tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post6968167650305289909..comments2024-03-29T01:45:45.002+00:00Comments on Rosa Rubicondior: On Omniscience And FreewillRosa Rubicondiorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comBlogger225125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-7496451671138039832016-09-02T21:38:15.083+01:002016-09-02T21:38:15.083+01:00I don't think that quite works. You haven'...I don't think that quite works. You haven't gone into the future to see the result; you've gone into the past to see what happened earlier.<br /><br />But an omniscient god wouldn't need to travel into the future to discover it; it would already know it and will always have known it.<br /><br />Yes the breeding humans knowing they are going to suffer for eternity is even worse than breeding kittens intending to set fire to them later. At least the kittens stop suffering eventually. And people worship this thing, sing songs in praise of it and tell their children to look to it for moral guidance. Would they do the same with a man who bred kittens to burn them later?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-78769749578727057522016-09-02T21:05:54.369+01:002016-09-02T21:05:54.369+01:00Supposing that human free will is possible (it'...Supposing that human free will is possible (it's not), would an omniscient god preclude it? No. There is a very clever work-around. <br /><br />Suppose, for example, the members of a football team could have free will. A team is playing live on TV. You set your TiVo to record it and leave your house. You come back three hours later and watch the recording. Every time you watch it the actions and final score are the same. Does this mean the team did not have free will at the time you set your TiVo three hours ago? No. What you have effectively done is gone into the future to see the result.<br /><br />So the way an omniscient god would not preclude human free will is if this god, at this moment, could time travel into the future to see what our actions will be, then return to the present. (To an atheist, this is an impossible being performing an impossible task, but that is a separate argument.)<br /><br />There are theological problems with an omniscient god, but free will isn't one of them. For example, why would a loving god allow a person to be born that it knows will end up in Hell?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815051922887148562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-48492749613749512932015-01-07T09:16:29.846+00:002015-01-07T09:16:29.846+00:00So could you do something other that what God knew...So could you do something other that what God knew you would be going to do since before you were born? If not, you have no freewill and are a mere automaton doing what God's foreknowledge preordained you to do.<br /><br />If you CAN do something different, God is not inerrant or omniscient.<br /><br />So, are you an automaton with no free will or do you have free will and God either lied or made a mistake about his omniscience? <br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-58026368895944547162015-01-07T08:54:46.729+00:002015-01-07T08:54:46.729+00:00YES, God foreknows everything and NO, you can'...YES, God foreknows everything and NO, you can't chose anything else. <br /><br />A simple illustration of something more realistic to help explain my answer. <br /><br />If I could read your mind ahead of you, say you are planning to murder someone, and I can read yr mind ahead and know who, when where, my foreknowledge does not influence your choice. The two are totally separate. I simply know. Unless I choose to do something about it, which God can chose to do. It may be likened to a fortune teller, or palm reader. They don't cause you to do what you do, but they know what you will freely choose to do, of the many options you have. cnamaguluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07639944896245862127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-40948400421596629402013-05-08T18:05:22.166+01:002013-05-08T18:05:22.166+01:00If there really is a creator god who knows everyth...If there really is a creator god who knows everything and who has created Hell, then there is no doubt that it is a sadistic monster of the worst kind because it knows everyone who goes there or will go there before it creates them. It is no different to a sadist who breeds kittens so he/she can pour gasoline on them and set fire to them.<br /><br />Would you regard such a vile creature as a good source of morals and something worth singing the praises of?<br /><br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-46233733455781454052013-05-08T09:17:58.892+01:002013-05-08T09:17:58.892+01:00I don't have the brains to follow all this mat...I don't have the brains to follow all this mathematics, but to me - just a simple minded person - it seems that:<br />a god who already knows that a certain human being will not believe in him,<br />thus knowing this human being will make the 'wrong' choice by 'free' will,<br />but making it the choice of this human being in some sort of test of 'true love' for him (the deity), thus making the human being fully responsible for this 'wrong' choice and purnishing him eternally for this choice,<br />that this god is the ultimate sadist. <br />(And even more a sadist because aparently it is necessary to be a clever person, understanding mathematics, to follow his 'logic', while creating less clever persons in the meantime.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-17951923300171931662013-02-23T23:33:42.405+00:002013-02-23T23:33:42.405+00:00Then it shouldn't be too hard to do what Tim c...Then it shouldn't be too hard to do what Tim couldn't do and explain how a god can both know something and not know it simultaneously.<br /><br />You know, whenever you feel able to do more than just pretend you could it you wanted to and hope that someone falls for it.<br /><br />I wonder if people can suggest a reason why you decided to remain anonymous...Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-664652145369038532013-02-23T23:00:17.044+00:002013-02-23T23:00:17.044+00:00Wow,
I can only commend Tim for sticking in for a ...Wow,<br />I can only commend Tim for sticking in for a year or so explaining modal logic to someone who just refuses to understand the subject. The judgment of who was right in this thread is going to fall along the lines of those who understand modal logic and those who don't, and that has nothing to do with being a Theist or an Atheist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-88029499869514202422012-10-09T19:06:54.165+01:002012-10-09T19:06:54.165+01:00Can you two make your mind up, please. One of you ...Can you two make your mind up, please. One of you tells me ">"Can you chose something God doesn't know you'll choose or not?" ... the answer is "Yes."<br /><br />And you say he still knows, so the answer is no.<br /><br />Maybe it's the definition of 'omniscience' (i.e. all-knowing) which is confusing you, or perhaps even the meaning of 'all'.<br /><br />All you need do to win, BTW, is to explain how a god can know everything and not know something at the same time, then you wouldn't need to hide your embarrassment under heaps of verbiage and alternate that with attempts to redefine words or to substitute the question for a different one.<br /><br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-81640824916705465382012-10-09T18:35:29.056+01:002012-10-09T18:35:29.056+01:00"So God isn't omniscient."
Fail.
..."So God isn't omniscient."<br /><br />Fail. <br /><br />God still knows every thing that I will in fact do. This is a perfect example of the <i>non sequitur</i> you keep committing -- and your habit of declaring victory without engaging with the argument -- all rolled into one brief comment.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752886510692318211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-64195586946344104802012-10-09T18:19:50.717+01:002012-10-09T18:19:50.717+01:00>To the question, "Can you chose something...>To the question, "Can you chose something God doesn't know you'll choose or not?"<br /><br />... the answer is "Yes."<br /><br />So God isn't omniscient. When did you decide the Bible lied about that, please?<br /><br />Or will you now be spending several months trying to convince yourself that is it possible to know everything and not know something at the same time?<br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-28359609992468651692012-10-09T13:40:27.554+01:002012-10-09T13:40:27.554+01:00Rosa,
To the question, "Can you chose someth...Rosa,<br /><br />To the question, "Can you chose something God doesn't know you'll choose or not?"<br /><br />... the answer is "Yes."<br /><br />The problem -- one running through this entire discussion -- is that this answer does not have the further consequence that you think it has. <br /><br />If it did, you would be forced (to be logically consistent) either to say that it is <i>not true</i>, right now, that you will have an egg for breakfast tomorrow, and that equally it is <i>not false</i>, right now, that you will not have an egg for breakfast tomorrow, or else to say that there is no free will.<br /><br />But you have never come to terms with that dilemma. By making the distinction between "not P" and "it is possible that not P," Andy and I have. The trouble is simply that you are unable or unwilling to see this point and that you therefore resort, with monotonous regularity, to claiming dialectical victory without actually engaging with the arguments and distinctions we have laid out. Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752886510692318211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-76195825808021576482012-10-09T08:16:47.348+01:002012-10-09T08:16:47.348+01:00Andy Bates
Are you saying you can chose something...Andy Bates<br /><br />Are you saying you <b>can</b> chose something God doesn't know you'll choose or not? You seem to have avoided the question by confusing it with a different one.<br /><br />Just a simple yes or no answer will suffice. No waffle needed.<br /><br />Once again, just to avoid conclusion: the question is, can you choose something God doesn't already know you'll choose. Your task is to say yes or no to that question.<br /><br />I hope that helps.<br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-41234371326092129062012-10-09T01:50:04.538+01:002012-10-09T01:50:04.538+01:00Rosa, the flaw in your argument is obvious:
“If G...Rosa, the flaw in your argument is obvious:<br /><br />“If God has always known what you will have for breakfast tomorrow, can you choose to have something else instead?<br /><br />So what exactly is the problem here? <br /><br />Let’s consider the possible answers:<br /><br />Answer 1. Yes.<br /><br />Ah! Then something CAN happen that God didn’t know about, so God is not omniscient or inerrant. God got it wrong, and god didn’t know your eventual choice.”<br /><br />You are confusing the fact that something CAN happen with the fact that it WILL happen. If God knows that you will choose X for breakfast, then of course you are free to choose whatever you want for breakfast. It just happens that you WILL choose X for breakfast. Just because something IS true does not mean that thing MUST BE true.<br /><br />I had cereal for breakfast this morning. That statement is true. All other statements about what I had for breakfast (eggs, toast, waffles) are false. But just because “I had cereal for breakfast this morning” IS true, that doesn’t mean that it MUST BE true. I always had a choice for breakfast. I could have chosen whatever I wanted; I just happened to choose cereal. It still remains possible that I could have had eggs for breakfast, even though I didn’t. Similarly, even if God knows you chose X for breakfast, you could have chosen something else. You just didn’t.<br /><br />There is a difference between “X is true” and “not-X is possible.” “X is true” does not mean that “not-X is possible” is false; it just means that not-X is false. Not-X can be both false and possible at the same time.<br />Andy Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02053485146687690884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-53186603941446345252012-09-30T15:37:37.797+01:002012-09-30T15:37:37.797+01:00I'm repeating my self to remind you what your ...I'm repeating my self to remind you what your task is and to show you that your redefinition ploy didn't work.<br /><br />Sorry you've had to degenerate into abuse and now need to try to change the subject.<br /><br />Was it because you couldn't think how freewill can exist in the same universe as an omniscience eternal god but you didn't want to handle the inevitable cognitive dissonance that sets up in the mind of someone who needs to hold those two mutually exclusive views simultaneously?<br /><br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-84987222875579178912012-09-30T14:15:38.553+01:002012-09-30T14:15:38.553+01:00Rosa,
You're merely stomping your foot and re...Rosa,<br /><br />You're merely stomping your foot and repeating your original claim, not engaging with the actual distinctions and arguments. That doesn't advance the discussion.<br /><br />What's <i>your</i> response to the fatalism argument -- the one that has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a deity? Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752886510692318211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-34832092563468201672012-09-30T09:49:33.508+01:002012-09-30T09:49:33.508+01:00>I have said many times in this discussion that...>I have said many times in this discussion that we can do something other than what an omniscient god knows we will do<<br /><br />Which would mean the god isn't omniscient.<br /><br />>but we won't.<<br /><br />Which means we don't have free will but are limited by what the god knows, and has always known, we will do.<br /><br />>You have never made any attempt to come to terms with this distinction.<<br /><br />Because there is none, unless we do as you attempted to do, and change the definition of either the word omniscient to mean limited knowledge, or of the words free will to mean a limited choice of actions.<br /><br />What you need to come to terms with is that free will is logically impossible in a universe which contains an omniscient entity which has always existed.<br /><br />I understand how this will mean an adjustment in your theological beliefs but the purpose of logical thinking is to help us understand whether our beliefs are rational or not. If they are not, the logical thing to do is to change them, or persist in beliefs we know to be false, unless of course one believes ones own beliefs to be above mere logic and immune to reason.<br /><br /><br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-31138489082064382112012-09-30T02:54:00.896+01:002012-09-30T02:54:00.896+01:00Rosa,
You write: "No. An omniscient god'...Rosa,<br /><br />You write: "No. An omniscient god's knowledge would be of what we will do in any and all circumstances. Your attempt to limit such a god's knowledge to what we will 'freely' do is an attempt to redefine it as not omniscient."<br /><br />Of course God's foreknowledge extends to events that are unfree. So there is no redefinition going on here; I am quite comfortable with the position that God's knowledge covers all events, both free and unfree. <br /><br />I have said many times in this discussion that we <i>can</i> do something other than what an omniscient god knows we will do, but we <i>won't</i>. You have never made any attempt to come to terms with this distinction.<br /><br />As I pointed out earlier, the same problem arises with respect to the question of the truth of future tense contingent statements, leaving the deity out of consideration: if it is <i>true</i>, now, that you will not have an egg for breakfast tomorrow, <i>can</i> you have an egg tomorrow? If not, then -- by your own reasoning -- you are not free. If so, then -- again by your own reasoning -- the statement that you will not have an egg for breakfast tomorrow is not a truth.<br /><br />The solution to this fatalist puzzle is the same as the solution to the omniscience puzzle; you <i>can</i>, but you <i>won't</i>. If you reject this solution in the case of omniscience, I do not see how you can (except by being arbitrary and unprincipled) accept it in the case of the truth values of future contingents. <br /><br />So if you believe that there are true future tense statements about the contingent actions of human beings, you must either embrace fatalism or drop your argument against omniscience.<br /><br />If you stop to engage with this problem in a serious fashion, I'll be interested to see which way you choose (!?) to go.<br />Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752886510692318211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-38991474507206081972012-09-30T01:24:28.957+01:002012-09-30T01:24:28.957+01:00>The key point is that God's foreknowledge ...>The key point is that God's foreknowledge is knowledge of what we will freely do.<<br /><br />No. An omniscient god's knowledge would be of what we <b>will</b> do in any and all circumstances. Your attempt to limit such a god's knowledge to what we will 'freely' do is an attempt to redefine it as not omniscient.<br /><br />Your task is to say whether we can do something <b>other</b> than what an omniscient god has always known we will do. <br /><br />If not, how we can be said to have free will? <br /><br />If we can, then how can the god be described as omniscient?<br /><br />After all, it is a central tenet of both Christian and Islamic belief that the Christian/Islamic god is omniscient <b>and</b> that humans have free will, so these two positions should be easy to reconcile...<br /><br /><br /><br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-18230325590133003802012-09-30T00:26:54.476+01:002012-09-30T00:26:54.476+01:00Colin,
Your objection does not work against a com...Colin,<br /><br />Your objection does not work against a common picture of divine foreknowledge. The key point is that God's foreknowledge is knowledge of what we will freely do.<br /><br />There is a possible world -- call it w1 -- in which God knows that I will freely choose to eat an egg tomorrow morning, and I do.<br /><br />There is a possible world -- call it w2 -- in which God knows that I will freely choose not to eat an egg tomorrow morning, and I don't.<br /><br />On this model, God's knowledge, in each case, is contingent on my future action -- that's what it means for God to know the future. Whichever one I do, it will have been the case that God knew that. But this fact places no constraint on my action. <br /><br />For not eating an egg to be possible in some world wn, it suffices that w2 exists and is accessible to wn; for eating the egg to be possible in wn, it suffices that w1 exists and is accessible to wn. ("Exists" here need not be taken in a metaphysically heavy way such as David Lewis takes it.) That condition gives the formal semantics for "can." Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752886510692318211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-66471027089858632292012-09-29T17:05:14.454+01:002012-09-29T17:05:14.454+01:00That sums it up pretty well.
Of course, if God wr...That sums it up pretty well.<br /><br />Of course, if God wrote such a book about everything then God itself couldn't change the future without rendering at least one of the books false and probably every other book which described anything subsequent to that one changed event.<br /><br />It also means that,to be able to make accurate prophesies (i.e. read God's book and tell us what the future holds) all previous history would need to be unchanged for the prophesy to be accurate, so a universe in which prophesies are possible is a universe with a god who is powerless to change anything.<br /><br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-23452714448655546702012-09-29T13:00:22.320+01:002012-09-29T13:00:22.320+01:00Perhaps a rewording will help.
Scene: The begin...Perhaps a rewording will help. <br /><br />Scene: The beginning of time, or at least a time before humans. <br /><br />God sits down and decides to create a library and it fill with books detailing the lives of all the future people to come. He writes a book called 'The Life Of Tim, 1970 to 2024 - A Blow By Blow Account Of Tims Life And Everything Tim Will Ever Do'. So a book now exists in Gods library that cronicles the life of Tim in esquisite detail. It doesn't talk about what Tim might or might not do, its not guesswork, its a book that details Tims life as he WILL live it - as if written after Tims death. He puts the book on a shelf and there is stays through the millennia. <br /><br />Fast forward to the present, time has caught up with Gods book about Tims life. We're on page 51, and so far the book has been faultless and infintely percise. The corralation with actual events has been flawless. Page 52 is about tomorrow, and it says that Tim is going to have bacon and eggs for his breakfast.<br /><br />The question Rosa is asking is, can Tim redender this book inacurate by having pancakes instead? Can Tim deviate from what is written in the book by excercising his free will and doing something different?Colin Steadmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971112115794857686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-85481612937804195982012-09-20T18:26:20.641+01:002012-09-20T18:26:20.641+01:00Hi Rosa,
Good post. I came to the same conclusion...Hi Rosa,<br /><br />Good post. I came to the same conclusion a long time ago.<br />The only comment I wanted to add , has already been said by an earlier commentator "Bhagdwad...".<br />A more general argument would be that "free will" is impossible in ANY reality; and not just<br />those versions of reality that might have an omniscient "God" in it. Since every event has a cause that can presumably traced to the Big Bang.alphanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-40201444525376963862012-05-24T17:40:11.127+01:002012-05-24T17:40:11.127+01:00Almost forgot to mention that your evidence-free, ...Almost forgot to mention that your evidence-free, sanctimonious bigotry was noted. It's nothing new of course, though your ability to memorise it and deliver it in lieu of reasoned argument, is slightly impressive.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-50864270602100587122012-05-24T17:36:26.521+01:002012-05-24T17:36:26.521+01:00In nother wotrds, it doesn't matter what you d...In nother wotrds, it doesn't matter what you do or what sort of person you are, your magic invisible friend lets you off anyway and you don't even need to make reparation to those you've wronged.<br /><br />It must be nice imagining you have such a handy get out of jail free card if you lack basic morality and the ability to empathise with your unfortunate victims. Not very nice for your victims though, but then they don't really matter if you're a psychopath, do they.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.com