Mathematics

[nuclear]

Are you God? Who are you to say what God's purpose is?

It's a conclusion reached through reasoning that follows later in the paragraph that you forgot to quote. Do you have a problem with the reasoning? Please explain.

 

[Dylock]

gods purpose is to deceive, just look at descartes ment as a joke, dont stone me.

a lot more people are compatiblists then you would think

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

I thought freewill was something like this:

If we could go back into the past, we could choose differently.

right now, we are in the past, if God knows what we will do/choose... then we can't choose differently than what he already knows.

Wait... Are you saying that because he knows what we will do we don't have the choice as to what we will do?

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

It's a conclusion reached through reasoning that follows later in the paragraph that you forgot to quote. Do you have a problem with the reasoning? Please explain.

"God created Billy-the-[insert any religion other than Christianity or lack thereof here] for the sole purpose of Billy going to hell."

The bold, underlined italic is what I have a big problem with. Just because someone isn't saved doesn't mean that they don't have a purpose.

 

[Asimov]

Wait... Are you saying that because he knows what we will do we don't have the choice as to what we will do?

Yes, that is what is being said. Because we can't refrain from doing x at point t, we don't have a choice as to whether or not to do x at point t.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Yes, that is what is being said. Because we can't refrain from doing x at point t, we don't have a choice as to whether or not to do x at point t.

interesting... Kinda what I was thinking, but I wasn't thinking that far.

 

[EverlastingMan]

I thought freewill was something like this:

If we could go back into the past, we could choose differently.

right now, we are in the past, if God knows what we will do/choose... then we can't choose differently than what he already knows.

We are not in the past though. For us it is the present, but, you seem to be saying, it is the past for God because it already happened for him. This however is false. God knows because he is observing. Every moment past present future is the present to God. In fact, from after time ends God is still observing every moment. He really has no future, he is a present God.

Nor does the fact that we choose one way, that what we will choose is already known, and that once we choose we cannot change our choice undermine free-will. That we will choose one way and not both ways or a number of ways is obvious as is that we cannot change that choice once we have made it- not to say, however, that once we choose to say become an athiest we cannot change that choice and be a buddhist or something else. Regarding the other point: it is by no means true that simply because an entity is aware of a future event or choice that they caused it. This is a non-sequitur. To know is not to cause.

 

[Asimov]

We are not in the past though. For us it is the present, but, you seem to be saying, it is the past for God because it already happened for him. This however is false. God knows because he is observing. Every moment past present future is the present to God. In fact, from after time ends God is still observing every moment. He really has no future, he is a present God.

Nor does the fact that we choose one way, that what we will choose is already known, and that once we choose we cannot change our choice undermine free-will. That we will choose one way and not both ways or a number of ways is obvious as is that we cannot change that choice once we have made it- not to say, however, that once we choose to say become an athiest we cannot change that choice and be a buddhist or something else. Regarding the other point: it is by no means true that simply because an entity is aware of a future event or choice that they caused it. This is a non-sequitur. To know is not to cause.

I'm having trouble understanding your post since you are going off on too many tangents. Could you structure your rebuttal in a way that is a little easier to digest and provide a counter-rebuttal?

And you attributed that quote to me, when I didn't say it.

 

[EverlastingMan]

I'm having trouble understanding your post since you are going off on too many tangents. Could you structure your rebuttal in a way that is a little easier to digest and provide a counter-rebuttal?

And you attributed that quote to me, when I didn't say it.

My bad. I didn't bother go back to the original post.

My first paragraph states that there is no past for God, it is all the present. Thus if it is the present for us and the present for God there is no way to say that it is in fact the past.

My second paragraph states that the assumption that God knows what we are choosing does not mean that he made us choose that. It is a non-sequitur. I may have known that you would ask for clarification but I did not make you.
This is a bare bones summary of what I was saying, so if you still don't know what I was saying tell me and I will state what I am saying more fully.

 

[Asimov]

My bad. I didn't bother go back to the original post.

My first paragraph states that there is no past for God, it is all the present. Thus if it is the present for us and the present for God there is no way to say that it is in fact the past.

My second paragraph states that the assumption that God knows what we are choosing does not mean that he made us choose that. It is a non-sequitur. I may have known that you would ask for clarification but I did not make you.
This is a bare bones summary of what I was saying, so if you still don't know what I was saying tell me and I will state what I am saying more fully.

Well let's see how it pans out. Just making assertions regarding this without reasoning it out is a bit misguided.

We know that God is eternal, that is, time does not exist for him. The statement regarding anything about the past, present and future would then obviously relate to us.

We know that God necessarily exists, that is, everything that actually exists is contingent upon him. This is in regards to the idea of causality, and that if causality is true we can trace all cause and effect relations to one ultimate cause, which would be God.

We know that because God is omniscient, he knows what we will do, have done and are doing. This is because he can view our universe in the past, present, and future...he exists in all times and all places (omnipresent).

If these are true, we can conclude these things:

1. That because the existence and causal relationships are dependant upon God existing and causing the universe that he caused everything to be with the knowledge of what would happen were he to do so.
C. God caused everything to happen.

2. That because our future is known, the path is already set before us and we are just walking it.
2A. Libertarian Free Will does state that if we do have free will, we could refrain from doing x at point t. If the path is already set, we MUST do x at point t, regardless of our knowledge, circumstances, or attempts to prevent it. All of our actions are predetermined before we do them.
C. There is no free will.

Final Notes:
If the future is known by a contingent being, then that future is not necessarily set by that contingent being due to its nature of being contingent.

If the future is known by a necessary being, then that future MUST have been set by that necessary being due to its nature of being necessary, because it caused all things contingent.

Conclusion: God must have caused everything to be, and there is no free will. The lack of our ability to refrain from making a particular choice at a particular time (because it is determined) shows that we do not have free will.

 

[nuclear]

"God created Billy-the-[insert any religion other than Christianity or lack thereof here] for the sole purpose of Billy going to hell."

The bold, underlined italic is what I have a big problem with. Just because someone isn't saved doesn't mean that they don't have a purpose.

Do I take this response as you having no problems with the logic of the point I was making, ie, Billy's choices are predetermined? Since you avoided discussing it, I really can’t begin to guess.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

I thought freewill was something like this:

If we could go back into the past, we could choose differently.

right now, we are in the past, if God knows what we will do/choose... then we can't choose differently than what he already knows.

We aren't in the past. That is the problem w/ this reasoning. It is on the assumption that knowing equals controling and forcing the specific choice instead of God simply just knowing our actions. That is inaccurate. God knows what we will do (that is future for us and present for Him as we do the action), he didn't decide that and we could choose anything. The fact is God asks us and warns us to do the rt. choice and people still do otherwise. God knows that they will choose otherwise, but the thing is, they have the choice not to do the sin and do rt. or else God wouldn't bother warning us and correcting us. God isn't foolish like that.

Ex: A cook knows what a customer will get because they always get the same thing. Now they could and have the choice to choose anything, but the cook simply knows what they will choose. He isn't controling it and it isn't predetermined, just known.

 

[:æ:]

We aren't in the past. That is the problem w/ this reasoning. It is on the assumption that knowing equals controling and forcing the specific choice instead of God simply just knowing our actions.

You are invited to re-read my post to this thread wherein I explained precisely the reasoning that supports the conclusion.

Ex: A cook knows what a customer will get because they always get the same thing. Now they could and have the choice to choose anything, but the cook simply knows what they will choose. He isn't controling it and it isn't predetermined, just known.

When a person can predict an outcome with reasonably high confidence, we say he "knows" the outcome. However, a person knowing the future in such a manner is a far cry from being analagous to the way God knows the future. God knows the future inerrantly and infallibly. Note the difference between the two phrases I bolded in this paragraph. The cook most likely will be correct; God must be correct.

If the cook were God, and He knew that a particular customer would select, say, an order of egg rolls, then the customer CANNOT select a different item instead. To say that the customer COULD select a different item than the egg rolls is to say that God's knowledge could be wrong. However, God cannot be wrong, so we cannot suppose that the person could select anything else but what God already knows.

 

[Asimov]

If the cook were God, and He knew that a particular customer would select, say, an order of egg rolls, then the customer CANNOT select a different item instead. To say that the customer COULD select a different item than the egg rolls is to say that God's knowledge could be wrong. However, God cannot be wrong, so we cannot suppose that the person could select anything else but what God already knows.

In other words, what I've said 500 times in this thread.

In the analogy provided by Lilly, the customer could refrain from choosing x at point t. If the cook were God, the customer would be unable to refrain from choosing x at point t.

How hard is it to comprehend, people?

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

You are invited to re-read my post to this thread wherein I explained precisely the reasoning that supports the conclusion.


When a person can predict an outcome with reasonably high confidence, we say he "knows" the outcome. However, a person knowing the future in such a manner is a far cry from being analagous to the way God knows the future. God knows the future inerrantly and infallibly. Note the difference between the two phrases I bolded in this paragraph. The cook most likely will be correct; God must be correct.

If the cook were God, and He knew that a particular customer would select, say, an order of egg rolls, then the customer CANNOT select a different item instead. To say that the customer COULD select a different item than the egg rolls is to say that God's knowledge could be wrong. However, God cannot be wrong, so we cannot suppose that the person could select anything else but what God already knows.

Yep, and it's inaccurate because we do choose. God simply knows what we will do because He knows us and how we are, that doesn't mean we can't choose something else, He just simply knows what we will do and that it won't be the something else we could do though we have the choice to do it. Saying otherwise is unscriptural and saying that we don't have choice goes against God's character and the Bible. So if you believe neither of these, I needn't waste time. Good day now.

 

[Osiris]

My bad. I didn't bother go back to the original post.

My first paragraph states that there is no past for God, it is all the present. Thus if it is the present for us and the present for God there is no way to say that it is in fact the past.

That's absurd, God is atemporal, to us it may be the present but God won't be contained within our timeline. You are claiming that time does not apply to god and it does apply to god... that's a contradiction.

When god is looking at the future... we are still in the present. We are that future's past... that is that past that I was referring to... we are in the past, we won't choose differently than what he already knows we are going to do.

My second paragraph states that the assumption that God knows what we are choosing does not mean that he made us choose that.

I didn't say that he made us choose that...

all I did was give the definition of freewill that most poeple use... and I compared it with god's omniscient knowledge... and the result was that they contradicted each other.

 

[:æ:]

Yep, and it's inaccurate because we do choose.

It is very frustrating to have taken all of the time and care that has gone into explaining the reasons why your claims are false to have you simply dismiss them out-of-hand and re-assert the same bald claims despite that I have refuted them.

In order to defend your claims, you're going to need to explain how it can be true to say that God cannot know something that is false, but a person can do something that contradicts God's knowledge.

God simply knows what we will do because He knows us and how we are, that doesn't mean we can't choose something else, He just simply knows what we will do and that it won't be the something else we could do though we have the choice to do it.

Shutting your eyes and ears and shouting ,"I'm right! I'm right! I'm right!" doesn't quite make for an effective argument.

I know what your claims are. I (and others) have also shown that they are false. Repeating the claims over and over does not make them any less false, nor is it an effective rebuttal to my refutation.

Saying otherwise is unscriptural and saying that we don't have choice goes against God's character and the Bible. So if you believe neither of these, I needn't waste time. Good day now.

It doesn't matter what I believe. It remains a fact that your claims about God are inconsistent.

 

[EverlastingMan]

Well let's see how it pans out. Just making assertions regarding this without reasoning it out is a bit misguided.

I reasoned it before, the post you quoted was only intended to explain what I was saying before.

We know that God is eternal, that is, time does not exist for him. The statement regarding anything about the past, present and future would then obviously relate to us.

Yes, it is very much the substance of the debate.

We know that God necessarily exists, that is, everything that actually exists is contingent upon him. This is in regards to the idea of causality, and that if causality is true we can trace all cause and effect relations to one ultimate cause, which would be God.

Yes.

We know that because God is omniscient, he knows what we will do, have done and are doing. This is because he can view our universe in the past, present, and future...he exists in all times and all places (omnipresent).

He exists in the present. He is as you said before in eternity. Eternity has no past or future, all is now.

If these are true, we can conclude these things:

1. That because the existence and causal relationships are dependant upon God existing and causing the universe that he caused everything to be with the knowledge of what would happen were he to do so.
C. God caused everything to happen.

Well, no. Your wording is misleading. The only thing that has thus been stated is that he has caused everything to come into existence in the first case. He is not causing the existence of things presently; merely sustaning the universe.
On your conclusion: caused does not mean causing. For God to be determining, he doesn't determine, what we are doing he must be causing because he is in the present and we are in the present. So just because He, in our time frame, caused things to happen does not mean he is causing the present activities. This is probably poorly written and confusing but my parents are getting on me so I will leave it as is.

2. That because our future is known, the path is already set before us and we are just walking it.

No not so. The path that we will choose is known, but this does not mean that we were unable to determine what path we took. There are three ways one can know the future: you are going to make it happen-I know the apple in my hand will be gone five minutes from now because I am going to eat it-you are so intimately familiar with the subject that you know what they will choose-I can know what my best friend is going to say most of the time, but I did not make him say it-or one is viewing something like a cartoon strip-one knows what will happen because one sees that future event. God's knowledge of what we will do is of the second and third sorts. He knows man kind in the most intimate of ways-thus, he knows what mankind and each individual will do-and he sees the whole span of time and so knows what is happening at any point.

2A. Libertarian Free Will does state that if we do have free will, we could refrain from doing x at point t. If the path is already set, we MUST do x at point t, regardless of our knowledge, circumstances, or attempts to prevent it. All of our actions are predetermined before we do them.
C. There is no free will.

Well since presumably I have proven that the path is not set then this is not so.

Final Notes:
If the future is known by a contingent being, then that future is not necessarily set by that contingent being due to its nature of being contingent.

True, in fact I don't think the future can be set by a contingent being

If the future is known by a necessary being, then that future MUST have been set by that necessary being due to its nature of being necessary, because it caused all things contingent.

No. I am necessary to whatever child I may have and I may know what will happen to that child, this does not mean I set the childs path, however. A necessary being enables a creature to act, it is not forced to determine how the creature acts, though it can.

 

[quatona]

A common beleif is that God created everyone and he knows them even before they are born. He know what they will do.

If you beleive that God created everything, is all knowing and knows all that will happen, then is it sensible that we are predestined? God has created all and knows all that will happen. He knows if we will accept him before he creates us. Isn't this, in essence, predestination?

I am young and trying to figure these different things out. Is it possible for free will and predetermination, if God knows all?

That is one of the most frequently discussed questions here.
I for one don´t see how choice is possible if everything is foreknown.
There is not even a choice for the foreknowing entity.

 

[Asimov]

He exists in the present. He is as you said before in eternity. Eternity has no past or future, all is now.

Your statement is contradictory to eternity. We exist in the present, God exists in eternity. Past, Present and Future imply temporality. God doesn't exist in any form of temporality. Time does not pass with God.

Well, no. Your wording is misleading. The only thing that has thus been stated is that he has caused everything to come into existence in the first case. He is not causing the existence of things presently; merely sustaning the universe.

That contradicts your statement of God being eternal. According to God, the universe is begun, in the middle, and finished at the same time. Sustain implies the passage of time.

You're also taking my statement out of context. God caused the universe in relation to us...so relative to us we can state that God knows the future. God would look at the universe like a book (analogy time!) where the beginning middle and end are already written and determined. Just like the characters in a book, they cannot refrain from the doing actions, therefore it can be said that those characters have no libertarian free will. Who wrote the book?

The path that we will choose is known, but this does not mean that we were unable to determine what path we took.

Um, dude, if the path is determined (we know this because God is all-knowing) then it cannot be said that we have libertarian free will. We cannot refrain from choosing x at point t, therefore free action is a fallacy.

There are three ways one can know the future

No, nobody can know with absolute certainty about the future unless they are omniscient. Your first two examples are called predictions and don't apply.

God's knowledge of what we will do is of the second and third sorts.

No, God knows the future because he is omniscient and knows everything.

Well since presumably I have proven that the path is not set then this is not so.

You have not proven the path is not set, we know it is set because God knows everything.

No. I am necessary to whatever child I may have and I may know what will happen to that child, this does not mean I set the childs path, however. A necessary being enables a creature to act, it is not forced to determine how the creature acts, though it can.

You are using a false analogy, and you are just picking at one part of the argument out of context.

A necessary being enables a creature to act, an all-knowing and necessary being already has everything determined. A creature cannot refrain from making a choice at a specific point in time, therefore that creature is not free to choose.