The Question Islam and Christianity Can't Answer

[It Aint Necessarily So]

IF somebody derived the algorithm that describes all future states perfectly.

Yes. If somebody were able to correctly predict everything to come, then that would demonstrate that the world is deterministic. That wouldn't be possible if people actually could choose either of two options. If they could, you'd have to wait to see what they chose to know what follows after that choice. That also might be the case in a deterministic world if we can't derive the algorithm for deciding what that choice will be, but if we could have that knowledge, then we would have demonstrated both that the universe is deterministic and that we are omniscient.

I believe that you would agree that libertarian free will (as opposed to the illusion of such) and omniscience cannot exist simultaneously in the same universe if you didn't believe otherwise by faith. Maybe you've noticed that nobody else is making that argument except Abrahamists, and the reason they feel they must is obvious. They've simply declared that their god is omniscient and grants free will, so they start with that as the truth.

Choosing heaven or hell isn't like selecting from a menu and it's brought to you.

Sounds like you either don't know what choosing means or are arguing in bad faith in defense of a deity that tortures for failing to worship it, and you'd like to depict as just and excuse it for its actions.

Choosing is choosing, whether it's between chicken and fish from a menu or heaven and hell. If one has to choose hell to gain entrance, he won't end up there unless he accepts the invitation to enter.

Cite the passage that says works arent necessary. Atheists are hardly critical thinkers. Cite the passage first then we'll talk. Bet it never appears here.

You're probably correct regarding your bet. Call it a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's disrespectful nature pretty much guarantees that it gets no response except in kind.

 

[MJ Bailey]

Simplistic id. Angel or demon you be? Why is it that the one who asks a question is the supposed to have all of the answers? see the conundrum?

 

[Trailblazer]

Cite the passage that says works arent necessary.

Where in the Bible does it say saved by faith not works?

Ephesians 2:8-10 King James Version (KJV)

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that ... - Bible.com​

bible.com
https://www.bible.com › bible › compare › EPH.2.8-10

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Knowing what you will choose doesnt remove your free will

If your future choice is already known with certainty, then you couldn't make a different choice. If your choice is constrained to this single possibility, then in what sense would it be free? It only feels free but it can't actually be free by definition.

 

[Ignatius A]

Yes. If somebody were able to correctly predict everything to come, then that would demonstrate that the world is deterministic. That wouldn't be possible if people actually could choose either of two options. If they could, you'd have to wait to see what they chose to know what follows after that choice. That also might be the case in a deterministic world if we can't derive the algorithm for deciding what that choice will be, but if we could have that knowledge, then we would have demonstrated both that the universe is deterministic and that we are omniscient.

I believe that you would agree that libertarian free will (as opposed to the illusion of such) and omniscience cannot exist simultaneously in the same universe if you didn't believe otherwise by faith. Maybe you've noticed that nobody else is making that argument except Abrahamists, and the reason they feel they must is obvious. They've simply declared that their god is omniscient and grants free will, so they start with that as the truth.

Sounds like you either don't know what choosing means or are arguing in bad faith in defense of a deity that tortures for failing to worship it, and you'd like to depict as just and excuse it for its actions.

Choosing is choosing, whether it's between chicken and fish from a menu or heaven and hell. If one has to choose hell to gain entrance, he won't end up there unless he accepts the invitation to enter.

You're probably correct regarding your bet. Call it a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's disrespectful nature pretty much guarantees that it gets no response except in kind.

You have no clue what choosing is.

 

[Ignatius A]

If your future choice is already known with certainty, then you couldn't make a different choice. If your choice is constrained to this single possibility, then in what sense would it be free? It only feels free but it can't actually be free by definition.

You're assuming that foreknowledge determines what happens. That's illogical.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe that you would agree that libertarian free will (as opposed to the illusion of such) and omniscience cannot exist simultaneously in the same universe if you didn't believe otherwise by faith.

No, I would never agree with that even if I was an atheist because it is drop dead illogical.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're assuming that foreknowledge determines what happens. That's illogical.

It is drop dead illogical.

“Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can never be the reason for its occurrence.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 150

Question.—If God has knowledge of an action which will be performed by someone, and it has been written on the Tablet of Fate, is it possible to resist it?

Answer.—The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization; for the essential knowledge of God surrounds, in the same way, the realities of things, before as well as after their existence, and it does not become the cause of their existence. It is a perfection of God.......
Some Answered Questions, p. 138

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yes you do choose to go hell or heaven. What you choose by itself is not sufficient. What you choose also includes what actions you decide to take. Choosing heaven or hell isn't like selecting from a menu and it's brought to you.

Ahh ok, thanks.

 

[Trailblazer]

If your future choice is already known with certainty, then you couldn't make a different choice. If your choice is constrained to this single possibility, then in what sense would it be free? It only feels free but it can't actually be free by definition.

Whatever choice one makes is known by God with certainty because God is all-knowing.
We will make the choice that God knows we will make because God knows what choice we will make.

But we are not limited to only one choice.
If we chose to wear a blue shirt today that will be the choice God knew we would make.
If we chose to wear a red shirt today that will be the choice God knew we would make.

In the context of linear time on earth, whatever is not predestined by God is contingent upon our choices.
Yet in the spiritual realm where God exists, time and space are collapsed such that all events are knowable such that it is possible to see the end in the beginning.

God, being omniscient, knows and foresee all, but, in the context of time and space we live in, we still are subject to random and contingent elements so we have free will and the ability to alter the course of certain events in time.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You're assuming that foreknowledge determines what happens. That's illogical.

No, I didn't say foreknowledge determines what happens, I said it constrains what happens. A constrained choice is not a free choice, correct?

 

[Trailblazer]

No, I didn't say foreknowledge determines what happens, I said it constrains what happens.

Determines and constrains mean the same thing within the context of your sentence.
If you are constrained what happens has already been determined.

The question nobody seems to be able to answer is why God's foreknowledge constrains what happens on this earth.

A constrained choice is not a free choice, correct?

Constrained choice is an oxymoron since it is not a choice.

choice an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
Definitions from Oxford Languages

 

[Ignatius A]

No, I didn't say foreknowledge determines what happens, I said it constrains what happens. A constrained choice is not a free choice, correct?

You would be correct if foreknowledge actually "constrains" what happens. By your reasoning if I go to a restaurant and there are only three entrees to choose from on the menu then I dont possess the free choice to pick any one of the three? That's nonsensical.

 

[Trailblazer]

By your reasoning if I go to a restaurant and there are only three entrees to choose from on the menu then I dont possess the free choice to pick any one of the three?

Whichever entree you pick will be the one that God knew you would pick because God is all-knowing, but you will not pick it because God knew you would pick it, you will pick it because it was the one you wanted!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, I would never agree with that even if I was an atheist because it is drop dead illogical.

My contention is that you would not think like that had you not accepted on faith decades ago that omniscience and libertarian free will can coexist. My evidence is that the only people making your argument are other Abrahamists, while unbelievers tell you that it is YOUR belief that is illogical. That you can't see that doesn't make it not so.

Look at the posting on this, page 9 of this thread. I wrote, " If somebody were able to correctly predict everything to come, then that would demonstrate that the world is deterministic. That wouldn't be possible if people actually could choose either of two options. If they could, you'd have to wait to see what they chose to know what follows after that choice. That also might be the case in a deterministic world if we can't derive the algorithm for deciding what that choice will be, but if we could have that knowledge, then we would have demonstrated both that the universe is deterministic and that we are omniscient."

You answered, "I would never agree with that even if I was an atheist because it is drop dead illogical," which is not an argument or rebuttal, but just a dismissal out of hand and a repeat of your already-rebutted claim.

Also on this page, Rational Agnotic wrote, "If your future choice is already known with certainty, then you couldn't make a different choice. If your choice is constrained to this single possibility, then in what sense would it be free? It only feels free but it can't actually be free by definition."

That got this from Ignatius: "You're assuming that foreknowledge determines what happens. That's illogical," which is itself illogical (a straw man fallacy. No such claim was made.

It's not a coincidence that the two critical thinkers make the same argument as one another and two Abrahamists take the same opposite position as one another. And I can guarantee you that if you brought in two more people with our opinions, they would also be critical thinkers, and if you brought in two more people with your opinion, they would be Abrahamists. You can confirm that for yourself in these recent threads. Look at who is insisting that free will exists in those threads, and who is willing to consider that the will only feels free:

Lets solve Free will once and for all!!

Do you Think we have Free Will

This is from a text on philosophy called Free Will and Divine Omniscience | DigiNole.

"A traditionally difficult problem in the Philosophy of Religion is the one that divine omniscience, particularly divine foreknowledge, poses for free will. If God knows in advance how we will act, it looks as if we cannot act freely because we cannot act other than in accordance with God's foreknowledge. Thus, it looks like God's full omniscience and free will are incompatible. But this is problematic precisely because both God's full omniscience and human and divine free will are very important in Christian theology. In this dissertation, I discuss this dilemma and attempt to find the best solution available to the Christian theist. In Chapter 1, I introduce and discuss the problem, which I refer to as "the foreknowledge dilemma." I then consider and ultimately reject three of the most commonly offered solutions."

Here' the problem which has been taken seriously by some of the greatest minds, the one you dismissed as illogical without counterargument. They come from the Wiki article Argument from free will - Wikipedia.

Noted Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides described the conflict between divine omnipotence and his creation's person's free will, in traditional terms of good and evil actions, as follows:

… "Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest 'He knows', then it necessarily follows that the man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand how he would act, otherwise, God's knowledge would be imperfect.…"[3]

A "standard Anglican" theologian gave a similar description of Christian revelation:

… Scripture hold before us two great counter-truths – first, God's absolute sovereignty (cp Rome. 9, 20ff.), and secondly, man's responsibility. Our intellects cannot reconcile them.[4]

A logical formulation of this argument might go as follows:[1]

1. God knows choice "C" that a human would claim to "make freely".
2. It is now necessary that C.
3. If it is now necessary that C, then C cannot be otherwise (this is the definition of “necessary”). That is, there are no actual "possibilities" due to predestination.
4. If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely (Principle of Alternate Possibilities)
5. Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely.

It's fine that you choose to disregard all of this, but it doesn't make this position illogical or yours logical.

God knows what choice we will make. But we are not limited to only one choice. If we chose to wear a blue shirt today that will be the choice God knew we would make. If we chose to wear a red shirt today that will be the choice God knew we would make.

How that that translates to you could have chosen differently? It doesn't. If God knows what you will do before you know yourself, and if he is always correct, then you had no choice. An instruction generated in extra-conscious neural circuits was delivered to the subject of consciousness, which dutifully executed the instruction while mistakenly thinking that the desire was created by itself in the conscious arena - the so-called illusion of free will. The desire to reach for the red or blue shirt would not be a choice the subject of consciousness if it could be accurately foretold without fail. More examples of what would be the illusion of freewill if the decision were foreknown - people appearing to make a choice that was known by a god before it was known by the apparent chooser - wouldn't change that.

You have no clue what choosing is.

I'll let Trailblazer answer that for you:

choice an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities. Oxford Languages

An example of that is being offered a choice to enter heaven or to choose hell instead. If I have the choice, my choice would not be hell. And, of course, if there is an omniscient god, then choice is illusion anyway. That god would know in advance whether you would choose hell or not.

It seems that it is you that doesn't understand what the word choice means.

I marvel at how zealous, Abrahamic faith corrupts reasoning. These religions do so deliberately and selfishly without concern for the consequences for the believer.

Here are some lyrics from Dylan's License To Kill:

Now, they take him, and they teach him, and they groom him for life
And they set him, on a path where he's bound to get ill
[snip]
Now he's hell-bent for destruction, he's afraid and confused
And his brain has been mismanaged with great skill

 

[Anthony H Miller]

Comradio,

You have surely gone astray my brother. By your own admission you created something you called a question, but in reality it's just another accusation directed at the one true God. The fictional god you conjured up in your head should remain there, it belongs to you alone. If you think your so-called question adds to your stature as a man, I can assure you it does not. It only diminishes your character.
No reply necessary.

 

[Trailblazer]

My contention is that you would not think like that had you not accepted on faith decades ago that omniscience and libertarian free will can coexist.

I did not accept that decades ago, I never even thought about it until recently.
I do not need faith to believe this, all I need is an understanding of omniscience and logical abilities.

In short, what God knows has NOTHING to do with what humans can or cannot choose to do, NOTHING.

My evidence is that the only people making your argument are other Abrahamists, while unbelievers tell you that it is YOUR belief that is illogical. That you can't see that doesn't make it not so.

Yet no nonbeliever can tell me WHY my belief is illogical, and many have tried.
By contrast, I have explained over and over and over again why their belief is illogical.

Look at the posting on this, page 9 of this thread. I wrote, " If somebody were able to correctly predict everything to come, then that would demonstrate that the world is deterministic. That wouldn't be possible if people actually could choose either of two options. If they could, you'd have to wait to see what they chose to know what follows after that choice.

What you do not understand, as me and @Ignatius A do, is that God does not have to "wait and see."

God does not predict what is going to happen although God knows what is going to happen because God is all-knowing.
God does not determine will happen in this contingent world. Humans determine what will happen by choosing and acting on their choices. God simply knows what those choices will be because God is all-knowing.

What you do not understand is that God does not exist in TIME the way we do on this earth.

In the context of linear time on earth, whatever is not predestined by God is contingent upon our choices.
Yet 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 the end in the beginning.

God, being omniscient, knows and foresees all, but, in the context of time and space we live in, we still are subject to random and contingent elements, so we have free will and the ability to alter the course of certain events in time.

That also might be the case in a deterministic world if we can't derive the algorithm for deciding what that choice will be, but if we could have that knowledge, then we would have demonstrated both that the universe is deterministic and that we are omniscient."

You answered, "I would never agree with that even if I was an atheist because it is drop dead illogical," which is not an argument or rebuttal, but just a dismissal out of hand and a repeat of your already-rebutted claim.

You have not rebutted anything I said, but I just rebutted your claim (see above).

It's not a coincidence that the two critical thinkers make the same argument as one another and two Abrahamists take the same opposite position as one another. And I can guarantee you that if you brought in two more people with our opinions, they would also be critical thinkers, and if you brought in two more people with your opinion, they would be Abrahamists. You can confirm that for yourself in these recent threads. Look at who is insisting that free will exists in those threads, and who is willing to consider that the will only feels free:

But you are wrong, which only demonstrates that you cannot think critically. If you could think critically you would understand why God's foreknowledge has absolutely no bearing upon human free will. This is not that difficult and I know at least one atheist on this forum understood it. I sure wish I could remember who he was.

You cannot answer one simple question with a simple answer so you keep obfuscating.

I will ask it again: How does what God knows affect our ability to choose?

If God knows what you will do before you know yourself, and if he is always correct, then you had no choice.

Why didn't you have a choice? Give me a simple explanation, not more obfuscation.

I already addressed this in language any third grader could understand.

Johnny gets up in the morning and looks in his closet to decide what to wear that day.
He sees many different shirts in his closet, green shirts, red shirts and blue shirts.

Johnny chooses which color shirt he will wear. He chooses to wear a red shirt. God has always known that Johnny would choose the red shirt because God is all-knowing.

Johnny could have chosen to wear a blue shirt or a green shirt, in which case God would have always known that Johnny was going to choose a blue shirt or a green shirt because God is all-knowing.

Why is this so difficult to understand? It is not rocket science.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Determines and constrains mean the same thing within the context of your sentence.

Wrong.

Constrained choice is an oxymoron since it is not a choice.

Correct.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You would be correct if foreknowledge actually "constrains" what happens. By your reasoning if I go to a restaurant and there are only three entrees to choose from on the menu then I dont possess the free choice to pick any one of the three? That's nonsensical.

No. Your constraint is the three choices on the menu, not any individual choice. You don't possess the free choice to pick any entrees other than the three on the menu, yes? That is your constraint. This is a very simple concept lol I don't get why it's so hard for you to understand.

 

[Unfettered]

The OP assumes that we were "created" without our consent ("created" is a very clumsy word to describe the "beginning" of our existence ("beginning" is also clumsy, since we are eternal beings and have no beginning)). Since that postulation is false, any premise flowing from it is also false. So God didn't condemn anyone to foreknown eternal damnation.

What God did was institute the foundation upon which our respective, individual, eternally existent intelligences could express their respective wills. In so doing he became the father of our spirits (the corporeal organization which afforded us our first means of movement and action). That is how best to describe our "creation." We have always been sovereign over our fate. We have always been free to choose. What God did for us was give us the means whereby we could choose to experience paths not available to us in our then-present state. But we always did the choosing. Always.

Though not entirely the same, our primeval "creation" isn't much different than what mortal parents do in bringing children into mortality. Each parent knows that each child born will suffer in this world. sickness, pain, disappointment, failure, setbacks, death—none will escape any of these. And yet we bring children into the world, knowing with a perfect knowledge these things will befall them. Of course, we bring them into the world not expressly so that they will experience these ills, but because bringing them into the world affords them an opportunity to grow and progress and overcome and excel—things that are entirely closed to them if they are not born at all.

Clearly, these two are analogous only to a point, and the latter is dependent on the choices made in the former. But analogous they are. And God never has, and never will, override our right to choose.