Science Can Answer Moral Questions...

[JimL]

Then do just one

I believe that I consistently said that god is external to time and space and that he created it.
He is not a part of time and space.
He therefore cannot be described in space and time terms.

Please explain why your definition of omniscience, that is, the fact that God knows the future, is any different then everybody else's definition simply because God is external to Space time. We all argue on the basis that God is external to his creation, so exactly what terms have you been arguing with if not space time terms for Gods omniscience?The fact is that you are claiming that God knows the future, so I don't care what external godly terms you would like to use in order to prove your case, the fact is that you have to prove it using the same space time terms with which you make the claim. Or you can just admit that you have no actual clue as to what you are talking about when it comes to an omniscient God.

It is you who claim that you can talk as though god is part of time but cannot cite any reference for your statements about his characteristics.
You avoid doing so, and I give up.
Further discussion is fruitless.

Sundance

This is ridiculous, you can't make your case, so you want to change the subject. Who really cares what the claims of others are, it is you and I who are discussing the issue as to whether God knows the future and we have free will. You say he does and I say he doesn't, so either give a logical rendering of your case or concede.

[Dogbyte]

so either give a logical rendering of your case or concede.

you will not accept a logical argument, because you have no clear understanding of logic. if you did, you'd see your premises do not follow to your conclusion. That the premises you do have, are unsubstantiated and irrational. it took twenty something pages of this thread before you could even put your argument into a syllogism. then when someone asks you why we should believe one of your premises, you answer with a "show me or concede" mentality. your syllogism shows your assumptions. we cannot show someone something they have no interest in knowing. its never my intention to "make" anyone see my viewpoints, its only a defense that maybe by proxy someone else can benefit from reading it. its up to you and God what you ultimately choose, or not choose, its not that i dont care, but its just not my responsibility. you are responsible for you own choices. i only chose to come back to this thread because you finally put your premises and conclusion in syllogism form. Then it was easy to show how your assumptions have no grounding.

you irrationally think that foreknowledge cannot be contingent upon an event.
you irrationally think that this foreknowledge somehow determines those events.
and you irrationally think that God is the cause of his foreknowledge (and fixed reality), which is only the truthful descriptions of future events.

anyone that has read this thread can plainly see you are unwilling to debate in a logical manner. there has been numerous challenges to your premises, with examples, that only skip by you as you monotonously repeat your conclusion in a different way, and then call that repetitious conclusion, your "proof". all that is left to do, is leave you as the last one talking, so you can claim victory in your opponents silence, that would really polish off this thread quite nicely. maybe a "nincompoopy" comment here or there, or some other silly defense. i'll wait with bated breath as this thread limps forward. =P

[Dogbyte]

Youv'e lost me pal. How is the event of a boy throwing five pitches dependent on a future statement that the boy threw more than three pitches? And what on earth has it to do with foreknowledge of that event?

i know. " a boy will throw more than 3 pitches" is contingent on the event of "the boy threw 5 pitches". one statement is dependent on the other. which is the exact opposite as you propose, that foreknowledge cannot be contingent on an event, which is one of your irrational premises.

No doubt I will say that this is just a load of confused thought coming from one who is trying to hard to defend the indefensible.

yes no doubt you would have.

[JimL]

i know. " a boy will throw more than 3 pitches" is contingent on the event of "the boy threw 5 pitches". one statement is dependent on the other. which is the exact opposite as you propose, that foreknowledge cannot be contingent on an event, which is one of your irrational premises.

Sorry friend, but this makes absolutely no sense. You don't know that a boy "will" throw more three pitches in the future, what you know is that a boy threw five pitches in the past, period. I don't mean to be harsh, but a statement that a boy will throw more than three pitches isn't contingent on any event.

yes no doubt you would have.

No doubt.

[Dogbyte]

You don't know that a boy "will" throw more three pitches in the future

how do you know this? are you omnicient plus 1? do you know more than everybody else, are you a god? you know more than a God that knows all information? because this is what you are saying if you assert that He cannot know a future proposition, what you are saying has shown to be false mathematically. even if you knew half of all information, you still wouldnt admit that this fact could be in the other half you dont know....

but a statement that a boy will throw more than three pitches isn't contingent on any event.

your statement is still based on a modal fallacy. yes, the truth value of that proposition, IS contingent on that event. so again, what you are basically saying is equivalent to, 2 + 2 = 5.

[1. the boy threw 5 pitches. 2. the boy threw more than 3 pitches.]

if these statements were made prior to the event, then not only would the future tense of 2 be contingent on 1, but the future tense of 1 would be contingent on the present tense of 1, whenever that event occurs.

what you are saying is that statement 1 can be true, and statement 2 can be false. this is mathematically impossible. if 2 is false, then 1 is violating the law of non-contradiction, it cant be both true and non-true, due to statement 2 truth value. Statement 2 is contingent on statement 1 ( ~◊(1 & ~2)), it is not logically possible that 1 is true and 2 is not true. its contingency is necessary for its truth value. its impossible for it to be....well, possible.

just like 2 + 2 =5. but i dont see you on here arguing 2 + 2, but i do see you arguing for an equally wrong conclusion like 5. a mathematical impossibility. that a proposition cannot be contingent on an event. thats absurd!

if (2) was already known, before the event took place, by a God that knows all information (including the event of (1)) by very definition. past, present, future, it doesnt matter, the truth value of His knowledge does not change, it is always true, never mind the tense. if you keep to the premise that foreknowledge cannot be contingent on an event, or that the future is fixed, then you are willfully choosing to believe in a mathematical impossibility, like 2 + 2 = 5. do so at your own risk.

believe it or not, a future description of an event, is contingent on that event. whether or not a fallible mind can know the truth value until the event takes place, is moot, your saying that God cannot know.

could you imagine if bookies had the same sort of illogical thinking? they'd be broke.

[JimL]

how do you know this? are you omnicient plus 1? do you know more than everybody else, are you a god? you know more than a God that knows all information? because this is what you are saying if you assert that He cannot know a future proposition, what you are saying has shown to be false mathematically. even if you knew half of all information, you still wouldnt admit that this fact could be in the other half you dont know....

Dogbyte, I am not talking about half truths, propositions or ifs, ands and buts, I am disputing the ability to know the future of any free will entity, the future of which does not yet exist. If the future of an entity exists, then a God could know it, if the future of an entity is programmed, then God could know it, but if that entity consists of free will and therefore is not programmed or predetermined, and if its future does not yet exist, then it can't be known. Sorry, but you have so far offered no clear and logical refutation of this common sense premise.

[Dogbyte]

Sorry, but you have so far offered no clear and logical refutation of this common sense premise.

sorry but the fact that you think your conclusion is the way knowledge works, and that it is common sense, means you will never consider a clear or logical refutation of any kind.


im sure you wake up every morning, wondering if the sun will come up, since its in the future and you cannot know it will happen til it happens.

im sure that rush hour traffic is a complete surprise to you each day, because that event happens in the future, therefore being outside your ability to know it before hand.

im sure that you drive right past a state trooper going 20 miles over the speed limit, because you didnt know what would happen until they pull you over and wrote you a ticket.

foreknowledge of future events can be known, even events that envolve free will "entities". the truth value of that foreknowledge is still contingent on the event itself. God knows all possible truth values of all possible combinations of events, ALL information that is, was, and will be, is know to Him. information can only arise out of non-material entities (a mind). your choosing to stand on an idea that is really busted, and anemic to boot. if there is a way to argue against God having foreknowledge of free will beings, you are going about it in the worse possible way.

[JimL]

sorry but the fact that you think your conclusion is the way knowledge works, and that it is common sense, means you will never consider a clear or logical refutation of any kind.

I would certainly accept a clear and logical refutation if ever one were provided, but just look at the refutations you've provided below, they exhibit a very shallow depth of thought on the subject. I don't claim to know that I am right for certain, and who knows, in the long run it might turn out that you are right, highly doubtful in my opinion, but your argument so far looks like a loser.

im sure you wake up every morning, wondering if the sun will come up, since its in the future and you cannot know it will happen til it happens.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the sun had a free will mind of its own.

im sure that rush hour traffic is a complete surprise to you each day, because that event happens in the future, therefore being outside your ability to know it before hand.

Thats true, I have no idea exactly what the traffic pattern will be every day or which vehicles with what drivers will be on the road or where they will be going or any other specifics of the traffic.

im sure that you drive right past a state trooper going 20 miles over the speed limit, because you didnt know what would happen until they pull you over and wrote you a ticket.

I only know what will likely happen if the trooper pulled me over, I don't know that he will pull me over. He may, as has often been the case in the past, ignore me and continue on his merry way to the coffee shop, or he may pull me over and decide to only give me a warning or he may give me a speeding ticket, I really don't know, and won't know until the moment that it happens. Nice try though, would you like to think it over and give it another try?

foreknowledge of future events can be known, even events that envolve free will "entities". the truth value of that foreknowledge is still contingent on the event itself. God knows all possible truth values of all possible combinations of events, ALL information that is, was, and will be, is know to Him. information can only arise out of non-material entities (a mind). your choosing to stand on an idea that is really busted, and anemic to boot. if there is a way to argue against God having foreknowledge of free will beings, you are going about it in the worse possible way.

Your description of what you believe to be Gods knowledge, consisting of all information does not allow for free will, particularly when he is the creator of the world in which all the information in it comes directly from him. Besides that, this belief of yours of Gods attribute of omniscience and how you define it is no more than an assertion on your part. As far as your concerned God and his omniscience is no more than an imaginative idea that was planted in your mind which you can't know with any more certainty than you can know the future.