Fatalism?

[Bahman]

OK so we go back in time and the choice is chocolate and vanilla. Both are real and you can go back and choose either. But if one for whatever reason is fatal or self destructive than that would be the illusion. There has to be something to qualify fatal in relation to vanilla and chocolate and illusion.

At least within our realm, we know with certainty that options are real in the sense that we can approach them. Hence there is no fatal things within our realm except the fact that the future is an illusion and we have to make it and then face it. We are conscious being and we have control on something and can have control on something else depending on our level of awareness. This is one reality which is simple. The key question in this realm is what the stuff that we experience comes from since the consciousness is primary, by definition consciousness is the essence of any being with the ability to experience and create. In another world what is this things that disturbed me!

The other one is running after their tails since they see the reality linear, causal, which is not, yet trying to fit it with their simple model which doesn’t explain primacy of consciousness hence create the concept of God which is linear as well. They know well that what is the consequence of accepting a fatal concept which an option is an illusion!

 

[Bahman]

Whats the “itness” of this substance which is fatal?

Nothing, the poor guy/your brain/subconsciousness speaks with you with very clear language that I am conscious of my own world but we don’t believe it!

 

[Bookcat]

Ok. You choose X and then you rewind time. Can you choose Y this time or you only choose X always no matter how many times you rewind time?

You cannot “rewind time”. So it is not really something to that can really be discussed any more then my taking a hot air balloon to Mars (the planet…)

If such were possible - free will would still be free will. Free will is free will.

 

[davidv]

Only one of them real from God point of view though. Hence there is a tension between your point of view and God point of view. Which one is true?

Frankly, this comment indicates that you know very little of our God and even less about logic.

 

[oldcelt]

I do not ascribe to fatalism in any sense. Our live are ours to determine, create, and live. Nothing is predetermined and our end is merely a matter of circumstance…not fate.

John

 

[Bahman]

Frankly, this comment indicates that you know very little of our God and even less about logic.

I accept that if you show me where is the error, either in my logic or your very definition of God.

You have two options to choose from, God knows your choice. How other choice could be real? How it could be an illusion? You know it that you can catch it if you and you only you wish so. Hence you are the creator of the situation. How anybody could know without intervening in your decision? How you could be free then?

 

[Mumbles140]

I accept that if you show me where is the error, either in my logic or your very definition of God.

You have two options to choose from, God knows your choice. How other choice could be real? How it could be an illusion? You know it that you can catch it if you and you only you wish so. Hence you are the creator of the situation. How anybody could know without intervening in your decision? How you could be free then?

Logical defense:

I freely can choose A or B.
You said the ability to choose something makes it real.
Therefore, both A and B are real.

A and B are real.
God knows all things.
God’s knowledge of A and B is real - not an illusion.

 

[Bookcat]

I accept that if you show me where is the error, either in my logic or your very definition of God.

You have two options to choose from, God knows your choice. How other choice could be real? How it could be an illusion? You know it that you can catch it if you and you only you wish so. Hence you are the creator of the situation. How anybody could know without intervening in your decision? How you could be free then?

We have explained this. The difficulty is thinking in terms of some science fiction story not real life (all the various time travel genre).

The real life events have been explained - please set aside that approach and read those posts again.

 

[St_Redemption]

God knows beforehand which choice you will make. But you are still responsible for the choice. You still make the choice. If I choose A over B, then God would know beforehand of my choice of A. But if I choose B instead, he would see that as well, but the difference in his future knowledge would have came via my choice to choose something different. Him knowing what choice I will make does not in any sense remove the choice. I still choose the option of my free volition. I don’t see the difficulty really.

 

[Bahman]

Logical defense:

I freely can choose A or B.
You said the ability to choose something makes it real.
Therefore, both A and B are real.

A and B are real.
God knows all things.
God’s knowledge of A and B is real - not an illusion.

No. You are going very fast. Let me correct what you said:

I freely can choose A or B.
The ability to choose something makes it real.
Therefore, both A and B are real.

Assume that there is a God who knows all things.
God’s knows your choice, A.
From God point of view A is real and B is an illusion.

Hence there is a tension between your point of view and Gods point of view.

 

[Bahman]

God knows beforehand which choice you will make. But you are still responsible for the choice. You still make the choice. If I choose A over B, then God would know beforehand of my choice of A. But if I choose B instead, he would see that as well, but the difference in his future knowledge would have came via my choice to choose something different. Him knowing what choice I will make does not in any sense remove the choice. I still choose the option of my free volition. I don’t see the difficulty really.

Please read post #67.

 

[Mumbles140]

No. You are going very fast. Let me correct what you said:

I freely can choose A or B.
The ability to choose something makes it real.
Therefore, both A and B are real.

Assume that there is a God who knows all things.
God’s knows your choice, A.
From God point of view A is real and B is an illusion.

Hence there is a tension between your point of view and Gods point of view.

But we have agreed that B is real, and if God knows all things (let’s assume all real things), then surely God must know about B. You are substituting in a conclusion that does not logically flow from the premises, as nothing in the premises makes B an illusion. In fact, we certified in the first argument that B was just as real as A.

 

[Bookcat]

No. You are going very fast. Let me correct what you said:

I freely can choose A or B.
The ability to choose -]something makes it real/-] is the ability to choose.
-]Therefor/-]e, both A and B are real because they are real - the vanilla ice cream and the chocolate is cream is there in front of me

Assume that there is a God who knows all things.
God’s knows your choice, A.
From God point of view A is -]real /-] something one may chooseand B -]is an illusion/-] something one may choose and both are considered by me - and then I choose A
-]
Hence there is a tension between your point of view and Gods point of view/-].

 

[Bookcat]

Choosing something does not make it real.

That “something” - IS real - otherwise one could not choose it. As is the “something” one cut off by ones choice of the other something (otherwise there would no choice).

 

[Bahman]

Oh well, I have a little mistake:

I freely can choose A or B.
The ability to choose something means it is approachable.
What is approachable is real.
Therefore, both A and B are real.

Assume that there is a God who knows all things.
God’s knows your choice, A for example.
From God point of view A is real and B is an illusion.

Hence there is a tension between your point of view and Gods point of view.

 

[Bahman]

But we have agreed that B is real, and if God knows all things (let’s assume all real things), then surely God must know about B. You are substituting in a conclusion that does not logically flow from the premises, as nothing in the premises makes B an illusion. In fact, we certified in the first argument that B was just as real as A.

How God could know B? It doesn’t exist. I am just trying to take you to the point of contradiction. You are fast to take the point though.

 

[Bookcat]

Oh well, I have a little mistake:

I freely can choose A or B.
The ability to choose something means it is approachable.
What is approachable is real.
Therefore, both A and B are real.

Assume that there is a God who knows all things.
God’s knows your choice, A for example.
From God point of view A is real and B -]is an illusion./-]is real (the ice cream not chosen does not drop out of existence!)

-]Hence there is a tension between your point of view and Gods point of view./-]

 

[Bahman]

…

Well, we are talking about your mental choices.

 

[Bookcat]

Oh well, I have a little mistake:

I freely can choose A or B.
The ability to choose something means it is approachable.
What is approachable is real.
Therefore, both A and B are real.

Assume that there is a God who knows all things.
God’s knows your mental choice, A for example.
From God point of view A is real and B -]is an illusion/-] is not chosen. God knows (indeed one could not think without God) that one had both real thoughts and that one choose to do A and not B.
-]
Hence there is a tension between your point of view and Gods point of view/-].

 

[Bahman]

…

That is no complete. You are mixing the situation before and after decision.

Before decision we have A and B in disposal, meaning that both are real. From God point of view however A is real and B is an illusion. I stress again, it is illusion since its negate is absolute knowledge. This means that the fact you assume that you can choose B is false.