know ahead of time what he was going to do and therefore, being omniscient and infallible, could never change his mind or do anything other than what he already knew he was going to do..

Mere playing around with human construed time paradox..
Clue: "he would know ahead of time what he was going to do"

Invalid .. ahead of time! You are mixing two different perspectives, and making false conclusions.

 

[firedragon]

By that, I meant that, an omniscient God would know its own future

Can you define an omniscient God's "future" and "past"? What did it do before it created time and space? Was that a past? Was there a thing called "before" because "time did not exist"? Does that mean God transcends time? You have to work within the context.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We can only measure time back to the so-called Big Bang, so that is the beginning of our timeline.

Right .. not just our "timeline", but the whole of the space-time continuum.

Assuming that God was the progenitor of the Big Bang, then his act of triggering the event would have occurred in an imaginary timeline where events in his timeline resulted in the beginning of our timeline..

Imaginary .. meaning not part of the space-time continuum .. right?

There are other possible ways to think of the Big Bang, but I'm trying to imagine one in which an intelligent being might have intentionally "spawned" our universe. Given the putative "omniscience" of that superbeing, it would somehow be made aware of every event occurring in our universe and somehow be able to interfere with--cause miracles to happen--in our universe.

Yes..

The problem is that the beings in our universe would have free will in the sense that they could base actions on the imagined future outcomes of their alternative possible actions. We would be ignorant of the future and choose an action to achieve the most desirable imagined outcome. That being would know what all our choices would be, because it would see the actual outcomes that we could not see..

Yes..

..if that God were to actually exercise its power to change events in our universe, then it would either know its own future or not. From it's perspective, each change made in our timeline would have to be known in advance or not. If known, then such a God could only do what it knew it could do and would itself lack the free will to alter its choices..

That is all theoretical. You are assuming that G-d is "like us", in as much as the way we make choices without knowing their consequences etc.
..so it not that G-d can't intervene, but exactly what G-d is .. and what it means to be 'Infinite'.
There is a limit to how we can imagine infinite concepts .. but G-d is not finite .. not 'a god' with form.

If not known in advance..

Projection of human perception cannot lead to understanding of an infinite being.
'in advance' is a human perception of time.

God would not know what itself would change in its own future..

That is not a logical argument, but one based on the human perception of time.

Gods that knew their own future actions would be deprived of free will, since they would have no alternative but to do what they knew they would do.

That doesn't mean anything really .. it doesn't change anything .. it certainly doesn't persuade
me that an infinite being called G-d cannot achieve what He wills.

He would therefore not be able to change his own future or ours..

Meaningless .. our future cannot be changed, because it has already happened, but we don't perceive.
That does not rule out our choices, or G-d's choices. It is only human perception, that causes a
person to believe otherwise.

The two attributes are mutually exclusive of each other.

If it pleases you to think that you are more intelligent and powerful than God, then I doubt
you will take any notice of what I say .. you've already made your mind up.

Hence, a being with both of those attributes would be impossible and could not logically exist.

 

[Ajax]

Nonsense .. unless you consider Einstein's "ramblings" to be unscientific.

NB it doesn't need to be God .. 'an agent or being' that is not part of this universe will suffice

It is you who is talking nonsense. You mix scientific with unscientific in a luckless effort to find excuses.
Einstein's "ramblings" are just fine. Your claims of knowing everything about gods, agents or beings that are not part of this universe though, are imaginary, unreal, certainly unsubstantiated and therefore totally unscientific. Good luck with them.

 

[firedragon]

agents or beings that are not part of this universe though, are imaginary, unreal

Can you provide evidence to this claim?

 

[Ajax]

Again, give me the religious philosopher, theist, who said "that knowledge results to causation"

In religion, a prophecy is a message that has been communicated to a person (typically called a prophet) by a supernatural entity. Prophecies are a feature of many cultures and belief systems and usually contain divine will or law, or preternatural knowledge, for example of future events.
In the sense of predicting events, the Quran contains verses believed to have predicted many events years before they happened and that such prophecies are proof of the divine origin of the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself states "Every ˹destined˺ matter has a ˹set˺ time to transpire. And you will soon come to know." Prophecy - Wikipedia
In Christianity, all Church Fathers agree that prophecy is the foretelling of what is to happen with the help and energy of the Holy Spirit.

So please don't ask again for religious philosopher, theist, who said "that knowledge results to causation". It's getting really boring.

 

[Ajax]

Can you provide evidence to this claim?

You can not be serious, honestly....
Can you provide evidence that all 3000+ gods in mankind history are unreal, that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, and that Russell's microscopic teapot does not orbit the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars?

 

[firedragon]

You can not be serious, honestly....

I am serious. You made a positive claim. The burden of proof is on you.

Of course I will not engage with your following whataboutism and the burden of proof fallacy. When you make a claim, a responsible person should give evidence.

 

[Ajax]

I am serious. You made a positive claim. The burden of proof is on you.

Of course I will not engage with your following whataboutism and the burden of proof fallacy. When you make a claim, a responsible person should give evidence.

The burden of proof for any unsubstantiated claim lies with the person making the claim, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Furthermore it seems to me that you have lost your glasses today, because if you had not, you would have noticed that I was referring to our friend's claim of knowing all about gods, etc..

Your claims of knowing everything about gods, agents or beings that are not part of this universe though, are imaginary, unreal, certainly unsubstantiated and therefore totally unscientific.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is you who is talking nonsense.

No.

Your claims of knowing everything about gods, agents or beings that are not part of this universe though, are imaginary, unreal, certainly unsubstantiated and therefore totally unscientific. Good luck with them.

I do not claim that I know "everything about gods".
All I am doing is explaining how, with our present scientific knowledge, it is possible that
G-d can know our future, but not directly cause it. That is NOT nonsense.

Perhaps you want it to be nonsense .. but that is another matter.

 

[firedragon]

The burden of proof for any unsubstantiated claim lies with the person

No. That's the burden of proof fallacy.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. You made a claim. You have to bring the proof.

If you don't understand that basic principle, you should seriously consider reading some basic logic and philosophy.

I would recommend a website because it's easy to access. Like the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.

 

[Ajax]

No.


I do not claim that I know "everything about gods".
All I am doing is explaining how, with our present scientific knowledge, it is possible that
G-d can know our future, but not directly cause it. That is NOT nonsense.

Perhaps you want it to be nonsense .. but that is another matter.

I didn't mean to offend you.. after all you first called my post nonsense..
But you never mentioned that God knowing our future but not directly cause it, is just a possibility, as you did now. In all your posts you seemed pretty certain of it. Let alone that you have not offered any proof of God's existence which you take it for granted because of your belief. I do not disagree for your right to believe, but you can not mix scientific knowledge with unsubstantiated and hypothetical deities.