God cannot be all-mighty

[elman]

I don't believe anyone here has said god makes these choices for you, they are your own choices, but with a god's omnipotence, specifically foreknowledge, you are destined to make these choices, the choices a god has always known you will choose.

You cannot choose anything else.

I can choose anything I want. That is what choice means. Whatever choice I make that is the choice that God knew I would make. My free will is intact.

 

[elman]

=Telephone]

Or fanciful fiction.

a possibility, certainly not a certainty

If the concept is so simple, so everyday, perhaps you can explain it in some detail ?

Where did I say it was simple or everyday or a concept that beings in time can understand? Answer: I didn't.

 

[Telephone]

I can choose anything I want. That is what choice means. Whatever choice I make that is the choice that God knew I would make.

Here is a simple hypothetical question for you, first let me set the scenario:

In the future, person X will be born and at the age of 48 person X will choose to move to Australia with his family to take up a job offer.

This will all happen in the future, let's say in 100 years time.

God has always know this person's life would play out this way, god has always know this person would choose to move to Australia.

.... now let's fast forward 100 years, it is the day before person X must make his big choice, these are the choices he faces:


A: Stay put and take the job promotion offered by his boss.

B: Take the job offer in Australia and move there with his family.

C Take the job offer near his parents house in Scotland.


Now bear in mind that for all intents and purposes we, just like the Christian diety, have inerrant foreknowledge, we know the outcome will be choice B.

Now for my question:

Can person X choose option A or option C ?

My free will is intact.

It may 'feel' that way, but an omniscient diety negates freewill and foreknowledge negates choice.

Is is simply the illusion of freewill.

 

[Telephone]

Where did I say it was simple or everyday or a concept that beings in time can understand?

Elman wrote: I don't understand your problem with a concept that posits some reality is subject to time and some reality is not subject to time

 

[JonF]

Can person X choose option A or option C ?

Of course not, but I think you are insinuating a causal connection that you have yet to establish.

 

[elman]

Here is a simple hypothetical question for you, first let me set the scenario:

In the future, person X will be born and at the age of 48 person X will choose to move to Australia with his family to take up a job offer.

This will all happen in the future, let's say in 100 years time.

God has always know this person's life would play out this way, god has always know this person would choose to move to Australia.

.... now let's fast forward 100 years, it is the day before person X must make his big choice, these are the choices he faces:


A: Stay put and take the job promotion offered by his boss.

B: Take the job offer in Australia and move there with his family.

C Take the job offer near his parents house in Scotland.


Now bear in mind that for all intents and purposes we, just like the Christian diety, have inerrant foreknowledge, we know the outcome will be choice B.

Now for my question:

Can person X choose option A or option C ?



It may 'feel' that way, but an omniscient diety negates freewill and foreknowledge negates choice.

Is is simply the illusion of freewill.

If the person can chose A we do not know the choice will be B. If we know what the person is going to chose then that is what they will chose and they will not chose something else. If they were going to chose A or C that is what we would have known they would chose and we would not have known they would chose B.

 

[elman]

Elman wrote: I don't understand your problem with a concept that posits some reality is subject to time and some reality is not subject to time

Where does that comment say I thought understanding being outside time was simple to understand and explain in detail?

 

[elman]

It may 'feel' that way, but an omniscient diety negates freewill and foreknowledge negates choice.

Is is simply the illusion of freewill.

Neither foreknowledge nor an omniscient diety negates freewill and the idea that it does is an illusion.

 

[Telephone]

Of course not,

If person X cannot choose option A or option C then where is his free will in the matter ?

but I think you are insinuating a causal connection that you have yet to establish. [/SIZE][/FONT]

Could you show me where in my hypothetical scenario I am insinuating a causal connection ?

 

[Telephone]

If we know what the person is going to chose then that is what they will chose

Indeed.

and they will not chose something else.

Indeed, they cannot choose anything else, it is impossible.

There is no true free will for person X, he cannot choose option A or option C, he can only follow a single foreknown path.

If they were going to chose A or C that is what we would have known they would chose

In the specific scenario our inerrant omniscient diety knows person X will choose option B, nothing else.

and we would not have known they would chose B.

Indeed we would not have known they would chose B, we would have known they would choose option A or we would have known they would choose option C.

Regardless of the choice, if it is preknown by an inerrant diety nothing else can be selected.

An omniscient diety with foreknowledge negates free will.

 

[Telephone]

Neither foreknowledge nor an omniscient diety negates freewill and the idea that it does is an illusion.

Would you like to contribute any further than a blanket statement without explanation or back up ?

 

[JonF]

Could you show me where in my hypothetical scenario I am insinuating a causal connection ?

sure

If person X cannot choose option A or option C then where is his free will in the matter ?

Please show the causal connection between a person choosing choice B, and a person not having free will. As I understand your argument it goes something like this:

1) God has all knowledge
2) God has knowledge of a particular event X in the future
3) God’s knowledge causes event X to happen
4) Therefore we have no free will in relation to event X.

I don’t agree with #3.

 

[Telephone]

Telephone wrote:Could you show me where in my hypothetical scenario I am insinuating a causal connection

sure

Telephone wrote: If person X cannot choose option A or option C then where is his free will in the matter ?

Ignoring the fact that the above statement from myself was not in my hypothetical scenario but a later response to one of your own questions, I still fail to see where in this response I am attributing cause and to whom or what ?

I have been clear in this thread about any speculative cause to future events, It is not part of my conversation and I have certainly not attributed cause to a god.

Here is a response from me to elman earlier in this thread:

I don't believe anyone here has said god makes these choices for you, they are your own choices.

I think it is clear I am not trying to make a causal connection with a god:

And from another post:

elman: Knowing what I am going to do is not the same as causing me to do it.

telephone: This is correct, foreknowledge does not cause an event.

Please show the causal connection between a person choosing choice B, and a person not having free will.

This person cannot choose option A or option C, he can only choose option B.

]As I understand your argument it goes something like this:

1) God has all knowledge
2) God has knowledge of a particular event X in the future

Yes, omniscience would give a god foreknowledge

3) God’s knowledge causes event X to happen

No, I have never implemented a gods knowledge as a cause.

4) Therefore we have no free will in relation to event X.

I don’t agree with #3.

No, neither do I.

 

[JonF]

Telephone wrote:Could you show me where in my hypothetical scenario I am insinuating a causal connection

Telephone wrote: If person X cannot choose option A or option C then where is his free will in the matter ?

Ignoring the fact that the above statement from myself was not in my hypothetical scenario but a later response to one of your own questions, I still fail to see where in this response I am attributing cause and to whom or what ?

it wasn’t a response to one of my questions, I don’t think I’ve even asked a question in this thread. Also the above was a direct response you made to your hypothetical scenario.

I have been clear in this thread about any speculative cause to future events, It is not part of my conversation and I have certainly not attributed cause to a god.

Here is a response from me to elman earlier in this thread:

I don't believe anyone here has said god makes these choices for you, they are your own choices.

I think it is clear I am not trying to make a causal connection with a god:

And from another post:

elman: Knowing what I am going to do is not the same as causing me to do it.

telephone: This is correct, foreknowledge does not cause an event.




This person cannot choose option A or option C, he can only choose option B.



Yes, omniscience would give a god foreknowledge



No, I have never implemented a gods knowledge as a cause.



No, neither do I.

Fine, we agree. This leaves you with.
1) God has all knowledge
2) God has knowledge of a particular event X in the future
4) Therefore we have no free will in relation to event X.
With premise #3 removed #4 no longer follows. Claims about “free will” are a claim about cause. So you need to make a causal connection somewhere in your argument.

I would argue this instead:
1) Via our free will choose to perform action X at time T.
2) Us performing action X at time T causes God to know action X at time T will happen

 

[Telephone]

it wasn’t a response to one of my questions, I don’t think I’ve even asked a question in this thread. Also the above was a direct response you made to your hypothetical scenario.

Apologies, it was a respone to your statement "Of course not, but I think you are insinuating a causal connection that you have yet to establish."

I would argue this instead:

1) Via our free will [we] choose to perform action X at time T.

2) Us performing action X at time T causes God to know action X at time T will happen

This makes little sense.

If our actions inform a god's knowledge then that god cannot be said to have foreknowledge.

If we rewind a million years or so, before you or I perform action X, god foreknows we will take this action, he does not have to wait until we take the action to know it will happen.

Fast foward a million years back to my original hypothetical scenario, person X cannot choose anything except option B.

Omniscience only allows the illusion of free will.

Foreknowledge by an inerrant deity somewhat limits your real choices.

I suspect we are getting close to showing the lack of sound reasoning or logic in the coupling of omniscience and free will, time perhaps to wheel out some "god is not constrained by time" or "we do not understand that which we do not understand" type arguments ?

Somebody switch my brain off and pass me that bible.

 

[JonF]

Apologies, it was a respone to your statement "Of course not, but I think you are insinuating a causal connection that you have yet to establish."

yes, then you claimed that you posted something in response to one of my questions. Oddly I have yet to pose a question.

This makes little sense.

If our actions inform a god's knowledge then that god cannot be said to have foreknowledge.

If we rewind a million years or so, before you or I perform action X, god foreknows we will take this action, he does not have to wait until we take the action to know it will happen.

Fast foward a million years back to my original hypothetical scenario, person X cannot choose anything except option B.

again we are in agreement, God knows the choice I will make. But statements about free will are statements about cause. “You can’t have free will” means the cause of your actions isn’t choice. You have said you have made no causal claim. How is it then you are showing we don’t have free will? You yourself said foreknowledge doesn’t cause the event. But here you seem to claiming that God’s foreknowledge causes us to perform an action?

Maybe you are meaning something substandard by “free will”?

Omniscience only allows the illusion of free will.

we understand that is your position.

I suspect we are getting close to showing the lack of sound reasoning or logic in the coupling of omniscience and free will, time perhaps to wheel out some "god is not constrained by time" or "we do not understand that which we do not understand" type arguments ?

Somebody switch my brain off and pass me that bible.

I suspect responses like that might be appropriate in response to people who argue via ad Hominem. But hey, way to show that we Christians are the ignorant fools who can’t handle an intelligent argument respectfully.

 

[Telephone]

yes, then you claimed that you posted something in response to one of my questions. Oddly I have yet to pose a question.

I think you may have already state this !

again we are in agreement, God knows the choice I will make. But statements about free will are statements about cause.

Are you so sure !?

Free will may be limited by the fact that there is only a single path or single option to take, no other exists.

“You can’t have free will” means the cause of your actions isn’t choice. You have said you have made no causal claim. How is it then you are showing we don’t have free will? You yourself said foreknowledge doesn’t cause the event. But here you seem to claiming that God’s foreknowledge causes us to perform an action?

I have repeatedly pointed out that I do not believe god's foreknowledge causes us to perform an action, please take some time to read this thread in detail.

Maybe you are meaning something substandard by “free will”?

My point is that omniscience undermines the notion of true free will.

I suspect responses like that might be appropriate in response to people who argue via ad Hominem. But hey, way to show that we Christians are the ignorant fools who can’t handle an intelligent argument respectfully.

I often become frustrated at superstitious folk's recourse to semantics and bizzare logic tricks in an attempt to defend bronze age deity worship, this frustration was perhaps unfairly aimed at you, sorry about that !

 

[elman]

Would you like to contribute any further than a blanket statement without explanation or back up ?

I did explain and that was your statement turned on its ear. You are the one that said free will was just an illusion.

 

[elman]

Indeed.

In the specific scenario our inerrant omniscient diety knows person X will choose option B, nothing else.

There is where your example breaks down. An inerrant omniscient diety would not know person x was going to chose B unless B is what he was going to chose. An omniscient diety with foreknowledge does not negate free will

 

[Mortensen]

What if you ask God about the future and get an answer? Because of this discussion, I am sure this have never happened bacuse then the situation would have proven either that destiny is a fact or that God is not allmighty.

If you are in a life or death situation. You are in the middle of the dessert or something. Why struggle to survive when whatever you do, the outcome would be the same?