T
talquin
Guest
Do you believe X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) has a truth value as of day 1 in our time line?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you believe X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) has a truth value as of day 1 in our time line?I know what the OP says and the thirty or so extracts from it that you've reposted. However, none of it demonstrates that God doesn't have foreknowledge; you've merely created a hypothetical scenario and a hypothetical God in that scenario who does NOT have foreknowledge...and then expected us to treat it as though that is, actually, what God is.
I answered.
So you agree X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) has a truth value as of our day 1.
Let's say it's day 1 and the truth value of X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) is A. Day 2 then comes around and Fred freely chooses B. What then happens to God's knowledge that Fred would choose A?
OK, so you agree once Fred chooses B on day 2, that can't be undone. I don't disagree.Once someone has made a choice, it can't be undone.
Is God's knowledge about Fred's day 2 a/b choice such that as of our day 1, God knows what Fred will choose on day 2? Or would you contend that as of our day 1, God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 choice is dynamic and depends on what Fred chooses on day 2? If the former, then what happens if God knows Fred will choose A and Fred chooses B?Since this god views everything as the past, all choices have already been freely made.
OK, so God's knowledge is a function of Fred's choice. Correct? If correct, then if variable X represents God's day 1 knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice, then variable X would not have a truth value as of day 1.God's infallible knowledge of what Fred has already chosen on day 2 is no different than us looking at a videotape of what someone did yesterday, and infallibly knowing what they did yesterday.
OK, so you agree once Fred chooses B on day 2, that can't be undone. I don't disagree.
Is God's knowledge about Fred's day 2 a/b choice such that as of our day 1, God knows what Fred will choose on day 2? Or would you contend that as of our day 1, God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 choice is dynamic and depends on what Fred chooses on day 2? If the former, then what happens if God knows Fred will choose A and Fred chooses B?
OK, so God's knowledge is a function of Fred's choice. Correct? If correct, then if variable X represents God's day 1 knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice, then variable X would not have a truth value as of day 1.
If you believe God loves us and are aware that God doesn't divert the destructive typhoon so it dissipates harmlessly over the ocean, then it means you hold an implicit belief that God isn't capable of doing anything.I noticed you have some conflict talquin. It isn't as complicated as confusion suggests it to be.
God loves you. God loves all of us. God understands.
It is easy to understand that rejoicing in evil against others and rejoicing for others to prosper are very different things.
If a person rejoices in harming others, they have chosen to serve evil.
If a person rejoices in loving others, they have chosen to serve God.
A choice. You are free to choose, I am free to choose.
Do you believe X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) has a truth value as of day 1 in our time line?I believe that God's foreknowledge is the same on all days.
Is God's knowledge about Fred's day 2 a/b choice such that as of our day 1, God knows what Fred will choose on day 2?
Let's say variable X represents God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice. It sounds like you're saying variable X has a truth value (that it holds a value of either A or B) as of "t0", or at all times prior to day 2. Agree?No, this god would know on our day 1 what Fred already chose (from this god's perspective) on our day 2. Not "will choose". Remember, everything can be seen as in the past for this god concept.
imagine a timeline starting with time "t0" as the beginning of the universe and "tx" as the end of the universe. For the god concept I'm talking about, you can imagine this god living at tx, observing all points in between t0 and tx. Therefore, this god would have knowledge about all the choices everyone freely made throughout the timeline. From our perspective, we travel along the timeline linearly. We have future events. This god does not.
Then you'd be wrong about that. And I have already answered that God's foreknowledge is the same at all times.Do you believe X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) has a truth value as of day 1 in our time line?
Your refusal to commit to an answer of "yes" suggests to me that you think I have a good point, but are afraid to admit it.
Let's say variable X represents God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice. It sounds like you're saying variable X has a truth value (that it holds a value of either A or B) as of "t0", or at all times prior to day 2. Agree?
Do you also agree that if Fred freely makes his A/B choice on day 2, and variable Y represents Fred's day 2 A/B choice, that variable Y receives its value on day 2. Correct?
If you agree with both of those, then you would hold an implicit belief that Fred can't freely choose either A or B, but is bound to choose whatever variable X is equal to.
We don't even have to make this about free will.
You have a shaker of dice like in the game of Yahtzee. Put in one die, shake, it and pour it out. The chances of God or anything else correctly predicting what you will roll is 1 in 6. Roll another die and repeat until you've rolled all six. The chances of God or anything else correctly predicting all six are 1 in 46656. Do this four more times and the chances of guessing right drop to 1 in 220 septillion (billion trillion). If God was able to know ahead of time what you were going to roll then that would disprove physics. The concept of Uncertainty has existed since Heisenberg in 1927. Einstein struggled with this concept and had to be corrected by Neils Bohr so those here who are struggling shouldn't feel bad. If you can disprove it then write up a paper, submit it to a scientific journal and you'll get a Nobel prize.
Similarly there are many who struggle with the concept of free will. Sam Harris is still struggling with it as you can read for yourself in his book on free will. Sam makes a related mistake based on successive machine states which is in fact the basis of computational theory but not applicable to brains. Sam is not alone:
At naturalism, the definition of determinism:
Determinism says that given a physical state of affairs, for instance the state of your brain, body and environment at this instant (time T), theres a single possible next state of affairs at T+1 as necessitated by causal laws discovered to hold at various levels of description, atomic, chemical, and biological. Excluding any randomly generated influences (for instance from cosmic rays, beta decay, etc.), the state at T+1 then necessitates the next, and so on, such that theres a law-like set of transitions over time that would be exactly the same if we could reset all conditions back to their original state at T
Again, it isn't just religious people who make this mistake.
At the center for naturalism in the FAQ:
This means that if we knew the whole causal story of ourselves, we could discover all the causes going back in time of what were doing at this very moment.
These ideas that human mental states are deterministic are false. In fact, if you had some way of rewinding time and repeating the same 30 dice rolls, it would be nearly impossible to roll the same sequence twice even starting from identical conditions. Even if you had some way of creating a precise map of the brain, you could not accurately predict the future mental states for more than a fraction of second. Saying that God could predict a day ahead is not correct but the mistake is understandable.
Christians often make the claim that God knows everything. If asked for specifics, theyll say this includes knowledge about the future (foreknowledge) and that such knowledge is infallible. Christians also often make the claim that man has free will. Upon being asked for specifics, theyll agree that free will entails the ability to freely make a choice and that up until the time an option is chosen, a different option could have been chosen. At quick glance, these claims may not appear to be in conflict. However, if we dig a little deeper into each of these claims, well see that they are.
Lets say Fred is faced with a free choice of A or B. He is due to make this choice on Tuesday (day 2). Well call Freds day 2 A/B choice variable Y. This means prior to day 2, variable Y has no value (or the choice lies in an unmade state), and on day 2, variable Y will acquire a value of either A or B to be decided freely by Fred.
Given the Christian claim that God has infallible foreknowledge, this would mean God knows infallibly what A/B choice Fred will make when the choice still lies in an unmade state. To gain further clarity on this, it can be asked, if it were asked on day 1 does God know infallibly what Freds day 2 A/B choice will be, would the answer be YES?. Christians would typically agree.
If asked for further specifics, such as what if Fred chooses something in conflict with what God knows he will choose, Christians will respond with the assertion that Fred will choose whatever God knows he will choose.
So well call Gods day 1 knowledge of Freds day 2 A/B choice variable X. If God knows infallibly on day 1 what Freds day 2 A/B choice will be, then it follows that X has a static or fixed value of either A or B as of day 1.
We now have three conditions:
1) X (or God's knowledge as of day 1 of Fred's day 2 A/B choice) has a value of either A or B on day 1 and this value is fixed and cannot change. If it is A, it will remain A. If it is B, it willremain B. This follows the assertion that God has infallible knowledge of future events.
2) Y (or Freds day 2 A/B choice) receives its value on day 2. Once Y receives its value, it becomes locked. Prior to receiving its value, it could potentially become A or B, as Fred freely chooses A or B. This follows the assertion that Fred has free will or can freely make choices.
3) X is equal to Y. This follows the assertion that whatever Fred chooses is precisely the same as what God knew he would choose.
Not all three of these conditions can be true.
If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 cant be true, as X wouldnt be equal to Y, nor would Y be equal to X. Not only would X receive a value at a different point in time than Y, but Y could be assigned a value in conflict with the static value of X.
If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 cant be true. Fred wouldnt be able to freely choose A or B, as variable Y would already be defined as being equal to variable X. Christians will often argue that God's knowledge of Freds future choice is a function of Freds day 2 choice. But this doesnt hold true if the answer to the question if asked on day 1, does God know what Freds day 2 A/B choice will be? is YES.
If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 cant be true. What this means is if variable Y gets its value on day 2, then variable X also gets its value on day 2 and gets the same value as variable Y. It then follows that God cant have infallible knowledge on day 1 of Freds day 2 A/B choice.
Therefore, it is logically impossible for God (or anyone) to have infallible foreknowledge of a yet to be made free choice.
Let me see if I can think of how to put this.I understand what you are suggesting about prediction with the rolls of the dice etc, and I think I kind of understand what you've shared about determinism ..... how though do these compare with foreknowledge? I am not necessarily referring to God's foreknowledge but to the definition of foreknowledge, e.g.:
"knowledge of an event before it happens" Cambridge Dictionaries online.
It sounds like you're saying X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) has a truth value as of day 1 in our timeline.Then you'd be wrong about that. And I have already answered that God's foreknowledge is the same at all times.Do you believe X (or God's knowledge of Fred's day 2 a/b choice) has a truth value as of day 1 in our time line?
Your refusal to commit to an answer of "yes" suggests to me that you think I have a good point, but are afraid to admit it.
How does that affect your thinking?
Thanks for sharing. I can tell you're fairly well versed on this topic.We don't even have to make this about free will.
You have a shaker of dice like in the game of Yahtzee. Put in one die, shake, it and pour it out. The chances of God or anything else correctly predicting what you will roll is 1 in 6. Roll another die and repeat until you've rolled all six. The chances of God or anything else correctly predicting all six are 1 in 46656. Do this four more times and the chances of guessing right drop to 1 in 220 septillion (billion trillion). If God was able to know ahead of time what you were going to roll then that would disprove physics. The concept of Uncertainty has existed since Heisenberg in 1927. Einstein struggled with this concept and had to be corrected by Neils Bohr so those here who are struggling shouldn't feel bad. If you can disprove it then write up a paper, submit it to a scientific journal and you'll get a Nobel prize.
Similarly there are many who struggle with the concept of free will. Sam Harris is still struggling with it as you can read for yourself in his book on free will. Sam makes a related mistake based on successive machine states which is in fact the basis of computational theory but not applicable to brains. Sam is not alone:
At naturalism, the definition of determinism:
Determinism says that given a physical state of affairs, for instance the state of your brain, body and environment at this instant (time T), theres a single possible next state of affairs at T+1 as necessitated by causal laws discovered to hold at various levels of description, atomic, chemical, and biological. Excluding any randomly generated influences (for instance from cosmic rays, beta decay, etc.), the state at T+1 then necessitates the next, and so on, such that theres a law-like set of transitions over time that would be exactly the same if we could reset all conditions back to their original state at T
Again, it isn't just religious people who make this mistake.
At the center for naturalism in the FAQ:
This means that if we knew the whole causal story of ourselves, we could discover all the causes going back in time of what were doing at this very moment.
These ideas that human mental states are deterministic are false. In fact, if you had some way of rewinding time and repeating the same 30 dice rolls, it would be nearly impossible to roll the same sequence twice even starting from identical conditions. Even if you had some way of creating a precise map of the brain, you could not accurately predict the future mental states for more than a fraction of second. Saying that God could predict a day ahead is not correct but the mistake is understandable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?