Predestination

[Lopez 15721]

Mrs white only knows because she tampered with him (removed his freedom to choose on this issue).

God would have made Mr White with the foreknowledge that he would be a democrat.

The problem here is that Donald did have a choice (whether to choose democrat himself or have Mrs white choose it for him) in Mrs. whites scenario where as he has no choice In God's. So, they are not the same scenario.

In God's scenario Mr White will be a democrat because at the beginning of the universe God knew he would and God created the universe that way anyway, so what are the moral implications if any, if the choices in the universe all came from God and none from the people involved.

Mr White is a democrat in God's scenario because that is exactly what he was going to be regardless.



If the future is set then the creation of the universe made one single possible deterministic outcome. God can not have absolute foreknowledge of an unset future.

What you are experiencing is the illusion that you make decisions when, in reality you can not do anything differently.

Saying that we make our own decisions in such a scenario is pretty ridiculous.

Mrs. White knows regardless of how she does what Donald is going to choose. The point is, in each scenario, one cannot choose differently.

Although you are slightly contradictory here, in saying first that Donald has no freedom to choose, then in saying Donald does have a choice, the point again is that no matter what he will go democrat. It is logically impossible for him not to. He will only be democrat. It is the same as God and foreknowledge as one can only do what God foreknows. All the similarities are relevant enough to make the analogy stand. Again I'll make the simple point I'm comparison of the two scenarios: Donald is going to be democrat because that is exactly what he was going to be regardless.

Under an omniscient God who created the universe, determinism must be true. Both logical and causal determinism. What you're failing to realize is that the concept of free will as defined as the ability to do otherwise is erroneous and even more poorly defended. Not once have you even began to show how free will and PAP are connected.

 

[variant]

Mrs. White knows regardless of how she does what Donald is going to choose. The point is, in each scenario, one cannot choose differently.

Although you are slightly contradictory here, in saying first that Donald has no freedom to choose, then in saying Donald does have a choice, the point again is that no matter what he will go democrat. It is logically impossible for him not to. He will only be democrat. It is the same as God and foreknowledge as one can only do what God foreknows. All the similarities are relevant enough to make the analogy stand. Again I'll make the simple point I'm comparison of the two scenarios: Donald is going to be democrat because that is exactly what he was going to be regardless.

Donald obstinately had the ability to change his mind before it was removed from him in your scenario, In God's scenario he will do what he was always going to do regardless.

Under an omniscient God who created the universe, determinism must be true. Both logical and causal determinism. What you're failing to realize is that the concept of free will as defined as the ability to do otherwise is erroneous and even more poorly defended. Not once have you even began to show how free will and PAP are connected.

That's just a concession of my argument I think.

Without freedom to act for oneself, predestination removes morality from the question, so if the Bible leads to it as a conclusion, it is contradictory for the bible to speak as if people have control over their own actions.

Morality is meaningless in a deterministic universe with a God which is omnicient, as in such a universe, the only moral actor is God.

 

[Lopez 15721]

Donald obstinately had the ability to change his mind before it was removed from him in your scenario, In God's scenario he will do what he was always going to do regardless.



That's just a concession of my argument I think.



Morality is meaningless in a deterministic universe with a God which is omnicient, as in such a universe, the only moral actor is God.

If Donald changed his mind Mrs. White would have triggered the device to make him go democrat. You're missing the whole point in the example, and that is Donald can only go democrat and nothing else, just as what God foreknows can only happen and nothing else. How are you missing that relevant, obvious, similarity?

You think wrong. I'm saying the way you define free will is not related to moral responsibility at all. I'm saying one doesn't need PAP as the Frankfurt example shows. I'm saying you've done nothing to refute that or say otherwise.

Morality holds much meaning in a deterministic universe. Morality is then defined by our mental capacity to comprehend our actions and that our actions have consequences. As long as we have that mental ability, we are held accountable for our actions. That's why Donald is still held accountable for his actions though he couldn't have done other than go democrat - he understood what his actions entailed and the consequences regardless of Mrs. White's doing or not doing anything. It is the same with foreknowledge as we understand what we are doing regardless of God foreknowing it.

 

[variant]

If Donald changed his mind Mrs. White would have triggered the device to make him go democrat. You're missing the whole point in the example, and that is Donald can only go democrat and nothing else, just as what God foreknows can only happen and nothing else. How are you missing that relevant, obvious, similarity?

In moment he does he make a choice and that was overridden, his existence as a moral actor is gone.

This is very much different than him making his own choices, it's having his choice removed.

He can only be a moral actor in the situation because he came to the conclusion on his own after having free will to do so for his entire life and having the actual choice taken out of his hands in an inconsequential way.

If he never had the choice other than to be a democrat then why do we have to worry about what Mrs white is doing?

You think wrong. I'm saying the way you define free will is not related to moral responsibility at all. I'm saying one doesn't need PAP as the Frankfurt example shows. I'm saying you've done nothing to refute that or say otherwise.

Morality holds much meaning in a deterministic universe. Morality is then defined by our mental capacity to comprehend our actions and that our actions have consequences. As long as we have that mental ability, we are held accountable for our actions. That's why Donald is still held accountable for his actions though he couldn't have done other than go democrat - he understood what his actions entailed and the consequences regardless of Mrs. White's doing or not doing anything. It is the same with foreknowledge as we understand what we are doing regardless of God foreknowing it.

The moment he changes his mind and Mrs White overrides him he has lost moral culpability.

If you don't have the mental ability to do anything other than what you are going to do in a deterministic universe, It is just illusory that you are morally culpable because you can't move the system in any way.

If our actions are predetermined, whatever consequence they have is inconsequential to us as we aren't the moral actors in such a universe.

You are just a cog in the machine of such a universe, it doesn't matter how you feel about it, you will act in a specific way.

We may view ourselves as the mental reasons for our actions but what does that inappropriate understanding get us?

 

[PsychoSarah]

If there was predestination, then god would have no right to punish sinners because no matter what, they were going to sin, and god never gave them the opportunity to do otherwise. There would be no reason for sinners to even be allowed to be born, since they can't fight their destiny of burning in hell. It makes all ideas of morality and justice pointless, it would make our lives completely worthless, our intelligence worthless, because no matter what we have no say in our future.

 

[Hentenza]

If the computer can predict absolutely, all of those are proper assumptions which was the scenario we are discussing:



Absolute prediction logically implies determinism, as you requested...

Please do not change the premises of the discussion mid stream, as it will only make things more problematic.



It doesn't matter what is guiding my hand. Absolute predictability means there is only one outcome and that it is deterministic.



Feel free, it doesn't make any difference that you would use the word natural for a deterministic process instead of artificial.



In this scenario I merely FEEL like the choice is mine.



In the God scenario yes that is the conception of an omnipotent creator God which also sees everything in the future clearly, in the computer scenario the universe is simply deterministic.

To make a choice you have to be free to not make a choice and that is the problem with determinism. It means there are no real choices.



Free will implies freedom which doesn't exist in the scenario, I can not chose the red shirt, it is objectively impossible.

Feeling like I could chose the red shirt isn't enough, it has to be up to me, which is impossible if a being created the universe in which only that decision could have been made.

You can't choose the red shirt because you chose the blue shirt. God simply knew which one you would choose. God is not preventing you from choosing the red one since you have two shirts to choose from. Whether someone knows what you are going to choose does not negate that it will be you who will choose.

 

[Lopez 15721]

In moment he does he make a choice and that was overridden, his existence as a moral actor is gone.

This is very much different than him making his own choices, it's having his choice removed.

He can only be a moral actor in the situation because he came to the conclusion on his own after having free will to do so for his entire life and having the actual choice taken out of his hands in an inconsequential way.

If he never had the choice other than to be a democrat then why do we have to worry about what Mrs white is doing?



The moment he changes his mind and Mrs White overrides him he has lost moral culpability.

If you don't have the mental ability to do anything other than what you are going to do in a deterministic universe, It is just illusory that you are morally culpable because you can't move the system in any way.

If our actions are predetermined, whatever consequence they have is inconsequential to us as we aren't the moral actors in such a universe.

You are just a cog in the machine of such a universe, it doesn't matter how you feel about it, you will act in a specific way.

We may view ourselves as the mental reasons for our actions but what does that inappropriate understanding get us?

I agree that Donald would not be accountable if he started to act differently and was overridden, though that's not what happened. Donald acted on his own and was not overridden. That being the case he is accountable. I still think it's wrong to say his choice is removed having Donald vote democrat. He did vote democratic. He did according to his own reasons which were different and independent from Mrs. White's. And the example is not about Mrs. White as much as it is about Donald. Mrs. White is present in that she ensures Donald can only do one thing from before he was going to do it.

You keep saying it's illusory but you're not explaining how really. You're just saying it. It's not self evident, obviously. What does, "move the system in any way" even supposed to mean? Morality is not illusory as nothing is being distorted of the deterministic reality. None of the senses or any other sense of human nature is distorted that may be associated with morality.

 

[Hentenza]

If there was predestination, then god would have no right to punish sinners because no matter what, they were going to sin, and god never gave them the opportunity to do otherwise. There would be no reason for sinners to even be allowed to be born, since they can't fight their destiny of burning in hell. It makes all ideas of morality and justice pointless, it would make our lives completely worthless, our intelligence worthless, because no matter what we have no say in our future.

This does not follow. Predestination does not mean force nor does it imply a lack of option. You are painting a scenario that not even reformed churches teach or believe.

 

[variant]

You can't choose the red shirt because you chose the blue shirt. God simply knew which one you would choose. God is not preventing you from choosing the red one since you have two shirts to choose from. Whether someone knows what you are going to choose does not negate that it will be you who will choose.

There is only one set of events and it is the one that God created from the start, and there is no real 'choice' in choosing blue over red, what was going to happen was going to happen regardless and not because of me.

I may feel I chose blue in this case but that is not true.

 

[variant]

I agree that Donald would not be accountable if he started to act differently and was overridden, though that's not what happened. Donald acted on his own and was not overridden. That being the case he is accountable. I still think it's wrong to say his choice is removed having Donald vote democrat. He did vote democratic. He did according to his own reasons which were different and independent from Mrs. White's. And the example is not about Mrs. White as much as it is about Donald. Mrs. White is present in that she ensures Donald can only do one thing from before he was going to do it.

This is only true if Donald originally had a choice to be a Democrat and then had it removed, you are proposing that he never had such a choice.

Mrs Whites actions while wrong are irrelevant, if there is never any freedom for Donald to not be a democrat in the first place, there is no choice. God doesn't fulfill the roll of Mrs White in this scenario he takes away the choice completely. In a deterministic universe Donald isn't the one who chose to be a democrat God is the one who chose to create him that way.

The culpability for his decisions comes from him being the originator of his actions and nothing else can do it. That is why in the scenario Donald needs to originally be in control of his democratic tenancies and have them "taken away" for the scenario to work.

And it is why the analogy fails.

Try one where Mrs White takes away Donald's ability to chose from birth and your in the ball park, and then tell me about Donald's moral culpability.

You keep saying it's illusory but you're not explaining how really. You're just saying it. It's not self evident, obviously. What does, "move the system in any way" even supposed to mean? Morality is not illusory as nothing is being distorted of the deterministic reality. None of the senses or any other sense of human nature is distorted that may be associated with morality.

I am saying that if you are a cog in a machine you are not responsible for moving the other gears because of the gears that move you.

This is not illusory in the least, if you literally can't decide anything in the system you cease to exist as a moral actor.

You can't escape this by saying it is ones mental states that cause action because the mental states have to also be caused.

Determinism removes morality from those with no self determination, they simply can not act in any independent faction.

 

[variant]

This does not follow. Predestination does not mean force nor does it imply a lack of option. You are painting a scenario that not even reformed churches teach or believe.

If there is only one way events can unfold there is lack of option.

There can be no other options when the ending is known.

Absolute predictability implies hard determinism as I have already demonstrated to you.

The reformed churches don't get to control the logical consequences of what they propose.

 

[durangodawood]

I agree that Donald would not be accountable if he started to act differently and was overridden, though that's not what happened. Donald acted on his own and was not overridden. That being the case he is accountable. I still think it's wrong to say his choice is removed having Donald vote democrat. He did vote democratic. He did according to his own reasons which were different and independent from Mrs. White's. And the example is not about Mrs. White as much as it is about Donald. Mrs. White is present in that she ensures Donald can only do one thing from before he was going to do it.

Its really hard to call someone to account if they were forced to follow a script written by a higher power.

 

[durangodawood]

Its really hard to call someone to account if they were forced to follow a script written by a higher power.

I mean, if YOU have a say in writing your script, then youre responsible to that extent.

But obviously, if the world is set up so you HAVE TO follow a script penned by someone else... then of course: no blame.

 

[Hentenza]

There is only one set of events and it is the one that God created from the start, and there is no real 'choice' in choosing blue over red, what was going to happen was going to happen regardless and not because of me.

I may feel I chose blue in this case but that is not true.

If there is only one way events can unfold there is lack of option.

There can be no other options when the ending is known.

Absolute predictability implies hard determinism as I have already demonstrated to you.

The reformed churches don't get to control the logical consequences of what they propose.

Nah. I chose to write this post and I am choosing the words that I am writing. That God knows that I am writing this post and which words I am using is of no consequence because the choices and words are still mine. Now, if I knew the future and was forced to choose based on someone else's knowledge then my choices would be limited.

 

[variant]

Nah. I chose to write this post and I am choosing the words that I am writing. That God knows that I am writing this post and which words I am using is of no consequence because the choices and words are still mine. Now, if I knew the future and was forced to choose based on someone else's knowledge then my choices would be limited.

There is only one set of events in the scenario where God knows everything you will ever do before you ever do it.

There is no "choice" in the matter you will do what you were going to do since the beginning of time.

Your insistence that you are choosing to do things in such a scenario is simply false.

There is no room for freedom, self determination or choice in a system where every action is preordained.

 

[durangodawood]

There is only one set of events in the scenario where God knows everything you will ever do before you ever do it.

There is no "choice" in the matter you will do what you were going to do since the beginning of time.

Your insistence that you are choosing to do things in such a scenario is simply false.

There is no room for freedom, or self determination or choice in a system where every action is preordained.

Thats true only if you require the whole thing to make sense.

But why should we require the relation between our temporal world and the eternal god-world to make sense??? I can see no reason to insist on that.

 

[variant]

Thats true only if you require the whole thing to make sense.

But why should we require the relation between our temporal world and the eternal god-world to make sense??? I can see no reason to insist on that.

No disagreement there.

I have argued as such in the past. If God can create his own logic all problems disappear and God becomes inherently ineffable nonsense.

Still it seems like a cop out to me when you want to justify your positions that way and bring it in front of a rational being.

 

[Hentenza]

There is only one set of events in the scenario where God knows everything you will ever do before you ever do it.

There is no "choice" in the matter you will do what you were going to do since the beginning of time.

Your insistence that you are choosing to do things in such a scenario is simply false.

There is no room for freedom, self determination or choice in a system where every action is preordained.

There is an open set of scenarios for a person to choose from, however, God simply knows what you are going to choose. There is choice. There is freedom. It is not ordained.

 

[variant]

There is an open set of scenarios for a person to choose from, however, God simply knows what you are going to choose. There is choice. There is freedom. It is not ordained.

God knows the end point of the scenario before he put it into motion, so he knows the exact sequence of events that will follow.

There is no open set of options or scenarios here only the one God knows will happen.

 

[durangodawood]

It does seem like free-will implies the capacity to surprise someone.... anyone.