W
whatistrue
Guest
Ah. An old, tired, nonsensical argument does not make for an unresolvable dilemma. I see no point in continuing. Muting thread.It is a common philosophical argument used by atheists:
Ah. An old, tired, nonsensical argument does not make for an unresolvable dilemma. I see no point in continuing. Muting thread.It is a common philosophical argument used by atheists:
It is the problem. You are saying that divine knowledge is a cause/determiner of human choices.That is not the problem.
Again you are asserting a problem where there is none. God knowing what i will choose means that i will not choose differently from what God knows, but it doesn’t mean that i am being forced to choose anything. God simply knows what i will freely choose.The problem is that if there IS a knower, there is no free will.
OK, then. That’s an interesting tack to take. If the effect is “no free will”, what’s its cause? You’ve already said that its cause isn’t “God’s knowing”. What does cause the lack of free will, then?God’s knowing does not CAUSE you to not have free will, God’s knowing MEANS you do not have free will.
Yes, God knows the state of our eternal salvation/damnation before it has happened for us.Can God know the state of our eternal salvation/damnation before it has happened for us?
Yes, He Disigned, Decreed, Preordained our responses from all eternity and orders every event/ act/ responses in all our life as follows:Can he know what our response will be to things before they happen?
But if you are correct then omniscience does cause the issue. You are basically saying that God’s knowledge of our future prevents us from acting freely. A consequence of this is that God’s knowledge of our actions is also a cause of those actions since we are not choosing anything but are only doing anything because God knows it.omniscience does not CAUSE the issue - it is incompatible with free will.
First, it is good to know the differences between LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL and AIDED FREE WILL.If “Aided Free Will” is an official doctrine … can you post references?
You keep saying this, but baldly and without substantiation. This is the crux of your case: please explain and justify it. Otherwise, you’re just out there, tilting at windmills.If you believe in free will, there cannot be an omniscient being. If you believe in an omniscient being, there cannot be free will.
Jan, this is why you need to explain your position. You are making a case that seems to require that God causes the lack of free will, but then state explicitly that it doesn’t. This inconsistency, I suspect, is why folks are scratching their heads at your assertions…But if you are correct then omniscience does cause the issue.
Again, you have not demonstrated that God’s knowledge of our choices is the cause of our choices. If God’s omniscience is not the cause of our choices, then what is to say that we are not the cause of our own choices?
Without speaking for jan10000, I think the point may better be stated that if our decisions are knowable before we take them, that is incompatible with free will. For example even without an omniscient god, if the universe is deterministic then all future events are knowable, even if no actual being knows them. At least using the definitions of choice and free will that we commonly use.So… help us out! Why is God’s knowledge determinative, but not causal?
You walk up to a ticket counter, holding cash in your hand. I know your decision is to buy a ticket. Have I caused your free will to be lost?Without speaking for jan10000, I think the point may better be stated that if our decisions are knowable before we take them, that is incompatible with free will.
In my opinion, the above statements are the shortest and most intelligent and wisest statements I read.God created Abraham he created him such that he would be willing to kill his own son for God.
God could have made Abraham such that he would not be willing to kill his own son, he is after all all-powerful.
Actually, the very first proposal (Aristotelian solution) resolves the problem, but in a way that misstates God and His existence in eternity. As part of its solution, it says " Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T , then T will become true."If you read through the article, you will notice that every solution (including the Boethian one provided above) comes with major concessions regarding God’s omniscience.
And the “limit”, if you want to perceive of it in that way, is “no middle knowledge”. At least, that’s how I see it.I do not think it a problem to put some form of limits on God’s (fore)knowledge. Certainly this conflicts with Catholic doctrine, but I see no way around it.
I did. I’m disagreeing with in on the count that it mischaracterizes God and His eternal (i.e., non-temporal) existence.Perhaps you did not read the whole article, it points out that the Aristotelian solution doesn’t resolve the issue
Nope. That’s the part I’m taking issue with. After all, for us, as humans, “future contingent events do not have a truth value”, but for God, who is not temporally bound, they do.Specifically, if you accept that solution, you must acknowledge that future contingent events do NOT have a truth value.
There’s no “future” for God; all is ‘present’ to Him.Thus, you can claim God is omniscient, but God does not know what will happen in the future because no being could.
It makes all the difference in the world.Saying God is “outside” time doesn’t make any difference in the above - and introduces many,many problems.
So there is a truth value, we just can’t conceive it. That’s the point, the set of choices we can make for any given decision will always be “1”, the decision God knows we’ll make. The decision God knew we’d make when he sent us to Earth instead of sending anyone else instead.That’s the part I’m taking issue with. After all, for us , as humans, “future contingent events do not have a truth value”, but for God, who is not temporally bound, they do .
This doesn’t work very well as an analogy. You’re using a patently deterministic action on your part (“I’m giving him a football”) to illustrate what should be a decision on his part. No wonder your example points to the conclusion that it’s deterministic!Consider this example - I am giving my child a football tomorrow for his birthday. He does not know. The events of tomorrow, to him, have no truth value. But for me, I KNOW I will give him the football.
I’m not talking about God’s freedom. I’m pointing out that the assertion in the article about “God” and “future” is malformed: all is present to Him; there’s no “unknown future” for God.Gain, you just reinforce the point. Whether God has ‘free will’ or not is a whole different issue. This is about human free will. If the future cannot change, we do not have free will.
Take a deep breath. I’m guessing I’m going to be laying some new knowledge on ya…The above is nothing but special pleading.
No order here. Just one eternal act. The logic flows from the definition of eternity.you claim he does acts in order, but not in order, because it is “one” act.
Magically? No. Just logically.Why do you get to say being “outside of time” means it magically resolves all the problems?
Yeah, you could, but it wouldn’t hold up to logical scrutiny.I could reverse every statement you make.