Does an Omniscient Creator Lead to Fatalism?

[JimL]

I find it odd that athiests, who basically always use "science" as a hammer against religion and claim to be rational, would be arguing for the A-theory of time since everything in physics (General and Special Relativity, quantum mechanics) all show that time is intricately linked with space and space-time is a four dimensional framework of our universe. So time exists just as much as space does. That means the future and past exist. Yet JimL and others insist on using a very old theory of time (a-theory) created by a philosopher over 100 years ago.

I'm not arguing any theory of time, i'm simply refuting your argument. If the future and past exist, if time is static, then obviously it all exists and there is no real change that takes place, no real choices being made. The B-theory means that your experience of change, your experience of choosing to do this or to do that, is all an illusion. And the idea that within the B-theory of time, one could travel through it to the past, or more to the point for our present discussion, to the future, is an impossibility, because if the future exists then nothing can travel to it since traveling to it would contradict the very notion that the future already exists. Free will doesn't work under either theory of time, neither A nor B, if the creator thereof is omniscient. Thats not science, thats just pure logic.

[carpedm9587]

I find it odd that athiests, who basically always use "science" as a hammer against religion and claim to be rational, would be arguing for the A-theory of time since everything in physics (General and Special Relativity, quantum mechanics) all show that time is intricately linked with space and space-time is a four dimensional framework of our universe. So time exists just as much as space does. That means the future and past exist. Yet JimL and others insist on using a very old theory of time (a-theory) created by a philosopher over 100 years ago.

First - I'm an atheist, so presumably this applies to me? I'm not aware of EVER using science as a "hammer against religion." Can you point out where I have done so? For the record, I find such sweeping statements (i.e., "atheists," suggesting all of them, and "basically always") to usually be wrong. They are simply too absolute - too broad.

Second, you keep coming back to this B-Theory, and I've been doing some reading on it as a result. The concept was new to me - so thanks for introducing me to it. However, I'm not finding it to be what you claim it to be. First of all, it is rooted in McTaggart's work, which dates to 1908, which my math tells me is 110 years ago. Second, it has been largely associated with philosophy and metaphysics, where it now dominates how time is discussed. It is also part of theoretical physics as an offshoot of special relativity (among other things), but nowhere am I finding the implication that all of time exists as you suggest. Rather, it speaks to the reality that "now" or "present" is an illusion (which is kind of obvious if you think about it), and that "present" can be different in different places in the universe as a function of the relationship with space. Linguisticly, the primary difference is that A-Series (or A-Theory) time uses tenses related to past/present/future. B-Series (or B-Theory) does not. Instead, it is relational, citing events as before or after or concurent with one another, rather than the hard language of past/present/future. That fits better with the relativistic model of special relativity.

So far, that is what I have understood from my reading. If you have citations that suggest that past and future "exist" in some kind of eternal now, as you suggest, then I'd like to know what they are. I'm not finding those references.

[JimL]

First - I'm an atheist, so presumably this applies to me? I'm not aware of EVER using science as a "hammer against religion." Can you point out where I have done so? For the record, I find such sweeping statements (i.e., "atheists," suggesting all of them, and "basically always") to usually be wrong. They are simply too absolute - too broad.

Second, you keep coming back to this B-Theory, and I've been doing some reading on it as a result. The concept was new to me - so thanks for introducing me to it. However, I'm not finding it to be what you claim it to be. First of all, it is rooted in McTaggart's work, which dates to 1908, which my math tells me is 110 years ago. Second, it has been largely associated with philosophy and metaphysics, where it now dominates how time is discussed. It is also part of theoretical physics as an offshoot of special relativity (among other things), but nowhere am I finding the implication that all of time exists as you suggest. Rather, it speaks to the reality that "now" or "present" is an illusion (which is kind of obvious if you think about it), and that "present" can be different in different places in the universe as a function of the relationship with space. Linguisticly, the primary difference is that A-Series (or A-Theory) time uses tenses related to past/present/future. B-Series (or B-Theory) does not. Instead, it is relational, citing events as before or after or concurent with one another, rather than the hard language of past/present/future. That fits better with the relativistic model of special relativity.

So far, that is what I have understood from my reading. If you have citations that suggest that past and future "exist" in some kind of eternal now, as you suggest, then I'd like to know what they are. I'm not finding those references.

The way I understand it is that time, according to the B-theory, is another dimension, and just like the 3 dimensions of space, time is all there. All events that occur in this time have always, and are always occuring, accept that they are each occuring in their own now moment along the time line coordinate. In other words, Washington is crossing the delaware as we speak but in a different location along the time coordinate.

[carpedm9587]

The way I understand it is that time, according to the B-theory, is another dimension, and just like the 3 dimensions of space, time is all there. All events that occur in this time have always, and are always occuring, accept that they are each occuring in their own now moment along the time line coordinate. In other words, Washington is crossing the delaware as we speak but in a different location along the time coordinate.

Umm...that's not what I'm finding. Do you have a source?

[Tassman]

No, his knowledge is temporally prior to your choice but logically AFTER your choice. His knowledge is dependent on your choice. If you choose different, he will know different. Logically it is no different than if someone in the future knows what decisions you made in the past. Let's say I know everything you did yesterday. Did I cause you to do it? No. Now suppose I have a time machine and go back to last week. I still have my same knowledge of what you did yesterday but it is now a week in the future to where I am. You will still do what you did, and I "pre-know" it but am not the cause of your actions. And if by some chance you change what you do, that would change what I know before I travel back in time and would change what I know after I travel back in time so I would still know what you will do.

When exactly did you make your "past freewill decisions" given that God knew, even before he created you, what you would be deciding?

[JonathanL]

Ever hear of the law of non-contradiction? I'm sure you have, so how is it you ignore it in this case? It's obvious logic. You can't have free will from your own perspective but not have it from anothers perspective at the same time.

I don't ignore it. I just don't agree with the statement that I "have free will from [my] own perspective but [do not] have it from anothers perspective at the same time". I have free will no matter what perspective you look at it from.

[JonathanL]

Actually, I cannot, Chrawnus. That is a consequence of god's creative action - not the foreknowledge. God created the specific universe where my choices was X. I cannot choose "Y" because that is not the universe god created. I may feel I can freely choose - but I actually cannot.



It has nothing to do with omniscience, except in so far as God used that omniscience to make a creative choice. Gods choice of "what I would choose" is ontologically prior to my choice, and determines my choice. God chooses and creates the universe where I do Y. I can no longer do X, because that is not the universe god created.

But I don't believe that God created a universe where my choice was X, I believe God created a universe where my choice would be X. I don't hold to a view of time that posits that the future is equally as real as the present. Only the future (and perhaps the past) exists, not the future, except as knowledge in God's mind. In other words, God created a universe where I would eventually choose X, not a universe where a future where I have chosen X already exists.

[JonathanL]

cannot choose otherwise.

No it's not. It's not even close to the same thing. That's two distinctly different statements.

NOT actually free will...merely the illusion of it.

Unsupported assertions does not an argument make.

[Tassman]

No it's not. It's not even close to the same thing. That's two distinctly different statements.



Unsupported assertions does not an argument make.

Just saying I'm wrong is not good enough. You need to say WHY you think me wrong. Otherwise I have nothing to argue against.

[JonathanL]

Just saying I'm wrong is not good enough. You need to say WHY you think me wrong. Otherwise I have nothing to argue against.

I can't say why I think you're wrong until you provide me with an actual argument for your position instead of pure assertions.

[Juvenal]

I find it odd that athiests, who basically always use "science" as a hammer against religion and claim to be rational, would be arguing for the A-theory of time since everything in physics (General and Special Relativity, quantum mechanics) all show that time is intricately linked with space and space-time is a four dimensional framework of our universe. So time exists just as much as space does. That means the future and past exist. Yet JimL and others insist on using a very old theory of time (a-theory) created by a philosopher over 100 years ago.

Quit babbling on physics you don't understand any better than you can spell atheist. Yes, there's a space-time continuum, and even one we can visualize with pretty little cones. No, that doesn't imply an outside perspective in which causality is reversed.

Really, Sparkles.

[Juvenal]

I can't say why I think you're wrong until you provide me with an actual argument for your position instead of pure assertions.

A creator intentionally choosing the future history of its creations directly contradicts free choice for its created creatures.

[Juvenal]

There's no logical need for any god to be either omniscient or omnipotent, though those features clearly fulfill philosophical and psychological needs among their followers. All that's actually needed, for even the most exalted being, is to be more knowledgeable and powerful than its followers can imagine.

[JimL]

I don't ignore it. I just don't agree with the statement that I "have free will from [my] own perspective but [do not] have it from anothers perspective at the same time". I have free will no matter what perspective you look at it from.

But again, there are only 2 logical ways in which god could know the future, specifically your future choices, and those ways have to do with the 2 theories of time. If the B-theory is correct, then time is just another dimension, it doesn't flow from past to future, past, present, and future are all just as real, moments in time, like the measuring lines on a yard stick, are all their own nows, existing together, in separate locations along the time line coordinate. Since all of time exists according to this theory, then I think you can see that free will is impossible according to B-theory.
On the other hand, according to the A-theory, time does flow, only the present is real, the future is open, so there is no way to know that future unless, like in dominoes, what will happen, is built into the creation. In other words, if the future is known by an omniscient being according to A-theory, then the reason it is known is because he engineered it that way, and so, just like in B-theory, free will would be is impossible. Now like Tass said, you can disagree if you want, but unless you can actually refute the logic of the argument with your own counter argument, then your disagreement is of little value to the discussion.

[carpedm9587]

But I don't believe that God created a universe where my choice was X, I believe God created a universe where my choice would be X. I don't hold to a view of time that posits that the future is equally as real as the present. Only the future (and perhaps the past) exists, not the future, except as knowledge in God's mind. In other words, God created a universe where I would eventually choose X, not a universe where a future where I have chosen X already exists.

It does not make a difference, Chrawnus. If god created that universe, when the time comes, I cannot choose Y, because that would be a different universe, which god eliminated as a possibility when god created THIS one. My choice is illusionary. God's creative act determined my choice.