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

[muhammad_isa]

No, it's not difficult, neither wrong. In my argument, God's omniscience and infallibility are absolute truths (as accepted in Abrahamic religions); they are not contingents, as modal logic defines.

Errr what???

Your conclusion: Therefore, we cannot choose any other choice other than the one God knows, or God is not infallible and omniscient.

How is that different from my example above? It isn't !

i.e. If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect.”

THIS CONCLUSION IS INCORRECT and known as a MODAL FALLACY.

You don't seem to read anything I write and comment on it, but just keep repeating the same old
fallacy over & over again .. as if it were obviously right, so needs no explanation.

It's as if you don't want to learn. You are so convinced you are right, and have no desire to
understand why you are wrong. Oh well..

 

[Koldo]

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.

Where have you read an atheist referring to God as a 4D being?

 

[firedragon]

Where have you read an atheist referring to God as a 4D being?

Where did I say "Atheists refer to God as a 4D being"? Where did I say "Anyone refers to God as a 4D being"?

This is a strawman.

 

[Ajax]

Okay, now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty.

Let me turn that into a question.

Before we chose what God knew we would choose (whatever that was) why couldn't we have chosen something else?
The 'something else' will not be different from what God knows. It will be what God has always known we would choose.

You didn't give me any explanation about your statements (like Socrates), but I will reply, also with a question.
How can we choose something else from what God knows we will choose, and that "something else" will not be different from what God knows that we will choose?

 

[Koldo]

Where did I say "Atheists refer to God as a 4D being"? Where did I say "Anyone refers to God as a 4D being"?

This is a strawman.

You have said and I quote: "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."

And in your OP: "So that's the concept of God's transcendence. He knows that's gonna happen because from his perspective, he sees time as a line below him which he could access. He can see and interact with the future as he pleases just like the mathematical concept of a 4D being. So what's gonna happen in our perspective has already happened in a 4D beings perspective. So we have already done it. That's why he knows. And that's why we still have free-will."

In your OP, you refer to God as akin to a 4D being, and in the other post, you say the OP's argument is based on an atheist's definition.

 

[firedragon]

You have said and I quote: "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."

And in your OP: "So that's the concept of God's transcendence. He knows that's gonna happen because from his perspective, he sees time as a line below him which he could access. He can see and interact with the future as he pleases just like the mathematical concept of a 4D being. So what's gonna happen in our perspective has already happened in a 4D beings perspective. So we have already done it. That's why he knows. And that's why we still have free-will."

In your OP, you refer to God as akin to a 4D being, and in the other post, you say the OP's argument is based on an atheist's definition.

So again, Where did I say "Atheists refer to God as a 4D being"? Where did I say "Anyone refers to God as a 4D being"?

Read the OP once again and address it, not keep trying to create a strawman.

 

[Koldo]

So again, Where did I say "Atheists refer to God as a 4D being"? Where did I say "Anyone refers to God as a 4D being"?

Read the OP once again and address it, not keep trying to create a strawman.

I have already explained it. I am not going to repeat myself. As for the OP, it has already been addressed multiple times.

 

[firedragon]

I have already explained it. I am not going to repeat myself.

Explaining a strawman is irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

How can we choose something else from what God knows we will choose, and that "something else" will not be different from what God knows that we will choose?

Knowledge of what you have already chosen from God's perspective does not mean hard determinism. It's an absurd assertion. Who makes this kind of argument really?

 

[Ajax]

Knowledge of what you have already chosen from God's perspective does not mean hard determinism. It's an absurd assertion. Who makes this kind of argument really?

Not really interested in conversation with you. Sorry, take care.

 

[firedragon]

Not really interested in conversation with you. Sorry, take care.

Nice. Cheers.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nope! Read my last post #473 ..

I did. Your source is incorrect, and for the same reason you are: he's a Christian creationist with a stake in preserving the possibility of omniscience and free will. despite the incoherence of the claim. So he simply decrees that what he believes is possible. He might as well claim any other impossible thing. It doesn't make it possible, such as one being in two different countries at once. If somebody claimed that that was possible, what would your response be? Hopefully, you'd reject the claim because YOU KNOW IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.

This was the first sentence you quoted: "If some future action/choice is known prior to its occurrence, that event does not thereby become “necessary”, “compelled”, “forced”, or what have you." That's simply incorrect. Using words like modal and contingent doesn't help him, but it does snow readers eager to believe him.

“Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water."? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” - Sam Harris

Is there a reason you didn't provide a link or your source? I found it anyway. Here's who wrote that:

Explain why.

It's all been done repeatedly. Would it help to do it again? If I know how a given sporting event ends, it means that the athletes involved have no choice. There was a time that they might have had a choice if libertarian free will exists, but when the time comes that I can tell you how every play turns out because I have seen the game, those characters no longer have free will. When they had free will, the outcome was uncertain. When the outcome was certain following the game, there was no more free will. Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.

Again, we can choose between a or b or c.

Just because B and C are possibilities that others might choose in similar circumstance doesn't mean that they were possible for the person who chose A, and if we know in advance that A will be chosen, then it isn't a choice even if it superficially resembles one.

 

[Ajax]

Errr what???

Your conclusion: Therefore, we cannot choose any other choice other than the one God knows, or God is not infallible and omniscient.

How is that different from my example above? It isn't !

i.e. If thou sayest ‘He knows’, then it necessarily follows that [that] man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God’s knowledge would be imperfect.”

THIS CONCLUSION IS INCORRECT and known as a MODAL FALLACY.

You don't seem to read anything I write and comment on it, but just keep repeating the same old
fallacy over & over again .. as if it were obviously right, so needs no explanation.

It's as if you don't want to learn. You are so convinced you are right, and have no desire to
understand why you are wrong. Oh well..

Your article states that "the argument to the effect that there are no contingent propositions is unsound." Modal logic builds upon this.
Do you accept that God's omniscience and infallibility are contingent propositions and not the absolute truth for the religions?
It also destroys you claim about God being out of time, as you stated in the beginning.

 

[Ajax]

If we had chosen a, then a would be what God knew we would choose.
If we had chosen b, then b would be what God knew we would choose.
If we had chosen c, then c would be what God knew we would choose.

Care to explain this please? Because it seems to me that as said before, you imply that we force our choices on God, or you try to justify free will at any cost.
If God knows and sees the whole future from before the world begun until the end of universe(s), plus he can not change what he sees, how can he adapt to your different x, y, or z choices?

 

[firedragon]

Your article states that "the argument to the effect that there are no contingent propositions is unsound." Modal logic builds upon this.
Do you accept that God's omniscience and infallibility are contingent propositions and not the absolute truth for the religions?

Could you explain rationally how a necessary beings nature is contingent? What are they contingent upon?

 

[firedragon]

I did. Your source is incorrect, and for the same reason you are: he's a Christian creationist with a stake in preserving the possibility of omniscience and free will. despite the incoherence of the claim. So he simply decrees that what he believes is possible. He might as well claim any other impossible thing. It doesn't make it possible, such as one being in two different countries at once. If somebody claimed that that was possible, what would your response be? Hopefully, you'd reject the claim because YOU KNOW IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.

This was the first sentence you quoted: "If some future action/choice is known prior to its occurrence, that event does not thereby become “necessary”, “compelled”, “forced”, or what have you." That's simply incorrect. Using words like modal and contingent doesn't help him, but it does snow readers eager to believe him.

“Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water."? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” - Sam Harris

Is there a reason you didn't provide a link or your source? I found it anyway. Here's who wrote that:

View attachment 92975

It's all been done repeatedly. Would it help to do it again? If I know how a given sporting event ends, it means that the athletes involved have no choice. There was a time that they might have had a choice if libertarian free will exists, but when the time comes that I can tell you how every play turns out because I have seen the game, those characters no longer have free will. When they had free will, the outcome was uncertain. When the outcome was certain following the game, there was no more free will. Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.

Just because B and C are possibilities that others might choose in similar circumstance doesn't mean that they were possible for the person who chose A, and if we know in advance that A will be chosen, then it isn't a choice even if it superficially resembles one.

Do you think purely because someone is a Christian you should reject everything he says because he is a Christian?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I did. Your source is incorrect, and for the same reason you are: he's a Christian creationist with a stake in preserving the possibility of omniscience and free will. despite the incoherence of the claim.

Your words are pure ad hominum .. no explanation as to why the peer-reviewed philosophy article is wrong .. the same-old explanation .. "it's obvious I'm right". Ha!

Come on .. you rate yourself as a logician .. you can do better than that.

So he simply decrees that what he believes is possible. He might as well claim any other impossible thing.

Nope .. the philosophical article explains in great detail.
Show us all where he goes wrong.
Here is the full article in question >>> Foreknowledge and Free Will

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you accept that God's omniscience and infallibility are contingent propositions and not the absolute truth for the religions?

That doesn't mean anything to me .. do you even know what contingent means?

A proposition, P, is contingent if and only if it is both possibly true and possibly false.
In other words, it is dependent on something.

In the scenario in question, the future is dependent on what G-d knows.
..so the conclusion that one "has no choice, or is forced" is incorrect logic.

 

[Ajax]

That doesn't mean anything to me .. do you even know what contingent means?

It was me who stated first to you the definition of contigent in message #472

A proposition, P, is contingent if and only if it is both possibly true and possibly false.
In other words, it is dependent on something.

God's infallibility and omniscience are not possibly true and possibly false. They are axioms in theology; their truth is evident in themselves, therefore they are not contingents. I have been telling you this all day today. Also these two God's properties are not dependent on anything.

In the scenario in question, the future is dependent on what G-d knows.

No it is isn't, because God is supposed to know absolutely everything.

..so the conclusion that one "has no choice, or is forced" is incorrect logic.

What you say is unfounded, especially when my points above are considered.

Do you have anything more to offer in this discussion?

 

[muhammad_isa]

No it is isn't, because God is supposed to know absolutely everything..

You are taking it out of context.
The context is that you say we are compelled to choose what G-d knows, so we have no choice.
..but the future is not "preset", it is dependent on what G-d knows i.e. what we choose

Do you have anything more to offer in this discussion?

Plenty