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

[Ajax]

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.

You are getting very boring mate.. It seems to me that you run out of ideas that is why you keep repeating yourself.
I showed you that I referred to our friend's claims and called them unsubstantiated and unreal. He claimed that he has knowledge about God "living" in 4D environment, therefore he was stating a burden of proof fallacy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

He claimed that he has knowledge about God "living" in 4D environment..

No .. many people claim that a known future means that we are compelled to choose it, in the sense
that we "have no choice" which is fallacious .. it doesn't mean that.
This usually crops up in the context of Abrahamic religion.

 

[Ajax]

No .. many people claim that a known future means that we are compelled to choose it, in the sense
that we "have no choice" which is fallacious .. it doesn't mean that.
This usually crops up in the context of Abrahamic religion.

I am one of them, and we have discussed this before.
If the future could be known by any other means—suppose for a minute that God does not exist—do you still think that we are not compelled to choose this particular future event among all the other options we may have?

 

[muhammad_isa]

If the future could be known by any other means—suppose for a minute that God does not exist—do you still think that we are not compelled to choose this particular future event among all the other options we may have?

Yes .. we are not compelled.
It is not that we are forced to choose something, it is that we will choose it.

We have already defined / agreed that it can't be wrong.
i.e. that it is what we will choose

It is not necessarily the knowledge that causes us to choose it .. the choice is not restricted by that.
It is an infamous paradox .. due to our perception of time, we will intuitively think that it
means "we have no choice" .. but that is not true.
The future MUST be something .. it can't be blank .. so whatever it will be, it will be.

 

[Ajax]

Yes .. we are not compelled.
It is not that we are forced to choose something, it is that we will choose it.

We have already defined / agreed that it can't be wrong.
i.e. that it is what we will choose

It is not necessarily the knowledge that causes us to choose it .. the choice is not restricted by that.

Is your objection the word "force" vs. the word "choose"?
In other words, do you agree with the sentence "If one of our future actions is known, then we will choose this particular action"?

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Look, mate, I can only go so far in imagining how to make sense of your concept of a God from things that you and others have claimed about this being. In my last post, I said that such a being was logically impossible, but you are now asking me to elaborate further on the nature of this being. Don't you think that you could put a little effort into explaining its nature? After all, you are the believer and I am the skeptic. You should "work within the context" and correct any bad assumptions or incorrect conclusions that you think I have stated.

 

[muhammad_isa]

In other words, do you agree with the sentence "If one of our future actions is known, then we will choose this particular action"?

Yes .. we will choose it.
..but many people imply that we will choose it because "we have no other choice" .. which is false.
As I say, it's all about human perception of time.

 

[firedragon]

Look, I can only go so far in imagining how to make sense of your concept of a God from things that you and others have claimed about this being.

Actually, the whole argument in the OP is based on the Atheists arguments where they themselves define the God and then provide this as an argument. It's just that the argument is incoherent because they do not understand the God they are defining. It's a strawman.

But I guess you are looking for a different argument and I am not interested. Hope you understand.

If you read the OP, this so called "nature" is explained as appropriate and relevant. Anything "extra" will just draw in many tangents and derailing. Sorry but I am not interested in any of that.

Thank you very much for engaging.

 

[Ajax]

Yes .. we will choose it.
..but many people imply that we will choose it because "we have no other choice" .. which is false.
As I say, it's all about human perception of time.

Why didn't you say that before and we filled up pages upon pages?
As we told you before, it is an illusion that we can can choose from other options which undoubtedly have, if we always choose the option that is known.

I have checked with ChatGPT and got the following reply..

Block Universe Theory: In the block universe view, time is like a four-dimensional block where past, present, and future all coexist. If the future is already laid out, then our actions are part of this block, and knowing the future means seeing this unchangeable timeline. This would imply that we are compelled to follow this timeline.

also...

Neuroscientific Perspective:

Deterministic View: Some neuroscientists argue that free will is an illusion because our decisions are the result of neural processes that occur in the brain. Experiments, such as those conducted by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s, have shown that brain activity associated with a decision occurs before we become consciously aware of making that decision. This suggests that our sense of making a free choice might be a post hoc rationalization.
(I mentioned this to you the last time)
Emergent Property: Other scientists propose that free will could be an emergent property of complex brain processes. While individual neural events may be deterministic, the overall behavior of the brain might give rise to a sense of free agency.

Ultimately, the relationship between foreknowledge and free will remains a deeply debated topic with no universally accepted answer. The interpretation often depends on one's philosophical, scientific, or theological viewpoints.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why didn't you say that before and we filled up pages upon pages?
As we told you before, it is an illusion that we can can choose from other options which undoubtedly have, if we always choose the option that is known..

There is no such thing as an illusion in this context..
..either we have no choice, or we do .. why call it a choice, if it is not?

You have ignored my explanation, and keep on repeating the same-old "we always choose the option that is known, so free-will is an illusion".
It's complete nonsense .. you CANNOT deduce we have no free-will, just because "we always choose the option that is known" .. of course we do .. because we have said so .. we have defined omniscience as
being just that .. so how could it be anything other???

No .. it is about HOW G-d knows .. and as I have already explained, it does not have to be because G-d
has made as as puppets, pulling the strings .. the possibility exists, that we are trapped in this
space-time continuum, while the Creator of it is not !

I have checked with ChatGPT and got the following reply..

Block Universe Theory: In the block universe view, time is like a four-dimensional block where past, present, and future all coexist. If the future is already laid out, then our actions are part of this block, and knowing the future means seeing this unchangeable timeline. This would imply that we are compelled to follow this timeline.

Chatgpt? You follow robots? Pffft!

 

[Ajax]

Chatgpt? You follow robots? Pffft!

They are impartial and unbiased, contrary to most people.

I'm in a hurry.... But have a look at the Neuroscientific Perspective and you will understand some of it. The rest tomorrow..

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes .. we are not compelled.
It is not that we are forced to choose something, it is that we will choose it.

We will choose what we want to choose, a or b or c. We are not forced or even compelled to choose anything in particular.
We will choose what God knows we will choose because what we will choose is identical to what God knows what we will choose, since God knows what we will choose and God can never be wrong because God is infallible.

If we chose a, then God would have known we were going to choose a.
If we chose b, then God would have known we were going to choose b.
If we chose c, then God would have known we were going to choose c.

God would have known that because God knows what we will choose before we ever choose it in this world.

What people do not seem to understand is that what God knows is contingent upon what we choose.

This is not rocket science. It is simple logic.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What people do not seem to understand is that what God knows is contingent upon what we choose..

Correct!
A good article on the topic is >>here<< (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Table of Contents​

1. Introduction: The Problem of Foreknowledge and Free Will
2. Three Kinds of Determinism
3. The Relationship Between Epistemic and Logical Determinism
4. Attacking the Premises of Deterministic Arguments
   1. Can a Future Contingent be true prior to the event it refers to?
   2. Can a Future Contingent be known prior to the event it refers to?
5. Possibility, Necessity, and Contingency
6. The Modal Fallacy
   1. The Modal Fallacy in Logical Determinism
   2. The Modal Fallacy in Epistemic Determinism
7. Residual concerns – Changing the past; Changing the future
8. Concluding Remarks
9. References and Further Reading
10. Notes

In logical jargon, it's known as a modal fallacy.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

The truth is not in the extremes, I understand, it is in the Norms, please, right?
The truth is in between, in the moderate/normal views, right?

Regards

 

[Copernicus]

..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.

I am assuming that words like "omniscient" and "omnipotent" mean what people say they mean. If they don't, then don't use those words to describe your god. If you are saying that God can't be imagined, then stop saying anything about such a being, because you literally admit to not knowing what you are talking about. What I have done is point out the absurdity of believing that any being can be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. And that is especially true of the Abrahamic God as described in all of the holy books that lay out the various doctrines of belief.

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.

All we have to go with are human perceptions, because we are human and god worship is a human activity based on human beliefs about the nature of reality. If you can say anything about an "infinite being", you are using human language and human concepts to express your thoughts and beliefs. If God makes any action or changes any event in our timeline or his, 'in advance' is meaningful to both us and God.

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.

The problem for you is that it is a completely logical argument, but it leads you into a contradiction that you do not wish to acknowledge. God's perception of time need not be the same as ours, but that does not exempt him from temporal logic, since he is described as performing actions. Actions are events, which are inherently temporal. If not, then you are using language improperly to describe his nature. This is consistent with the language used to describe God in holy scripture, and it is the language that has convinced enormous numbers of human beings to believe in him. Miracles are events, and God is often the agent of those miracles. Hence, God operates within our temporal framework as well as outside of it.

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.

Then you aren't paying attention. I am not the first person to make this argument. It is really quite simple, but it is hard for believers to accept that there is anything wrong with the logic of their efforts to describe God as a perfect being. So they compartmentalize their thinking. Sometimes God is omniscient--he knows everything that will happen even in his own future. Sometimes God is omnipotent--he can do anything imagineable. The problem is that humans cannot know the future, so humans can base actions on an imagined future. God does not enjoy the luxury of an unknown future. God cannot alter his future actions.

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.

No, our future has not "already happened" for us until it actually happens, given our inherent ignorance of the future. We can only live from moment to moment. God is fixed in time at every point in time from his subjective perception. Logically, it cannot be otherwise, since he knows every future moment. Hence, our freedom to choose is eliminated from his perspective, but not from ours. Free will only makes sense to beings that face an uncertain future.

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.

Where is this coming from? I never claimed to be more intelligent or powerful than your god, but you accuse me of this out of the blue. If you see a flaw in the argument state what it is. So far, all you've done to counter my argument is claim that God is an inconceivable being because he is "infinite". You haven't explained how that means that he can perform actions--inherently temporal events--in his timeline and ours. You yourself use human concepts to describe God until you get into logical trouble. Then, rather than admit the logical hole you have dug yourself into, you suddenly claim that the flaw in my argument is that I take those human concepts that you use seriously.

 

[Copernicus]

Look, I can only go so far in imagining how to make sense of your concept of a God from things that you and others have claimed about this being.

Actually, the whole argument in the OP is based on the Atheists arguments where they themselves define the God and then provide this as an argument. It's just that the argument is incoherent because they do not understand the God they are defining. It's a strawman.

But I guess you are looking for a different argument and I am not interested. Hope you understand.

If you read the OP, this so called "nature" is explained as appropriate and relevant. Anything "extra" will just draw in many tangents and derailing. Sorry but I am not interested in any of that.

Thank you very much for engaging.

Whenever you cannot address an argument, you tell someone to read your OP, even though all of us have read it, often several times. The fact that you keep wanting to return to "square one" after the game has been in play for quite a while only suggests that you think you are losing and want to start over.

The argument in the OP is based on your arguments, not the arguments of atheists. You wrote it, not an atheist. You may think that you have fairly represented what atheists argue, but several of us have pointed out that you have not. As I said earlier, "knowledge" is a state, and states don't cause anything. Only events can cause events. So your title is technically incoherent, although most of us get what you were trying to say. And what I've been saying in my posts is exactly on target for the material in your OP, no matter how much you wish to deny it.

I suggest that you reread my posts and try to understand them rather than repeatedly telling me to reread your OP. We are long past that now.

 

[Ajax]

We will choose what we want to choose, a or b or c. We are not forced or even compelled to choose anything in particular.

We will choose what God knows we will choose because what we will choose is identical to what God knows what we will choose, since God knows what we will choose and God can never be wrong because God is infallible.

You obviously don't find these two statements super contradictory, do you?

What people do not seem to understand is that what God knows is contingent upon what we choose.

Really? Do our choices dictate to God what he should know?

This is your belief; it is not knowledge. Which indicates that you also fall in the same trap as many, of claiming to know how an inconceivable God acts.
All God's attributes were given to him by men, who wanted other people to believe in him.

And finally you came up with this, which is exactly what we have been saying...

... because God knows what we will choose before we ever choose it in this world.

If God knows what we will choose, before we ever choose it in this world, then the rest of our choices which we undoubtedly have, become obsolete, because as you rightly wrote, God can never be wrong because God is infallible..

 

[firedragon]

Whenever you cannot address an argument, you tell someone to read your OP, even though all of us have read it, often several times. The fact that you keep wanting to return to "square one" after the game has been in play for quite a while only suggests that you think you are losing and want to start over.

The argument in the OP is based on your arguments, not the arguments of atheists. You wrote it, not an atheist. You may think that you have fairly represented what atheists argue, but several of us have pointed out that you have not. As I said earlier, "knowledge" is a state, and states don't cause anything. Only events can cause events. So your title is technically incoherent, although most of us get what you were trying to say. And what I've been saying in my posts is exactly on target for the material in your OP, no matter how much you wish to deny it.

I suggest that you reread my posts and try to understand them rather than repeatedly telling me to reread your OP. We are long past that now.

Address the OP.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you can say anything about an "infinite being", you are using human language and human concepts to express your thoughts and beliefs. If God makes any action or changes any event in our timeline or his, 'in advance' is meaningful to both us and God.

Right, but it is invalid to make conclusions, by mixing the two perspectives willy-nilly..
i.e. we need to evaluate them separately

The problem for you is that it is a completely logical argument, but it leads you into a contradiction that you do not wish to acknowledge. God's perception of time need not be the same as ours, but that does not exempt him from temporal logic, since he is described as performing actions..

That does not mean that G-d is like us, with a body that lives in a space-time continuum, for example.

Actions are events, which are inherently temporal. If not, then you are using language improperly to describe his nature. This is consistent with the language used to describe God in holy scripture, and it is the language that has convinced enormous numbers of human beings to believe in him..

One cannot describe something outside of our experience, with anything other than similes.

Miracles are events, and God is often the agent of those miracles. Hence, God operates within our temporal framework as well as outside of it.

OK.

Sometimes God is omniscient--he knows everything that will happen even in his own future. Sometimes God is omnipotent--he can do anything imagineable. The problem is that humans cannot know the future, so humans can base actions on an imagined future. God does not enjoy the luxury of an unknown future. God cannot alter his future actions..

It has already been pointed out to you, that you are projecting a scenario, where G-d lives in a "timeline"
in the same way that we do. That is like saying G-d is a created being, who lives in a space-time continuum created by something else.

No, our future has not "already happened" for us until it actually happens, given our inherent ignorance of the future. We can only live from moment to moment. God is fixed in time at every point in time from his subjective perception. Logically, it cannot be otherwise, since he knows every future moment. Hence, our freedom to choose is eliminated from his perspective, but not from ours..

No, our freedom to choose is not eliminated from G-d's perspective .. it is more complex. We say that
the speed of light is a constant in our universe.
What does that mean, exactly? Basically, it means that 'time' is not what it appears to be. One cannot
make conclusions about G-d on the basis of what happens in a dimension where 'measured time'
does not exist.
Your assumption is that 'measured time' still exists .. and you are measuring an infinitely small moment of
our 'time' and correlating it against an assumed, alternative 'measured time'.
That's invalid in many ways.

So far, all you've done to counter my argument is claim that God is an inconceivable being because he is "infinite"..

Not entirely inconceivable, but even if you wish to make mathematical/logical conclusions, you
are still way out.
As we imagine a moment of our time becoming infinitesimally small, it becomes zero.

You haven't explained how that means that he can perform actions--inherently temporal events--in his timeline and ours.

I don't need to .. I appreciate that G-d is something that cannot be fully known .. not part of creation ..
something tremendous.

You yourself use human concepts to describe God until you get into logical trouble. Then, rather than admit the logical hole you have dug yourself into, you suddenly claim that the flaw in my argument is that I take those human concepts that you use seriously.

No .. I accept my limitations, and would rather not say what G-d can and cannot do .. apart from
one thing .. the logically impossible.
If G-d was able to do the logically impossible, then whatever we discuss becomes meaningless.
eg. can G-d lift a rock that is too heavy bla bla..

However, many people think they are making logical arguments, when they are not.
That is, their arguments are flawed in some way.

..and that includes this present one, about a 'timeline for G-d' .. it's sheer guesswork, based on human perception of this universe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Really? Do our choices dictate to God what he should know?

Is that the best you can do? Try to find brain-teasers to confuse people?
G-d knows what choices we WILL make (from our perspective), because we have
already made them (from G-d's perspective).