Sin

[LNC]

Like Ouroboros said, "potato, potaato."

Right, one is correct (potato) and one is wrong (potaato).

 

I wasn't talking about being saved, but doing good.

According to whom?

 

IYou shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive.

Rather, I don't accept the argument because the case was not made. It is a self-defeating proposition. If you try to prove we don't have free will, you have simply argued in favor of free will. How can I choose to believe the argument you make unless I am free to do so? How can you know the argument is valid unless you are free to test it?

 

LNC

[agnosticator]

There was free choice in the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There is also choice when we rebel against God, or when we choose what we will order from a restaurant, or what we will wear to work. We have plenty of free choices and free will to make those choices.

 

If you try to prove we don't have free will, you have simply argued in favor of free will. How can I choose to believe the argument you make unless I am free to do so?

 

The first couple were not free to make the choice of eating from the tree of life. They were constrained by God. That's not freedom. God took away all possible outcomes of choosing to eat from both trees, limiting outcomes down to punishment and imprisonment.

 

I had a conversation some time ago with a neuroscientist, and I will paraphrase this. He said it better than I can:

 

We are not free from our perspective and our experiences. We can't transcend the laws of physics, because those laws allow us to exist and live in the first place. We do not have perfect knowledge or infinite predictive power. We make decisions constrained by reasoning, available information/experiences, and our own limited predictive power. That is limited "freedom". We have wills and choices. That's as free as humans get.

[centauri]

If they were already deceived and doomed then there would be no need for God to send them a strong delusion.

Apparently God isn’t as certain as you are and intentionally interferes with their thoughts to ensure that they perish.

This is the same God that allegedly wants all people to be saved.

Any way you want to slice it, God interferes with their thought process.

 

Basically, what is happening in this passage, much like what is happening in Romans 1, is that when people pursue unrighteousness and deception, God removes any restraint of the force of that choice. In other words, if the people were bent upon believing a lie, God allowed the full force of that deception to come upon the people such that they would be completely consumed by that deception and its consequences.

On what basis, other than apologetic whim, are you altering the verse?

 

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:”

 

The verse (which you deleted in your reply) doesn’t say God simply allows them to believe a lie, it says that he actively sends delusion to ensure that they believe a lie.

God will actively interfere with human behavior.

 

The same was the case with Pharaoh, who heard Moses proclaiming the truth to him, yet each time his heart grew harder, even when he lost his son, his heart grew harder. So, this passage can be understood in that context. The Lord hardened their hearts by proclaiming truth to hearts that were already bent on rebellion. Thanks for bringing this up and allowing me to clarify.

His heart grew harder because God ensured it by divine action, as part of his plan to use Pharaoh as a tool.

This is the same God that works out all things according to the pleasure of his will, not the will of humans.

Exodus describes instances of Pharaoh hardening his heart and God taking direct credit for it.

The first incidence of this attributes the hardening of his heart to what cause?

Specifically, according to the text, what was directly responsible for this?

Is there a specific reason why you want to portray God as only being a bystander when he claims to work all things according to his will?

 

When did Moses preach to the King of Heshbon?

Deut 2:30

But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.

[chosendarkness]

We have wills and choices. That's as free as humans get.

Even that can be limited. They make choices out to be 50/50 whether you 'do it or don't', but if you look at the averages on a certain choice, CHANCES ARE you're going to choose the most predictable one. Chances are if you live in a country who's dominant religion is Christianity, your religion is going to be the same. Chances are you'll hold those basic beliefs from your childhood all of your life. But there is the slight chance you'll be one of those that think outside the box and change your beliefs.

[Deva]

True, I don't KNOW that the devil doesn't tempt people. Its possible there is a malevolent invisible being out there that likes to tempt people, but I would say that this is an unlikely possibility.

And, your reason is?

 

It is a very unlikely possibility there is such an entity as the devil. There is simply not any evidence. If we were talking about some evil supernatural entity, I would be more likely to select BibleGod for that role. After all, isn't he in charge of this mess?

[Deva]

LNC, is it possible to be a theist or a spiritual person and not believe in free will?

 

My question was not "Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in free will?

 

Sure, it is possible. I have pointed out logical problems with this view, but it is possible.

 

LNC

 

I don't think they have been pointed out to me. Could you post a link or summarize your logical problems?

[Deva]

There are some things we know by reading experts opinions and trusting them on the strength of their credentials. There are other things we know through our personal experience. There is no such thing as absolute knowledge - there are only probabilities. It probably is true that things are illusory - we certainly cannot see everything as it is, since our brains filter out most of the information coming in. This is a fact established by neuroscience.

 

Anything conditioned, such as the human mind is, cannot be free. There is apparent choice, but the choice is a product of the conditioned mind.

When you say that "things are illusory" are you speaking of all things or just some things? Can we see some things as they are? Do we have direct access to the external world through direct perception in your estimation or is all mediated to us? How is this fact established by neuroscience? If we don't have free will, then how can we be certain that we have any knowledge (as being defined as justified true belief)? How would we be able to escape our determined ends to know that some things were really true and not just something determined to appear as true to us? If our choice is conditioned, it seems that we are stuck within a perspective from which we cannot escape and therefore could not justify anything we know as knowledge. In fact, the idea that we are determined could not be established as fact. It appears to be a self-defeating belief.

 

 

All things are illusory in some sense, yes. Of course everything is mediated by the senses, and they are very selective. This just seems to be common sense to me. Our senses are limited, our vision, hearing, touch, etc.. we cannot see certain wavelengths of light, we cannot smell very well compared to a dog, for example, why do I need to go on? Yes, we are stuck within our narrow perspective. I say we don't have absolute knowledge but relative knowledge. Buy some rigorous methods we can see that there are some things that appear to be true. Much of modern science is in this category, and has had tremendous benefits for humanity as well as dangers. Technically you are right about determinism not being able to be established as a fact, but I will go with it until something sounds more reasonable. The truth may be self-defeating but so what, if its true?

 

This may get tiresome for you, but it is basic philosophy of mind. Without intentionality, we cannot have thoughts, without thoughts, we cannot grasp truth, without the ability to make logical relations, we cannot arrive at knowledge. If the brain is just a data processor, we don't have knowledge, we have data and we don't have a way of validating the truth of that data, it is just data. My computer does not have knowledge, it has data; it doesn't deal in truth, it deals in data and processing. It will never rise to the level of having thoughts about anything because matter is never inherently about anything else, so for that reason, it will never have thoughts about anything else.

 

I think knowledge is limited. We do deal in data and processing, on a very complex level. You seem to have some special usage of the word "knowledge" that I don't quite understand. I am not sure that your last sentence is true. You say "matter is never inherently about anything else" - I don't understand what you mean by that.

[Dagan]

More double-speak from LNC.

 

It all boils down to "you're doing it wrong" and "just believe."

 

Thanks! Glad all your years in seminary/bible school/whatever really seem to have paid off!

[LNC]

BAA: Are the terms Hubble volume and visible universe interchangeable? LNC: Technically, no they are not. The boundary of the Hubble volume is the point at which objects are moving faster than the speed of light as they expand the bounds of the universe, so the observable universe is beyond that boundary.

BAA: Sorry, but I'm still confused LNC, so could you please provide a much more detailed, in-depth explanation that covers all of the salients points? Thanks!

LNC: Really, you are asking for a lot here. Is it that you don't understand the concept of infinite or that you believe I don't? I think my definition is technically all that is required for the purpose of our conversation unless you have specific details you would like for me to flesh out.

BAA: What do you mean by, 'a series of temporal positions'? Isn't a 'position' a characteristic of space, not time? Please explain further.

LNC: I wasn't necessarily using the term as a physical position, but rather a marking in a series of events. I believe I explained that in my response as marking past, present, and future. It is the measurement of the sequencing of events and their duration. However, to be accurate and detailed would take much more space and "time" than I have to devote to the answer. As Augustine said, "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know; but, if I wish to explain it to one who asks, I know not." (Confessions).

BAA: What do you mean by, 'continual transformation'? From what to what?

LNC: A change in some respect from what they were, to what they have become.

BAA: What are the recognized means by which events are characterized as falling into the categories of past, present and future?

LNC: We form concepts based upon our observation of the world. We see change and we perceive things as they were (past), things as they are (present), and anticipate things as they will become (future). I anticipate a meeting that I have on Thursday and know that I set it up yesterday and had to change it today from tomorrow to Thursday. I am writing about it now and you will read it in the future, when I will remember writing it in the past.

BAA: Aren't the terms past, present and future just arbitrary manifestations of human consciousness and not real entities in of themselves?

LNC: Are you asking whether time is sequenced? If the past is real? No, I don't see these as arbitrary terms. Do you believe that things that have already occurred are or were real or just arbitrary thoughts in your brain? Or, do you hold to a B-theory that holds that events are tenseless?

BAA: Btw, I'm certainly keen on a much, much longer discussion! I mean... why not?

What else do you need to be doing? Is there something else important you'd like to be engaged in here?

LNC: I think we've got plenty to think about for now. We can expand as we go along (if in fact we are going along

BAA: So why is our universe (your definition, as above) unlikely to be infinite (your more detailed, in-depth explanation to follow) due to the constraints of time (your answers to my questions on this, to follow)?

Could you please justify why you think this is so?

LNC: I believe that the idea of traversing an infinite span of time is logically problematic. If there are an infinite number of days preceding this day, then it assumes that we have spanned an infinite amount of time to arrive at this day, but we have not and could not as time continues from this point.

BAA: Why not?

You've clearly got the time to answer the points that the Agnosticator, Deva, Margee, Centauri and others have put to you, so availible time can't be an issue for you, can it?

LNC: My available time varies by the week. I can never predict what my availability is going to be ahead of time.

I’m not sure that understanding the differences between Calvin and Arminius is helpful to understanding the issue of free will as a philosophic issue. They were debating it from a theological application, but both accepted predestination or predetermination of those who would believe as that is not in dispute in the Bible. The real dispute had to do with the effects of original sin on the individual. Arminius held that it had less effect than did Calvin. Also, Arminius believed that the individual played a larger role in his or her salvation than did Calvin, who believed that any such effort by man could count as works. Some later adherents to Arminianism also believed that a person could lose his or her salvation, adding to the belief that man was partially responsible for his salvation.

BAA: Thanks for the eloquent reply, but you seem to have overlooked something LNC.

On July 15 you said that your view was somewhat different from the standard Calvinist view.

Presumably this difference is in regard to man's role? Yes?

You see, we still don't know where you stand on the question of how man's role in salvation, vis-a-vis the clearly taught Biblical principals of predestination and election.

This leaves us in the position of not knowing why you believe what you believe. Now I'm sure that you don't want this state of affairs to continue, so if you would be so kind as to apply your considerable intellect to the issue of how and why you differ from the standard Calvinist view, I think we'd all apppreciate it. Thanks.

LNC: The Bible clearly teaches that man is dead in sin (Eph. 2:1) and that God makes him alive from sin (Eph. 2:4), so apart from God making man alive from sin, he cannot and will not put his trust in God, but remain in rebellion. Once God makes man alive, he clearly sees himself as a sinner in need of salvation and trusts in Jesus. It is trusting in Jesus that saves the person? No, they were saved when they were made alive by God, but they also truly place faith in Jesus from that point.

BAA: Btw LNC, I couldn't help but notice that you wrote, 'from being dead to sin'. Is that a typo? Did you mean, 'from being dead thru sin'? When sinners are made alive in Christ they become dead to sin, but not before then. That's right, isn't it?

LNC: You are right, it should have read, "dead in sin." Thanks for pointing that out and allowing me to correct it.

Hopefully, I kept straight the answers to this set of questions from the last set.

LNC

[LNC]

First, I do not recall directing my post at you, LNC. Either way, whether or not you choose Y or Z is still known by God as you have stated, therefore to act differently than what God knows would be to violate his omniscience so we must act according to God's knowledge. I come to a point in time, X and am faced with two choices Y and Z. I choose Y. God knows I would have chosen Y. Is Z still a valid possibility if God knows I will not choose Z? If a proposition is known to be true then it must be true and cannot be false. Can I act in opposition to God's knowledge of what I will choose? Saying that getting to time X and making a different choice, Z, is still the same premise and problem of X and Y. Kicking the can down the road doesn't solve the problem we've just switched choices, Y and Z but haven't addressed the issue since God still has knowledge that I would choose one of them and I cannot act in opposition to his knowledge.

 

The past is known and the future is unknown but perhaps can be defined as an infinite number of possibilities with the present being the culmination of a specific set of possibilities. If God is omniscient how could he know the future precisely and yet it still be called the future if it's no longer a possibility but a certainty (the past)? Even within the nature of BibleGod thinking about what he may or may not do next or even having a future since he is set upon a course of doing what he certainly knows.

 

Sorry, Brother Josh, I didn't know that your posts were off limits to other responses. However, since you've now responded to me, I will take that as willingness on your part to now receive my reply.

 

The mistake that is often made in these discussions is to confuse foreknowledge with foreordination. God may know what our choice is before we have made it, but that doesn't mean that he or anyone else has ordained that choice. If we would choose different, God would know that as well. Simply to see ahead what we will choose is not to negate free will in any way.

 

The future is only unknown to us because we are bound within time and don't have omniscience to see outside of our time perspective. God is not so limited. God sees the future, but the future is still the future for us as we have not lived it out. God knows all true propositions, so he is not bound in that sense by time. I'm really not sure what your objection is here. God does not make his decisions bound by time and circumstances either. As he is omniscient, he does not have to wait to see what will happen before deciding what to do next.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Even if the myth of freewill were proven correct, this in no way validates biblegawd. The poor attempts by apologists to oppose the predestination concept/doctrine, which invalidates freewill totally and justifies us heathen in unbelief as a valid outcome.

Why do you see every discussion a Christian has about any subject as some subversive attempt to prove God's existence. I also talk about sports, philosophy, economics, politics, technology, etc. Maybe I'll start a thread on the Green Bay Packers sometime, just to change the subject and show that I can actually discuss other subjects.

 

However, we heathen and specifically ex christians that have been rehabilitated from the madness, does not jive with the doctrine of armenianism aka free will and folk find it hard that we can apply logic and dismiss it all as bullshit.

Sorry, but Arminianism is not equivalent with free will. Granted, Arminians believe in free will as it pertains to salvation, but free will goes beyond that discussion and decision.

 

They roll out the verses that suggest we are blinded by another fictional character satan, and thus are free to continue in their delusion having apportioned blame to someone for our lot. The calvinist is at least "honest" in seeing that it is their gawd that for whatever reason made us this way; they of course need to ignore the lost sheep parable and stick only to the verses that apply to them.

That is a faulty understanding of Calvinism. Calvinists don't believe that God has made a person dead in sin, that is the result of the fall and rebellion against God.

 

The reality is that the apologist will seesaw between calvinism and armenianism depending on the objection of the non believer.

 

The creation story is well and truly debunked by science. The new angle to keep the sheeple bleating is to suggest it is allegorical and not literal. Problem is what now becomes the norm for determining that which need to be taken at face value or that which needs to be taken with tongue in cheek? There is no standard and the folk simply make shit up as they go along. Yet this god is omni everything but really seems to do fuckall in his powers to make any snap changes like he did say in creation or the fludd. This is where the freewill argument falls flat on its face. A simple overnight intervention in Darfur alleviating the struggle and poverty would be indicative of a sign. Did those folk ask to be born there as opposed to a more affluent society say like the US for example?

 

So it really becomes an standard apology for the obvious lack of ANY real intervention by the omni everything god, he does not violate our free will.

 

When the bible can be used to conjure up so many differing interpretations, you cannot really expect us to take anything published in it as "fact"

 

 

How has science debunked the creation story? The last I checked, the Big Bang theory is the leading theory on the origin of the universe and it fits quite nicely with the creation account. I don't consider the creation account allegorical and no Christian I know does either. I know of some who claim to be liberal Christians who do, but then, I don't consider their hermeneutics to be very reliable or sound.

 

I believe that there is a place both for God's sovereignty and man's free will.

 

Man can come up with many interpretations of anything (see, the Constitution), but that doesn't mean that there wasn't original intent and that we cannot arrive at what that original intent is. However, you claim that we cannot take anything published as fact, I assume that also includes your post published to the Internet? Just checking.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Christians don't have free will, they just think they do. You're Christians because you're from a Christian society. The root of your arrogance is from denying that fact.

 

How would you know this if you don't have free will? How do you know it is not just a false belief that evolution has conditioned you to believe? The fact is, without free will, you wouldn't know and wouldn't even have knowledge (justified true belief), because you could never justify any of your beliefs.

 

Your statement about my being a Christian because I live in a Christian society also explains why you're an atheist, because you hang out with atheists. Actually, that is called the genetic fallacy and is false. Besides, you don't know how I became a Christian. What is arrogant is claiming that the root of arrogance is denying that fact.

 

LNC

[agnosticator]

I don't consider the creation account allegorical and no Christian I know does either.

 

Are you saying Adam and Eve were created totally separate from all other life, with no relation to other living creatures? What evidence is there that other animals are not related to humans? What about Homo erectus, Neanderthals and others related to Homo sapiens? How do you explain their existence? Where is the evidence of perfect non-human creatures before the fall? Where is the evidence that Adam and Eve existed?

[chosendarkness]

Christians don't have free will, they just think they do. You're Christians because you're from a Christian society. The root of your arrogance is from denying that fact.

 

How would you know this if you don't have free will? How do you know it is not just a false belief that evolution has conditioned you to believe? The fact is, without free will, you wouldn't know and wouldn't even have knowledge (justified true belief), because you could never justify any of your beliefs.

 

Your statement about my being a Christian because I live in a Christian society also explains why you're an atheist, because you hang out with atheists. Actually, that is called the genetic fallacy and is false. Besides, you don't know how I became a Christian. What is arrogant is claiming that the root of arrogance is denying that fact.

 

LNC

Denial ain't a river in Egypt. I think any honest person will admit that it's not a coincidence that they're a Christian in a Christian country. This kind of attitude that wants to deny that is one of the reasons people get turned off of Chrristianity. You don't seem to be honest with yourselves.

 

I'm not an atheist. Just becuase someone doubts your religion doesn't make them an atheist. There are other beliefs besides monotheism and atheism, although in America I guess it seems those are the only two. There are many beliefs in the world, and to claim to you have the only 'right' one and everyone else is wrong is very small-minded. Sometimes I'm amazed at how 'adults' can keep thinking like that, but I guess age doesn't necessarily equate to maturity.

[BrotherJosh]

The mistake that is often made in these discussions is to confuse foreknowledge with foreordination. God may know what our choice is before we have made it, but that doesn't mean that he or anyone else has ordained that choice. If we would choose different, God would know that as well. Simply to see ahead what we will choose is not to negate free will in any way.

 

The future is only unknown to us because we are bound within time and don't have omniscience to see outside of our time perspective. God is not so limited. God sees the future, but the future is still the future for us as we have not lived it out. God knows all true propositions, so he is not bound in that sense by time. I'm really not sure what your objection is here. God does not make his decisions bound by time and circumstances either. As he is omniscient, he does not have to wait to see what will happen before deciding what to do next.

 

LNC

 

Foreordination and foreknowledge. The first often being associated with Calvinism and the second being associated with omniscience. I wonder though with the knowledge God possesses am I able to act in contrast to what he knows? To say I could have acted differently after doing something is only to think of doing something differently and not actually have done it. Even if I would choose different that's still within God's knowledge. I mean am I literally able to act in a way that is contrary to his knowledge? Say for example, salvation. How much free will goes into such a decision? Is it monergistic or synergistic?

 

In regards to freewill how many of our decision are 100% based on freewill? Many other factors go into our decision making process such as genetics, biology, time of day, hormones, our subconscious etc...so are we able to measure how much freewill we have? Take for example someone who is presented with the Christ narrative...how much freewill goes into accepting or rejecting that decision? If someone rejects the salvation would you argue it was 100% based on their own free will?

 

The most basic story we can compare this to would be Adam and Eve (how far long ago did they exist, by the way?) How much free will did they have at that point? Certainly, they didn't have knowledge of good and evil! They had been ordered by God to abstain from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil however, to really have freewill shouldn't they have knowledge of choices? Did they understand the consequences of eating from the Tree? Was it an informed decision?

 

Another thought I touched on earlier...how much freewill do we have? Are some decisions based on physical events? How much freewill do we have over our bodies? Are *you* producing red blood cells right now?

 

How is God able to make a decision while being omniscient? If he is omniscient he already knows the decision he will make so the act of making a decision is not applicable to an omniscient being. Is he able to act differently than what he knows? Since we are "stuck in time" as you seem to refer to it, do you think time is subjective or can it be laid out like a film reel? Related to that is God inherently omniscient or does he have total omniscience?

[DesertBob]

The mistake that is often made in these discussions is to confuse foreknowledge with foreordination...

Foreordination and foreknowledge. The first often being associated with Calvinism and the second being associated with omniscience. I wonder though with the knowledge God possesses am I able to act in contrast to what he knows?

This is actually a rare instance when I'm inclined to agree with LNC. I never have gotten why anyone having foreknowledge of what someone was going to decide, equated to constraining or negating the decision. It was still their decision, even if someone has a time machine to peek ahead and know what the decision was going to be.

 

I agree with you however, Josh, that you cannot fault / punish someone for making a decision that's not informed and/or is based on immaturity. That would be like executing a 7 year old for jumping off the garage roof in a Superman cape and breaking their leg. To condemn Adam and Eve (and all their offspring, forever!!) to a default fate of hell because they trusted their own immature logic more than a seemingly arbitrary prohibition from someone else, is, by any standards, itself immature and over the top.

[BrotherJosh]

This is actually a rare instance when I'm inclined to agree with LNC. I never have gotten why anyone having foreknowledge of what someone was going to decide, equated to constraining or negating the decision. It was still their decision, even if someone has a time machine to peek ahead and know what the decision was going to be.

 

I won't argue with you, Bob or derail the thread but if I did peek into the future and saw myself do X would I be able to do Y with the knowledge that I AM going to do X? Apply an omniscient being into this situation and it gets way more complicated....in my opinion since this being has perfect knowledge and acting outside or contrary to this knowledge would mean it's not perfect so we have to act according to this perfect knowledge. Of course, when it comes to decisions I don't think we actually make decisions in a freewill sense because I don't think we have freewill but whatever

 

http://unreasonablef...e-legged-stool/ (kudos to LivingLife)

[DesertBob]

...if I did peek into the future and saw myself do X would I be able to do Y with the knowledge that I AM going to do X?

If it is ME with the foreknowledge about something I'm going to decide to do, yes, it would create a causal paradox. But if it were a third party (e.g., god) with the foreknowledge and he's not telling, it would not influence me. That's the scenario we're contemplating here.

Apply an omniscient being into this situation and it gets way more complicated....in my opinion since this being has perfect knowledge and acting outside or contrary to this knowledge would mean it's not perfect so we have to act according to this perfect knowledge. Of course, when it comes to decisions I don't think we actually make decisions in a freewill sense because I don't think we have freewill but whatever...

I was only considering the question in isolation. In the big-picture, real-world sense, yes, things get "curiouser and curiouser" because of god's refusal to use his all-knowledge for good and compassionate purposes.

 

There have been people accountable to me at different times in my life (my kids for example) and my ability to predict their likely behaviors is a form of foreknowledge which, if I did not act on it to modify or constrain their default behaviors and teach them better ones, would have been considered callous and indifferent if not irresponsible and feckless. We should apply an even higher standard to a hypothetical omnibenevolent god who claims to love his children. Particularly his innocent, pre-fallen children in Eden. In that case you can't even use the excuse that they deserved the consequences of their actions. They weren't even guilty of anything yet at that point. Why would you not want to preserve that precious innocence, especially considering all that was at stake for them and their descendants?

 

It's not even a question of free will. It's a question of equipping them to make responsible decisions with that free will. Helping them to grow into the responsibility that free will implies. We do that with our own children every day. God failed miserably as a parent in this case.

[Ouroboros]

This is actually a rare instance when I'm inclined to agree with LNC. I never have gotten why anyone having foreknowledge of what someone was going to decide, equated to constraining or negating the decision. It was still their decision, even if someone has a time machine to peek ahead and know what the decision was going to be.

Foreknowledge means that it will happen, no matter what. The decision is just an illusion. You can choose between blue and red, but it is guaranteed as a fact that you will choose blue. If we rerun the universe over and over again, you'd always pick blue. Why did you pick blue? That doesn't matter since you only thought you made a choice, and the choice would always be the same.

 

It's like us knowing a couple of billion of digits of Pi. Can the algorithm for Pi randomly pick any number from 0 to 9?

 

Let's say that you knew for a fact that I will write a post at 10:00 AM, local time, responding to you that has the word "flabbergasted" in it. If that is a fact that this will happen. How can I choose not to, regardless if I know it to happen or not?

[DesertBob]

Foreknowledge means that it will happen, no matter what. The decision is just an illusion...It's like us knowing a couple of billion of digits of Pi. Can the algorithm for Pi randomly pick any number from 0 to 9?

 

Let's say that you knew for a fact that I will write a post at 10:00 AM, local time, responding to you that has the word "flabbergasted" in it. If that is a fact that this will happen. How can I choose not to, regardless if I know it to happen or not?

Let us assume that I'm invited to pick any integer between 0 and 9 inclusive. Further assume that there aren't 10 parallel universes, in each of which I select one of those numbers (or n parallel universes where, in total, I eventually select them all with roughly the same frequency). Let's assume instead there is only one universe in which I only get to chose one number.

 

Let us suppose that I choose the integer 7.

 

I could have made 9 other choices, but that was my choice.

 

How does my freedom of choice suddenly change if you have a time machine that lets you peek ahead and see what my choice will be? It doesn't foreordain anything. It simply gives you foreknowledge.

 

We can have metaphysical discussions about whether, if we had the ability to rerun those events, I would always choose 7 or not. About how real or illusory my choice was. But adding an advance observer doesn't change the nature of my choice (or lack thereof). It only adds an observer. Maybe in some weird quantum sense, observing the choice in advance collapses the possibilities down to one. But there's no inherent reason to think that is so, that I know of.

 

In other words the debate about how real or illusory free will is, is a separate discussion as far as I am concerned. I either have free will or I don't ... regardless of whether you or anyone else has foreknowledge of my (apparent) choices.

 

Not that it matters what you or I think ... I could be wrong, you could be wrong, or we could both be wrong or both right, because in this screwy universe, the real answer may be, "it depends".

 

In any case for practical purposes I have choices / decisions to make all the time and sitting out those decisions because they are supposedly illusory is like standing in front of a train and acting as if its approach is illusory.

 

If I had lived in an actual Eden with an actual god who had given me an actual prohibition against eating some fruit, I would have to choose to obey or disobey. My apparent decision would be based on my knowledge, experience, wisdom, self control, perspective and level of trust for god. Given that an all-knowing, all-loving god would know the stakes, in order for that god to be self-consistent with its own attributes, s/he would have to insure that I either had all the facts and perspective needed to make a truly informed decision, and/or, s/he would have to prevent me from making anything but the "correct" decision. Giving Adam and Eve the freedom to eat the fruit was as dumb as giving a six year old firecrackers, gasoline and matches to play with. For all but the most timid, quisling of a child, the outcome would be, so to speak, foreordained. The problem was not God's foreknowledge but his indifference.

[Ouroboros]

Foreknowledge means that it will happen, no matter what. The decision is just an illusion...It's like us knowing a couple of billion of digits of Pi. Can the algorithm for Pi randomly pick any number from 0 to 9?

 

Let's say that you knew for a fact that I will write a post at 10:00 AM, local time, responding to you that has the word "flabbergasted" in it. If that is a fact that this will happen. How can I choose not to, regardless if I know it to happen or not?

Let us assume that I'm invited to pick any integer between 0 and 9 inclusive. Further assume that there aren't 10 parallel universes, in each of which I select one of those numbers (or n parallel universes where, in total, I eventually select them all with roughly the same frequency). Let's assume instead there is only one universe in which I only get to chose one number.

 

Let us suppose that I choose the integer 7.

 

I could have made 9 other choices, but that was my choice.

 

How does my freedom of choice suddenly change if you have a time machine that lets you peek ahead and see what my choice will be? It doesn't foreordain anything. It simply gives you foreknowledge.

The freedom was completely true since the only choice you would ever make would be the one you would make. If the future can be known, then the future is predicted, and the "freedom" of the future is only an illusion.

 

Or put it this way, if you can go to the future in a time machine, then the future is just like the past, i.e. something you can't change.

[DesertBob]

The freedom was completely true since the only choice you would ever make would be the one you would make. If the future can be known, then the future is predicted, and the "freedom" of the future is only an illusion.

 

Or put it this way, if you can go to the future in a time machine, then the future is just like the past, i.e. something you can't change.

That is only true if there is only one timeline and one universe, as opposed to infinitude of either. Many scientists (or should I say, theorists) now accept the possibility that you COULD go back in time and kill your own parents and not cease to exist, because the past in which you killed your parents is simply one of an infinite number of universes branching off of different possibilities.

 

In other words there are universes where I chose 7, 6, 2 or refused to make a choice at all. Of course, that would also imply that it may be impossible for a hypothetical time machine to know which of those realities to travel to, at least in terms of predicting the future for THIS timeline.

 

Just one more way it makes your head spin to even bother thinking about this stuff. That's why I say, I have choices and I make them, from my perspective anyway, and that's what counts. I chose to reply to this post or not. Or what I did looked enough like a choice for purposes of government work, at any rate.

[centauri]

The mistake that is often made in these discussions is to confuse foreknowledge with foreordination. God may know what our choice is before we have made it, but that doesn't mean that he or anyone else has ordained that choice.

You have no way of knowing how much is not only foreknown but foreordained as well.

God predestines at least some things according to his will.

God not only knows the outcome, he determined it in advance.

Rom 8:29

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

 

Rom 9:16 NLT

So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it.

 

Eph 1:4-5,11

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

 

Some things, including belief, are predestined according to his will, his purpose, and his whim.

Until you can demonstrate that you know exactly what is predestined by God and what isn't, all you can do is guess, and your guess is no more authoritative than that of any other preacher.

[Antlerman]

Your statement about my being a Christian because I live in a Christian society also explains why you're an atheist, because you hang out with atheists. Actually, that is called the genetic fallacy and is false. Besides, you don't know how I became a Christian. What is arrogant is claiming that the root of arrogance is denying that fact.

 

LNC

Hey there, surprised to see you still at it. Me, I've just been off trying to expand my horizons in understanding and growth, as opposed to just pursuing a degree in validating my beliefs to myself through mastering argument techniques with others.

 

Anyway, to your point about the genetic fallacy, I don't believe this is what is being argued. Surely, you are educated enough to understand cultural influence. Surely you're exposed enough to modern knowledge that you know how language and myth shapes our worldviews, from family, society, and culture? Surely it is no small miracle that the observation that Muslim children are born to Muslim parents is pretty well supported by even the most casual glance, hence maps like these?

 

 

So what I would say is that religion has many attractors to individuals, and depending on what their motives are - which yours seem one of a particular kind, they will adopt that which is typically most familiar strictly because it is most accessible in what they know, what they have been exposed to. It's not likely someone trying to find God in the West will immediately go after a totem pole to express those feelings of the transcendent. They'll likely take what is closest to them culturally, initially at least, most likely never looking further. It is a symbolic world, and where do you think those symbols come from?

 

So honestly LNC, what motivates you towards religion? Be honest. I can hear truth. My impression is that you want to feel vindicated by having the arguments nailed down tight, and somehow this makes you righteous before God, or justified to others somehow. Close? If you have the facts, that seals your salvation? Sort of like those who claim all valid truth through empiricism, and applying this to matters of human faith?

[Ouroboros]

The freedom was completely true since the only choice you would ever make would be the one you would make. If the future can be known, then the future is predicted, and the "freedom" of the future is only an illusion.

 

Or put it this way, if you can go to the future in a time machine, then the future is just like the past, i.e. something you can't change.

That is only true if there is only one timeline and one universe, as opposed to infinitude of either. Many scientists (or should I say, theorists) now accept the possibility that you COULD go back in time and kill your own parents and not cease to exist, because the past in which you killed your parents is simply one of an infinite number of universes branching off of different possibilities.

But then God doesn't know which universe is the one.

 

I can come up with a series of digits that represents all possible combinations of all numbers ever possible. [0-9]*.[0-9]*

 

But it doesn't mean anything since it represents everything, and hence really nothing.

 

To know all possible chess moves is not to know which chess move your opponent will make.

 

In other words there are universes where I chose 7, 6, 2 or refused to make a choice at all. Of course, that would also imply that it may be impossible for a hypothetical time machine to know which of those realities to travel to, at least in terms of predicting the future for THIS timeline.

 

Just one more way it makes your head spin to even bother thinking about this stuff. That's why I say, I have choices and I make them, from my perspective anyway, and that's what counts. I chose to reply to this post or not. Or what I did looked enough like a choice for purposes of government work, at any rate.

As I said, knowing all possible outcomes of all infinite number of universes is not the same as knowing the outcome of this universe.