Creation evolves deterministically from God point of view

[Bahman]

Unfortunately, that is still ambiguous. Is it enough for such “determinism” that God knows the state of creation at time t1 and at time t2? Or is something else needed - for that part “given state of …”? Is some kind of relationship between two states necessary?

Knowing state of creation at time t1 is enough to know the state of creation at time t2. Creation is simply made of beings and things, beings can act and choose between options that God is aware of them and things just move according to laws of nature. These knowledge allows God to know the state of creation at time t2 knowing state of beings (what they do) and things (how they move) at time t1.

In other words, if I look at the chess game and know all its moves, would you count it as “deterministic from my point of view”…? Why or why not…?

If you know all the moves then you for certain know what is wining move from starting which means everything logically proceed. If you wish you can say the first move determine the rest of moves.

By the way, I am afraid that your proof only works if it actually is “deterministic from my point of view”…

Once it is proved that creation evolve deterministically from one person point of view then it is deterministic in its nature so it is deterministic from every bodies points view.

It would require a much stronger kind of “determinism”, than the one you prove. You only prove that God’s omniscience implies the kind of “determinism” that also results from us knowing past events.

What do you mean with stronger kind of determinism? The problem with us is though that we are not aware of decision we make.

If that kind of “determinism” conflicted with free will, we wouldn’t need to discuss God and omniscience to disprove free will.

Free will is simply lost in the picture that God has omniscience meaning that God is aware of decision we make.

For example, the fact that I can read all previous posts in this thread would prove that none of us who participated in it had free will and used it. I hope you will agree that it is at least somewhat suspicious…

If we accept that God omniscience as defined in previous paragraph leads to determinism
then you and those who participate in this thread get involve in an activity as they should since there is no place for free will in this picture.

 

[aragonjohn1]

If you are talking about the christian God then you need to be able to say both of these;
God wills all men to be saved.
Not all men will be saved.
What God wills appears to be different to what he knows.
So he does not necessarily will what he knows.
So saying that the picture is deterministic is inaccurate.
It may appear deterministic from a plant or a rocks point of view but not from a mans, or womans.

thank You

God bless

 

[John_Martin]

What is all this nonsense about t1 and t2 in relation to God? Are we talking about a “man” who knows the future and watches it progress to what he knew? or about God, for whom there is no “before” and “after”?
Didn’t you hear Jesus declare, “Before Abraham was born, I AM”?
To our God, creation is happening, and the end is come, and everything in between. He does not know prior to what happens, but he knows what for us will happen because he is knowing it happening right “now”, even though for us it is happening 5 years from now. He knows us, right now, making free choices, and he knows us right now living in the results of the choices, even though we won’t know it until tomorrow. And tomorrow for us will not be tomorrow for Him. He is not watching alongside time, as if to see his foreknowledge come true.

John Martin

 

[MPat]

Knowing state of creation at time t1 is enough to know the state of creation at time t2. Creation is simply made of beings and things, beings can act and choose between options that God is aware of them and things just move according to laws of nature. These knowledge allows God to know the state of creation at time t2 knowing state of beings (what they do) and things (how they move) at time t1.

Well, if you actually start with an assumption that knowing the state at t1 is enough to find out what will happen at t2, then you are assuming determinism before trying to prove it. No wonder you find it later! Of course, that is a logical fallacy…

If you know all the moves then you for certain know what is wining move from starting which means everything logically proceed. If you wish you can say the first move determine the rest of moves.

I meant that I know the moves of a specific game between specific two players. For example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game. Would you say that this fact taken alone (please, ignore God’s omniscience for the moment) does imply that this specific game is “deterministic from my point of view”…?

Once it is proved that creation evolve deterministically from one person point of view then it is deterministic in its nature so it is deterministic from every bodies points view.

It is…? Then why all this talk about “point of view” at all? Anyway, it makes it very hard to understand what exactly “deterministic from X point of view” is supposed to mean…

What do you mean with stronger kind of determinism? The problem with us is though that we are not aware of decision we make.

The “stronger kind of determinism” would claim that there are laws that make it possible to predict (accurately and precisely) the later state of the system from any previous state. The first paragraph of your post I am replying to seems to be the first time you are clearly claiming that in this discussion.

Oh, and do you have any argument to support the statement “we are not aware of decision we make.”…? Or, er, to explain it? Does it have something to do with your previous argument?

Free will is simply lost in the picture that God has omniscience meaning that God is aware of decision we make.

If we accept that God omniscience as defined in previous paragraph leads to determinism
then you and those who participate in this thread get involve in an activity as they should since there is no place for free will in this picture.

I am not asking about implications of God’s omniscience. I am asking about implications of my human knowledge. I am asking if, in your opinion, the fact that I can read the previous replies, taken alone, implies that they are “deterministic from my point of view”. It would seem that it would have to.

 

[Bahman]

What is all this nonsense about t1 and t2 in relation to God? Are we talking about a “man” who knows the future and watches it progress to what he knew? or about God, for whom there is no “before” and “after”?

That doesn’t change anything. Since form God point of view who is in state of timeless creation exist as infinite series frames each frame has a time tag. God knows creation at times t1 and t2 from this long series. God not only is aware of these set of frame but also is aware of why creation evolves from time t1 to time t2 since otherwise God’s omniscience is not complete. This means that for each each frame of creation at given time t1 there is only and only one frame at later time. This means that creation from our point of view evolves in deterministic way since there is only one unique way that creation could evolve according to what God knows.

There is however a problem with a God who is in state of timeless since there is no before and after for such a God then God could not know how the sequence of frames proceed over time and that was why I assign a tag to each frame. The other problem related to a God who is in state of timeless and sustain creation is how God could sustain the creation not knowing the order in the sequences of frames?

Didn’t you hear Jesus declare, “Before Abraham was born, I AM”?

The creation of souls and universe were done at one instant and they are as eternal as God. There is no before and after for a God so the existence of God and creation is at the same point. We however experience the physical world in different point of time but our souls are old as creation. This means that the above sentence is not correct if we assign the existence to birth.

 

[Bahman]

Well, if you actually start with an assumption that knowing the state at t1 is enough to find out what will happen at t2, then you are assuming determinism before trying to prove it. No wonder you find it later! Of course, that is a logical fallacy…

So you agree that God omniscience lead to determinism? Why it is logical fallacy then?

I meant that I know the moves of a specific game between specific two players. For example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game. Would you say that this fact taken alone (please, ignore God’s omniscience for the moment) does imply that this specific game is “deterministic from my point of view”…?

I watch the game and things are deterministic from a specific point.

It is…? Then why all this talk about “point of view” at all? Anyway, it makes it very hard to understand what exactly “deterministic from X point of view” is supposed to mean…

Yes it is. It is good to talk about point of view since it is easier to solve the problem and conclude determinsim from God point of view.

The “stronger kind of determinism” would claim that there are laws that make it possible to predict (accurately and precisely) the later state of the system from any previous state. The first paragraph of your post I am replying to seems to be the first time you are clearly claiming that in this discussion.

We cannot have a set of laws for mind since free will cannot be explained by a set of laws and that is the problem for stronger kind of determinism.

Oh, and do you have any argument to support the statement “we are not aware of decision we make.”…? Or, er, to explain it? Does it have something to do with your previous argument?

You exactly get the point. Living in a world which evolves deterministically means that “we are not aware of decision we make.” Or in another world “the process of decision making is an illusion”. If you like we can discuss it further.

I am not asking about implications of God’s omniscience. I am asking about implications of my human knowledge. I am asking if, in your opinion, the fact that I can read the previous replies, taken alone, implies that they are “deterministic from my point of view”. It would seem that it would have to.

Human knowledge, together with desire in this picture are the sole contributor to your actions. But things would evolve deterministically since they are state of mind. This seems rater a little difficult to see but we can discuss it further if you wish.

 

[runningdude]

I didn’t say that God determine the evolution of creation. All what was said was that creation evolves deterministically from God point of view and these two expressions are different.

For evolution to be “deterministic” from God’s point of view, it would also have to be deterministic from our point of view, and this is untrue.

“Deterministically” means that an outcome is inevitable based on certain (name removed by moderator)uts. The human mind does not meet this criteria. God trusted creation to us, and we directly influence its course, through medicine and technology, marriage and even fornication.

Evolution is an open question. The human soul has many rational and irrational choices that influence the fate of our species, and there is no formula that dictates its choices. God gave us this agency to influence creation; not even God knows our choices until we make them.

God sees evolution as the result of a series of choices. He is a master orchestrator, that set up certain critical choices, throughout human history. The choice made was not inevitable.

 

[meltzerboy]

For evolution to be “deterministic” from God’s point of view, it would also have to be deterministic from our point of view, and this is untrue.

“Deterministically” means that an outcome is inevitable based on certain (name removed by moderator)uts. The human mind does not meet this criteria. God trusted creation to us, and we directly influence its course, through medicine and technology, marriage and even fornication.

Evolution is an open question. The human soul has many rational and irrational choices that influence the fate of our species, and there is no formula that dictates its choices. God gave us this agency to influence creation; not even God knows our choices until we make them.

God sees evolution as the result of a series of choices. He is a master orchestrator, that set up certain critical choices, throughout human history. The choice made was not inevitable.

“Not even G-d knows our choices until we make them.” I question that if we’re talking about an omniscient G-d Who is extra-temporal and extra-spatial. However, I still believe that G-d’s knowing our choices does not mean that He determines our choices.

 

[MPat]

So you agree that God omniscience lead to determinism? Why it is logical fallacy then?

You know, if everyone agreed with you, there would be next to no reason to prepare proofs, wouldn’t there…? Please, write the proof as if you were the only one proponent of its conclusion in the whole world.

The logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion is called “petitio principii” or “begging the question”. It is described in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question.

Yes it is. It is good to talk about point of view since it is easier to solve the problem and conclude determinsim from God point of view.

How is it different from just saying that things are deterministic?

We cannot have a set of laws for mind since free will cannot be explained by a set of laws and that is the problem for stronger kind of determinism.

So, can you explain what kind of determinism are you trying to prove?

You exactly get the point. Living in a world which evolves deterministically means that “we are not aware of decision we make.” Or in another world “the process of decision making is an illusion”. If you like we can discuss it further.

In other words, that part is irrelevant for this specific argument…?

I watch the game and things are deterministic from a specific point.

Human knowledge, together with desire in this picture are the sole contributor to your actions. But things would evolve deterministically since they are state of mind. This seems rater a little difficult to see but we can discuss it further if you wish.

I have asked you a specific question about your use of “deterministic from X’s point of view” using two examples. Looks like you didn’t answer that question (while answering some question I didn’t ask). I’ll try again. Do you think my knowledge of the past (for example, about a chess game or this thread), taken alone (adding no other facts, just a definition of the term), is a sufficient reason (proof, evidence) that the past is “deterministic from my point of view”? Possible answers: a) Yes, b) No, c) I don’t know, d) I don’t care, e) I do not understand the question well enough, f) I refuse to answer. I hope that all possibilities are covered…? If so, which answer do you choose? And if the answer is “No.”, what facts would have to be added to turn it to “Yes.”…?

 

[Bahman]

Evolution is an open question. The human soul has many rational and irrational choices that influence the fate of our species, and there is no formula that dictates its choices. God gave us this agency to influence creation; not even God knows our choices until we make them.

Thank you very much for your (name removed by moderator)ut. That means that omniscience of God in strong form (knowing our choices) is invalid.

 

[Bahman]

However, I still believe that G-d’s knowing our choices does not mean that He determines our choices.

First, nowhere in this post I mentioned that God determine our choices, instead choices are done in deterministic way. Second, the proof is in fact very easy, namely creation is made of things (that move according to the law of nature) and beings (who make decision in each given situation), so knowing of choices of beings implement that all knowledge for how state of creation evolve deterministically is provided. I stress again that the evolution become deterministic since all the knowledge for how system evolve is given.

 

[Bahman]

You know, if everyone agreed with you, there would be next to no reason to prepare proofs, wouldn’t there…? Please, write the proof as if you were the only one proponent of its conclusion in the whole world.

The logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion is called “petitio principii” or “begging the question”. It is described in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question.

But logical fallacy means two things in this case, namely either we have no free will or God omniscience in strong form (knowing our choices) is wrong.

How is it different from just saying that things are deterministic?

It is not, since once it is proved that things are deterministic form X point of view then things are deterministic in their nature.

So, can you explain what kind of determinism are you trying to prove?

It means that we have no free will as beings and the choices we make is sole outcome situations. By situation I mean the external reality as we are exposed to it, our knowledge and feeling.

In other words, that part is irrelevant for this specific argument…?

No, it is not. Since we have to be aware of consequences of this type of determinism as it is explained in previous argument.

I have asked you a specific question about your use of “deterministic from X’s point of view” using two examples. Looks like you didn’t answer that question (while answering some question I didn’t ask). I’ll try again. Do you think my knowledge of the past (for example, about a chess game or this thread), taken alone (adding no other facts, just a definition of the term), is a sufficient reason (proof, evidence) that the past is “deterministic from my point of view”? Possible answers: a) Yes, b) No, c) I don’t know, d) I don’t care, e) I do not understand the question well enough, f) I refuse to answer. I hope that all possibilities are covered…? If so, which answer do you choose? And if the answer is “No.”, what facts would have to be added to turn it to “Yes.”…?

First, the game of chess is very different from creation. Considering the creation, the current proof has two consequences, first we have not free will and past and future are deterministic or we have free will and omniscience of God in strong form is wrong which means that the past and future are not deterministic.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Thank you very much for your (name removed by moderator)ut. That means that omniscience of God in strong form (knowing our choices) is invalid.

ah, but we made choices unless one is indifferent.

so, God does know our choices.
(note; even though we are catholics we do not know all truth only God can know about all truth and Good: whereas His Holy Catholic church contains all truth meaning all the rest of everything has part or about no truth at all )

hope this helps
God bless

 

[MPat]

But logical fallacy means two things in this case, namely either we have no free will or God omniscience in strong form (knowing our choices) is wrong.

OK, let’s look like this: I claim that your argument is fallacious (wrong, bad) and you claim that this my claim implies (proves, shows, demonstrates) that its conclusion is right…? Seriously…?

It is not, since once it is proved that things are deterministic form X point of view then things are deterministic in their nature.

Well, that solves at least one question…

It means that we have no free will as beings and the choices we make is sole outcome situations. By situation I mean the external reality as we are exposed to it, our knowledge and feeling.

OK, so, you do not claim that true randomness (for example, in nuclear decay) doesn’t exist? That is one strange “determinism”… Or an incomplete description, of course.

No, it is not. Since we have to be aware of consequences of this type of determinism as it is explained in previous argument.

We are not speaking about the further consequences of determinism yet. The subject of this thread is your argument. It doesn’t go that far - yet.

First, the game of chess is very different from creation. Considering the creation, the current proof has two consequences, first we have not free will and past and future are deterministic or we have free will and omniscience of God in strong form is wrong which means that the past and future are not deterministic.

So, the answer seems to be “f) I refuse to answer”. That is a legitimate answer (although stating it plainly would have been preferable), although, of course, it does end up conceding that the argument being discussed in this thread is not worth much. In effect, there is nothing left to discuss… Unless, of course, you want to change that answer significantly.

 

[Bruincello]

With free will GOD has given us privacy but that does not mean that he doesn’t know about might happen to an individual if and when they do something right or wrong. And it certainly don’t mean that he is not omniscience. An illustration: when you are a teenager and your parents give their car to you for a drive or a night out. Although they are not omniscience but i’m sure they know the risk and temptations you may come across, inspite of all that because they want you to be free and be your self happy and all . .they allow it all, trusting that You will make the right decisions and choices. .
SAME is GOD…

 

[Bahman]

ah, but we made choices unless one is indifferent.

That is true.

God does know our choices.

God certainly know our choices but it doesn’t know what we choose. By choices I meant those we keep after decisions are made. Using plural sentence made explanation a little confusion. The point I am raising is that God knowledge of our decisions leads to determinism.

 

[Bahman]

OK, let’s look like this: I claim that your argument is fallacious (wrong, bad) and you claim that this my claim implies (proves, shows, demonstrates) that its conclusion is right…? Seriously…?

I can write my argument in two line let me know which part is wrong: creation is made of things (that move according to the law of nature) and beings (who make decision in each given situation), so knowing of choices of beings implements the state of creation evolves deterministically.

First, I didn’t assume determinism for beings at first place instead I assume God omniscience.
Second, this leads to picture at which we have no free will.
Third, If I assumed that free will as basic axiom, then it would lead to a contradiction since we couldn’t have free will at the same time be deterministic.

OK, so, you do not claim that true randomness (for example, in nuclear decay) doesn’t exist? That is one strange “determinism”… Or an incomplete description, of course.

First, that doesn’t help the problem since the focal point problem is that God omniscience has conflict with our free will and free will cannot be something random or related to randomness.
Second, these type of randomness are not random from God point of view as God has the knowledge of these phenomena.

We are not speaking about the further consequences of determinism yet. The subject of this thread is your argument. It doesn’t go that far - yet.

Ok, so we will leave it for future discussion.

So, the answer seems to be “f) I refuse to answer”. That is a legitimate answer (although stating it plainly would have been preferable), although, of course, it does end up conceding that the argument being discussed in this thread is not worth much. In effect, there is nothing left to discuss… Unless, of course, you want to change that answer significantly.

Nah, I answer your question. For the game of chess it is situation that dictate whether the game follows deterministically after a move or not since two or more different opening could lead to a similar check mate situation so what happened in the past could be different but lead to the same situation.

Your knowledge of past unfortunately cannot tell you anything about determinism.

 

[Bahman]

With free will GOD has given us privacy but that does not mean that he doesn’t know about might happen to an individual if and when they do something right or wrong. And it certainly don’t mean that he is not omniscience. An illustration: when you are a teenager and your parents give their car to you for a drive or a night out. Although they are not omniscience but i’m sure they know the risk and temptations you may come across, inspite of all that because they want you to be free and be your self happy and all . .they allow it all, trusting that You will make the right decisions and choices. .
SAME is GOD…

My humble question from you is whether God does know the result of our decisions?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God knows what our free decisions will be as well as all the effects of those decisions on those around us and upon our environment generally.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

God knows what our free decisions will be as well as all the effects of those decisions on those around us and upon our environment generally.

Exactly, then universe evolve deterministically from this God point of view since all variables are known.