Is it possible for you to do anything that God did not already know you would do?

[Beaudreaux]

you must of missed this post, i got it.

I got it. In it, S-Word discusses how an atheist must answer the question in the OP. He has not yet answered it himself.

 

[JMorris]

I got it. In it, S-Word discusses how an atheist must answer the question in the OP. He has not yet answered it himself.

i somehow doubt he will

 

[meogi]

And I still fail to see how knowledge of an event has any influence on how that event was achieved.

 

[opuntia]

It would seem impossible to see all things, at least from our perspective. But we don't know how things are in this universe, especially of a Being who appears to be beyond our comprehension.

A little understanding may be obtained from the truth some religions accept and that is a light or power permeates all of the universe. It is like a light which spreads through the worlds or planets, which spreads through even within us. This light is intelligent and not benign. It informs God of all of our doings at present, past and even the future. Our every thought is laid open to His view. There really is no secret thought that is hidden because that spiritual light permeates our thoughts and feelings and informs those who are able to receive it. Call it a snitch if you will.

The only way you can obtain any information about any of this is to have an epiphany from God or die to see if there is an afterlife. Speculation can only remain speculation without more from above or elsewhere.

 

[Mister Emu]

Well, if you (not you specifically) believe that what we are moving through is the past, then we living in this moment of "time" don't have free will, as our choices have already been determined by our "present selves." That's if that's what you believe.

Sure we do, we are the ones that make the choices we are the we of the past, present, and future. I am the I that made the choices in what I perceive to be the past, I am the I that will make the choices in what I perceive to be the future, and I am the I that makes choices in what I perceive to be the present...

In the time travel example, would the people in the past know they were in the past? No, they would believe, just as we do, that they are in the only present...

Could you elaborate?

Imagine that time travel is possible, for me to travel to the past, the past must currently exist... in currently existing can it be termed the past?

If one were able to travel to all times then all times must exist, if all times exist, then I would say there is no real past or future, only the present, a present that encompasses all times... I believe that God exists in such a present...

 

[JMorris]

if the future exists the same time as the past and present, then whats going to happen in that future has already been decided. if the present is constantly being created, and nothing exists ahead of it, then you can say we create our own future. but if in the future i drink a coke, then i must drink a coke. i might come to drink that coke by what looks like choice. but if i drink that coke, then it was predestined, and regardless of how much i seem to make that choice, then i must make that choice and no other.

 

[Mister Emu]

if the future exists the same time as the past and present, then whats going to happen in that future has already been decided.

Indeed, by you.

i might come to drink that coke by what looks like choice. but if i drink that coke, then it was predestined, and regardless of how much i seem to make that choice, then i must make that choice and no other.

But it isn't predestined, because there is no "pre"...

Do you believe that if time travel to the past was possible/actualized, that it would negate free will? If you could travel to say ten minutes ago as you wrote that post, knowing you wrote that post and what it would say, do you believe that would mean you did not really have free will to write it?

 

[Enoch07]

If one were able to travel to all times then all times must exist, if all times exist, then I would say there is no real past or future, only the present, a present that encompasses all times... I believe that God exists in such a present...

Agreed. I tried to explain this very concept to Beau in a different post and no one could grasp the idea though.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If one were able to travel to all times then all times must exist, if all times exist, then I would say there is no real past or future, only the present, a present that encompasses all times... I believe that God exists in such a present...

Right, so if all times simultaneously exist, then that means that all decisions have already been made, cannot be changed, and therefore there are no choices to be made. No free will.

 

[JMorris]

Indeed, by you.


But it isn't predestined, because there is no "pre"...

Do you believe that if time travel to the past was possible/actualized, that it would negate free will? If you could travel to say ten minutes ago as you wrote that post, knowing you wrote that post and what it would say, do you believe that would mean you did not really have free will to write it?

i dont see what past events have to do with the arguement. if, 10 minutes ago, i went FORWARD in time, to now, when im writing this, would that mean that in 10 minutes i would have the free will to not write it? regardless of how convincing the thought process was into going about writing this post, i am still writing it.

if the future exists along with the present, then everything has been decided, it might seem like we're deciding, but our very thoughts were already held in the future.

if someone saw that in future (and it really was the future), a meteor would hit the earth, and everyone believed it. the fact that someone saw the future would have already been decided in the future. the future-seer saw it when it was predestined he would see it. if people started running around saying "well we better get prepared, we have this advantage of knowing before-hand" then what their doing was already predestined, it dosent matter what they feel they must do, because they will do what was seen in the future anyway. would knowing that stop them from getting prepared?

if that was the future, and it was known, it existed. then it wouldnt matter what i do, because id be doing whatever i was supposed to be doing anyway. i wouldnt have to worry about the choice to make because whatever will happen to me will happen to me regardless. and if this apathy of knowing my actions were predestined to happen got me killed, it still dosent matter, because i would of died anyway, i was apathetic in the future, and there was no way to get around it, because as you say, its going to happen regardless.

 

[Comicaze247]

Sure we do, we are the ones that make the choices we are the we of the past, present, and future. I am the I that made the choices in what I perceive to be the past, I am the I that will make the choices in what I perceive to be the future, and I am the I that makes choices in what I perceive to be the present...

In the time travel example, would the people in the past know they were in the past? No, they would believe, just as we do, that they are in the only present...

So you're saying that we, of the "past," would be able to influence the "futures" of our present selves? So the past is not set in stone? The past can be changed by us mere mortals?

Imagine that time travel is possible, for me to travel to the past, the past must currently exist... in currently existing can it be termed the past?

I could give my reasoning for why the concept of time travel is not only impossible, but pointless as well. But that's entirely another debate.

If one were able to travel to all times then all times must exist, if all times exist, then I would say there is no real past or future, only the present, a present that encompasses all times... I believe that God exists in such a present...

I'm assuming you're alluding to the theory of the "4th dimension?" In that there is another dimension (3 dimensional is what we humans see) that we humans can't perceive or consciously move through? I don't know much about the theory myself, but I've heard about it from my old roommate.

 

[JMorris]

So you're saying that we, of the "past," would be able to influence the "futures" of our present selves? So the past is not set in stone? The past can be changed by us mere mortals?


I could give my reasoning for why the concept of time travel is not only impossible, but pointless as well. But that's entirely another debate.


I'm assuming you're alluding to the theory of the "4th dimension?" In that there is another dimension (3 dimensional is what we humans see) that we humans can't perceive or consciously move through? I don't know much about the theory myself, but I've heard about it from my old roommate.

a debate on time travel would be intresting, but that is a seperate debate

 

[Comicaze247]

Indeed, by you.

So are you saying that we've already chosen all our actions past, present, and future? That still falls under the "pre-determined" category, as by your explanation, there would be no deviation allowed. That would be following the words of the story in your own book, not changing a single word or action. I think of free will as more of writing your own book as you go, so that it's, you know, free will.

But it isn't predestined, because there is no "pre"...

Do you believe that if time travel to the past was possible/actualized, that it would negate free will? If you could travel to say ten minutes ago as you wrote that post, knowing you wrote that post and what it would say, do you believe that would mean you did not really have free will to write it?

Are you planning on meddling with the past or simply observing?

 

[Comicaze247]

Agreed. I tried to explain this very concept to Beau in a different post and no one could grasp the idea though.

Yes, disagreeing with it and seeing how it contradicts with another idea means we can't grasp it.

 

[Beaudreaux]

And I still fail to see how knowledge of an event has any influence on how that event was achieved.

Your problem is your use of tenses. Of course, knowledge of an event does not influence how it WAS achieved. But we are not talking about that kind of knowledge. We are talking about absolute knowledge of how something WILL happen. If God knows today what you will do tomorrow, then that's what you will do. It may FEEL like you are choosing your actions yourself, but you cannot choose to do anything that God did not already foreknow.

 

[Mister Emu]

Right, so if all times simultaneously exist, then that means that all decisions have already been made, cannot be changed, and therefore there are no choices to be made. No free will.

Except you are the one who decided using free will... so it does exist

i dont see what past events have to do with the arguement.

I am arguing that our present is no difference than what we perceive as the past. That an entity might know what we perceive as our future is no different than us knowing what someone 1000 years ago, or ourselves fifteen minutes ago would perceive as the future...

if the future exists along with the present, then everything has been decided, it might seem like we're deciding, but our very thoughts were already held in the future.

But if we are the ones who decided our future actions than we cannot say that we don't have free will...

the future-seer saw it when it was predestined he would see it.

But there is no "pre" to be destined, there is only what is.

then it wouldnt matter what i do, because id be doing whatever i was supposed to be doing anyway.

You'd be doing what you freely decided to do...

So you're saying that we, of the "past," would be able to influence the "futures" of our present selves? So the past is not set in stone? The past can be changed by us mere mortals?

What I said was that the I that I am in the present is the I I was in the past and the I I will be in the future... as I perceive it. If I make a choice in the future it is still me making that choice, the fact that a future I makes a choice cannot defy free will since it is I choosing.

I could give my reasoning for why the concept of time travel is not only impossible, but pointless as well. But that's entirely another debate.

As could I, I'm not arguing for time travel but merely a concept which time travel could mimic were it actualized...

I'm assuming you're alluding to the theory of the "4th dimension?"

No consciously, though I guess I could be, because I argue that God is atemporal...

So are you saying that we've already chosen all our actions past, present, and future? That still falls under the "pre-determined" category, as by your explanation, there would be no deviation allowed.

Yes, and there can be no predetermination without a "pre-"...

That would be following the words of the story in your own book, not changing a single word or action. I think of free will as more of writing your own book as you go, so that it's, you know, free will.

Except we are the ones who wrote it. Therefore it's, you know, free will.

Are you planning on meddling with the past or simply observing?

Let's say observing... though that dodges the question... Were time travel actualized would the existence of the "future" you come from negate the free will of the participants of past actions?

 

[JMorris]

Except you are the one who decided using free will... so it does exist


I am arguing that our present is no difference than what we perceive as the past. That an entity might know what we perceive as our future is no different than us knowing what someone 1000 years ago, or ourselves fifteen minutes ago would perceive as the future...


But if we are the ones who decided our future actions than we cannot say that we don't have free will...


But there is no "pre" to be destined, there is only what is.


You'd be doing what you freely decided to do...


What I said was that the I that I am in the present is the I I was in the past and the I I will be in the future... as I perceive it. If I make a choice in the future it is still me making that choice, the fact that a future I makes a choice cannot defy free will since it is I choosing.


As could I, I'm not arguing for time travel but merely a concept which time travel could mimic were it actualized...


No consciously, though I guess I could be, because I argue that God is atemporal...


Yes, and there can be no predetermination without a "pre-"...


Except we are the ones who wrote it. Therefore it's, you know, free will.


Let's say observing... though that dodges the question... Were time travel actualized would the existence of the "future" you come from negate the free will of the participants of past actions?

*sigh* if there is a knowable future, and that future is true. then what comes in that future must happen. it dosent matter if i think that im making a choice because if the future has set outcome then its going to happen. it wouldnt even matter if i knew what was going to happen, because it would still have to happen. if anyone knows the future, and that future is certain, and in that future i drink a pepsi, then i will drink the pepsi. it dosent matter if the process resembles "free will" or "making a choice" because the very thought process that went into drinking that pepsi would have also been in the future, and i could do nothing other than "decide" to drink that pepsi. you've yet to adress this. its not just the actions or "choices" which are predestined, its the very thought process. if the future is knowable and exists at the same time as the present, then the process to which i came to understand that free will is impossible with knowledge of the future was predetermined. it resembles free will, it looks like free will, but in the end, i was unable to come to any other conclusion, because my very thoughts existed in that future before i even began thinking them.

if i looked in the future, and saw what i was going to do, and that future must come true, then that future would also have to include the fact that im looking, so even tho i see it happening, and could "decide" to do otherwise, it would still happen. because that is the future. how could i get around this? its called the future for a reason. because it hasnt happened yet, and even if these times were co-existing, then the fact that it exists, means it will happen.

can you give any answer to this? because the last post had alot of denials, not much reason as to why it is denied.

 

[Comicaze247]

What I said was that the I that I am in the present is the I I was in the past and the I I will be in the future... as I perceive it. If I make a choice in the future it is still me making that choice, the fact that a future I makes a choice cannot defy free will since it is I choosing.

Ok, that I see no problem with.

Yes, and there can be no predetermination without a "pre-"...

If I were able to experience the 4th dimension, then yes, I'd agree with you. But if a decision is made in the future by future me, and I cannot change that as present me, I do not consider that free will. That's like saying the characters in a book you're writing have free will.

Except we are the ones who wrote it. Therefore it's, you know, free will.

Not the way I see it. I consider free will being the ability to make your own decisions based on what you are currently experiencing, feeling, and thinking. If you already wrote your own book, before putting yourself in the shoes of "your character," and made the decisions for "your character," then "your character" has no choice of their own, despite their feelings. Hell, when you write it, you dictate what they're feeling.

Let's say observing... though that dodges the question...

I wasn't attempting to. I just wanted to clarify.

Were time travel actualized would the existence of the "future" you come from negate the free will of the participants of past actions?

Well since the past is already past, and therefore written, then yes it "negates" their free will. But "they" are part of what has already been written, so "they" don't have free will to begin with anyway. The reason I was asking if you were going to meddle is because I would have a different answer. If you were going to meddle, I'd say that it doesn't negate free will. It just gives the "past you" more stimulus to respond to.

 

[Mister Emu]

*sigh* if there is a knowable future, and that future is true.

Indeed...

you've yet to adress this.

That was the whole point of my series of questions on time travel... would time travel to the past mean that those in the past have no free will?

predetermined

I would agree if it wasn't you, and if it was decided before the fact... since it was, is, and will be you that decides, and it was, is, and will be at the time of the decision, I disagree...

it resembles free will, it looks like free will, but in the end, i was unable to come to any other conclusion, because my very thoughts existed in that future before i even began thinking them.

But they exist because you thought them.

if i looked in the future, and saw what i was going to do, and that future must come true, then that future would also have to include the fact that im looking, so even tho i see it happening, and could "decide" to do otherwise, it would still happen.

Indeed... it would probably be that what you decided to do as a perceived different was actually what caused the future you tried to change...

its called the future for a reason. because it hasnt happened yet

Because it isn't perceived as having happened yet. Obviously, assuming time travel/an omniscient deity/seers/prophecy/etc. our perception would be wrong.

can you give any answer to this? because the last post had alot of denials, not much reason as to why it is denied.

I stated my reasons... if we are the ones who decide what we will do, having done it in the future does not change that we used our will freely to come to a decision. Thus, free will. Basically as I said "the fact that a future I makes a choice cannot defy free will since it is I choosing."

Secondly I do not believe our current condition is in any way different than any other... "I am arguing that our present is no difference than what we perceive as the past. That an entity might know what we perceive as our future is no different than us knowing what someone 1000 years ago, or ourselves fifteen minutes ago would perceive as the future..."

My perceiving myself to be in the "present" is no different than were I to travel back in time all of the people then perceiving themselves to be in the "present"... That I would know their "future" which is in my perception the "past" is no different than God knowing our "future"...

If I were able to experience the 4th dimension, then yes, I'd agree with you. But if a decision is made in the future by future me, and I cannot change that as present me, I do not consider that free will.

So... to clarify... were I correct, that you have already freely made decisions which you have yet to come to means that you have not freely made decisions?

That's like saying the characters in a book you're writing have free will.

Interesting... Being a writer, you'd be surprised Though I understand the point your making...

Not the way I see it. I consider free will being the ability to make your own decisions based on what you are currently experiencing, feeling, and thinking.

I do not disagree... I am not arguing that you don't do that...

If you already wrote your own book, before putting yourself in the shoes of "your character," and made the decisions for "your character," then "your character" has no choice of their own, despite their feelings. Hell, when you write it, you dictate what they're feeling.

But there is no character... only you... and if you decide what you will feel and what you will think and what you will do, you cannot argue that you did not decide...

Well since the past is already past, and therefore written, then yes it "negates" their free will

Interesting... so when does it get negated? Has it always been negated? Was it negated when I developed time travel? When I decided(or not as it were, since time travel negates free will) to travel to that specific time?

Why? Why does the fact that I know what they will do, more correctly have already done, make free will not an option?

 

[JMorris]

well, i guess for now, we are going to have to agree to disagree, because i dont know what else to add to this at the moment. i kinda see what your saying, but im not sure i believe it. so maybe after a few more people post, i can add something, but for now, im out of arguements. i hope the things ive said have shown my position, i dont know how well i explain them.