Trump's Christian supporters are unchristian

[oxmixmudd]

That's not an assumption I've used, so you haven't shown a flaw in my argument. That's not the argument being made aboveNo - but I didn't say it was. It does mean that you have a choice. There are multiple options that you can choose from. 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. If God is present at your death he's looking at your choices after you made them. 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.

Again, you are implicitly assuming free will means my choices are random. You are improperly using the words can and cannot.

I will make my choice of my own free will. God knowing what that choice will be does not itself constrain my free will. I can make any choice I want to. But God knows which choice I will want to make in a given set of circumstances. You are implicitly assuming a feedback where none exists. God's knowledge isn't creating or forming my choice, His knowledge is not part of that system as it were.

The word 'can' has multiple senses of meaning that are being conflated above.

can: what is potentially possible - the set of potential choices before me

can: what I am allowed to do.

What you are assuming is that God's knowledge changes what is potentially possible at the moment of choice and somehow only allows one choice. You are taking God's knowledge of my future and pulling it back to the present (or the past) and saying that knowledge alone actively prevents me from choosing what I want to choose from the set of potential choices before me.

But it doesn't. I still choose from among the potential choices before me the choice I want to choose. God just knows what I want to choose. There is no limitation of my free will. When you say I can't make another choice, you are implying causality where none exists. I won't make another choice: i.e. - it's not that I can't (I am free to make any choice I want), it's that I won't (I don't want to make any other choice).

IOW, the restraining factor here is my will itself. It is my free-will that limits my choice by the fact that I must choose between the options and I will therefore of my free-will what I want to choose which is also that which God already knows I will choose. It's what we'd call in mathematics a special case. My free-will exists and is not violated by God's knowledge because His knowledge and my free-will at the point of decision are congruent.

Jim

[Sparko]

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.


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

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.

JimL, I am not the only person telling you these things. So no, I am not wrong. You refuse to even consider hypothetically a situation we describe and flip flop back to your personal theory and objections whenever we propose a paradigm for you to consider. It is like wrestling jello. The problem is a combination of your personal stubbornness and your ignorance of logic and science.

[Sparko]

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.

If you make a different choice then God would know THAT choice, Tassman. His knowledge comes from what you choose. Just like your knowledge of what you did yesterday came from your choice then. If, for instance you chose to eat a hamburger for lunch yesterday, then that is what you would know today. Since you know you ate a hamburger yesterday you can't have NOT chosen to have eaten a hamburger yesterday, right? Because if you did, then THAT is what your knowledge would be today and THAT would be the unchangeable choice.

[Sparko]

That's not an assumption I've used, so you haven't shown a flaw in my argument. That's not the argument being made aboveNo - but I didn't say it was. It does mean that you have a choice. There are multiple options that you can choose from. 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. If God is present at your death he's looking at your choices after you made them. 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.

No, if you could choose something other than what God knows you will choose, then God would know THAT choice instead. His knowledge comes from your choice, whatever it is.

I can choose A or B.
If I choose A. God knows I will choose A.
Or I could choose B.
If I choose B, then God knows I will choose B.

I can only make the choice once. And that is what informs God's knowledge. I can't change that afterwards. You can't make the same decision two different ways.

[JimL]

No, if you could choose something other than what God knows you will choose, then God would know THAT choice instead. His knowledge comes from your choice, whatever it is.

I can choose A or B.
If I choose A. God knows I will choose A.
Or I could choose B.
If I choose B, then God knows I will choose B.

I can only make the choice once. And that is what informs God's knowledge. I can't change that afterwards. You can't make the same decision two different ways.

Sparko, all you are doing is making unsubstantiated assertions without backing them up with reason. Tell us according to your belief, how it is that god knows your future. I've already refuted your ideas of foreknowledge under the a and b theories of time so either explain how my logic is wrong or give us a logical explanation of your own as to how this could be. If you can't do that then you have no real argument, you're simple asserting a belief without substantiation.

[oxmixmudd]

...

2. God knows what choice you will make (not what choice you did make).

...

Per statement 2 above: I would seem to me that for a being to be outside time, or 'at all times at once', that being is unchanging, for to change is to be 'in time'. God therefore doesn't know about my choice after the fact in any different way than he knows about my choice before the fact. 'to gain knowledge' it itself to be inside time. That is why I keep trying to point out that ascribing 'knowlege' to God is an anthropomorphism. He 'knows' all, but not like we do. Whatever it is, it's a construct that is outside of time and unchanged by time, past, present, or future. Hence there is no distinction in terms of His 'knowledge' between 'knowing' the choice I 'will' make and 'knowing' the choice I 'did' make.


Jim

[JimL]

Per statement 2 above: I would seem to me that for a being to be outside time, or 'at all times at once', that being is unchanging, for to change is to be 'in time'. God therefore doesn't know about my choice after the fact in any different way than he knows about my choice before the fact. 'to gain knowledge' it itself to be inside time. That is why I keep trying to point out that ascribing 'knowlege' to God is an anthropomorphism. He 'knows' all, but not like we do. Whatever it is, it's a construct that is outside of time and unchanged by time, past, present, or future. Hence there is no distinction in terms of His 'knowledge' between 'knowing' the choice I 'will' make and 'knowing' the choice I 'did' make.

There can't be change inside of time if all of time is there for god to see externally. If god can see it all, how can anything change?

[Roy]

Again, you are implicitly assuming free will means my choices are random. You are improperly using the words can and cannot.

I'm doing neither of those things. I have assumed nothing about how your choices are made. They may be random, they may not - the argument holds for either or both. I am being consistent in my terminology.

I will make my choice of my own free will. God knowing what that choice will be does not itself constrain my free will. I can make any choice I want to. But God knows which choice I will want to make in a given set of circumstances. You are implicitly assuming a feedback where none exists. God's knowledge isn't creating or forming my choice, His knowledge is not part of that system as it were.

The word 'can' has multiple senses of meaning that are being conflated above.

can: what is potentially possible - the set of potential choices before me

That's the definition I have used throughout. There is no equivocation.

What you are assuming is that God's knowledge changes what is potentially possible at the moment of choice and somehow only allows one choice.

I'm not assuming that. I'm examining both what happens if that is the case and if that is not the case.

But it doesn't. I still choose from among the potential choices before me the choice I want to choose. God just knows what I want to choose. There is no limitation of my free will. When you say I can't make another choice, you are implying causality where none exists. I won't make another choice: i.e. - it's not that I can't (I am free to make any choice I want), it's that I won't (I don't want to make any other choice).

That's a cop out Jim.

You're claiming that something is possible, but won't happen. If it's possible for you to make another choice, you need to deal with the outcome if you do so. At the moment you've simply ignoring it.

IOW, the restraining factor here is my will itself. It is my free-will that limits my choice by the fact that I must choose between the options and I will therefore of my free-will what I want to choose which is also that which God already knows I will choose. It's what we'd call in mathematics a special case.

It's what we call in mathematics ignoring part of the problem space. Also introducing unnecessary factors. Nowhere in my argument is there anything about what you want.

My free-will exists and is not violated by God's knowledge because His knowledge and my free-will at the point of decision are congruent.

And that's what we in mathematics call assuming your conclusion.

You aren't addressing my argument, Jim, you're talking round it and introducing assumptions and complications that aren't there and aren't necessary.

1. You have a choice.
2. God knows the choice you will make.
If it is possible for you to choose something else, then God does not know what choice you will make, so #2 is wrong.
If it is not possible for you to choose something else, then you do not have a choice, so #1 is wrong.
Therefore either #1 or #2 is wrong.

[oxmixmudd]

There can't be change inside of time if all of time is there for god to see externally. If god can see it all, how can anything change?

Change is an artifact of time - yes? Therefore change is something that exists inside time. Outside time it does not.

Jim

[JimL]

Change is an artifact of time - yes? Therefore change is something that exists inside time. Outside time it does not.

Jim

That doesn't solcve the problem, Jim. If all of time is there, if the future exists and so can be seen from an external perspective, then it is all there internally as well. It can't be seen, if it isn't there.

[Roy]

No, if you could choose something other than what God knows you will choose, then God would know THAT choice instead. His knowledge comes from your choice, whatever it is.

His knowledge can't come from your choice if you haven't made it.

I can choose A or B.

God supposedly knows which you will choose at this point. Inserting that knowledge wrecks your reasoning completely.

It becomes either:
I can choose A or B.
God knows I will choose A.
If I choose A. God knows I will choose A.
Or I could choose B.
If I choose B, then God didn't know what I would choose.

Or:
I can choose A or B.
God knows I will choose B.
If I choose A. God didn't know what I would choose.

I can only make the choice once. And that is what informs God's knowledge.

That's fine if God only knows after you make the choice. But y'all want him to know before you make the choice - to have foreknowledge. But when pressed, you revert to claiming that whatever you choose is what he knew all along.

It's like a conjuror who writes 'A' on one side of a piece of paper and 'B' on the other side, gets you to choose 'A' or 'B' and then shows you only one side of the paper. A cheap and trivial trick.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm doing neither of those things. I have assumed nothing about how your choices are made. They may be random, they may not - the argument holds for either or both. I am being consistent in my terminology. That's the definition I have used throughout. There is no equivocation. I'm not assuming that. I'm examining both what happens if that is the case and if that is not the case. That's a cop out Jim.

You're claiming that something is possible, but won't happen. If it's possible for you to make another choice, you need to deal with the outcome if you do so. At the moment you've simply ignoring it. It's what we call in mathematics ignoring part of the problem space. Also introducing unnecessary factors. Nowhere in my argument is there anything about what you want.And that's what we in mathematics call assuming your conclusion.

You aren't addressing my argument, Jim, you're talking round it and introducing assumptions and complications that aren't there and aren't necessary.

1. You have a choice.
2. God knows the choice you will make.
If it is possible for you to choose something else, then God does not know what choice you will make, so #2 is wrong.
If it is not possible for you to choose something else, then you do not have a choice, so #1 is wrong.
Therefore either #1 or #2 is wrong.

I still have a choice. So #1 is not wrong. We are talking about free-will vs. predestination. Nothing is forcing me to choose what I choose except the very free-will we are debating. So I have a choice, and I make that choice. And nothing is forcing me to make the choice. But I always choose what God knows I will choose.

follwing the logic of the statement with the bolded conclusion, one can logically in the same way then say:


I have a choice between two options A and B.
I always choose A, therefore I do not have a choice.

And that just isn't true. I do in fact have a choice between A and B. That fact is not dependent on whether or not I always make the same choice.


Jim

[Roy]

Per statement 2 above: I would seem to me that for a being to be outside time, or 'at all times at once', that being is unchanging, for to change is to be 'in time'.

Then wave goodbye to Christianity, in which one part of the triune deity changed into human form and then changed while in human form.

God therefore doesn't know about my choice after the fact in any different way than he knows about my choice before the fact. 'to gain knowledge' it itself to be inside time. That is why I keep trying to point out that ascribing 'knowlege' to God is an anthropomorphism. He 'knows' all, but not like we do.

You're arguing as if he did.

[Roy]

I still have a choice. So #1 is not wrong. We are talking about free-will vs. predestination.

No, we're talking about free will vs foreknowledge. Predestination is a different concept.

You're saying it's not possible for you to choose anything other than one option out of many, yet you still some-how have a free choice.

follwing the logic of the statement with the bolded conclusion, one can logically in the same way then say:

I have a choice between two options A and B.
I always choose A, therefore I do not have a choice.

It's actually:

I have a choice between two options A and B.
It's not possibly for me to choose B, therefore I do not have a choice.

[Sparko]

Sparko, all you are doing is making unsubstantiated assertions without backing them up with reason. Tell us according to your belief, how it is that god knows your future. I've already refuted your ideas of foreknowledge under the a and b theories of time so either explain how my logic is wrong or give us a logical explanation of your own as to how this could be. If you can't do that then you have no real argument, you're simple asserting a belief without substantiation.

I have done so all along. All you do is go "nuh-uh!"

Time to stop casting pearls before swine.