Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Does an Omniscient Creator Lead to Fatalism?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    We've been over this before Sparko. If time flows and the future is open then god can't see it whether he's outside of it or not. If the future does not exist, then it does not exist period, whether you are in or outside of time. In other words you can't see the future, or have knowledge of the future, if the future doesn't exist. And if it does exist, in other words, if the future is closed, then god being outside of time could see it, and could have knowledge of it, but there would be no free will because if the future is closed in that way, then its always been closed, nothing changes, choices aren't made. Do you really not understand this?
    we have been over it before JimL and science shows that time is a dimension. it's called space-time. Where you are wrong is that you think that it means there is no free will. While the events are "fixed" the reason the events that are fixed in space-time happened the way they did was because of free will. It is obvious that it is not random actions. The result is the same with or without there being a God. Without a God, the events in space-time occur because of free will and are "fixed" from the perspective of someone outside of time or in the far distant future looking back, just like the past is fixed from our perspective. That doesn't mean that the past was random or controlled. The events that are fixed in the past were done with free fill.

    I know you can't understand that, because you are stupid. But I put it there for others who may understand.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      we have been over it before JimL and science shows that time is a dimension. it's called space-time. Where you are wrong is that you think that it means there is no free will. While the events are "fixed" the reason the events that are fixed in space-time happened the way they did was because of free will. It is obvious that it is not random actions. The result is the same with or without there being a God. Without a God, the events in space-time occur because of free will and are "fixed" from the perspective of someone outside of time or in the far distant future looking back, just like the past is fixed from our perspective. That doesn't mean that the past was random or controlled. The events that are fixed in the past were done with free fill.

      I know you can't understand that, because you are stupid. But I put it there for others who may understand.
      Okay, so understand, if as you see it, time is a dimension, then it doesn't flow, the future is closed. Do you comprend what the future being closed means? I'll assume you can grasp that. Now tell us how change takes place, how choices are made, in a world in which the future has forever been closed to change?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Okay, so understand, if as you see it, time is a dimension, then it doesn't flow, the future is closed. Do you comprend what the future being closed means? I'll assume you can grasp that. Now tell us how change takes place, how choices are made, in a world in which the future has forever been closed to change?
        Because what is recorded is the free will actions of the people in the time space continuum.

        If I have a recording of a football game, it is fixed but what is recorded on it is all free will actions by all of the players. Just because they can't change what they did doesn't mean they have no free will. In fact what was recorded WAS their free will. The universe is one big video tape of all of the events that ever happened or will happen.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Because what is recorded is the free will actions of the people in the time space continuum.

          If I have a recording of a football game, it is fixed but what is recorded on it is all free will actions by all of the players. Just because they can't change what they did doesn't mean they have no free will. In fact what was recorded WAS their free will. The universe is one big video tape of all of the events that ever happened or will happen.
          Sparko, Sparko, Sparko, a recording can only take place in a universe in which the future is open, not in the one which you believe to exist wherein the future is forever closed. Assume that god did the recording of your video tape, did he know what your choices would be before recording them? Do you see the error in your thinking yet?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            Sparko, Sparko, Sparko, a recording can only take place in a universe in which the future is open, not in the one which you believe to exist wherein the future is forever closed. Assume that god did the recording of your video tape, did he know what your choices would be before recording them? Do you see the error in your thinking yet?
            Yes I see the error in my thinking now. I had thought you would recognize what an analogy was and might actually comprehend it. Sorry. My mistake.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Yes I see the error in my thinking now. I had thought you would recognize what an analogy was and might actually comprehend it. Sorry. My mistake.
              But I do understand the analogy, that's why I pointed out the error in it for you. Talk about never being able to admit when you're wrong, this has been explained to you for at least a decade now and youstill can't admit it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Yes I see the error in my thinking now. I had thought you would recognize what an analogy was and might actually comprehend it. Sorry. My mistake.
                Probably not so helpful based on who you're having this discussion with, but Craig goes into this topic a bit here:



                And here's a transcript of the video: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/vide...lawrence-kuhn/

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  But I do understand the analogy, that's why I pointed out the error in it for you. Talk about never being able to admit when you're wrong, this has been explained to you for at least a decade now and youstill can't admit it.
                  The universe isn't recording a video tape Jimmy. That is an analogy. The events recorded on a video tape are analogous to the events happening in the space-time continuum of the block universe. The block universe is the completed universe containing all of space and all of time. Contained in that block universe are all of the free will decisions and actions made by every person who ever lived. The events 'recorded' are because of free will actions. "NOW" is an illusion. You can look back at what you did yesterday and see that it is fixed from your current viewpoint and can't be changed. But the events fixed in your past are your free will actions in the past. The same as your actions tomorrow as viewed by yourself 20 years from now.

                  You are the one who can't grasp it JimL, you don't even try. I guess you are predestined to be a moron.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                    For a clairvoyant, not so much, but when that clairvoyant is creating what he's seeing, it's inescapable.

                    Unless it chooses to blink.
                    IMO intent is still material. There are unintended consequences to much simpler acts than creation.
                    I'd also argue that an inerrant sacred text isn't necessary for a supreme being. If Paul is wrong, God is still God. And of course, if Paul is right, God is still God. You understand that God, for me, is strictly an idea, but being the good platonic idealist that I am, it's enough to allow me to claim God exists.

                    I doubt that would satisfy Paul, which is fair enough, as Paul doesn't satisfy me either.
                    I agree that God is still God regardless of Paul's writings. However, Paul's writings have been acknowledged as inspired by God throughout church history, so if I want to consider myself a part of the church I don't really have the option to pick and choose what I decide is correct. I wouldn't say I have more than a hazy grasp of Platonism; do you prefer the original, or its developments into Middle or Neoplatonism?
                    If he didn't want folks to trust me, why did he give me perfect hair?
                    I... have no answer for that.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      The universe isn't recording a video tape Jimmy. That is an analogy. The events recorded on a video tape are analogous to the events happening in the space-time continuum of the block universe. The block universe is the completed universe containing all of space and all of time. Contained in that block universe are all of the free will decisions and actions made by every person who ever lived. The events 'recorded' are because of free will actions. "NOW" is an illusion. You can look back at what you did yesterday and see that it is fixed from your current viewpoint and can't be changed. But the events fixed in your past are your free will actions in the past. The same as your actions tomorrow as viewed by yourself 20 years from now.

                      You are the one who can't grasp it JimL, you don't even try. I guess you are predestined to be a moron.
                      There is, IMO, a solid tension between "all of time already exists in a time continuum" and "your choices are free." If the universe "exists" in all dimensions, both space and time, then all has been determined and "choice" is an illusion. Indeed, action itself becomes nothing more than an illusion created by time. I do not see how this can be escaped. One can say "free will" all day every day, but if the entire continuum exists, there is no autonomy whatsoever. We're not talking about a recording here - which records actions that have previously occurred. We're talking about the actual universe, which has now been reduced to a static, unchanging reality. It appears to change "over time," but that is the illusion created by time. In reality - the entire universe is a fixed, unchanging thing, factoring in the temporal dimension.

                      I am still not finding anything that suggests this is what "B-Theory" suggests, and no one here is providing a link. So where on earth are you getting this concept?
                      Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-29-2018, 04:45 PM.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        I'm not certain that foreknowledge is necessarily causation.
                        Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                        For a clairvoyant, not so much, but when that clairvoyant is creating what he's seeing, it's inescapable.
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        IMO intent is still material. There are unintended consequences to much simpler acts than creation.
                        This is a question of causality, not blame. The unintended consequences of a creator are still its creations. I created a mess this morning. It wasn't the plan, but it was certainly my mess. I caused it.

                        Intent is material if we're interested in judging the creation, and by implication, the creator, but I don't think we were going there. The question of whether a god I don't believe in created humans destined for a hell that I'm quite sure doesn't exist is purely academic for me. This is primarily a discussion of whether we can claim free will for the creations of an omniscient deity.

                        And to that, my answer is yes, because any omniscient creator worth its weight in salt should be able to blink. Likely enough there are other reasons, but blinkability is sufficient.

                        I agree that God is still God regardless of Paul's writings. However, Paul's writings have been acknowledged as inspired by God throughout church history, so if I want to consider myself a part of the church I don't really have the option to pick and choose what I decide is correct.
                        The decision to view Paul's writings as inspired has been subject to church authority from their earliest adoption. The church made that decision and the church can reverse that decision, though clearly not without cost.

                        Some reversals are easier than others.

                        A tranche of Paul's letters, including the pastorals, has always been viewed with suspicion within and without the church, and, contrary to popular apologetes, while pseudepigraphy has always been common, it has never been acceptable. Specifically, from his own writings, we know it was not acceptable to Paul.

                        Similarly, scholars, including church scholars, acknowledge and read past known interpolations.

                        I see no bar to adding logical errors to that list while maintaining Paul's writing as inspired. Inspiration is not equivalent to nor sufficient for inerrancy.

                        I wouldn't say I have more than a hazy grasp of Platonism; do you prefer the original, or its developments into Middle or Neoplatonism?


                        I... have no answer for that.
                        I get that a lot.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          There is, IMO, a solid tension between "all of time already exists in a time continuum" and "your choices are free." If the universe "exists" in all dimensions, both space and time, then all has been determined and "choice" is an illusion. Indeed, action itself becomes nothing more than an illusion created by time. I do not see how this can be escaped. One can say "free will" all day every day, but if the entire continuum exists, there is no autonomy whatsoever. We're not talking about a recording here - which records actions that have previously occurred. We're talking about the actual universe, which has now been reduced to a static, unchanging reality. It appears to change "over time," but that is the illusion created by time. In reality - the entire universe is a fixed, unchanging thing, factoring in the temporal dimension.

                          I am still not finding anything that suggests this is what "B-Theory" suggests, and no one here is providing a link. So where on earth are you getting this concept?
                          Here is a pretty good explanation by Brian Greene of the B-theory of time. You need to watch it all the way through as the first half of the video is about the way we normally experience time, which of course is the A-theory. In the end you will see that according to physics, the A-theory is wrong, time doesn't flow, all of time, just like all of space, exists, which is why we now call it spacetime. The past and the future are just as real as the present. Hopefully Sparko will watch it as it is something I tried to explain to him 9 or 10 years ago and he has mocked me for it ever since.

                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1WfFkp4puw

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            not if the knowledge is dependent on the action and not the other way around. If God is outside of time, then time has nothing to do with "when" he knew what you did or will do. Logically the chain of events is Action --> Knowledge and time is not included at all.
                            Nevertheless, an omniscient God knows and has always known “what you did or will do” regardless of whenever you do it. Because there never can be a time when God is not omniscient and knows in advance what you will do. Hence, your seeming free-will can only be an illusion of free-will.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              So why introduce the notion that one “cannot" do it...


                              That was you, not me.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                Well thats just silly. The nature of time and knowledge of events occuring within it are the topics. There are only 2 possibilities concerning the future, it is either opened or closed. Therefore there are only 2 possibilities concerning ones knowledge of that future. 1) Because the future is closed, time is static, it's all there, nothing changes, and 2) because it's pre-determined by the creator thereof. The first reason falls under the B-theory of time and the conclusion is rather obvious, if all of time exists, if the future exists, then nothing actually changes ergo free will is an impossibility. In the second scenario, which would fall under the A-theory of time, my argument is that the only way one could know the future of existence would be if as the creator he engineered it that way, he predetermined how the dominoes would fall so to speak. Now, no, you're not justified in completely dismissing that argument unless you can actually refute it with and argument of your own.
                                But I'm not seeing any argument here. You're just presenting two different views on prescience and claiming that they're the only alternatives under the B-, and A-theory of time. I don't have any obligation to accept your claim unless you can give a cogent argument as to why under the B-theory or A-theory of time these would be the only possibilities.

                                And no, I don't need to give an argument, or example of an alternative view of prescience. Maybe if I had made the claim that there are other alternative ways to know the future I would have the obligation to do that, but that's not what I did. What I did was ask for justification for your claim that there cannot exist other alternatives.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                13 responses
                                41 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X