Omniscience causal

[quatona]

If DH had inserted the word "perceived" before "choices" would that solve the problem?

Yes, that would solve it.

 

[elman]

elman,

this seems to be going round in circles. My reasoning is actually quite simple: If actions and outcomes are perfectly known ahead of the time they happen, then they are determined ahead of the time they take place, and the persons involved are not those who determine them, because those persons must act like foreknown.

If everyone involved is controled by time and time is not relative perhaps. If however the choice that is known before I am born was infact a choice out of many options, then the simple knowledge of knowing what option I am going to chose does not effect the fact that I had many options. What is determined is not the one result. What is determinged before I was born is the one result that I chose.


Quote
Originally Posted by: elman


There is is the one who forknows is able to know what our choice will be.

I´m sorry - I don´t understand this sentence.

What God foreknows is that we will have a choice and what choice we will make.

Quote

I think that is the reason you assume God cannot know the future is you assume God is limited by time and exists in time as we do.

I am not assuming anything about God. I am merely talking about things foreknown, and in the post you referred to I have made a point concerning this obscure realm beyond time. I have specifically adressed the impossibility of perceiving time (and that which is dependent on it, like change, choice and development) from a hypothetical position "beyond time".

And it is impossible to perceive an omniscient God and it is impossible to perceive or even concieve a time line without beginning and without end.

Quote

You said:"If this entity doesn´t perceive in this way, it doesn´t have any idea or concept of choice, because choice is something that is dependent on the experience in time." Choice is only something that is dependent on the experience in time for us who are subject to and exist in time.

Yes, and for persons or entities who are not experiencing time, they aren´t experiencable at all. They are not even concepts for them.

God does not have to experience His creation to know about it.

Quote

Why would we have to conclude that?

I would have to repeat myself, something I am assuming both of us are tired of by now.

Repeating yourself would not answer the question.

Quote

I cannot make sense of this. If God is not the determining agent, why does that mean God cannot know what the determining agent is going to do?

Again: I am not talking about your God. The person foreknowing is completely irrelevant in my argumentation. There doesn´t even have to be a determining person or entity. Only point is that there is no choice left for the actor in a foreknown action.

But what if the foreknowledge is that the actor will have a choice and the actor will make a particular choice out of the options the actor will have?

Quote

And I have explaned often that the outcome can be fixed and there be only one result if that result is the one I chose from many options.

Yes, and it still doesn´t make sense to me. You haven´t explained it, you have merely claimed it. If something is "fixed" ahead of time, then that is the very opposite of there being choice involved in the actual situation, if the word "choice" is supposed to have any sense beyond "perceiving options".

OK let's try the approach above. What is fixed before time is not only the choice being make but also the fact that it will be a choice and there will be other options that are not chosen.

Quote

And see my reply above and it is not a false dichotomy.

I would like to have a clear statement from you so that this is settled once and for all: Do you realize that I do not claim that the foreknowing person must be the determining agent?

I hear you say that but to believe the person making the choice has not choice then you have to be saying the dtermining agent is not that person. So who is the determining agent? I answer that question with the one who is making the choice. How do you answer it?

 

[elman]

elman:
You continually assert omniscience does not negate the ability to choose. You have offered no logical argumentation to support this assertion. How do you propose we are free to choose our actions from a myriad of options if there is only one course of action available? No one is claiming an omniscient being makes our decisions for us. We are claiming our actions are set in stone - since they are known inerrantly - prior to being taken.

If you have choices X, Y and Z, and the omniscient being knows you will choose Y, is it possible you will choose X or Z?

Is it possible the omniscient being will know that you could have chosen X or Z along with the fact that you will chose Y? Does that matter? I am saying the fact that God knows what we will chose does not mean God is unable to know and at the same time create us a being with the ability to chose. If knowing what we are going to chose is not what sets the choice in stone, but the actual choice itself is what sets it in stone, then does knowing negate choice?

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

it just goes to show that the position is logically bankrupt- the simple fact is that omniscience implies determinism

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

the only way I see around this is to say that omniscience does NOT actually include knowledge of the future- if the future is not something that can be known, then it is absurd to include it in any defenition of knowing everything, and would make as much sense as saying that an omniscient being knows what a square circle looks like.

this DOES however, limit god fairly severely, and calls much of prophecy, god's providence, etc. into question

 

[elman]

it just goes to show that the position is logically bankrupt- the simple fact is that omniscience implies determinism

Well implies is better than requires. The simple fact is that just knowing what is going to happen does not may you the one who causes it to happen.

 

[elman]

the only way I see around this is to say that omniscience does NOT actually include knowledge of the future- if the future is not something that can be known, then it is absurd to include it in any defenition of knowing everything, and would make as much sense as saying that an omniscient being knows what a square circle looks like.

this DOES however, limit god fairly severely, and calls much of prophecy, god's providence, etc. into question

If one does not know the future then one is not omniscient according to my understanding of omniscient. A square circle is a contridiction in words. It has changed the meaning of square and circle in to no meaning. We cannot know the future. We are not omniscient. If I could know the future it would not mean I caused it to happen.

 

[quatona]

I´ll skip all that which would just lead to further repetitions of the things said, and will answer just this:

I hear you say that but to believe the person making the choice has not choice then you have to be saying the dtermining agent is not that person. So who is the determining agent? I answer that question with the one who is making the choice. How do you answer it?

In the first sentence you are begging the question. My position is that the person whom you call "the person making the choice" has no choice in the assumed hypothetical. This is the very point of our disagreement, hence if calling it the person "making the choice" you are excluding my point right from the start. Let´s call this person the "acting person" in order not to beg the question.
A person making the choice would indeed be the person making the choice and the determining agent. Since the acting person does not have a choice if the result has been foreknown and hence determined in advance, we are left with either another person/entity being the determining agent, or there being no sentient being the determining agent. Just as it is with those things that you wouldn´t call a "choice". I guess not even you would call the fact that we are aging a matter of choice. There doesn´t have to be a determining personal agent at all, though. Our aging is just the result of all factors involved. Same is possible with our actions, and that´s how I - in lack of belief in Divine Entities and such - understand it.
In short: If a "who" having a choice would be there, this "who" would be the determining agent. If there is noone like that, there is no personal determining agent.

 

[Natro]

Well implies is better than requires. The simple fact is that just knowing what is going to happen does not may you the one who causes it to happen.

Omniscience proves determination.

 

[BigCedar]

Is it possible the omniscient being will know that you could have chosen X or Z along with the fact that you will chose Y? Does that matter? I am saying the fact that God knows what we will chose does not mean God is unable to know and at the same time create us a being with the ability to chose. If knowing what we are going to chose is not what sets the choice in stone, but the actual choice itself is what sets it in stone, then does knowing negate choice?

You still haven't shown how it is possible for you to choose X if God knows you will choose Y. Introducing "could have beens" brings you full circle.

For free will to exist, doesn't a choice have to have at least two possible outcomes?

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

the omniscient being doesn't HAVE to be the one who determined the action in order to negate free will. perfect knowledge of the future means that there is no free will, regardless of what determined the future.

in the case of the Biblegod, however, the end result of everything and anything IS that omniscient being's fault since he is the all powerful creator

 

[Natro]

the omniscient being doesn't HAVE to be the one who determined the action in order to negate free will. perfect knowledge of the future means that there is no free will, regardless of what determined the future.

in the case of the Biblegod, however, the end result of everything and anything IS that omniscient being's fault since he is the all powerful creator

Exactly Omniscient doesn't guid your wills or controll them. It just knows all. And knowing all disproves freewill.

 

[Danhalen]

Is it possible the omniscient being will know that you could have chosen X or Z along with the fact that you will chose Y?

Yes, it is possible the omniscient being knows I could have chosen X or Z. The omniscient being also knows I will not choose X or Z.

Does that matter?

It does not matter. If there are any arbitrarily chosen number of options available to me, the fact remains that omniscience precludes the possibility of me choosing anything but the one known option. If it is impossible to choose anything other than the one known option, it is impossible that there really is a choice.

I am saying the fact that God knows what we will chose does not mean God is unable to know and at the same time create us a being with the ability to chose.

The ability to choose what? There is no choice. If there is a choice then there is more than one possible outcome. The outcome being known necessitates there only being one course of action available.

If knowing what we are going to chose is not what sets the choice in stone, but the actual choice itself is what sets it in stone, then does knowing negate choice?

Again, I ask you if it is possible to choose from one thing? You keep saying it is our choice which determines the outcome. You refuse to acknowledge that the choice is also known prior to it being made. You refuse to acknowledge that it is impossible to choose anything other than what is known - ahead of time. You refuse to acknowledge how foreknowledge limits all options to zero - since it is impossible to do anything other than what is foreknown.

 

[elman]

Quote

If knowing what we are going to chose is not what sets the choice in stone, but the actual choice itself is what sets it in stone, then does knowing negate choice?

Again, I ask you if it is possible to choose from one thing? You keep saying it is our choice which determines the outcome. You refuse to acknowledge that the choice is also known prior to it being made. You refuse to acknowledge that it is impossible to choose anything other than what is known - ahead of time. You refuse to acknowledge how foreknowledge limits all options to zero - since it is impossible to do anything other than what is foreknown.

I don't refuse to acknowledge there is only one known result, namely the result I chose, not the knower. I do acknowledge it is impossible to chose anything other than what I chose which is my choice among other options I have. I do acknowledge that the foreknowledge is of my choice and my choice is what limits all other options to zero after I chose it. It is impossible to make any other choice after I make the choice but before the choice I could chose any of the options but if I did that then the choice that would be foreknown would be that option. The foreknowledge is not what freezes my choice into that particular choice. It is my choice that does that. It being impossible to do anything other than what I am going to chose is doing the freezing, not the foreknowledge.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

completely nonsensical. the knowing doesn't limit the choice itself. it is the fact that it can be known that means there IS no choice.

this isn't about choice being taken away, its about there not being one in the first place. A future that is perfectly known can only play out one way. It is determined, and there is no choice in what will happen.

there is no way to explain this to you that hasn't been done already.

 

[elman]

completely nonsensical. the knowing doesn't limit the choice itself. it is the fact that it can be known that means there IS no choice.

this isn't about choice being taken away, its about there not being one in the first place. A future that is perfectly known can only play out one way. It is determined, and there is no choice in what will happen.

there is no way to explain this to you that hasn't been done already.

And it is just repeating to say that the future that is perfectly known and can only play out one way may be a future that was chosen by the actor in that future. How about this:C.S. Lewis described in Mere Christianty the idea of God existing outside of time :

Another difficulty we get if we believe God to be in time is this. Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow. But if He knows I am going to do so-and so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking that God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being that He can see ahead and we cannot. Well, if that were true, if God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them. But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call “tomorrow” is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call “today.” All the days are “Now” for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them: because though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what we are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow’s actions in the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already “Now” for Him.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

it doesn't matter where god is... if the future can be known, there is only one possible future, and ther is no choice

 

[Danhalen]

I don't refuse to acknowledge there is only one known result, namely the result I chose, not the knower. I do acknowledge it is impossible to chose anything other than what I chose which is my choice among other options I have. I do acknowledge that the foreknowledge is of my choice and my choice is what limits all other options to zero after I chose it. It is impossible to make any other choice after I make the choice but before the choice I could chose any of the options but if I did that then the choice that would be foreknown would be that option. The foreknowledge is not what freezes my choice into that particular choice. It is my choice that does that. It being impossible to do anything other than what I am going to chose is doing the freezing, not the foreknowledge.

God has perfect knowledge of future events.
Long before you are even born, God know every choice you will ever have.
God knows at some point in time you will have to choose between option X and option Y.
God also knows you will choose option X and not option Y.
Since God knows what you will do - without error - it is not possible you will choose option Y.
If it is not possible for you to choose option Y then it is not a possible choice.
If option Y is not a possible choice there is only one option available to you.
Therefore it is not your choice to 'choose' option X.

I suppose you will never accept this, but at least I tried. If you can refute this please do.