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

[Ajax]

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

Neurocriminology - Wikipedia
You are left far behind from developments...

From an old lecture of Sam Harris. Watch it, it is interesting, even if you don't agree with it.

38:45 "The Supreme Court of US has come out and said that free will is inconsistent with the underlining precepts of our criminal justice system."

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are left far behind from developments...

Maybe so, and I'd rather not follow robot's opinions like you.

"The Supreme Court of US has come out and said that free will is inconsistent with the underlining precepts of our criminal justice system."

Well, it's complete nonsense .. what does the 'supreme court' judge by?
Who's pulling their strings?

 

[Ajax]

Maybe so, and I'd rather not follow robot's opinions like you.


Well, it's complete nonsense .. what does the 'supreme court' judge by?
Who's pulling their strings?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Yes, this discussion has gone on long enough, and still, nobody can answer one simple question:
How does God's knowledge of the future determine the future?

Omniscience has nothing to do with the logic behind this argument.
Knowledge that x is going to happen in the future does not cause x to happen in the future.

Does an astronomer's knowledge that at at certain time and place an eclipse will occur cause that eclipse to occur?
Does my knowledge that I am going on a vacation next year cause the vacation to take place?

Everything has a cause, and God's knowledge does not cause anything to happen. Omniscience is an attribute of God.

We can choose anything we want to choose and God will know what we are going to choose because God has perfect foreknowledge, but God's foreknowledge is not the cause of what we choose, it is totally unrelated to what we choose.

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.

Free will is not a theistic thing. Religions don't need free will. Humans need free will to make choices regarding how to live their lives and moral choices, for which they are then accountable.

Free will is circumscribed by many factors such as heredity, childhood upbringing, adult experiences, education, and present life circumstances, so we are not 'free' to choose anything we might want to choose. In that sense free will is deterministic, but we still have free will to choose between the options we are able to choose from.

The real world is based upon the assumption that humans have free will to make moral choices and that is why the entire justice system is based upon free will. We can only be responsible and accountable for the choices we make if we have free will to choose. This has nothing to do with religion, it's simple logic.

 

[Link]

Yes, this discussion has gone on long enough, and still, nobody can answer one simple question:
How does God's knowledge of the future determine the future?

It's not that it determines the future necessarily, it's that the future has only one set path in this case, the one God knows. Whether 4d model or something else, the future doesn't have alternative pathways at the moment of the decision.

It's more accurate to say God can only have absolute knowledge of the future if it's determined and has one set path.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not that it determines the future necessarily, it's that the future has only one set path in this case, the one God knows. Whether 4d model or something else, the future doesn't have alternative pathways at the moment of the decision.

It's more accurate to say God can only have absolute knowledge of the future if it's determined and has one set path.

That is true. There is only one path we will take, since there cannot be more than one path. The question is what determines that path.
God has absolute knowledge of the future but God's knowledge does not determine the path we will take.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is only one path we will take, since there cannot be more than one path. The question is what determines that path.
God has absolute knowledge of the future but God's knowledge does not determine the path we will take.

Well put.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

OK, you are going to stonewall that one, even though the language is clear and the point easy to understand. Anyone can make objects that are too heavy for them to lift. God cannot make an object too heavy for him to lift simply because he is omnipotent, and it would be logically impossible for an omnipotent being to make itself vulnerable without losing its property of omnipotence. That may seem paradoxical, but it is the kind of logical hole that you dig yourself into by trying to justify belief in a preposterous being. Don't blame language for your inability to describe God coherently. The problem is in you, not the language.

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.

I expect people to imagine things that are beyond their experience and describe what they imagine. That doesn't mean that they will come up with a coherent thought or description. Every religion has its silly ideas that large numbers of people simply accept or pretend to accept. I just attended a lecture on the Norse gods, who wanted to have the Giants build a perfect wall around Asgard. The lecturer pointed out that they were gods and should have been able to build the wall themselves, but that would not have made for a good story. And a lot of Vikings died defending their religion when the Christians got some of them to switch over to the new religion and force others to make the same switch.

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?

You didn't get the part about different timelines, did you? Even though you yourself have been making roughly the same argument. Oh, well.

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!

You have not convinced me that you can imagine anything at all that I cannot imagine, and you still have not said one word to refute what I have said about the semantics of time reference and how words used to describe your God presuppose a timeline, no matter how much and how often you insist that there is something else going on.

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?

I don't think it's controversial that people compartmentalize their thinking and often hold contradictory or incompatible beliefs. Intelligent people can convince themselves to believe some pretty stupid ideas, because they are better than others at defending stupid ideas. So do not for a second believe that I think you are stupid.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK, you are going to stonewall that one, even though the language is clear and the point easy to understand. Anyone can make objects that are too heavy for them to lift. God cannot make an object too heavy for him to lift simply because he is omnipotent, and it would be logically impossible for an omnipotent being to make itself vulnerable without losing its property of omnipotence. That may seem paradoxical, but it is the kind of logical hole that you dig yourself into by trying to justify belief in a preposterous being. Don't blame language for your inability to describe God coherently. The problem is in you, not the language.

...

You have to show as actually show for God as a being that logic applies to that God.
The problem is that this is all in the minds of people debating one version of God or another; and the same with logic as to it actually exists.

 

[Ajax]

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?

It was initially 50 times a day, but Moses suggested to Muhammad to negotiate it (when Muhammad visited God for a while in 7th heaven) and he successfully managed to bring it down to 5..., right?
Even Muhammad didn't want to pray that much..

 

[muhammad_isa]

Anyone can make objects that are too heavy for them to lift..

Obviously .. the clue is in "too heavy to lift"

God cannot make an object too heavy for him to lift simply because he is omnipotent..

Nope .. I get to define omnipotent, and not you.
It does NOT include the logically impossible. You have declared the stone as "too heavy to lift",
and then said G-d is not omnipotent because He can lift anything He wishes .. duh!

I don't think it's controversial that people compartmentalize their thinking and often hold contradictory or incompatible beliefs..

..but I was not not talking about "people" .. I was talking about well-educated Doctors, who have
no problem in imagining G-d's existence. Are you claiming that these people are all fooling themselves
when they pray to some inconceivable G-d?

I think you should stick to your own beliefs, and not assume that you "know it all", when it comes
to the existence of that beyond your physical experience.

 

[Link]

That is true. There is only one path we will take, since there cannot be more than one path. The question is what determines that path.
God has absolute knowledge of the future but God's knowledge does not determine the path we will take.

As I said whether God determines it or not, it doesn't change the fact there is only one set path at the time of decision. There must be alternative pathways at the time of the decision for there to be free-will.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There must be alternative pathways at the time of the decision for there to be free-will.

..and that is what most incompatibilists complain about.
That is what our human perception of time tells us .. that if it can be known what happens in the future,
we feel that what is known MUST be the cause .. call it intuition, if you like .. but it is incorrect.

A thought experiment might shed more light..
Person A does not believe an agent outside of time can know the future, but believes they have free-will.
No problem

Person B believes an agent outside of time CAN know the future. So this, in itself, means they no longer have free-will???
People should realize, that this is not logical .. we either have free-will or we don't.

..and those people who go around suggesting that free-will depends on what we believe are
either being insincere .. or illogical.

 

[Link]

..and that is what most incompatibilists complain about.
That is what our human perception of time tells us .. that if it can be known what happens in the future,
we feel that what is known MUST be the cause .. call it intuition, if you like .. but it is incorrect.

A thought experiment might shed more light..
Person A does not believe an agent outside of time can know the future, but believes they have free-will.
No problem

Person B believes an agent outside of time CAN know the future. So this, in itself, means they no longer have free-will???
People should realize, that this is not logical .. we either have free-will or we don't.

..and those people who go around suggesting that free-will depends on what we believe are
either being insincere .. or illogical.

We are going in circles brother. I didn't say it must be the cause, I'm saying, for there to be free-will, there must be alternative paths at the time of decision.

 

[Copernicus]

I

Obviously .. the clue is in "too heavy to lift"

Nope .. I get to define omnipotent, and not you.
It does NOT include the logically impossible. You have declared the stone as "too heavy to lift",
and then said G-d is not omnipotent because He can lift anything He wishes .. duh!

That's a pretty confused rendition of what you thought I said, but it does tell me that you simply did not follow my argument, no matter how clear and plainly stated I thought I had made it. I'm not sure that it is worth the bother, but this is really such a simple argument. First of all, neither of us really "gets to define omnipotent". Its meaning is clear to most English speakers and most people who believe in a version of the Abrahamic God. Every English dictionary I've seen has a definition for it, so I'm not going to consent to use any post hoc private definition you want to make up in order to support your argument.

Because of God's omnipotence, he is not limited by gravity in the same way that people are. Hence, paradoxically, people can do something that God cannot--experience weakness, vulnerability, or powerlessness. So he cannot logically create an object in which any gravitational field prevents him from causing it to rise. And that is just because of his attribute of omnipotence. Nothing else. The point is quite simple, and I do not understand why you have so much trouble in acknowledging it. But, if you are going to insist, that the language used to describe God's inability to create a stone he cannot lift is gibberish, I can only marvel at your obstinacy.

I don't think it's controversial that people compartmentalize their thinking and often hold contradictory or incompatible beliefs..

..but I was not not talking about "people" .. I was talking about well-educated Doctors, who have
no problem in imagining G-d's existence. Are you claiming that these people are all fooling themselves
when they pray to some inconceivable G-d?

That's a rather broad category of people, and I prefer to reserve judgment about what hypothetical people really believe and whether they are fooling themselves. I think that we all fool ourselves about some things, no matter how smart or well-educated we are. I've known a lot of very well-educated people, and I can assure you that they are just as prone as anyone at fooling themselves about some things. As I said, such people are very good at defending what they believe, even when they believe things that are wrong. If they weren't, then they would never disagree with each other about anything, and I have seen some pretty vehement arguments among academics.

I think you should stick to your own beliefs, and not assume that you "know it all", when it comes to the existence of that beyond your physical experience.

Thanks for the advice, but you never follow your own advice on that score, so I'm not sure why you think I would trust it any more than you do.

 

[Trailblazer]

As I said whether God determines it or not, it doesn't change the fact there is only one set path at the time of decision. There must be alternative pathways at the time of the decision for there to be free-will.

There were alternative pathways at the time of the decision and since we have free will we were able to choose the pathway we wanted to choose.
If we had chosen one of the other pathways that pathway would have been the pathway that God knew we would choose.

 

[Link]

There were alternative pathways at the time of the decision and since we have free will we were able to choose the pathway we wanted to choose.
If we had chosen one of the other pathways that pathway would have been the pathway that God knew we would choose.

This is the disagreement. I don't see alternative pathways if God knows nor in the 4d model in the OP.

But we are repeating over and over again. Just a note "since we have free-will" is assuming the conclusion that you are trying to prove. We are trying to determine if in such a scenario free-will is possible. So it's circular.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is the disagreement. I don't see alternative pathways if God knows nor in the 4d model in the OP.

I don't know anything about the 4d model in the OP.

What I have been saying is that whatever we choose from all the available options will be what God knew we would choose, so...

If the available options were a, b, and c, we could have chosen a or b or c.:

If we had chosen a, God would have known we would choose a.
If we had chosen b, God would have known we would choose b.
If we had chosen c, God would have known we would choose c.

 

[Link]

I don't know anything about the 4d model in the OP.

My belief is that whatever we choose from all the available options will be what God knew we would choose, so...

If the available options were a, b, and c, we could have chosen a or b or c.:

If we had chosen a, God would have known we would choose a.
If we had chosen b, God would have known we would choose b.
If we had chosen c, God would have known we would choose c.

The word "chosen" assumes free-will of a choice. The problem is it possible to choose if there is only one set path of "actions" (the one that is in the future or the one God knows)?

You have to realize using the premise we choose, is assuming the conclusion.

 

[Trailblazer]

The word "chosen" assumes free-will of a choice. The problem is it possible to choose if there is only one set path of "actions" (the one that is in the future or the one God knows)?

There is only one path we will choose but before we chose that path, we could have chosen another path. Whatever path we ended up choosing will be the path that God knew we would choose.