Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The causes are always what was happening or what was going on prior to that, or previous circumstances/events before it, and those always cause what happens next, and has been going on/happening since the beginning of this reality/universe actually, when maybe this hypothetical being first caused/created/programmed, or very first set things in motion probably.
It still stands that no being can know 100% and at the same time not know 100%, or those possibilities be anything other than 100%, and any being anywhere also know it 100%. So far I've seen nothing that can refute that. If they are ever anything other than 100% always, then no being anywhere can absolutely always know it for sure 100%.
And, yes 100% full omniscience about everything does also equate to 100% full foreknowledge of everything 100%.
I never said omniscience was the cause, but only that the cause was how that hypothetical being, a.k.a. "God", designed/chose/caused/made everything happen/go, etc, etc, etc, from the very beginning.Ah, but now you've added in a whole new issue, that this omniscient being was also the cause. That's two different things. This thread is about God's omniscience, and God's omniscience isn't the cause. You've taken two different things and melded them together.
Because your pride can't handle a correction? Yep, got it. Just put me on ignore again, ok.And this is why you were on 'ignore'.
I get it now, you are trying to claim that the actors in the movie/video still had a free will to do otherwise, had they wanted to.Test it yourself.
Go watch a video.
Then watch it again.
You'll know ahead of time who is going to say what and when.
In fact, you'll know how it ends before it even starts.
Yet the actors in that video had 100% freewill.
It automatically results in not 100% full omniscience unless all possibilities are always absolutely 100%. Which would automatically mean that no other possibilities exist, etc.
I'm not doing either, just trying to get you guys to see it, etc.All I hear you saying here is that we don't know the future second by second with 100% accuracy.
To that I agree.
So are you rejoicing about it? or complaining?
Your argument about this is a non sequitur. An omniscient being existing outside our spacetime knows that one day in the year 1825 an individual human eats a steak. He also knows that one day in the year 3025 someone eats a taco. How does it follow that His knowledge causes either to be eaten?Omniscience negates free will, etc.
Everything is caused/determined from the beginning. What caused either one of those people to do/choose/think either one of those things was already caused from the beginning. His knowledge never steps in and causes it but it/they all originated with the very first cause/event at the beginning. Which was him, or originated with him.Your argument about this is a non sequitur. An omniscient being existing outside our spacetime knows that one day in the year 1825 an individual human eats a steak. He also knows that one day in the year 3025 someone eats a taco. How does it follow that His knowledge causes either to be eaten?
(If you choose to reply I probably won't reply back, but I did want to ask this.)
That statement is based on an assumption that God did not grant free will. It does not at all even approach being an argument that God did not grant free will.Everything is caused/determined from the beginning.
100% full omniscience is 100% incompatible with free will. Look back through the thread.That statement is based on an assumption that God did not grant free will. It does not at all even approach being an argument that God did not grant free will.
Everything is caused/determined from the beginning. What caused either one of those people to do/choose/think either one of those things was already caused from the beginning. His knowledge never steps in and causes it but it/they all originated with the very first cause/event at the beginning.
Free will doesn't ever apply to the past, but only the present, and the future, since you cannot ever go back and change or re-choose anything in the past, but only the present, and the future.I'm going to unignore you for a second in order posit that by using your own logic it doesn't actually matter whether there's an omniscient being or not, because your knowledge alone would be sufficient to negate your free will.
In other words, you know what you posted yesterday, and by using your own logic that would mean that since you know what you posted yesterday with 100% certainty, you couldn't possibly have posted anything else. Thus your own knowledge should be sufficient to negate your free will. Not to mention all the other people who know what you posted yesterday. So if the knowledge of our past choices is sufficient to negate the free will nature of those choices, then the existence of an omniscient being is irrelevant. They become just another being that knows what you posted yesterday.
So your argument actually boils down to... knowledge of the past negates the possibility of free will. Thus the existence of an omniscient being is just a red herring.
Free will doesn't ever apply to the past, but only the present, and the future, since you cannot ever go back and change or re-choose anything in the past, but only the present, and the future.
My argument is that 100% full knowledge of all past present and future events for as long as this universe/reality/world/creation lasts, or is meant to last, or exists, negates being able to know all of them for 100% sure 100%, if they are not all 100%. Free will, if it was to exist, would only apply to the present and the future, and not ever the past, if it was to exist, and I apologize if I wasn't very clear about that.But that's not your argument. Your argument is that knowledge of past events negates the possibility of the free will nature of those events. That's your argument whether you realize it or not.
Your knowledge may not be as all-encompassing as an omniscient being's is, but it should still have the same effect.
I know what I posted yesterday, but I'm not seeing how it can have anything to say about my having free will or not when I did it or not, or have anything to say about my having free will or not today?But that's not your argument. Your argument is that knowledge of past events negates the possibility of the free will nature of those events. That's your argument whether you realize it or not.
Your knowledge may not be as all-encompassing as an omniscient being's is, but it should still have the same effect.
@partinobodycular
And about this theoretical 100% all-knowing being, or a.k.a. God from or at the very beginning, the way he would have saw it all or was seeing it all from before anything else was made, or came into being, would be by (instantly?) (or at single moments in time maybe?) envisioning all kinds of different paths, or different possibilities, and then choosing one of them to set forth or make happen/go from the very beginning, knowing how he would have to originally set it all in motion or start it out a certain way in order to result in that specific path, or in that particular possibility, and then making it all go or happen that way from or at the very beginning, but already knowing/seeing it all already, in maybe "single moments in time" maybe, as he was considering each one each individually maybe, from or at or right before the very beginning, and then making it happen that way, which he only had to do at the very beginning, etc.
Anyway, don't know, but it's something to think about maybe?
Take Care.
A bald assertion which you haven't supported with argument.100% full omniscience is 100% incompatible with free will.
Nowhere in the thread have you supported it. And by the way, your conversation with AI in the OP doesn't make sense. Since you didn't use quotation marks, I don't know if those are your exact words, but if they are, the questions are sloppy and don't make sense.Look back through the thread.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?