Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Sermon On Fine Tune Argument


Neon Genesis

Recommended Posts

Guest Valk0010

One of the problems I have with this debate is its getting more speculative then I would like. We don't know our future so we can't say really with as much certainity as I think I would like to say how god processes information and gives it out and thinks it.

 

How can one really solve a debate between these two , the idea that god has to have predetermined everything to know all the future versus god only plans the important bits, and he doesn't know things like what your going to have to breakfast. One could make hundreds of different scenarios arguing for ones view, but for the most part it won't get anywhere.

 

I see what you mean, though i am not sure I agree with it. We say are freely choosing to do B, and god knows before we choose B that we are going to choose B.

 

Lets change to wording around some, to have foreknowledge, you can only follow the path known, otherwise you can't have foreknowledge of it. All our life would be a bunch of have to do's is send of could do's if god knows what we are going to do before we do it. Here is why, and I have said this before but I think this discussion would benifit more from me being consise.

 

Think of it another way imagine it this way, follow the diagram.

 

 

1-gods knowledge of what you do 2

0

0

0

0

1-your desicons 2 or 3 (moving to that desicon your going to have to choose two, otherwise god wouldn't know if you would decide three or not, because you haven't made that desicon yet.

 

Of course you going to say well god would know if you choose three. But if he knows you are going to choose three, you can't change your mind even if you think you are, your just simply like water flowing thru a pipe. You don't actually have the ability to choose, its a illusion under the theistic world. Remeber free will is the ability to choose. This counts for everything even salvation. No matter how deterministic. Water flowing thru the pipe is determinism.

 

Now its a matter how much of it all is just water flowing thru a pipe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
Guest Valk0010

One of the problems I have with this debate is its getting more speculative then I would like. We don't know our future so we can't say really with as much certainity as I think I would like to say how god processes information and gives it out and thinks it.

 

How can one really solve a debate between these two , the idea that god has to have predetermined everything to know all the future versus god only plans the important bits, and he doesn't know things like what your going to have to breakfast. One could make hundreds of different scenarios arguing for ones view, but for the most part it won't get anywhere.

 

I see what you mean, though i am not sure I agree with it. We say are freely choosing to do B, and god knows before we choose B that we are going to choose B.

 

Lets change to wording around some, to have foreknowledge, you can only follow the path known, otherwise you can't have foreknowledge of it. All our life would be a bunch of have to do's is send of could do's if god knows what we are going to do before we do it. Here is why, and I have said this before but I think this discussion would benifit more from me being consise.

 

Think of it another way imagine it this way, follow the diagram.

 

 

1-gods knowledge of what you do 2

0

0

0

0

1-your desicons 2 or 3 (moving to that desicon your going to have to choose two, otherwise god wouldn't know if you would decide three or not, because you haven't made that desicon yet.

 

Of course you going to say well god would know if you choose three. But if he knows you are going to choose three, you can't change your mind even if you think you are, your just simply like water flowing thru a pipe. You don't actually have the ability to choose, its a illusion under the theistic world. Remeber free will is the ability to choose. This counts for everything even salvation. No matter how deterministic. Water flowing thru the pipe is determinism.

 

Now its a matter how much of it all is just water flowing thru a pipe?

And also I am not sure either of you or me LNC can answer that question about the water thru the pipe with any certainty. Though I am inclined to stick with what I was raised with God knowing everything about what you do before you do it, if that leads me to saying the bible argues for purely determinism fine. Oddily enough I never realized the logical consquence of that is determinism. The logical consequence of your way is some version of compatablism. En true, fine by me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, I believe I have good reason to trust the writings. The fact that they were written a long time ago is not an argument against their trustworthiness. In the case of the NT, we have both internal and external evidence to show them to be trustworthy. We also have a wealth of manuscript evidence to show that what we have is virtually what was written by the authors. So, I think I am justified in trusting the writings. Do you have reason that I should not trust them?

 

LNC

I see you have changed your language, having good reason to believe is not the same as inferring I know etc. I do not need to go into the obvious contradictions, that has been debated to death here.

 

As far as ancient writings and your choice to believe them, why is it that there has not been a continuation in revelation? Surely in this day and age of mass media, your god would be wise to use this to reach more people instead of relying on his followers. The mere fact that christians have such varying ideas on what the good book actually says would warrant an update in a language that is modern and relevant to modern society.

 

Did god lose his ability to be a revelator with the invention of the printing press?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that I did explain the difference in previous posts, but let me do so again. To know in advance is not the same as to determine the events in advance. For example, I could know in advance that my child would help himself to candy left out in a dish when I'm not looking because I know the propensity of the child, but the child still uses his free will to choose to take the candy. Now, my foreknowledge is not perfect, therefore, there may be factors that prevent the child from taking the candy. However, if I had perfect omniscience I could also tell whether those factors would come into effect and my knowledge of the situation would match those factors and the eventual outcome. Yet, I still have not determined that the child take the candy, I have simply foreseen the events.

 

Using a child as an example is a pretty poor model of free-will. You could make the same example by putting food out for a dog. The dog would eat the food based on hunger, instinct and compulsion; not through free-will. Isn't the child doing the same. If the child was acting solely on free-will thier actions would not be predictable. Does any human, child or adult, act solely on free-will? Our actions are based on a mixture of biological needs, instinct, compulsion and free-will. Its no coincidense that actions relying on free-will the least are also the most predictable, which is what you created in your example. A childs has less capacity to use free-will to override those other factors. So you are determining the outcome by creating the situation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but it means it won't and can't happen differently.

 

It's not the "knowing what will happen" that is the problem, but that the future is knowable and unchangeable. Just the "being able to know the future" means that the future will not change. A predictable future is a deterministic future. If the future is deterministic, the choices are deterministic. If the choices are deterministic, free will is deterministic.

 

It means that whatever possible way that it turned out, God would have known that in advance. It does not negate free will. Here is an article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy that gives reason that what is generally happening is the commission of the Modal Fallacy in Epistemic Determinism. There is always a hidden premise added into these arguments that is false. Give it a read.

 

LNC

That argument sounds more like it's arguing against following claim: God knows the future, therefore the future is forced into those events by God's knowledge.

 

But that's not exactly what I said.

 

If there's an observer of a system, and the system is deterministic, and the observer knows the process of that deterministic system, he can figure out what is going to happen next. But if the system is indeterministic, he can only figure out what probably will happen next, but not know for sure. It can't be deterministic and indeterministic simultaneous, can it?

 

Put it this way, is choice made out of free will predictable or unpredictable?

 

If God knows what choice is going to be made, it's predictable.

 

If it is unpredictable, God can only assume the most likely choice will be made, but not know for sure.

 

---

 

Perhaps the real problem isn't this at all. Perhaps the problem is rather that God is non-temporal and has "foreknowledge." The phrase "When does he know what will happen?" doesn't make sense since "when" and "will happen" are temporal references and as such can't be applied to God. The non-temporal God exists both before, after, and in the middle of all things, simultaneous. So in God's view, all things already happened and are complete, yet they're just about to begin.

 

---

 

Anyway, you and I don't have to argue about this issue. You have plenty of other members here to discuss it with.

 

I'd say the issue is still unresolved. And looking into some newer philosophical papers, the latest is that neither compatibilism or incompatibilism is true. They both have problems. So it sounds like it's still in the air.

 

Arguments for Incompatibilism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/

 

Both are wrong: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwVariousHonderichKanebook.htm

 

List of articles, for and against: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm

 

---

 

I'm probably wrong about following thing. I haven't studied the modal fallacy, but I get the feeling that the fallacy argument is more about that we can't conclude "necessary" from "probable." We can't say, "it's very likely A will happen, therefore it is necessary that it happens." However, with God as the ultimate narrator or observer, it's more about that God knows that a future event is necessary to happen, not just probable. God would be the "Event 'A' will necessarily happen tomorrow." How can nature escape the necessary outcome when God knows it is necessarily so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems I have with this debate is its getting more speculative then I would like. We don't know our future so we can't say really with as much certainity as I think I would like to say how god processes information and gives it out and thinks it.

 

How can one really solve a debate between these two , the idea that god has to have predetermined everything to know all the future versus god only plans the important bits, and he doesn't know things like what your going to have to breakfast. One could make hundreds of different scenarios arguing for ones view, but for the most part it won't get anywhere.

 

I see what you mean, though i am not sure I agree with it. We say are freely choosing to do B, and god knows before we choose B that we are going to choose B.

Here's a short description of deterministic and indeterministic systems: http://mathforum.org/mathimages/index.php/Deterministic_system

 

A deterministic system contains no chances or randomness. If the system of our world contain no chances or randomness in God's view, it's logical to conclude our world is deterministic.

 

Philosophers like to nag on how an argument is formulated in English and say it fails because it doesn't properly include all premises or fail to define another. But I see it as quite simple, either the system is a indeterministic and God is good with statistics and can figure out the most probable outcome, or the system is deterministic and God can know for certain every outcome.

 

---

 

Here's another thought I had. Is God an observer or conductor of the events? According to Christian belief, God is making the things happen, not just observing them. So with his foreknowledge, this means that he knows what's going to happen because he will make it happen that way. This view doesn't really help free will. God is planting the events in our lives, and he knows what we will choose from it, so he knows who will fall away from faith and why, and he's the one orchestrating it. If I'm going to Hell. I'm going there because God knew it and made it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I believe that I did explain the difference in previous posts, but let me do so again. To know in advance is not the same as to determine the events in advance. For example, I could know in advance that my child would help himself to candy left out in a dish when I'm not looking because I know the propensity of the child, but the child still uses his free will to choose to take the candy. Now, my foreknowledge is not perfect, therefore, there may be factors that prevent the child from taking the candy. However, if I had perfect omniscience I could also tell whether those factors would come into effect and my knowledge of the situation would match those factors and the eventual outcome. Yet, I still have not determined that the child take the candy, I have simply foreseen the events.

 

 

Your scenario actually disproves omniscience and proves the point we're trying to make. In your scenario, you claim to know ahead of time that the child will take the candy but then turn around and allow for the possibility that the child will not take the candy. But if the child doesn't take the candy, then the child did something you had no foreknowledge of and thus you are not omniscience because your foreknowledge is imperfect and you yourself admit foreknowledge in your scenario is not perfect. But under the biblical definition of God, God is supposed to be perfect and have perfect foreknowledge. So either you admit God isn't perfect and God can't know every scenario or if God knows every scenario the child will choose, then it is inevitable the child will do the action that God foresaw and thus God determined it but you can't have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

 

Here's another thought I had. Is God a observer or conductor of the events? According to Christian belief, God is making the things happen, not just observing them. So with his foreknowledge, this means that he knows what's going to happen, because he will make it happen that way. This view doesn't really help free will. God is planting the events in our lives, and he knows what we will choose from it, so he knows who will fall away from faith and why, and he's the one orchestrating it.

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole debate only gives me the image of a scientist experimenting with a rat. He makes a maze for the rat to run in. The rat has the free will to pick any path he wants. But the scientist have made all the paths in the maze lead to one and only one trap, a big mouse trap that will kill the mouse. We can debate until we're blue that the scientist doesn't make the choices for the rat to go into the trap; however, the scientist knows the rat will be killed and he is the one who created all the paths leading to that exact outcome.

 

Is this really "Free Will"? Seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't describe that as freewill but I think the argument is often more about semantics. The ability to choose when given the opportunity to do so shows some freedom of will, no matter what you call it. I know my dogs display freewill all too often!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't describe that as freewill but I think the argument is often more about semantics.

Yeah. It's very much about semantics and our inability to really describe the reality we live in. I think we'll always hit our heads against paradoxes when we try to understand how the world works.

 

The ability to choose when given the opportunity to do so shows some freedom of will, no matter what you call it. I know my dogs display freewill all too often!

One is to have options to choose from, the other is the ability to freely choose one of those options without being influenced by any external factors. How can we be sure the dogs decision (just like ours) are based on experience, memories, neural pathways, fixed laws of physics, etc? What would be that little "extra" that is not part of the physical world that would make humans and/or animals able to pick a choice that is not determined by the laws of nature? I don't know. Religious people call it the spirit or soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems I have with this debate is its getting more speculative then I would like. We don't know our future so we can't say really with as much certainity as I think I would like to say how god processes information and gives it out and thinks it.

 

How can one really solve a debate between these two , the idea that god has to have predetermined everything to know all the future versus god only plans the important bits, and he doesn't know things like what your going to have to breakfast. One could make hundreds of different scenarios arguing for ones view, but for the most part it won't get anywhere.

 

I see what you mean, though i am not sure I agree with it. We say are freely choosing to do B, and god knows before we choose B that we are going to choose B.

 

Lets change to wording around some, to have foreknowledge, you can only follow the path known, otherwise you can't have foreknowledge of it. All our life would be a bunch of have to do's is send of could do's if god knows what we are going to do before we do it. Here is why, and I have said this before but I think this discussion would benifit more from me being consise.

 

Think of it another way imagine it this way, follow the diagram.

 

 

1-gods knowledge of what you do 2

0

0

0

0

1-your desicons 2 or 3 (moving to that desicon your going to have to choose two, otherwise god wouldn't know if you would decide three or not, because you haven't made that desicon yet.

 

Of course you going to say well god would know if you choose three. But if he knows you are going to choose three, you can't change your mind even if you think you are, your just simply like water flowing thru a pipe. You don't actually have the ability to choose, its a illusion under the theistic world. Remeber free will is the ability to choose. This counts for everything even salvation. No matter how deterministic. Water flowing thru the pipe is determinism.

 

Now its a matter how much of it all is just water flowing thru a pipe?

 

I still don't see why God couldn't know what we are going to choose and yet we still freely choose. i don't know what God's knowledge is, I only know what my choices are. I weigh my options and make my choice, a free choice. If I chose A, God would have known that, and if I chose B, God would have known that. But that doesn't preclude my making a free choice, it simply says that God knew what I would freely choose.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And also I am not sure either of you or me LNC can answer that question about the water thru the pipe with any certainty. Though I am inclined to stick with what I was raised with God knowing everything about what you do before you do it, if that leads me to saying the bible argues for purely determinism fine. Oddily enough I never realized the logical consquence of that is determinism. The logical consequence of your way is some version of compatablism. En true, fine by me.

 

The fact that you or I don't have omniscient knowledge seems to be beside the point. I think I have demonstrated, however, that omniscience does not logically result in exhaustive determinism. Read the article I posted from IEP and give me your thoughts.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When is LNC going to get it through his thick skull that saying "it's not the same!" over and over again is not an argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you have changed your language, having good reason to believe is not the same as inferring I know etc. I do not need to go into the obvious contradictions, that has been debated to death here.

 

As far as ancient writings and your choice to believe them, why is it that there has not been a continuation in revelation? Surely in this day and age of mass media, your god would be wise to use this to reach more people instead of relying on his followers. The mere fact that christians have such varying ideas on what the good book actually says would warrant an update in a language that is modern and relevant to modern society.

 

Did god lose his ability to be a revelator with the invention of the printing press?

 

I think you are confusing two different subjects. I changed my language because we are talking about different topics. The know had to do with God's revelation, the have good reason has to do with the reliability of Scripture. Therefore, there is no contradiction. However, with that said, I can have good reason and be justified in saying I know. After all, one definition of knowledge is justified true belief.

 

I would guess that the reason we don't have revelation today in the same way that people did during the time of Jesus and the early church is that we have the Bible and the revelation of God through the OT, Jesus, and the apostles captured within its pages. What other revelation would you be looking for in particular? In this time of mass media, we do see God's word spreading in ways that were unfathomable in the NT era, so I'm not sure that you have a point. The Bible is being translated into previously unknown and unrecorded languages as we interact on this thread. I have friends who are beginning their careers as Bible translators and plan to go to peoples who have have no written language to do that and then teach them to read and write their own languages so that they can read God's revelation in their own language. This process is much faster today than it was 50 years ago with the advent of computers. Christians have been responsible for the spread of much of the literacy around the world, as well as the printed word (The Gutenberg Bible being the first printed with movable type).

 

As for disputes about the interpretation of the Bible, it is not the translations that are necessarily the problem (new translations come out every few years), the fact is that trained scholars can read it in the original language which is much more important. We know how to understand the Bible as it is written and in context. The problem of alternative interpretations comes from presuppositions that people bring to that task. It is known as eisegesis (reading meaning into the text) rather than doing exegesis (reading meaning out of the text).

 

But again, what more do you believe God has to reveal that he already has not?

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using a child as an example is a pretty poor model of free-will. You could make the same example by putting food out for a dog. The dog would eat the food based on hunger, instinct and compulsion; not through free-will. Isn't the child doing the same. If the child was acting solely on free-will thier actions would not be predictable. Does any human, child or adult, act solely on free-will? Our actions are based on a mixture of biological needs, instinct, compulsion and free-will. Its no coincidense that actions relying on free-will the least are also the most predictable, which is what you created in your example. A childs has less capacity to use free-will to override those other factors. So you are determining the outcome by creating the situation.

 

I'm confused about your reply, are you comparing a child's reasoning ability to that of a dog? Are you saying that children are driven solely by instinct? If that is the case, I think you are mistaken on many levels. I also don't know what you mean by "acting solely on free will." We don't act on free will, we act with free will. We either have it or we don't, but we don't factor that into decisions, "should I act on free will or not?" Free will, I believe, is part of our ontology, our make-up. It would be like saying, do you act on consciousness or not. We don't have a choice to act otherwise.

 

But maybe what you are asking is whether factors will influence the child's decision (or the adult's) and in that case, I would say, yes they do, but that doesn't mean that we don't have or use free choice. Children have less capacity for reason, but they have no less capacity to act freely than an adult. Again, that is part of our ontology and is not something that we possess in degrees based upon age, we either have it or we don't. Now, if I told my child not to eat the candy and told them that if they didn't I would give them something better, that would influence the situation and then the child's choice would be less clear. Not that the child didn't have free will in the first scenario, but yes, other factors may influence the usage of that free choice. I don't believe, however, that we are merely biologically determined beings.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

I wouldn't describe that as freewill but I think the argument is often more about semantics. The ability to choose when given the opportunity to do so shows some freedom of will, no matter what you call it. I know my dogs display freewill all too often!

I am beginning to think its a pointless arguement myself, no matter how you look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for disputes about the interpretation of the Bible, it is not the translations that are necessarily the problem (new translations come out every few years), the fact is that trained scholars can read it in the original language which is much more important. We know how to understand the Bible as it is written and in context. The problem of alternative interpretations comes from presuppositions that people bring to that task. It is known as eisegesis (reading meaning into the text) rather than doing exegesis (reading meaning out of the text).
Well, that's odd since differences of opinion or interpretation occurred from day one with people speaking the same language. Paul had to go around "straightening them out", right? It's gotten more diverse since.
But again, what more do you believe God has to reveal that he already has not?
He could explain why he didn't write anything down while he was down here pounding the pavement.

He could explain why he needed Paul to articulate what apparently he couldn't.

He could explain why some NT writings are based on mistranslations of their Greek copies of the OT, the Septuagint.

He could explain why he chose the particular time and place where Jewish thought was being influenced by Greek philosophy.

He could explain why NT writers found new interpretations of the OT that had nothing to do with the original stories.

He could explain why the contemporary Jewish historian Josephus didn't write about Jesus and his miraculous doings in that small confined area.

He could explain why Philo didn't either, even though he knew some of the folks involved, even lending Herod Agrippa money.

Surely the temple curtains being ripped in half, lots of dead risen and roaming the streets, earthquakes, daytime darkness, etc. etc. would have been worthy of at least a casual mention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey LNC!

 

Did I miss your reply to my message? If so, sorry. Could you please re-iterate, tell me where I can find it or link to it? Thanks.

 

If not, here's what I wrote.

 

Posted 05 February 2011 - 06:20 AM (#210)

Hello.

 

As a late-comer to this thread I was wondering if LNC would be so good as to respond to the following points, some of which have been touched upon in this thread.

 

1. What kind of variation in this universe's governing physical constants would invalidate the Fine-Tuning Argument?

2. Have these variations been detected?

3. What type of Multiverse would invalidate the Fine-Tuning Argument?

4. Has this kind of Multiverse been detected?

5. Which cosmological theory do you hold to?

6. Why that one?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. What kind of variation in this universe's governing physical constants would invalidate the Fine-Tuning Argument?

2. Have these variations been detected?

3. What type of Multiverse would invalidate the Fine-Tuning Argument?

4. Has this kind of Multiverse been detected?

Hey, I'll play along. There are some "variations" in the laws of physics as we understand them but with predictable outcomes so it's more a case of us not fully understanding the principles yet. Any significance in the four governing forces as we know them would not allow for the universe to exist. One can speculate endlessly about other potential universes for a thought exercise but that's all it would be. It can't prove anything one way or another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. What kind of variation in this universe's governing physical constants would invalidate the Fine-Tuning Argument?

2. Have these variations been detected?

3. What type of Multiverse would invalidate the Fine-Tuning Argument?

4. Has this kind of Multiverse been detected?

Hey, I'll play along. There are some "variations" in the laws of physics as we understand them but with predictable outcomes so it's more a case of us not fully understanding the principles yet. Any significance in the four governing forces as we know them would not allow for the universe to exist. One can speculate endlessly about other potential universes for a thought exercise but that's all it would be. It can't prove anything one way or another.

 

Hi Jasper!

 

Thanks for wanting to join in the game, but can I ask you a favor please?

 

Can you message me privately, if you want to go into more detail about my questions to LNC? Thanks in advance.

 

Yes, I would like to hear as to why you think that other universes are speculative, etc. We probably have much to discuss on that score. It's just that I'm holding out for a reply from LNC on this and would like to keep the direct BAA/LNC line-of -communication clear. I'm hoping that my patience will be rewarded soon-ish.

 

If you could go with this quirky request, I'd appreciate it. :)

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jasper!

 

Thanks for wanting to join in the game, but can I ask you a favor please?

 

Can you message me privately, if you want to go into more detail about my questions to LNC? Thanks in advance.

 

Yes, I would like to hear as to why you think that other universes are speculative, etc. We probably have much to discuss on that score. It's just that I'm holding out for a reply from LNC on this and would like to keep the direct BAA/LNC line-of -communication clear. I'm hoping that my patience will be rewarded soon-ish.

 

If you could go with this quirky request, I'd appreciate it. :)

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Why not email each other if you are after a private conversation? I don't get it.

 

Why are other universes speculative? Maybe we have a language barrier but what other word would you use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not email each other if you are after a private conversation? I don't get it.

 

Why are other universes speculative? Maybe we have a language barrier but what other word would you use?

 

Hang in there please, Jasper.

 

I'll message you tomorrow (privately) and explain the deal, ok?

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That argument sounds more like it's arguing against following claim: God knows the future, therefore the future is forced into those events by God's knowledge.

 

But that's not exactly what I said.

 

If there's an observer of a system, and the system is deterministic, and the observer knows the process of that deterministic system, he can figure out what is going to happen next. But if the system is indeterministic, he can only figure out what probably will happen next, but not know for sure. It can't be deterministic and indeterministic simultaneous, can it?

 

Put it this way, is choice made out of free will predictable or unpredictable?

 

If God knows what choice is going to be made, it's predictable.

 

If it is unpredictable, God can only assume the most likely choice will be made, but not know for sure.

 

 

 

It seems that you are conflating our type of knowledge, one of which is finite and limited, with God's knowledge, which is omniscient. God is not merely predicting the future, he actually knows all future propositions. He is not merely predicting future events, he knows our future events. However, that still doesn't equate with God determining those future events. Nor does it mean that we don't have agency to choose those future outcomes.

 

Perhaps the real problem isn't this at all. Perhaps the problem is rather that God is non-temporal and has "foreknowledge." The phrase "When does he know what will happen?" doesn't make sense since "when" and "will happen" are temporal references and as such can't be applied to God. The non-temporal God exists both before, after, and in the middle of all things, simultaneous. So in God's view, all things already happened and are complete, yet they're just about to begin.

Some have made this argument, however, I believe that God exists within time and has since the creation of the universe and time itself. However, his knowledge is not bound by time. In other words, God does not have to wait for future events to occur before he knows them. His omniscience allows him to know all events.

 

Anyway, you and I don't have to argue about this issue. You have plenty of other members here to discuss it with.

 

I'd say the issue is still unresolved. And looking into some newer philosophical papers, the latest is that neither compatibilism or incompatibilism is true. They both have problems. So it sounds like it's still in the air.

 

Arguments for Incompatibilism: http://plato.stanfor...lism-arguments/

 

Both are wrong: http://www.ucl.ac.uk...ichKanebook.htm

 

List of articles, for and against: http://www.ucl.ac.uk...wIntroIndex.htm

Sure, both ideas have their supporters and detractors, both have arguments for and against. The key is which is the more plausible given all the information we know. But, like much of our knowledge, it is somewhat provisional now. Still, I think that based upon our experiences and intuitions, we are free creatures. I cannot see that God would determine people to do heinous acts, or any evil acts, yet we see them all the time. I also think that God, being the greatest possible being, would have omniscience as one of his attributes. So, somehow these have to be reconciled. I think that compatibilism best reconciles the two.

 

I'm probably wrong about following thing. I haven't studied the modal fallacy, but I get the feeling that the fallacy argument is more about that we can't conclude "necessary" from "probable." We can't say, "it's very likely A will happen, therefore it is necessary that it happens." However, with God as the ultimate narrator or observer, it's more about that God knows that a future event is necessary to happen, not just probable. God would be the "Event 'A' will necessarily happen tomorrow." How can nature escape the necessary outcome when God knows it is necessarily so?

I don't see how you get the idea that A is necessary to happen as if B were to happen contingently, then God would know that. I think it is still a confusion of the terms. However, even if A were necessary, it still doesn't preclude a free choice of A. In other words, if I know that unless I do A then a thousand people lose their lives. I choose A and save a thousand people, but I have still chosen A. Did I consider that B or C were options? Sure, but not live options in my mind as the choice of either would mean the loss of a thousand lives. In a sense, A was a determined choice based upon the circumstance, but I still had to choose A.

 

LNC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Who said that God needed our worship. It is we who need to worship him as that is the reason for our being created. God created us to be in relationship with him, not from his need as he had no need for our fellowship, he did it out of his love. The fact that we choose to reject him and rebel against him is our fault and our choice, not his. Yet, to have creatures who were capable of love, they also had the capacity to hate and rebel.

 

LNC

 

We were created to slavishly worship it? And its a man...? Actually I do not believe a healthy relationship comprises of mindlessly worshiping the other. If you believe that your "god" is all knowing and knew before what would happen in the garden, yet still punished people anyway for it, and you call it freewill, then you're a fucking idiot. That would be akin to leaving a pet dog in the house ALL day without a doggie door, and expecting it to hold its piss until you get home, when you find the puddle of piss you get mad at it..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.