Omniscience causal

[D McCloud]

Well, just because it doesn't make sense doesn't make it untrue...

How convenient. If this is the case than obviously god is illogical, and isn't worth discussing as a logical possibility.

 

[Exist]

How convenient. If this is the case than obviously god is illogical, and isn't worth discussing as a logical possibility.

False. There could be arguments out there that defend this belief, and make logical sense.

Doesn't seem likely, but I have thought of and heard several arguments that have made God logical once again in certain areas.

If you can think of just one explaination that is logical and Biblical, no matter how much of a cop-out it is, then it is no longer illogical. Then it goes into the realm of weighing evidence. Actually, the only thing that is keeping me a strong Atheist (in regards to the Biblical god) right now (one that believes that logic is true, therefore God is not) is the Problem of Evil. If that can ever be solved, then I'll become a weak Atheist (the evidence is against such a god).

What do I say about this argument? If I were Christian, I'll be a Calvinist. Anything other than fate, and you've made it illogical....

Unless, of course, somebody can think of a logical argument for these claims.

 

[:æ:]

The fact is, God can know things and we still choose at the same time.

Wrong. That is not true, as I've clearly demonstrated. You might as well be asserting that circles have pointy corners.

It may seem incoherent to you and not make sense to your mind...well, that's how God is in many of His ways, just look at the Bible.

Ironically, we are in agreement here. The assertions you make about God seem incoherent because they are incoherent.

 

[:æ:]

Well, just because it doesn't make sense doesn't make it untrue...

Yes, as a matter of fact it does. An incoherent proposition cannot be true, because reality is not incoherent.

 

[one love]

Omniscience ≠ causal

Please show your proof.

 

[elman]

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman

What if the outcome that is determined is the one you chose?

Then it cannot be foreknown.

And the reasonable arguement as to why God standing outside of time could not know it is?
Quote

And what if at the time you chose, you changed your mind and chose a different outcome which turned out to be the one determined all along?

Then I took the only possible action: the one that was foreknown. There was no other option for the resulting action (unless the foreknowing entity is fallible).
My previous considerations have been foreknown as well, hence must have be determined to be the preceeding, but not exerted considerations.

The reason you took the only possible action is not because it was foreknown, but because that is what you chose. And the forknowing entiry does not have to be fallible. You are not explaining here why the forknowledge alone has taken away the choice.
Quote

The question on free will is not was my choice determined, but did I determine my choice?

Yes, and the fact that your action has been foreknown poves you unable to determine it or make a "choice".

Why does foreknowledge prove lack of choice when it was the choice that was forknown?

Quote

If I did then someone knowing what I was going to chose is not what determined my choice, but me and then I had a choice.

False dichotomy. It can have been something else. The argument is not that the foreknowing being must have been the one that determined your action, but merely that foreknowledge indicates that your action has been determined before you exerted it.
Of course, if you believe an OmnipotentCreatorGod to be the foreknowing entity, there is not much space left for something else to be the determinating factor. But this problem of "either me or God" is induced by the additional properties that you claim for the foreknower, and not relevant for the general question whether foreknowledge indicates that the acting object doesn´t have a choice.

In a world in where you do not hypothicate omniscience you are correct, but if God is omniscient then God can know what I am going to do before I do it and still not cause me to do it but let me cause me to do it.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

elman, your arguments are nonsense. if the outcome of anything is known before it occurs, then it is determined. anything else is incorrect

 

[elman]

no, it is a fact, you don't even understand the definitions of the words. no logical deduction is really neccessary. if the outcome is positively known beforehand, then the outcome is determined. by definition. if the outcome is determined, then there are no options. if there are no options, there is no choice.

Your thinking and reasoning here is inapplicable if an omniscent God is the forknowing entity. I understand the definition of the words and I understand that God can know what I am going to chose before I chose it. Since it is me chosing and not God forcing me in one direction or another, my choice is real and not illusion. The outcome can be determined, but if the the outcome that is determined was determined by my choice, then free will again is not an illusion. Perhaps another way to say it is, the outcome is determined from God' point of view but from my point of view it is not determined and God's view is from the eternal present, not the past as God's omniscience would appear to be from my point of view.

 

[elman]

Still, the claims of the Chrisitans in this thread are incoherent.

This is really very simple: the future is either determined or indeterminate. It is incoherent to say that something is simultaneously indeterminate and known. Indeterminate means "ambiguous, uncertain, not precisely determined or established; not fixed or known in advance." Therefore, if we are to suppose that the future is known, it must be determined.

You Chrisitians continue to argue that the future is simultaneously determined and indeterminate, which is plainly contradictory. It doesn't matter how many times you re-assert the same incoherent claim, it remains incoherent.

Let's assume God is not a part of our time frame. He exists outside of time in what we might spiritually refer to as the eternal present. Now the future is not determined within our time frame but in the position of God outside of time it is determined. I think it really is simplier that that, namely God is able to know what I am freely going to chose to do before I do it. It is not incoherent except of course God is Himslef incoherent to us.

 

[elman]

False. There could be arguments out there that defend this belief, and make logical sense.

Doesn't seem likely, but I have thought of and heard several arguments that have made God logical once again in certain areas.

If you can think of just one explaination that is logical and Biblical, no matter how much of a cop-out it is, then it is no longer illogical. Then it goes into the realm of weighing evidence. Actually, the only thing that is keeping me a strong Atheist (in regards to the Biblical god) right now (one that believes that logic is true, therefore God is not) is the Problem of Evil. If that can ever be solved, then I'll become a weak Atheist (the evidence is against such a god).

What do I say about this argument? If I were Christian, I'll be a Calvinist. Anything other than fate, and you've made it illogical....

Unless, of course, somebody can think of a logical argument for these claims.

What is your problem with the theory that God is love, that He created us to be loving and if we are to be companions with Him? Evil is to be unloving. It is by allowing evil that God allows us to be loving.

 

[Exist]

What is your problem with the theory that God is love, that He created us to be loving and if we are to be companions with Him? Evil is to be unloving. It is by allowing evil that God allows us to be loving.

I'm don't feel like derailing this thread.

 

[D McCloud]

False. There could be arguments out there that defend this belief, and make logical sense.

Trying to us logical premises to support the truth of a conclusion that is illogical, is a fallacy of irrelvant conclusion.

Doesn't seem likely, but I have thought of and heard several arguments that have made God logical once again in certain areas.

Once again a logical argument only supports god when that god is logical (see above). If you admit that something doesn't make sense, then no argument can prove it to make sense.

If you can think of just one explaination that is logical and Biblical, no matter how much of a cop-out it is, then it is no longer illogical. Then it goes into the realm of weighing evidence. Actually, the only thing that is keeping me a strong Atheist (in regards to the Biblical god) right now (one that believes that logic is true, therefore God is not) is the Problem of Evil. If that can ever be solved, then I'll become a weak Atheist (the evidence is against such a god).

You can only start weighing the evidence when the conclusion is a logical possibility. If one doesn't want to use logic to explain what is supposedly a logical conclusion, then I have no reason to believe the conclusion is a logical one.

What do I say about this argument? If I were Christian, I'll be a Calvinist. Anything other than fate, and you've made it illogical....

Unless, of course, somebody can think of a logical argument for these claims.

If it's agreed that these beliefs logically support one another, I see no problem with the argument.

 

[quatona]

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman

What if the outcome that is determined is the one you chose?

If it is determined there is no choice available.

And the reasonable arguement as to why God standing outside of time could not know it is?

Firstly, I have no clue what "standing outside of time" is supposed to mean. Time is a way of perception. 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.
Secondly, we can assume that he can foreknow it, but then it leaves no spaces for choices.

And what if at the time you chose, you changed your mind and chose a different outcome which turned out to be the one determined all along?

Then this entire process with all it steps would be foreknown, and we would have to conclude that it is not one of choices.

The reason you took the only possible action is not because it was foreknown, but because that is what you chose.

This is a false dichotomy. The first is not my claim (for the umptieth time: I am not saying that the foreknowledge or the foreknowing entity must be the determining agens), and the second is not the only alternative.

And the forknowing entiry does not have to be fallible. You are not explaining here why the forknowledge alone has taken away the choice.

Yes, I have explained it very often. The fact that something is unfallibly and perfectly foreknown indicates that there is no second option left for the action, the result, the outcome.

The question on free will is not was my choice determined, but did I determine my choice?

If it is foreknown ahead of time, there is no choice, to begin with. Your actions must be determined by another agens.

Why does foreknowledge prove lack of choice when it was the choice that was forknown?

If the foreknowing entity only knows that there will be a choice, then there can be a choice. If the foreknowing entity knows the outcome of a process, then there has been no choice in the first place.

Quote

If I did then someone knowing what I was going to chose is not what determined my choice, but me and then I had a choice.

A repetition of your false dichotomy from above, which misrepresents my position. See me reply above.

In a world in where you do not hypothicate omniscience you are correct, but if God is omniscient then God can know what I am going to do before I do it and still not cause me to do it but let me cause me to do it.

elman, I do understand that it is often easier and more convenient to attack such weak posititons that the person opposite doesn´t hold, but I would very much appreciate it if you´d adress the position I hold when discussing with me. It is not my position that the foreknower must be the determining agens (for the umptieth plus two time). I am merely saying that a perfectly foreknown action cannot be the result of a choice of the actor.

On a side note: It would be a nice idea if you´d "choose to" format your post a bit more carefully.

 

[elman]

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman

What if the outcome that is determined is the one you chose?

If it is determined there is no choice available.

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

Quote

And the reasonable arguement as to why God standing outside of time could not know it is?

Firstly, I have no clue what "standing outside of time" is supposed to mean. Time is a way of perception. 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.
Secondly, we can assume that he can foreknow it, but then it leaves no spaces for choices.

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. 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. Why would you assume God was unable to leave us with the ability to choose and also know what that choice was going to be?

Quote

And what if at the time you chose, you changed your mind and chose a different outcome which turned out to be the one determined all along?

Then this entire process with all it steps would be foreknown, and we would have to conclude that it is not one of choices.

Why would we have to conclude that?

Quote

The reason you took the only possible action is not because it was foreknown, but because that is what you chose.

This is a false dichotomy. The first is not my claim (for the umptieth time: I am not saying that the foreknowledge or the foreknowing entity must be the determining agens), and the second is not the only alternative.

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?

Quote

And the forknowing entiry does not have to be fallible. You are not explaining here why the forknowledge alone has taken away the choice.

Yes, I have explained it very often. The fact that something is unfallibly and perfectly foreknown indicates that there is no second option left for the action, the result, the outcome.

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.

Quote

The question on free will is not was my choice determined, but did I determine my choice?

If it is foreknown ahead of time, there is no choice, to begin with. Your actions must be determined by another agens.

Where did you get this rule?
It is simply not a fact if one is dealing with an omnipotent and omniscient God.

Quote

Why does foreknowledge prove lack of choice when it was the choice that was forknown?

If the foreknowing entity only knows that there will be a choice, then there can be a choice. If the foreknowing entity knows the outcome of a process, then there has been no choice in the first place.

If everyone is falllible humans subject to time yes. What about when that is not the case?

Quote

If I did then someone knowing what I was going to chose is not what determined my choice, but me and then I had a choice.

A repetition of your false dichotomy from above, which misrepresents my position. See me reply above.

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

In a world in where you do not hypothicate omniscience you are correct, but if God is omniscient then God can know what I am going to do before I do it and still not cause me to do it but let me cause me to do it.

elman, I do understand that it is often easier and more convenient to attack such weak posititons that the person opposite doesn´t hold, but I would very much appreciate it if you´d adress the position I hold when discussing with me. It is not my position that the foreknower must be the determining agens (for the umptieth plus two time). I am merely saying that a perfectly foreknown action cannot be the result of a choice of the actor.

For the umptieth plus two time, you are not dealing with my statments and merely saying that a foreknown action cannot be the result of a choice of the actor does not make it either true or reasonable and does not engage what I am saying.

 

[quatona]

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. They have no second option for acting.
Everything else - God, other hypotheticals, nonsensical assumptions like realms beyond time in which time can be perceived, and whatnot - is not subject of my reasoning.
I´m gonna respond to you in this thread for the last time, unless something unexpected will happen.
Reason 1: I don´t see how I could possibly get my point across, and I haven´t seen any new arguments from you for a long time except those that you keep repeating and that don´t make any sense to me.
Reason 2 (a minor one): I am tired of cleaning up your poorly formatted posts.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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".

Where did you get this rule?
It is simply not a fact if one is dealing with an omnipotent and omniscient God.

I am not dealing with exceptional claims. Either we are talking logic or we don´t. Accepting the obscure idea of realms beyond time has already asked enough of my potential for discussing non-concepts.
If your argument is "God is omnipotent, hence He can do things that are illogical", we don´t have any common ground for a discussion. Whilst if you don´t, you would have to explain how something that has already been fixed as the result can be "chosen". To me that´s just a gross distortion of language.

If everyone is falllible humans subject to time yes. What about when that is not the case?

Already adressed above.

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?

In a world in where you do not hypothicate omniscience you are correct, but if God is omniscient then God can know what I am going to do before I do it and still not cause me to do it but let me cause me to do it.

I don´t claim that the foreknowing entity must be the determining agent.

For the umptieth plus two time, you are not dealing with my statments and merely saying that a foreknown action cannot be the result of a choice of the actor does not make it either true or reasonable and does not engage what I am saying.

I don´t know a better way of adressing what you are saying, much to my regret.
Most of what you say is attacking a position I don´t hold, and for the time being I am frustrated with being unable to get that across.

 

[Danhalen]

Please show your proof.

An omniscient being knows all events that will occur. This means there is no event which will happen beyond that which the omniscient being is privy to. This does not imply the omniscient being caused the events to transpire as it has foreseen. It only implies there is only one way in which all events must transpire. Therefore it can be concluded that omniscience does not imply causality.

Is that good enough proof?

 

[Danhalen]

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?

 

[:æ:]

Let's assume God is not a part of our time frame.

I cannot until you demonstrate that such a reference is itself coherent. It seems to my like you are asking me to assume something contradictory.

He exists outside of time in what we might spiritually refer to as the eternal present. Now the future is not determined within our time frame but in the position of God outside of time it is determined.

The future is either determined or indetermined. It cannot be both. Again, that would be nonsensical.

I think it really is simplier that that, namely God is able to know what I am freely going to chose to do before I do it. It is not incoherent except of course God is Himslef incoherent to us.

As I've already said, endlessly re-asserting the same nonsensical claim does not somehow add to its conceivability.

 

[quatona]

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?

Just a short observation: This sentence seems to demonstrate that "choice" has very different meanings, and that might be part of the problems that the misunderstandings/disagreements are based upon. Even you speak of "choices X, Y and Z" (which would actually be begging the question) even though you are trying to demonstrate that there is no choice.

 

[BigCedar]

Just a short observation: This sentence seems to demonstrate that "choice" has very different meanings, and that might be part of the problems that the misunderstandings/disagreements are based upon. Even you speak of "choices X, Y and Z" (which would actually be begging the question) even though you are trying to demonstrate that there is no choice.

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

This type of question seems valuable to the disscussion because no one arguing against the OP has given an answer.