Predestination

[Lopez 15721]

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.



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.



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.


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.

Donald does have control as he decides to go democrat without Mrs. White's intervention. He acts independently for his own reason, different from that of Mrs. White. Donald would not robotically be democrat as being democrat is what he ultimately desires. Robots have no desires they simply act with no wants just necessity. That is what sets your "robot" aside from Donald and any other person God has foreknowledge of.

Of course the actions come after the knowledge yet what you're not understanding is that without any actions there would be nothing to foreknow. Imagine it like this: there is a crystal ball that reveals the future once you think of something you want to know the future of. So say Chuck comes to me and asks of his love life and I look at the ball and it reveals him getting married to Sarah. The future would not come about that way because I looked at the ball, but because it was going to happen that way no matter what. So again, foreknowledge is not a casual factor that makes events foreknown transpire, the past determinants and Chuck make that come about and that is what God foreknows.

First let me explain what I mean by circular reasoning: "an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion." It is to make a statement that assumes the question being argued has already been proved.

You're making a statement that assumes the question being argued has already been proved. Said statement starts in post 12 as, "If God creates the world with foreknowledge of what is going to happen then there is no such thing as self determination, so there is no such thing as morality."

That statement is then repeated in post 15 as, "I am saying it logically follows that if an omniscient being sets things in motion and knows the consequences before you ever exist, you do not have it." The same statement is repeated in the very next paragraph in the same post 15 as, " The end point is determined you can not choose something else, so there is no free will and thus morality are illusionary."

Those two posts alone constitute as circular reasoning. Though you continued to simply say the same thing again in post 50, again with no substantiated argument or further reasoning: "if all of our desires and choices are known before we exist then we don't put anything into the equation or have any choice in the matter and thus have no morality." Circular reasoning again.

What you failed to do was show that PAP and moral responsibility are connected. You gave no argument. It was assumed. Then you repeated it for the first few posts of our conversation. That is circular reasoning at it's best.

 

[durangodawood]

To all of you who are trying to make SENSE of the relationship between the temporal and eternal (which is almost everyone here): please give it up!

There's no sense to be made of this.

 

[variant]

Donald does have control as he decides to go democrat without Mrs. White's intervention. He acts independently for his own reason, different from that of Mrs. White. Donald would not robotically be democrat as being democrat is what he ultimately desires. Robots have no desires they simply act with no wants just necessity. That is what sets your "robot" aside from Donald and any other person God has foreknowledge of.

Having a desire doesn't set you free of determinism your desires and your self are both contingent on the past as well. We know this because the choice is set and the end point is predetermined, so the conditions must also be predetermined. If we can make robots that feel and even trick them into feeling that what they do emanates from them it is no more up to them if they are preprogrammed.

Calling them his reasons makes no sense, he had no input. Every part of his being was set down at the beginning of the universe so it is not just his choices that are predetermined but also his self. This means he can only act on his own behalf in exactly the way God intended. Calling this non-coercive must require that his identity and all the motivations that went into his actions weren't also known at the point of intentional creation and predestination.

Determinism removes identity as well as morality, because identity is just another thing Donald has no input into. And, without input, he can not possibly be a responcable actor.

Calling him anything other than a contingent robot in this scenario doesn't work.

Once the actions are predestined to happen there is no Donald to speak of.

Perhaps you mean freedom in the compatibilist sense?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

Compatibilists (aka soft determinists) often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act according to their own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills".[3]

In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. Also note that this definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of Causal Determinism. This view also makes free will close to autonomy, the ability to live according to one's own rules, as opposed to being submitted to external domination.

Yes?

How do we get motivations? They are determined too in a predestined system so this shell game doesn't work.

There is no other thread of agency here, no co-creation, feelings are free to be ultimately false and in this scenario they are indeed that.

Of course the actions come after the knowledge yet what you're not understanding is that without any actions there would be nothing to foreknow.

For- Before Pre- Before

You can twist the language up in pretzels all you like but if God ever lacks knowledge it is not omniscient and if there are things in the universe that do not emanate from God then God would actually be contingent.

Contingent omnipotence from the creator of the universe based upon the state of the universe post creation?

How does this work? Does time travel backwards and gravity pushes when we need it to to justify these ideas?

Imagine it like this: there is a crystal ball that reveals the future once you think of something you want to know the future of. So say Chuck comes to me and asks of his love life and I look at the ball and it reveals him getting married to Sarah. The future would not come about that way because I looked at the ball, but because it was going to happen that way no matter what. So again, foreknowledge is not a casual factor that makes events foreknown transpire, the past determinants and Chuck make that come about and that is what God foreknows.

God also causes the past so it causes all the events to happen. All other events are contingent.

God does this with foreknowledge of what events will occur or else he is not omniscient.

First let me explain what I mean by circular reasoning: "an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion." It is to make a statement that assumes the question being argued has already been proved.

Uh huh.

You're making a statement that assumes the question being argued has already been proved. Said statement starts in post 12 as, "If God creates the world with foreknowledge of what is going to happen then there is no such thing as self determination, so there is no such thing as morality."

Yep and I have supported that position. Feel free to try and weed it out of my posts. I mean even this one.

That statement is then repeated in post 15 as, "I am saying it logically follows that if an omniscient being sets things in motion and knows the consequences before you ever exist, you do not have it." The same statement is repeated in the very next paragraph in the same post 15 as, " The end point is determined you can not choose something else, so there is no free will and thus morality are illusionary."

Well your argument is a bit harder since it logically contradicts itself on it's face by putting foreknowledge after the event of creation but before it's effect somehow.

Those two posts alone constitute as circular reasoning. Though you continued to simply say the same thing again in post 50, again with no substantiated argument or further reasoning: "if all of our desires and choices are known before we exist then we don't put anything into the equation or have any choice in the matter and thus have no morality." Circular reasoning again.

They would if that is all I said on the matter I suppose.

What you failed to do was show that PAP and moral responsibility are connected. You gave no argument. It was assumed. Then you repeated it for the first few posts of our conversation. That is circular reasoning at it's best.

I have definitely given argument on these issues which is why we're talking about backwards time and intentionality and such. Pay attention.

I have been making outlandish claims like say, hindsight and foreknowledge aren't the same concept.

 

[variant]

To all of you who are trying to make SENSE of the relationship between the temporal and eternal (which is almost everyone here): please give it up!

There's no sense to be made of this.

What does it matter to you that someone else might find such a discussion helpful or interesting?

 

[durangodawood]

What does it matter to you that someone else might find such a discussion helpful or interesting?

Its not important. I'm just throwing it out there.

 

[Chany]

Its not important. I'm just throwing it out there.

I think it's important. I especially find the debate of free will to be important.

 

[durangodawood]

I think it's important. I especially find the debate of free will to be important.

Yes, the question of personal will is fascinating.

Trying to rationally reason out the relation of the eternal God-realm to us time bound beings is tedious.

These things are for faith, or for experience. But reason goes nowhere.

 

[Gottservant]

This Universe is completely determined, the thing is, the nature of this Universe is that not everything that can be seen from it, is necessarily in it.

So you can be determined or not, depending on what you're prepared to miss out on.

 

[Chany]

This Universe is completely determined, the thing is, the nature of this Universe is that not everything that can be seen from it, is necessarily in it.

So you can be determined or not, depending on what you're prepared to miss out on.

Sorry, you lost me. How can I be determined or not if the universe is completely determined? How can something be determined but not determined at the same time?

 

[Lopez 15721]

Having a desire doesn't set you free of determinism your desires and your self are both contingent on the past as well. We know this because the choice is set and the end point is predetermined, so the conditions must also be predetermined. If we can make robots that feel and even trick them into feeling that what they do emanates from them it is no more up to them if they are preprogrammed.

Calling them his reasons makes no sense, he had no input. Every part of his being was set down at the beginning of the universe so it is not just his choices that are predetermined but also his self. This means he can only act on his own behalf in exactly the way God intended. Calling this non-coercive must require that his identity and all the motivations that went into his actions weren't also known at the point of intentional creation and predestination.

Determinism removes identity as well as morality, because identity is just another thing Donald has no input into. And, without input, he can not possibly be a responcable actor.

Calling him anything other than a contingent robot in this scenario doesn't work.

Once the actions are predestined to happen there is no Donald to speak of.

Perhaps you mean freedom in the compatibilist free will?



Yes?

How do we get motivations? They are determined too in a predestined system so this shell game doesn't work.

There is no other thread of agency here, no co-creation, feelings are free to be ultimately false and in this scenario they are indeed that.



For- Before Pre- Before

You can twist the language up in pretzels all you like but if God ever lacks knowledge it is not omniscient and if there are things in the universe that do not emanate from God then God would actually be contingent.

Contingent omnipotence from the creator of the universe based upon the state of the universe post creation?

How does this work? Does time travel backwards and gravity pushes when we need it to to justify these ideas?



God also causes the past so it causes all the events to happen. All other events are contingent.

God does this with foreknowledge of what events will occur or else he is not omniscient.



Uh huh.



Yep and I have supported that position. Feel free to try and weed it out of my posts. I mean even this one.



Well your argument is a bit harder since it logically contradicts itself on it's face by putting foreknowledge after the event of creation but before it's effect somehow.



They would if that is all I said on the matter I suppose.




I have definitely given argument on these issues which is why we're talking about backwards time and intentionality and such. Pay attention.

I have been making outlandish claims like say, hindsight and foreknowledge aren't the same concept.

I'm not saying having a desire sets anyone free from determinism. I'm saying determinism is true in really any respect. The difference between the "robots" and man in a deterministic universe is that no conscious being is tricking us into feeling regardless of being determined are genuinely something we desire. God is not manipulating our being into something we wouldn't otherwise do, unless it pertains to salvation in which case it wouldn't matter.

Also, like I mentioned early, not everything God foreknows is something He intends or wants to happen, and not everything He foreknows is caused by Him. There are things predetermined and predestined. The difference between the two is God's agency, as God directly causes something to transpire in something predestined though no divine agency is present in something predetermined. God only foreknows of things predetermined. It is essentially a post hoc scenario to think that foreknowledge causes events to happen. Knowledge is not not a causal factor that makes events happen. See God doesn't need to cause everything He foreknows to be omniscient all He needs is to know everything. And I've never said anything but that, not even hinting at God lacking knowledge. What I'm saying is that there would be nothing to foreknow of unless it wasn't for our actions.

Yes I'm talking about compatabilism. That's how I've defined free will. As long as we act accordingly to our desires with no external or internal force or coercion we are free. Foreknowledge does not force anything we wouldn't want, and even then what is foreknown are our desires they are not caused by the knowledge. Yes our desires are determined but we are never even the ultimate source of our desires in the first place. That is another area you didn't account for - any positive argument for self determination meaning we are the first cause of our actions and desires. It's a difficult burden to bear as it gives an incorrect portrayal of causality. Say Joe threw a baseball deliberately to break a window. The breaking of the window was caused by Joe and that was caused by Joe making that choice. As you seem to have it, however, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Joe was not caused by any other event but by himself. A sort of agent-causation theory. The issue with this thinking is there are other causal factors and past circumstances at play here that are ignored that also account for the broken window and Joe doing it. For example, the ball being purchased from the store; Joe's thought process prior to him choosing to do it; Joe would never have thrown the ball if his dad didn't teach him how to throw 5 years earlier. The causal chain doesn't stop there it would go back to when when the baseball was first invented.

Our environment accounts for part of who we are and such is out of our control. That is true even disregarding a belief in a God or theological determinism. Determinism is true all around.

You haven't supported that claim and surely not in post 12, 15, or 50. This is made obvious by the fact I'm c&p your entire posts of which I mentioned how it is read, not "weeding" anything out. In post 12 you make a claim. That's it. Just one claim. No further argument is given in support of said claim. Post 15 is the same claim, again no further argument is given. Not only that, but the crucial aspect that signifies your circular reasoning is your claim is the very question that ought to be proved whereas you're acting as if it already is proved. You said in your last post about your fallacy, "They would if that is all I said on the matter I suppose." Anyone can go back and see of those three posts including number 50, that is indeed all you said on the matter.

You're talking about backwards time which is nonsensical in the first place. I haven't said anything about such a thing. If that and intentionality is something you think connects PAP and MA you're highly mistaken which would account for the reason no meat and bones of an argument has been made for it. The only reason this discussion has advanced the way that it has is due to my mentioning of the Frankfurt example, which after all a poor criticism is being made of it on your behalf. Also, I'd have to say you're technically guilty of the straw man fallacy as well when you say, "your argument is a bit harder since it logically contradicts itself on it's face by putting foreknowledge after the event of creation but before it's effect somehow." I never said foreknowledge is after the event in fact I've only said the opposite, thus it's a straw man. And you ask that I pay attention? Please....

 

[variant]

I'm not saying having a desire sets anyone free from determinism. I'm saying determinism is true in really any respect. The difference between the "robots" and man in a deterministic universe is that no conscious being is tricking us into feeling regardless of being determined are genuinely something we desire. God is not manipulating our being into something we wouldn't otherwise do, unless it pertains to salvation in which case it wouldn't matter.

Being conscious and compelled is still being compelled.

No matter how "genuine" our desires seem they are simply not our own they are a product of a predetermined system.

Also, like I mentioned early, not everything God foreknows is something He intends or wants to happen, and not everything He foreknows is caused by Him.

As stated this is ridiculous the ending is predestined with conscious foresight so it is quite impossible for God to not cause things. He causes the beginning middle and end. All things are caused. Our natures are caused, our motivations are caused, our actions are caused.

That is the nature of determinism.

And, as I have stated before, there are no other agents here to cause things, no other strings of free will. If there are please point them out, all aspects of everyone are caused.

So, compatabilism doesn't work. It removes both freedom and culpability and thus, morality. At least in any sense that could possibly matter.

There are things predetermined and predestined. The difference between the two is God's agency, as God directly causes something to transpire in something predestined though no divine agency is present in something predetermined. God only foreknows of things predetermined.

Omniscience means all knowing not "selectively all knowing" so if you wish to just concede the omniscience part then that's fine.

God can not predestine some things and not others. The nature of the beast here is that God knows everything before it creates and thus creates intentionally always. It can not be non-culpable as the outcome is forced.

Predestination and provenance is a deterministic system of thinking where God specifies the outcome so I'm not even sure what you are talking about here.

It is essentially a post hoc scenario to think that foreknowledge causes events to happen. Knowledge is not not a causal factor that makes events happen.

God is though so you're not quite getting it. Foreknowledge in a creative being (which is free to create as it wishes) does definitely cause events to happen in a specific way.

See God doesn't need to cause everything He foreknows to be omniscient all He needs is to know everything.

Except what he doesn't know.

God only foreknows of things predetermined.

And I've never said anything but that,

Except of course:

God only foreknows of things predetermined.

not even hinting at God lacking knowledge. What I'm saying is that there would be nothing to foreknow of unless it wasn't for our actions.

Our actions are part of a caused system with a predetermined outcome.

Yes I'm talking about compatabilism. That's how I've defined free will. As long as we act accordingly to our desires with no external or internal force or coercion we are free.

Except for the external force of an all powerful god preordaining the outcome and every aspect of our being at the dawn of creation...

:cough: determinism :cough:

Foreknowledge does not force anything we wouldn't want, and even then what is foreknown are our desires they are not caused by the knowledge.

So god creates everything but our desires, which we also have no control over? Interesting...

Who creates our desires?

And if we create our own desires, how can the outcome be predestined?

Yes our desires are determined but we are never even the ultimate source of our desires in the first place.

Ok........... Right......

So how are we accomplishing free will or morality or anything exactly? How does having desires which are predetermined to cause us down a path that is predetermined make us so different from robots exactly, fuzzy feelings?

This would be quite funny if you weren't proposing this seriously.

That is another area you didn't account for - any positive argument for self determination meaning we are the first cause of our actions and desires. It's a difficult burden to bear as it gives an incorrect portrayal of causality. Say Joe threw a baseball deliberately to break a window. The breaking of the window was caused by Joe and that was caused by Joe making that choice. As you seem to have it, however, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Joe was not caused by any other event but by himself.

He would have been caused by God.

In fact saying this was all on him makes little sense if he had all his motivations implanted from the dawn of time and predestined.

The odd fact that you can give someone an identity and blame them for their actions in a similar fashion to how I yell at my computer when it does what it is programmed to do is telling though.

I mean the these are generally pretty profound moments in my life but I didn't know people thought they amounted to coherent philosophy.

A sort of agent-causation theory. The issue with this thinking is there are other causal factors and past circumstances at play here that are ignored that also account for the broken window and Joe doing it. For example, the ball being purchased from the store; Joe's thought process prior to him choosing to do it; Joe would never have thrown the ball if his dad didn't teach him how to throw 5 years earlier. The causal chain doesn't stop there it would go back to when when the baseball was first invented.

It goes back to God in a deterministic system.

Removing morality.

Our environment accounts for part of who we are and such is out of our control. That is true even disregarding a belief in a God or theological determinism. Determinism is true all around.

It accounts for all of who we are in a deterministic system.

You haven't supported that claim and surely not in post 12, 15, or 50. This is made obvious by the fact I'm c&p your entire posts of which I mentioned how it is read, not "weeding" anything out. In post 12 you make a claim. That's it. Just one claim. No further argument is given in support of said claim. Post 15 is the same claim, again no further argument is given. Not only that, but the crucial aspect that signifies your circular reasoning is your claim is the very question that ought to be proved whereas you're acting as if it already is proved. You said in your last post about your fallacy, "They would if that is all I said on the matter I suppose." Anyone can go back and see of those three posts including number 50, that is indeed all you said on the matter.

I am sorry but you are wrong, I have argued extensively on the point you are speaking of, and once more you seem to even agree with me.

You're talking about backwards time which is nonsensical in the first place.

It wasn't my assertion.

Your fellow poster said that God existed outside of time and only got it's foreknowledge from after the event happening causing some nessisarily backwards time.

I haven't said anything about such a thing. If that and intentionality is something you think connects PAP and MA you're highly mistaken which would account for the reason no meat and bones of an argument has been made for it. The only reason this discussion has advanced the way that it has is due to my mentioning of the Frankfurt example, which after all a poor criticism is being made of it on your behalf. Also, I'd have to say you're technically guilty of the straw man fallacy as well when you say, "your argument is a bit harder since it logically contradicts itself on it's face by putting foreknowledge after the event of creation but before it's effect somehow." I never said foreknowledge is after the event in fact I've only said the opposite, thus it's a straw man. And you ask that I pay attention? Please....

God creates the world with both foreknowledge and intentionally is kind of a nuts and bolts assumption of the idea of providence and predestination.

It's even odd that you would argue against it.

I could support the idea being connected by defining the terms for instance:

Providence:

God conceived as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny

Providence - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Predestination:

The belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God or fate and cannot be changed

Predestination - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So yes, in this system God acts intentionally.

So what's the problem here, do you think God makes a lot of unintentional decisions or do you think that God lacks foreknowledge when he does so?

 

[Lopez 15721]

Being conscious and compelled is still being compelled.

No matter how "genuine" our desires seem they are simply not our own they are a product of a predetermined system.



As stated this is ridiculous the ending is predestined with conscious foresight so it is quite impossible for God to not cause things. He causes the beginning middle and end. All things are caused. Our natures are caused, our motivations are caused, our actions are caused.

That is the nature of determinism.

And, as I have stated before, there are no other agents here to cause things, no other strings of free will. If there are please point them out, all aspects of everyone are caused.

So, compatabilism doesn't work. It removes both freedom and culpability and thus, morality. At least in any sense that could possibly matter.



Omniscience means all knowing not "selectively all knowing" so if you wish to just concede the omniscience part then that's fine.

God can not predestine some things and not others. The nature of the beast here is that God knows everything before it creates and thus creates intentionally always. It can not be non-culpable as the outcome is forced.

Predestination and provenance is a deterministic system of thinking where God specifies the outcome so I'm not even sure what you are talking about here.



God is though so you're not quite getting it. Foreknowledge in a creative being (which is free to create as it wishes) does definitely cause events to happen in a specific way.



Except what he doesn't know.





Except of course:





Our actions are part of a caused system with a predetermined outcome.



Except for the external force of an all powerful god preordaining the outcome and every aspect of our being at the dawn of creation...

:cough: determinism :cough:



So god creates everything but our desires, which we also have no control over? Interesting...

Who creates our desires?

And if we create our own desires, how can the outcome be predestined?



Ok........... Right......

So how are we accomplishing free will or morality or anything exactly? How does having desires which are predetermined to cause us down a path that is predetermined make us so different from robots exactly, fuzzy feelings?

This would be quite funny if you weren't proposing this seriously.



He would have been caused by God.

In fact saying this was all on him makes little sense if he had all his motivations implanted from the dawn of time and predestined.

The odd fact that you can give someone an identity and blame them for their actions in a similar fashion to how I yell at my computer when it does what it is programmed to do is telling though.

I mean the these are generally pretty profound moments in my life but I didn't know people thought they amounted to coherent philosophy.



It goes back to God in a deterministic system.

Removing morality.



It accounts for all of who we are in a deterministic system.



I am sorry but you are wrong, I have argued extensively on the point you are speaking of, and once more you seem to even agree with me.



It wasn't my assertion.

Your fellow poster said that God existed outside of time and only got it's foreknowledge from after the event happening causing some nessisarily backwards time.



God creates the world with both foreknowledge and intentionally is kind of a nuts and bolts assumption of the idea of providence and predestination.

It's even odd that you would argue against it.

I could support the idea being connected by defining the terms for instance:

Providence:

God conceived as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny


Predestination:

The belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God or fate and cannot be

So yes, in this system God acts intentionally.

So what's the problem here, do you think God makes a lot of unintentional decisions or do you think that God lacks foreknowledge when he does so?

You're still not getting that God does not cause things by simply knowing them. Knowledge simply isn't a causal factor to make things happen. The nature of predestination is two things, foreknowledge and agency as in omnipotence. Even more the Biblical definition is in regards to salvation only, so only those events are predestined. Since not everything has to do with salvation not everything is predestined. Some things are and the rest are predetermined. The nature of determinism is that the future happenings occur due to past circumstances. It inherently has nothing to do with knowledge or God. Theological determinism is what we are discussing. Determinism may or may not require both logical and causal determinism whereas theological determinism requires both.

All aspects of everyone is caused anyway even as I said without the notion of God. Determinism is true. So either free will is compatible with determinism or its not and there is no such thing as free will.

Obviously you're misconstruing my words. I'm claiming that God only foreknows of and doesn't directly cause events that are predetermined, not that God literally knows of things that are only predetermined. I've only said God knows everything and I've never said He lacks knowledge. And you say God cannot predestine some things and not others when omnipotence means all powerful, so God can do just that if He so pleases. You're missing the point that predestination is defined only in regards to salvation, and not everything is in regards to salvation, thus not everything is predestined. I assume you don't know what I'm talking about as you aren't aware of the theology behind predestination. That's not my fault though and maybe you should study up on one subject before discussing it. What I'm saying about foreknowledge not being a causal factor is that by simply knowing of events that will happen, they are not caused by the knowledge itself. That is not the scope of foreknowledge.

The 'external force' of God is not against our will as it would be with someone or something physically forcing us not to act or to act how we do not desire. God's foreknowledge is again of our desires, so the foreknowledge does not cause us to act. What aspect foreknowledge is of determinism is logical not causal it must not get confused. So we still have free will as the foreknowledge is a) not causing us to act and b) The external force is not forcing us to act against our desires.

I don't think God creates everything in the first place. It's nonsensical to even say so. Did God build skyscrapers? Or how about the automobile? No those are man created things. Sure God gave them the capability and made it even possible to build those things but God did not directly create them. A lot of different factors account for our desires, not just one thing and not just ourselves.

Prove then that we are the first and ultimate source of our desires then. You say what I'm suggesting is funny but what is even more humerus is that you actually are naive enough to think you are the ultimate source of a desire, and again the fact that you have provided no support for such an assertion. Yet again another baseless claim coaxed in sarcasm.

It's also evident aside from your nonsensical sarcasm that your not grasping what I'm really saying with our desires and the Joe/baseball example. I'm not placing Joe in a deterministic universe, I'm granting the idea of determinism being false so we can say Joe is the cause of his own desires. I did that in order to show Joe, according to the agent causation theory, is never really the first cause of his desires and actions anyway.

Back to your fallacy of circular reasoning. You're guilty of the fallacy as evidenced by post 12, 15, and 50. You did not argue extensively for it then, and only repeated what you were suppose to prove. Again that is the dictionary definition of the fallacy. Your posts there would serve well in any example in a logic text book of circular reasoning. I never agreed with you about this, and nor did from saying about 'backwards time' as that was not my assertion either! My fellow poster's claims are not mine, and nor do I know why you think they'd be.

 

[variant]

You're still not getting that God does not cause things by simply knowing them. Knowledge simply isn't a causal factor to make things happen.

With a for-knowing God and a deterministic universe, God causes all events to happen with foreknowledge, and if free will doesn't exist than neither does morality.

And no I don't share your definition of free will, or your opinion that determinism is true (or how you think it's also false), so it's not a point I am going to continue to argue (or one I really have been arguing).

Your position that God can predestine the end point without predetermining the things that lead up to it is just nonsense.

Also convenient because you already asserted basic causal determinism to be fully true (for exactly the same reasons as I would assert it given the nature you assert for God).

Prove then that we are the first and ultimate source of our desires then. You say what I'm suggesting is funny but what is even more humerus is that you actually are naive enough to think you are the ultimate source of a desire, and again the fact that you have provided no support for such an assertion. Yet again another baseless claim coaxed in sarcasm.

My arguments against determinism would take too long and are more technical than I feel are appropriate here, and, my point here is not to disprove determinism but to follow the belief in predestination to it's absolute logical conclusion.

This is my thesis in case you missed it:

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.

Back to your fallacy of circular reasoning. You're guilty of the fallacy as evidenced by post 12, 15, and 50. You did not argue extensively for it then, and only repeated what you were suppose to prove. Again that is the dictionary definition of the fallacy. Your posts there would serve well in any example in a logic text book of circular reasoning. I never agreed with you about this, and nor did from saying about 'backwards time' as that was not my assertion either! My fellow poster's claims are not mine, and nor do I know why you think they'd be.

Just keep barking up that tree, I have continued to argue the point and you merely misunderstand me.

I also assure you that I can at least go one post without contradicting myself. You think all peoples desires are caused and their endpoints predetermined and yet you think people are somehow free.

I mean look at you bouncing all over the place:

The 'external force' of God is not against our will as it would be with someone or something physically forcing us not to act or to act how we do not desire. God's foreknowledge is again of our desires, so the foreknowledge does not cause us to act. What aspect foreknowledge is of determinism is logical not causal it must not get confused. So we still have free will as the foreknowledge is a) not causing us to act and b) The external force is not forcing us to act against our desires.

Logical Determinism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

Logical determinism or Determinateness is the notion that all propositions, whether about the past, present, or future, are either true or false. Note that one can support Causal Determinism without necessarily supporting Logical Determinism and vice versa (depending on one's views on the nature of time, but also randomness). The problem of free will is especially salient now with Logical Determinism: how can choices be free, given that propositions about the future already have a truth value in the present (i.e. it is already determined as either true or false)? This is referred to as the problem of future contingents.

The action was decided at the dawn of time when it was foreknown, the die was cast, again before you came into being as a person. If you are powerless to act otherwise before you are ever even you, saying you are not being acted upon by external forces is really rather ridiculous.

If God plays no part in the causation of our desires then this would follow, but since it causes everything in the system directly or indirectly with complete foreknowledge it doesn't.

If the wills are caused then what does it matter? The entire engine is set into motion with a set outcome being a forgone conclusion. You aren't the originator of your desires in such a system and thus you don't originate your actions either.

Literally nothing about you is uncaused in a deterministic system so you don't really exist except as an illusion.

I don't think God creates everything in the first place. It's nonsensical to even say so. Did God build skyscrapers? Or how about the automobile? No those are man created things. Sure God gave them the capability and made it even possible to build those things but God did not directly create them. A lot of different factors account for our desires, not just one thing and not just ourselves.

So we can categorize things as those caused by the people part of a predetermined system and what does this get us? Well God caused all the people parts of the system to happen.

God is the ultimate cause of everything in a system that is deterministic.

You even think that the system is deterministic as you argue here:

Prove then that we are the first and ultimate source of our desires then. You say what I'm suggesting is funny but what is even more humerus is that you actually are naive enough to think you are the ultimate source of a desire, and again the fact that you have provided no support for such an assertion. Yet again another baseless claim coaxed in sarcasm.

I haven't made the assertion, which tells me you clearly aren't paying attention. I'm not arguing the case for or against determinism, just what it's logical endpoint is.

And of course there is this post from way back:

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.

I can barely get you to agree to the premises you already fully agree with!

So, look, I am not going to continue to sit here and have you change your position all around when addressing me, it makes very little sense.

 

[Lopez 15721]

With a for-knowing God and a deterministic universe, God causes all events to happen with foreknowledge, and if free will doesn't exist than neither does morality.

And no I don't share your definition of free will, or your opinion that determinism is true (or how you think it's also false), so it's not a point I am going to continue to argue (or one I really have been arguing).

Your position that God can predestine the end point without predetermining the things that lead up to it is just nonsense.

Also convenient because you already asserted basic causal determinism to be fully true (for exactly the same reasons as I would assert it given the nature you assert for God).



My arguments against determinism would take too long and are more technical than I feel are appropriate here, and, my point here is not to disprove determinism but to follow the belief in predestination to it's absolute logical conclusion.

This is my thesis in case you missed it:





Just keep barking up that tree, I have continued to argue the point and you merely misunderstand me.

I also assure you that I can at least go one post without contradicting myself. You think all peoples desires are caused and their endpoints predetermined and yet you think people are somehow free.

I mean look at you bouncing all over the place:



The action was decided at the dawn of time when it was foreknown, the die was cast, again before you came into being as a person. If you are powerless to act otherwise before you are ever even you, saying you are not being acted upon by external forces is really rather ridiculous.

If God plays no part in the causation of our desires then this would follow, but since it causes everything in the system directly or indirectly with complete foreknowledge it doesn't.

If the wills are caused then what does it matter? The entire engine is set into motion with a set outcome being a forgone conclusion. You aren't the originator of your desires in such a system and thus you don't originate your actions either.

Literally nothing about you is uncaused in a deterministic system so you don't really exist except as an illusion.



So we can categorize things as those caused by the people part of a predetermined system and what does this get us? Well God caused all the people parts of the system to happen.

God is the ultimate cause of everything in a system that is deterministic.

You even think that the system is deterministic as you argue here:



I haven't made the assertion, which tells me you clearly aren't paying attention. I'm not arguing the case for or against determinism, just what it's logical endpoint is.

And of course there is this post from way back:



I can barely get you to agree to the premises you already fully agree with!

So, look, I am not going to continue to sit here and have you change your position all around when addressing me, it makes very little sense.

So you're interested in arguing against my contention of free will, but not really? You want to assert what free will is yet not support it? That is your prerogative but don't think it makes you look convincing when claiming something. I also think you don't understand my position at all. Predestination, according to the Bible, is God acting on man's behalf in order to save him. Though not everything can be predestined as not every event has to do with salvation. Those things that are not predestinated are called predetermined.

I don't understand why you refuse to provide support for your claims about something you're arguing for. I'm asking you to support the idea we are the ultimate source of our desires. You only assume we are and are taking that assumption for granted too. Do you know how a debate works? Are you aware that propositions must be supported? And you will never follow predestination to its complete logical conclusion as you theologically confound the meaning. Instead what will happen is you'll follow it to some illogical conclusion which seems to be the case. Only when you acknowledge the true Biblical meaning will you be able to say any coherent on the subject.

I have not misunderstood you in the least. Your first three posts to me exhibit circular reasoning. It's inescapable. You're better off admitting it and moving on. You asked me to show how you were guilty of the fallacy and I did exactly that. It is obvious to anyone who knows what the fallacy is.

I'm not saying there is no external factor I'm saying that external factor is not one that diminishes our will. It is not an external factor in the sense of making us do something we don't want to do. That is the only instance in which one lacks free will, like if one holds holds a gun to my head and makes me do something I do not desire. Let me try to build on a point here. By simply foreknowing a event God doesn't cause it to happen as again that is to erroneously apply causality. In those things God merely foreknows and does not directly cause an event, those things I refer to as predetermined, are events indirectly caused by God sure. I can go with that. However, things that are indirectly caused by a third factor are not necessarily responsible for for the outcome. In that case whatever directly caused the outcome outcome is responsible.

Also, this is why I'm asking you to support your claims as you need to show how we are the first causes of our desires. Simply saying It is the case does nothing. Its not convincing. It's not logiclal. Until you support that idea it can only be viewed as a baseless claim. And although you have not directly said we are the ultimate source of our desires that seems to be exactly what you're arguing, especially when you say in regards to me saying we aren't, "ok...right..." That to me seems like you're disagreeing with my statement and continue to argue against it by the preceeding statement and questions. Though if you're not arguing from that position, then all of your claims against mine are practically meaningless.

You can sit there and pretend I've changed my position but the truth is I have not. I've been saying what I originally have the whole discussion.