Jump to content

Sermon On Fine Tune Argument


Recommended Posts

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.

And I think you are turning it around by first arguing that I'm conflating our type of knowledge with God's infinite knowledge and then arguing God's knowledge being something that we could understand in terms of our type of knowledge.

 

And you missed twice that I said that I'm not talking about that God's knowledge about the future means that he is determining the future.

 

The fact that the future is knowable means that it is determined. Not simply that God happens to be one that knows the future, but just the concept of a knowable future means that the future will unfold exactly the way that it can be know.

 

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.

Have you ever thought about how many evens he has to know and be able to recollect each and every second?

 

In what sense does he know the future? Can he recollect all the future events at a blink of an eye, in "no time"? Or does he have to sort through and think about the events in sequence like us humans? Perhaps he can think of all these events, all at the same time, like there was no time? I don't know. It sound like God is the magical answer to the P v NP problem. Turing would be so happy.

 

And when does he know them? He knew all the events at the point of Big Bang? Suddenly he knew all the unfolding events until the end of time, and beyond, and beyond, and infinite, and he knows them all at one instant. Wow. How practical. It's like he knew the ending of a movie before he even saw it. Then why play the movie? If you know the movie's ending and every detail on the way, it must be extremely boring to watch a movie you already know too well. So why did he even bother?

 

Besides, if he knows that the movie ends bad for 9 billion people (they're going to Hell), and he does nothing, even though he could, it makes him more culpable and guilty of intentionally putting people in Hell. On the other hand, if he can't get involved and help people see the truth to avoid hell (he would know exactly what was needed to do), then he's not powerful enough. But then we also have the question of why did he have to create a world to produce believers? With his super-awesome powers, he could have created believers from silly-putty. God, presumably, could create a Christian from a pile of dirt, perfect in all ways and ready to praise and worship him for eternity.

 

Whatever. I don't buy into that "knowing all the future events." It doesn't make sense still.

 

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.

I think the one that is more plausible is the one that doesn't mix up ideas about "knowledge" (our type of knowledge) with the processes of the universe. Or put it this way, if we don't conflate our type of knowledge with nature. The idea of God knowing all future events falls on the term of "knowing." God can't know. He's not a human. He's not a he. He's not a person. God is just it. God is just Nature. It only knows by being and unfolding. The knowledge about the future is only "known" in Nature through the natural process of unfolding the events. And going beyond that, is a fallacy.

 

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 think it's easier to solve it with admitting that God doesn't "know" the future at all. If God knew all future outcomes and still were participating in making miracles and influencing people through prophets, he is manipulating the very same system he is supposed to already know the outcome of. So is it that he is manipulating it to come out the way he wants it to rather than just knowing it? Or does he know that he will do these things before he has done them?

 

In that case, God knows the future, not because he can foresee them, but because he makes them happen.

 

So which is it? God only observe? Or God is a conductor? Or at least a participant in the events?

 

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.

Yeah. I get that part. You have the options all available to you. You have the choice between them. But you have no other way than to pick one of them, the one that you were predestined to. (See, the word predestined comes back.) God supposedly already knew that give options A, B, and C, you would pick A. So you have the liberty, but you have been determined beforehand.

 

It's like a painter make a painting where everything is yellow except one red spot. The red spot had the option to be yellow, but the painter made it red. It was destined to be red. But it had free will to be yellow if it wanted to, but events were already set in motion to make the spot red and there's no way around it.

 

The same way, I'm most likely (in your belief system) destined to Hell. God knows it. God also knows what I'd like to see as evidence of his existence. God, who can make miracles and change the story, does not do it because he either can't or won't. Or the simple fact is that this God does not even exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 306
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Because, in their insular circles, it proves them right.

Even if you accepted the premises of the design argument, it's still a false dichotomy because the question of design is a different question from the process of how life arose. Even if you accepted

The Fine-Tuning argument of course falls apart once we realize that we do not live in a hospitable environment. The multitude of natural disasters aside an account must be made of disease, or the fact

If God knows all possible outcomes to every situation beforehand, can God change his mind?

I wonder that too.

 

And also, if humans will live for eternity (infinite future), does God know (right now or in the past) all the things all the humans will do, feel, think for eternity? In other words, does God have an infinite knowledge about an infinite future, which he had already from an infinite past? It sounds way too much like dividing be zero here... :HaHa: God's knowledge is asymptotic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Right, I think I said that it is not a perfect analogy and that is why. However, contrary to what you said, it does not disprove omniscience. Yes, God does have perfect knowledge and though the outcome may be inevitable in God's knowledge, it is still a free choice on the part of the person within that moment of decision. I am actually surprised that you haven't read up on compatibilism, as it shows that there is no conflict here logically. I have already given the link and unless you can show that the author has made some logical mistake, I will consider this argument to be reconciled.

 

LNC

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Right, I think I said that it is not a perfect analogy and that is why. However, contrary to what you said, it does not disprove omniscience. Yes, God does have perfect knowledge and though the outcome may be inevitable in God's knowledge, it is still a free choice on the part of the person within that moment of decision. I am actually surprised that you haven't read up on compatibilism, as it shows that there is no conflict here logically. I have already given the link and unless you can show that the author has made some logical mistake, I will consider this argument to be reconciled.

 

LNC

 

Ok LNC.

You consider this argument (between yourself and Neon Genesis) to be reconciled. Fine.

 

So, is it asking too much of you to just reply?

Even if it's, "No! I won't be answering your questions."?

 

Please note that the tone and content of my messages to you in this thread have been nothing but polite and respectful.

 

I would appreciate an equal measure of these things from you.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Are you familiar with the concept of compatibilism? It holds and shows that God can be both sovereign and allow for free will. Others work it out in other ways, like the view of Molinism; however, I wouldn't consider myself a Molinist. Still, with either model, God can be both sovereign and allow for free will.

 

 

 

LNC, I don't know whether you're still around, but I'm interested in your reasons for not subscribing to the Molinist position. What is your take?

Link to post
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.