Trump's Christian supporters are unchristian

[Littlejoe]

In order to offend, you would first have to be correct.

You still haven't explained how foreknowledge is incompatible with freewill. You're just baldly asserting it. Let's see a logical argument:

P1 ...
P2 ...
P3 ...
...
C: Therefore, foreknowledge is incompatible with freewill.

You just gotta fill in the premises.

Go!

As an Open Theist, I agree that "absolute foreknowledge negates free will.

P1 - If God has foreknowledge that you will do "X", then it is necessary that you will then do "X" (It is necessary because there's no chance God could be wrong about that)
P2 - If it is now necessary for you to do "X", then you are not free with respect of doing "X" (as it is now necessary for it to happen)

Therefore, logically,

C: If God has absolute foreknowledge that you will do "X", then you are not free with respect to doing "X", you must do it because God knows it for a fact.

So, either Calvinist are correct and there's predestination/fate going on, or God give us free will and doesn't always know which way we will go with it. (which can be demonstrated from scripture)

[Mountain Man]

As an Open Theist, I agree that "absolute foreknowledge negates free will.

P1 - If God has foreknowledge that you will do "X", then it is necessary that you will then do "X" (It is necessary because there's no chance God could be wrong about that)
P2 - If it is now necessary for you to do "X", then you are not free with respect of doing "X" (as it is now necessary for it to happen)

Therefore, logically,

C: If God has absolute foreknowledge that you will do "X", then you are not free with respect to doing "X", you must do it because God knows it for a fact.

So, either Calvinist are correct and there's predestination/fate going on, or God give us free will and doesn't always know which way we will go with it. (which can be demonstrated from scripture)

I'm not sure what you mean by "absolute foreknowledge".

Also, your first premise needs to be fleshed out. If I'm outside of time and able to view your life from the end to the beginning, how would my knowledge of what you're about to do be the cause rather than the result of your freewill? To put it another way, God can only know what I will choose to do because I freely chose to do it.

[Sparko]

No, the present me would know every decision my past self did make, not will make.

It is "will make" to him, just like it is to you, but "did make" to the you of 10 years from now.

No, it means I know what my past decisions were. duh!

Which means you DID make them and you could not have done otherwise. Because if you did do otherwise, THAT is what you would know was your past choice. Therefore you have no free will? You knowing what you did 10 minutes ago is the equivalent of God knowing what you will do 10 minutes from now. No difference. You know what you did because you freely chose to do it then. God knows what you will freely choose to do 10 minutes from now. Logically speaking, his perspective is just further in the future than you are now. Nothing else has changed. 1 hour from now you will have the same knowledge of your actions 10 minutes from now as God does now.

Yeah, actually it does matter, if you exist in the present, then your future decisions haven't been made, so they can't be known, and if the future exists so that you could travel into it, duh, then it already exists, doesn't it?

From your past self's point of view the future of now didn't exist for him, but it does for you now. Eventually all future events will exist. That is what time does. The only thing changing is your perspective along the timeline. At any given point you can only remember the past, not the future. But it is still there to your future self.

Duh! If a being exists outside of time and can therefore see all of time, then duh!, all of time exists and there are no actual choices being made, you dunce!

From God's perspective all of time and all choices have been made. But what cause the choices was your free will. Time only records what those choices are, not makes them for you. Like I said, every one of your past choices cannot be changed, they all happened. But the fact that they can't be changed doesn't mean they were not done with free will. Time just recorded what your free will choice was at any given instant.

[Sparko]

As an Open Theist, I agree that "absolute foreknowledge negates free will.

P1 - If God has foreknowledge that you will do "X", then it is necessary that you will then do "X" (It is necessary because there's no chance God could be wrong about that)
P2 - If it is now necessary for you to do "X", then you are not free with respect of doing "X" (as it is now necessary for it to happen)

Therefore, logically,

C: If God has absolute foreknowledge that you will do "X", then you are not free with respect to doing "X", you must do it because God knows it for a fact.

So, either Calvinist are correct and there's predestination/fate going on, or God give us free will and doesn't always know which way we will go with it. (which can be demonstrated from scripture)

OK let's leave God out of it. Let's assume X is you eating cheerios yesterday, and you told me about it today.

P1 - If I have knowledge that you ate cheerios yesterday, then it is necessary that you ate cheerios yesterday.
P2. If is is necessary that you ate cheerios yesterday then you were not free with respect to eating Frosted Flakes (it was necessary for it to happen in order for me to know about it)

C If I have absolute knowledge you ate Cheerios yesterday then you were not free with respect to eating Cheerios, you must do it because I know it as a fact.

Do you see the flaw? Me knowing what you ate isn't what causes you to eat it. What you ate is what causes me to know it. IF you ate Frosted Flakes then that is what I would have been told by you and what my current knowledge is. But you didn't.


God knows your choices BECAUSE you make them, His knowing doesn't CAUSE them.

[oxmixmudd]

As an Open Theist, I agree that "absolute foreknowledge negates free will.

P1 - If God has foreknowledge that you will do "X", then it is necessary that you will then do "X" (It is necessary because there's no chance God could be wrong about that)
P2 - If it is now necessary for you to do "X", then you are not free with respect of doing "X" (as it is now necessary for it to happen)

Therefore, logically,

C: If God has absolute foreknowledge that you will do "X", then you are not free with respect to doing "X", you must do it because God knows it for a fact.

So, either Calvinist are correct and there's predestination/fate going on, or God give us free will and doesn't always know which way we will go with it. (which can be demonstrated from scripture)

I do not agree that absolute foreknowledge negates free will. God knowing what will happen does not negate the freeness of the choice. God is not making you chose.

There is an implicit assumption here that God knowing the outcome implies the outcome is somehow fixed. I don't believe that to be the case. I believe we could liken the choice to a quantum state that lies in superposition. Once the choice has been made in the now, the superposition state collapses and both the future and the past resolve to a state where the choice was what it became. That is, that the choice retroactively results in God 'knowing' across time without the choice itself being 'predetermined'. That in the now, the choice can be whatever it will be and the fact God knows in the past what it will be is a consequence of retrocausality associated with the superposition state collapse.

There is interesting evidence and theory that points to nature behaving similarly in the quantum world.

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physic...ry-future.html


Jim

[JimL]

I do not agree that absolute foreknowledge negates free will. God knowing what will happen does not negate the freeness of the choice. God is not making you chose.

God having foreknowledge of our choices is evidence of his being the cause of those choices unless you can logically explain how god has foreknowledge without being the cause.

There is an implicit assumption here that God knowing the outcome implies the outcome is somehow fixed. I don't believe that to be the case. I believe we could liken the choice to a quantum state that lies in superposition. Once the choice has been made in the now, the superposition state collapses and both the future and the past resolve to a state where the choice was what it became.

But Jim, the idea that a future choice being in superposition is no different than the reality of the future choice not yet being made. That doesn't change anything. Your next act could incorporate an infinity of choices, like a superposition, but only one of them will you actually choose to do, like a collapsed superposition. How you describe that process doesn't change the fact that if your creator has foreknowledge of what that actual end choice will be then he would be responsible for it, not you. Your actual act/choice would be necessary, in accordance with your creator's eternal forknowledge of what that choice would be.

That is, that the choice retroactively results in God 'knowing' across time without the choice itself being 'predetermined'. That in the now, the choice can be whatever it will be and the fact God knows in the past what it will be is a consequence of retrocausality associated with the superposition state collapse.

In order for god to know retroactively, that is, after an event has occured, means that it has already occured, the choice was already made, or in otherwords you're placing god in time, in the past, in a world in which all of time exists. This doesn't solve your dilemma, because all of time would still have to exist, ergo there could be no free will.

There is interesting evidence and theory that points to nature behaving similarly in the quantum world.

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physic...ry-future.html

Fact remains, the existence of a god would mean that he is prior to all that he created, and the engineer of all that he created, which leaves only 2 possibilities regarding foreknowledge. He either created his creation in it's totality and so can see it in it's totality, can see all of time in it's totality, in which case there is no actual change that takes place within it since it's all there from beginning to end, or, he engineered it in such a way that, like dominoes, he knows what each next event will be prior to it's actual occurence, in which case, there would also be no free will. So, either god is omniscient and his creation is preditermined, or god is not omniscient, and there could possibly be free will, or there is no god, and there could possibly be free will.

[oxmixmudd]

God having foreknowledge of our choices is evidence of his being the cause of those choices unless you can logically explain how god has foreknowledge without being the cause.

But Jim, the idea that a future choice being in superposition is no different than the reality of the future choice not yet being made. That doesn't change anything. Your next act could incorporate an infinity of choices, like a superposition, but only one of them will you actually choose to do, like a collapsed superposition. How you describe that process doesn't change the fact that if your creator has foreknowledge of what that actual end choice will be then he would be responsible for it, not you. Your actual act/choice would be necessary, in accordance with your creator's eternal forknowledge of what that choice would be.



In order for god to know retroactively, that is, after an event has occured, means that it has already occured, the choice was already made, or in otherwords you're placing god in time, in the past, in a world in which all of time exists. This doesn't solve your dilemma, because all of time would still have to exist, ergo there could be no free will.


Fact remains, the existence of a god would mean that he is prior to all that he created, and the engineer of all that he created, which leaves only 2 possibilities regarding foreknowledge. He either created his creation in it's totality and so can see it in it's totality, can see all of time in it's totality, in which case there is no actual change that takes place within it since it's all there from beginning to end, or, he engineered it in such a way that, like dominoes, he knows what each next event will be prior to it's actual occurence, in which case, there would also be no free will. So, either god is omniscient and his creation is preditermined, or god is not omniscient, and there could possibly be free will, or there is no god, and there could possibly be free will.

Unfortunately, you do not understand quantum superposition or retrocausality, and couple that with your presumption im a dolt because I believe there is a God and what we end up with a lot of wasted effort trying to make the concept understandable. Its a shame because I think its an interesting concept worthy of discussion. Perhaps there are others willing to do so.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

"Omniscience" simply means to know all that it is possible to know. If we have freewill, then logically, God can only know the choices we have freely made. Therefore our freewill is the cause and not the result of God's foreknowledge.

[JimL]

"Omniscience" simply means to know all that it is possible to know. If we have freewill, then logically, God can only know the choices we have freely made. Therefore our freewill is the cause and not the result of God's foreknowledge.

The argument is that god "knows the future". If we have free will, then logically, god can not know the future. Eventually this simple concept might sink in MM. Keep trying.

[Tassman]

"For believers, no proof is needed;

for unbelievers, no proof is enough."

Empirically verified facts are generally sufficient to believe.

Overly broad, but makes a worthy point.

Not really!

[Tassman]

It's not an 'assumption', it is the teaching of the Scriptures.

It is only a by implication. God's bestowal of human "free-will" and the limiting of himself is not overtly stated.

I disagree. Both IF He exists and Who He is are critical issues. But obviously, there is little point in trying to assess Who He is unless one first believes He is.

Well yes, this is my point. There is little point trying to assess who God is unless one believes that he exists in the first place.

But that was not my point. I am saying it is foolish to hide behind logical Paradoxes which exist due to the incompleteness of language constructs or just the fact systems of logic can in fact be incomplete (Godel).

What he's doing is not dissimilar to deciding set theory is invalid because of the paradoxical conclusion there can not be a set of all sets. It's just silly.

This is about available substantive evidence, of which there is none regarding the existence of a deity, not incomplete sets etc.

In the simplest terms, I do not believe one can ascertain the reality of God in purely scientific terms. The scriptures and the life experience of myself and literally billions of other people on this earth is that God is discerned in other ways. So a person that limits themselves to only that which can be scientifically discerned is very unlikely to ever be convinced of the reality of God. That is just the way it is.

[Mountain Man]

The argument is that god "knows the future". If we have free will, then logically, god can not know the future. Eventually this simple concept might sink in MM. Keep trying.

You're making this a lot harder than it needs to be, Jimmy. It's only the future as we see it. Your argument is like saying that because you know what choices someone made in the past that therefore, that person didn't have the freewill make those choices. But logically, if humans have freewill, which seems intuitively true, then you can only know a person's past choices because those are the choices they freely made. In other words, your knowledge of their choices is logically dependent on their freewill. It's similar with God. If we have freewill, which, again, seems intuitively true, then it is literally impossible for God to know anything other then the choices we freely make.

[Cerebrum123]

I'm not sure what you mean by "absolute foreknowledge".

Also, your first premise needs to be fleshed out. If I'm outside of time and able to view your life from the end to the beginning, how would my knowledge of what you're about to do be the cause rather than the result of your freewill? To put it another way, God can only know what I will choose to do because I freely chose to do it.

In the case of God it would be due to the fact He created the initial conditions. If it was some other entity that was merely an observer, then it would have no bearing on the issue, but God is not a passive observer with regards to creation as a whole.

[Cerebrum123]

OK let's leave God out of it. Let's assume X is you eating cheerios yesterday, and you told me about it today.

P1 - If I have knowledge that you ate cheerios yesterday, then it is necessary that you ate cheerios yesterday.
P2. If is is necessary that you ate cheerios yesterday then you were not free with respect to eating Frosted Flakes (it was necessary for it to happen in order for me to know about it)

C If I have absolute knowledge you ate Cheerios yesterday then you were not free with respect to eating Cheerios, you must do it because I know it as a fact.

Do you see the flaw? Me knowing what you ate isn't what causes you to eat it. What you ate is what causes me to know it. IF you ate Frosted Flakes then that is what I would have been told by you and what my current knowledge is. But you didn't.


God knows your choices BECAUSE you make them, His knowing doesn't CAUSE them.

Molinism comes with all of the problems of Calvinism, it just kind of pushes things back. It basically turns God into a programmer who runs simulations, and then chooses to make the best simulation into reality. Simulations have no choice, and in Molinism neither do we. Any form of exhaustive foreknowledge ends up being like a long line of dominoes. God's the one who set them all up, and pushed the first one resulting in all of the others falling. He's not just some passive observer that any argument about foreknowledge would need Him to be in order to be valid.

The argument that foreknowledge doesn't cause anything in itself would be accurate if applied to someone like The Watcher* from Marvel comics, but not to God. God's different. He's the one who is creating the initial conditions, and even the very nature of humanity. Mixed with absolute foreknowledge, this leads to fatalism/determinism. I've never seen anything more than bad analogies that argue otherwise.

*When he's not breaking the oath of his people. He does seem to break the "don't interact" rule pretty often.

[Mountain Man]

In the case of God it would be due to the fact He created the initial conditions. If it was some other entity that was merely an observer, then it would have no bearing on the issue, but God is not a passive observer with regards to creation as a whole.

God designed the board and the rules of the game, but he doesn't control the actions of the players.