Trump's Christian supporters are unchristian

[oxmixmudd]

I don't think so Roy. I gave the proper condition. And yours is an oversimplification and thus loses the subtlety that is critical. I won't make a different choice unless the circumstances are altered. And for God not to have already factored that into what He knows, those circumstances have to be able to occur without his prior knowledge, which means that to show my free will, one must assume a priori infallibilty is false. It is not proven false, it is an initial condition.

the difference is: are my choices controlled. You are conflating the fact I won't make a different choice with I can't make a different choice. I can make a different choice, but I won't. My will is what is driving the choosing, not God's knowledge.



Jim

An analogy occurs to me that I think might be useful, though as with all analogies, they can't be considered isomorphisms. What I'm thinking about is the distinction we make in AGW discussions between a forcing and a feedback. Both CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases, increases in each will raise the temperature, but CO2 is a forcing, whereas H20 is a feedback. If I have free-will, My will is the forcing when it comes to what the decision is and to a certain extent what the future will be relative to my decisions, Gods knowledge about my decision, OTOH, is a feedback. However, if I don't have free-will, God's knowledge is the forcing and my decisions are simply feedbacks. The outcome (the temperature) still rises, the outcome (the future) still looks the same. But in terms of why it looks like it does, there is a reasonable and necessary distinction.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

An analogy occurs to me that I think might be useful, though as with all analogies, they can't be considered isomorphisms. What I'm thinking about is the distinction we make in AGW discussions between a forcing and a feedback. Both CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases, increases in each will raise the temperature, but CO2 is a forcing, whereas H20 is a feedback. If I have free-will, My will is the forcing when it comes to what the decision is and to a certain extent what the future will be relative to my decisions, Gods knowledge about my decision, OTOH, is a feedback. However, if I don't have free-will, God's knowledge is the forcing and my decisions are simply feedbacks. The outcome (the temperature) still rises, the outcome (the future) still looks the same. But in terms of why it looks like it does, there is a reasonable and necessary distinction.


Jim

FWIW: I also think I have a better way to express the Idea I was trying to get at discussing 2 dimensional time and retro-causality.

If we consider God a being to be 'outside of time' or 'at all times at once' (Consistent with God's self given name 'I am' and Jesus' reference to it "Before Abraham was, I am'), then we can't think about 'knowing' as a process or as a cause and effect sort of thing like we experience. But one idea that we can somewhat grasp is that such a being is at all time, in all 'presents' that have ever been across all time and space 'at once'. Given THAT idea, His 'knowing' is ALSO across all of those 'presents' all the same. So what is observed in one 'present moment at one place in space' is 'known' at all such moments and places - again - as it were - 'at the same time' . So taking that as a model, God doesn't 'predict' the future as much as His presence in the future and the past and any given moment is always and ever 'the same' (HE is outside time, he does not "change"). The 'instant' (in a given present and place) a choice is made, it is 'known' by God always and everywhere and everywhen. The choice is free, but it is 'known' at all times and all places from that moment the same - no matter what the choice is.


Jim

[Sparko]

FWIW: I also think I have a better way to express the Idea I was trying to get at discussing 2 dimensional time and retro-causality.

If we consider God a being to be 'outside of time' or 'at all times at once' (Consistent with God's self given name 'I am' and Jesus' reference to it "Before Abraham was, I am'), then we can't think about 'knowing' as a process or as a cause and effect sort of thing like we experience. But one idea that we can somewhat grasp is that such a being is at all time, in all 'presents' that have ever been across all time and space 'at once'. Given THAT idea, His 'knowing' is ALSO across all of those 'presents' all the same. So what is observed in one 'present moment at one place in space' is 'known' at all such moments and places - again - as it were - 'at the same time' . So taking that as a model, God doesn't 'predict' the future as much as His presence in the future and the past and any given moment is always and ever 'the same' (HE is outside time, he does not "change"). The 'instant' (in a given present and place) a choice is made, it is 'known' by God always and everywhere and everywhen. The choice is free, but it is 'known' at all times and all places from that moment the same - no matter what the choice is.


Jim

That is similar to what I was saying. It is also the equivalent to God being at the far end of time and seeing all time as his "past" - That is no different than anyone else looking at the past except that God would have a broader range of knowledge of course. We don't look at the past and claim that since it can't be changed that our decisions were not free-will decisions. In both cases the knowledge is a result of free will decisions, not the cause of it.

[Mountain Man]

Reminds me of Dr. Manhattan from The Watchmen comic, a multidimensional being who more or less existed at different points in time simultaneously. He would have knowledge of the future but an inability to change it because for him, it had already happened.

(I'm not saying this is a good analogy for God; it's just that's what this discussion reminded me of.)

[JimL]

On my film strip it only records the free will actions of the people in the film. It doesn't cause them.

Your film strip isn't recording anything Sparko, every single clip on the roll is, and always has been, a part of the whole roll. If you run the film through a projector you can create the illusion that change is taking place in time, but in reality nothing of the film is changing, the entire movie exists already, and most importantly with respect to this argument, always has existed.

So what if you have always been eating waffles yesterday morning. You didn't answer me WHY you would have chosen to eat them.

Not hard to understand really. Not sure why you are having such a difficult time with it. If I have always been eating waffles yesterday, then when did I make the choice to eat waffles yesterday? Think about it.

Do you regularly do things without thinking or choosing?

Irrelevant to the argument.

Wait, that was a trick question. don't answer it.

Again, irrelevant to the argument. Now lets see if you can think and understand why the future can't both exist in some sense along with you having free will.

[JimL]

That is similar to what I was saying. It is also the equivalent to God being at the far end of time and seeing all time as his "past" - That is no different than anyone else looking at the past except that God would have a broader range of knowledge of course. We don't look at the past and claim that since it can't be changed that our decisions were not free-will decisions. In both cases the knowledge is a result of free will decisions, not the cause of it.

If god is at the far end of time, then the far end of time, i.e all of time already exists. If your future, if all of time, has always existed, which is what your idea entails, then all of time has always existed. You would not be making any choices in such a scenario. How come you can't understand that?

[Mountain Man]

Is this a theory of time that you actually believe, or do you simply think it's a useful foil to use against Christianity? Because as you argue it, freewill doesn't exist whether or not God exists, in which case morality doesn't exist, either, because we're just actors in a pre-scripted play.

[JimL]

Is this a theory of time that you actually believe, or do you simply think it's a useful foil to use against Christianity? Because as you argue it, freewill doesn't exist whether or not God exists, in which case morality doesn't exist, either, because we're just actors in a pre-scripted play.

Are you addressing me or Sparko, because it is Sparko's argument, not mine. I'm just explaining the error in his, and apparently your, viewpoint. If all of time exists so that god could stand at the future end of it, look to the past and see it all, then obviously all of time, and all events in time, exist, and have always existed. There can be no free will in that which has always been.

[Mountain Man]

There can be no free will in that which has always been.

Asserted but not proven.

[oxmixmudd]

That is similar to what I was saying. It is also the equivalent to God being at the far end of time and seeing all time as his "past" - That is no different than anyone else looking at the past except that God would have a broader range of knowledge of course. We don't look at the past and claim that since it can't be changed that our decisions were not free-will decisions. In both cases the knowledge is a result of free will decisions, not the cause of it.

I agree. You and MM and I are hitting at similar concepts and ideas in this discussion. The similarities are that God is 'observing' all of time 'at once' and that choosing and knowing are decoupled. But I think expressing that as God at the end of time looking back at all that happened still sort of keeps God in the realm of a human kind of thinking ( which probably makes it a helpful analogy for general audiences). But if God 'always is', then there is more to it than we can comprehend, because we begin, we end, we only have now. And there is more to it that can be described from any single perspective of time or history. So I'm looking for a way of expanding the expression more to fit the idea of 'I am that I am', and taking a short walk outside what we as humans can easily understand, albeit likely still horribly limited in terms of describing what really is.

Jim

[Tassman]

When you made the choice.

How could I make "the choice” before I existed? And yet the omniscient deity has eternally known what my choice will be when I do eventually get born; it’s predestined. And if I choose differently God cannot be said to be omniscient.

[JimL]

Asserted but not proven.

It is proven by simple logic. If you think not, then prove how actions/behaviors which have always existed were freely chosen by the actors who have always existed. What you people don't seem to be able to grasp is that if all of time exists so that god can see it, then all of time exists period. How is it you are blind to such an obvious logical fact?

[Mountain Man]

It is proven by simple logic.

Then you should have no problem presenting a logical argument.

[Mountain Man]

How could I make "the choice” before I existed?

Logically, you can't. Think about it.

[oxmixmudd]

How could I make "the choice” before I existed? And yet the omniscient deity has eternally known what my choice will be when I do eventually get born; it’s predestined. And if I choose differently God cannot be said to be omniscient.

Why do you suppose that God knowing what my choice is means it is predestined? You are thinking about time linearly. If God always is then all moments are in the present for Him. The concept of prediction doesnt apply in that case, it's an accomodation to how we percieve time.

Jim