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

[muhammad_isa]

If we make a choice and then God knows what choice we made, I could easily do the same...

You might know more about 'the law' than me, but you don't have a clue when it comes
to physics.
I studied combined science BSc. in Coventry.

Einstein was a clever chap .. he thought 'out of the box', which is something you don't seem to be
able to do.

 

[Trailblazer]

I wonder if it is only me that find this quote extremely nonsensical.
I asked you before but you didn't reply. Can you explain please with example what you mean and how can this be possible?

Maybe I did not give you the examples but I gave them to two other people on this thread.
Example s #1 and #2 below are basically saying the same thing with a little different wording.

#1
Again, we can choose between a or b or c. Whatever we choose will be what God knew we would choose.
We will choose what God knows we will choose, but before we make that choice we could have chosen from all the available options.

If a, b, and c were all the available options:

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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#2

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.
God knows what we will choose, God has always known that, but we can choose between all the options available to us.

That is, how can we can choose something different from what God knew we will choose and that something different will be what God knew that we would choose?

We cannot choose something different from what God knew we will choose.
From all the choices available to us, we will choose what God knew we would choose.

The misconception that you have is that you think there is only one choice we could have made, but that is not true.
Whatever choice we make is the choice God knew we would make from all the options available to us.

Let's say we go to a restaurant and look at the menu. We can order either steak, chicken, or fish.

If we choose to order steak, God would have always known we would order steak, since God knows everything we will do before we ever do it.
If we choose to order chicken, God would have always known we would order steak, since God knows everything we will do before we ever do it.
If we choose to order fish, God would have always known we would order steak, since God knows everything we will do before we ever do it.

 

[firedragon]

Maybe I did not give you the examples but I gave them to two other people on this thread.
Example s #1 and #2 below are basically saying the same thing with a little different wording.

#1
Again, we can choose between a or b or c. Whatever we choose will be what God knew we would choose.
We will choose what God knows we will choose, but before we make that choice we could have chosen from all the available options.

If a, b, and c were all the available options:

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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#2

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.
God knows what we will choose, God has always known that, but we can choose between all the options available to us.

We cannot choose something different from what God knew we will choose.
From all the choices available to us, we will choose what God knew we would choose.

The misconception that you have is that you think there is only one choice we could have made, but that is not true.
Whatever choice we make is the choice God knew we would make from all the options available to us.

Let's say we go to a restaurant and look at the menu. We can order either steak, chicken, or fish.

If we choose to order steak, God would have always known we would order steak, since God knows everything we will do before we ever do it.
If we choose to order chicken, God would have always known we would order steak, since God knows everything we will do before we ever do it.
If we choose to order fish, God would have always known we would order steak, since God knows everything we will do before we ever do it.

I think you should read a but no Milinism. no harm in reading.

 

[Ajax]

Maybe I did not give you the examples but I gave them to two other people on this thread.
Example s #1 and #2 below are basically saying the same thing with a little different wording.

#1
Again, we can choose between a or b or c. Whatever we choose will be what God knew we would choose.
We will choose what God knows we will choose, but before we make that choice we could have chosen from all the available options.

If a, b, and c were all the available options:

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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#2

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.
God knows what we will choose, God has always known that, but we can choose between all the options available to us.

We cannot choose something different from what God knew we will choose.
From all the choices available to us, we will choose what God knew we would choose.

The misconception that you have is that you think there is only one choice we could have made, but that is not true.
Whatever choice we make is the choice God knew we would make from all the options available to us.

Let's say we go to a restaurant and look at the menu. We can order either steak, chicken, or fish.

If we choose to order steak, God would have always known we would order steak, since God knows everything we will do before we ever do it.
If we choose to order chicken, God would have always known we would order steak, since God knows everything we will do before we ever do it.
If we choose to order fish, God would have always known we would order steak, since God knows everything we will do before we ever do it.

Totally disagree and find it quite laughable actually, especially your claim that "what God knows is contingent upon what we choose."

First of all If someone knows our choices/actions after we make them, he is not omniscient. He gets his knowledge through surveillance. Anyone could be omniscient then. CIA and FBI could have omniscience on a lot of people. Let alone that God would have been unable to instruct prophets to write about the future, as most theists believe. Secondly, you imply that God is our puppet and follows our whims, forcing our choices to become God's knowledge. Thirdly, Christian theology teaches that God's knowledge of everything pre-existed creation. Fourthly, God being out of time is a silly excuse that makes no difference whatsoever, because you could create a perfectly logical argument to include God's timeless knowledge. See messages #553 and #463.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes .. I believe that G-d is "All Knowing" and "All Powerful".
..but presumably, not in the way that you do .. that is, that these attributes contradict each other in some way.

I have no idea what your presumption means, since you never actually explain how your understanding of those expressions differs from mine. I am left with the impression that you just don't want to agree but can't figure out how to disagree.

No .. something that is physically impossible, such as walking on water, is not the same as a sentence that makes no logical sense.

I agree, but I only referred to cases where the sentence made no logical sense, given the properties of omniscience and omnipotence attributed to God. For example, I can make a stone too heavy for me to lift, because I am not omnipotent. It is seemingly paradoxical that God cannot also make a stone too heavy for God to lift, because that would cancel out his omnipotence. Logically, he cannot be both capable and not capable of doing something at the same time. That's a logical limitation, not a physical one.

God is powerless to make a stone to heavy to lift..

It's the sentence that is at fault .. we cannot communicate effectively when talking gibberish.

You are very clearly wrong about that. The sentence is perfectly grammatical and sensible. It is not in any sense "gibberish". Any person can make an object that is too heavy to lift. God cannot. The reason is that doing so would mean that he would no longer be omnipotent. If God did anything to render himself vulnerable in any way, he would be less than omnipotent. You know this fact, but you keep trying to ignore it.

It is logically possible that an omnipotent God could change his mind about something or do something that he didn't realize he was going to do, except that he wouldn't be omniscient if he could do that..

Says you .. you are categorically telling us all about something that you have no knowledge of.. i.e. something not subject to space-time

Says anyone who knows and acknowledges what the words "omnipotent" and "omniscient" mean. One doesn't need to be omnipotent or omniscient to understand what they mean. I did not invent those words, and you do not explain how you manage to avoid using them in their conventional sense.

..changing his mind is logically impossible, given his perfect foreknowledge.

The anthropomorphizing of G-d, describing a scenario mentioning past-tense, future-tense etc. is invalid. It's no more than guesswork, and a bad one at that.

"His perfect foreknowledge" does not equal a future pre-determined by Him. If we have free-will, which you have already agreed to, then I see no reason why an independent Creator of space-time cannot influence events also ..eg. He can put 'ideas' in our mind

I'm not the one anthropomorphizing God. I just use the language that believers use to describe God and point out how it leads into contradictions such as the problem of being able to change a future actions that one knows for certain one will perform. Human beings don't know the future for certain, but God does. You have not denied that. Yet you still want to maintain that God is perfectly free to change his future actions, even though he knows that he won't!

God exists within his own timeline, where he makes decisions, plans, executes, observes, etc.

Who knows?
You use 'timeline' as meaning something like our own space-time .. but I do not envisage G-d as a being with form .. more like an infinite number of non-physical souls (essence), which has no need for measured time, or measured space .. as they are part of the creation.

Who knows???? You seem to know a lot of things about God until you suddenly don't. So I'm asking you how such a being could make any decisions, plans, observations, or take any actions, without those things being what we think of as actions. If they are events, then they have to occur over a span of time in some timeline. Earlier, you falsely accused me of speaking gibberish when what I wrote made obvious sense. Now you seem to describe God's actions as if they weren't actions in any sensible meaning of the word.

Every action is conceptually an event. There is no other way to interpret them, and that is clearly how they were intended to be understood by audiences. All you can really say is that God's timeline is external to ours, not that God is 'outside of time' in every sense..

Outside of our measured-time, yes.

Thank you. Finally, we agree on something. God's timeline is purportedly outside our timeline and not measurable from our perspective. I've already stipulated that for the sake of argument.

The problem is that you can't explain the language used to describe God, because it leads to contradictions and confusion. So you just wave your hand and say that it doesn't matter..

It's not easy to describe something that is not of this universe, naturally .. but not impossible.
Words are not my forte .. I'm better with boolean logic and math.

I think that you are just as capable as any English speaker of using the language. We are all capable of imagining things that are not real or "of this universe", and the language is perfectly suitable for describing our thoughts. Religion is spread almost exclusively through words and language, so I agree that it isn't impossible. That's why I keep trying to get you to think through what your words are telling us when you describe what you call and "infinite" being. Omniscience and omnipotence are words that are perfectly meaningful and easy to define. That doesn't mean that any beings exist or could exist with such attributes. They are just words that people have used to describe their concept of a perfect being, even if they lead to contradictions in the end. One thing that is clear to me about religion is that it doesn't really need to make sense in order to be of use to most people. For those of us who need it to make sense, it is pretty useless.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are very clearly wrong about that. The sentence is perfectly grammatical and sensible. It is not in any sense "gibberish". Any person can make an object that is too heavy to lift. God cannot.

It's gibberish in more ways than one.
Firstly, you imply that G-d is a person with physical form..
Secondly, it is logically impossible to lift a stone, that you have declared as "too heavy to lift".
It's gibberish, alright.

I'm not the one anthropomorphizing God. I just use the language that believers use to describe God..

..and how else do you expect people to explain .. in 'language' beyond our experience?
..a poor excuse, when somebody points it out to you.

..and point out how it leads into contradictions such as the problem of being able to change a future actions that one knows for certain one will perform. Human beings don't know the future for certain, but God does.. You have not denied that. Yet you still want to maintain that God is perfectly free to change his future actions, even though he knows that he won't!

You are doing it again .. talking about "G-d's future" in the same way as we talk about our future.
It's invalid .. two different perspectives .. you are claiming you categorically know all about a
"possible being" who is not part of our created universe.
Who are you? Dr. Who?

Who knows???? You seem to know a lot of things about God until you suddenly don't. So I'm asking you how such a being could make any decisions, plans, observations, or take any actions, without those things being what we think of as actions. If they are events, then they have to occur over a span of time in some timeline..

Merely human perception of time .. you cannot imagine any other scenario .. but that doesn't say
anything about the possibilities of the existence of something tremendous, that created all
we see. It's just you limiting the existence of that greater than yourself.

Topics, such of that of an Infinite being, are not straightforward, as you suggest. You merely attempt
to confuse, by "pinning down" G-d into a finite physical universe, that behaves like ours. That's invalid!

One thing that is clear to me about religion is that it doesn't really need to make sense in order to be of use to most people. For those of us who need it to make sense, it is pretty useless.

Nonsense .. you assume that we all follow a religion, and don't care whether it is logically sane.
I don't agree. Their are plenty of Dr.'s who take their religion seriously.
How is it, that they study scientific subjects for many years, and perhaps practice medicine, but
still believe in the existence of G-d?
Do they have a "switch" in their minds .. and turn on their rational mind when treating patients,
and turn it off when they pray 5 times-a-day?

 

[Trailblazer]

Totally disagree and find it quite laughable actually, especially your claim that "what God knows is contingent upon what we choose."

I used the wrong word. What I meant was that God has knowledge of what we will choose so God will know what we are going to choose.

First of all If someone knows our choices/actions after we make them, he is not omniscient.

No, what God knows is not contingent upon what we choose.
God's knowledge is not contingent upon anything we do. It exists because omniscience is an attribute of God.

We do not have to first do what we will do before God will know what we will do because God already knew what we would do before we did it.

Secondly, you imply that God is our puppet and follows our whims, forcing our choices to become God's knowledge.

I never said or implied that. We are free to make our own choices. God has knowledge of our choices because God is omniscient.

Thirdly, Christian theology teaches that God's knowledge of everything pre-existed creation.

That is what I also believe.

Fourthly, God being out of time is a silly excuse that makes no difference whatsoever, because you could create a perfectly logical argument to include God's timeless knowledge. See messages #553 and #463.

I did not say anything about God being out of time although I believe that God is not subject to time as it is measured in this world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You asked for an example and I gave you an example, but you did not respond to what I said.

We cannot choose something different from what God knew we will choose.
From all the choices available to us, we will choose what God knew we would choose.

The misconception that you have is that you think there is only one choice we could have made, but that is not true.

Whatever choice we make is the choice God knew we would make from all the options available to us.

Let's say we go to a restaurant and look at the menu. We can order either steak, chicken, or fish.

If we choose to order steak, God would have always known we would order steak, since God knows everything we will do before we ever do it.
If we choose to order chicken, God would have always known we would order steak, since God knows everything we will do before we ever do it.
If we choose to order fish, God would have always known we would order steak, since God knows everything we will do before we ever do it.

 

[Ajax]

I used the wrong word. What I meant was that God has knowledge of what we will choose so God will know what we are going to choose.

No, what God knows is not contingent upon what we choose.
God's knowledge is not contingent upon anything we do. It exists because omniscience is an attribute of God.

Agreed.

We do not have to first do what we will do before God will know what we will do because God already knew what we would do before we did it.

Can not fully understand what you mean by "first". Can you elaborate?

I never said or implied that. We are free to make our own choices. God has knowledge of our choices because God is omniscient.

Half agreed. In the sense that we are free to have many choices, but eventually we have to choose what God knows. You admitted further down that "We cannot choose something different from what God knew we will choose. From all the choices available to us, we will choose what God knew we would choose."

I did not say anything about God being out of time although I believe that God is not subject to time as it is measured in this world.

Agreed.

We cannot choose something different from what God knew we will choose.
From all the choices available to us, we will choose what God knew we would choose.

Agreed.

The misconception that you have is that you think there is only one choice we could have made, but that is not true.

Whatever choice we make is the choice God knew we would make from all the options available to us.

Here is the problem... If you agreed that "We cannot choose something different from what God knew we will choose. From all the choices available to us, we will choose what God knew we would choose", it logically means that God already knows the one and only one choice we will have. God does not have a zillion choices in his pocket for you, otherwise he would not be omniscient.

Thus the argument can go like this..
Premise 1: God is infallible and omniscient.
Premise 2: God knows one particular choice we will choose (as you agreed).
Conclusion: Therefore, we can have any choice we want and God will know that choice.

This argument is not logically valid because the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises. The premises, when taken together, imply that there is one specific future choice that we will make (and which God already knows). This contradicts the conclusion’s implication that we have the freedom to choose among multiple options freely.

Therefore, the correct logical conclusion from the premises should be something more like:
"Therefore, we will make the specific choice that God knows we will make."
Thus, the original conclusion ("we can choose any choice we want and God will know that choice") does not logically follow from the given premises, making the argument invalid.

Let's say we go to a restaurant and look at the menu. We can order either steak, chicken, or fish.

If we choose to order steak, God would have always known we would order steak, since God knows everything we will do before we ever do it.
If we choose to order chicken, God would have always known we would order steak, since God knows everything we will do before we ever do it.
If we choose to order fish, God would have always known we would order steak, since God knows everything we will do before we ever do it.

Again, same as above..

 

[muhammad_isa]

First of all If someone knows our choices/actions after we make them, he is not omniscient.

No, what God knows is not contingent upon what we choose.

There seems a bit of confusion here..
@Ajax says "after we make them" .. from whose perspective, G-d's or ours??
..because they are two different things entirely.

From our perspective, what G-d knows (i.e. future events) is indeed dependent on what we choose, as while we perceive we haven't made the choices yet, G-d perceives that we have.
..that is, in the 'model' where G-d is not part of the space-time continuum we call the universe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Therefore, the correct logical conclusion from the premises should be something more like:
"Therefore, we will make the specific choice that God knows we will make."
Thus, the original conclusion ("we can choose any choice we want and God will know that choice") does not logically follow from the given premises, making the argument invalid.

"therefore we will make the specific choice" .. why therefore?
We know that we will make that specific choice, because G-d knows what we will choose.

Thus, the original conclusion ("we can choose any choice we want and God will know that choice") does not logically follow from the given premises..

We CAN choose what we want to choose .. because that "specific choice" is the one we wanted to choose.
If we had wanted to choose anything else, then we would have done so.

 

[muhammad_isa]

@Ajax @Trailblazer

Another explanation would be as follows:
The non-compatibilist argument is detailed below:

1. PAP: An agent is responsible for an action only if said agent could have done otherwise.
2. An agent could have done otherwise only if causal determinism is false.
3. Therefore, an agent is responsible for an action only if causal determinism is false.

This appears to be a valid argument, but it is not.
The second premise is false.

It should read "An agent could have done otherwise, if they could have done otherwise, if they had wanted to do otherwise."
..and then the third premise does not follow.

 

[Ajax]

@muhammad_isa
Oh not again... all your arguments for modal logic and timeless/out of time God, have been debunked.. It has become extremely boring..
I only replied out of respect to @Trailblazer ..
It seems you can not take defeat..bad luck..

 

[muhammad_isa]

all your arguments for modal logic and timeless/out of time God, have been debunked..

False!

It has become extremely boring..

..then bye bye

 

[Trailblazer]

Can not fully understand what you mean by "first". Can you elaborate?

God knows what we will do before we do it so we don't need to do it first, before God will know what we are going to do.

Half agreed. In the sense that we are free to have many choices, but eventually we have to choose what God knows. You admitted further down that "We cannot choose something different from what God knew we will choose. From all the choices available to us, we will choose what God knew we would choose."

Half agreed. We are free to make many different choices, but eventually we will choose what God knows we would choose, but we will not not choose something because God knew we would choose it. We will choose it because we wanted to choose it.

We won't choose something different from what God knew we will choose. From all the choices available to us, we will choose what God knew we would choose, but before we chose x, we could have chosen x y or z. If we had chosen y or z, then y or z would have been what God knew we would choose.

Here is the problem... If you agreed that "We cannot choose something different from what God knew we will choose. From all the choices available to us, we will choose what God knew we would choose", it logically means that God already knows the one and only one choice we will have. God does not have a zillion choices in his pocket for you, otherwise he would not be omniscient.

God already knows the one and only one choice we will make. God does not have ANY choices in his pocket for us, because God does not MAKE any of our choices. God simply knows what choices we will make.

Thus the argument can go like this..
Premise 1: God is infallible and omniscient.
Premise 2: God knows one particular choice we will choose (as you agreed).
Conclusion: Therefore, we can have any choice we want and God will know that choice.

That is correct.

This argument is not logically valid because the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises. The premises, when taken together, imply that there is one specific future choice that we will make (and which God already knows). This contradicts the conclusion’s implication that we have the freedom to choose among multiple options freely.

There is one specific choice that we will make (which God already knows).
This does not contradict the conclusion that we had the freedom to choose from among multiple options freely.
Whatever we chose (x, y, or z) will be the one specific choice that we will make (which God already knows).

Therefore, the correct logical conclusion from the premises should be something more like:
"Therefore, we will make the specific choice that God knows we will make."

Correct. "Therefore, we will make the specific choice that God knows we will make."

Whatever we chose (x, y, or z) will be the one specific choice that we will make (which God already knows).
But before we chose from the available options (x, y, or z) we could have chosen one of the other options.
If we had chosen one of the other options God would have known which one we were going to choose.

Thus, the original conclusion ("we can choose any choice we want and God will know that choice") does not logically follow from the given premises, making the argument invalid.

That was logically valid (see above).

 

[Ajax]

but eventually we will choose what God knows we would choose, but we will not not choose something because God knew we would choose it. We will choose it because we wanted to choose it.

That reminds me of what we used to say as kids when we had to carry out some work we didn't like and were trying to avoid the laughter of our friends by saying..."I don't clean the lawn because my father told me, I wanted to clean it".

This conundrum (involving God) arises mainly with theists who, from one hand they want to believe that God is infallible, omniscient and omnipotent as the religion teaches and on the other hand they need to have free will, because if free will is lost and God determines the future, then all hell breaks loose. Religions need free will. How else could people repent of their sins? That was an early mistake of the religion and various people tried to address it unsuccessfully. People also need to have the illusion of free will. Need to appear in control of their actions. The only solution to this problem is that religions teachings about God's attributes are wrong and were fabricated to present a perfect God. And as it was explained, omniscience and omnipotence together, are contradictory.

In the real world (as opposed to the theistic world), most people are not aware that our brain, driven also partly from our experiences, takes the decisions for us, up to 10 seconds before we are conscious of our choices (see initial test by Benjamin Libet). Our brains are sculptured from very young age from a) our genes and b) our environment, neither of which is under our control. Our thoughts are the product of unconscious causes.

Anyway this discussion has lasted far too long and as always...everyone is entitled to believe as one wants, even if they are wrong. Take care.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..as it was explained, omniscience and omnipotence together, are contradictory.

...everyone is entitled to believe as one wants, even if they are wrong..

Mmm .. you can't force people to believe one + one = two.
You can't force people to believe what Einstein taught us about 'time'.
You can't force people to believe that G-d's existence is not logically impossible.

At the end of the day, we all have our own personal reasons for what we believe .. some valid, and some invalid.
..but if a person stands before a judge, swearing by G-d on the Bible, claiming that "we had no choice"
to commit an offence would not be acceptable.

 

[Ajax]

At the end of the day, we all have our own personal reasons for what we believe .. some valid, and some invalid.
..but if a person stands before a judge, swearing by G-d on the Bible, claiming that "we had no choice"
to commit an offence would not be acceptable.

Wrong again. People with proven brain malfunctions and/or brain diseases are acquitted of offenses, in most cases even for murder.
And people are not obliged any more to swear by God on the Bible.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Wrong again. People with proven brain malfunctions and/or brain diseases are acquitted of offenses..

Pointing out exceptions does not invalidate what I said..
i.e. it applies to a sane person.

 

[Ajax]

Pointing out exceptions does not invalidate what I said..
i.e. it applies to a sane person.

It still shows though that courts accept that criminality results from the brain.

Furthermore a debate has started for many years now resulting to this... for sane people..
Judging homicide defendants by their brains: an empirical study on the use of neuroscience in homicide trials in Slovenia

​

 

[muhammad_isa]

Furthermore a debate has started for many years now resulting to this... for sane people..

Are you trying to suggest that courts will accept that sane people should not be held to account?
Ridiculous!