Trump's Christian supporters are unchristian

[Sparko]

You need to prove that God foreordains your choice instead of just foreknows it.

[JimL]

You need to prove that God foreordains your choice instead of just foreknows it.

The proof is called the law of non-contraditction. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[Sparko]

The proof is called the law of non-contraditction. Wake up and smell the coffee.

That doesn't even make sense, JimL.

[One Bad Pig]

That doesn't even make sense, JimL.

You're arguing with someone who is unable and/or unwilling to understand the concepts involved, and who wouldn't grant your point even if he did. Don't you have something better to do, like measuring your bacon stash?

[Sparko]

You're arguing with someone who is unable and/or unwilling to understand the concepts involved, and who wouldn't grant your point even if he did. Don't you have something better to do, like measuring your bacon stash?

Yep. It's up to about 300 cubits. It would be larger but, you know, breakfast and stuff.

[JimL]

That doesn't even make sense, JimL.

Yeah,actually it makes perfect sense, but people like you and OBP are apparently just to dug in to admit to it. The future can't both exists and not exist at the same time with respect to you external observer B-theory of time, and it can't be both eternally known and freely chosen with respect to your eternally known A-theory of time. In both theories your position violates the law of non-contradiction, though I don't suppose you or OBP will ever be able to understand that logical fact.

[Tassman]

You need to prove that God foreordains your choice instead of just foreknows it.

God created you, so the story goes, and as an omniscient deity he knew from the moment of your creation...and has known throughout all eternity...what choices you would make at any given point in time. Thus, in effect, your choices are foreordained.

[oxmixmudd]

God created you, so the story goes, and as an omniscient deity he knew from the moment of your creation...and has known throughout all eternity...what choices you would make at any given point in time. Thus, in effect, your choices are foreordained.

Not so. You are assuming

1) God can't create autonomous beings whose choices are their own.
2) That He can't know their choices without He Himself determining them.

Jim

[Roy]

I don't think so Roy. I gave the proper condition. And yours is an oversimplification and thus loses the subtlety that is critical. I won't make a different choice unless the circumstances are altered. And for God not to have already factored that into what He knows, those circumstances have to be able to occur without his prior knowledge, which means that to show my free will, one must assume a priori infallibilty is false. It is not proven false, it is an initial condition.

the difference is: are my choices controlled. You are conflating the fact I won't make a different choice with I can't make a different choice. I can make a different choice, but I won't. My will is what is driving the choosing, not God's knowledge.

I don't think so, Jim.

I said nothing at all about what you will/won't do, only about what you can/can't do.

If you can make a different choice than what God knows you will make, then God can be wrong.
If God can be wrong, God is not infallible.

You have not shown a flaw in this argument.

I'm not assuming infallibility is false. I'm just not assuming it's true either.

[Sparko]

Yeah,actually it makes perfect sense, but people like you and OBP are apparently just to dug in to admit to it. The future can't both exists and not exist at the same time with respect to you external observer B-theory of time, and it can't be both eternally known and freely chosen with respect to your eternally known A-theory of time. In both theories your position violates the law of non-contradiction, though I don't suppose you or OBP will ever be able to understand that logical fact.

You are the one trying to conflate the A and B theory of time. When I make an argument about the future via B-theory, your counter argument is that the future doesn't exist (A-theory). You refuse to engage the thought experiments I propose using the model I propose.

This is similar to me arguing with your about God's nature and such, which presupposes God existing for the sake of the argument, and you answering that my explanation doesn't work because God doesn't exist.

[Sparko]

God created you, so the story goes, and as an omniscient deity he knew from the moment of your creation...and has known throughout all eternity...what choices you would make at any given point in time. Thus, in effect, your choices are foreordained.

They were foreknown. Prove to me they were foreordained.

[oxmixmudd]

I don't think so, Jim.

I said nothing at all about what you will/won't do, only about what you can/can't do.

If you can make a different choice than what God knows you will make, then God can be wrong.
If God can be wrong, God is not infallible.

You have not shown a flaw in this argument.

I'm not assuming infallibility is false. I'm just not assuming it's true either.

I have shown a flaw in the assumption that my choice being knowable means my choice is not free will. The argument being made in the above logical construct is that to have free will somehow means I will make choices other than the ones I will make of my own free-will. Since that assumption is self-contradictory, it is not surprising then that conclusions based on the assumption would also lead to contradictions. It is presenting a condition that simply can't exist Roy. I will chose what I will chose freely. But I'm not going to make more than one choice, and if it's free will, I'm not going to make any other choice either, because that is my freely chosen choice. Having free will does not mean that my choice under a given set of circumstances is random.

In fact MM and Sparkos argument about looking at the choices at some point after they are made is one example of how one can know what a choice was and not have any effect on what it was. If I am looking at the choice from a time in the future I am in a place where I can know what the choice was yet the choice itself was made completely without any interference from me. It was a free will choice.

So when you are talking about a being that is outside time, or at all times 'at once', you are talking about a being that can observe all events as if they are in past, which means He knows what they are without necessarily having had any effect on what they became. God doesn't have to cause me to chose X, or even necessarily plan for me to chose X from the beginning of time. All he has to 'do' is be present at my conception and present at my death to know all about me without having 'caused' me to do anything I chose to do.

I've also made the point that since God is outside time, or 'at all times at once' His 'knowledge' of the choices is not something that changes. Which means that when He is present with me now, He also can know my future - if he chooses to.

Jim

[JimL]

You are the one trying to conflate the A and B theory of time.

No, I'm explaining both theories to you and how they are in contradiction to your belief that eternal omniscience and temporal free will co-exist.

When I make an argument about the future via B-theory, your counter argument is that the future doesn't exist (A-theory). You refuse to engage the thought experiments I propose using the model I propose.

Wrong again. You conflate the two theories and I respond, again, by explaining the above contradiction found in both.

This is similar to me arguing with your about God's nature and such, which presupposes God existing for the sake of the argument, and you answering that my explanation doesn't work because God doesn't exist.

And once again, I never made such an argument. But, the obvious fact of the matter is that the existence of an eternal omniscient creator doesn't allow for the existence of a temporally free willed creation. It's a logical contradiction that not one of you has so far shown to be in error. If you wish to ignore logic in your counter argument, then that is your prerogative, but in so doing, you simply lose the argument.

[Tassman]

They were foreknown. Prove to me they were foreordained.

I can make a case for "foreordained", as in 'predestination', but sticking with "foreknown" which you seem to accept, you need to show how you can make a different choice than what the omniscient deity knows you will make. If you do, then your omniscient deity cannot be omniscient. It can only be one or the other.

[Roy]

I have shown a flaw in the assumption that my choice being knowable means my choice is not free will.

That's not an assumption I've used, so you haven't shown a flaw in my argument.

The argument being made in the above logical construct is that to have free will somehow means I will make choices other than the ones I will make of my own free-will.

That's not the argument being made above

I will chose what I will chose freely. But I'm not going to make more than one choice, and if it's free will, I'm not going to make any other choice either, because that is my freely chosen choice. Having free will does not mean that my choice under a given set of circumstances is random.

No - but I didn't say it was. It does mean that you have a choice. There are multiple options that you can choose from.

So when you are talking about a being that is outside time, or at all times 'at once', you are talking about a being that can observe all events as if they are in past, which means He knows what they are without necessarily having had any effect on what they became.

Which means the being can step into your future, look at your choice after you made it and know what your choice was. It doesn't mean they can know what your choice was before you made it. And if they do step into your future and look at your choice in the (now) past, then return to looking at you before you made the choice, their knowledge is still of what you did choose, not what you will choose. If the being then alters something before the time at which you make your choice, it wouldn't necessarily know what your choice would be in these changed circumstances though, as you say, it could step back into the future again and look what choice you made.

God doesn't have to cause me to chose X, or even necessarily plan for me to chose X from the beginning of time. All he has to 'do' is be present at my conception and present at my death to know all about me without having 'caused' me to do anything I chose to do.

If God is present at your death he's looking at your choices after you made them.

I've also made the point that since God is outside time, or 'at all times at once' His 'knowledge' of the choices is not something that changes. Which means that when He is present with me now, He also can know my future - if he chooses to.

You've just conceded the argument. "He also can know my future - if he chooses to" implies that he doesn't know your future unless he chooses to look ahead - at which point it's no longer foreknowledge, since he'd be looking at your choice after you made it.

I can know what's in a box if I choose to open it.
Foreknowledge is knowing what's in the box before I open it.

1. You have a choice.
2. God knows what choice you will make (not what choice you did make).
If you can choose something other than what God knows you will choose, then God does not know what choice you will make, so #2 is wrong.
If you cannot choose something other than what God knows you will choose, then you do not have a choice, so #1 is wrong.
Therefore either #1 or #2 is wrong.