Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-If God is watching from outside time, and can see all of time and space before him,
-Then this is identical to God watching the block universe from outside, through the definition of the block universe (all of time and space),
-If the block universe exists, then free will doesn't exist. A multitude of better philosophers than me have logically argued this - I am referencing their work, -Hence if God is watching from outside time, free will doesn't exist.
You keep making an unfounded leap of logic with your bolded statement that isn’t justified . Nothing in this statement answers the question of why God cant gain knowledge of what Peter will do without affecting what Peter will do . Gods knowledge is based on knowing what Peter did, not in setting the future for Peter .
Your argument is circular and sort of like the “ turtles all the way down” argument . God knows how Peter will act, but Peter acts that way because God set the future and Peter can’t change it. But Gods knowledge of the future comes from watching Peter act. But Peter acted because God set the future up that way . But God knows the future because he watched Peter act……………
I contend God could know the future without having taken away free will at the moment of decision by humans . Nothing you have said shows this can’t be true .
How is Bidens choice of what to do already a done deal if he hasn't made it? The time traveler only knows what will happen BECAUSE Biden made a choice for history to record.
Now you've got it. Either Biden's choice is NOT a done deal and Free Will does exist and there is no omniscience because the decision is flexible OR omniscience (knowledge of the outcome) does exist and the decision is done past/present/future. Because if he hasn't made the choice there exists no knowledge of the choice. It's not about the time traveler its about the knowledge of the decision.
Omniscience is timeless knowledge. If the decision is not not certain, then omniscience is impossible. If omniscience is, then the decision can not be changed.
Having participated on internet forums over a period of 25 years, I've become as interested in the process and dynamics of participation as much as any content.
One enduring mystery to me is why people who clearly have very little clue what they are talking about persist in discussing, with other people who clearly have very little clue what they are talking about, highly sophisticated and technical subjects that only specialized experts are capable of discussing in a substantive manner?
Why do they persist in this when books and articles by the specialized experts are readily available? Why waste time on the one activity but not spend at least a corresponding amount of time on the other - which would give the participants at least enough background to have a semi-intelligent conversation?
Is mental masturbation simply fun? Are people just lazy? Do they just like to talk? Do they recognize the subjects are beyond their competence, so they just substitute blather for even attempting to achieve competence? It truly is an enduring mystery to me that cuts across almost all internet forums.
Anyway, surely ten minutes with the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Free Will and Foreknowledge" would be more productive than any ten minutes here: https://iep.utm.edu/foreknow/#SH4b.
Since William Lane Craig is the acknowledge expert on the topic of foreknowledge and free will, surely the Wikipedia article on Molinism is worth ten minutes of perusal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism. The article also discusses criticisms of Molinism and alternative views. A short snippet regarding counterefactuals:
Molinists believe that God has knowledge not only of necessary truths and contingent truths, but also of counterfactuals. (God's knowledge of counterfactuals is often referred to as his middle knowledge, although technically that term is more broad than simply the knowledge of counterfactuals.) A counterfactual is a statement of the form "if it were the case that P, it would be the case that Q". An example would be, "If Bob were in Tahiti he would freely choose to go swimming instead of sunbathing." The Molinist claims that even if Bob is never in Tahiti, God can still know whether Bob would go swimming or sunbathing. The Molinist believes that God, using his middle knowledge and foreknowledge, surveyed all possible worlds and then actualized a particular one. God's middle knowledge of counterfactuals would play an integral part in this "choosing" of a particular world.
Craig has also written the seminal Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom, if you're willing to spend a few dollars and hours, as well as Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time.
To the extent I can contribute what is at least informed blather, I still say that I have no problem with the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient God who creates beings with genuine free will and turns them loose. Omniscience does not require knowledge of that which can't be known, any more than omnipotence requires the ability to create four-sided triangles.
One enduring mystery to me is why people who clearly have very little clue what they are talking about persist in discussing(you), with other people who clearly have very little clue what they are talking about, highly sophisticated and technical subjects that only specialized experts are capable of discussing in a substantive manner(not you)?
Why do they persist in this when books and articles by the specialized experts are readily available? Why waste time on the one activity(you) but not spend at least a corresponding amount of time on the other(you) - which would give the participants at least enough background to have a semi-intelligent conversation?
That explains why you are here, got it! We do appreciate your lack of expertise and your curiosity about us primitives. The real mystery is why after 25 years, you think a massively condescending tone is going to afford you an ounce of credibility or respect.
You keep making an unfounded leap of logic with your bolded statement that isn’t justified . Nothing in this statement answers the question of why God cant gain knowledge of what Peter will do without affecting what Peter will do . Gods knowledge is based on knowing what Peter did, not in setting the future for Peter .
Your argument is circular and sort of like the “ turtles all the way down” argument . God knows how Peter will act, but Peter acts that way because God set the future and Peter can’t change it. But Gods knowledge of the future comes from watching Peter act. But Peter acted because God set the future up that way . But God knows the future because he watched Peter act……………
I contend God could know the future without having taken away free will at the moment of decision by humans . Nothing you have said shows this can’t be true .
There is nothing circular about my argument. I don't start with what I want to end. Go through each step one by one and show where you problem is.
A) If God is watching from outside time, and can see all of time and space before him,
Do you see anything wrong with A? If you do, what exactly?
B) Then this is identical to God watching the block universe from outside, through the definition of the block universe (all of time and space),
Do you see anything wrong with B or the link from A to B? If you do, what exactly?
C) If the block universe exists, then free will doesn't exist. A multitude of better philosophers than me have logically argued this - I am referencing their work,
Do you see anything wrong with C or the link from B to C? If you do, what exactly?
D) Hence if God is watching from outside time, free will doesn't exist.
Do you see anything wrong with D or the link from C to D? If you do, what exactly?
There is nothing circular about my argument. I don't start with what I want to end. Go through each step one by one and show where you problem is.
A) If God is watching from outside time, and can see all of time and space before him,
Do you see anything wrong with A? If you do, what exactly?
B) Then this is identical to God watching the block universe from outside, through the definition of the block universe (all of time and space),
Do you see anything wrong with B or the link from A to B? If you do, what exactly?
C) If the block universe exists, then free will doesn't exist. A multitude of better philosophers than me have logically argued this - I am referencing their work,
Do you see anything wrong with C or the link from B to C? If you do, what exactly?
D) Hence if God is watching from outside time, free will doesn't exist.
Do you see anything wrong with D or the link from C to D? If you do, what exactly?
Where, explicitly is your problem.
The attempted link from B to C is the unjustified leap. There is nothing that states that because God can see the universe from outside of time, that this means free will doesn’t exist . D is wrong also, but D depends on the faulty link between B and C
The attempted link from B to C is the unjustified leap. There is nothing that states that because God can see the universe from outside of time, that this means free will doesn’t exist . D is wrong also, but D depends on the faulty link between B and C
Ok so you accept up to B which means you accept that God is looking at the block universe.
But you don't accept that the block universe invalidates free will?
Here is the expanded argument for that (this is an expansion of C):
-Free will requires causality
-Causality requires time to move linearly
-There is no linear time in the block universe (by definition), except as an illusion for those inside the block universe
-Hence there is no free will
Do you have a specific problem with a specific line in that?
Ok so you accept up to B which means you accept that God is looking at the block universe.
But you don't accept that the block universe invalidates free will?
Here is the expanded argument for that (this is an expansion of C):
-Free will requires causality
-Causality requires time to move linearly
-There is no linear time in the block universe (by definition), except as an illusion for those inside the block universe
-Hence there is no free will
Do you have a specific problem with a specific line in that?
No, I don’t agree with the block universe . I was just pointing out where I saw the unjustified leap. I said elsewhere that I see God being able to see all time simultaneously from an outside perspective . I would liken it more to a horizontal timeline in which God can see the entire past and present as a panorama, rather than a block containing all the past , present , and future . So to answer this question, I see the problem as your 3rd point, that time can’t move linear . I don’t any evidence of a block universe. If this block contains all the past and all the future, how do these things exist if there is no flow of time ? The past when I was young is the past specifically because it happened at an earlier time when I was shorter,skinnier, and still had black hair . The future will be the future because it hasn’t happened yet from my framework of experience . There are other issues with the block universe, and I have little worry that it will be found correct. It’s just a weird speculation by some trying to make sense of relativity and physics . As we get more knowledgeable, the block universe won’t likely exist as some sort of cosmological constant needed to make some weird aspects of physics make sense .
Ok so you accept up to B which means you accept that God is looking at the block universe.
But you don't accept that the block universe invalidates free will?
Here is the expanded argument for that (this is an expansion of C):
-Free will requires causality
-Causality requires time to move linearly
-There is no linear time in the block universe (by definition), except as an illusion for those inside the block universe
-Hence there is no free will
Do you have a specific problem with a specific line in that?
Yes. It is a category mistake to consider time just another dimension of the same type as the three spatial ones. Minkowski's static four-dimensional world ignores the superiority of the time "dimension" over the others. It is what the other dimensions are immersed in. As Augustine said, "God made the world, not IN time, but WITH time."
In short, our measured and experienced time is an artifact of God's ongoing LIFE within which we exist, NOT some static block universe nonsense. Our consciousness exists at the same level which is why our psychological time is the only sensory experience that has a direct correspondence with our experience of it. All other sensory impacts are interpreted, photon impacts as images, etc.
Yes. It is a category mistake to consider time just another dimension of the same type as the three spatial ones. Minkowski's static four-dimensional world ignores the superiority of the time "dimension" over the others. It is what the other dimensions are immersed in. As Augustine said, "God made the world, not IN time, but WITH time."
In short, our measured and experienced time is an artifact of God's ongoing LIFE within which we exist, NOT some static block universe nonsense. Our consciousness exists at the same level which is why our psychological time is the only sensory experience that has a direct correspondence with our experience of it. All other sensory impacts are interpreted, photon impacts as images, etc.
Out of the two it is Augustine that is talking nonsense, not Minkowski.
Nevertheless my argument with the other poster, that I had with you previously, is that an omniscient God implies a static block universe. Since you think the Omnis are human projections on God, then my argument in this instance is not with you.
Last edited by Peter600; 11-30-2021 at 04:31 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
