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

[JMorris]

regardless of whether you think time occurs concurrently, the fact is, our present is created by our past, and our future is created by our present. and you could say the future's future is created by the future.

if the future is knowable, then the future's future will be created, and the actions of the future must happen. if it must happen, there is no choice. and it must, because the future's future would be known, and it must be created. in order to create a future where i have pepsi in my belly, i must drink a pepsi. there is no alternative

if nothing exists ahead of the present, then i am free to do as i wish, to create my future however i want. if the future is knowable, and exists, then it must be created, and i cant choose an alternative future.

 

[JMorris]

i know enoch has blocked me for shaking his faith with logic, i am quite satisfied by that

 

[logician]

A much simpler answer is there is no god, and omniscience is imposssible, because the multiverse acts in a chaotic/random fashion.

 

[JMorris]

yea, but thats TOO simple an answer. if you say it out right like that, people who believe in an omniscient god would never understand. it conflicts too heavily with their simple answer that there is an omniscient god. of course, they dont understand the complex answer either, so i guess both are futile.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

...then put you on his ignore list so that he does not have to look stupid any more.

Yeah, that isn't really working.

 

[JMorris]

i think Enoch is a cartoon character. he has catchphrases and everything. and believes in cartoon science/physics

 

[meogi]

When the "decision" comes, can you choose "A"?

The question should be DID you choose C?

How about... if something was omniscient, wouldn't they also KNOW what would happen with every possible decision, every possible universe construct down to one where unicorns gestate for 1, 2, 3, or 4 months. He would KNOW them all. EVERYTHING. He would know the nothing-verse too. I don't see how KNOWING has any impact on our ability to make decisions (OUR PERCEPTION, We have perception, right? We don't perceive the future, but we do make choices - I don't see how that stops God from KNOWING what choice we decide... he KNOWS everything, he knows the outcomes of our choices that we don't perceieve ourselves making and so on.)

Does that make sense? An omniscient God would know too much...

 

[Tristesse]

i know enoch has blocked me for shaking his faith with logic, i am quite satisfied by that

Enoch has blocked nearly everyone, your not alone.

 

[Comicaze247]

A much simpler answer is there is no god, and omniscience is imposssible, because the multiverse acts in a chaotic/random fashion.

Well what if "God" is omniscient AND has ADHD?

 

[Falvlun]

This is not very intuitive. There is ample experiential data to justify the past and the future. Every moment in my life, I am aware that there are future moments for me. I even plan for them. And I am constantly looking back to events in my past; analyzing them, reliving them. What is your reason for denying the existence of past and future?

I agree that there is a past, but I don't find your evidence for a future convincing. Could you explain what experimental data points to the actual existence of the future? Simply because one expects there to be a future, and plans and acts accordingly, doesn't mean that a future actually exists. (Actually, your proof for the existence of a future sounds suspiciously like "proof" for the existence of something else...)

Similarly, if there is an omniscient God, there can be no such thing as something that cannot be known and vica versa.

Correction: There is nothing in existence that cannot be known. Things that are logically impossible to know, and things that don't have actuality, do not necessarily fall under the jurisdiction of omniscience.

So, God is fallible. He might guess wrong about the future.

You are moving the fenceposts. The question is whether omniscience precludes free-will, not if infalibility precludes free-will.

Regardless, he would not have to state his educated guesses as truth. God could say that there is a 73.486% chance of you choosing Door 1, and he'd be precisely correct in that assessment, whether you chose Door 1 or not.

 

[Enoch07]

OK....let's walk this through. You have four choices: A, B, C, and D. One of them is guaranteed ahead of time. For the sake of example let's say that it's "C". When the "decision" comes, can you choose "A"?

Does not matter which you pick. That is not a dodge either btw. That is the correct answer. The ability just to be able to pick is called free will.

 

[JMorris]

im guessing Enoch's signature was meant to be taken as a guide for us on how to deal with him

 

[Beaudreaux]

Does not matter which you pick. That is not a dodge either btw. That is the correct answer. The ability just to be able to pick is called free will.

So, is that a "yes" it doesn't matter, or a "no" it doesn't matter?

 

[Beaudreaux]

So, is that a "yes" it doesn't matter, or a "no" it doesn't matter?

Enoch? You show up as being online. Could you answer please?

 

[Enoch07]

Does not matter which you pick. That is not a dodge either btw. That is the correct answer. The ability just to be able to pick is called free will.

I already answered. No need for me to define my answer beyond this.

 

[Willamena]

OK....let's walk this through. You have four choices: A, B, C, and D. One of them is guaranteed ahead of time. For the sake of example let's say that it's "C". When the "decision" comes, can you choose "A"?

If one of them is guarateed before the moment of decision, then there is only one "option" (by definition).

option:

1. Something chosen or available as a choice.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I already answered. No need for me to define my answer beyond this.

When one is asked a "yes or no" question, a "yes" or "no" is the only acceptable answer. Granted, the "yes" or "no" can be explained, but if there isn't a y/n, then you haven't answered.

For instance, the typical loaded question example "Have you stopped beating your wife?" should be answered "No. But that's because I never started beating my wife." (Assuming the subject is not a wife beater, of course)

So, please answer my question rather than dodging it:

Originally Posted by Beaudreaux
OK....let's walk this through. You have four choices: A, B, C, and D. One of them is guaranteed ahead of time. For the sake of example let's say that it's "C". When the "decision" comes, can you choose "A"?

 

[Katzpur]

OK....let's walk this through. You have four choices: A, B, C, and D. One of them is guaranteed ahead of time. For the sake of example let's say that it's "C". When the "decision" comes, can you choose "A"?

Okay, I'll apologize right off the bat because I haven't read the entire thread, but what do you mean when you say that one of the choices "is guaranteed ahead of time"? "Guaranteed" because it's being forced, or what? I'm trying to understand what you mean by "guaranteed."

 

[JMorris]

Okay, I'll apologize right off the bat because I haven't read the entire thread, but what do you mean when you say that one of the choices "is guaranteed ahead of time"? "Guaranteed" because it's being forced, or what? I'm trying to understand what you mean by "guaranteed."

ok, let me put it differently. if my past self drank the pepsi, then my present self will have pepsi in his belly because his past self drank the pepsi. if my present self dosent have pepsi in his belly, then the past self didnt drink the pepsi. my present self is created by what my past self does, obviously making the past "choice" made and unchangeable.
if my future self is known to drink the pepsi again, when the time comes, will the present self (which was the future self) drink the pepsi? if the future is known, and it is seen that he will, then can he not? if he can not, is it a choice? if its not a choice then is it simply an action that was known to happen in the future (like an actor entering stage left during a certain part of the 3rd act?)
you can argue that our "present" selves is a perception of the time in which we percieve ourselves being in, but our present selves is created by what our past selves have "chosen" to do, and our future selves is created by what our "present" selves do. and if it is knowable what our future selves do, then it must happen in order to create our future-future selves (wow this is getting complicated) and if it is known what our future-future selves will do, then it must happen in order to create our future-future-future selves, ect
bleh i hope this makes sense to someone other than myself

to my self-quote in context of what you said, if the future is knowable, then the future of that future is knowable as well. i have a "choice" between a pepsi, a coke, and a dr pepper, but in my future-future i have pepsi in my belly, then my future self drank that pepsi. the "self" that comes prior creates the "self" that comes after. if the future is knowable, it, in a sense, already exists, and so the choices have already been made. you can take god out the equation, it dosent matter who knows the future, if the future is knowable, and that future is true, then it must come true. so the events leading to that future must happen. i hope this makes sense, i think im explaining this reasonably well.

 

[Falvlun]

Beaudreaux, Just a nudge to look at my post (#570)

to my self-quote in context of what you said, if the future is knowable, then the future of that future is knowable as well. i have a "choice" between a pepsi, a coke, and a dr pepper, but in my future-future i have pepsi in my belly, then my future self drank that pepsi. the "self" that comes prior creates the "self" that comes after. if the future is knowable, it, in a sense, already exists, and so the choices have already been made. you can take god out the equation, it dosent matter who knows the future, if the future is knowable, and that future is true, then it must come true. so the events leading to that future must happen. i hope this makes sense, i think im explaining this reasonably well.

The problem I see with this reasoning is that you are asking for the ability to choose twice. You yourself said that the "self that comes prior creates the self that comes after." For the future to exist (ie, for the future to be knowable), the present/past for that future must first occur. That means you have had the chance to choose the Pepsi. So yes, the choices have been made, but they've been made by you. Why should you get the chance to choose again? And more importantly, why doesn't your original choice count as free-will?