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

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

No, I don't want to discuss the Bible. I already explained that I don't believe in its god and don't consider it an authoritative source. It's not a place I go to for information or life advice.

And also no, my comment is not irrelevant. It is the opposite of irrelevant, and I already explained why. Did you want to address that or just repeat your unsupported and already rebutted claim again? The OP is what is irrelevant to this subthread, which you initiated when 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 gave you a good answer.

Also, you also chose to disregard most of the rest of my response. Did you want to address any of that now, or pretend that you never saw it? I made insightful comments on what ad hominem means, what bigotry means, and why my comment didn't qualify as either despite your accusations to the contrary. Are you good to just leave it there? I would understand that as you being unable to defend your statement and hoping that it will just be forgotten, that is, a concession. That would be the honorable thing to do when you realize that you have no counterargument to offer, but better form would be to explicitly say so.

*********

Are you an adherent of one of the Abrahamic faiths? You seem to have the antipathy for atheists that mostly comes from Abrahamic monotheists in these threads and elsewhere. You had an extreme reaction to my telling you that I don't respect belief by faith as if you were personally offended. If it helps any, that opinion isn't limited to religious faith. I have the same opinion regarding faith-based beliefs regarding stolen elections, climate denial, anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, etc.. I don't respect those opinions, either, but might find such people's opinions in other areas helpful.

Have you noticed that the dharmics, the pagans, the theistic humanists, and atheistic humanists share one temperament, but that the zealous Abrahamists share a different one? That first group of people don't get angry at atheists for having their beliefs rejected - a reaction that seems to concentrate in the zealous Abrahamic theists. That's not to say that most Abrahamic theists are atheophobic bigots, but most atheophobic bigots are Abrahamic theists. Many of the latter are easily offended by atheism, take the rejection of their god personally, and are quick to anger and insult.

 

[firedragon]

No, I don't want to discuss the Bible. I already explained that I don't believe in its god and don't consider it an authoritative source. It's not a place I go to for information or life advice.

And also no, my comment is not irrelevant. It is the opposite of irrelevant, and I already explained why. Did you want to address that or just repeat your unsupported and already rebutted claim again? The OP is what is irrelevant to this subthread, which you initiated when 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 gave you a good answer.

Also, you also chose to disregard most of the rest of my response. Did you want to address any of that now, or pretend that you never saw it? I made insightful comments on what ad hominem means, what bigotry means, and why my comment didn't qualify as either despite your accusations to the contrary. Are you good to just leave it there? I would understand that as you being unable to defend your statement and hoping that it will just be forgotten, that is, a concession. That would be the honorable thing to do when you realize that you have no counterargument to offer, but better form would be to explicitly say so.

*********

Are you an adherent of one of the Abrahamic faiths? You seem to have the antipathy for atheists that mostly comes from Abrahamic monotheists in these threads and elsewhere. You had an extreme reaction to my telling you that I don't respect belief by faith as if you were personally offended. If it helps any, that opinion isn't limited to religious faith. I have the same opinion regarding faith-based beliefs regarding stolen elections, climate denial, anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, etc.. I don't respect those opinions, either, but might find such people's opinions in other areas helpful.

Have you noticed that the dharmics, the pagans, the theistic humanists, and atheistic humanists share one temperament, but that the zealous Abrahamists share a different one? That first group of people don't get angry at atheists for having their beliefs rejected - a reaction that seems to concentrate in the zealous Abrahamic theists. That's not to say that most Abrahamic theists are atheophobic bigots, but most atheophobic bigots are Abrahamic theists. Many of the latter are easily offended by atheism, take the rejection of their god personally, and are quick to anger and insult.

Ciao.

 

[Balthazzar]

Interesting.

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

I don't know, but in a conceived infinite universe, I suspect infinite possibilities, so ... probably.

 

[firedragon]

I don't know, but in a conceived infinite universe, I suspect infinite possibilities, so ... probably.

Hmm. Thank you so much for your kind response. Highly appreciated.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I did read it.

 

[Balthazzar]

Hmm. Thank you so much for your kind response. Highly appreciated.

yup

 

[Ajax]

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.

Well, now that you saw your modal logic/fallacy collapse, you are back on your old guesswork of time...

From your link...

"Historically, some theologians have tried to solve the puzzle by invoking unique properties of God. For example, some have argued that God is ‘outside of time’ (or that ‘His knowledge is timeless’) and thus His knowledge is not foreknowledge at all, that is, God’s knowledge does not occur before (or during, or after, for that matter) any events in the world. The trouble with such solutions is (a) they leave non-theistic versions of the puzzle untouched (for example, my wife’s knowing that I will drink tea tomorrow), and (b) we can construct a revised version of the puzzle explicitly invoking God’s timelessness, for example:
God is omniscient and His knowledge is timeless—that is, God knows timelessly all that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Therefore, if He knows timelessly that a person will perform such-and-such an action, then it is impossible for that person not to perform that action."

Apart from the above debunking, you also invoke new unique (and useless) properties of God, the same as Thomas Aquinas, which you have to prove that they exist, in an ...unproven God.
Bye bye...take care

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
God is omniscient and His knowledge is timeless—that is, God knows timelessly all that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Therefore, if He knows timelessly that a person will perform such-and-such an action, then it is impossible for that person not to perform that action."

Apart from the above debunking, you also invoke new unique (and useless) properties of God, the same as Thomas Aquinas, which you have to prove that they exist, in an ...unproven God.
Bye bye...take care

For the bold that depends on how free will is understood and how cause and effect are considered for free will.

 

[Ajax]

That

For the bold that depends on how free will is understood and how cause and effect are considered for free will.

That was written in the link he gave us...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That

That was written in the link he gave us...

Yeah, but there are at least 2 versions of free will at play and that influences how the problem of God outside time relate to knowing a free will choice.
If free will is caused by the person without any outside causation and is not random, then God can know this outside time and the choice is still free will by that defintion.
Now the counter is that everything must be caused by God, but that assumes that God is bound by logic. If that is not the case, God can create an universe with processes not caused by God.
Then the counter becomes that it allows for contradiction, but that can't be the case, since God must be logical. For which it is then asked how that is known to be case for God?

These debates are in effect nothing than mind-workout for the persons doing it. What God is and can do, if there is a God, is not determined by how we think and reason about God, unless you think. that we can think God into being.
So it is great fun and a fun way to waste time.

 

[Copernicus]

I did read it.

OK, but I've spent a lot of time going over this with Muhammad_isa, so I don't want to repeat all of that again. Could you perhaps revisit some of those posts and ask specific questions about my explanation of why omniscience and omnipotence are logically incompatible with each other?

 

[Ajax]

So it is great fun and a fun way to waste time.

Exactly!!

 

[muhammad_isa]

..you have to prove that they exist, in an ...unproven God.
Bye bye...take care

I do not have to prove anything..
..but as you have made the claim that it is impossible for mankind to have free-will if
the future is known, you need to prove that .. and that is impossible.

That belief relies on a modal fallacy, as previously demonstrated.

 

[Ajax]

I explained to you many times quite categorically that modal logic can not apply to your God and you never managed to debunk it.
To be honest, I'm now bored to read the same guesses from you, going backwards and forward all the time. Have a good time

 

[muhammad_isa]

God is omniscient and His knowledge is timeless—that is, God knows timelessly all that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Therefore, if He knows timelessly that a person will perform such-and-such an action, then it is impossible for that person not to perform that action."

Apart from the above debunking..

That is no 'debunking' .. it is just another way of wording the same-old modal fallacy.

Naturally, it is impossible for a person to perform an alternative action, as that as what G-d knows
they choose.
i.e. the action performed is dependent on our choice

Word games .. brain-teasers .. paradoxes .. that's all you have.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I explained to you many times quite categorically that modal logic can not apply to your God..

Nonsense .. it doesn't need to be about God.
You pretend to know all about logic .. but you just repeat "modal logic can not apply to your God",
when a fallacy is pointed out to you. You do not show us step-by-step what is wrong with
the logic of the ref. or my explanations.

You remain in error.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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.

You do not address the issue I raise .. you merely sweep it under the carpet and make your own
assertions.

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.

We are discussing the modal fallacy in THIS argument, specifically !!!
Your conclusion implies that we are compelled to choose .. but the choice IS CONTINGENT.
We are NOT compelled to choose it.

 

[Ajax]

I gave you the reasons 3-4 times and you never managed to say anything; instead you switched back to you old time-fallacy which is debunked even in the link you gave me. I 'm not going to waste any more time with you.
I will give you later the reasons why free will is an illusion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

God's knowledge according to theology is infallible, exists before the "creation" and can not change according to your whims.

That needs to be understood in context. I do NOT believe in a literal predetermination.
Some Christians and Muslims do .. but we are not discussing this model.

We are specifically discussing whether knowledge of the future is its cause.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I gave you the reasons 3-4 times and you never managed to say anything..

Patently false. You won't stick to the topic .. you make an argument, and when you are shown
it relies on a modal fallacy, you deny it .. adding more conditions, such as
'knowing before the creation'.