A conversation I am having right now with DeepSeek LLM/AI.

[partinobodycular]

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.

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.

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%.

And this is why you were on 'ignore'.

 

[Neogaia777]

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.

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.

All the trajectories/velocities/interactions/resulting reactions were already fully known/made/caused, and caused all the resulting causes/interactions/reactions, that were always fully known/designed/caused by that One, from the very beginning, and there has never been any other way any of it can ever happen/go since then, or since the very beginning, or no other possibilities, and no need for that One to ever to try to intervene/act/interfere since that time ever, or since the very beginning. It can only ever happen or go according to the way that One (or those ones) already fully knew/knows from the very beginning. It's all math at it's core actually. Stuff goes, then interacts and reacts, and that's all this ever is/was/has been, from the very beginning.

And this is why you were on 'ignore'.

Because your pride can't handle a correction? Yep, got it. Just put me on ignore again, ok.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

I would strongly encourage all of you to pay very, very close attention to post #18 by me in light of what I'm right now arguing about or am saying, ok. It's very, very important that you pay very, very close attention to that particular post in this discussion, ok. Don't miss out on that particular post, ok.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

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.

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.

But that's also not what I'm saying or am trying to argue here also, it's about any other being knowing what anybody or anything will do 100%, and if they know 100%, then there is not any other way it can happen or go 100%, otherwise no being anywhere can know it 100%, because it's not 100%, and that's the very math/nature/logic of possibilities that either are or are not 100%, and no being anywhere can know them for 100% sure if they are not 100%.

In your video, if the actors could have ever been able to choose or do anything otherwise, even if that possibility was infantesimaly small, then no being anywhere could have ever known it for sure 100%, unless that possibility was absolutely 100%, and then and only then can you/me/they ever know it for 100% sure 100%.

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.

God Bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

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?

 

[Neogaia777]

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?

I'm not doing either, just trying to get you guys to see it, etc.

Omniscience negates free will, etc.

 

[Chesterton]

Omniscience negates free will, etc.

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.)

 

[Neogaia777]

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.)

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.

God Bless.

 

[Chesterton]

Everything is caused/determined from the beginning.

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.

 

[Neogaia777]

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.

100% full omniscience is 100% incompatible with free will. Look back through the thread.

God Bless.

 

[partinobodycular]

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.

I'm going to unignore you for a second in order to 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.

 

[Neogaia777]

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.

Oh, and I don't care whether or not you think a 100% fully omniscient being exists or not, but I am just saying that if you do, or you think there is any being that can know a present or future choice of anyone or anything for 100% certain 100%, then it can't know for 100% sure or certain unless it's 100%. And if all of them are always 100% (which is required for 100% full omniscience) then no other possibilities (or free will) for anyone or anything actually exists.

Take Care.

 

[partinobodycular]

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.

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.

 

[Neogaia777]

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.

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.

 

[Neogaia777]

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?

Can you maybe try to explain that to me a little bit more maybe? Because I am trying here actually.

Take Care.

 

[Neogaia777]

@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.

 

[partinobodycular]

@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.

Okay, let me ask you a couple of questions?

First, how would you describe the process by which we humans make free will choices?

Second, does an omniscient being's knowledge about the outcome of that process alter that process in any way whatsoever?

My point being that if the process is exactly the same whether there's an omniscient being or not, then that omniscient being's knowledge is irrelevant to whether or not it was a free will choice. The process is completely unaffected by the knowledge.

 

[Chesterton]

100% full omniscience is 100% incompatible with free will.

A bald assertion which you haven't supported with argument.

Look back through the thread.

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.

By the way, mind if I ask what religion you are? Your screen name looks like it could be neo-Gaia.