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

[Koldo]

As a conscious agent navigating through the maze of existence, you are free to choose which of several predetermined directions you take at any one point. All possible outcomes occur in some world or universe, but you have at least a degree of choice which one occurs in your experience (although there may be many “yous” in many other worlds).

This is not “woo” nor is it sci-fi, it’s physics.

The Many-Worlds Theory, Explained

Let's presume the many worlds interpretation is correct. How do you reach the conclusion you have a degree of choice over which outcome occurs in your experience?

My conclusion is completely distinct: You have even less control over the outcome since every single outcome is actualized.

 

[Trailblazer]

The (first-time) reader feels with the protagonist and imagines him exercising his free will. You (or the second time reader) know the outcome of the struggle. Does your knowledge "cause" the protagonist to decide? Did he ever have a decision?

No, my knowledge did not cause the protagonist to decide. He had the free will to decide.

The decision that he made according to the book you wrote was the end result of his decision-making process.
You decided what the decision would be in the book because you wrote the story in the book.

God does not write our stories, God only knows what will be in them.
We write our own stories by the decisions we make and the resultant actions throughout our lives.
Things that happen to us as a result of something that we did not choose to have happen are also part of our story.

Everything that happens is preceded by a cause, but God's knowledge does not cause anything to happen.

 

[Heyo]

No, my knowledge did not cause the protagonist to decide. He had the free will to decide.

The decision that he made according to the book you wrote was the end result of his decision-making process.
You decided what the decision would be in the book because you wrote the story in the book.

God does not write our stories, God only knows what will be in them.
We write our own stories by the decisions we make and the resultant actions throughout our lives.
Things that happen to us as a result of something that we did not choose to have happen are also part of our story.

Everything that happens is preceded by a cause, but God's knowledge does not cause anything to happen.

I didn't write the book, you did.

Imagine writing a book.

But it doesn't matter, the book exists. If god didn't write it but merely read it, god isn't the cause of the decision and just a character in the book, impotent to change anything and knowing so.
The existence of the book is the reason why free will can't exist, independent who wrote it.

 

[Trailblazer]

But it doesn't matter, the book exists. If god didn't write it but merely read it, god isn't the cause of the decision and just a character in the book, impotent to change anything and knowing so.

The Book of Life exists but God did not write it.
God did not need to read the Book because God knows what is in it, since God knows everything that we will ever choose to do as well as everything that will happen to us that was not our choice.

God is not a character in the Book. God is standing outside the Book watching what humans choose to do.
God is not impotent to change anything in the Book. God could change what is in the Book of Life if He wanted to, in which case the Book would read differently.

The existence of the book is the reason why free will can't exist, independent who wrote it.

God did not write the Book of Life. Humans determine what will be in the Book by their own choices and actions.
God knows what is in the Book of life because God knows what our choices and actions will be because God is all-knowing.

 

[firedragon]

Not at all.
It's no different w "god" than if I'd said
Batboy is nonexistemt.

Yet your response is different.

Pointing to the basic flaw for your construct
is no " red herring".
Maybe get your terminology correct anc learn to figure be what an argument even is before going on to such an
ambitious project.

K.

 

[firedragon]

What he is saying is that God only knows the future if determinism is true.

I know what he is saying. But it's absurd. Knowledge and determinism are two different categories. And has not understood the OP and completely ignored it. Completely. You have too.

Tell me. Does the atheistic model of determinism mean knowledge of the future?

 

[Audie]

I know what he is saying. But it's absurd. Knowledge and determinism are two different categories. And has not understood the OP and completely ignored it. Completely. You have too.

Tell me. Does the atheistic model of determinism mean knowledge of the future?

What an absurd question.

 

[Heyo]

I know what he is saying. But it's absurd. Knowledge and determinism are two different categories. And has not understood the OP and completely ignored it. Completely. You have too.

Tell me. Does the atheistic model of determinism mean knowledge of the future?

There is no "atheistic" model of determinism. There is, however, Determinism - Wikipedia.

I hope we can agree on this?

The real question is, if determinism can be compatible with free will.
I don't think so, and I can't understand how any logically thinking being can argue otherwise.

(@Trailblazer obviously isn't a logically thinking being.)

 

[firedragon]

What an absurd question.

Why? Answer the question directly without any other irrelevant rhetoric like earlier please.

 

[firedragon]

I don't think so, and I can't understand how any logically thinking being can argue otherwise.

Do you consider Daniel Dennet a "logical thinking person"?

 

[Trailblazer]

The real question is, if determinism can be compatible with free will.
I don't think so, and I can't understand how any logically thinking being can argue otherwise.

(@Trailblazer obviously isn't a logically thinking being.)

I never said that determinism is compatible with free will. I only ever said that God does not determine what humans do.

 

[Koldo]

I know what he is saying. But it's absurd.

If you understood, you wouldn't be calling it absurd. The OP was addressed.

 

[firedragon]

If you understood, you wouldn't be calling it absurd. The OP was addressed.

K

 

[Heyo]

Do you consider Daniel Dennet a "logical thinking person"?

A very fine specimen of that group, from what I've read and heard from him. Iirc, he thinks that free will is an illusion, and he's agnostic about the world being deterministic. I can't remember what, if any, he said about the connection of the two.

 

[Heyo]

I never said that determinism is compatible with free will. I only ever said that God does not determine what humans do.

You kinda did.

"No, my knowledge did not cause the protagonist to decide. He had the free will to decide." - Post #42

You say that an entity in a deterministic world (a book) can have free will.

 

[Trailblazer]

You kinda did.

"No, my knowledge did not cause the protagonist to decide. He had the free will to decide." - Post #42

You say that an entity in a deterministic world (a book) can have free will.

I do not believe that we live in a deterministic world.

 

[Heyo]

I do not believe that we live in a deterministic world.

Neither do I. The hypothetical stems from the OP.

But a nondeterministic world precludes the existence of precognition, especially perfect precognition.
And you still believe in that, don't you?

You can only know the future, if the future is fixed (predetermined). I.e. the existence of an omniscient entity is an unmistakeable sign that you must live in a deterministic world.
Believing both in nondeterminism and omniscience is holding two diametrically opposite views at once. Highly illogical.

 

[Trailblazer]

But a nondeterministic world precludes the existence of precognition, especially perfect precognition.
And you still believe in that, don't you?

No, a nondeterministic world does not preclude the existence of a God who has perfect foreknowledge.

You can only know the future, if the future is fixed (predetermined). I.e. the existence of an omniscient entity is an unmistakeable sign that you must live in a deterministic world.
Believing both in nondeterminism and omniscience is holding two diametrically opposite views at once. Highly illogical.

The omniscient God can and does know the future even though it is not predetermined.

God has perfect foreknowledge, so everything that will ever happen to each and every person in their lives is written on the Tablet of Fate.

These events have not happened to us yet since we exist in linear time, but God knows what these events will be before they happen to us on earth.

The future has not occurred yet in this world, a world that is contingent upon time, but in the spiritual realm where God exists, there is no such thing as linear time. Rather, time and space are collapsed such that all events are knowable and as such it is possible to see everything simultaneously.

God, being omniscient, knows and foresees everything that has ever happened, what is happening now, and what will happen in the future on earth simultaneously, not linearly, but humans exist in linear time so we see things linearly.

Humans have free will and the ability to choose what we will do throughout our lives, over the course of time. Whatever we end up doing will be what God knew we would do, because God is all-knowing.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Let's presume the many worlds interpretation is correct. How do you reach the conclusion you have a degree of choice over which outcome occurs in your experience?

My conclusion is completely distinct: You have even less control over the outcome since every single outcome is actualized.

You don't control outcomes. That's a common misconception about what free will actually implies. What you have is a degree of freedom over which actions you take; the outcomes are always beyond your control.

 

[Heyo]

No, a nondeterministic world does not preclude the existence of a God who has perfect foreknowledge.

How? I have a feeling that you are using a different definition of "determinism" or of "perfect knowledge" than I do.
Or your motivated reasoning prevents you from seeing the contradiction, i.e. you being not rational.

Bring an example how a foreknown decision can be free, i.e. how decision A and !A can both be compatible with an omniscient entity having predicted A.
You are violating the law of non-contradiction, one of the most basic laws of logic - and you don't seem to be aware of it.