Predestination

[KCfromNC]

Nah. I chose to write this post and I am choosing the words that I am writing.

Prove it. I'm sure it feels that way, but our feelings have been shown to be poor at correctly guessing what our brain is actually doing.

 

[Hentenza]

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.

He did not put it in motion. You went to the closet; you chose the blue shirt; God simply knew. God did NOT guide your arm to the blue shirt; God did not slap your arm away from the red shirt. You, and you alone, chose the blue shirt.

 

[Hentenza]

Prove it. I'm sure it feels that way, but our feelings have been shown to be poor at correctly guessing what our brain is actually doing.

lol

 

[variant]

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

Most people can't even predict their own actions.

 

[variant]

He did not put it in motion. You went to the closet; you chose the blue shirt; God simply knew. God did NOT guide your arm to the blue shirt; God did not slap your arm away from the red shirt. You, and you alone, chose the blue shirt.

Assuming an omniscient omnipotent God:

This exact sequence of events had to be known since the dawn of creation before I ever existed as a self identifying thing, and no other possible set of circumstances could have occurred.

So did I choose to put on the blue shirt or was it ordained by God at the beginning of the universe? I think with the omniscient and omnipotent God, as I have said repeatedly, there is no room for choice only the illusion of it.

I chose to wear a red shirt today if anyone is interested.

 

[Hentenza]

Assuming an omniscient omnipotent God:

This exact sequence of events had to be known since the dawn of creation before I ever existed as a self identifying thing, and no other possible set of circumstances could have occurred.

So did I choose to put on the blue shirt or was it ordained by God at the beginning of the universe? I think with the omniscient and omnipotent God, as I have said repeatedly, there is no room for choice only the illusion of it.

I chose to wear a red shirt today if anyone is interested.

1. Omniscient means that God can see all that can be seen.
2. Omnipotence means that God has the power to do everything that can be done.
3. The two above does not mean that God interferes in what you do, just like a car that can do 160 mph does not have to do 160 mph every second.
4. Simply knowing does NOT ordain the events. It is simply knowledge. The thief stole because he/she chose to steal; the murderer killed because he/she chose to murder. God did not put the weapon the murderer's hand nor did He caused the thief to steal. He merely knew.

 

[variant]

1. Omniscient means that God can see all that can be seen.
2. Omnipotence means that God has the power to do everything that can be done.
3. The two above does not mean that God interferes in what you do, just like a car that can do 160 mph does not have to do 160 mph every second.
4. Simply knowing does NOT ordain the events. It is simply knowledge. The thief stole because he/she chose to steal; the murderer killed because he/she chose to murder. God did not put the weapon the murderer's hand nor did He caused the thief to steal. He merely knew.

The problem here is that you want it both ways you like being the originator of your actions and having self determination but you also want to believe in a God that can see everything (even the future) and do anything.

If omniscience implies that God can see the future and see it perfectly (predestination and providence), and God has the power to create any universe he wants (omnipotence) then all actions are derivatives of God's actions and there is only one set way for events to play out (the way God saw it when he created it). People literally add nothing in terms of morality or choice to such a system they are frames on a movie reel.

You don't get any freedom in this system regardless of how you feel about how your actions play out, they are logically excluded by the type of God you proposed.

If God can predict the future with absolute certainty and is omnipotent, morality is not a valid concept.

 

[Hentenza]

The problem here is that you want it both ways you like being the originator of your actions and having self determination but you also want to believe in a God that can see everything (even the future) and do anything.

If omniscience implies that God can see the future and see it perfectly (predestination and providence), and God has the power to create any universe he wants (omnipotence) then all actions are derivatives of God's actions and there is only one set way for events to play out (the way God saw it when he created it). People literally add nothing in terms of morality or choice to such a system they are frames on a movie reel.

You don't get any freedom in this system regardless of how you feel about how your actions play out, they are logically excluded by the type of God you proposed.

No, I do not want it both ways nor am I arguing in this direction. In fact, if the scenario was as you propose then you would actually have a point that God is "guiding" all actions. But that is not the case. God did not create a robotic humankind that merely does as He wishes. He merely knows the actions. Merely knowing is simply knowing which option you will choose; it is not guiding you or forcing you to choose the option that He knows.

 

[variant]

No, I do not want it both ways nor am I arguing in this direction. In fact, if the scenario was as you propose then you would actually have a point that God is "guiding" all actions. But that is not the case. God did not create a robotic humankind that merely does as He wishes. He merely knows the actions. Merely knowing is simply knowing which option you will choose; it is not guiding you or forcing you to choose the option that He knows.

If God created humanity and has absolute foreknowledge of events than humanity is robotic by definition.

 

[Hentenza]

If God created humanity and has absolute foreknowledge of events than humanity is robotic by definition.

Nope. God created humanity with the free will to choose; He simply knows the choices. He does not actively force people to choose His will.

 

[variant]

Nope. God created humanity with the free will to choose; He simply knows the choices. He does not actively force people to choose His will.

Nope, there is only one possible set of events if it is required to come out to Gods known outcome. The outcome must be forced at the beginning.

 

[Hentenza]

Nope, there is only one possible set of events if it is required to come out to Gods known outcome. The outcome must be forced at the beginning.

lol The blame God for my actions philosophy.

The verb "force" requires a direct active action. Knowing is passive not active. The outcome is the result of the choices that He knows a person will make, not a forcing of these choices.

 

[variant]

lol The blame God for my actions philosophy.

I'm not blaming God for anything, I don't believe in God, nor am I a proponent of determinism.

I am saying that if you think God is omniscient and omnipotent including an absolute foreknowledge of the future you also think that morality is meaningless.

These are the logical consequences.

The verb "force" requires a direct active action. Knowing is passive not active. The outcome is the result of the choices that He knows a person will make, not a forcing of these choices.

The action is creating the universe limited to a known outcome. This is done by force. Using the words "choice" and such in this scenario is just logically invalid.

Destiny is incompatible with choice. If you must walk along a predetermined path, it matters not if you feel free along the way.

 

[durangodawood]

...The action is creating the universe limited to a known outcome. This is done by force. Using the words "choice" and such in this scenario is just logically invalid....

I dont see why this should be an objection to anything to do with God.

 

[variant]

I dont see why this should be an objection to anything to do with God.

It's an objection to this specific theology that attempts to explain God rationally.

As to God not being limited to having logical powers I am on your side:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7795356/

The concept simply can't be limited to rationality, but at that point it ceases to say anything really and God becomes unknowable and ineffable in the extreme.

As an Agnostic Atheist that is fine by me, as it strips the theist from being able to talk about God at all in any authoritative way, at which point religion is moot.

 

[durangodawood]

It's an objection to this specific theology that attempts to explain God rationally.

As to God not being limited to having logical powers I am on your side:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7795356/

The concept simply can't be limited to rationality, but at that point it ceases to say anything really and at that point God becomes unknowable and ineffable in the extreme.

As an Agnostic Atheist that is fine by me, as it strips the theist from being able to talk about God at all in any authoritative way, at which point religion is moot.

Yeah.

Any proposed interaction between the eternal and the temporal cannot be explained rationally. You just have to "go with it". Or not.

 

[variant]

Yeah.

Any proposed interaction between the eternal and the temporal cannot be explained rationally. You just have to "go with it". Or not.

The point being that you can't win an argument with someone skeptical of your position by being an abject nihilist who believes whatever they want because it suits them.

The stronger you buttress an argument from basic criticism in this way, the less useful that argument becomes.

At the point of introducing the irrational into religion the proponent admits that religion is irrational, no further argument is necessary.

That is why the theist wants to keep these discussions within the bounds of reason.

Calvin wanted to fix this particular problem with his religion for this reason, but I think he introduces more mysteries than he solves.

 

[Albion]

I am saying that if you think God is omniscient and omnipotent including an absolute foreknowledge of the future you also think that morality is meaningless.

These are the logical consequences.



The action is creating the universe limited to a known outcome. This is done by force. Using the words "choice" and such in this scenario is just logically invalid.

Destiny is incompatible with choice. If you must walk along a predetermined path, it matters not if you feel free along the way.

It's probably unwise for me to jump into any thread that's already over a hundred posts long, but I notice two problems with the above.

Foreknowledge is not Predestination...and Predestination is not Fatalism (which is suggested by "must walk along a predetermined path.")

 

[durangodawood]

The point being that you can't win an argument with someone skeptical of your position by being an abject nihilist who believes whatever they want because it suits them.

The stronger you buttress an argument from basic criticism in this way, the less useful that argument becomes.

At the point of introducing the irrational into religion the proponent admits that religion is irrational, no further argument is necessary.

That is why the theist wants to keep these discussions within the bounds of reason.

Calvin wanted to fix this particular problem with his religion for this reason, but I think he introduces more mysteries than he solves.

This stuff SHOULD be mysterious, if it is in fact real.

Why religious people want to wrestle it into sensibility is beyond me.

Perhaps its because there's something very dangerous in holding beliefs that are unhinged from reason. And that danger is very off-putting to the skeptics out there... and to the skeptic inside every religious person's own head.

(Personally, I'm OK with holding irrational beliefs)

 

[Albion]

This stuff SHOULD be mysterious, if it is in fact real.

Why religious people want to wrestle it into sensibility is beyond me.

I get your point, but it only reinforces what I was thinking when I wrote my post immediately before this. It's the opponents of Predestination who make it into a tangled web of exceptions, questions, and complications. The belief itself is fairly clean cut.