The Problem of Omniscience?.?.

[cloudyday2]

And yet the Christian way is subvert one's self to be more like Christ. Abnegation of the self is the objective, to be a new creation. Note, too, that often Christians say that since "he will wipe away every tear", their memories will be wiped to the extent they won't mourn their loved ones in hell. I think that since our memories are significant to who we are, Christians are looking forward to not being who they are.

Of course, "not all Christians", but to some extent this is what I was taught.

Here is an analogy. A first grade student at school is exactly who he/she should be and where he/she should be. However, that first grade student is on a path that leads to graduation from school. There is a path or a process and each point along that path is the right place at that time.

So a Christian can hope to be more like Christ while still accepting himself/herself at the present midway along the path to that hope.

 

[Paul4JC]

to OP...

Though he cannot help but know everything, he never dishonors our freedom to choose. He may prod and draw in so many ways, but at the end, it’s up to us. For evil to run it’s coarse [fall of Satan and angelic beings, which he could have crushed. Fall of Eve, Adam, and mankind, which he could have intervened], shows his eternal undaunted faith that many would, by his grace, come to freely acknowledge and trust in his agape love through Christ Jesus. The pre-game is to get ready for the real deal.

 

[Halbhh]

To everyone:

Physical determinism itself is a (naive, reasonable seeming) common sense assumption of people innocently unaware of the possibility of truly random quantum events, as suggested by bell test experiments over decades in physics.

Of course humans are physically based.

The mistake in the video below and that most people make is to just assume the physical is fully determined. 'Hard determinism' looks less and less likely in physics, and so should not be an assumption.

I would agree with this statement. But I find this statement irrelevant to my concern.



Sure, but are the ones that ascribe to the concept of true 'freewill' merely misinformed or in denial???

I guess this question is quite common then

 

[Halbhh]

All knowing is not the same as all controlling. There is a big difference. Though some of our brothers and sisters believe He is both knowing and controlling, there are many who understand our God to have given us free will and the ability to choose. Unfortunately this continues to be one of the most debated issues in Christianity. I am affraid you are caught in its crosshairs, left with confusion and in doubt. I hope you find a satisfactory answer that keeps you on the road to Him. Be blessed.

An interesting (and for some important) thing to know: nature isn't fully deterministic we have been learning.

This has become increasingly clear in a certain kind of ongoing physics experiments meant to test determinism ("local realism") vs. the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics (seeming random action of elementary particles, so that they only have probabilities instead of fixed determined paths) -- "bell test experiments" -- over the last many decades, it's become increasingly apparent that the physical side of nature is not deterministic.

Let me repeat for clarity. The physical universe (everything we see and experience) appears to not be deterministic.

Of course it's practically deterministic enough for us to rely on nature and engineering and so on, because of statistical averaging: random acting particles in huge numbers together act very stably.

All the air in a room doesn't rush to one side of the room, leaving a vacuum of no air on the other side of the room.

Statistical averaging allows random acting fundamental particles to act with a partial (but adequate!) degree of ensemble predictability. As a group of particles, matter acts with sufficient predictability for things to work as we see on the macro level.

This all means that the logic in the video cvanwey posted to you above about free will vs determinism is based on a faulty premise (the mistake of just assuming physics determinism, the old 'clockwork universe' idea, which most people just naturally assume in childhood). In other words, the video is mistaken about its subject matter.

 

[cvanwey]

To everyone:

Physical determinism itself is a (naive, reasonable seeming) common sense assumption of people innocently unaware of the possibility of truly random quantum events, as suggested by bell test experiments over decades in physics.

Of course humans are physically based.

The mistake in the video below and that most people make is to just assume the physical is fully determined. 'Hard determinism' looks less and less likely in physics, and so should not be an assumption.

Please notice that my preamble/gateway sentence, to the provided video, ended with (3) question marks.

The intent of the video was to simply raise awareness to the philosophical argument, which exists about the topic of 'freewill', since 'freewill' looks to be a rather 'important' argument point for many Christians. Seems as many deem freewill as the complete freedom to choose, or possesses a voluntary choice. But is it? Seems reasonable to get arguments from differing sides.

Furthermore, do 'truly random quantum events' then lead specifically to YHWH?

 

[Halbhh]

Please notice that my preamble/gateway sentence, to the provided video, ended with (3) question marks.

The intent of the video was to simply raise awareness to the philosophical argument, which exists about the topic of 'freewill', since 'freewill' looks to be a rather 'important' argument point for many Christians. Seems as many deem freewill as the complete freedom to choose, or possesses a voluntary choice. But is it? Seems reasonable to get arguments from differing sides.

Furthermore, do 'truly random quantum events' then lead specifically to YHWH?

As far as I know/understand, it is not possible to prove or disprove God via nature/physics.

 

[cvanwey]

An interesting (and for some important) thing to know: nature isn't fully deterministic we have been learning.

This has become increasingly clear in a certain kind of ongoing physics experiments meant to test determinism ("local realism") vs. the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics (seeming random action of elementary particles, so that they only have probabilities instead of fixed determined paths) -- "bell test experiments" -- over the last many decades, it's become increasingly apparent that the physical side of nature is not deterministic.

Let me repeat for clarity. The physical universe (everything we see and experience) appears to not be deterministic.

Of course it's practically deterministic enough for us to rely on nature and engineering and so on, because of statistical averaging: random acting particles in huge numbers together act very stably.

All the air in a room doesn't rush to one side of the room, leaving a vacuum of no air on the other side of the room.

Statistical averaging allows random acting fundamental particles to act with a partial (but adequate!) degree of ensemble predictability. As a group of particles, matter acts with sufficient predictability for things to work as we see on the macro level.

This all means that the logic in the video cvanwey posted to you above about free will vs determinism is based on a faulty premise (the mistake of just assuming physics determinism, the old 'clockwork universe' idea, which most people just naturally assume in childhood). In other words, the video is mistaken about its subject matter.

At 'best', you are beginning to make an argument against 'hard determinism'. As you appear to be in the 'science' game, it goes without saying, that until peer review resolves this matter, (if possible), we will continue to see seemingly educated people writing about the topic of perceived freewill, and the possible misconception freewill presents

But I can't help but to wonder? Why all the invested energy in defending the 'conclusion' that freewill is just that... 'complete freedom of voluntary choice'?

Is this talking point an important topic, which cements your 'faith'? If freewill does end up being aligned with hard determinism, does this shatter your faith?

Speaking of 'faith', if you are in the field of science, does any of these 'bell test' experiments rely upon 'faith' to reach their conclusions? If not, then why is 'faith' a reliable tool to reach reasonable conclusions about God?

Okay, getting off my soap box now. Care to engage the OP?

If God, and in your specific case, YHWH, already knows where everything is going to end up, why knowingly create satan, where Lucifer is ultimately going to betray Him, and spoil His intended creation, until He decides to knowingly later fix it? Seems to resemble a similar scenario?:

-Supreme Lawmaker X. aka SLX
-SLX makes all laws.
-SLX deems all thoughts or actions, contrary to the character of SLX, against SLX law
-SLX fires "Fred 666" because he thinks he has a better idea.
-Fred 666 is now disgruntled and manages to take 1/3 of the employees with him.
-He starts a new business called Fred 666 and Co.
-Fred 666 tells SLX he is going to perpetually retaliate, in a way which will completely displease SLX.
-Fred 666 and Co., manages to contact everyone under SLX law, and instigations practices against SLX law.
-Many of these instigations lead to direct violation of SLX law
-Fred 666 is not yet contained in these actions, and allowed to continue
-All such deemed punishment is distributed to the ones under SLX law, while the instigator/mastermind of the 'crime', is not yet contained/addressed.
-SLX does nothing to currently stop Fred 666 and co., by reason of 'freewill'
-SLX, some time in the future, after enough instigated perpetrators, or the victims of these instigated perpetrators come to pass, decides to finally put a stop to Fred 666 and co.


What say you about SLX? Is 'freewill' a reasonable defense? Or maybe it does not matter, as SLX IS the lawmaker?

I mean, it seems a legitimate question to ask? Sometime in the 'past', God was alone. God decides to create 'stuff', other than Himself. Which raises other unknowable questions before we even begin.... Such as, if something cannot come from nothing, then what did God dwell within before He choose to create it? Putting aside that philosophical can of worms...

God knowingly decides to create a scenario. All-the-while, knows where all will ultimately end up in the end. And by end, means A or B.

A = eternal bliss
B = eternal torment

Apparently, before you were a twinkle in your mother's eye, your fate was already sealed/determined. God already knows.

And now, God seems to be setting back, and watching it all happen..?.?.? Why the pregame?

 

[Halbhh]

At 'best', you are beginning to make an argument against 'hard determinism'. As you appear to be in the 'science' game, it goes without saying, that until peer review resolves this matter, (if possible), we will continue to see seemingly educated people writing about the topic of perceived freewill, and the possible misconception freewill presents

But I can't help but to wonder? Why all the invested energy in defending the 'conclusion' that freewill is just that... 'complete freedom of voluntary choice'?

Is this talking point an important topic, which cements your 'faith'? If freewill does end up being aligned with hard determinism, does this shatter your faith?

Speaking of 'faith', if you are in the field of science, does any of these 'bell test' experiments rely upon 'faith' to reach their conclusions? If not, then why is 'faith' a reliable tool to reach reasonable conclusions about God?

Okay, getting off my soap box now. Care to engage the OP?

If God, and in your specific case, YHWH, already knows where everything is going to end up, why knowing create satan, where Lucifer is ultimately going to betray Him, and spoil His intended creation, until He decides to knowingly later fix it? Seems to resemble a car manufacture, in a sense.

-(Car Company A) build cars. We will call it CCA.
-CCA fires "Fred 666" because he wants to take over operations
-Fred 666 is now disgruntled
-Fred 666 tells CCA he is going to perpetually retaliate in a way which will completely displease CCA
-Fred 666 contacts every CCA car owner and instigates
-Many of these instigations lead to 'crime'
-Fred 666 is not directly implicated in these crimes, as the crimes are 'proven' to be done merely by CCA car owners.
-CCA knows this, does nothing. - 'Freewill'
-CCA, some time in the future, after enough CCA car owners go to jail, and enough victims of CCA owner are implicated, decides to blow the whistle on the real culprit (i.e.) Fred 666

What say you about CCA? Is 'freewill' a reasonable defense?

I mean, it seems a legitimate question to ask? Sometime in the 'past', God was alone. God decides to create 'stuff', other than Himself. Which raises other unknowable questions before we even begin.... Such as, if something cannot come from nothing, then what did God dwell within before He choose to create it? Putting aside that philosophical can of worms...

God knowingly decides to create a scenario. All-the-while, knows where all will ultimately end up in the end. And by end, means A or B.

A = eternal bliss
B = eternal torment

Apparently, before you we a tinkle in your mother's eye, your fate was already sealed/determined. God already knows.

And now, God seems to be setting back, and watching it all happen..?.?.? Why the pregame?

heh heh. If up was down, it'd not be up. Ok. For me, assuming a disproved old idea (a physics view of 19th century) as one's basis for understanding the natural world isn't realist. It is more imagination than reality to believe in full determinism.

 

[cvanwey]

heh heh. If up was down, it'd not be up. Ok. For me, assuming a disproved old idea (a physics view of 19th century) as one's basis for understanding the natural world isn't realist. It is more imagination than reality to believe in full determinism.

Is this going to be your entire response? If so, I'll reply. Just wondering, before I engage?

 

[Halbhh]

Is this going to be your entire response? If so, I'll reply. Just wondering, before I engage?

While a person could live in an unreal world in their mind (by choice) where nature is fully deterministic in the old clockwork universe way (against evidence physicists have), I prefer to be forthright with people and inform them that this common old idea is actually just a extremely unlikely notion at this point in time. (all conceivable loopholes have been convincingly closed in bell test experiments, after decades of efforts)

That full natural determinism of course would rule out free will if one also has the (widely believed by many) 2nd additional assumption/worldview idea many have of naturalism (that only the physics of our universe alone exists and controls all events that happen and all things here) -- under those 2 assumptions (one highly disproved now) the nonexistence of free will is just an obvious immediate conclusion and not much there to discuss on that part.

But... , on the basis of reality -- results of physics experiments -- that's all just an imaginary exercise.

Free will looks pretty solid and safe to presume correct.

 

[cvanwey]

While a person could live in an unreal world in their mind (by choice) where nature is fully deterministic in the old clockwork universe way (against evidence physicists have), I prefer to be forthright with people and inform them that this common old idea is actually just a extremely unlikely notion at this point in time. (all conceivable loopholes have been convincingly closed in bell test experiments, after decades of efforts)

That full natural determinism of course would rule out free will if one also has the (widely believed by many) 2nd additional assumption/worldview idea many have of naturalism (that only the physics of our universe alone exists and controls all events that happen and all things here) -- under those 2 assumptions (one highly disproved now) the nonexistence of free will is just an obvious immediate conclusion and not much there to discuss on that part.

But... , on the basis of reality -- results of physics experiments -- that's all just an imaginary exercise.

Free will looks pretty solid and safe to presume correct.

Great, so it looks like you really were done, in your prior response.

My turn.

The product of 'freewill' being predetermined vs voluntary vs other, has absolutely NO bearing, one way or the other, in my assessment. Seems polite to raise awareness to other view points of consideration about the topic.

Please look at my updated/edited analogy given, about "SLX".

******************

Furthermore, God's plan looks to be as follows:

A: With me equals eternal bliss
B: Not with me equals eternal torment
C: No option presented

On a side note, you did not look to answer my question. I will not point out the other points I made, as it would appear you do not want to address them

IF 'hard determinism' IS fact, does this challenge your faith? Yes or no

 

[Halbhh]

Great, so it looks like you really were done, in your prior response.

My turn.

The product of 'freewill' being predetermined vs voluntary vs other, has absolutely NO bearing, one way or the other, in my assessment. Seems polite to raise awareness to other view points of consideration about the topic.

Please look at my updated/edited analogy given, about "SLX".

******************

Furthermore, God's plan looks to be as follows:

A: With me equals eternal bliss
B: Not with me equals eternal torment
C: No option presented

On a side note, you did not look to answer my question. I will not point out the other points I made, as it would appear you do not want to address them

IF 'hard determinism' IS fact, does this challenge your faith? Yes or no

Starting with the last:
Asking me what I'd think "if hard determinism is fact" is just like asking me what would I think "if up is down" -- it's about like that to me.

To use a more colorful analogy, it would be like asking what would I think "if the Earth was flat."

Well, it isn't. So, I'd think the person asking was perhaps stuck in an ideology, if they could not accept the reality of observations that contradict their preferred idea.

Regarding "eternal torment", that is said to be the case for the immortal angels that rebelled and fought God and have since done plenty of harms, but for human souls in contrast in that place they (using the literal words from Christ Himself) "perish" in a place where God will for them "destroy body and soul in hell" -- His words. And as in so many places in the new testament, this outcome is very aptly termed the "second death", which doesn't sound metaphorical because it isn't intended to be metaphorical we should be able to realize.

 

[cvanwey]

Starting with the last:
Asking me what I'd think "if hard determinism is fact" is just like asking me what would I think "if up is down" -- it's about like that to me.

To use a more colorful analogy, it would be like asking what would I think "if the Earth was flat."

Well, it isn't. So, I'd think the person asking was perhaps stuck in an ideology, if they could not accept the reality of observations that contradict their preferred idea.

You still have not answered the yes or no question. Why is this so difficult for you? You are bringing up recent deja vu, when I asked you another question repeatedly, for which you did not answer. Are you hiding something?

Yes or no. If 'hard determinism' is indeed true, is your 'faith' in jeopardy?

Regarding "eternal torment", that is said to be the case for the immortal angels that rebelled and fought God and have since done plenty of harms, but for human souls in contrast in that place they (using the literal words from Christ Himself) "perish" in a place where God will for them "destroy body and soul in hell" -- His words. And as in so many places in the new testament, this outcome is very aptly termed the "second death", which doesn't sound metaphorical because it isn't intended to be metaphorical we should be able to realize.

I'm not going to quibble over what God does to the ones for which He decides not to choose into His Kingdom. But the implication remains the same.

He creates a scenario:

A: Eternal bliss
B: Eternal death and/or torture

Where's option C, D, E, F, G, etc?

******************

And getting to the 'heart' of the OP, what say you about the little "SLX" scenario, and beyond - (post #27)?

-Supreme Lawmaker X. aka SLX
-SLX makes all laws.
-SLX deems all thoughts or actions, contrary to the character of SLX, against SLX law
-SLX fires "Fred 666" because he thinks he has a better idea.
-Fred 666 is now disgruntled and manages to take 1/3 of the employees with him.
-He starts a new business called Fred 666 and Co.
-Fred 666 tells SLX he is going to perpetually retaliate, in a way which will completely displease SLX.
-Fred 666 and Co., manages to contact everyone under SLX law, and instigations practices against SLX law.
-Many of these instigations lead to direct violation of SLX law
-Fred 666 is not yet contained in these actions, and allowed to continue
-All such deemed punishment is distributed to the ones under SLX law, while the instigator/mastermind of the 'crime', is not yet contained/addressed.
-SLX does nothing to currently stop Fred 666 and co., by reason of 'freewill'
-SLX, some time in the future, after enough instigated perpetrators, or the victims of these instigated perpetrators come to pass, decides to finally put a stop to Fred 666 and co.

What say you about SLX? Is 'freewill' a reasonable defense? Or maybe it does not matter, as SLX IS the lawmaker?

I mean, it seems a legitimate question to ask? Sometime in the 'past', God was alone. God decides to create 'stuff', other than Himself. Which raises other unknowable questions before we even begin.... Such as, if something cannot come from nothing, then what did God dwell within before He choose to create it?