Does an Omniscient Creator Lead to Fatalism?

[Sparko]

Multi-verse theory as developed by Everett with respect to Schroeders equation which is itself completely determined.

That doesn't even make sense as an answer Jim.

Why did I eat pancakes in universe A? And why did I eat Bacon in universe B? Why didn't I eat bacon in Universe A?

[JimL]

That doesn't even make sense as an answer Jim.

Why did I eat pancakes in universe A? And why did I eat Bacon in universe B? Why didn't I eat bacon in Universe A?

I told you why according to the theory. Schroedingers equation is completely determined and so when you have multiple universes the equation evolves smoothly through each and every universe. Just as the you in this universe is determined to eat eggs, the you in another universe is detemined to eat pancakes. Thats why Schroedingers cat is both dead and alive until you see it, it exists in different universes according to the equation. When you actually look, you only see the one of the two realities, the one specific to this universe. The other is just as real, but when you look you only see the one specific to this universe. But again, the equation/quantum mechanics is completely determined. and applies to each and every universe.

[Sparko]

I told you why according to the theory. Schroedingers equation is completely determined and so when you have multiple universes the equation evolves smoothly through each and every universe. Just as the you in this universe is determined to eat eggs, the you in another universe is detemined to eat pancakes. Thats why Schroedingers cat is both dead and alive until you see it, it exists in different universes according to the equation. When you actually look, you only see the one of the two realities, the one specific to this universe. The other is just as real, but when you look you only see the one specific to this universe. But again, the equation/quantum mechanics is completely determined.

Again you just make up crap. The whole point of Shroedinger's experiment is that NOTHING IS DETERMINED. Everything is in flux and all outcomes are equally valid until an observer collapses the probability function into a specific world line. The cat is neither alive nor dead until someone looks. Nothing is determined, JimL. "Shroedingers equation" is just a math function to determine the probability values.

So again, Why did I eat pancakes in universe A? And why did I eat Bacon in universe B? Why didn't I eat bacon in Universe A? Actions don't just randomly happen. Someone had to put the cat in the box in the first place. I had a reason to eat breakfast this morning. The universe is not just a collection of random events. Whether fixed or not, each action has a cause. Whether you believe in a purely mechanical universe or one with free will, the outcome is the same: Each action has a cause. You have no way to prove that the cause is not FREE WILL.

In fact I have no idea why you are even arguing with me on this matter. You don't even believe in free will to begin with and you believe in a block universe. At least according to the other threads you have argued in. And that is without God even in the picture.

[JimL]

Again you just make up crap. The whole point of Shroedinger's experiment is that NOTHING IS DETERMINED. Everything is in flux and all outcomes are equally valid until an observer collapses the probability function into a specific world line. The cat is neither alive nor dead until someone looks. Nothing is determined, JimL. "Shroedingers equation" is just a math function to determine the probability values.

You're confusing the copenhagen theory with the multiverse theory Sparko.

So again, Why did I eat pancakes in universe A? And why did I eat Bacon in universe B? Why didn't I eat bacon in Universe A? Actions don't just randomly happen. Someone had to put the cat in the box in the first place. I had a reason to eat breakfast this morning. The universe is not just a collection of random events. Whether fixed or not, each action has a cause. Whether you believe in a purely mechanical universe or one with free will, the outcome is the same: Each action has a cause. You have no way to prove that the cause is not FREE WILL.

You're behind the times Sparko, cause and effect are just convenient ways of talking about the world, but science no longer see's things that way. Nor is determined the same thing as random, you eat eggs for breakfast because you are determined to do so, the same as does your pancake eating dopleganger in another universe. If the universe is all there, i.e. the block universe, then nothing has a cause, how could it, every event has always existed.

In fact I have no idea why you are even arguing with me on this matter. You don't even believe in free will to begin with and you believe in a block universe. At least according to the other threads you have argued in. And that is without God even in the picture.

Actually you must not be reading my arguments because though the block universe, the B-theory of time, is backed by the physics, I have always maintained that I'm not completely convinced.

[Sparko]

You're confusing the copenhagen theory with the multiverse theory Sparko.

No. And it is the Copenhagen Interpretation. The fact that particles can exist in superposition is part of the multiverse theory. The double-slit experiment shows that not only are they in superposition but that they do indeed collapse into all states. That is why you can have an interference pattern with a single photon.

You're behind the times Sparko, cause and effect are just convenient ways of talking about the world, but science no longer see's things that way. Nor is determined the same thing as random, you eat eggs for breakfast because you are determined to do so, the same as does your pancake eating dopleganger in another universe. If the universe is all there, i.e. the block universe, then nothing has a cause, how could it, every event has always existed.


Actually you must not be reading my arguments because though the block universe, the B-theory of time, is backed by the physics, I have always maintained that I'm not completely convinced.

Again WHAT determines your actions? It has to have some meaning because your actions are not random, they have purpose. They make sense. You can't seem to answer that. Even when all outcomes do happen in the multiverse, each one has to have a cause. The multiverse doesn't eliminate cause and effect. That is why in no universe will I be eating a Jeep for breakfast.

And as you say the B-theory is backed up by physics. So I have no idea what your objection is.

[Adrift]

The decision to view Paul's writings as inspired has been subject to church authority from their earliest adoption. The church made that decision and the church can reverse that decision, though clearly not without cost.

Some reversals are easier than others.

A tranche of Paul's letters, including the pastorals, has always been viewed with suspicion within and without the church, and, contrary to popular apologetes, while pseudepigraphy has always been common, it has never been acceptable. Specifically, from his own writings, we know it was not acceptable to Paul.

Similarly, scholars, including church scholars, acknowledge and read past known interpolations.

I see no bar to adding logical errors to that list while maintaining Paul's writing as inspired. Inspiration is not equivalent to nor sufficient for inerrancy.

Pretty well off topic, but just so you're aware, Romans isn't one of the disputed letters. Also, I don't think it's quite right to say that pseudepigraphy has never been accepted. Do you have a source for that? If I recall, Dale Allison (certainly no "apologete") goes into the subject a bit in one of his works. I'll have to look it up, but I think he pointed out that, while not always accepted in the ancient world, often times they were. I think in the end, though, he sided with the much more common view that an Apostle's school would often write in the Apostle's name, basing their views on that Apostle's teachings, and that was generally considered acceptable, and not necessarily pseudepigraphic. So, for instance, there were likely Pauline, Petrine, and Johannine schools writing under their names, with their authority, and this was cool with the early church. This is a view that others like Richard Bauckham, and Amy-Jill Levine seem to suggest as well. Also, do you know what passage you have in mind where you believe that Paul did not accept pseudepigraphic works? I'm trying to think of some passage that might allude to that, and I'm coming up blank. I know that at least a few pseudepigraphic works are at least alluded to in a number of New Testament letters (for instance, the Assumption of Moses, and the Book of Enoch).

[JimL]

No. And it is the Copenhagen Interpretation. The fact that particles can exist in superposition is part of the multiverse theory. The double-slit experiment shows that not only are they in superposition but that they do indeed collapse into all states. That is why you can have an interference pattern with a single photon.

Wrong again. The copenhagen theory doesn't have the superposition collapsing into all possible states, that would be multiverse theory. The copenhagen theory has the superposition collapse into one state. That's the difference between the two theories.

Again WHAT determines your actions? It has to have some meaning because your actions are not random, they have purpose. They make sense. You can't seem to answer that. Even when all outcomes do happen in the multiverse, each one has to have a cause. The multiverse doesn't eliminate cause and effect. That is why in no universe will I be eating a Jeep for breakfast.

For one thing, In the block universe, which you seem to accept, there are no causes, everything just is, and always was. Otherwise, what determines your actions in the A-theory, is simply the determined nature of the universe, aka the physics.

And as you say the B-theory is backed up by physics. So I have no idea what your objection is.

I don't necessarily object to it, I don't like it, it doesn't feel right, I just haven't quite accepted it yet. But you don't really accept B-theory-block universe either, you just don't undestand it.

[Sparko]

Wrong again. The copenhagen theory doesn't have the superposition collapsing into all possible states, that would be multiverse theory. The copenhagen theory has the superposition collapse into one state. That's the difference between the two theories.

read what I actually said.

For one thing, In the block universe, which you seem to accept, there are no causes, everything just is, and always was. Otherwise, what determines your actions in the A-theory, is simply the determined nature of the universe, aka the physics.

I don't necessarily object to it, I don't like it, it doesn't feel right, I just haven't quite accepted it yet. But you don't really accept B-theory-block universe either, you just don't undestand it.

of course there are causes in the block universe. They are part of the block universe. Determinism doesn't eliminate causation.

[JimL]

read what I actually said.




of course there are causes in the block universe. They are part of the block universe. Determinism doesn't eliminate causation.

The distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. Albert Einstein. That's the Block Universe Sparko. The past doesnt cause the future anymore than the future causes the past, all events exist in their own nows and always have.

[Sparko]

The distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. Albert Einstein. That's the Block Universe Sparko. The past doesnt cause the future anymore than the future causes the past, all events exist in their own nows and always have.

Then there would not be any coherent connection between the "nows", dummy. You would not remember a coherent past or even have the illusion of free will or causation. The universe would be a series of disconnected frames with absolutely no coherence. Like shuffling a deck of cards. Sure the past, present and future all exist, but they are connected, not random. What is 'recorded' in the timeline is the causes and reactions of everything in space-time. Just like my previous analogy of the video tape recording of the football game. The tape is the complete record but what it contains is the freewill actions and causes and effects of everything that happened to create it.

[JimL]

Then there would not be any coherent connection between the "nows", dummy. You would not remember a coherent past or even have the illusion of free will or causation. The universe would be a series of disconnected frames with absolutely no coherence. Like shuffling a deck of cards. Sure the past, present and future all exist, but they are connected, not random. What is 'recorded' in the timeline is the causes and reactions of everything in space-time. Just like my previous analogy of the video tape recording of the football game. The tape is the complete record but what it contains is the freewill actions and causes and effects of everything that happened to create it.

Egad! I remember this video tape recording was the same argument you gave 10 years ago and you still can't see the error in it. Can't help you Sparko.

[Sparko]

Egad! I remember this video tape recording was the same argument you gave 10 years ago and you still can't see the error in it. Can't help you Sparko.

Of course you can't help me, because you have no clue what you are talking about.

[37818]

Here is a pretty good explanation by Brian Greene of the B-theory of time. You need to watch it all the way through as the first half of the video is about the way we normally experience time, which of course is the A-theory. In the end you will see that according to physics, the A-theory is wrong, time doesn't flow, all of time, just like all of space, exists, which is why we now call it spacetime. The past and the future are just as real as the present. Hopefully Sparko will watch it as it is something I tried to explain to him 9 or 10 years ago and he has mocked me for it ever since.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1WfFkp4puw

In the video he is not correct. For example, while time in deed runs slower for a person moving toward you, you would observe (exaggerated) the time of the person moving toward you running faster! (It is called the blue shift.)

[Tassman]

That depends entirely on the circumstances we find ourselves in when making our choices.

When do we make these choices, given that God has always known what choice you will make?

In what universe are the phrases "Cannot do X" and "Does not do X" equivalent to each other?

[JonathanL]

When do we make these choices, given that God has always known what choice you will make?

We make them whenever we make them. God's foreknowledge doesn't factor into it at all.


"Cannot" doesn't even factor into it in the first place. It's not that we cannot choose otherwise without compromising God's omniscience, but that whatever we choose to do, God already knew beforehand that we were going to make that choice.