Trump's Christian supporters are unchristian

[JimL]

As I see it, it boils down to the difference between (1) God defining the future and (2) God knowing the future. And here is how I would illustrate the difference:

If God defined the future, (1) then the events of the timeline are what they are and could under no circumstances be changed. IOW, even if I could gain access to God's knowledge of the future, I could not change it. I do not have free will.

If God simply (2) knows the future but does not define it, then if I could gain access to God's knowledge and I have free will, I could in fact change its outcome. (e.g. God would know x, and then I would chose instead to do y)

I know of no way to test this distinction, but it illustrates the difference. If God simply knows the future but does not define it, free-will and foreknowledge/infallibility are not incompatible constructs. The exist independent of each other.

The error in logic then is assuming that God's foreknowledge necessarily implies I do not operate under free will. Given the two cases above, that is an axiom one must assume and AFAIK can't be proven.


Jim

And just for the sake of argument Jim, how do you suppose that god knows the future if he didn't design it?

[oxmixmudd]

And just for the sake of argument Jim, how do you suppose that god knows the future if he didn't design it?

That is, as they say, a non-sequitur. If I could know how God does whatever He does, He wouldn't be God, then would He?

But as I see it, the 'design' simply involves creating a system that allows for free will. That in the Garden he created man and then allowed man to self-determine his fate. And yes, He knew what Adam and Even would do. But no, He didn't make them do it. The were free to chose another path.


Jim

[JimL]

That is, as they say, a non-sequitur. The 'design' simply involves creating a system that allows for free will. That in the Garden he created man and then allowed man to self-determine his fate. And yes, He knew what Adam and Even would do. But no, He didn't make them do it. The were free to chose another path.


Jim

No, that's not a non-sequitur Jim, it's simply a question to you. How do you suppose that the future, which doesn't yet exist, could be known? Do you have any ideas on the matter?

[oxmixmudd]

No, that's not a non-sequitur Jim, it's simply a question to you. How do you suppose that the future, which doesn't yet exist, could be known? Do you have any ideas on the matter?

Not really JimL. Sometimes I guess correctly about the future without knowing anything about why it might or might not occur. God's guesses just always happen to be correct

Or again. God is outside time, or rather He is always at every possible now and place. To see what it is we happen to choose, He just need to watch us make the choice. If there is a retro-causal feedback loop incorparated into whatever God's 'knowledge' is, God's 'knowledge'* of what will happen will always be correct w/o necessarily affecting or determining the choice.


Jim

*What do you suppose 'knowledge' would be in a being outside of time, or at all times at once? 'Knowledge' is just a physical state in our finite, time-bound minds. It is, in fact, an anthropomorphism when applied to the eternal.

[JimL]

Not really JimL. Sometimes I guess correctly about the future without knowing anything about why it might or might not occur. God's guesses just always happen to be correct

C'mon now Jim, we're not talking guesses here.

Or again. God is outside time, or rather He is always at every possible now and place. To see what it is we happen to choose, He just need to watch us make the choice. If there is a retro-causal feedback loop incorparated into whatever God's 'knowledge' is, God's 'knowledge'* of what will happen will always be correct w/o necessarily affecting or determining the choice.


Jim

*What do you suppose 'knowledge' would be in a being outside of time, or at all times at once? 'Knowledge' is just a physical state in our finite, time-bound minds. It is, in fact, an anthropomorphism when applied to the eternal.

Okay, so you did come up with one idea, which is that god is outside of time, or at every possible place in time, which amounts to the same thing. So let me ask you this, if god is outside of time, or at every possible place in time, does that mean that all of time exists so that god can see it all, or can be at each place in time, or would you say that god can see it, or be in it, even if it doesn't yet exist?

[Roy]

If God simply (2) knows the future but does not define it, then if I could gain access to God's knowledge. I could in fact change its outcome. (e.g. God would know x, and then I would chose instead to do y). I have free will.

If God knows x and you choose to do y, then God does not know the future.

[Mountain Man]

You may think that you have the choice of what box you will open but in fact you do not. It was not

Wrong again. Here's your argument:

P1: God foreknows that I will choose X.
P2: There is no possible world in which I could have chosen Y.
C: Therefore, I must necessarily choose X.

The problem with this reasoning is that P2 is false. There is a possible world in which I could have chosen Y, and in that possible world, God would foreknow that I chose Y instead of X. Therefore, my decision to choose X is not logically necessary. Therefore, I have freewill.

This argument is not to be confused with:

P1: There is no possible world in which God foreknows I will freely choose X, but in which I choose Y instead.
P2: God foreknows I will freely choose X.
C1: Therefore, I will freely choose X.

Note that this is not the same as saying that I must necessarily choose X. To put it another way, God's foreknowledge of my choices does not cause me to make those choices. Therefore, I have freewill.

[Mountain Man]

MM, when are you going to explain how it is that you have free will when every bit of your future was known, existed as knowledge, prior to you even existing? Explain how you, now that you do exist, can change any of your future that existed as knowledge before you existed. Lets see a positive argument from you, rather than an "I don't except your logic" argument.

Since you didn't contest my dismantling of your hilariously inept attempt at a logical argument, am I to assume that you concede the point?

[JimL]

Since you didn't contest my dismantling of your hilariously inept attempt at a logical argument, am I to assume that you concede the point?

Of course not. But I take it you are conceding since you refuse to make a positive argument of your own for the co-existence of omniscience and free will. Or to answer the question above: Give an explanation as to how you can have free will if the knowledge of every aspect of your future was known, existed as knowledge, prior to you even existing. Can you do it? I don't think so.

[oxmixmudd]

If God knows x and you choose to do y, then God does not know the future.

Only if he allows it (how else am I to get the requisite knowledge). The issue here is foreknowledge and my choice are NOT necessarily correlated. God can know my choice w/o causing it. It that is the case, I have free will.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

C'mon now Jim, we're not talking guesses here.

Okay, so you did come up with one idea, which is that god is outside of time, or at every possible place in time, which amounts to the same thing. So let me ask you this, if god is outside of time, or at every possible place in time, does that mean that all of time exists so that god can see it all, or can be at each place in time, or would you say that god can see it, or be in it, even if it doesn't yet exist?

Don't know JimL. I also proposed a retrocausal feedback look so that God's 'knowledge' is always correct. I also included the fact that ascribing to God 'knowledge' is an anthropomorphism. What does it mean for God to 'know'. I doubt very much is means the same thing for Him as for us to 'know'. If time past present and future are unresolved in the present where I am making a choice, and God is outside of time, or 'at all times at once', 'knowledge' as it relates to God is indeed a very different thing than 'knowledge' as it relates to us. I've tried to point this out several times now and it seems to have slipped your notice.


Jim

[Roy]

If God knows x and you choose to do y, then God does not know the future.

Only if he allows it (how else am I to get the requisite knowledge). The issue here is foreknowledge and my choice are NOT necessarily correlated. God can know my choice w/o causing it. It that is the case, I have free will.

Jim

Jim,

that makes no sense. If he allows what? What requisite knowledge?

[Mountain Man]

I take it you are conceding since you refuse to make a positive argument of your own for the co-existence of omniscience and free will.

I have presented a number of positive arguments throughout this thread, including in the post that you previously responded to. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your backside long enough to take a breath of fresh air then you might have noticed it.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim,

that makes no sense. If he allows what? What requisite knowledge?

Going back to my hypothetical:

If God simply (2) knows the future but does not define it, then if I could gain access to God's knowledge. I could in fact change its outcome. (e.g. God would know x, and then I would chose instead to do y). I have free will.

It's a hypothetical because I don't have a way of 'stealing' what God knows without God knowing I did it. It goes to the definition of Free will. Given a choice, I am the only element defining the choice. Kind of idealistic in that there isn't a choice around that doesn't have external influence, but the basic Idea is my choice is in no way forced by God, the gods, or fate. There is no interaction between God and me as relates to my choice, either physical, material, imagined or real. I just choose. That is free will as best I know how to define it.

So the premise is that God knows what I will chose without influencing it. If I have free will, then if I could somehow get a read on what that choice will be, I could change it. If I don't have free will, then even if I could get a read on what the choice will be, I couldn't change it, because the future is fixed.

What I see as the problem is that in the fatalistic version of these arguments, those making them are correlating Gods knowledge with God taking away my capacity to make my choices without any influence of any sort from Him. I believe that correlation is a logical error. I do not see any need for God's knowledge to in any way control how the events unfold. He just knows how they will unfold. And again, 'to know' is an anthropomorphism. What does it mean for God to 'know' something. I believe that is also where these discussion break down. We are mapping a finite, timeconstrained concept one for one into a being that is defined as being outside time and space. But in doing so we necessarily constrain according to that mapping, which is itself a logical error. We are trying to reason about what and how God knows by making Him more like us than is logical to assume. That's all we can do of course. But it is, I think, part of why we see these two concepts as difficult to reconcile, and why we should not be so arrogant as to assume that God can't know the future without the future being in some way fixed.

And that is why I've asked the questions or made a comments about what does it mean for a being outside time/at all times at once to 'know' something? Unless we can come up with a reasonable definition of THAT, then the entire discussion really is invalid.

I have proposed that God knowing is a very different sort of thing than the construct we are using to reason about this issue. Not that I have a firm conception of what that might be, but I think it involves time not being unidirectional, and the present, the past, and the future being more complex than what we currently assume them to be.


Jim

[Roy]

Going back to my hypothetical:

If God simply (2) knows the future but does not define it, then if I could gain access to God's knowledge. I could in fact change its outcome. (e.g. God would know x, and then I would chose instead to do y). I have free will.

It's a hypothetical because I don't have a way of 'stealing' what God knows without God knowing I did it. It goes to the definition of Free will. Given a choice, I am the only element defining the choice. Kind of idealistic in that there isn't a choice around that doesn't have external influence, but the basic Idea is my choice is in no way forced by God, the gods, or fate. There is no interaction between God and me as relates to my choice, either physical, material, imagined or real. I just choose. That is free will as best I know how to define it.

So the premise is that God knows what I will chose without influencing it. If I have free will, then if I could somehow get a read on what that choice will be, I could change it.

But those premises lead to a contradiction, so one of them must be wrong, or one of the inferences must be wrong.*

P0: God is omniscient
P1: God is never wrong
P2: God knows you will choose X
C2a: You will choose X
C2b: You will not choose Y

P3: You can know what God knows
C3: You can know God knows you will choose X

P4: You have free will
C4: You can choose to do something other than what God knows you will choose

P5: You want to prove that you have free will
C5a: You will choose to do something other than what God knows you will choose
C5b: You will choose Y

C2b and C5b are contradictory.

So which premise or inference is wrong?

Or, much shorter:

P0: God knows you will do X
C0a: You do X
C0b: You do not do Y
P1: You have free will
C1a: You can do Y
C1b: You do Y

Knowledge of the future plus free will leads to a contradiction.



*or all logic is wrong. If I don't have free will, then even if I could get a read on what the choice will be, I couldn't change it, because the future is fixed.

He just knows how they will unfold.

Then if you can make them unfold any other way, He is wrong.