Trump's Christian supporters are unchristian

[JimL]

JimL,

Choose A or B and post your choice.

Both options exist, I was simply answering to your arguments, neither option of which you were able to fit both eternal omniscience and free will into. But then again you just don't seem to understand the underlying logic of time theory anyway. In B-theory, which seems to be your most prominent argument, all of time exists, Sparko. It's not as though all of time exists for a god to externally view it, while at the same time it doesn't all exist for those within it. If it's all there, then it's all there, regardless of ones perspective. Use your brain. There is a law of logic called the law of non-contradiction. Time, the future, can't both exist and not exist. Pick one!

[Sparko]

Both options exist, I was simply answering to your arguments, neither option of which you were able to fit both eternal omniscience and free will into. But then again you just don't seem to understand the underlying logic of time theory anyway. In B-theory, which seems to be your most prominent argument, all of time exists, Sparko. It's not as though all of time exists for a god to externally view it, while at the same time it doesn't all exist for those within it. If it's all there, then it's all there, regardless of ones perspective. Use your brain. There is a law of logic called the law of non-contradiction. Time, the future, can't both exist and not exist. Pick one!

No. I am asking you to make a free will choice and post your answer: Choose #1 or #2.

[JimL]

No. I am asking you to make a free will choice and post your answer: Choose #1 or #2.

Choose #1 or #2? Okay then, since B-theory seems to be your fav, explain how the future can both exist from one perspective, from an external perspective, and not exist from another, from an internal perspective?

[Tassman]

Again, it really isn't foreknowledge with God, it is omniscience. He does exist 10 Billion years in the future as well as in the past. He exists at all times.

[oxmixmudd]

You will not choose otherwise as God is omniscient. There is no active agent causing the decision other than yourself.

Jim

[JimL]

Well, god can't exist at all times, unless all times exist, which means there is no future to be foreknown. Sparko can't seem to grasp that logical fact.

[JimL]

You will not choose otherwise as God is omniscient. There is no active agent causing the decision other than yourself.

Jim

Unfortunately, that is simply an assertion of yours, but it has no logical underpinning. If you can not come up with a logical explanation as to how eternal omniscience and free will can co-exist, then there is no reason to take your assertion seriously.

[Tassman]

You will not choose otherwise as God is omniscient. There is no active agent causing the decision other than yourself.

Jim

No "active agent" is required. If God is omniscient, it is inevitable you will choose what God knows you will choose.

[oxmixmudd]

No "active agent" is required. If God is omniscient, it is inevitable you will choose what God knows you will choose.

We are not going to get anywhere Tassman. You don't want to see the difference I'm outlining, and so you can't see. God can know what I'm going to do without being the cause of my action. But you would rather it be that God knowing means I have no choice, and that is your choice to believe that. But there is no logical reason to conclude that is necessarily so. It's just what you prefer to believe. But I should make the point that to believe that, you are in effect assuming the opposite of a very important scientific maxum:

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

You are concluding instead that

Correlation DOES necessarily imply causation.


Or perhaps differently:

A) God knows what we will choose because we choose it: We are the cause of the choice

NOT

B) We choose what we choose because God knows what we will choose: God is the cause of our choice

As long as A is true and not B, then infallibility and free-will can coexist. God's knowledge is technically retro-causal (as we perceive it) in A.


Jim

[JimL]

We are not going to get anywhere Tassman. You don't want to see the difference I'm outlining, and so you can't see. God can know what I'm going to do without being the cause of my action. But you would rather it be that God knowing means I have no choice, and that is your choice to believe that. But there is no logical reason to conclude that is necessarily so. It's just what you prefer to believe. But I should make the point that to believe that, you are in effect assuming the opposite of a very important scientific maxum:

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

You are concluding instead that

Correlation DOES necessarily imply causation.


Or perhaps differently:

A) God knows what we will choose because we choose it: We are the cause of the choice

NOT

B) We choose what we choose because God knows what we will choose: God is the cause of our choice

As long as A is true and not B, then infallibility and free-will can coexist. God's knowledge is technically retro-causal (as we perceive it) in A.


Jim

Wrong, Jim. You are not recognizing the fact that eternal omniscience means that the future of time is known before the creation of time itself. We can not change that, have no control over, that which was known to be before we even were. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but in this case, it does.

[oxmixmudd]

Wrong, Jim. You are not recognizing the fact that eternal omniscience means that the future of time is known before the creation of time itself. We can not change that, have no control over, that which was known to be before we even were. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but in this case, it does.

I disagree. The postulate of free will is that God allows us to choose (at least some portion of) destiny. Allowing us to choose does not mean God does not know our choice.

You are thinking God planned it and thus it was, when you should be thinking more along the lines of God foresaw it and chose to allow it.

The active agent choosing is me.

Jim

[Tassman]

Or perhaps differently:

A) God knows what we will choose because we choose it: We are the cause of the choice

[oxmixmudd]

I disagree, and i have explained why. I have explained that if no causal relationship exists free will is not violated. Yet you eithout any objective proof insist God cant possibly know what Ill chose without being the cause of tbut at choice. It is amazing to me how a person that ostenibly eschews all non-objective truth can be absolutely sure about something they cant possibly know for sure. Interesting.

Jim

[Roy]

Again, it really isn't foreknowledge with God, it is omniscience. He does exist 10 Billion years in the future as well as in the past. He exists at all times.

And if his knowledge from the future doesn't change your choice tomorrow into a non-free will choice, then him simply being here in the present and knowing what his future self knows shouldn't change it.

Let's say you have a telephone that can call the past, and your future self calls back to your present self and tells you what choice I am going to make tomorrow morning. Now assume I have no idea about any of this. How does his telling you today what I am going to choose tomorrow suddenly change my free will decision into a non-free decision?

Aside from the minor problem that any argument that begins 'something that can't happen happens' can lead to any conclusion including the opposite of the one you want, in your proposed scenario your free-will decision would remain a free-will decision because there are several ways in which you might choose a different option:
- my future self might be wrong
- my future self may be lying
- my knowledge of your decision might cause you to make a different choice

None of these options are available in you God scenario.

[Roy]

I AM responding to your actual argument.

Let's see:

If it is possible for you to choose B, then #2 is wrong. God doesn't know what choice you will make.

Yes, if by some means I am able to choose something other than what God knows I'll choose, then infallibility is lost.

If it is not possible for you to choose B, then #1 is wrong. You don't have a choice.

This is what is broken. Free will does not mean given no outside interference I might make any possible choice. I will not ever choose B, even though B is available to be chosen, does not break Free-will. The choice is available to me, no outside force is prohibiting me from making either choice, either physical or divine: I have the choice, I have free-will.

Then it is possible for you to choose B, and infallibility is lost, even though you say you never would choose B.

But I would never choose it.

Why not? There seems to be no reason other than doing so would break your argument.

Again: By definition I have free-will: there is no physical force outside myself, and there is no divine fore-ordinance forcing my choice. But I will NOT choose B. So the conclusion 'I don't have a choice (or more correctly, "I don't have free-will"') is wrong. I DO have a choice in every way that matters for meeting the definition of free-will, but my choice is also fixed by that self same free-will and God can thus know it absolutely.

How does having free will limit your ability to choose?

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action. It doesn't fix what your choice is - that would be an inherent contradiction.

If I understand you correctly you are saying that God doesn't know in advance what you will do - God only knows enough about you to predict what you will do with sufficient certainty.

P.S. I don't think you're evil, or dumb, or deliberately misunderstanding. I think you are trying to support a false assumption rather that trying to determine the validity of that assumption.