Creation evolves deterministically from God point of view

[ProdglArchitect]

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

I think your problem is stemming from that fact that you’re still thinking of time as a line instead of wibbly–wobbly timey-wimey stuff

In all seriousness though. In order for something to be deterministic is has to follow a sequence of events. (determining meaning to flow naturally from one potential state to another, eventually arriving at a conclusion) God does not exist as a series of events, and is in fact outside of a “series” as we understand it. He cannot determine something since he is not bound by a flow of events. He can know, because there is not sequencing to him, all of what we perceive as time simply IS for him.

You cannot treat the will of God in human terms as you seem to be doing throughout this thread. It is something beyond humanity, and beyond human comprehension.

From God’s point of view, teh universe didn’t evolve. He created it exactly as he chose to, and our free will is a part of his “choice.” He knows the ends, but that does not mean that he chose them for us. That would violate free will and therefore render our love for Him a hollow and meaningless shell,

 

[aragonjohn1]

That is true.

God certainly know our choices but He 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.

but how? could You explain in completeness please?

God bless

 

[MPat]

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.

Well, the first problem: what if “that move according to the law of nature” does not rule out randomness…? For example, Schroedinger’s equation is a “law of nature” and it is probabilistic.

Second, I do not understand what “implements” was supposed to mean here. Did you mean “implies”…? If you did then, no, it doesn’t follow from the premises.

First, I didn’t assume determinism for beings at first place instead I assume God omniscience.

OK, do you at least acknowledge that you did assume determinism for “things”…? And that this assumption is vital for your argument? And, well, sorry, but I refuse to grant you that premise without an argument to support it.

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.

Randomness must be ruled out too in order for determinism to prevail. And your argument seems to depend on a premise that there is no randomness.

Second, these type of randomness are not random from God point of view as God has the knowledge of these phenomena.

What exactly do you mean by “God has the knowledge of these phenomena”? Do you mean the kind of knowledge that knows the result of the random event? That is not enough for your argument: I can also know results of many past random events. Or do you mean the kind of knowledge that knows how the value of supposedly random event was chosen deterministically? But that simply assumes determinism instead of proving it.

So, please, once again - give a full argument, or make this one conditional - for example, “Assuming that beings without free will work deterministically, …”.

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.

So, now the answer is “b) No.”. Couldn’t you have written so? That would have been much easier to understand, more precise… And you would still have been able to write a comment after the answer. I didn’t manage to understand what you were trying to say in it anyway…

You seem to be talking about a game as, well, something with rules. I am asking about a game as a specific sequence of moves done by the players. Yes, the word “game” is ambiguous in English. I am asking about what is called “partija”, not “žaidimas” in Lithuanian, “partie”, not “jeu” in French, “Partie”, not “Spiel” in German, “партия”, not “игра” in Russian.

Also, I have asked you to explain what facts (true or false) would have to be added to “evidence” in order to demonstrate that the game of chess (or a forum thread) is “deterministic from my point of view”, if the answer is “b) No.” (it is, right?).

Oh, and one more thing: maybe foudubulbe.deviantart.com/art/Beyond-the-Wall-02-406005671 could be slightly relevant for the question at hand…? It also gives an argument about free will and knowledge, although the one applying to cute cartoon characters…

 

[Bahman]

but how? could You explain in completeness please?
God bless

God knows our choices because he has access to our consciousness since he has non-local mind. The process of decision making is made in subconsciousness so its outcome is not known to God since subconscious mind is singular (it occupy no space).

 

[Bahman]

I think your problem is stemming from that fact that you’re still thinking of time as a line instead of wibbly–wobbly timey-wimey stuff

In all seriousness though. In order for something to be deterministic is has to follow a sequence of events. (determining meaning to flow naturally from one potential state to another, eventually arriving at a conclusion) God does not exist as a series of events, and is in fact outside of a “series” as we understand it. He cannot determine something since he is not bound by a flow of events. He can know, because there is not sequencing to him, all of what we perceive as time simply IS for him.

You cannot treat the will of God in human terms as you seem to be doing throughout this thread. It is something beyond humanity, and beyond human comprehension.

From God’s point of view, teh universe didn’t evolve. He created it exactly as he chose to, and our free will is a part of his “choice.” He knows the ends, but that does not mean that he chose them for us. That would violate free will and therefore render our love for Him a hollow and meaningless shell,

The concept God in state timeless is complete nonsense for following reasons:

1. Go could not know what is the current state of universe (if you wish we can discuss it further but I already discuss it in previous posts)
2. God could not act accordingly on universe because of previous primes (number 1)
3. So God and creation are isolated from each other because of previous primes (number 2)

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The concept God in state timeless is complete nonsense for following reasons:

1. Go could not know what is the current state of universe (if you wish we can discuss it further but I already discuss it in previous posts)
2. God could not act accordingly on universe because of previous primes (number 1)
3. So God and creation are isolated from each other because of previous primes (number 2)

Time is, essentially, the flow of events. We register it as a line because that is how we experience it, as a series of events, one moving immediately into the next. This aspect of change is a quality of our physical reality, which is constantly in a state of flux. Since God is the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, the uncreated being, and because he exists beyond the bounds of physical creation, he is not subject to a flow of events as we perceive them, and therefore not subject to time as we understand it.

In addition to this, the state of being omniscient (a claim you have made for God numerous times throughout this topic) means that he has Perfect knowledge. In order for God’s knowledge to be perfect, it cannot be limited to what has already occurred and is occurring, that wouldn’t be complete knowledge. No, in order for God to be truly omniscient, he must know what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen (by our understanding of the flow of event, again; to God, it is all simply one, since he knows it all perfectly.) God’s timelessness has been discussed in depth by people far more knowledgeable and intelligent than you or I; you’ll have a hard time trying to disprove that one.

As to your claims:

1. Why couldn’t he? You are making a claim, not an argument. Your discussion of this in the previous post has been refuted by multiple posters, and you’ve failed to provide and adequate defense for your opinion.
2. Same as 1, that is a simple claim, and one that, frankly, doesn’t make any sense.
3. … What are “previous primes”? I don’t think you’ve adequate explained them at all… do you even know?

Incidentally, I’d like to bring up what was said in an earlier post on this thread:

Your post implies a curiosity to obtain either agreement or disagreement and reasoning for the agreements or disagreements.
St. Thomas has shown that this curiosity like this is a vice in opposition to studiousness (a virtue which seeks the truth). Since you make the statements and intend to defend them against all responses, you show you are not seeking the truth (none of your responses ask “would you explain to me more so that I can comprehend the truth and then live my life by what I learn”). This is a mortal sin.
And if not curiosity, your intent could be worse, an intention to draw people away from seeking real truth and busy themselves with theoretical assertions rather than seeking truth from authoritative masters, and being their own self-guides.

John Martin

This is absolutely true. You have picked your personal Dogma and are defending it, rather irrationally at times, and not actually engaging in valid discussion. You make point with no backing, present defenses that don’t actually answer any questions, and refuse to acknowledge and address valid points when they have been made. You’re not going to convince anyone here of your flawed precepts, so why do you persist if you are not genuinely seeking knowledge? Most of us view this as simple exercise to hone our blades, as it were. If not knowledge, what are you seeking to gain from this discussion?

 

[Bahman]

Well, the first problem: what if “that move according to the law of nature” does not rule out randomness…? For example, Schroedinger’s equation is a “law of nature” and it is probabilistic.

Schrodinger equation is an deterministic equation that give evolution of wave function over time. I am a physicist and I am completely aware of this.

Second, I do not understand what “implements” was supposed to mean here. Did you mean “implies”…? If you did then, no, it doesn’t follow from the premises.

I meant imply.

OK, do you at least acknowledge that you did assume determinism for “things”…?

Yes.

And that this assumption is vital for your argument?

No, because beings decide and this act is neither deterministic nor random.

And, well, sorry, but I refuse to grant you that premise without an argument to support it.

I already provided the two lines argument and you didn’t say what is wrong with it.

Randomness must be ruled out too in order for determinism to prevail. And your argument seems to depend on a premise that there is no randomness.

Adding randomness doesn’t resolve the conflict between free will and omniscience since an atom decay does not influence your decision.

What exactly do you mean by “God has the knowledge of these phenomena”? Do you mean the kind of knowledge that knows the result of the random event? That is not enough for your argument: I can also know results of many past random events. Or do you mean the kind of knowledge that knows how the value of supposedly random event was chosen deterministically? But that simply assumes determinism instead of proving it.

This means that the those events are deterministic from God point of view so they deterministic from our point of view as well. The fact that you are aware of some general events in past doesn’t mean that they are determinstic from our point of view.

So, please, once again - give a full argument, or make this one conditional - for example, “Assuming that beings without free will work deterministically, …”.

The full argument has already been given, if you are interested in effect of randomness in the argument, I would suggest that you consider a small time interval at which no random events occurs but at least a decision is made.

 

[tonyrey]

The concept God in state timeless is complete nonsense for following reasons:

1. Go could not know what is the current state of universe…

How do you obtain your knowledge of what God cannot know?

 

[aragonjohn1]

God knows our choices because he has access to our consciousness since he has non-local mind. The process of decision making is made in subconsciousness so its outcome is not known to God since subconscious mind is singular (it occupy no space).

thank You

God bless

 

[Bahman]

1. Why couldn’t he? You are making a claim, not an argument. Your discussion of this in the previous post has been refuted by multiple posters, and you’ve failed to provide and adequate defense for your opinion.
2. Same as 1, that is a simple claim, and one that, frankly, doesn’t make any sense.
3. … What are “previous primes”? I don’t think you’ve adequate explained them at all… do you even know?

Here is the argument which prove God cannot distinguish what is the current time:

1. Time is a concept related to occurrence of events with specific rate
2. There is time attached to series of events and now by definition is the time at which we experience events
3. There are a before and after for the events which means that time has a direction
4. Timeless mind state means, no events, there is no before and after so there is no sense of direction for time, there is no experience when there is no events so there no concept of now
5. God is in state of timeless means, he could not experience creation, he could not distinguish the direction of time, and he could not distinguish now

 

[aragonjohn1]

Here is the argument which prove God cannot distinguish what is the current time:

1. Time is a concept related to occurrence of events with specific rate
2. There is time attached to series of events and now by definition is the time at which we experience events
3. There are a before and after for the events which means that time has a direction
4. Timeless mind state means, no events, there is no before and after so there is no sense of direction for time, there is no experience when there is no events so there no concept of now
5. God is in state of timeless means, he could not experience creation, he could not distinguish the direction of time, and he could not distinguish now

#1, #4, and #5 but if only a little more than a few people cave experienced, know, or can

theorize what there is and could be outside of time. If this is truly true how do one follow

these from an empirical and/or non-subjective perspective?

thank You again

God bless

 

[MPat]

Schrodinger equation is an deterministic equation that give evolution of wave function over time. I am a physicist and I am completely aware of this.

And what is the meaning of that wave function? Why do we care about it? Well, its square is the probability density of some event, isn’t it…?

Yes, it is possible to find a deterministic interpretation of those laws. But it is also possible to find a probabilistic interpretation. Therefore, I don’t think you can act as if the determinism that does not concern with free will has been proved.

I meant imply.

OK. In that case - it does not follow from premises.

Yes.

Good. Maybe it would be a good time to restate the argument, “officially” adding this premise (that “things” act deterministically)…?

No, because beings decide and this act is neither deterministic nor random.

It does not address my point. You have tried to offer a watertight and formal proof that all creation (both “things” and “beings”) acts deterministically (didn’t you?). Now, if “things” were acting completely randomly, your conclusion would be false and that possibility is not ruled out by anything in the argument. Therefore, the argument as stated does depend on that premise. You can change the argument so that it would only consider “beings”, but then you have to restate it again.

I already provided the two lines argument and you didn’t say what is wrong with it.

In that part I was stating what was wrong with your “two lines” argument. That argument tacitly took “determinism of things” as a premise. Thus it cannot prove “determinism of things”. You need another argument to prove it. Or you can declare that argument to be conditional on that premise.

Adding randomness doesn’t resolve the conflict between free will and omniscience since an atom decay does not influence your decision.

How do you know that? For example, are you sure that there is nothing concerning such decay that influences the decision-making of nuclear power plant workers…?

Anyway - once again. Even if it does not affect my decision-making, it does affect your argument.

This means that the those events are deterministic from God point of view so they deterministic from our point of view as well. The fact that you are aware of some general events in past doesn’t mean that they are determinstic from our point of view.

“What exactly do you mean by ‘God has the knowledge of these phenomena’?” - “This means that the those events are deterministic from God point of view so they deterministic from our point of view as well.”… You sure use language in strange ways… If that is really what you meant, I wouldn’t have guessed it…

The full argument has already been given, if you are interested in effect of randomness in the argument, I would suggest that you consider a small time interval at which no random events occurs but at least a decision is made.

I meant “full” in the sense of having no hidden premises and no skipped steps. Your argument (in all versions I have seen) does have hidden premises and skipped steps. Therefore, it is not “full” in the sense I am interested in at the moment.

And the case you are suggesting rests on one more unstated premise: “There is a time interval at which no random events occurs but at least a decision is made.”. Well, it hasn’t been demonstrated yet and it hasn’t been “officially” declared to be a premise. What if decision-making itself is random…? Or what if it is a process that must take a longer time…?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

but how? could You explain in completeness please?

God bless

No and No and No. Only in your mind. Not in ours, We do not play by the rules of your game because you have stacked the deck by insisting you are the only one qualified to define the terms and to decide what is logical and what is not. Only a fool would agree to those terms. We have our own rules, realistic rules based on the existence of a real world.

Linus2nd

 

[DanAl]

It can be shown that omniscience, God knows actions of all beings, would lead to a deterministic picture of creation from God point of view. Here is the argument:

1. God knows actions of all beings in creation in every given situations (omniscience)
2. God knows the state of creation in a later time given the state of creation in earlier time since it know actions of beings in creation
3. God knows the state of universe in every given time by knowledge of state of creating in its starting
4. This means that creation evolves in deterministic manner from God point of view

It can be shown that omniscience, God knows actions of all beings, would lead to a deterministic picture of creation from God point of view. Here is the argument:

1. God knows actions of all beings in creation in every given situations (omniscience)
2. God knows the state of creation in a later time given the state of creation in earlier time since it know actions of beings in creation
3. God knows the state of universe in every given time by knowledge of state of creating in its starting
4. This means that creation evolves in deterministic manner from God point of view

Before I answer your question with my own opinion, here are some ways around the problem:

1- Open-theism.

A: God freely chooses not to know what we will do with our free actions.

B: God only knows that which is possible to know and since free-will, in a libertarian sense, is undetermined in principle, God cannot know the volitional content behind our actions.

2- Ockham and others.

Free actions are soft facts about the past.

3-Molinism and Congruism.

Middle knowledge is true.

4- compatibilism.

Free-will is compatible with God’s foreknowledge (there are many ways to spell out free-will in a compatibilist sense).

As you can see there’s no shortage of responses for these sort of questions. Here’s my take and is based largely on what Duns Scotus and Peter Auriol taught:

The truth value of propositions are not true or false until they actually take place, in other words, knowledge of a proposition alone is neutral. " I am eating ice-cream." How would you know this is true or false from the proposition alone? It is impossible, it is not until you see me actually eating ice-cream that you can say that the proposition is true.

Same applies with God’s foreknowledge. “Peter, you will deny me thrice,” It is not true or false until it actually takes place.

Finally, here’s a far more modest take on fatalism. God holds us responsible for our actions and since he’s just, the theist has every right to believe that free-will co-exists with God’s infallibility even if he does not know how that takes place.

 

[aragonjohn1]

No and No and No. Only in your mind. Not in ours, We do not play by the rules of your game because you have stacked the deck by insisting you are the only one qualified to define the terms and to decide what is logical and what is not. Only a fool would agree to those terms. We have our own rules, realistic rules based on the existence of a real world.

Linus2nd

Am confused. The post I replied to and this post is also confusing. Did I insult you or cause scandal? I can be easily confused. Am i a Fool?

Thank You for help

God bless

 

[MPat]

Am confused. The post I replied to and this post is also confusing. Did I insult you or cause scandal? I can be easily confused. Am i a Fool?

Thank You for help

God bless

I suspect that a wrong post was quoted in that case (or, perhaps, Linusthe2nd misread the author). And yes, getting Bahman to clarify his argument is likely to be the correct “tactic” in this case. If that succeeds (I am not sure it will - every try so far appears to be mostly unsuccessful), all problems with it will be seen clearly.

 

[Bahman]

#1, #4, and #5 but if only a little more than a few people cave experienced, know, or can

theorize what there is and could be outside of time. If this is truly true how do one follow

these from an empirical and/or non-subjective perspective?

thank You again

God bless

Time is rate at which things change so it could not be created since it is not real, so the concept of in and out of time couldn’t be real too.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No and No and No. Only in your mind. Not in ours, We do not play by the rules of your game because you have stacked the deck by insisting you are the only one qualified to define the terms and to decide what is logical and what is not. Only a fool would agree to those terms. We have our own rules, realistic rules based on the existence of a real world.

Linus2nd

Sorry, that was meant for Bamhan

Linus2nd

 

[aragonjohn1]

Sorry, that was meant for Bamhan

Linus2nd

That is alright i forgive You

God bless

 

[MPat]

Time is rate at which things change so it could not be created since it is not real, so the concept of in and out of time couldn’t be real too.

OK, so, how is this statement related to your argument? Is it one of its conclusions, one possible explanation why it is not wrong, one of skipped steps, or one of previously hidden premises…? Or is it mostly “offtopic” - in which case it would be a good subject for a new thread…?

By the way, a new thread would be a good idea even if that was a premise, for I don’t see why it should be granted without an argument…