Free Will

[phsyxx]

Hmm, nice analogy physxxx.

Thanks FishFace...
and, also , you managed to clarify my point much better than I did.

This kind of attitude towards the future in comparison to the present set of events first struck me hard enough for me to notice when watching "TimeCop" -
The supposedly smart scientist guy got the theory of time travel all wrong, and it was then that I was like "yeah...NO! Right, that's it, there must be a lot of people out there that believe everything they do is new, and that the future is dependent on their 'free choices' and decisions that they make."

The scientist guy was like "you can go into the past, but see, you cant go into the future, coz the future aint happened yet"
And then, just to make things worse, he said "the lab have just found the criminal's gold he stole from 1865, we know it's the real stuff, we jsut carbon dated it"

AGH! If he's come from the past to the present day, it wouldn't date 150 years! And if he can go into the past, then why can he come back to the future?
And the theory of time travel shows that it is impossible to travel into the past simply because of paradoxes that can be created, which demonstrate its impossibility.
EXAMPLE:
I create time machine.
I go back in time to before I step into the time machine to go on my first journey.
I shoot myself.

Yeah. Exactly. How would I go back in time to shoot myself if I shot myself before going back?
How would I then shoot myself?
Exactly.



Going forward would be possible, if you could create a machine that could take you at or faster than the speed of light.
However, once going forwards, you'd never be able to go back.

 

[smog]

I don't think you can create a robot that is not programmed by someone.

Well, I think I know my stuff.

The way we make intelligent machines is getting closer and closer to the way nature made intelligent organisms, and this means we now have techniques that solve problems without any need for an intelligent programmer. Eventually, there will come a point where these techniques will be able to solve the "behave like a human" problem and once they do, there will be no conceptual difference between that and a human.

Your point amounts to little more than "human intelligence is unintelligible" and I don't think that is tenable.

 

[smog]

The only way for [elman's] criticism to work is if your action tomorrow caused God's knowledge already - but that means that you must have already made the decision. As I explained earlier, you would have to have made the decision before God's knowledge - but God's knowledge has never not existed, so you have never made the decision.

Well, I can see two other ways, maybe more if I thought harder. The first way is to conflate your choice with God's knowledge, making it so everyone is a part of God. That would lead to a form of pantheism. The second is to realize that knowledge is equivalent to guesswork for one particular series of guesses, so technically God could be "omniscient" by means of insane luck. That is odd, but possible.

A third way, but now I'm getting out of scope, would be to define free will deterministically. To me, that is really the only sensible option because to say that "x was free to do y because x could have done something else" is fundamentally useless, if not completely broken.

 

[elman]

Well, I think I know my stuff.

The way we make intelligent machines is getting closer and closer to the way nature made intelligent organisms, and this means we now have techniques that solve problems without any need for an intelligent programmer. Eventually, there will come a point where these techniques will be able to solve the "behave like a human" problem and once they do, there will be no conceptual difference between that and a human.

Your point amounts to little more than "human intelligence is unintelligible" and I don't think that is tenable.

I think if you knew your stuff you would know you have not created a machine capable of loving you. When and if you have a machine that can respond to your love with love, you will not have a robot.

 

[elman]

That's great and all, but given that you're apparently not able to tell whether the robot/person made the decision on its own, you can't tell whether something is actually loving you "properly" or not. That's my point - there's no actual difference between the programmed love of a robot, and the freely decided love you say humans have.
So unless you can tell us all how you would look at someone who claims to love someone else and make the call "that is freely given love" or "that is just programming," you can't say that one is any better or more significant than the other.

This is a bogus argument. I cannot be sure a human is loving me just because they appear to be doing things for my benefit. That does not mean they are not human. It just means we are limited on our ability to decern love.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
The problem is you cannot cover all the bases in this world if you are dealing with God.

You're not actually considering the context of the argument. Your statement here is not actually relevant to the free will discussion, because you're taking "covering all the bases" out of context and making a general statement about that phrase with respect to God. So, I'll reformulate it to make it easier for you.

By using 'X' instead of an example of a specific thing, any thing that you might do is included. It is therefore not useful to say, "but if you chose something else, God would know that something else," because we're not yet specifying what X is. That's the point of using 'X' instead of "blue stripy socks" - it doesn't actually make any sense to say "something other than X" because 'X' is anything.
If stop talking about God for a moment, we can still make the same argument.

That is my point. You have to be subject to time to come within your argument. God is not subject to time.

Call what you are going to wear on your feet tomorrow 'X.' X could be blue stripy socks, black socks, socks and boots, or anything else at all that you could wear on your feet.
Consider the question, "Is 'X' known at this moment in time?" This is the same as asking, "Is 'X' fixed at this moment in time?" If no - if 'X' is not fixed - then there is the possibility that you could choose between blue stripy socks and black socks - up until the time when X becomes fixed. (Presumably at the time when you put them on)
If yes - if 'X' is already fixed now - if someone or something knows what 'X' is - then, whatever it is - blue stripy socks, black socks, socks and brown shoes - there is no possibility of you wearing something else - for example, socks and black shoes. But remember - X could be socks and black shoes, but, in this situation, you couldn't then choose to wear socks and brown shoes. Think about it - if 'X' is known now, then 'X' is fixed now. If 'X' is fixed now, then you cannot change X by choosing something else.

Knowing something now about what is going to happen in the future would be fixing it. We are unable to do that.

Of course, God is something that is said to know what 'X' is - thus fixing it.

But God is able to fix it in your sense in His time which is the eternal presence and therefore when it comes time for you to choose, you do so and it corresponds with what God knew.

Quote:
He is supernatural and not part of this world. God is able to know what you are going to do and at the same time give you the choice of doing it or not. Whatever you choose that is what God knew you would do. Your choice is real and His knowledge is real and accurate.

That is your original assertion repeated. You're not engaging with the argument. This is a debate forum, and you're not debating - the point of my argument is to try and show that your original claim, "God knows what you will do, and gives you the choice of what to do" is not a consistent one.

Why not?

You can't just repeat that original claim and make progress in the debate.

You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying and that is the reason we are not progressing.

Quote:
God does not make mistakes.

I am saying I can make my own decison and that decision that I am going to make is what God knows I will make.

What is set in stone is that you are free to make one of several decisions. God will know however what you are going to decide. It is also set in stone that God's knowing what you were going to do is not what caused you to decide as you did.

Again you are just repeating your claim.

And again your response is your just repeating your claim.---not dealing with what I said.

I know what you said at the start of the debate, and I've told you and explained to you why I think it's wrong.

And I have told you and explained to you why I think it is right.

It's now up to you to respond to my argument with your own counter-argument. You can't get anywhere, or honestly believe what you claim, if you're not going to engage in the debate.

Just because I don't agree with what you are saying does not mean I have not responded to your argument.

Quote:
Again this is your problem. We cannot agree on God making a mistake. He won't. The only thing we can agree about is that God will be right when you make your decision.

No, that's your problem. If God cannot make a mistake, you cannot do what God knows you're not going to do, so you have no choice.

Please read carefully. If God knows what I am going to choose, then I have a choice and that is what God knows.
Quote:
God and His knowledge are not part of this moment in time. They are outside of it.

That's a bit more like it - now you're producing an argument relevant to the discussion.
However, you are performing a linguistic trick by using the oft-repeated phrase, "God is outside of time." I'm not disputing the truth of that statement in any way other than I dispute the existence of God, but saying "God is outside of time" does not mean that God's knowledge doesn't exist now, which appears to be what you're saying.

I am saying God's knowledge, like God Himself does not exist in our physical world and in our time line unless God wants it to exist in our world and in our time line.

Let me explain - you claim God exists outside of time. But you also, I assume, believe God exists, and that God also exists now. That means that God exists at this moment in time - but it doesn't mean that God exists in time. So it is possible for something to exist now, but to still be outside of time. In fact, something that exists outside of time must exist now, for every now in all of time.

This is all based on the assumption that God is subject to time. I think that is a bad assumption.

Only in a world limited by liner time in which God is subject to that liner time is it true that I must have already made the decision.

Now you have reached the important point. I have not already made the decisions I am going to make in this world and subject to this liner time. The place(it is a place only in the sense it is not here in this place) that my decision is known before I make it, is outside of this world and this liner time with God in the eternal present moment in which He resides.

 

[elman]

=phsyxx;35188938]Ok, elman, here's something that should give you a reason to believe that people in the future know the past -
no sorry, people in the 22nd century know how you've lived your life now, and any major events in it.

People in the 22nd century do not exist. They may never exist.

Know of a guy called Abraham Lincoln?
Oh? Really? Well... kinda funny, because, since his actions are already written in stone and he can't do a thing about them, because he's dead, his is necessarily determined by the course of time/events to perform whatever actions he did.
Equally, if we look at people in the 22nd century looking at your life, we can see that you have no opportunity to change what you did, as they know from hindsight what actions you performed, what job you had - and - how you died.

At this point in time they know nothing.

See, from a Godly-perspective, all events are effectively the past.
They have already taken place, as God is transcendant, and is therefore able to 'perceive' all of time and space.
In this sense, then, all events and actions are layed out, and not a single one can be changed - because they (essentially) have already happened.

You assume God is just like us subject to time just as we are. I don't assume that.

 

[FishFace]

This is a bogus argument. I cannot be sure a human is loving me just because they appear to be doing things for my benefit. That does not mean they are not human. It just means we are limited on our ability to decern love.

So your argument against loving robots basically boils down to "they don't love properly - there's no way of telling whether they do or don't, but trust me, they don't."

Sorry, elman - not good enough.

 

[FishFace]

That is my point. You have to be subject to time to come within your argument. God is not subject to time.

The very reason God is subject to this argument is because he's not subject to time. God, supposedly, views time "all at once." That means that at any point in time which we experience as the present, all events, past and future, are simultaneously done, being done and yet to be done.
The implication of God being outside of time is that all events are fixed - our impression of past, present and future is all an illusion. If there is no future, then there is no way in which what we experience as the future can be undecided.

Knowing something now about what is going to happen in the future would be fixing it. We are unable to do that.

But God can - by saying this, you seem to be admitting that if something could know what happens in the future, it would be fixed. But God knows what will happen in the, or in our, future.

But God is able to fix it in your sense in His time which is the eternal presence and therefore when it comes time for you to choose, you do so and it corresponds with what God knew.

This doesn't really make any sense, and even if I try to guess what you mean, it doesn't end up being a counter-argument.
If the future is fixed, we can't freely choose.

Why not?

For the reasons I and the others have been saying over and over. All we get back is your repeated claim, "God knows what you will do, but you will do it freely." Our entire argument is that that sentence doesn't make sense. Your entire counter-argument is just repeating that sentence.

You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying and that is the reason we are not progressing.

That's because my argument is that your claim, "God knows what we will freely choose to do" is nonsense (because if it is known, it is fixed, we cannot choose to do other than what is fixed, therefore we cannot freely choose to do what we do) and I don't usually do very well at understanding non-sense.

I am saying I can make my own decison and that decision that I am going to make is what God knows I will make.

I know. But you've not yet answered how you can make that free decision, if, before you've made it, the choice you're going to make is already known.

What is set in stone is that you are free to make one of several decisions. God will know however what you are going to decide.

Again, you're repeating your original claim. The argument that we have raised is showing that this doesn't make sense. How can we be free to make one of several decisions if which decision we're going to make was known since the dawn of time?

It is also set in stone that God's knowing what you were going to do is not what caused you to decide as you did.

That's irrelevant to the argument; no-one's claiming that is the case.

And I have told you and explained to you why I think it is right.

No you haven't, you've said some pretty-sounding stuff about being outside of time, but not explained how being outside of time prevents the fact that, now, something (God) knows whether you will choose to eat toast tomorrow morning. Other than that, you've just carried on claiming that "God knows what I will freely decide to do."

Just because I don't agree with what you are saying does not mean I have not responded to your argument.

You have responded, just inadequately. Your disagreement is almost by-the-by if you can't actually provide a coherent backup for that disagreement.

Please read carefully. If God knows what I am going to choose, then I have a choice and that is what God knows.

I already know what you think. If this is all you have to say, then you have no further business here, since the debate has already moved beyond stating your claim.

I am saying God's knowledge, like God Himself does not exist in our physical world and in our time line unless God wants it to exist in our world and in our time line.

So, now, does God know whether you will eat toast tomorrow morning? If the answer is "yes" then God is subject to the argument, regardless of whether he's within time. If the answer is "no" than God is not omniscient.

This is all based on the assumption that God is subject to time.

No, it's just simple reasoning. Does God exist? You answer yes. If God is not subject to time, then, from our perspective (in time) God exists all the time.
Remember the analogy of the universe being like a film strip. We view it one frame at a time, God just looks at the entire piece of film, all at once. The problem is that, wherever we happen to be looking at the film strip, God, and God's knowledge, exists. What you seem to be claiming is that the bits of film that haven't yet happened (from our point of view) aren't yet there (or haven't yet been painted, or whatever). This would allow for us to make free decisions, because the film strip that hasn't yet been made could be any one of many different outcomes. But the fact that God sees every frame all at once means that if any frame is there, all must be there. If all are there, then there's no room for any free choices in the bits of film that we haven't looked at, yet.

This relates to the idea that, if God is outside of time, time must be an illusion of sorts. If time, and the passage of time, is not an illusion then it can't be dependent on the observer - it must apply to every entity, including God (If different observers experience the passage of time differently, then the passage of time cannot be 'real' in the sense that we usually mean it). But you say it doesn't - you say God does not experience the passage of time.
If time is not an illusion then the film that's not yet been seen may not yet have been made, since no-one has seen it. But if time is an illusion, then while we're all watching this cosmic movie scroll past our eyes, someone else is watching the ending (Of course, I don't mean 'while' here, since that implies time, but there's no suitable English word) and of course, for someone to be watching the ending, there has to 'already' (again, linguistic limitations) be an ending.

You also need to think about the past/present analogy physxxx brought up.

 

[elman]

So your argument against loving robots basically boils down to "they don't love properly - there's no way of telling whether they do or don't, but trust me, they don't."

Sorry, elman - not good enough.

What is your defintion of robot? Is it a machine that acts for another or is a machine that acts for its own benefit?

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
That is my point. You have to be subject to time to come within your argument. God is not subject to time.

The very reason God is subject to this argument is because he's not subject to time. God, supposedly, views time "all at once." That means that at any point in time which we experience as the present, all events, past and future, are simultaneously done, being done and yet to be done.

You assume to know what it means to be existing outside of time and not subject to time. I suspect you and I don't know what that means. Therefore making assumptions about it is futile.

The implication of God being outside of time is that all events are fixed

No the implication of God not being subject to time is not that we have no free will.

- our impression of past, present and future is all an illusion.

No it is not an illusion and God being not subject to time does not raise any implication of illusion.

If there is no future, then there is no way in which what we experience as the future can be undecided.

Not understandable.

Quote:
Knowing something now about what is going to happen in the future would be fixing it. We are unable to do that.

Because we cannot know what is going to happen in the future.

But God can - by saying this, you seem to be admitting that if something could know what happens in the future, it would be fixed. But God knows what will happen in the, or in our, future.

God knows what will happen and He has already fixed it.

Quote:
But God is able to fix it in your sense in His time which is the eternal presence and therefore when it comes time for you to choose, you do so and it corresponds with what God knew.

This doesn't really make any sense, and even if I try to guess what you mean, it doesn't end up being a counter-argument.

That is because God not being subject to time is not understandable by us.

If the future is fixed, we can't freely choose.

If the future is fixed to our being able to freely choose, we can.

Quote:
Why not?

For the reasons I and the others have been saying over and over.

I havn't seen any valid reasons. Repeat them.

All we get back is your repeated claim, "God knows what you will do, but you will do it freely." Our entire argument is that that sentence doesn't make sense. Your entire counter-argument is just repeating that sentence.

Telling me that sentence does not make sence is not a valid argument.


Quote:
You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying and that is the reason we are not progressing.

That's because my argument is that your claim, "God knows what we will freely choose to do" is nonsense

Only if you believe it is nonsense

.(because if it is known, it is fixed, we cannot choose to do other than what is fixed, therefore we cannot freely choose to do what we do) and I don't usually do very well at understanding non-sense.

It is know there outside time. It is not known here inside time by us. It is know by God, not us. We contiue to make our choices and God continues to know what we are going to chose. I have given example before. I can know my dog will come to me but when he comes he comes because he is trained to do so and chooses to do so not because I knew what he was going to do.

Quote:
I am saying I can make my own decison and that decision that I am going to make is what God knows I will make.

I know. But you've not yet answered how you can make that free decision, if, before you've made it, the choice you're going to make is already known.

Because knowing what I am going to do is not fixing it as in the knowers being the determining factor. The determining factor in what I am going to do is me, not what some third party knows or does not know.


Quote:
What is set in stone is that you are free to make one of several decisions. God will know however what you are going to decide.

Again, you're repeating your original claim. The argument that we have raised is showing that this doesn't make sense. How can we be free to make one of several decisions if which decision we're going to make was known since the dawn of time?

But not in time, where we are.

Quote:
It is also set in stone that God's knowing what you were going to do is not what caused you to decide as you did.

That's irrelevant to the argument; no-one's claiming that is the case.

You are claiming it is God and not me making the decision.

Quote:
And I have told you and explained to you why I think it is right.

No you haven't, you've said some pretty-sounding stuff about being outside of time, but not explained how being outside of time prevents the fact that, now, something (God) knows whether you will choose to eat toast tomorrow morning. Other than that, you've just carried on claiming that "God knows what I will freely decide to do."

Quote:
Just because I don't agree with what you are saying does not mean I have not responded to your argument.

You have responded, just inadequately. Your disagreement is almost by-the-by if you can't actually provide a coherent backup for that disagreement.


Quote:
Please read carefully. If God knows what I am going to choose, then I have a choice and that is what God knows.

I already know what you think. If this is all you have to say, then you have no further business here, since the debate has already moved beyond stating your claim.

If you think my choice is an illusion, you may need to go back to square one.

Quote:
I am saying God's knowledge, like God Himself does not exist in our physical world and in our time line unless God wants it to exist in our world and in our time line.

So, now, does God know whether you will eat toast tomorrow morning? If the answer is "yes" then God is subject to the argument, regardless of whether he's within time. If the answer is "no" than God is not omniscient.

Since God does not make mistakes, the answer is what I decide to do. That is what God knows I will do.


Quote:
This is all based on the assumption that God is subject to time.

No, it's just simple reasoning. Does God exist? You answer yes. If God is not subject to time, then, from our perspective (in time) God exists all the time.
Remember the analogy of the universe being like a film strip. We view it one frame at a time, God just looks at the entire piece of film, all at once. The problem is that, wherever we happen to be looking at the film strip, God, and God's knowledge, exists. What you seem to be claiming is that the bits of film that haven't yet happened (from our point of view) aren't yet there (or haven't yet been painted, or whatever). This would allow for us to make free decisions, because the film strip that hasn't yet been made could be any one of many different outcomes. But the fact that God sees every frame all at once means that if any frame is there, all must be there. If all are there, then there's no room for any free choices in the bits of film that we haven't looked at, yet.

You are assuming limitation on God's ability. I am not. Your little analogy is about this world, not God's world.

This relates to the idea that, if God is outside of time, time must be an illusion of sorts.

Not anymore than you and I are illusions since God is separte from and different from us.

If time, and the passage of time, is not an illusion then it can't be dependent on the observer - it must apply to every entity, including God

It is not possible for you and I to understand not being subject to time so you keep making God subject to time so you can understand it.

(If different observers experience the passage of time differently, then the passage of time cannot be 'real' in the sense that we usually mean it). But you say it doesn't - you say God does not experience the passage of time.

God experiences whatever He wants to experience.

If time is not an illusion then the film that's not yet been seen may not yet have been made, since no-one has seen it. But if time is an illusion, then while we're all watching this cosmic movie scroll past our eyes, someone else is watching the ending (Of course, I don't mean 'while' here, since that implies time, but there's no suitable English word) and of course, for someone to be watching the ending, there has to 'already' (again, linguistic limitations) be an ending.

You also need to think about the past/present analogy physxxx brought up.

God is not subject to past present.

 

[FishFace]

What is your defintion of robot? Is it a machine that acts for another or is a machine that acts for its own benefit?

My definition of robot doesn't really include those concepts. The robots we have at the moment are all pre-programmed to do a limited number of tasks. The robots of the future will possibly have a form of intelligence that is grown more than programmed, by use of genetic algorithms and suchlike. Would that act for itself or others?

Not that this matters, since you've still not justified a distinction between love and "love."

 

[FishFace]

OK, elman, I give up - there's no point trying to hold a debate with someone who either cannot or does not want to hold one. Your one-line responses are irritating, more so because they are all repetitious, unsupported assertions. You say that I don't understand what out of time means - well, it's up to you to say what it does mean and why what I've been saying doesn't fit.
You say that God being outside of time doesn't make the passage of time an illusion which, aside from philosophers more eminent than myself, is also unsupported - you have to say why and give reasons.
You repeat the same old assertion which started the entire argument - that "God knows what we will freely choose to do" without responding to the counterarguments brought against it.
You repeat the same strawman that "God's knowledge doesn't cause our decision" (or words to that effect)

It's as if you've not actually read any of the topic, simply on autopilot.

No need to respond to this post. All you can probably take away from it is that you're not going to convince many people of your point of view if all you're willing to do is repeat unsupported assertions.

 

[elman]

=FishFace;35231053]OK, elman, I give up - there's no point trying to hold a debate with someone who either cannot or does not want to hold one. Your one-line responses are irritating, more so because they are all repetitious, unsupported assertions. You say that I don't understand what out of time means - well, it's up to you to say what it does mean and why what I've been saying doesn't fit.

If you read what I wrote you would see I said neither you nor I can understand what being outside of time or not subject to time means. We don't understand what we are talking about when we talk about God. Spiritual concepts are not definable nor understandable to us, but you mistake is you want to place spiritual things like God under the limitations of us physical things and that does not make sense.

You say that God being outside of time doesn't make the passage of time an illusion which, aside from philosophers more eminent than myself, is also unsupported - you have to say why and give reasons.

No I don't. It was your assertion that God being outside of time would make our experience of time an illusion. You have to prove that.

You repeat the same old assertion which started the entire argument - that "God knows what we will freely choose to do" without responding to the counterarguments brought against it.

Your counter arguments did not prove that God was not able to know what I was going to choose before I chose it and still give me the power to make my own choice.

You repeat the same strawman that "God's knowledge doesn't cause our decision" (or words to that effect)

The strawman is tht God's knowledge takes away our freewill.

It's as if you've not actually read any of the topic, simply on autopilot.

I read it I don't agree with it and I don't agree with the premise that God has to operate with the same limitation as we operate.

No need to respond to this post. All you can probably take away from it is that you're not going to convince many people of your point of view if all you're willing to do is repeat unsupported assertions.

Responding that they are unsupported is not really dealing with them is it?

 

[FishFace]

If you read what I wrote you would see I said neither you nor I can understand what being outside of time or not subject to time means.

If that is your claim then, clearly, "outside of time" is nonsense.

We don't understand what we are talking about when we talk about God.

A tired get-out clause, I'm afraid.

No I don't. It was your assertion that God being outside of time would make our experience of time an illusion. You have to prove that.

If it is possible for one agent to not experience the passage of time, then the passage of time is not something inherent to observing the universe.

The strawman is tht God's knowledge takes away our freewill.

Read the wikipedia article on Strawmen, please.

Responding that they are unsupported is not really dealing with them is it?

How would you deal with the claim "There exists a cosmic teapot somewhere in the asteroid belt, but all telescopes and other instruments are incapable of detecting it" other than to say, "that claim is unsupported."

 

[MARK777]

Edit - I will review the text I originally posted here in more detail and re-post if I still find it suited and understandable.

 

[phsyxx]

People in the 22nd century do not exist. They may never exist.

At this point in time they know nothing.


You assume God is just like us subject to time just as we are. I don't assume that.

Perhaps, Elman, just PERHAPS I know what the word "Transcendent" means, perhaps you don't, and perhaps your argument doesn't make any sense, or perhaps it isn't EVEN an argument.
You know why?
A refutation of a claim is not a claim in itself.

"at this point in time they know nothing"
Oh, yeah, good one Elman!
I suppose now I know nothing about Abraham Lincoln!
Simply because, according to your view, people in the future can't possibly know about what happened in the past, because we live in the present.

What kind of tripe are you trying to put across here?
And I feel, quite frankly, I'm not the only one here that feels this way - you're simply refuting every single strand or line of argument we all present, whether or not you contradict yourself in your own refutations!

So please - don't tell me what I assume, because you simply, (and through observational techniques I have found this) have demonstrated that YOU do not understand what is being said here.
When I say "God can see all of time, like a book open before him, he can see every page and every word that is written, where as we can see only the line upon which we sit, and are walking along" I do not LITERALLY mean God has a book infront of him - OK?
It's an analogy!!!
Do you know what that means?
It means I'm demonstrating a point of view through a comparison from a set of imagery / concept to shows the similarities and demonstrate my argument in a SIMPLIFIED FORM.
It SHOULD make it easier to understand. But obviously, someone has to pick a hole in the analogy, and even then, they go in and pick open a hole that's NOT EVEN THERE!
To say that "people in the 22nd century don't exist" shows a COMPLETE misunderstanding of the hypothetical nature of an analogy.
YES!
Alright...so what if there's a chance that people may not exist in the future - but then we'd have to take into account ALL the possibilities , and then where exactly would that leave us?
Oh yes - so dinosaurs could then reappear from an island that has been buried, and then the nuclei attached to this molecule of water could split - causing a massive explosion and the entire human race could turn into blobby-water beings!

Brilliant Elman! You've deduced that there's a chance people mightn't exist in the future - but for the sake of reasoning, and for the sake of continuity (i.e, humans have done alright for two million years [6044 if you're a creationist, and even then, the world has been designed, so you're catered for] so why should they suddenly disappear?) let's just say that things go as they always have done.

Right.
There is a past, there is a present.
This present moves into the past.
Therefore, to the previous present, we are effectively in the future.

Following Elman?

Now to us in this NEW present, the things known beforehand are now old, and handed down knowledge.
EXAMPLE: How to drive a car.

To a present beyond this pastpresent, (as the present moment becomes past continually) the knowledge of : How to fly a car, is also old.
But to us, it hasn't occured yet.


Now - if you can stretch your imagination - then perhaps you can see that time is moving inexorably forwards.
No?
See.....the time from your knowing what I have written, to the time you respond causes these words to be the past.
But, since I had not written them until I typed, they were the future, now present as I type them, and past as you read them.

This shows that knowledge is GAINED by the future, and also that the future is INEVITABLE. It also shows that time seemingly follows a linear pattern, and that things seem pretty mundane and ordered, so something extreme happening is unlikely, and it would have to happen to stop the series of events like these ones, from continuing onwards as they always do.

Transcendent: Otherworldly, unconfined, unrestrained, magnificent, beyond the limits and confines of time and space.

 

[phsyxx]

If you read what I wrote you would see I said neither you nor I can understand what being outside of time or not subject to time means. We don't understand what we are talking about when we talk about God.

I'm sorry....Elman......you are Christian, right?
It's just.....saying things like
"We don't understand what we are talking about when we talk about God" seems a very odd thing to say... as, well, if you're a Christian, you're going to be talking about God ALOT, right?
So aren't you saying a load of stuff you don't understand?
And equally, aren't you wasting your time?
If you can't understand God, nor can you understand any of his properties ("we cannot know what being outside of time means"), then why bother?


And thirdly and finally, if the above post is your refutation to the arguments put forward by several members in regards to determinism - then, erm....
you do realise that most are trying to argue using the concept of the Christian God, right?
I mean, if you say "we can't know", then wouldn't it be sensible to discard the idea of God right now?
Then perhaps we could argue FOR or AGAINST determinism in terms of environmental and genetic factors, rather than attempting to play about with this completely unknowable God of yours.

 

[FishFace]

It was only a matter of time before one of us flipped, physxx... I guess I win this time, though

(I understand your pain, of course. Well done for surviving this long, and I hope you feel better, now!)

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
If you read what I wrote you would see I said neither you nor I can understand what being outside of time or not subject to time means.

If that is your claim then, clearly, "outside of time" is nonsense.

Do you call that a response?

Quote:
We don't understand what we are talking about when we talk about God.

A tired get-out clause, I'm afraid.

Is that the kind of response you want from me?

Quote:
No I don't. It was your assertion that God being outside of time would make our experience of time an illusion. You have to prove that.

If it is possible for one agent to not experience the passage of time, then the passage of time is not something inherent to observing the universe.

What are you saying God cannot do? I think you are saying that God can observe the universe even though He is outside of or not subject to time. If that is what you are saying I agree.

Quote:
The strawman is tht God's knowledge takes away our freewill.

Read the wikipedia article on Strawmen, please.

No I know what a strawman is so I need not waste my time that way.

Quote:
Responding that they are unsupported is not really dealing with them is it?

How would you deal with the claim "There exists a cosmic teapot somewhere in the asteroid belt, but all telescopes and other instruments are incapable of detecting it" other than to say, "that claim is unsupported."

I agree that claim is not supported by evidence and cannot therefore be proven to be true. I also agree this is true of God and being outside of time. However there are reasons to believe in God and a being that is not subject to time, but I see no reasons to believe in your cosmic teapot.