Trump's Christian supporters are unchristian

[JimL]

That's a bit harsh. These aren't trivial conclusions - it can be hard to figure out the consequences of any particular set of premises.

I really don't think so, Roy. By my logic, if all of time exists from an external perspective, which is Sparko's argument, then all of time exists whether it is experienced that way from within or not. I don't see any logical way around that understanding, and neither Sparko, nor anyone else on the other side of the issue has presented a logical way around that fact. They continue to contradict themselves with the "god knows because you chose" argument, while at the same time arguing that what you chose has always existed since the beginning of time.

[Roy]

I really don't think so, Roy. By my logic, if all of time exists from an external perspective, which is Sparko's argument, then all of time exists whether it is experienced that way from within or not. I don't see any logical way around that understanding, and neither Sparko, nor anyone else on the other side of the issue has presented a logical way around that fact. They continue to contradict themselves with the "god knows because you chose" argument, while at the same time arguing that what you chose has always existed since the beginning of time.

I agree. But I find the arguments difficult to derive/follow, especially when considering variations and possible paradoxes.

I don't think Sparko is dumb, just wrong.

[Roy]

If God is present at all times, then he exist 'now' in each of these 'places'.

That would be one way to express it, but if 'sufficient certainty' is 100%, then the difference between 'knowing' and 'predicting' (when evaluating infallibility) is indistinguishable. Indeed, to predict with 100% certainty is in fact to be infallible - yes? But to predict has no capacity to affect the choice as long as that prediction is unknown to the chooser.

Jim, please decide whether (i) God knows all about the past and present and can therefore predict our choices, or (ii) God knows what our choices are because he's seen them from the future (or both). They may lead to similar outcomes, but they aren't the same situation, they have different consequences, and my argument against the latter doesn't work against the former because the premises don't hold.*

Switching back and forth between the two isn't conducive to valid arguments.

*This doesn't mean there aren't other arguments that do work, only that the one I'm using isn't one of them.

[Sparko]

If time is a plane instead of a line, it might not work out like you say, as each conversation back is a retrocausal event that produces a new timeline in the plane, where the future self doing the calling is 1 iteration behind whatever mayhem would become of the call :)

Jim

There are a dozen different models. one is like you say, where the change creates a new timeline, a new universe parallel to the old one. Or maybe time is like a river, if you go back and change things, the change just propagates at the same rate time flows so the change never catches up with the future. But none of them are what I was hypothesizing.

[Sparko]

That is choosing #1 ya dope. That's the B-theory where all of time exists and god sees it all from and external perspective. If it all exists so that god can see it all from an external perspective, then it is all there from any perspective. Are you really so dumb that you can't understand that?

wow you are an idiot. I was looking merely for you to make a hypothetical choice, 1 or 2, A or B. C or D.

[Sparko]

God knows everything that has happened and will happen in the course of your limited life.



The omniscient deity has always known you will walk to get your eggs on this occasion. How could he not, he's omniscient.



Because God “knowing” what you will decide renders your "free-will" decision inevitable.

You accidentally said it correctly. Your FREE WILL decision is inevitable because you will freely choose it. YOU. Not God. YOU. Using your free will. You will walk to the store and get the eggs because YOU want to.

[Sparko]

I really don't think so, Roy. By my logic, if all of time exists from an external perspective, which is Sparko's argument, then all of time exists whether it is experienced that way from within or not. I don't see any logical way around that understanding, and neither Sparko, nor anyone else on the other side of the issue has presented a logical way around that fact. They continue to contradict themselves with the "god knows because you chose" argument, while at the same time arguing that what you chose has always existed since the beginning of time.

If all of time exists then all actions and choices exist. Correct. Now you have to show WHY each of those actions and choices were made. If they were all made freely, then the fact that they all exist at once doesn't make a difference.

[Tassman]

You accidentally said it correctly. Your FREE WILL decision is inevitable because you will freely choose it.

As I said it, free will was in inverted commas indicating that seemingly free will was in fact not free will in actuality.

YOU. Not God. YOU. Using your free will.

No, it is an illusion of free will. If God is omniscient your “free choice” has been known for all eternity.

You will walk to the store and get the eggs because YOU want to.

You will “walk to the store and get the eggs” because it is inevitable that this is what you will do.

[JimL]

I agree. But I find the arguments difficult to derive/follow, especially when considering variations and possible paradoxes.

I don't think Sparko is dumb, just wrong.

Oh, yeah, I know he isn't dumb generally speaking. I suspect, in this case, it's cognitive dissonance on his part brought about by deep rooted belief.

[JimL]

If all of time exists then all actions and choices exist. Correct. Now you have to show WHY each of those actions and choices were made. If they were all made freely, then the fact that they all exist at once doesn't make a difference.

If all actions and choices exist, and so, along with all of time, have always existed, then in what sense are they actually actions and choices? C'mon Sparko, I just got finished saying that I know you're not that dumb. Use your head! If a thing has always been, then it isn't a thing that happened! It's a thing that's always been! That's the B-theory of time. That things actually happen, according to B-theory, to quote Einstein, "is an ever present illusion."

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, please decide whether (i) God knows all about the past and present and can therefore predict our choices, or (ii) God knows what our choices are because he's seen them from the future (or both). They may lead to similar outcomes, but they aren't the same situation, they have different consequences, and my argument against the latter doesn't work against the former because the premises don't hold.*

Switching back and forth between the two isn't conducive to valid arguments.

*This doesn't mean there aren't other arguments that do work, only that the one I'm using isn't one of them.

- sorry about that. My ambivalence here reflects my belief that these are just two different ways of understanding the same phenomenon. They do have different consequences as we observe them, but the two together, I believe, more closely approximate what would be the reality of a timeless being that exists at all times at once yet is unchanging. I'd have to hearken back to the old analogy of a 3d object intersecting a plane. A cube could look alternately like a point, a triangle, a trapezoid, a rectangle, or a square depending on what part of it intersects and at what angle. Beings in the plane might argue they are all different things, but we would understand they are all just different views in a 2d world of the same 3d object.

I do prefer, when reasoning about free will, the predictive form.


Jim

[JimL]

- sorry about that. My ambivalence here reflects my belief that these are just two different ways of understanding the same phenomenon. They do have different consequences as we observe them, but the two together, I believe, more closely approximate what would be the reality of a timeless being that exists at all times at once yet is unchanging. I'd have to hearken back to the old analogy of a 3d object intersecting a plane. A cube could look alternately like a point, a triangle, a trapezoid, a rectangle, or a square depending on what part of it intersects and at what angle. Beings in the plane might argue they are all different things, but we would understand they are all just different views in a 2d world of the same 3d object.

It do prefer, when reasoning about free will, the predictive form.


Jim

Jim, would you agree that if god can see all of time, past, present and most importantly for our discussion, the future, then all of time must therefore exist?

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, would you agree that if god can see all of time, past, present and most importantly for our discussion, the future, then all of time must therefore exist?

No - I can't agree with that as I understand you to mean it. God 'seeing' 'All of time' can mean multiple timelines, multiple possibilities in an indeterminate or unrealized state, retro causal connections, and likely others, none of which would map directly into the 'block universe' concept you tend towards.


Jim

[Sparko]

As I said it, free will was in inverted commas indicating that seemingly free will was in fact not free will in actuality.



No, it is an illusion of free will. If God is omniscient your “free choice” has been known for all eternity.



You will “walk to the store and get the eggs” because it is inevitable that this is what you will do.

So, what you ate for breakfast yesterday is fixed in time and can never be changed. It is a frozen moment in the timeline of the universe. It was going to happen because it did happen. But it doesn't change the fact that the REASON it happened was because you freely made it happen. Whether God knew about your choice a million years ago, or me knowing about it today doesn't change the fact that you made a specific choice yesterday. It was inevitable.

[JimL]

No - I can't agree with that as I understand you to mean it. God 'seeing' 'All of time' can mean multiple timelines,

All of time, simply means all of time, Jim. Seeing all of time means that all of time is there to be seen. If you don't believe in "all of time" in that sense, then what exactly do you mean be all of time being observable?

multiple possibilities in an indeterminate or unrealized state,

An unrealized state of time means that the state of time does not yet exist, Jim. If the future time is unrealized, then the future time is open, meaning that it does not yet exist. You're not making sense.

retro causal connections, and likely others, none of which would map directly into the 'block universe' concept you tend towards.

Retrocausal would be seeing the future after the fact, Jim, not omnisciently.

You can't just say stuff, you have to make logical sense of it to yourself and others, if you mean for it to be a serious argument.