Trump's Christian supporters are unchristian

[JimL]

no Jim, logically us knowing the past is the same as God knowing all of time. The only difference is the scope of knowledge and the breadth of time covered. Us knowing what happened in the past doesn't cause the past. Neither does God knowing the future (to us)

Two different arguments Sparko. Us knowing the past is because the past has already occured, and that which has already occured can be known by anyone. But we can't know that which has not yet occured, i.e. we can't know the future for the opposite reason, because it has not yet occured. And if we could know the future, then that would mean that the future was fixed in time just as is the past. So if your argument is that god can know our future because he is outside of time, then the same applies, that he is able to do so because the future from his perspective, and therefore the future period, is fixed in time just as is the past.

In other words you can't compare the past with the future, they are not the same thing, the one is closed, the other is open.

[JimL]

Yep... ironically, freewill can only exist if there is an omnipotent creator. Otherwise, our "choices" are nothing more than the end result of random natural processes over which we have no control.

And it doesn't exist if god is omniscient! It's simply illogical of you to argue that god is omniscient but that he isn't responsible for everything that he omnisciently created. I have no illusions of this ever getting through to you though, religious beliefs I see are a very strong defense to logic.

[Mountain Man]

Two different arguments Sparko. Us knowing the past is because the past has already occured, and that which has already occured can be known by anyone. But we can't know that which has not yet occured, i.e. we can't know the future for the opposite reason, because it has not yet occured. And if we could know the future, then that would mean that the future was fixed in time just as is the past. So if your argument is that god can know our future because he is outside of time, then the same applies, that he is able to do so because the future from his perspective, and therefore the future period, is fixed in time just as is the past.

So we use the time traveling Delorian analogy again. You observe your neighbor water his lawn while eating a ham sandwich at precisely 9:06AM on the present day. You travel back in time one hour to 8:06AM, and exactly one hour later, your neighbor emerges from his house, munching on a ham sandwich and proceeds to water his lawn. Did you somehow negate your neighbor's freewill by traveling backwards in time?

[Mountain Man]

And [freewill] doesn't exist if god is omniscient! It's simply illogical...

You have yet to demonstrate this with a logical argument. You've merely asserted it.

[JimL]

So we use the time traveling Delorian analogy again. You observe your neighbor water his lawn while eating a ham sandwich at precisely 9:06AM on the present day. You travel back in time one hour to 8:06AM, and exactly one hour later, your neighbor emerges from his house, munching on a ham sandwich and proceeds to water his lawn. Did you somehow negate your neighbor's freewill by traveling backwards in time?

Like I said, I have no illusions of this obvious logical fact ever getting through to you, MM. Religious belief is obviously a very strong defense, even to otherwise basic, simply understood, logic.

[JimL]

You have yet to demonstrate this with a logical argument. You've merely asserted it.

No, I've explained it as clear as it can be explained in many different ways, but the scales just refuse to fall.

[Mountain Man]

...this obvious logical fact...

You have yet to demonstrate that your assertions are either logical or factual.

[Mountain Man]

I've explained it...

No, you've simply repeated your conclusion without showing the logical argument you use to reach it.

[oxmixmudd]

No, I've explained it as clear as it can be explained in many different ways, but the scales just refuse to fall.

The reality is, you havent. Each explanation contains implicit assumptions that you have refused to acknowledge or justify. Any proof based on flawed assimptions is useless, no natter what how well it is reasoned.

So try to justify you position on the two questions i raised, understanding i will want to clarify any implicit assumptions that drive your logic.

Jim

[JimL]

The reality is, you havent. Each explanation contains implicit assumptions that you have refused to acknowledge or justify. Any proof based on flawed assimptions is useless, no natter what how well it is reasoned.

So try to justify you position on the two questions i raised, understanding i will want to clarify any implicit assumptions that drive your logic.

Jim

Jim, why don't you just refute with your own argument what I said. Tell me how an omniscient creator doesn't know the end of all that he creates, and by end I mean all of time, and if you admit that he knows the end of all that he creates, and that if he knows it before he even creates it, then tell me how it is that any of what he foreknows can be changed by the created. None of you will answer that question.

[Sparko]

Sparko, you keep making your argument with respect to the past, and that is because the same argument doesn't work with the future. Yes, even we can know the free willed choices that already occured, but the future choices are different, we can't know them, and if an omniscient being does know them, and knew them even prior to creating you, then there is only one responsible, and that is the creator who engineered that future.

And your meta time idea isn't a way out for you either, because if god is an omniscient creator then he is before all time and anything he created that he knows in its entirety, whose future he knows in its entirety, he is obviously the cause of.

I don't believe in a meta time. I said you seem to be proposing such a thing when you say "all of time existed forever" - it makes no sense.

And my example of using the past is relevant because to the JimL of 10 years from now, tomorrow is the past. So anything you do tomorrow, he already knows about. So it is exactly the same thing logically speaking.

[Sparko]

We are not trying to do that Sparko. Tassman is a determinist, although a compatibilist determinist, which I don't quite understand, and I am undecided on the matter of free will. The world is definitely determined, and so, so may be our wills, but on the latter I have yet to make a firm determination.

You should be a determinist based on being a materialist. You just aren't smart enough to realize it yet.

[Sparko]

Two different arguments Sparko. Us knowing the past is because the past has already occured, and that which has already occured can be known by anyone. But we can't know that which has not yet occured, i.e. we can't know the future for the opposite reason, because it has not yet occured. And if we could know the future, then that would mean that the future was fixed in time just as is the past. So if your argument is that god can know our future because he is outside of time, then the same applies, that he is able to do so because the future from his perspective, and therefore the future period, is fixed in time just as is the past.

In other words you can't compare the past with the future, they are not the same thing, the one is closed, the other is open.

OK Jim. Assume the future is fixed just like the past. You believe the fixed past choices you made were done freely don't you? So why would your future ones not be? Think man, think.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, why don't you just refute with your own argument what I said. Tell me how an omniscient creator doesn't know the end of all that he creates, and by end I mean all of time, and if you admit that he knows the end of all that he creates, and that if he knows it before he even creates it, then tell me how it is that any of what he foreknows can be changed by the created. None of you will answer that question.

I have. Your logic depends on assumptions that are not proven and may not in fact be provable. It assumes a 1 dimensional timeline. It assumes more importantly that there is no possibillty that God can know the future without first defining it or controlling what it will be. If those assumptions are false, your argument fails, has no validity. I'm asking you to show how the axioms you base your logic upon are necessarily true.


Jim

[JimL]

I don't believe in a meta time. I said you seem to be proposing such a thing when you say "all of time existed forever" - it makes no sense.

yeah, except I didn't say existed forever, I said it existed in it's entirety. Big difference.

And my example of using the past is relevant because to the JimL of 10 years from now, tomorrow is the past. So anything you do tomorrow, he already knows about. So it is exactly the same thing logically speaking.

So, explain your point then. In what way does god know what will happen tomorrow? If your argument is "because from outside of time god can see it all" then that means it is all there, that all of time exists, Sparko. The future is closed, it doesn't change. it can't been seen unless it exists, correct?