Dr Who and Columbus + free will

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Letting your kid beat you in arm-wrestling is not really relinquishing your power; it is just choosing not to exercise it. A minor point, but you know how us pedants get about those.

The problem with the dad-son analogies is that dad is not omniscient. He does not know how things will turn out in the future. God must know, if he is omniscient.

T ...[text shortened]... Columbus will take actions that he is powerless to prevent, even when he knows them in advance.

"Letting your kid beat you in arm-wrestling is not really relinquishing your power; it is just choosing not to exercise it."

......and what difference does that make ? If God chooses not to exercise his power then fine , if you want to put a cigarette paper between reliquishing and choosing you can , but as long as we have free will and God is still omnipotent what does it matter , my point is still made.

"The problem with the dad-son analogies is that dad is not omniscient. He does not know how things will turn out in the future. God must know, if he is omniscient."

....but what if God willfully and choicefully relinquished or chose not to be omniscient and could get it back any time he wanted , would that not change things for you?

"The Dr. Who/Columbus analogy has the opposite flaw; Dr. Who is not omnipotent. It is quite possible that Columbus will take actions that he is powerless to prevent, even when he knows them in advance"


...but let's say that Dr Who WAS ominpotent and was CHOOSING not to prevent or determine Columbus from going one way or another. Columbus would still be free , Dr Who would still be omnipotent (apart from those things he had chosen not to be omnipotent in ) and he would still know what Columbus was going to do .

Originally posted by knightmeister
"Letting your kid beat you in arm-wrestling is not really relinquishing your power; it is just choosing not to exercise it."

......and what difference does that make ? If God chooses not to exercise his power then fine , if you want to put a cigarette paper between reliquishing and choosing you can , but as long as we have free will and God is sti ...[text shortened]... chosen not to be omnipotent in ) and he would still know what Columbus was going to do .

The odd thing is, Dr. Who still is not omniscient, even as a time-traveler. He is not able to tell just how much effect his actions might have on Columbus. All he knows is how one possible future has played out. Even simply talking to Columbus might be dangerous; he might unwittingly change Columbus' mind!

Dr. Who did not create Columbus, or the earth, or a species of humans with curiousity needed to explore the earth, or any of that. God allegedly did. Add omniscience to the mix, and God must have perfect forknowledge of how events will play out. This is why your case is not easily made by analogy; there is simply no other being with such powers claimed for it.

Actually your God has no free will since he had to do everything he ever did and he knows it. Which makes it rather interesting that he would structure the universe so that human free will was the central theme of it. Of course, he couldn't have done anything else.😕

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
The odd thing is, Dr. Who still is not omniscient, even as a time-traveler. He is not able to tell just how much effect his actions might have on Columbus. All he knows is how one possible future has played out. Even simply talking to Columbus might be dangerous; he might unwittingly change Columbus' mind!

Dr. Who did not create Columbus, or the ea ...[text shortened]... is not easily made by analogy; there is simply no other being with such powers claimed for it.

First of all the Dr Who analogy was supposed to illustrate how it might be possible to know what will happen in the future without it neccessarily impinging on free will. This was to counter the assumption that if God knows the future then we can't BY NECCESITY have free will simply because he knows the future. I have illustrated how it might be possible to know the future without it HAVING to be pre determined.

Now if you want to introduce something else into the analogy then all well and good. I am under no illusion , I know that there are many differences between Dr Who and God , but the similarity is that they are unrestricted by timelines in the way we are.

If Dr Who was much more knowledgable than I have portrayed him he would have an even better chance of not getting in Columbus' way and influencing him unduely one way or the other. Therefore , an ominscient God would have a fantastic chance of giving Columbus' a free decision because he would know ALL the pitfalls and stay well out of his way.

So let's imagine Dr Who did create the world and everything in it and let's also imagine that he knows every single decision that Columbus made in his entire life , but let's imagine that the reason why he knows every one of Columbus' decisions is the same way he knows about his decision to cross the ocean blue , because in the end that's what Columbus decided. Dr Who can then hold that information (because he is not restricted by time) and have it in Columbus' past and future or any other place on the timeline. Dr Who would know everything that Columbus ever did simply because Columbus did it . Remember Dr Who does not FORE-know what Columbus WILL do , he POST-knows it from history books and then travels back in time. What's more , he could travel in back to a time when Columbus wasn't even born and he would still know what Columbus was going to do.

Here's the interesting bit....from any of these imaginings is there anything that logically proves that Columbus can't have free will?

Originally posted by knightmeister
First of all the Dr Who analogy was supposed to illustrate how it might be possible to know what will happen in the future without it neccessarily impinging on free will. This was to counter the assumption that if God knows the future then we can't BY NECCESITY have free will simply because he knows the future. I have illustrated how it might be possib ...[text shortened]... ginings is there anything that logically proves that Columbus can't have free will?

Here's an interesting possibility for you. Suppose it was Dr. Who's visit that caused Columbus to go out and find the New World. Now neither of them have free will whatsoever, they are both following defined paths. Of course, were Dr. Who omniscient, he wouldn't have got his timing wrong.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Here's an interesting possibility for you. Suppose it was Dr. Who's visit that caused Columbus to go out and find the New World. Now neither of them have free will whatsoever, they are both following defined paths. Of course, were Dr. Who omniscient, he wouldn't have got his timing wrong.

In the later chapters of the story the man dies and no record of Dr Who's visit is passed on. However , Dr Who cannot be sure that he hasn't contaminated the timeline in some way thus Columbus' decision could have been predestined by Dr Who . However , if Dr Who was ominiscient and omnipotent he would have an outstanding chance of avoiding any contamination! (And you are right , he would not have got his timing wrong - but then I never said Dr Who was omniscient , just that he had the ability to be free of time)

Originally posted by knightmeister
In the later chapters of the story the man dies and no record of Dr Who's visit is passed on. However , Dr Who cannot be sure that he hasn't contaminated the timeline in some way thus Columbus' decision could have been predestined by Dr Who . However , if Dr Who was ominiscient and omnipotent he would have an outstanding chance of avoiding any contamin ...[text shortened]... ut then I never said Dr Who was omniscient , just that he had the ability to be free of time)

In your story, Dr. Who does not have the ability to be "free of time", rather he merely has the ability to travel through it. At all points, Dr. Who exists within Dr. Who's timeline, irrespective of anyone else's timeline. This is quite different than your concept of God, who does not exist within time or space.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually your God has no free will since he had to do everything he ever did and he knows it. Which makes it rather interesting that he would structure the universe so that human free will was the central theme of it. Of course, he couldn't have done anything else.😕

"Actually your God has no free will since he had to do everything he ever did and he knows it."

We do not know whether the processes of decision making as we know apply to an eternal God in the same way. For example , when an eternal God "decides" something then that might well apply eternally and that may mean that there never was a time when he did not create man , the "decision" to create man has no beginning. there never was a point in "time" when that decision was not made. You imagine that God is looking along some kind of timeline into his own "future" at the decisions he "will " make as if he is so omniscient that he can second guess himself and see his own decisions before he even makes them. However , that places him on some kind of timeline like you . I'm guessing that God may well be a lot , lot less like you than you think. It's possible that he may be able to see his own decisions before he makes them but I doubt it because he needs to make them in order to see them. It's also possible that God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it , but I doubt that also.

Originally posted by knightmeister
"Actually your God has no free will since he had to do everything he ever did and he knows it."

We do not know whether the processes of decision making as we know apply to an eternal God in the same way. For example , when an eternal God "decides" something then that might well apply eternally and that may mean that there never was a time when he di at God can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it , but I doubt that also.

It's magic; you can add any possible attribute to a mythical being. And then say "Well, it's a mystery how it works!". Groovy.

EDIT: Your God wouldn't really exist at any point IN time, so it would be impossible for Him to make decisions at all.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Remember Dr Who does not FORE-know what Columbus WILL do...

This is wrong. The minute omniscient Dr. Who steps into Columbus' time, he indeed has foreknowledge of all of Columbus' actions after that point in time.

The more I think about, a God existing simultaneously at every point in an eternal timeline can't be omnipotent. In fact, he can't really have any power at all. Everything he does in all eternity is fixed and immutable and he could never have varied from it. He is a strange marionette who was always required to do what he has done. "Free will" is an absolute impossibility for such a being.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Like all analogies this one works on some levels and not on others. All I am trying to show is that it's theoretcally possible that you can know someone's future without it neccessarily eliminating free will. It's a counter to the Atheist argument that if the future is known it MUST be predetermined.

You give a story about time travel and then say it is "theoretically possible"?

1)This is a statement not an argument , you have said you MUST but not said why you MUST.
My statement was a direct deduction from your story and wording. Your story assumes a timeline external to the universes timeline.

2) Why does a timeline have to exist in time (and not just in the mind of Columbus) order to for it to be an option in free will? If I think of two pictures but only draw one , then only one exists , the other doesn't , but I could have drawn either.
You say "I could have". We know what happened - you drew picture B. So how could you have drawn picture A and yet now we see picture B?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
This is wrong. The minute omniscient Dr. Who steps into Columbus' time, he indeed has foreknowledge of all of Columbus' actions after that point in time.

Yes , he does have foreknowledge but it is dependent on his POSTknowledge of history. His foreknowledge is not dependent on Columbus' choices being determined because if Columbus had free will he would still know what he did in history. Whatever Columbus chooses Dr Who will still know. He only has to pick up a history book or do his research.

"You say "I could have". We know what happened - you drew picture B. So how could you have drawn picture A and yet now we see picture B?"TWHITEHEAD

I don't think it's me that has the burden of proof here. I'm going to turn this question around....

How does the fact that we know I drew picture B neccessarily prove that picture A was an impossibility? It could be determined or it could be a free choice A or B , either way the outcome is the same. One timeline with one choice A or B. How would we know the difference?

Dr who would only know that I was going to draw picture B due to his time machine , but if I drew picture A than he would know that as well. It's his time machine that makes it possible NOT predetermination. If I drew picture A then you would then say that picture B was impossible because A exists?

The point of my analogy is to show that if a being existed that was at least partially free of time constraints then we can no longer assume that knowing the future proves predetermination. Free will can not be ruled out as a possibility.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You give a story about time travel and then say it is "theoretically possible"?

[b]1)This is a statement not an argument , you have said you MUST but not said why you MUST.
My statement was a direct deduction from your story and wording. Your story assumes a timeline external to the universes timeline.

2) Why does a timeline have to exist i ...[text shortened]... d - you drew picture B. So how could you have drawn picture A and yet now we see picture B?

"""You give a story about time travel and then say it is "theoretically possible"? ""TWHITEHEAD


Yes , theoretically (or hypothetically at least) it is possible if you accept Dr Who has a time machine. You may want to say that it's impossible for anything to exist outside of time (like God for example) and that's fine , but I might ask you how you know that time (which is only a dimension of space after all) is so all inclusive?

I'm under no illusions that my analogy is flawless , I am simply trying to keep a door of thinking open which has been prematurely and illogically slammed shut. This is why I see your arguments as statements because you assume without question that certain propositions are true without thinking you might have to prove them.