Predestination

[Hentenza]

God is omniscient in this scenario, he knows everything that will happen and made a conscious choice about it.

You are stuck on God making the choice. I posit to you that is not the case.

Maybe a selectively omniscient being, a completely omniscient being is going to act in the way I described.

How do you know? Is this an absolute statement on your part?

If the being wants me to have a independent choice it can't know about the outcome before it creates me.

Wrong. If the omniscient being learns your choices by the choices you made but there has never been a time in which He did not know your choices, then your choices are independently yours. The path has a right and a left and there is a blue and red shirt in the closet. What is the purpose of having choices if you don't have a choice?

 

[variant]

You are stuck on God making the choice. I posit to you that is not the case.

Based upon what?

In our scenario God's power and knowledge are unlimited and yet you posit accidental things...

Odd, is all I have to say.

How do you know? Is this an absolute statement on your part?

To the extent that I know, it is based upon logical inference.

Wrong. If the omniscient being learns your choices by the choices you made but there has never been a time in which He did not know your choices, then your choices are independently yours. The path has a right and a left and there is a blue and red shirt in the closet. What is the purpose of having choices if you don't have a choice?

There has never been a time where he didn't know my choices so that includes before the universe was created. God comes before me in the scenario so, so does it's knowledge of me.

You can't remove foresight or intentionality from an omniscient being with the power to do anything, that would make it something else.

 

[variant]

What is the purpose of having choices if you don't have a choice?

None, that's MY point. Determinism removes morality as a thing.

I am not arguing for determinism I am stating it as a logical conclusion of a premise I don't believe.

 

[Hentenza]

Based upon what?

In our scenario God's power and knowledge are unlimited and yet you posit accidental things...

Odd, is all I have to say.

You are missing half of what I posited.

To the extent that I know, it is based upon logical inference.

Is your logical inference absolute?

There has never been a time where he didn't know my choices so that includes before the universe was created. God comes before me in the scenario so, so does it's knowledge of me.

There is no temporal aspect to an omniscient being. In his omniscience you are past, present and future.

You can't remove foresight or intentionality from an omniscient being with the power to do anything, that would make it something else.

Foresight is not equal to intentionality. Foresight or foreknowledge is merely knowledge not intention. Intention can form from knowledge but is not a consequence of knowledge. I can know something and still choose against that knowledge. That an omnipotent being has the power to do anything does not mean that he has or will. It simply means that all that can be done he can do.

 

[Hentenza]

None, that's MY point. Determinism removes morality as a thing.

lol I am arguing that it is not determinism and that it does not remove morality.

I am not arguing for determinism I am stating it as a logical conclusion of a premise I don't believe.

Hence the problem. Determinism is not necessarily the logical conclusion of the premise you don't believe. Welcome to philosophy bro.

 

[variant]

You are missing half of what I posited.

Does what I say respond to your primary point? I would say so.

Is your logical inference absolute?

No but you would have to show me where it is faulty to convince me.

There is no temporal aspect to an omniscient being. In his omniscience you are past, present and future.

Doesn't help, God still lives before me on the chain of action and so does it's knowledge.

Or however you want to put it, I must be secondary in this equation, I can not make my choices before I exist.

Being temporary transcendent makes God more responcable not less.

Foresight is not equal to intentionality. Foresight or foreknowledge is merely knowledge not intention. Intention can form from knowledge but is not a consequence of knowledge. I can know something and still choose against that knowledge. That an omnipotent being has the power to do anything does not mean that he has or will. It simply means that all that can be done he can do.

Yes it does. If you have knowledge of how your actions will go you are therefore intending that your actions have specific consequences when you make them.

With great power comes great responsibility.

 

[Hentenza]

Does what I say respond to your primary point? I would say so.

My primary point has two parts. The omniscient being leans what he knows from your choices and there has never been a time when the omniscient being did not know your choices. Are you addressing both?

No but you would have to show me where it is faulty to convince me.

Ah, I am not trying to convince you. In order for you to believe something you have to own the knowledge. I am merely positing another abstract choice (pun intended lol).

Doesn't help, God still lives before me on the chain of action and so does it's knowledge.

There is no chain of action except that which you create by your choices. Remember, there is no temporal component to an omniscient being. He simply knows them.

Or however you want to put it, I must be secondary in this equation, I can not make my choices before I exist.

You make your choices while you exist temporally but he knows them extra-temporally (without regard to time).

Yes it does. If you have knowledge of how your actions will go you are therefore intending that your actions have specific consequences when you make them.

I take it that "you" refers to an omniscient being, right? If so, the omniscient being knows your choices regardless of consequences. He knows your morally right choices as well as your immoral ones equally. there are no specific consequences attached to the knowledge.

 

[variant]

lol I am arguing that it is not determinism and that it does not remove morality.

You sure have been trying.

You can't appeal to my sense that if what I say is true that nothing matters. I don't care if it matters in this scenario because that Is what I am trying to show.

Hence the problem. Determinism is not necessarily the logical conclusion of the premise you don't believe. Welcome to philosophy bro.

I think I'm making a pretty good case that it is.

 

[Hentenza]

I think I'm making a pretty good case that it is.

"I think" and "I am" have different connotations.

The "case" cannot be proven, hence its a matter of opening one's mind to the existence of other abstract arguments.

 

[variant]

My primary point has two parts. The omniscient being leans what he knows from your choices and there has never been a time when the omniscient being did not know your choices. Are you addressing both?

Yes. The omniscient being must create the conditions for my choices so the information can't go in the direction you request it to.

I exist created by and existing contingently to the being in question so I don't inform it. It must always know everything.

Being free of time doesn't make it free of responsibility or intentionality otherwise it doesn't really have omnipotence which would be a problem for this theology.

Ah, I am not trying to convince you. In order for you to believe something you have to own the knowledge. I am merely positing another abstract choice (pun intended lol).

Yes, and I am still here because it is at least a bit interesting.

There is no chain of action except that which you create by your choices. Remember, there is no temporal component to an omniscient being. He simply knows them.

You make your choices while you exist temporally but he knows them extra-temporally (without regard to time).

I can only make my choices temporally while God must know the end point of them before I am created, so this doesn't remove the problem.

It accentuates it really.

If I am viewable "outside of time" then it further justifies that there is only one path that is being viewed.

I take it that "you" refers to an omniscient being, right? If so, the omniscient being knows your choices regardless of consequences. He knows your morally right choices as well as your immoral ones equally. there are no specific consequences attached to the knowledge.

I am simply saying that you can not have an unintentional omnipotent and omniscient being, it can't be done.

The all powerful and all knowing thing doesn't do anything by mistake.

 

[variant]

"I think" and "I am" have different connotations.

And yet the sentence means exactly what I intended it to.

The "case" cannot be proven, hence its a matter of opening one's mind to the existence of other abstract arguments.

That and the huge amount of abstract hopscotch believers are willing to partake in to try to believe how they wish.

 

[Hentenza]

Yes. The omniscient being must create the conditions for my choices so the information can't go in the direction you request it to.

How so? The omniscient being created the path to the left and the path to the right. You chose from the available choices of creation.

I exist created by and existing contingently to the being in question so I don't inform it. It must always know everything.

Yep. He knows your choice but he did not force you to choose. Knowledge is independent of intent.

Being free of time doesn't make it free of responsibility or intentionality otherwise it doesn't really have omnipotence which would be a problem for this theology.

How so? What does being free of time has to do with omnipotence? You are mixing conditions that are not in association. Being free of time does not imply responsibility, it just implies free of time.

Yes, and I am still here because it is at least a bit interesting.

I'm having fun.

I can only make my choices temporary while God must know the end point of them before I am created, so this doesn't remove the problem.

Knowledge of the choices is independent from knowledge of the end point. You have to make the choices to reach the end point, which might or might not be a consequence of the sum total of your choices.

I am simply saying that you can not have an unintentional omnipotent and omniscient being, it can't be done.

Another absolute statement? Your choices are intentional on your part while they are unintentional on the omniscient being's part, your active actions versus the passive acquisition of knowledge.

The all powerful and all knowing thing doesn't do anything by mistake.

There is no mistake in knowing. Only you can make the wrong choice by mistake. It is a mistake for an omniscient being to be omniscient?

 

[Hentenza]

And yet the sentence means exactly what I intended it to.

I think?

That and the huge amount of abstract hopscotch believers are willing to partake in to try to believe how they wish.

Ah, so now you judge the abstract. Let me turned it around a bit-- "the huge amount of abstract hopscotch unbelievers are willing to partake in to try to believe as they wish." It works both ways. Is your way absolutely correct? Is mine?

 

[variant]

I think?

Ah, so now you judge the abstract. Let me turned it around a bit-- "the huge amount of abstract hopscotch unbelievers are willing to partake in to try to believe as they wish." It works both ways. Is your way absolutely correct? Is mine?

Not really. My aim here isn't unbelief, I am exploring the idea of belief on it's own terms.

I'm getting tired though, I'll continue on tomorrow with your last post.

 

[Lopez 15721]

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.




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.

It's ridiculous to say one only has a choice if it can be removed. It simply doesn't make sense. The claim, "if there is never any freedom for Donald to not be a democrat in the first place, there is no choice" is so redundant and still no substantiated argument has been made that it is and was circular reasoning. You simply keep saying it without support. Mrs. White, like God, takes the possibility of doing anything other than being democrat away. Again that is why they are so similar. And in the example Donald is the originator of his actions as again he acts of his own accord as Mrs. White does not interfere. He acts with his own motives. Also, one cannot possibly choose birth. Such a proposal is contradictory as such a choice would presuppose one already exists. So, you're advice to have the analogy enhanced by saying that is amiss, and the analogy still stands to reason.

I think you're problem with thinking about this is one of ontology. It is not as if God's foreknowledge causes one to act how He knows. God foreknows because of our actions. So, we aren't gears that are forced to move by foreknowledge. We are gears that work on our own that God has foreknowledge of. And again, determinism doesn't say we can't choose anything at all, it just says we can't choose differently than how we did. Nothing is illusory as again none of the senses would be distorted in such a reality.

 

[Albion]

Then our assumptions are shared no? God knows the future and has decided what to make happen.

If so, great. From your earlier post, however, it wasn't clear to me that that was the case as Foreknowledge seemed to have been separated from Predestination.

Well you've already given up the Ghost in my opinion on this matter, you've admitted that God is all powerful and knows things in advance and has no problem deciding before hand what is going to happen.

I don't see why you'd say "given up the ghost" or "admitted" to that. That is indeed a sensible conclusion. Of course you say only that he COULD predestine things there.

To get out of this problem you have to limit God in some way or remove some of it's power, because on it's face there isn't anything limiting either God's foreknowledge or it's power, quite the opposite.

I don't see any "problem" there.

 

[variant]

Because it is definitely a mistake to think about this at work tomorrow:

How so? The omniscient being created the path to the left and the path to the right. You chose from the available choices of creation.

The omniscient being requires foreknowledge of both the path and all the other variables so he must also know which one the person will take before it is created. Not only the path is known but you are as well everything about you must be known before the “decision”, so in the moment of creation God must know exactly what you will decide and why. This means you do not add to the system anything that wasn’t already there from the beginning of the universe when you say you make this choice.

It also doesn't matter how many different ways God knows what is going to happen, the key point here is that God does, which limits the number of scenarios to exactly one.

If our God exists outside of time then this actually compounds the problem to mean that even if time has not already played out there is still only one scenario that will definitely happen.

How you can have freedom to choose when the entirety of history has always already written to the main observer is beyond me.

Yep. He knows your choice but he did not force you to choose. Knowledge is independent of intent.

Which as I said is impossible for a being with both omniscience and omnipotence, it can not take actions lacking intent.

How so? What does being free of time has to do with omnipotence? You are mixing conditions that are not in association. Being free of time does not imply responsibility, it just implies free of time.

That is my point. Existing outside of time doesn’t free god of intentionality. Omniscience can not be overcome because no matter what, God knows before the system is set up how it will end.

Your point that the information can come from the system itself is also false because that would make God secondary and would mean he would create something without knowing it’s destiny ahead of time. This is impossible for the omniscient. It would mean that something is unknown.

You've attempted to solve the apparent problems I have with the deterministic nature of predestination and providence by removing the "pre" and the providential nature of the God.

That kind of gives up the ghost again here and gives me the sneaking suspicion that I am dealing with incoherence.

Knowledge of the choices is independent from knowledge of the end point. You have to make the choices to reach the end point, which might or might not be a consequence of the sum total of your choices.

For me that is true but for an omniscient being it is not. An omniscient being can not be “not omniscient” (A and ~A), so it makes all decisions knowing the outcome.

The simple fact of there being a known outcome means it is not a choice.

Another absolute statement? Your choices are intentional on your part while they are unintentional on the omniscient being's part, your active actions versus the passive acquisition of knowledge.

The omniscient being is incapable of unintentional actions as per the already discussed.

There is no mistake in knowing. Only you can make the wrong choice by mistake. It is a mistake for an omniscient being to be omniscient?

No there are simply no mistakes for the omniscient. How would that even work? You are required to lack information to be mistaken.

 

[variant]

It's ridiculous to say one only has a choice if it can be removed. It simply doesn't make sense. The claim, "if there is never any freedom for Donald to not be a democrat in the first place, there is no choice" is so redundant and still no substantiated argument has been made that it is and was circular reasoning. You simply keep saying it without support.

I have supported throughly. I am saying that the only way Mrs White makes no difference to the scenario is if Donald had some control over his decision to be a democrat in the first place.

If Donald is robotically a democrat from the beginning of time he has no moral agency. There is no Donald in such a situation he is not a real thing with a real identity, he doesn't exist as an actor at all.

Mrs. White, like God, takes the possibility of doing anything other than being democrat away. Again that is why they are so similar. And in the example Donald is the originator of his actions as again he acts of his own accord as Mrs. White does not interfere. He acts with his own motives. Also, one cannot possibly choose birth. Such a proposal is contradictory as such a choice would presuppose one already exists. So, you're advice to have the analogy enhanced by saying that is amiss, and the analogy still stands to reason.

It doesn't stand to any reason. God removes all agency if there is only one path. Determinism absolutely destroys the concept of morality because it destroys the idea of actions depending on the people acting.

An actor that can only ever do one thing without fail is a robot, a switch or a gear. Something like a programmed computer, it has no agency.

I think you're problem with thinking about this is one of ontology. It is not as if God's foreknowledge causes one to act how He knows. God foreknows because of our actions.

The actions must come after the foreknowledge for it to be foreknowledge so this is quite impossible. So you can bet I have an issue with your ontology.

The problem here is that the people don't act in a deterministic universe they only react in a derivative way to Gods original actions.

What your telling me here is that God made no choice in the end result of the universe even though he knew full well exactly what the result was going to be when he started and that result is predetermined! A bit hard to swallow that one.

So, we aren't gears that are forced to move by foreknowledge. We are gears that work on our own that God has foreknowledge of. And again, determinism doesn't say we can't choose anything at all, it just says we can't choose differently than how we did. Nothing is illusory as again none of the senses would be distorted in such a reality.

Demonstrate that if you think my thinking is circular.

If you are a gear you are not a moral agent. There is no middle road.

 

[KCfromNC]

lol

Is this the best you can do? Check out this paper - http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/Wegner&Wheatley1999.pdf - and see if you're going to continue laugh at the idea that we're bad at identifying what our choices actually are.

 

[bhsmte]

Is this the best you can do? Check out this paper - http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/Wegner&Wheatley1999.pdf - and see if you're going to continue laugh at the idea that we're bad at identifying what our choices actually are.

It's either laugh, or cry for some folks when they have to really explain the christian description of God and the reality of the world we live in. The mere fact, that many christians will give you a detailed description of the God they believe in, while almost at the same time claim God can not be understood, as he works in mysterious ways, is all you need to see the incredible psychological gymnastics they are going through to reconcile this whole thing.

It reminds me of that funny scene in the movie Stripes, when John Candy tells the guy because they are in Italy, the other dude has to make his bunk. If they were in Germany, he would have to make the other guys bunk.