Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
74 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pollux, proudly roman catholic, Tangle (5 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,279 Year: 11,027/23,288 Month: 279/1,763 Week: 246/390 Day: 66/69 Hour: 5/3

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will vs Omniscience
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16471
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 931 of 997 (880089)
07-29-2020 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 927 by Stile
07-29-2020 10:13 AM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
quote:
I would suggest that it would easily be accepted by anyone who wants God's "all-knowing-ness" to be logically possible.

No, because that is not an issue. There is no logical impossibility in knowing what our decisions would be if God chose to create a particular universe. From a logical perspective it’s not really different from knowing our decisions immediately after creating a particular universe. The differences would come in the details of how things worked, which is more akin to physical possibility.

So the issue is really whether it is preferable to assume limitations on God or accept beliefs which make God responsible for our decisions. Calvinists explicitly choose the latter and many more are uncomfortable with the former.

quote:
Such conundrums exist for any imaginary idea around the issues of "knowing the future" or "time-travel."
-what are the limits?
-is any of it really possible?

But these are specific issues with your scenario. It seems that God cannot be “all-knowing” with respect to our universe in your scenario until God has finished intervening in our universe (and knows as much). Once you assume that God is unable to fully foresee the consequences of his actions - which is fundamental to your scenario - the limitation that follows is even greater than you suggested.

quote:
However, if we're going to have a thought-exercise around the idea that God could have the power to "see the future" and then ask if this means it takes away our "free choice" (which also has it's own scientific-sense issues...) then the above conclusion is reasonable based within that framework.

Or you could propose a non-interventionist God who did not create our universe.

I’ll also repeat my view that libertarian free will does not merely have scientific problems - it is a logical impossibility.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 927 by Stile, posted 07-29-2020 10:13 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 934 by Stile, posted 07-29-2020 1:41 PM PaulK has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18511
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 932 of 997 (880095)
07-29-2020 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 925 by Phat
07-28-2020 11:57 PM


Re: What GOD Knows and What Humans Speculate
Phat writes:

But if He DOES know what you will decide you are little more than a robot.


If He DOESN'T know what you will decide, He isn't omniscient. ANYBODY can see what your decision WAS after you have made it. An omniscient God HAS to know what it is BEFORE you make it.

If that makes you a robot, it makes you a robot. You can't change the meaning of omniscience just because you don't want to be a robot.

Phat writes:

I beliwve that God chose to be an observer.


Then you don't believe in an omniscient God.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 925 by Phat, posted 07-28-2020 11:57 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 933 of 997 (880101)
07-29-2020 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 930 by Sarah Bellum
07-29-2020 11:43 AM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
Sarah Bellum writes:

If I create something, whether is is building a machine or writing a computer program or planting a garden, I don't know all the details.

You're absolutely right.
If you define "all-knowing" in this manner... then the two cannot co-exist.

But, I'm also absolutely right.
If you define "all-knowing" as "being able to know all pieces of information at all times within our universe" - which is, really, a perfectly acceptable definition of the term "all-knowing" as far as we're concerned... since, you know, because we're inside this universe...

...then it's fine.

If you find the point you're making important.. which is, really, absolutely of no relevance whatsoever to any being (like humans) that exist within our universe... you're right.

If we define the scope to be "our universe" (because this is what we're limited to anyway) - then I'm right.

I don't care how you choose to define it.

But you can't say my way is logically impossible - because it certainly is logically possible.

How can you say you have free-choice any more than water flowing down a slope in the grip of gravity chooses to run downhill?

By making the choices free.
By limiting the "all-knowing" part to only be referring to within our universe. For at least the moment of creation of our universe, anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-29-2020 11:43 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 945 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-30-2020 9:56 AM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 934 of 997 (880102)
07-29-2020 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 931 by PaulK
07-29-2020 11:57 AM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
PaulK writes:

So the issue is really whether it is preferable to assume limitations on God or accept beliefs which make God responsible for our decisions. Calvinists explicitly choose the latter and many more are uncomfortable with the former.

Sure.
I don't care what it's called. I just want to point out that it's logically possible.

But these are specific issues with your scenario. It seems that God cannot be “all-knowing” with respect to our universe in your scenario until God has finished intervening in our universe (and knows as much). Once you assume that God is unable to fully foresee the consequences of his actions - which is fundamental to your scenario - the limitation that follows is even greater than you suggested.

Okay.
So - maybe God is "finished intervening in our universe" at the moment of creation of our universe.
Or maybe God can foresee all the results of his future-intervening, and our free-willed-changing-of-our-decisions-because-of-it all when He creates the universe.
If God can create universes and choose (by momentarily limiting his own future-knowing-power) to allow free-will - why can't He also be capable of doing this in recursive iterations?

Doesn't seem like a big problem. Just "okay you did that - now, do it again!" For a powerful-enough God, why can't the answer just be... "um.... okay?"

Or you could propose a non-interventionist God who did not create our universe.

That would also fulfill the conditions, yes.

I’ll also repeat my view that libertarian free will does not merely have scientific problems - it is a logical impossibility.

I'm not versed well enough in the subject to comment (I don't comfortably understand what "libertarian free will" includes and excludes.)

But, I can say this:
I don't see how choosing pink lemonade over white lemonade - in a "the decision emanated from my human body/brain, and not by another being controlling me" sort of way would be logically impossible, though.

Which is the kind of "free choice" I'm thinking of.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 931 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2020 11:57 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 935 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2020 1:54 PM Stile has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16471
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 935 of 997 (880103)
07-29-2020 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 934 by Stile
07-29-2020 1:41 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
quote:
I don't care what it's called. I just want to point out that it's logically possible.

Logical possibility is a really - really - low bar. The issue of diminishing the power attributed to God is a bigger problem.

quote:
So - maybe God is "finished intervening in our universe" at the moment of creation of our universe.
Or maybe God can foresee all the results of his future-intervening, and our free-willed-changing-of-our-decisions-because-of-it all when He creates the universe.

I don’t think that can work from God’s perspective, unless you go for a God who doesn’t intervene - or at least whose interventions are not in anyway predicated on what humans decide to do. If God doesn’t know our decisions until the universe is created he can’t react to them until he’s created the universe.

And if he can know what changes his interventions will produce before making them - including human decisions - then you are getting awfully close to the view your are trying to counter.

quote:
If God can create universes and choose (by momentarily limiting his own future-knowing-power) to allow free-will - why can't He also be capable of doing this in recursive iterations?

I don’t think allowing free will is the issue, it’s evading responsibility,
But the recursive iterations was my point - God can’t be all knowing with regard to this universe until all the recursive iterations are done and God knows he isn’t going to make any more changes. From God’s perspective that would be after creating our universe.

quote:
But, I can say this:
I don't see how choosing pink lemonade over white lemonade - in a "the decision emanated from my human body/brain, and not by another being controlling me" sort of way would be logically impossible, though.

And I don’t argue that it isn’t. But if your human body/brain operated deterministically a lot of people would argue that you didn’t have free will, and even adding a random element wouldn’t do either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 934 by Stile, posted 07-29-2020 1:41 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 936 by Stile, posted 07-29-2020 2:31 PM PaulK has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 936 of 997 (880105)
07-29-2020 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 935 by PaulK
07-29-2020 1:54 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
PaulK writes:

Logical possibility is a really - really - low bar. The issue of diminishing the power attributed to God is a bigger problem.

I agree.
Which is why I found it strange that some were saying it was impossible.

And power attributed to God? - Eh... I don't really care.
I don't think God even exists.
So, to me, any and all conversations "about God" are all based on mere "logical possibilities" and are nothing more than thought-experiments.

Basically... if we're going to make up an imaginary God to fulfill the Christian Religion requirements (or any other religion...) why not make one up that could also fulfill whatever-other-requirements anyone's interested in talking about?

If God doesn’t know our decisions until the universe is created he can’t react to them until he’s created the universe.

Maybe.

What if God creates a thought-experiment-universe that completely/exactly mirrors our universe (along with our free-willed choices)... but without physically creating that universe until all recursive-iterations are completed within the thought-experiment? And then, once all recursive-iterations are competed... He then creates the universe.

To me... in order to continue the "integrity" of free-choice... it would only be allowed to be done once.
That is, let's say in God's thought-experiment recursions... He happens along some free-willed choices of humans that He doesn't like... so he does it again to see if things change... and they do... this, to me, kills what I'm thinking of as "free-choice" if God creates the 2nd, alterered-towards-God's-preferences universe instead of the initial as-originally-freely-chosen universe.

Of course, this begs the question "what is a free choice?"

If I freely choose pink lemonade over white... but if the choice is ran back, and I happen to freely choose white over pink...
Then let's say God prefers me to want white lemonade... so he "picks" this universe to create.

Is my choice freely made or not?
Surely, it's controlled by God here in some way - but in what way does it matter?
If, when it was run again, I actually did freely choose white over pink the second time... isn't that still a "free choice" no matter if God "chooses" to create that universe?

More definitions and meanings would be required in order to identify.

Of course, the plot is clear if more information surrounds the situation:
Let's say I freely choose pink lemonade 30% of the time.
And I therefore choose white lemonade 70% of the time.

If God "reruns" the recursion without caring which one I choose... and I happen to choose white lemonade the second time, and God chooses to go with this second universe for a reason other than me-choosing-white-lemonade... then perhaps my free choice is retained?

But, if God "reruns" the recursion purposely over-and-over until I happen to choose white lemonade (for whatever God-reason...)... then I would say that my "free choice" on this decision has been removed or "controlled by another being."

This would imply, according to my own personal definition of free-choice, that "free choice" is more of a per-choice basis thing, not a "binary attribute" that either must be on or off for all decisions. Which adds the complication that each and every choice, per choice-maker (human...) could be free or controlled... and even if God controls one decision, He may not necessarily be controlling other decisions.

It would also mean that God may be able to rerun the recursions without affecting free-choice as long as He allows the choices to be made freely and His reason for rerunning the recursion is some non choice-affecting reason (like... maybe... if the sun explodes before any life-with-choosing-ability has even been created... so God reruns the universe differently...)

Wait.

What were we talking about?
Sorry, I got to rambling...

I don’t think allowing free will is the issue, it’s evading responsibility

I'm not exactly sure what you meant by that.
Maybe my rambling touched on it in some way?

But if your human body/brain operated deterministically a lot of people would argue that you didn’t have free will, and even adding a random element wouldn’t do either.

I agree.

Although I'm not sure if I, personally, have an issue with "operating deterministically" actually stopping what I think of as "free will."
I have thought about this a bit... but not enough to come to any satisfying conclusions.
I generally get bored with the subject and move on before coming to any resolution on anything.
That's just a statement of what happens... not to imply that if I thought about it long enough I definitely would come to a "satisfying conclusion..." it's certainly possible that I'm just not smart enough to sort through this issue in a time frame that I find acceptable to spend on it

Edited by Stile, : Spellings


This message is a reply to:
 Message 935 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2020 1:54 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 937 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2020 2:44 PM Stile has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16471
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 937 of 997 (880106)
07-29-2020 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 936 by Stile
07-29-2020 2:31 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
It’s easy to come up with scenarios, the problem is making them relevant to the discussion. If a believer wants to say that your views are what he believes that’s a lot more relevant than a scenario that maybe nobody at all accepts.

quote:
What if God creates a thought-experiment-universe that completely/exactly mirrors our universe (along with our free-willed choices)... but without physically creating that universe until all recursive-iterations are completed within the thought-experiment? And then, once all recursive-iterations are competed... He then creates the universe.

That is God knowing all our decisions before creating the universe, which is what you were trying to avoid.

quote:
To me... in order to continue the "integrity" of free-choice... it would only be allowed to be done once.
That is, let's say in God's thought-experiment recursions... He happens along some free-willed choices of humans that He doesn't like... so he does it again to see if things change... and they do... this, to me, kills what I'm thinking of as "free-choice" if God creates the 2nd, alterered-towards-God's-preferences universe instead of the initial as-originally-freely-chosen universe.

I don’t think that helps. God still chooses to create a universe knowing what will happen. Even if he’s holding himself to an arbitrary rule that once he gets started he has to go all the way, he’s still responsible. And - this just occurred to me - it makes him fallible. Which is another thing that believers generally refuse to accept.

quote:
Is my choice freely made or not?
Surely, it's controlled by God here in some way - but in what way does it matter?
If, when it was run again, I actually did freely choose white over pink the second time... isn't that still a "free choice" no matter if God "chooses" to create that universe?

If God is rerunning things until you choose white then it’s a forced choice and not really free. You aren’t allowed to choose pink lemonade.

But I don’t really argue about freedom, I argue about responsibility and that’s what believers don’t like. They want God to be unimaginably great and perfect but they don’t want to blame him for anything they consider bad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 936 by Stile, posted 07-29-2020 2:31 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 938 by Stile, posted 07-29-2020 3:16 PM PaulK has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 938 of 997 (880107)
07-29-2020 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 937 by PaulK
07-29-2020 2:44 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
PaulK writes:

It’s easy to come up with scenarios, the problem is making them relevant to the discussion. If a believer wants to say that your views are what he believes that’s a lot more relevant than a scenario that maybe nobody at all accepts.

I completely agree.

My stake in this discussion was purely selfish - to point out that such a thing was possible. If anyone wants to take it and run with it (hopefully to somewhere interesting...) then that's up to them.

PaulK writes:

Stile writes:

What if God creates a thought-experiment-universe that completely/exactly mirrors our universe (along with our free-willed choices)... but without physically creating that universe until all recursive-iterations are completed within the thought-experiment? And then, once all recursive-iterations are competed... He then creates the universe.


That is God knowing all our decisions before creating the universe, which is what you were trying to avoid.

Yes, God would know all our decisions "before creating the universe" (physically), but He would not know all our decisions before we made them - which is what I was trying to preserve.

Therefore, this recursive-iteration thought-experiment then creation-of-physical universe idea allows for God's intervention in the universe while creating the universe and having God "all-knowing" within our universe (after it's creation) - all while preserving free choice. The physical creation of the universe becomes more of a "playing of the decided-upon tape" where God decided all the non-free-choice-decisions, and our free choices decided everything required for free choice to exist.

Even if he’s holding himself to an arbitrary rule that once he gets started he has to go all the way, he’s still responsible.

Responsible for creating the universe? Pain and suffering? Joy and exhilaration? Death and destruction?
Yes, if that's what you're saying - I would agree that God would still be responsible for all these things, in this scenario.

And - this just occurred to me - it makes him fallible. Which is another thing that believers generally refuse to accept.

Agreed.

If God is rerunning things until you choose white then it’s a forced choice and not really free. You aren’t allowed to choose pink lemonade.

Yes - agreed.
I came to this conclusion later in my ramblings.
Although I don't think I worded it quite as strongly - it certainly is something I fully agree with.

But I don’t really argue about freedom, I argue about responsibility and that’s what believers don’t like.

Agreed - most certainly do not like that.

hey want God to be unimaginably great and perfect but they don’t want to blame him for anything they consider bad.

I call that the "My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad" theory.
I think the idea stems from the child-like pride/jealousy behaviour of "oh yeah? - well MY [[xxx idea here] is bigger/better/stronger than YOUR [[yyy idea here]"

Starts with Dad's being stronger, or being able to beat the other up... finishes with God's being "all-powerful" or "all-knowing."
It falls directly in line with childish/immature/instinctual desires to "one-up" the "others."

That, along with the problem of evil, are among the most obvious reasons (to me) that God does not exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 937 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2020 2:44 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 939 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2020 3:46 PM Stile has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16471
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 939 of 997 (880108)
07-29-2020 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 938 by Stile
07-29-2020 3:16 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
quote:
Yes, God would know all our decisions "before creating the universe" (physically), but He would not know all our decisions before we made them - which is what I was trying to preserve

That assumes that the thought-experiment versions of us, are us, despite not actually existing. Since I disagree with that I have to disagree with you and insist that in that scenario God does know our decisions before we made them and chose to do so.

quote:
Responsible for creating the universe? Pain and suffering? Joy and exhilaration? Death and destruction?
Yes, if that's what you're saying - I would agree that God would still be responsible for all these things, in this scenario.

Responsible for everything in this universe, including our decisions. God knowingly chose all of them and is therefore responsible.

I won’t quote the rest because I largely agree with it.

And I think it is especially true of the Jewish-Christian-Islamic God who started off as just one of the Canaanite pantheon, chosen by the ancestors of the Jews to be their patron deity (just as Chemosh was patron of the Moabites).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 938 by Stile, posted 07-29-2020 3:16 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 940 by Stile, posted 07-29-2020 4:13 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 941 by jar, posted 07-29-2020 4:13 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 940 of 997 (880109)
07-29-2020 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 939 by PaulK
07-29-2020 3:46 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
PaulK writes:

That assumes that the thought-experiment versions of us, are us, despite not actually existing. Since I disagree with that I have to disagree with you and insist that in that scenario God does know our decisions before we made them and chose to do so.

True.

But, if your disagreement lies upon the inability to accept made-up abilities of a made-up God in a made-up scenario...
I don't see any reason to come up with a more convincing explanation.

It's all predicated on imaginary "what if's." What's one more?

Responsible for everything in this universe, including our decisions. God knowingly chose all of them and is therefore responsible.

In the sense that, because God created the universe (at all..) then God is responsible for everything within it... I agree.

And I think it is especially true of the Jewish-Christian-Islamic God who started off as just one of the Canaanite pantheon, chosen by the ancestors of the Jews to be their patron deity (just as Chemosh was patron of the Moabites).

Oooh... I never knew that.
Cool.
I was thinking more of the basic progression of animal gods (egyptian) - superhuman gods (roman/greek) - perfect gods (modern Christianity)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 939 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2020 3:46 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 942 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2020 4:19 PM Stile has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32724
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 941 of 997 (880110)
07-29-2020 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 939 by PaulK
07-29-2020 3:46 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
Good and bad are simply human concepts and constantly mutable. But religions, particularly the Judaic trio have always created a god that fit their individual needs at that particular moment and within that particular era and mythos. Good and bad exist only within the context of that instant. What was bad might be good when viewed from some other moment and will always change and evolve to meet the needs and desires of every individual.

This should be patently obvious to anyone actually reading any of the so called scripture of any of the trio.

Free will vs Omniscience though is often comforting masturbation.

Edited by jar, : applin spallin


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 939 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2020 3:46 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 943 by Phat, posted 07-29-2020 4:59 PM jar has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16471
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 942 of 997 (880111)
07-29-2020 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 940 by Stile
07-29-2020 4:13 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
quote:
But, if your disagreement lies upon the inability to accept made-up abilities of a made-up God in a made-up scenario...
I don't see any reason to come up with a more convincing explanation.

But there’s a fundamental contradiction in the scenario. The whole point of the “thought experiment” is that it isn’t real, our universe does not exist and hence we don’t either. So I think we are getting into logical impossibility here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 940 by Stile, posted 07-29-2020 4:13 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 944 by Stile, posted 07-30-2020 8:17 AM PaulK has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 14289
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 943 of 997 (880114)
07-29-2020 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 941 by jar
07-29-2020 4:13 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
you have sucessfully made a word salad of your own.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.”- Francis A. Schaeffer

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killosophy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 941 by jar, posted 07-29-2020 4:13 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 944 of 997 (880142)
07-30-2020 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 942 by PaulK
07-29-2020 4:19 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
PaulK writes:

But there’s a fundamental contradiction in the scenario.

Is there?
I don't understand where the contradiction is.

Here's the idea:

quote:
Therefore, this recursive-iteration thought-experiment then creation-of-physical universe idea allows for God's intervention in the universe while creating the universe and having God "all-knowing" within our universe (after it's creation) - all while preserving free choice. The physical creation of the universe becomes more of a "playing of the decided-upon tape" where God decided all the non-free-choice-decisions, and our free choices decided everything required for free choice to exist.

The point of this idea is for God to be "all knowing" (at a minimum - within our universe) and also have us retain free-will (by God 'not-knowing' the outcome of our decisions while going through the iterations of our universe depending on how many interventions He's going to make.)

The whole point of the “thought experiment” is that it isn’t real, our universe does not exist and hence we don’t either. So I think we are getting into logical impossibility here.

The whole point of the "thought experiment" is that it allows for God to intervene in our universe as often as He'd like, while running the universe "differently" from those points in order to retain our free will.

This idea that the thought experiment "isn't real" is yours and has no grounds in the idea.

Why can't it "be real?" That is, why can't it be an exact match of what we actually would freely choose when materially created?
If God's going to be the one materially creating us - why can't he also have the power to think of us before creating us?

Just because you may find it uncomfortable, doesn't make it less "real" in any sense that matters.

After all, these are all made-up powers about God.
If you'd like, I can simply specify that God's thought experiment contains the "real" choices of the humans finding themselves in those scenarios. We just don't experience any of the physical reality until the physical reality (...and ourselves) actually exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 942 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2020 4:19 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 947 by PaulK, posted 07-30-2020 12:38 PM Stile has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 613
Joined: 05-04-2019
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 945 of 997 (880163)
07-30-2020 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 933 by Stile
07-29-2020 1:31 PM


Re: Introducing An Old Argument Revisited
You wrote
quote:
By limiting the "all-knowing" part to only be referring to within our universe. For at least the moment of creation of our universe, anyway.
Let us suppose that a god is going to create a universe at 9:00 tomorrow morning. Suppose we ask that god, at 8:00, a question about an event that will take place in that universe at some time in the future. For example, when the first sentient being in that universe comes to a place where two roads diverge in the woods. We ask the god to write down which path, left or right, the being will choose.

How could that being have a free choice? The universe the god has produced is merely a clockwork that will perform exactly as the god has decided in advance.

If you don't like the fact that the answer was written at 8:00, before the creation, instead ask the god to write it down at 9:01, long before the sentient being ever has a chance to make a "choice".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 933 by Stile, posted 07-29-2020 1:31 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 946 by Phat, posted 07-30-2020 10:31 AM Sarah Bellum has responded
 Message 948 by Stile, posted 07-31-2020 9:05 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020