Trump's Christian supporters are unchristian

[Mountain Man]

Yep, what'd I tell ya? You believe the nonsensical, MM. They are not our decisions if they were predetermined previous to our even existing. Duh! How do I know, according to such a scenario, that our futures are predetermined prior to our even existing? Because God knew them before we existed, which means we have no actual ability to do other than that which existed as knowledge prior to our even existing. You're right, omniscience of the future isn't the cause of the future, but it's existence is absolute proof that the cause is not our own free will.

If I had a time traveling Delorian and saw you have eggs and bacon for breakfast, and then traveled back in time to the day before, would my foreknowledge cause you to choose eggs and bacon for breakfast? Of course not, because it was your freewill decision that caused my knowledge.

It's a perfectly logical and rational premise, and I suspect that your mule headed refusal to understand is a defense mechanism rather than something born out of genuine ignorance.

[JimL]

If I had a time traveling Delorian and saw you have eggs and bacon for breakfast, and then traveled back in time to the day before, would my foreknowledge cause you to choose eggs and bacon for breakfast? Of course not, because it was your freewill decision that caused my knowledge.

It's a perfectly logical and rational premise, and I suspect that your mule headed refusal to understand is a defense mechanism rather than something born out of genuine ignorance.

Dumbell, even if you could somehow see the future, either from standing outside of it, or travelling through to it, would mean that it always existed, therefore nobody but it's creator chose anything. Sheesh, think man, think!

[MaxVel]

Dumbell, even if you could somehow see the future, either from standing outside of it, or travelling through to it, would mean that it always existed, therefore nobody but it's creator chose anything. Sheesh, think man, think!

So if someone correctly predicts the future - say the eventual winner of the Superbowl this year*, those involved in actually playing the game have no free will.

* note that this is something entirely possible for people to do.


I think that God infallibly knows what we will freely choose to do in any given set of circumstances.

Think of someone you know really well. You can often predict what they will say or do in particular circumstances, or which option of several they will choose, because you know them so well, you have long experience of observing their behaviour, and you know a lot about their values, beliefs and tastes. How much more can God, who knows everything about us, AND everything about the circumstances we're facing, predict what we will freely choose.


NB: There is no contradiction between knowing what someone will do and their having free will to do or not do it.

[oxmixmudd]

That, what you are describing Jim, is not omniscience. If god is omniscient, then he knows it all, not just a general course. But even if god is not omniscient, and just knows the general course and destination of each and every one of us, then god, being the creator of us, would still be responsible for that general course and destination. There is really no way around the fact that if the creator knows the future of his creation, then that god is responsible for that future.

Actually no, you completely missed it! That wasn't the point I was making.

I was discussing how God can allow free will and know the future. IOW, God does not have to control our every act to ensure or know an outcome.

God's knowledge can encompass all possible outcomes while allowing us to choose which path will unfold.

and/or God being outside of time means He can in fact act retroactively so as to allow us free will and choice.

and/or God can create a set of surrounding circumstances that will react to all possible choices so as to create the desired arc of the future independent of which we choose.

and/or God can look at all possible outcomes and 'decide' to let us control which one unfolds. He still knows the future without necessarily controlling which future resolves.

Omniscience does not imply or require a methodology in dealing with mankind and it does not preclude a decision by God to allow us to choose freely.


And then there are the things we don't think of. Which you really have a hard time with it would seem. Does it never occur to you there are possibilities that might relate to a being that is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent that are outside your capacity to predict or deduce? And you are not the first person who has adopted an atheistic position that can't seem to understand that we don't know everything, and that human reason is limited, and when we are talking about what such a being might be able to do there has to be a certain amount of humility and recognition of our limitations that must enter into the discussion. Infinite things don't behave like finite things. Are you familiar with some of the odd mathematical characteristics of infinities? If you are, then you should know your absolute confidence in what is possible or not possible with a being as God is proposed to be is misplaced.

Many are quite non-intuitive. Take the impulse for example. A limit of a set of functions with a common area under a curve where the limit is a functional everywhere 0 except at the value of the impulse itself where it is in fact infinite, yet which has an 'area' under that 0 width and infinitely tall impulse that is finite. What? - how does infinity * 0 = 1, or 3, or 99 or whatever you want it to be? And yet, it does for the impulse (or dirac delta function if you like). Very 'impossible' when dealing with simple finite constructs, but just another of who knows how many counter-intuitive results from the world of the mathematics of the infinite.


There are many potential options that we can think of that allow God to know what will be without controlling us directly or fixing our destiny. And that is just based on what we know. Factor in what we don't know, and any absolute statement about how it is contradictory or silly is just not knowing enough to know that you don't know enough to say that.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Not a bad list, but there is the one from TNG where Worf jumps to different realities and Voyager has Endgame where Janeway meets a version of her future self. There’s also a Voyager episode where the ship is split into different time periods. And I’m sure there’s a few more examples.

Indeed! :)

[JimL]

So if someone correctly predicts the future - say the eventual winner of the Superbowl this year*, those involved in actually playing the game have no free will.

* note that this is something entirely possible for people to do.

Note we are not talking predictions, possible outcomes, we're talking omniscient knowledge of the entire existence of time. If you want to argue that god is not omniscient, but a pretty good predicter based upon his being the creator of the things future he is able to predict, then I would submit that he is still responsible for the things future since his correct prediction is based on his engineering of the thing.

I think that God infallibly knows what we will freely choose to do in any given set of circumstances.

Believe what you want, nobody cares, unless you have a valid argument to back up that belief.

Think of someone you know really well. You can often predict what they will say or do in particular circumstances, or which option of several they will choose, because you know them so well, you have long experience of observing their behaviour, and you know a lot about their values, beliefs and tastes. How much more can God, who knows everything about us, AND everything about the circumstances we're facing, predict what we will freely choose.

Again, you're not defining omniscience here Max. And if your argument is that god knows our future because he knows us so well that he can predict it, then ask yourself how it is that god knows us that well in the first place.

NB: There is no contradiction between knowing what someone will do and their having free will to do or not do it.

Yes, there is Max, and for the creator of that thing, "if you'd actually think about it" there definitely is.

[JimL]

Actually no, you completely missed it! That wasn't the point I was making.

I was discussing how God can allow free will and know the future. IOW, God does not have to control our every act to ensure or know an outcome.

God's knowledge can encompass all possible outcomes while allowing us to choose which path will unfold.

Jim, this is ridiculous. If god knows all possible outcomes, then he knows the path as well. Also, if he didn't know the path, then he wouldn't be omniscient.

and/or God being outside of time means He can in fact act retroactively so as to allow us free will and choice.

What is that supposed to mean? "He can act retroactively?" His actions have nothing to do with it. If god is outside of time, and so can view all of time, then all of time, past, present, and future have always been and what god would be looking at is a static spacetime where no one chooses anything.

and/or God can create a set of surrounding circumstances that will react to all possible choices so as to create the desired arc of the future independent of which we choose.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

and/or God can look at all possible outcomes and 'decide' to let us control which one unfolds. He still knows the future without necessarily controlling which future resolves.

Your're basically just repeating yourself here.

Omniscience does not imply or require a methodology in dealing with mankind and it does not preclude a decision by God to allow us to choose freely.

Well, that is simply an assertion, I don't yet see an argument that supports it.

And then there are the things we don't think of. Which you really have a hard time with it would seem. Does it never occur to you there are possibilities that might relate to a being that is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent that are outside your capacity to predict or deduce? And you are not the first person who has adopted an atheistic position that can't seem to understand that we don't know everything, and that human reason is limited, and when we are talking about what such a being might be able to do there has to be a certain amount of humility and recognition of our limitations that must enter into the discussion. Infinite things don't behave like finite things. Are you familiar with some of the odd mathematical characteristics of infinities? If you are, then you should know your absolute confidence in what is possible or not possible with a being as God is proposed to be is misplaced.

Many are quite non-intuitive. Take the impulse for example. A limit of a set of functions with a common area under a curve where the limit is a functional everywhere 0 except at the value of the impulse itself where it is in fact infinite, yet which has an 'area' under that 0 width and infinitely tall impulse that is finite. What? - how does infinity * 0 = 1, or 3, or 99 or whatever you want it to be? And yet, it does for the impulse (or dirac delta function if you like). Very 'impossible' when dealing with simple finite constructs, but just another of who knows how many counter-intuitive results from the world of the mathematics of the infinite.


There are many potential options that we can think of that allow God to know what will be without controlling us directly or fixing our destiny. And that is just based on what we know. Factor in what we don't know, and any absolute statement about how it is contradictory or silly is just not knowing enough to know that you don't know enough to say that.

Arguments from ignorance, Jim. Common sense and logic will tell you that if our futures are known by our all knowing creator, then our creator is responsible for those futures, either because the the future, the whole of time exists, or because he engineered the future, our futures, to unfold the way he knows they will. You can argue that "oh there could be some way that god could do this that we just don't understand" but that really isn't an argument that one should take seriously. That's just a belief without support.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, this is ridiculous. If god knows all possible outcomes, then he knows the path as well. Also, if he didn't know the path, then he wouldn't be omniscient.

What is that supposed to mean? "He can act retroactively?" His actions have nothing to do with it. If god is outside of time, and so can view all of time, then all of time, past, present, and future have always been and what god would be looking at is a static spacetime where no one chooses anything.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Your're basically just repeating yourself here.

Well, that is simply an assertion, I don't yet see an argument that supports it.




Arguments from ignorance, Jim. Common sense and logic will tell you that if our futures are known by our all knowing creator, then our creator is responsible for those futures, either because the the future, the whole of time exists, or because he engineered the future, our futures, to unfold the way he knows they will. You can argue that "oh there could be some way that god could do this that we just don't understand" but that really isn't an argument that one should take seriously. That's just a belief without support.

The conversation has nowhere to go. God gives us free will. He also knows all that is knowable. But God also sets limits on what he will or will not do. You are hung up on a logical paradox akin to can God make an object so big He can not move it. It has little if anything to do with the real issues of who God is and If He exists. If you want to believe such constructs prove something about the possibility of the God of scripture, that is your choice. But it is also foolishness.

Jim

[Tassman]

The conversation has nowhere to go. God gives us free will. He also knows all that is knowable. But God also sets limits on what he will or will not do.

This is merely your assumption, you don't know that God has set limits "on what he will or will not do".

You are hung up on a logical paradox akin to can God make an object so big He can not move it. It has little if anything to do with the real issues of who God is and If He exists.

If gods exist is the only real issue, but it's not an important one in our Western post-Christian/post-religion era.

If you want to believe such constructs prove something about the possibility of the God of scripture, that is your choice. But it is also foolishness.

It is not "foolishness" to not believe that for which there is no verifiable evidence. Some would say it is the only reasonable course of action.

[NorrinRadd]

"For believers, no proof is needed; for unbelievers, no proof is enough."

Overly broad, but makes a worthy point.

[Mountain Man]

Dumbell, even if you could somehow see the future, either from standing outside of it, or travelling through to it, would mean that it always existed, therefore nobody but it's creator chose anything. Sheesh, think man, think!

So if I traveled backwards in time, my knowledge of the future would be the cause of those events? That doesn't make any sense. You have a very strange understanding of the concept of time.

[oxmixmudd]

This is merely your assumption, you don't know that God has set limits "on what he will or will not do".

It's not an 'assumption', it is the teaching of the Scriptures. On the one hand, the discussion with JimL is tracking the hypothetical - what the concepts of God implies. OTOH, it deals with whether or not the concept of God as presented by Scripture can be considered logical of self-consistent. Unfortunately, to discuss those elements, one has to get past the rankor of JimL's feelings about belief in God in general, and I have not been able to do that, and so the conversation has nowhere to go. He isn't even able to allow himself to consider if the concepts presented have merit even in a purely hypothetical form.

If gods exist is the only real issue, but it's not an important one in our Western post-Christian/post-religion era.

I disagree. Both IF He exists and Who He is are critical issues. But obviously, there is little point in trying to assess Who He is unless one first believes He is.

It is not "foolishness" to not believe that for which there is no verifiable evidence.

But that was not my point. I am saying it is foolish to hide behind logical Paradoxes which exist due to the incompleteness of language constructs or just the fact systems of logic can in fact be incomplete (Godel).

What he's doing is not dissimilar to deciding set theory is invalid because of the paradoxical conclusion there can not be a set of all sets. It's just silly.

Some would say it is the only reasonable course of action.

But that statement hinges on two critical assumptions: what constitutes verifiable evidence, and that all things that can't be verified by that definition of verifiable evidence are necessarily or at least likely to be false. Most atheist take a very physical and scientific standard to what verifiable evidence can prove there is a God. And while when talking about those things that are purely physical constructs that may be a reasonable choice, it simply isn't a valid choice as it relates to all things. For example, I have no verifiable evidence in the scientific sense that can prove my wife has been faithful to me. But then again, neither do I have any evidence she has not been faithful to me. What I do have is her promise to be faithful to me and a character demonstrated over a lifetime that she is a woman of integrity. And while that can't verify her faithfulness in the scientific sense, or even perhaps the legal sense, it is still quite sensible and reasonable for me to believe she has been faithful.

I have a set of life experiences, observations of the effect of belief in God in others and my own life, and the testimony of the Scriptures and history itself that tell me God is alive and real. As to the life experience, so do a large number of the people on this Earth. That is not evidence in the scientific sense, but it is evidence that I choose not to dismiss. Just like I choose not to dismiss or consider insufficient my wife's promise and character as evidence of her faithfulness, I do not choose to ignore or explain away the evidence I base my belief in God upon. But the notion my belief in God is not based on evidence is nothing less than arrogance on your part, a sort of elitism that says your standard of what constitutes valid evidence as it relates to the existence of God is necessarily better than or 'more intelligent' than my own.

In the simplest terms, I do not believe one can ascertain the reality of God in purely scientific terms. The scriptures and the life experience of myself and literally billions of other people on this earth is that God is discerned in other ways. So a person that limits themselves to only that which can be scientifically discerned is very unlikely to ever be convinced of the reality of God. That is just the way it is.


Jim

[JimL]

So if I travelled backwards in time, my knowledge of the future would be the cause of those events? That doesn't make any sense. You have a very strange understanding of the concept of time.

MM, if all of time exists so that you can travel to and fro, then travelling to the future is no different than travelling to the past, they both, both the future and the past, always exist. How is it that you can't grasp that idea? It's really not that difficult a concept to understand and it's been explained to you many times. Einsteins "Block Universe" is static, it all exists, past, present and future. You can't travel into a future whose existence doesn't precede your travell to it. Same goes for the past.

[JimL]

The conversation has nowhere to go.

Okay.

God gives us free will. He also knows all that is knowable.

Simple assertion on your part.

But God also sets limits on what he will or will not do.

Again, unsupported assertion, simple belief, not an argument.

You are hung up on a logical paradox akin to can God make an object so big He can not move it.

It's not a logical paradox, what paradox?

It has little if anything to do with the real issues of who God is and If He exists.

What we are arguing is free will and the supposed omniscient nature of god, not whether he exists or not.

If you want to believe such constructs prove something about the possibility of the God of scripture, that is your choice. But it is also foolishness.

Again, you seem to be confusing the argument. I don't happen to share your belief in the biblical god, but we are debating the possibility of free will along with an omniscient creator.

[Mountain Man]

MM, if all of time exists so that you can travel to and fro, then travelling to the future is no different than travelling to the past, they both, both the future and the past, always exist. How is it that you can't grasp that idea? It's really not that difficult a concept to understand and it's been explained to you many times. Einsteins "Block Universe" is static, it all exists, past, present and future. You can't travel into a future whose existence doesn't precede your travell to it. Same goes for the past.

It doesn't matter whether or not it "exists", what matters is why it "exists", and the future "exists" only because of the freewill decisions you make at every moment in your life. Now please explain how a being who can move freely through time and who can look at your life from the end to the beginning and thus have foreknowledge of your freewill decisions is, therefore, the cause of those freewill decisions. This is the part you don't seem to grasp. Your argument is based on a boatload of unproven premises.