Holy spirit

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]"God might know E will occur"

I simply mis-read this then, and did not parse it into (a) “God might know” and (b) “E will occur". Any premise that states “E will occur” precludes the alternative conclusion (without contradiction), even if God is totally ignorant.

To say that God infallibly knows that E will occur is just to say that (1) ...[text shortened]... on't know the ins and outs of that (ask LJ), and so am just being careful and specific.[/b]

I simply mis-read this then, and did not parse it into (a) “God might know” and (b) “E will occur". Any premise that states “E will occur” precludes the alternative conclusion (without contradiction), even if God is totally ignorant.

Yes, this was my point. But in the proposition "God might know that E will occur", there is a contradiction but the contradiction is not with God's knowledge; in the proposition "God will know that E will occur", the contradiction still exists but there is no threat to a libertarian model of free will. So I do not see how the initial contradiction between 1) and 2) precludes free will.

Originally posted by Agerg
Do you have a time machine? no!
Do you know anyone who has a time machine other than ficticious characters in books and films? no!
Do you understand the paradoxes that would be caused by having a time machine? no!
Have you considered that you would have to exist in a timeline separate from ours in order to travel through time? no!

Your time-travelling ...[text shortened]... reference for which in one of them X occured is important. Omniscient God merely implies this.

Do you have a time machine? no!
Do you know anyone who has a time machine other than ficticious characters in books and films? no!
Do you understand the paradoxes that would be caused by having a time machine? no!
Have you considered that you would have to exist in a timeline separate from ours in order to travel through time? no!

Your time-travelling analagy is total fail.
---------------------------AGERG-------------------------------


Have you ever heard of a thought experiment? NO! LoooooL 🙄

Originally posted by knightmeister
Do you have a time machine? no!
Do you know anyone who has a time machine other than ficticious characters in books and films? no!
Do you understand the paradoxes that would be caused by having a time machine? no!
Have you considered that you would have to exist in a timeline separate from ours in order to travel through time? no!

Your time-t ...[text shortened]... ----------------------------


Have you ever heard of a thought experiment? NO! LoooooL 🙄

You actually need to *think* these 'thought experiments' through for they are garbage.

You might as well formulate God-making syrup as a thought experiment, it will serve as much use as those you have used so far.

Originally posted by Agerg
Do you have a time machine? no!
Do you know anyone who has a time machine other than ficticious characters in books and films? no!
Do you understand the paradoxes that would be caused by having a time machine? no!
Have you considered that you would have to exist in a timeline separate from ours in order to travel through time? no!

Your time-travelling ...[text shortened]... reference for which in one of them X occured is important. Omniscient God merely implies this.

if you form a correspondence between a perspecive where X has occured and another perspective where X has yet to occur in the future then there are no other futures.
-----------------------AGERG-----------------------------

Agreed.

So why does only one future free choice existing exclude the possibility of other choices EVER existing. Or to put it another way , why does one future timeline existing mean that that was the only future that could ever have existed?

My point is that if we really do have free will we will move through time creating ONE timeline and we will have only ONE future that we will carve through time (as it were). At point T I can do X or Y (freely) BUT I CANNOT DO BOTH , I HAVE ONLY ONE FUTURE.

Why do you think that one future implies that we have no choice in that future? There are lots of things that you can possibly do with your future choices , but one thing is for sure there is only ONE thing you WILL do with your future free choices. This does not mean that only one future was ever possibly able to exist , it just means that there is one future choice that you WILL do.

For determinism and free will the results would be the same because you can only live one life and make one choice (X or Y). So the fact that future choice X is known means that you WILL choose X , and that's all , you can't extrapolate from this that because only one future exists then it's determined. The existence of one future for you is just a truism.

This is why I say that Hitler only has ONE future from our perspective in time , but the MERE FACT that he lived his life only once making one choice and one choice only tells us nothing about whether those choices were free or not , why? - because we can't tell the difference from the results ( ie one timeline)

Please do not think that I don't understand your argument. I absolutely understand why this seems a wierd idea to you. It does to me. All I ask is that you think about it.

Originally posted by Agerg
You actually need to *think* these 'thought experiments' through.

Why? Like many thought experiments and analogies , mine are vulnerable to criticism unless they are taken on board with the spirit they are intended in.

Name an anaology that I can't rip to pieces in seconds if I choose to split hairs over it.

Do you really think I hadn't realised I had no time machine? Duh?? That's why they are called thought experiments.

I think you just don't want to engage with the point I was raising and you are looking for a way to avoid it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why? Like many thought experiments and analogies , mine are vulnerable to criticism unless they are taken on board with the spirit they are intended in.

Name an anaology that I can't rip to pieces in seconds if I choose to split hairs over it.

You need the analogies be isomorphic to the situation which you would describe. Yours aren't.

Originally posted by Agerg
You need the analogies be isomorphic to the situation which you would describe. Yours aren't.

Just address the point.

Originally posted by knightmeister
if you form a correspondence between a perspecive where X has occured and another perspective where X has yet to occur in the future then there are no other futures.
-----------------------AGERG-----------------------------

Agreed.

So why does only one future free choice existing exclude the possibility of other choices EVER existing. Or to pu ...[text shortened]... nd why this seems a wierd idea to you. It does to me. All I ask is that you think about it.

that future is the only future that could have existed by the way in which you form your correspondence between Gods perspective and mine.

I have stated whythis is true numerous times.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Just address the point.

I did address the point, Your analogies aren't correct for the situation you are describing.

If I want to teach my cousin how to make any headway with a simple equation of the form say: 5x +7= 37 given that he isn't so good with algebra; the analogy I'd make is that I have 5 bags of sweets in my left hand and 7 sweets in my right hand. When I throw all the sweets onto my coffee table I count 37 of them in total. How many were in each bag if they all contained the same amount?
This analogy replaces an abstract entity 'x' with something tangible my cousin can visualise, without actually mis-translating the problem in doing so.

Your Hitler analogies do mis-translate because God is an entity that exists outside our timeline and you form a 2-way connection between its perspective and mine. You are not external to the timeline of Hitler!!! Hitler doesn't exist as far as your concerned and there is no meaningful connection you can make. To even invoke the notion of time travel requires that you be in some way external to this timeline. It also needs to somehow avoid paradox too.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You’ll need to back that statement up with some proof of their lack of choice in the matter. Peter vociferously and adamantly rejected the Lord’s prediction of his eventual denial. His mindset was that he would never deny Christ, period. This was so much in his thinking, that when he did deny knowing Christ, it wasn’t until afterwards that he r ...[text shortened]... t point, but then you stopped responding. I still contend it is at the very heart of the issue.

Whether Peter remembered or forgot the prediction, the fact remains that he could not have done otherwise. If he had done so, he would have made a liar out of God.
That almost sounds like you're saying that prior to Peter hearing of his future from the infallible Source, Peter had a choice.

Originally posted by Conrau K
If I know X is the case, that means I believe X to be true and in addition X is true.

I disagree with the italicized part.

For example, it is possible for me to justifiably say "I know Smith's has Red Bull energy drinks", because I have been there in the past and observed that they always have them. However, the truth may be that they have run out of stock. This does not change the fact that my statement is perfectly acceptable as a normal way of using the word 'know'.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Whether Peter remembered or forgot the prediction, the fact remains that he could not have done otherwise. If he had done so, he would have made a liar out of God.
That almost sounds like you're saying that prior to Peter hearing of his future from the infallible Source, Peter had a choice.[/b]

No, I am not saying that. He never had a choice if his denial was infallibly known in advance.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, I am not saying that. He never had a choice if his denial was infallibly known in advance.

You haven't shown why he had no choice, and--- as stated--- your experience, your very existence, your thoughts and actions, all contradict such a perspective.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You haven't shown why he had no choice, and--- as stated--- your experience, your very existence, your thoughts and actions, all contradict such a perspective.

Do you really think we're discussing my point of view here?

Perhaps the idea of examining the belief system of another person is a tad too abstract for you?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I disagree with the italicized part.

For example, it is possible for me to justifiably say "I know Smith's has Red Bull energy drinks", because I have been there in the past and observed that they always have them. However, the truth may be that they have run out of stock. This does not change the fact that my statement is perfectly acceptable as a normal way of using the word 'know'.

Well, since it is my premise, I define the terms. In context, we are talking about infallible knowledge.