Trump's Christian supporters are unchristian

[Mountain Man]

Although perhaps C1 could be clarified:

P1: God foreknows that I will choose X.
P2: If there are no possible worlds where I could choose not-X then it is necessary that I choose X.
P3: If it is necessary that I choose X then I have no freewill.
P4: There are possible worlds where I could choose not-X.
C1: Therefore, God can foreknow that I will choose X without it being necessary that I choose X.
C2: Therefore, I have freewill.

[JimL]

JimL, I'm sorry but again, this conversation can go nowhere. You are giving me no evidence you are open to ideas other than your own. For example:

consider the bold statement above: I know you have at least a cursory understanding of Relativity. That being the case, one of its conclusions is that two observers in two different inertial frames can have different views of whether or not an event is in their future, or in their past (that is really, not just visually due to light transmission delay). In fact, if we could devise a way to communicate instantly, it would be possible for me to tell you about an event in my past but yet in your future. Your past and my past are not the same, your future and my future are not the same. Just knowing that simple conclusion from Einstein now over 100 years ago will tell you that it is in fact possible to have differing views of past present and future, and that a being such as God is can in fact have all possible views of past present and future simultaneously, and so God being outside time or God being 'everytime at once' does indeed make sense. Your refusal to admit that fact does not come from any problems with logic or our knowledge, it comes from your stubborn refusal to think along lines that might lead to a contradiction with what you already would prefer to believe.



Jim

So, then tell me Jim, do you believe that you have already lived out your future in some respect? Do you think that if you could time travel, that this "present you" could go visit with the "future you?" Btw, Einstein believed that time, or that the flow of time was an illusion. But regardless, if from an external perspective, all of time exists, both your past and your future, so that god could observe it all, then it all exists period whether it is experienced that way by those internal to it or not. Again, it is a contradiction to say that the future is both open and closed. If the future is closed from any one perspective, then it is closed period. God can't see the future unless it exists in some respect, correct? If your argument is that god knows your future because he can somehow see it, then it has to have occured in some respect in order that he see it. If you could travel into the future, then the future would have to exist in order that you travel into it, correct?

[Sparko]

Don't know where you got that impression. Your own assumption I guess.


Yes, well, that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense either when you think about it, but that wasn't my argument. It would be rather silly to argue that god didn't exist before he created. But at any rate, my argument was in refutation of the argument that god can know the future of the universe because he exists outside of it, and so can observe it all at once, past, present, and future and yet we have free will. That is an obvious contradiction on its face. If the future exists from an external perspective then the future exist from all perspectives.

How did you get that I said God didn't exist before he created the universe? There was no "before" because he created time when he created the universe.


Your cluelessness and ability to come to conclusions and read what is not there is truly astounding.

I hope it is just feigned.

[JimL]

How did you get that I said God didn't exist before he created the universe? There was no "before" because he created time when he created the universe.

That's funny, Sparko. You ask where did I get that you said that, and then you say the same thing. "There was no before" That's where I got it. But tell me, how would you define gods relationship to his creation with respect to time. Would you say he existed before time, prior to time, does he still exist after time?

Your cluelessness and ability to come to conclusions and read what is not there is truly astounding.

I hope it is just feigned.

You're a funny guy, Sparko.

[Sparko]

That's funny, Sparko. You ask where did I get that you said that, and then you say the same thing. "There was no before" That's where I got it. But tell me, how would you define gods relationship to his creation with respect to time. Would you say he existed before time, prior to time, does he still exist after time?

Because there WAS no time until God created it with the universe. So how can you have a "before?" You can only use the word in the sense of "logically preceding or prior" - there is no TIME without the universe.

You're a funny guy, Sparko.

OK I am done with you JimL, either you are trolling or you are just too ignorant to discuss this topic with. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just ignorant. After all I remember you arguing that you could travel in time by moving closer or further away from an object.

[JimL]

Because there WAS no time until God created it with the universe. So how can you have a "before?" You can only use the word in the sense of "logically preceding or prior" - there is no TIME without the universe.

Right, so tell us what you mean by precede or prior to? Did god precede, or exist prior to his creating? Obviously yes, correct? So, tell me how that differs from saying he existed before he created? If you are going to pick arguments over silly semantics then at least explain the difference as you understand it. Perhaps it would be more pleasing to you if I said the creation came after god created it?

[Sparko]

Right, so tell us what you mean by precede or prior to? Did god precede, or exist prior to his creating? Obviously yes, correct? So, tell me how that differs from saying he existed before he created? If you are going to pick arguments over silly semantics then at least explain the difference as you understand it. Perhaps it would be more pleasing to you if I said the creation came after god created it?

JimL, it has become clear that discussing any sort of logic or physics or even philosophy with you is just an exercise in frustration and a waste of time. You just don't have the mental capacity to understand such concepts no matter how much anyone tries to dumb it down for you. And the saddest thing is, you believe you are an expert in such matters. If they ever need a photo to go with the definition of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome you should submit yours. You are the quintessential example of that.

[JimL]

JimL, it has become clear that discussing any sort of logic or physics or even philosophy with you is just an exercise in frustration and a waste of time. You just don't have the mental capacity to understand such concepts no matter how much anyone tries to dumb it down for you. And the saddest thing is, you believe you are an expert in such matters. If they ever need a photo to go with the definition of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome you should submit yours. You are the quintessential example of that.

Sparko, everyone reading this reply of yours is well aware of the fact that you simply can not answer the question so you take to demeaning your intolocuter in order to save face. It's not working buddy.

[Roy]

Free will isn't about making 'random' or inherently unpredictable choices. It is about making choices freely, i.e. without being forced.

Such as whether one calls "heads" or "tails" before tossing a coin. That's a free choice that isn't forced, and isn't necessarily a random event.

You last comment sort of sums of the typical skeptic response to faith. But think about it, here we have shown logically that free will and infallibility can co-exist ONLY if we by accept that we have free will without being able to prove it.

I have thought about it. You might have shown that free will and infallibility can co-exist (C) ONLY if etc (X), but you haven't shown that they can exist IF (X).

Not X -> Not C -/-> X -> C.

The minute God allows for a proof of free will, infallibility itself must be sacrificed.

Then either infallibility is sacrificed, or free will is unprovable and there's no reason to believe claims that it exists.

The second is roughly equivalent to P3, in that it prevents communication of the foreknowledge to the free-will agent.

Do you think God could tell you what he knows you will choose?

[Roy]

It's a question of necessity.

P1: God foreknows that I will choose X.
P2: If there are no possible worlds where I could choose not-X then it is necessary that I choose X.
P3: If it is necessary that I choose X then I have no freewill.
P4: There are possible worlds where I could choose not-X.
C1: Therefore, it is not necessary that I choose X.

Therefore it is not necessary that you don't choose something other than X.
Therefore you could choose something other than X.
Therefore God might be wrong.

I'm having flashbacks to JM.

[Sparko]

Sparko, everyone reading this reply of yours is well aware of the fact that you simply can not answer the question so you take to demeaning your intolocuter in order to save face. It's not working buddy.

No Jim, I already explained it. You just either ignored it, or it flew right over your head.

[Mountain Man]

Therefore it is not necessary that you don't choose something other than X.
Therefore you could choose something other than X.
Therefore God might be wrong.

I'm having flashbacks to JM.

Nope.

In a possible world where I choose not-X then God will foreknow that I would choose not-X. On the other hand...

P1: There is no possible world in which God foreknows I will freely choose X, but in which I choose not-X instead.
P2: God foreknows I will freely choose X.
C1: Therefore, I will freely choose X.

Note that this is not saying that I must necessarily choose X.

[Sparko]

Therefore it is not necessary that you don't choose something other than X.
Therefore you could choose something other than X.
Therefore God might be wrong.

I'm having flashbacks to JM.

If the cause of God foreknowing he will choose X is him actually choosing X then there is no conflict. Because if he chooses Y that is what God would foreknow.

Actually "foreknow" is a misnomer because it is assuming God at a spot in time before the action looking at the future. God is outside of time so he is not sitting here in 2019 looking forward to 2020 knowing what is going to happen. He is everywhere. He is IN 2020 right now knowing what you did in 2019. He is in 2050, 1960, 5000 BC, etc.

He just "knows" because to him it has all happened. But he knowledge is a result of our choices not the cause.

[Mountain Man]

If the cause of God foreknowing he will choose X is him actually choosing X then there is no conflict. Because if he chooses Y that is what God would foreknow.

Actually "foreknow" is a misnomer because it is assuming God at a spot in time before the action looking at the future. God is outside of time so he is not sitting here in 2019 looking forward to 2020 knowing what is going to happen. He is everywhere. He is IN 2020 right now knowing what you did in 2019. He is in 2050, 1960, 5000 BC, etc.

He just "knows" because to him it has all happened. But he knowledge is a result of our choices not the cause.

Which is why I say the term "foreknowledge" only makes sense from our temporal perspective.

[Sparko]

Which is why I say the term "foreknowledge" only makes sense from our temporal perspective.

exactly. Today we wouldn't say God's knowledge of what happened in 2017 was "foreknowledge" but it was to us when we were in 2015. But God is not limited to what we call "now" He is in 2015, 2017, 2020, etc. He is omnipresent in space and time. He is not constrained by our universe in any way.