Trump's Christian supporters are unchristian

[oxmixmudd]

No, you gave me an example of something that you obviously don't understand yourself. Retrocausality assumes the future exists and reaches back into the past in order to effect the past. For one thing that is a hypotheses that very few are adherents to and neither do they understand it. But the most important thing that you are missing in that scenario is that according to it the future already exists, there is no foreknowledge involved, the reason that it could influence the past is because it already exists, and if future already exist, then it isn't foreknowledge. Right.

You are assuming a fixed past and future as the only explanation for retrocausality. That is not the only formulation. If the multiverse is in fact the outcome of all possibilities manifesting as separate universes, and there is retrocausaility, then there are in fact many pasts, many presents, and many futures.

Then you need to explain how he does it in logical terms without going into the weeds of quantum mechanics which you don't understand well enough to make such assertions..

No, you are the one saying it is absolutely impossible. Such an assertion is undone by one counter-example. What I have done is show that there are possible ways the universe could be constructed that will allow for what you are claiming is impossible.

There are other solutions as well, solutions that involve God choosing to limit His knowledge to allow us Free will. That is why I think it a bit presumptuous to assume God knowing all that is knowable is the same as God knowing 'everything'. In many ways it is similar to the paradoxical set of all sets. The problem lies in our formulation of the concept of omniscience, not the reality of God knowing all that is knowable. The clear and obvious example is that God chooses to forget our sins if we are in Christ. That is part of the formulation of the Christian God, and thus He clearly doesn't know 'everything' in that He chooses to 'remember our sins no more'. (Hebrews 12:8, Jeremiah 31:34).


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

So, God's just a video recorder? What you seem to be downplaying is God's omnipotence in favor of his omniscience.

Well, none of us are God (obviously) and saying that our knowing something is the same as God's knowledge is a problem IMO. If (as in Molinism) God looked at all the possible worlds and decisions and created the one he wanted, how do you get around God choosing which decisions you would make? You can't have it both ways. In some worlds you would have made opposite decisions, even possibly not have accepted Christ, but you made the decisions you made because God created this world and not another...that seems the very definition of Theological Fatalism...

Honestly, I think the problems we see are the problems small children see when trying to solve difficult for them problems. God tells us He knows all about us from birth to death. He tells us those whom he foreknew He predestined. It also tells us we must choose Him, meaning it is up to us whether to follow Him or not. And he also tells us we are responsible for our choices. The logical inconsistency we see in those statements is just the product of our own incomplete knowledge, not that it is not worthy of deep thought or debate. But absolute assertions about this sort of thing I just can't possibly see as being justified. We don't know enough to even know what we don't know about this sort of thing.


Jim

[JimL]

You are assuming a fixed past and future as the only explanation for retrocausality. That is not the only formulation. If the multiverse is in fact the outcome of all possibilities manifesting as separate universes, and there is retrocausaility, then there are in fact many pasts, many presents, and many futures.

No, I'm not assuming that at all, Jim. All I was saying is that the future exists in your retrocausal example, which is why it doesn't explain anything about foreknowledge. What needs to be explained is how the future could be known prior to that future existing.

No, you are the one saying it is absolutely impossible. Such an assertion is undone by one counter-example. What I have done is show that there are possible ways the universe could be constructed that will allow for what you are claiming is impossible.

Yes, I am the one saying that according to the rules of logic and non-contradiction it is absolutely impossible for an omniscient creator to co-exist with a free will creation. You are arguing and asserting just the opposite, but your arguments are based on possibilities that may be found in quantum mechantics that we just don't understand. Thats fine, but unless they are understood and logically explicable then they really don't trump our common logic understanding of the way things work.

There are other solutions as well, solutions that involve God choosing to limit His knowledge to allow us Free will. That is why I think it a bit presumptuous to assume God knowing all that is knowable is the same as God knowing 'everything'. In many ways it is similar to the paradoxical set of all sets. The problem lies in our formulation of the concept of omniscience, not the reality of God knowing all that is knowable. The clear and obvious example is that God chooses to forget our sins if we are in Christ. That is part of the formulation of the Christian God, and thus He clearly doesn't know 'everything' in that He chooses to 'remember our sins no more'. (Hebrews 12:8, Jeremiah 31:34).

The argument though is just that, i.e. that god knows everything, that he knows the beginning and the end and everything in between, omniscience. If we realize that not to be the case we can probably dream up ways around the problem like in the above, like he is not totally omniscient or chooses to forget what he doesn't want to know. But that doesn't really win the argument over whether omniscience and free will can co-exist, it concedes it.

[oxmixmudd]

No, I'm not assuming that at all, Jim. All I was saying is that the future exists in your retrocausal example, which is why it doesn't explain anything about foreknowledge. What needs to be explained is how the future could be known prior to that future existing.



Yes, I am the one saying that according to the rules of logic and non-contradiction it is absolutely impossible for an omniscient creator to co-exist with a free will creation. You are arguing and asserting just the opposite, but your arguments are based on possibilities that may be found in quantum mechantics that we just don't understand. Thats fine, but unless they are understood and logically explicable then they really don't trump our common logic understanding of the way things work.

When it comes to argumentation about the logical consistency of believing in the God of the Bible it very much does matter JimL. Because when you are talking about the God the creator of the Universe and all that is, you have to recognize that our capacity to understand or reason about such a being is going to be limited. And if you make absolute pronouncements about what can or can't be as it relates to that God, then you can't really expect to end up doing anything much better than putting your foot in your mouth. It doesn't matter if one says it seems like X is a problem. Or I don't understand how X and Y can both be true. But it is a whole other thing to say there can't be a God because I don't see how X and Y can both be true. Because the simple fact is the missing piece may be nothing less than our own limited understanding of the universe itself.

The argument though is just that, i.e. that god knows everything, that he knows the beginning and the end and everything in between, omniscience. If we realize that not to be the case we can probably dream up ways around the problem like in the above, like he is not totally omniscient or chooses to forget what he doesn't want to know. But that doesn't really win the argument over whether omniscience and free will can co-exist, it concedes it.

As I see it, the argument is over whether or not it is logical to believe in the God of the Bible. And you've placed this apparent paradox as proof is is not. I'm not interested in proving if God is or is not omniscient in the particular sense you think is required. I am only interested in showing that it is not illogical to believe in the God of the Bible. It could be interesting to discuss if the traditional formulation of the concept of omnisicence is contrary to what the Bible teaches about God I suppose. But my point is that God can know my future without controlling it. He can know all the Bible claims He knows without interfering with my capacity to choose to follow Him or to choose to reject Him.

Jim

[JimL]

When it comes to argumentation about the logical consistency of believing in the God of the Bible it very much does matter JimL. Because when you are talking about the God the creator of the Universe and all that is, you have to recognize that our capacity to understand or reason about such a being is going to be limited. And if you make absolute pronouncements about what can or can't be as it relates to that God, then you can't really expect to end up doing anything much better than putting your foot in your mouth. It doesn't matter if one says it seems like X is a problem. Or I don't understand how X and Y can both be true. But it is a whole other thing to say there can't be a God because I don't see how X and Y can both be true. Because the simple fact is the missing piece may be nothing less than our own limited understanding of the universe itself.



As I see it, the argument is over whether or not it is logical to believe in the God of the Bible. And you've placed this apparent paradox as proof is is not. I'm not interested in proving if God is or is not omniscient in the particular sense you think is required. I am only interested in showing that it is not illogical to believe in the God of the Bible. It could be interesting to discuss if the traditional formulation of the concept of omnisicence is contrary to what the Bible teaches about God I suppose. But my point is that God can know my future without controlling it. He can know all the Bible claims He knows without interfering with my capacity to choose to follow Him or to choose to reject Him.

Jim

Okay Jim, but all you're really saying is that you believe in omniscience and free will whether logic and the evidence contradicts you or not simply because the bible tells you so. That's fine by me, but thats not really a positive argument, it's just an unsubstantiated belief which we already know that you happen to hold to. You could have just said from the beginning "it doesn't matter what you say, because I believe the bible regardless."

[JonathanL]

You're basically saying that exhaustive foreknowledge and free will can't conflict, and haven't shown such.

And you're claiming they cannot co-exist in the same universe, and have yet to show such. We do not have to show that EF and FW do not conflict, you have to show that there is actually a conflict there in the first place.

Frankly, I don't put much stock in the claim that if God has exhaustive foreknowledge then free will is impossible. I've yet to see a single valid argument that would lead me to conclude that free will is impossible if God's foreknowledge is exhaustive. Such an argument would have to show that the only way for God to know all of your future choices would be if your actions were not only deterministically connected to prior events, but actually completely bound by them.

And I think you're looking at Molinism completely backwards. In Molinism God doesn't "choose the actions of the players" as you put it in post #398, He chooses to create a universe where the players freely choose to act in the way that they finally end up acting.

Is there a contradiction in the belief that God's decision to create a universe where he knew you'd decide X, and X being a free will decision by you? Perhaps, but no one has yet to provide a logically airtight argument to show that such a contradiction actually exists.

[Tassman]

It says God will 'remember our sins no more' (Hebrews 8:12, Jeremiah 31:34). That is an example of an overt statement in scripture that God limits himself. In this case, He limits his knowledge of our sins.

That specific comment is about JimL's general dismissal of a concept relating to God because it can lead to a paradox. And I'm simply showing that a concept leading to a paradox does not invalidate the concept.

I further pointed out that the unprovability of a truth does not make it untrue. Godel showed that non-trivial forma systems of mathematics are always either incomplete or inconsistent as an example.

It is not 'purely subjective'.

The resurrection itself is substantive evidence. But it is not scientifically verifyable.

The redemption of the unsaved, the Alchoholic or drug addict that on the acceptance of Christ as Savior is completely changed, sometimes miraculously released from the physical addiction, is substantive evidence. Concrete answers to prayer, Elements of Gods direct intervention in life's circumstances are substantive to those that receive them. These events are verifiable, though the skeptic dismisses the possibility of a divine cause.

Indeed!

At best, the alternative is self-fulfilling wishful thinking. There are many ways to effect positive changes from self-destructive or addictive behavior without invoking supernatural intervention. Treating people with love and acceptance can be a very productive means of doing this.

[oxmixmudd]

Okay Jim, but all you're really saying is that you believe in omniscience and free will whether logic and the evidence contradicts you or not simply because the bible tells you so. That's fine by me, but thats not really a positive argument, it's just an unsubstantiated belief which we already know that you happen to hold to. You could have just said from the beginning "it doesn't matter what you say, because I believe the bible regardless."

No JimL, I don't believe they contradict because I don't see a necessary correlation between them.

I will try one more time to explain why. Lets take the following scenario.

Let's assume a decision point D where I can decide to do A or B. And Let's assume that at some time before D God tells my wife what I will decide. But He also tells her she cannot mention what I will do until after D has occurred, because He want's that decision to be completely of my free will.

Now, in my proposed potential way the universe works it would play out like this. Two different pasts exist unresolved relative to D, one where God tells my wife I will decide A, and the other where God tells my wife I will decide B. Also two futures exist unresolved. One that results from me deciding to do A, and the other that results from me deciding to do B. At point D both the past and the future exist unresolved. I, completely freely and without any form of destiny driving me choose one of A or B. At that point, the past with the decision I made in it becomes real, and the future based on the decision I made now also has the potential to exist. God didn't make be do anything. But He knew exactly what I would do and told my wife. And she told me a little while after D happened.

You may not like my scenario. But it works. God still knows everything. And I am completely free to make whatever choice I want at D.

Jim

[JimL]

No JimL, I don't believe they contradict because I don't see a necessary correlation between them.

I think Jim, that's because you are trying not to look too hard.

I will try one more time to explain why. Lets take the following scenario.

Let's assume a decision point D where I can decide to do A or B. And Let's assume that at some time before D God tells my wife what I will decide. But He also tells her she cannot mention what I will do until after D has occurred, because He want's that decision to be completely of my free will.

Now, in my proposed potential way the universe works it would play out like this. Two different pasts exist unresolved relative to D, one where God tells my wife I will decide A, and the other where God tells my wife I will decide B. Also two futures exist unresolved. One that results from me deciding to do A, and the other that results from me deciding to do B. At point D both the past and the future exist unresolved. I, completely freely and without any form of destiny driving me choose one of A or B. At that point, the past with the decision I made in it becomes real, and the future based on the decision I made now also has the potential to exist. God didn't make be do anything. But He knew exactly what I would do and told my wife. And she told me a little while after D happened.

You may not like my scenario. But it works. God still knows everything. And I am completely free to make whatever choice I want at D.

Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, that doesn't explain anything except, again it's simply a story that asserts your belief. All it says is that there are 2 worlds in which you make a decision and that god knows what that decision will be before you make it, and that the reason you know that god knows this is because god told your wife beforehand what your decision would be and he got it right. That's just a story based on your belief, not a logical explanation as to how god does it, how he knows the future.

I could tell you the same story in reverse, that god told your wife what your decision would be ahead of your making the decision, but he got it wrong, god said A but you did B. Would you say that story shows how I am right about the impossibility of an omniscient creator and free willed creation? I don't think you would.


I think you should just ask yourself 1) how god could possibly know the future in the first place, in other words in what ways could anyone possibly know the future being that it doesn't yet exist. And when you find that answer, there is a positive one, then ask yourself, 2) if that be the case, then how can that, the way in which god knows, fit together with free will? If you stick to what is known about the way the macro world works I think you will find that they don't fit together. You can always assume that there is some way which we don't understand such as in quantum mechanics where the two concepts can co-exist, but sticking to what we know about the world, I don't think you'll find a working explanation.

[oxmixmudd]

I think Jim, that's because you are trying not to look too hard.

Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim, that doesn't explain anything except, again it's simply a story that asserts your belief. All it says is that there are 2 worlds in which you make a decision and that god knows what that decision will be before you make it, and that the reason you know that god knows this is because god told your wife beforehand what your decision would be and he got it right. That's just a story based on your belief, not a logical explanation as to how god does it, how he knows the future.

I could tell you the same story in reverse, that god told your wife what your decision would be ahead of your making the decision, but he got it wrong, god said A but you did B. Would you say that story shows how I am right about the impossibility of an omniscient creator and free willed creation? I don't think you would.


I think you should just ask yourself 1) how god could possibly know the future in the first place, in other words in what ways could anyone possibly know the future being that it doesn't yet exist. And when you find that answer, there is a positive one, then ask yourself, 2) if that be the case, then how can that, the way in which god knows, fit together with free will? If you stick to what is known about the way the macro world works I think you will find that they don't fit together. You can always assume that there is some way which we don't understand such as in quantum mechanics where the two concepts can co-exist, but sticking to what we know about the world, I don't think you'll find a working explanation.

You are claiming it is impossible for omniscience and freewill to both be true. All that is needed to to negate that assertion is one example of how they could coexist.

Jim

[Cerebrum123]

And you're claiming they cannot co-exist in the same universe, and have yet to show such. We do not have to show that EF and FW do not conflict, you have to show that there is actually a conflict there in the first place.

P1: If everything is exhaustively foreknown, and infallibly so, then nothing could ever be otherwise than it is.
P2: Since nothing can in principle have happened differently, then no one has any capacity for choice.

Conclusion: We have no free will, as free will is the ability to choose freely from what we are presented with.

The post I was responding to seems to amount to nothing more than "I'm right no matter what".

Frankly, I don't put much stock in the claim that if God has exhaustive foreknowledge then free will is impossible. I've yet to see a single valid argument that would lead me to conclude that free will is impossible if God's foreknowledge is exhaustive. Such an argument would have to show that the only way for God to know all of your future choices would be if your actions were not only deterministically connected to prior events, but actually completely bound by them.

In an exhaustively foreknown universe things are required to be deterministic due to the nature of an EF universe.

And I think you're looking at Molinism completely backwards. In Molinism God doesn't "choose the actions of the players" as you put it in post #398, He chooses to create a universe where the players freely choose to act in the way that they finally end up acting.

Not really. Molinism posits that God knows all possible universes He could choose to create, and then only chooses to make the "best possible world". Since none of the "possible universes" are real, and are akin to simulations there is no choice there. The "real world" is from the moment of its creation subject to follow the path of the best "simulation" from beginning to end. So no real choice there either. So, yeah once the game is "made" the actions have already been "chosen".

Is there a contradiction in the belief that God's decision to create a universe where he knew you'd decide X, and X being a free will decision by you? Perhaps, but no one has yet to provide a logically airtight argument to show that such a contradiction actually exists.

I argue this in the post you quote, and in subsequent posts afterwards. I do so again in my response to you.

If it's literally impossible* for a person to choose otherwise due to the way EF works, then it's not possible for it to be free will in any meaningful sense. Everything that ever happened, or will happen becomes a fixed moment in time which must happen no matter what.

Honestly, this is the kind of thing that should be self evidently true. If it weren't for the whole red herring of God being "outside time" I think more people would realize what it means right away, and see how Molinism doesn't really fix the issue it is trying to solve.

*Which it is since God's foreknowledge is logically prior to our actions. Since our actions were foreknown then they must have been the same knowledge regardless of God being within time, or outside of it. Since God can't be wrong under that model, then none of the actions we make could have ever have been different.

[JimL]

You are claiming it is impossible for omniscience and freewill to both be true. All that is needed to to negate that assertion is one example of how they could coexist.

Jim

Yes, that's all I'm asking for, and I know you think you've provided one, but you haven't. The totality of your arguments concerning the existence of both an omniscient creator and a free willed creation is either a simple assertion of your belief, or that it's a possiblity which we just can't understand. Those are not examples of how they could co-exist, Jim.

[JonathanL]

P1: If everything is exhaustively foreknown, and infallibly so, then nothing could ever be otherwise than it is.
P2: Since nothing can in principle have happened differently, then no one has any capacity for choice.

Conclusion: We have no free will, as free will is the ability to choose freely from what we are presented with.

You've yet to present any substantial support for the bolded claim.

In an exhaustively foreknown universe things are required to be deterministic due to the nature of an EF universe.

I don't see how that's the case at all. That just seems to be begging the question that free will and EF cannot exist at the same time.

Not really. Molinism posits that God knows all possible universes He could choose to create, and then only chooses to make the "best possible world". Since none of the "possible universes" are real, and are akin to simulations there is no choice there. The "real world" is from the moment of its creation subject to follow the path of the best "simulation" from beginning to end. So no real choice there either. So, yeah once the game is "made" the actions have already been "chosen".

Again, you're simply begging the question that free will cannot exist because God chose to create a universe where he already knew all the decisions and actions you would make. Neither God's foreknowledge of your actions, or his decision to create this specific version of the universe instead of another version, forced you to make the decisions you did.

I argue this in the post you quote, and in subsequent posts afterwards. I do so again in my response to you.

If it's literally impossible* for a person to choose otherwise due to the way EF works, then it's not possible for it to be free will in any meaningful sense. Everything that ever happened, or will happen becomes a fixed moment in time which must happen no matter what.

Honestly, this is the kind of thing that should be self evidently true. If it weren't for the whole red herring of God being "outside time" I think more people would realize what it means right away, and see how Molinism doesn't really fix the issue it is trying to solve.

The thing about self evident truths is that you usually don't have to beg the question in their favour in order for people to realize how obviously true they are.

God being outside of time is a complete red herring, I agree. But Molinism isn't tied to the belief that God is "outside of time". WLC believes God entered into time as a result of creating the universe, and he's about as strong of a proponent of Molinism as anyone could get.

*Which it is since God's foreknowledge is logically prior to our actions. Since our actions were foreknown then they must have been the same knowledge regardless of God being within time, or outside of it. Since God can't be wrong under that model, then none of the actions we make could have ever have been different.

"God's foreknowledge is logically prior to our actions" is yet another unsubstantiated claim that you'll have to actually argue for. Along with your statement that none of our actions could have been different in order for God's knowledge about the future to be infallible.

[oxmixmudd]

Yes, that's all I'm asking for, and I know you think you've provided one, but you haven't. The totality of your arguments concerning the existence of both an omniscient creator and a free willed creation is either a simple assertion of your belief, or that it's a possiblity which we just can't understand. Those are not examples of how they could co-exist, Jim.

Yes it is. The God we postulate is not limited by what we know or even can know JimL. That is why your assertion is arrogant and doesnt recognize your /our limitations as regards understanding this God we are reasoning about. The example I gave is well within what would be the powers of an omnipotent being, and further would be undetectable to beings like ourselves.

Jim

[Cerebrum123]

You've yet to present any substantial support for the bolded claim.

It's part of God's infallibility. If He knows the future infallibly, then it can never be anything else than what He has already foreknown. LittleJoe already provided this information, and I believe I did so as well in a previous post.

I don't see how that's the case at all. That just seems to be begging the question that free will and EF cannot exist at the same time.



Again, you're simply begging the question that free will cannot exist because God chose to create a universe where he already knew all the decisions and actions you would make. Neither God's foreknowledge of your actions, or his decision to create this specific version of the universe instead of another version, forced you to make the decisions you did.



The thing about self evident truths is that you usually don't have to beg the question in their favour in order for people to realize how obviously true they are.

I'm not "begging the question", I'm just looking at what EF means. It requires everything, down the motion of every atom is known in advance. That's what the "exhaustive" part is there for. Since it is known in advance, and is supposed to be infallible in the case of God, then nothing could ever be different from what He has already foreknown. Unless you think God can simply be wrong, otherwise EF mandates a deterministic universe, and denies free will.

If anything it's you, MM, and oxmixmudd who are begging the question that EF and free will can exist simultaneously.

God being outside of time is a complete red herring, I agree. But Molinism isn't tied to the belief that God is "outside of time". WLC believes God entered into time as a result of creating the universe, and he's about as strong of a proponent of Molinism as anyone could get.

It's the only argument being given in favor of free will and EF existing together in one universe.

"God's foreknowledge is logically prior to our actions" is yet another unsubstantiated claim that you'll have to actually argue for. Along with your statement that none of our actions could have been different in order for God's knowledge about the future to be infallible.

God, being the Creator is logically prior to everything. I don't see how He can really be God if He's not logically prior to our choices in a universe with EF. I don't see how anything could be prior to God logically in any possible world.

At this point it feels like you are arguing just to argue.

In an EF universe if our actions were different, then that would entail God's foreknowledge was wrong. Infallibility excludes the possibility of
God being wrong, so EF excludes the possibility of the actions in such a universe as being different than what was already foreknown from "before" time existed. This isn't hard to grasp, it's part of the definitions of what is being discussed.

Free will, infallibility, or EF, pick two. You can have God with EF, and free will, but not infallibility*. You can have God with EF, infallibility, and no free will. Or last you can have free will, and infallibility, but no EF.

*I think most Christians will agree this is theologically untenable.