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

[Ajax]

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

Of course the future is not preset...if there is no omniscient and infallible being, i.e. if God knows nothing about the future. But if there is one being, as theists claim, who knows absolutely everything before the world begun, it is bound to be preset. Never claimed anything different.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course the future is not preset...if there is no omniscient and infallible being, i.e. if God knows nothing about the future. But if there is one being, as theists claim, who knows absolutely everything before the world begun, it is bound to be preset.

Well, that assumes that in effect such a being is bound by physics and logic. To me that is unknowable.

 

[Copernicus]

Address the OP.

Argumentum ad nauseam.

 

[Copernicus]

Why is it absurd to believe that God can be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time?

You'll have to read my post before the one you are replying to.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..if there is one being, as theists claim, who knows absolutely everything before the world begun..

Stick to one topic at a time, please..

We were discussing your fallacious conclusion:

My argument goes as follows:

Premise 1: God is infallible and omniscient.
Premise 2: God knows what choice we will choose in the future, out of different choices.
Conclusion: Therefore, we cannot choose any other choice other than the one God knows, or God is not infallible and omniscient.

Your conclusion commits the modal fallacy, as we are not compelled or forced to choose as is implied..
The choice that G-d knows is dependent on what we choose.

..but human perception of time, leads us to unconsciously 'rule that out'.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

No, but I reject his faith-based beliefs and I don't find his Bible authoritative. If he wants to discuss topics of mutual interest like contract bridge or where to find good Italian food, then his opinions are as welcome as those of a non-Christian.

no explanation as to why the peer-reviewed philosophy article is wrong

What's a peer reviewed philosophy article, and which citation are you calling that? Whatever your source, if he claims that omniscience and libertarian free will are compatible, it's wrong. The vast majority we see here arguing otherwise are creationists. They get their beliefs from a book with contradictory claims in it and then insist that up is down and black is white. As I indicated with the Sam Harris quote, there is nothing more to say to a person who simply rejects logic.

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

You'll need to provide curated passages. If they claim that libertarian free will and omniscience are compatible, please reproduce that passage. I only read this far where they state the problem and begin to critique the religious response:

"Historically, the tension between foreknowledge and the exercise of free will was addressed in a religious context. According to orthodox views in the West, God was claimed to be omniscient (and hence in possession of perfect foreknowledge) and yet God was supposed to have given humankind free will. Attempts to solve the apparent contradiction often involved attributing to God special properties, for example, being “outside” of time. However, the trouble with such solutions is that they are generally unsatisfactory on their own terms."

 

[muhammad_isa]

Whatever your source, if he claims that omniscience and libertarian free will are compatible, it's wrong..

You have no argument at all, then.. you prefer to stay in the Newtonian age, where time is
an absolute phenomena.

 

[firedragon]

No, but I reject his faith-based beliefs and I don't find his Bible authoritative.

That's mindbogglingly irrelevant.

You know that this is the epitome of ad hominem. And I must tell you, handwaving away millions of people, scientist or otherwise purely because they are theists fits the definition of bigotry.

Don't do that.

 

[firedragon]

Argumentum ad nauseam.

K

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

@muhammad_isa Then you prefer not to make your argument but rather, give me a link to read? I call a link left in lieu of an argument an orphan link. I'm no longer willing to rebut people not here. When I've done that in the past, the results have disappointing and I realized that my time had been wasted. Commonly, the person providing the link doesn't understand the argument himself and can't participate after I respond. Other times, I have gotten, "That's not the part I meant." As a result, I'm only willing to address an explicit argument with or without an accompanying link to support it.

You have no argument at all

It's you with no argument. You have never tried to explain how the future can be determined and yet people make choices that could have been otherwise. You simply assert that they can and have quoted another creationist who agrees with you but also doesn't explain how that's possible. He just peppers his opinion with words like modal, necessary, and contingent, but still doesn't explain how something can be simultaneously determined and in part or whole undetermined. Logic tells us that it is impossible. It's an axiom of though (noncontradiction):

"The law of non-contradiction (alternately the 'law of contradiction'): 'Nothing can both be and not be. ' In other words: "two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time": ¬(A∧¬A)."

And I provided an illustration using sporting events, which you disregarded.

As I said, you have no argument, just a claim. Your creationist source simply made the same claim as well adding words that didn't make an argument. Then another link with no comment from you that probably doesn't support your claim. If it did, you would have reproduced the words you think do that.

Since you're disinterested in making those arguments yourself, we've reached the end of dialectic, which is the method used in debate, scientific peer review, and courtrooms to resolve differences in opinion. The discussant attempt to falsify one another's arguments until a plausible, conclusion that was not rebutted is reached. I have done that, but you have not. There is nothing more for me to add, and nothing you wrote could change a critical thinker's mind.

you prefer to stay in the Newtonian age, where time is an absolute phenomena.

More snow. Make an argument if you can.

That's mindbogglingly irrelevant.

Disagree.

You asked me, "Do you think purely because someone is a Christian you should reject everything he says because he is a Christian" and I answered, "No, but I reject his faith-based beliefs and I don't find his Bible authoritative." My comment couldn't be more ad rem. It answered your question.

You know that this is the epitome of ad hominem.

Disagree again.

By ad hominem, did you mean ad hominem fallacy or insult? My comment was neither. I'm an empiricist and a critical thinker. I reject faith-based claims. If that offends somebody, then that's on them. Look at how offended you've become at my answers, which are carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered, but what you see ad hominem and next, bigotry:

handwaving away millions of people, scientist or otherwise purely because they are theists fits the definition of bigotry.

Disagree a third time.

Yes, I handwave away their unfalsifiable religious beliefs and claims, but that is not bigotry. Bigotry arises when one holds an irrational, destructive belief about all members of a law-abiding class of people. I have no such feelings about Christians. I already explained to you how I interact with the Christians I know. It's friendly and mutually respectful. One of my regular bridge partners is a Christian who is active in his church. I'll attending a surprise birthday party for him soon.

Bigotry refers to one's opinion people, not their beliefs. One cannot be a bigot toward an idea or an ideology.

Your opinions expressed here are more akin to bigotry than mine, but don't rise to that level because those opinions weren't directed to anybody but me. Otherwise, they qualify. They're irrational and destructive. They're meant to denigrate me.

 

[firedragon]

"No, but I reject his faith-based beliefs and I don't find his Bible authoritative."

That's irrelevant. Do you wanna discuss the Bible or anything else? That's not the topic mate. Read the OP. There is no Bible there.

 

[Ajax]

Stick to one topic at a time, please..

We were discussing your fallacious conclusion:



Your conclusion commits the modal fallacy, as we are not compelled or forced to choose as is implied..
The choice that G-d knows is dependent on what we choose.

..but human perception of time, leads us to unconsciously 'rule that out'.

I'm on topic..I explained to you zillion times that modal logic is based on contingents which do not and can not apply to God. God's infallibility and omniscience are not possibly true and possibly false.
God's knowledge according to theology is infallible, exists before the "creation" and can not change according to your whims.
Rule what out? Be specific man...Human perception of time is the only one we have and your link -as already told you -debunks your claim. Better read it ...at least once.

 

[firedragon]

I'm on topic..I explained to you zillion times that modal logic is based on contingents which do not apply to God.
God's knowledge according to theology is infallible, exist before the "creation" and can not change according to your whims.
Rule what out? Be specific man...Human perception of time is the only one we have and your link debunks your claim. Better read it ...at least once.

What kind of logic is this?

The following is your argument. Just saying so that not even a ghost must ever think I made such a fallacious argument.

My argument goes as follows:

Premise 1: God is infallible and omniscient.
Premise 2: God knows what choice we will choose in the future, out of different choices.
Conclusion: Therefore, we cannot choose any other choice other than the one God knows, or God is not infallible and omniscient.

How in the world did you jump from P2 to Q? This is no sound syllogism mate. Speaking of modal logic, this is called a "modal fallacy".

Breakdown of the Logical Leap

1. God’s Foreknowledge: Premise 2 asserts that God knows what choices we will make. This reflects foreknowledge, not causal determination.
2. Misinterpretation of Free Will: The conclusion jumps to the assertion that because God knows our future choices, those choices are predetermined and no alternatives are possible. This overlooks the distinction between knowing what will happen and causing it to happen.
3. Modal Confusion: The conclusion assumes that knowledge of an outcome implies its necessity, which is a form of modal confusion. This suggests a misunderstanding that if something is foreseen, it must happen without any other possibility, thereby conflating foreknowledge with predetermination.

Also, this is

• Begging the Question: The conclusion may implicitly assumes what you are trying to prove (that God’s knowledge negates free will).
• False Dilemma: You present only two possibilities: either we cannot choose differently, or God is not omniscient and infallible, ignoring the possibility that foreknowledge does not affect free will.

You are completely illogical and are getting into several logical fallacies. Show this to an educated hard atheist like Dennett or Rosenberg and their laughter at this argument will rip up mountains.

 

[Link]

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.

It's because the model you guys build is the future existing. If future exists, it can't be altered (that path). The reason why you couldn't have chosen otherwise, is because your future decision already exists, you just don't realize it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..you prefer not to make your argument but rather, give me a link to read?

Ummm .. I have made many explanatory posts in this thread .. I can refer to them, if you like?

I'm no longer willing to rebut people not here. When I've done that in the past, the results have disappointing and I realized that my time had been wasted..

It is wasted, if you carry on blindly following a modal fallacy as truth.

It's you with no argument. You have never tried to explain how the future can be determined and yet people make choices that could have been otherwise.

False .. read the whole thread, and reply to the points I've raised..
..no, you don't want to waste your time?
You're wasting your time with ad-hominem and no other content .. that's for sure!

He just peppers his opinion with words like modal, necessary, and contingent..

I have explained what he means by that in my last few posts.

Since you're disinterested in making those arguments yourself..

False! you merely excuse yourself from further discussion, thereby avoiding defeat.

There is nothing more for me to add, and nothing you wrote could change a critical thinker's mind..

Well, your 'critical thinking' does not seem to understand logician's jargon and mathematical
representation .. mentioning your critical-thinking repeatedly seems no more than an ego trip,imo.

 

[Copernicus]

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

Nonsense. The whole point is to compare and contrast the two perspectives, and that is not mixing them "willy-nilly".

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

Straw man. Nobody has argued that.

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.

There is no reason to believe that these descriptions were meant as similes or metaphors. The authors used these kinds of descriptions for their own alleged experiences, and other people took them quite literally. Modern fundamentalists still try to do just that. It is not uncommon for those trying to justify the cognitive dissonance to look for ways to stretch meanings and engage in hand-waving responses like calling those passages "similes".

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.

Oh, you've got much worse problems than just the timeline business, although it does seem at times that you are saying pretty much the same thing. It's just that you don't want to be held accountable for the language you use to describe your God. However, scripture is full of examples of anthropomorphic attributes attributed to God, including thoughts, emotions, beliefs, concern for human beings and their behavior, communication in human languages, and so on. If it were not so, then your religion wouldn't be very useful or interesting to human beings. In the end, though, God is the main character of a just-so origin story for the human race. The Abrahamic versions are still taken very seriously and literally by a large segment of the human population--maybe as much as half the human race--and large numbers believe in other versions of gods. Not a single one manages to avoid using anthropomorphic language to describe deities.

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.

I think that my assumptions have been entirely consistent with the way that people describe God's nature and God's behavior. Neither of us is a physicist, so we should be even more careful than real physicists in speculating about the nature of time. Bear in mind that holy scripture was not really created by physicists. It is beyond ludicrous to think that ancient holy men had some kind of sophisticated understanding of the theory of relativity, although there are plenty of scientists in modern times who practice a religious faith of one sort or another. Religion is not a serious factor in what they do. I can tell you more about the linguistic semantics of tense and time reference and have even done so briefly in this thread. From the perspective of linguistic expressions used to describe God, he very much is a temporal being with knowledge of our future and his own. If you dispute that, please explain the basis for your objection. You clearly don't want to be held accountable for the language you use, but you also can't stop using such language to express your thoughts. That must be quite a pickle you find yourself in, and I'm not going to help you get out of it.

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.

Well, no. Surely you've heard of Planck time, no? Anyway, let's not play the amateur physicist game. It really doesn't get us away from the fact that non-scientist believers authored the description of God that we are discussing here. It is best to try to understand what was in their minds, not Albert Einstein's or Stephen Hawking's.

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.

I didn't ask you to appreciate anything. I asked you to explain it. After all, it's your creation story and your God, not mine. If you can't make sense of it, then how can I?

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.

It isn't sheer guesswork. Anyone can read scripture and talk to people of religious faith. Arguments can be based on what they say. There are lots of books and videos on the subject, if you don't believe me, including this entire internet discussion forum. What I have argued here is that omnipotence and omniscience, taken together as divine attributes, are logically impossible--like saying that God can lift that proverbial stone too heavy to lift. And, yes, I do think I have made a logical argument, but I don't think that you have identified any flaw in it. Basically, you've tried to claim that the language used to describe God shouldn't be taken literally and that God is beyond imagining. I call that the ineffability defense. God doesn't need to be explained. That's your explanation, and you're sticking to it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Human perception of time is the only one we have..

It might be the only one that you have..
..but scientists are aware of the anomalies of human perception about 'measured time'.
Einsteinian physics exposes the complexity of the topic.

 

[Balthazzar]

I imagine that our concept of life in our linear reality would be different than that of an intelligent species on another planet, due to solar cycles, so if time can vary from small places like planets, then this would be true also throughout the heavens (cosmos). The idea or concept of time is dirived from our understanding of life and what we have experiences and have been able to observe of it. I think a 4d reality is very likely and that our limitations affect our ability to understand that time is a concept, as opposed to a tangible thing. Relevant and accurate it may be, but this wouldn't be true beyond our earth sphere. You bring up the term God, so on that point I'll make one of my own...Namely that the universe itself is the substance from which we and all other things were formed. T couldn't imagine life without time being applicable, but I likewise find it difficult to think that there isn't a type of infinite and eternal knowing in the cosmic realms.

I'm in process of sprouting a few peach seeds in the cooler. I'm watching and expecting them to sprout within 2 months. The seeds very likely have no idea what I'm doing or why. I apply this dynamic to the relationship between myself and the "substance" from where I came (God). We have no idea what we don't know and what we think we know isn't always known as we ought to know it.

 

[firedragon]

I imagine that our concept of life in our linear reality would be different than that of an intelligent species on another planet, due to solar cycles, so if time can vary from small places like planets, then this would be true also throughout the heavens (cosmos). The idea or concept of time is dirived from our understanding of life and what we have experiences and have been able to observe of it. I think a 4d reality is very likely and that our limitations affect our ability to understand that time is a concept, as opposed to a tangible thing. Relevant and accurate it may be, but this wouldn't be true beyond our earth sphere. You bring up the term God, so on that point I'll make one of my own...Namely that the universe itself is the substance from which we and all other things were formed. T couldn't imagine life without time being applicable, but I likewise find it difficult to think that there isn't a type of infinite and eternal knowing in the cosmic realms.

I'm in process of sprouting a few peach seeds in the cooler. I'm watching and expecting them to sprout within 2 months. The seeds very likely have no idea what I'm doing or why. I apply this dynamic to the relationship between myself and the "substance" from where I came (God). We have no idea what we don't know and what we think we know isn't always known as we ought to know it.

Interesting.

Do you believe Meta Time is fact or at least probable?

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no reason to believe that these descriptions were meant as similes or metaphors..

I disagree. It is easy to laugh at a scenario where we both have free-will, but the future is determined for us..
..it is logically impossible. Some people would rather have us believe that G-d does not exist, and
we should take such beliefs literally. Sorry, no can do.

Oh, you've got much worse problems than just the timeline business..

Really..

However, scripture is full of examples of anthropomorphic attributes attributed to God, including thoughts, emotions, beliefs, concern for human beings and their behavior, communication in human languages, and so on..

Straying from the topic in question .. and more about creed and theology

I think that my assumptions have been entirely consistent with the way that people describe God's nature and God's behavior. Neither of us is a physicist, so we should be even more careful than real physicists in speculating about the nature of time. Bear in mind that holy scripture was not really created by physicists. It is beyond ludicrous to think that ancient holy men had some kind of sophisticated understanding of the theory of relativity, although there are plenty of scientists in modern times who practice a religious faith of one sort or another. Religion is not a serious factor in what they do..

Well, Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274) taught that G-d was (outside of time), without understanding
the maths/physics of it, I feel sure.

After all, it's your creation story and your God, not mine. If you can't make sense of it, then how can I?

I can make sense of it .. and I don't see that G-d is limited in the ways that you suggest.
eg. suffers from no volition

It isn't sheer guesswork. Anyone can read scripture and talk to people of religious faith..

They can .. but we all have varying creeds.

What I have argued here is that omnipotence and omniscience, taken together as divine attributes, are logically impossible--like saying that God can lift that proverbial stone too heavy to lift.

No .. your argument is not identical to the 'proverbial stone too heavy to lift'.
You confuse logical impossibility with physical impossibility.

God doesn't need to be explained. That's your explanation, and you're sticking to it..

If that was my 'explanation', I would not have written so many words in this thread alone.
No .. "outside of time".

..and don't tell me how G-d who is 'outside of time' has no volition, because you have no knowledge of that .. you've already said so.