destiny vs free will

Originally posted by twhitehead
Read your own quote again slowly and you will see how silly it sounds. Maybe you meant "I cant tell you what to do."?
If God is omnipresent throughout spacetime then there is only one spacetime with one outcome for every choice (God has seen it after all) and therefore your choices are predestined. You cannot argue your way around that however hard you try.
The choices in such a scenario would still fit within my understanding of free will.

STATEMENT ---- If God is omnipresent throughout spacetime then there is only one spacetime with one outcome for every choice (God has seen it after all) and therefore your choices are predestined

RESPONSE---

But you have not thought it through have you?? There would be only one outcome if there was real free will just as there would be only one outcome with predestination. Both free will and predestination would produce exactly the same results , one set of choices and one set of outcomes.How are we to know the difference? Both scenarios would produce one timeline and one outcome. You think this proves predestination?

This does NOT prove that only one outcome was ever possible. It proves that there was only one outcome of a set of choices , and that's all. We don't know whether those choices are predestined or not just by the fact that there is one outcome.

What you need to show is the fact that there is one outcome means that there CAN ONLY EVER HAVE BEEN one outcome. This is what you think it proves but it doesn't. If you can do this you will be able to disprove free will and claim the world philosophy prize. You will be able to also prove that Hitler did not have free will because you know his future and you know the one outcome of his one set of choices.

In short , your argument is circular because you take for granted something you cannot logically prove. You have just never questioned it like this before.

Now come on whitey , push yourself that one step further , think man! REALLY think!

Hitler's future is your past. To you it has happened , but until he sets it in place by choosing it you can't know it. Hitler's future is your past , just as your future is in the "past" for God. But it's not set for you until you move through and create your future. If God is not stuck on our timeline then it's easy to imagine. You think that there is one big Newtonian clock that is static for eveything?

Prove to me that Hitler had no free will because you know his future and I will be impressed.

Originally posted by Big Mac
I am a Christian Theist. I agree with you. There is no Free Will, except that of God. Only He has free will. Only He knows all things and orchestrates all things.
We simply (or complicatedly) seem to have free will, but, as you said, if our choices are known in advance, we really couldn't choose any other possibility.

Then your version of the Christian God could not logically be omnibenevolent. Here we go again... 😞

Originally posted by twhitehead
Read your own quote again slowly and you will see how silly it sounds. Maybe you meant "I cant tell you what to do."?
If God is omnipresent throughout spacetime then there is only one spacetime with one outcome for every choice (God has seen it after all) and therefore your choices are predestined. You cannot argue your way around that however hard you try.
The choices in such a scenario would still fit within my understanding of free will.

QUOTE----You cannot argue your way around that however hard you try.


.......if you can prove that it is logically impossible for there to be any dimensions outside or beyond time then it you will have beaten me. But the onus of proof is on you not me because you are making the catagorical statement not me. I'm saying that God knowing your future proves nothing , just as you knowing Hitler's future proves nothing. It's up to you to argue , not me.

I agree that you believe that nothing outside/beyond space time can exist but this is not proof it's belief plain and simple. If you are right then you are right , but believing you are right does not prove you are right.

Anyway , the whole arguement rests hypothetically on God knowing everything and being God , which includes being eternal and outside time. You seem to think you win the argument by claiming this is impossible. Fair enough , but you might as well say God doesn't exist then. However, your arguement rests on hypothetically imagining God as he really might be , and if you do this then you get different results.

It's like you saying "If you could fly then then logically that implies that you couldn't fly to Denmark"

If I then ask "why?"

Your argument then becomes " because flying is impossible for human beings"

Do you see the mistake?

Originally posted by wittywonka
Then your version of the Christian God could not logically be omnibenevolent. Here we go again... 😞

Absolutely , I agree utterly. But this isn't true theism.

Originally posted by knightmeister
What you need to show is the fact that there is one outcome means that there CAN ONLY EVER HAVE BEEN one outcome.

This is the key statement. "there can only ever have been". What does it mean? It implies that at point A in time there is only one future and that future 'has already been decided'. In fact as we both agree that there can only be one future, the issue is whether or not it has already been decided.
The key here is information flow. If it is in anyway possible for any information about the future to be obtained then the future already decided. The Bible and you both make it clear that God is capable of passing on information about the future to you. That means without a doubt that the future is fixed and predestined.
In a situation where no information can flow backwards I still cant see how we can get away from a form of predestination in that there will be only one future but it doesn't really matter as it is impossible to know the future.
So it is actually your world view and not mine that is pro-predestination.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is the key statement. "there can only ever have been". What does it mean? It implies that at point A in time there is only one future and that future 'has already been decided'. In fact as we both agree that there can only be one future, the issue is whether or not it has already been decided.
The key here is information flow. If it is in anyway po ...[text shortened]... now the future.
So it is actually your world view and not mine that is pro-predestination.

But you have not answered the question . How does you knowing Hitler's future prove that his actions were predetermined? Does it prove that his actions were decided for him by his timeline or could it be that Hitler did what he did and that's all we know?

Originally posted by knightmeister
But you have not answered the question . How does you knowing Hitler's future prove that his actions were predetermined? Does it prove that his actions were decided for him by his timeline or could it be that Hitler did what he did and that's all we know?

I did answer the question. You just want to make it an issue of Hitler in particular. So be it. If God is capable of foretelling the future ie passing on information about the future to people then it is conceivable that God could tell Hitler what he was going to do. That means that Hitlers future was predestined as from that point on he would have no choice about his future actions. You could possibly argue that the future is only predestined in cases where God does inform someone of future events but that would be a fairly weak argument.

Of course none of this absolves Hitler from responsibility as you claim. But then we have already found out that you and I have vastly different ideas on responsibility.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is the key statement. "there can only ever have been". What does it mean? It implies that at point A in time there is only one future and that future 'has already been decided'. In fact as we both agree that there can only be one future, the issue is whether or not it has already been decided.
The key here is information flow. If it is in anyway po now the future.
So it is actually your world view and not mine that is pro-predestination.

QUOTE--

It implies that at point A in time there is only one future and that future 'has already been decided'. In fact as we both agree that there can only be one future, the issue is whether or not it has already been decided. WHITEY

RESPONSE--

Me thinks you have completely miss read my post. I am NOT arguing that Hitler's future (or anyone else's) has been "already been decided " . I am arguing that Hitler is going to have to have a future , he will do something or other that is certain. The problem you have is you assume only one timeline is possible and that there is some universal clock working rather than two dimensions of time or time and eternity.

The fact that we all will have a future and there will be only one of them is a huge truism . The real question is whether the timeline that gets set is the only timeline that could ever have been. If us all having only one timeline was proof of determinism then free will itself would have been slaughtered as a concept years ago because having one timeline is an outcome one would expect from free will as well as determinism (unless you know of someone who has lived twice?)

Naturally we do not have the privilege of running anyone's timeline again to see if they just end up repeating their future which would thus prove determinism. And yet you seem to treat this as a given to which you are not entitled. For all we know Hitler might not have killed himself , the fact that he did proves.....erhem.... that he did and that's all. We can never know if killing himself was predestined or not , we just know that history has recorded what he did and if he had not killed himself then we would be wondering now if it was possible that he coiuld have killed himself. This is probably such a basic fatc that you may have overlooked it's significance to this debate.

Now , you know Hitler's future do you not? But simply knowing his future proves nothing , agreed? So why then would traveling through a worm hole to 1943 from 2007 and holding that information in 1943 prove anything other than Hitler did what he did. How would having a piece of information in your head somehow mysteriously influence Hitler's timeline? In theory he could still have freedom to choose his future because his future is not set for for him as yet.

Here's one more way of thinking about it . You go back to 1943. In 1945 Hitler chose to not kill himself. The history books record that Hitler went on trial and this is what you know . It would be as if you never knew that he killed himself because infact he never did. Your information cannot become available to you until Hitler does what he does. In a real sense you wouldn't know anything about Hitler's future only about his past. Your information is DEPENDENT on what Hitler choose to do in 1945 ...rather than...Hitler's decisions being dependent on your knowledge...because the way the information comes to you is AFTER...I repeat AFTER...Hitler does it.

So answer the question this time. Does you knowing Hitler has killed himself prove that Hitler could never have done anything else but kill himself? Does you knowing Hitler's future prove anything about free will?

Originally posted by knightmeister
QUOTE--
It implies that at point A in time there is only one future and that future 'has already been decided'. In fact as we both agree that there can only be one future, the issue is whether or not it has already been decided. WHITEY

RESPONSE--
Me thinks you have completely miss read my post. I am NOT arguing that Hitler's future (or anyone els ...[text shortened]... t kill himself? Does you knowing Hitler's future prove anything about free will?

Its you that miss read. Your response is exactly what you quoted me as saying so whats the problem?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Now , you know Hitler's future do you not? But simply knowing his future proves nothing , agreed? So why then would traveling through a worm hole to 1943 from 2007 and holding that information in 1943 prove anything other than Hitler did what he did. How would having a piece of information in your head somehow mysteriously influence Hitler's timeline? ...[text shortened]... uld still have freedom to choose his future because his future is not set for for him as yet.

Reread your post carefully. Now you are no longer claiming that the future is not set at a point in time say 1945 but that it is not set for a particular entity at that point in time ie it could be set for me but not Hitler. In fact your instantiation of a worm hole immediately makes you run into the various time travel paradoxs and you must immediately decide whether or not there are multiple timelines in your worm hole universe or only a single one. Could I remember him doing one thing but he does something else? ie two timelines.
In fact you are conclusively showing your initial claims to be wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its you that miss read. Your response is exactly what you quoted me as saying so whats the problem?

I am afraid that you have yet to answer my original quiestion . Does your knowing Hitler's future logically mean that Hitler had no free will whatsoever? Me thinks you maybe avoiding the question..so I had better make it easier for you top notice this time..

DOES YOUR KNOWING HITLER'S FUTURE LOGICALLY PROVE HE HAD NO FREE WILL?

yes or no....

Originally posted by knightmeister
DOES YOUR KNOWING HITLER'S FUTURE LOGICALLY PROVE HE HAD NO FREE WILL?

yes or no....

Firstly our concepts of free will are vastly different so a yes or no answer MUST be qualified. So NO, under MY understanding of free will, my current knowledge of Hitlers future does not prove that he had no free will.
Under YOUR understanding of free will it is doubtful that he had free will as your description states specifically that there must be more than one future timeline available to him. If time travel of any kind including God passing information into the past then it becomes a certainty that either there are multiple timelines or Hitler had no free will (by your understanding of it).

And I did answer it several times before though possibly without the use of Hitler as a specific example. Maybe that is what you really want?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Reread your post carefully. Now you are no longer claiming that the future is not set at a point in time say 1945 but that it is not set for a particular entity at that point in time ie it could be set for me but not Hitler. In fact your instantiation of a worm hole immediately makes you run into the various time travel paradoxs and you must immediately d ...[text shortened]... g else? ie two timelines.
In fact you are conclusively showing your initial claims to be wrong.

Now you are no longer claiming that the future is not set at a point in time say 1945 but that it is not set for a particular entity at that point in time ie it could be set for me but not Hitler.WHITEY

However , the real question is who or what does the setting of the future. Is there a set timeline upon which Hitler is forced to walk or is it Hitler that does the setting as he moves through time? If it is the latter then there is little problem because Hitler will have set his own timeline in place and not had it "set for him" and thus the potential for free will is preserved. You could of course argue that Hitler has set his own timeline in advance of him walking through time to meet his destiny , but then if Hitler sets his own destiny this is infact free will. This would be paradoxical because one might ask how can Hitler set his destiny in place until he gets there?

Whatever the case , the critical question is 'how is Hitler's timeline decided?' Hitler kills himself , it then becomes recorded in history , whatever happens after that point may or may not seem strange or paradoxical , but as long as at that precise moment when Hitler kills himself he is free to decide the outcome of his own destiny that's all that matters. It's only after he kills himself that the information becomes available to anyone (including God).

You assume that God knows Hitlers timeline 'in advance' on the SAME timeline Hitler is travelling through. This then falsely places God on Hitlers timeline , which is inaccurate. God is not in time so there is no past or future for him. He is in a different dimension. You may of course argue that such a dimension is impossible as is your right but that is a separate argument from the one we are having. If such a dimension does exist then what seems paradoxical to us will not be so paradoxical afterall. Since , I have shown how it is possible to know someones future (Hitler) without it having to be neccessarily predetermined then what musty it be like for an entity for whom the whole of the universe is 'the past'. If time cannot be transcended in any way then the Theist God is a non-starter anyway , but if time can be transcended (which is what we are hypothetically arguing is it not?) then such a being would always know everything that had ever happened in the universe , freely chosen or otherwise.

You either accept the original hypothesis on which the argument is based (ie God knowing what you will do tomorrow - God being defined as thye eternal Christian God) or argue on the basis of some silly god that can't exist outside of time or the universe , in which case you would be showing that Pantheism was self contradictory and not Theism.

So I have another question ..do you accept the parameters of the original hypothetical question ? Eg - Does the Christian God (by definition being eternal and not time bound) knowing your future mean that your future logically mean your future is predestined for you?

I would argue that your future is being predestined right now , and guess who's doing it ....you are...and who's watching you do it ...God. You have to wait for that present moment to come around to set your destiny in place , God does not have to wait in order to see you do it , but until (your time) you do it he won't know anything. You do not have to wait for hitler to know what he did, you already know his whole life story because you are in a different plane of time from him. And you cannot show that this means Hitler was predestined to kill himself.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Then your version of the Christian God could not logically be omnibenevolent. Here we go again... 😞

why? Define omnibenevolent. Make sure you define the terms within your definition as well. And, remember, my "version of the Christian God" comes from the Bible. If you do not trust the Bible, then there is no way for me to convince you about His atributes. And, you, therefore, have no foundation for declaring God to omnibenevolent. Therefore, this word must defined according to the parameters of scripture, not Webster.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Absolutely , I agree utterly. But this isn't true theism.

Incorrect. If punishment/blessing were based primarily on who we are rather than what we've done, then God would not be unfair in punishing/blessing people.