Spirituality
14 Feb 09
08 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KIn everyday discourse, we commonly speak of “knowing” to presumptively mean that we are certain, that we can’t be wrong, that what we putatively know must be true. SwissGambit is giving you examples of why an epistemologist might speak more carefully and strictly, and speak of fallibist and infallibist formulations.
My point, as it has bas been since my first response to your post, is that no matter what tense, mood or polarity you put the "God knows" clause in, there will still be a contradiction. I can say "God does not know that I will choose X", "God will know know that I will choose X", "God may know that I will choose X", and this still contradicts the premise "I t 2, and still it is illogical and nonsensical to effectively choose otherwise.
This might help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism
If you want to use the word “knowledge” strictly in an infallibist sense, that’s fine by me.
08 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf God knows the one and only future then there is only one future.
I never said that knowledge has any power whatsoever. I merely claim that it is impossible to have knowledge of something if that something does not exist - by definition. If God knows the one and only future then there is only one future. His knowledge in no way creates the future or affects reality but rather is simply an indication of what reality is. ...[text shortened]... existence but you can conclude that I exist if you assume that you have knowledge that I exist.
---------------------------whitey------------
So what? You can only live one life and make one future for yourself. You can freely choose X or Y but you cannot choose BOTH. If you have free will what will result from your life? You will of course only have ONE timeline and ONE future - so what?
When you look back on your past you see only ONE past timeline. Does that mean that only one timeline was ever possible? Do you look back and think "that was the only life I could have ever lived?"
Why don't we drop this idea of one future existing for us all being something significant in this debate. I know right now that I only have one future path my life will take. I can take many paths but only one will exist. If my life is determined one path will result , if my actions are free one path ALSO.
There is no difference so saying that God knows our one future is meaningless either way. It can tell us nothing because if he really is eternal then he's bound to know your future choices - free or otherwise.
08 Mar 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterYour notion of multiple possible futures rests upon some sort of branching structure via which some free action or choice of yours determines which branch will be your future.
Could you explain it again , I missed it.
But since you form a correspondence between Gods perspective and yours where for God, X has happened; whilst for you, X has yet to happen then for any X, this has been firmly determined prior to it.
Either the first X was scripted in the first place or it was determined by you when you did not exist in a form that could undertake any actions to determine it yourself. (Which is clearly absurd). Therefore all your actions are scripted.
With your model of God and its temporal existence there can only be one future.
08 Mar 09
Originally posted by AgergYour notion of multiple possible futures rests upon some sort of branching structure via which some free action or choice of yours determines which branch will be your future.
Your notion of multiple possible futures rests upon some sort of branching structure via which some free action or choice of yours determines which branch will be your future.
But since you form a correspondence between Gods perspective and yours where for God, X has happened; whilst for you, X has yet to happen then for any X, this has been firmly determined ...[text shortened]... are scripted.
With your model of God and its temporal existence there can only be one future.
-------------------------------agerg--------------------------
This is the bit that you have yet to prove. It may or may not be true. I don't see any logical reason why this should be necessarily true. Why is it not possible that each present moment is latent with possibilities without any need for "branches"?
08 Mar 09
Originally posted by AgergBut since you form a correspondence between Gods perspective and yours where for God, X has happened; whilst for you, X has yet to happen then for any X, this has been firmly determined prior to it.
Your notion of multiple possible futures rests upon some sort of branching structure via which some free action or choice of yours determines which branch will be your future.
But since you form a correspondence between Gods perspective and yours where for God, X has happened; whilst for you, X has yet to happen then for any X, this has been firmly determined ...[text shortened]... are scripted.
With your model of God and its temporal existence there can only be one future.
-------agerg--------------------
But this model requires a fixed time T to which both God and you are subserviant. The whole point about different perspectives on time is that something can be said to have happened and not happened and neither is true of false. This is why to me relativity is an important issue here because Einstein showed us that it is impossible to pin down time in such a way and say definitively exactly "when" anything happens (because there is no over arching Newtonian clock)
So when you say "this has been firmly determined prior to it " what do you mean. What does "has been" or "prior" mean here? How do we know time works like this? We tend to think that the "now" we are living in is the real "now" and that 1767 is not "now" , but why should our "now" be any more real than theirs?
For example , we only say that the sun hasn't burnt out "yet" because we are on a particular point on the time dimension. But from another perspective you could say that it has already burnt out. I think unconsciously we are all still sold on the newtonian idea.
08 Mar 09
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterah jeez...you're thinking of a branch as a wooden appendage of a tree...see when you say each present moment is latent with possibilities, these are the *branches* (yeah I should have been more careful not to muddle you up there!)
Your notion of multiple possible futures rests upon some sort of branching structure via which some free action or choice of yours determines which branch will be your future.
-------------------------------agerg--------------------------
This is the bit that you have yet to prove. It may or may not be true. I don't see any logical reason why this ...[text shortened]... ssible that each present moment is latent with possibilities without any need for "branches"?
Now those branches (no...we're not talking about actual trees KM 😉 ), those points of latent possibilities had already been determned else your god would not have known what you had done from its perspective whilst you had yet to consider it from yours.
08 Mar 09
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterYour lack of understanding of relativity doesn't help you, and it is you who says that God has seen me do X whilst I have simultaneously yet to do X...furthermore I'm not constraining your God at all. You merely lack the ability to think in detail about the garbage you're whimsically spewing at us
But since you form a correspondence between Gods perspective and yours where for God, X has happened; whilst for you, X has yet to happen then for any X, this has been firmly determined prior to it.
-------agerg--------------------
But this model requires a fixed time T to which both God and you are subserviant. The whole point about different per rnt out. I think unconsciously we are all still sold on the newtonian idea.
You're getting yourself all confused
09 Mar 09
Originally posted by vistesdHere's one.
The contradiction is neither in the premises nor in the conclusion: it is in their conjunction.
(1) God knows [or will know] that I will choose X;
(2) God cannot be wrong;
(3) Therefore, _______________________.
Fill in the blank with any statement that is not illogical and nonsensical.
[b]Or— Set up your own deductive inference in w ...[text shortened]... free to choose ~X without a contradiction that renders the inference illogical and nonsensical.[/b]
(1) In the future, I am free to choose X;
(2) In the future, I am free to choose -X;
(3) God knows which of these I will choose prior to me making my choice.
(4) I still don't know which of these I will choose.
That should solve the problem...
09 Mar 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHthus your 'free-will' is illusionary
Here's one.
(1) In the future, I am free to choose X;
(2) In the future, I am free to choose -X;
(3) God knows which of these I will choose prior to me making my choice.
(4) I still don't know which of these I will choose.
That should solve the problem...
09 Mar 09
Something to think about.
Bob on Planet X some light years away from us lives in a dual solar system. Bob has the unusual ability of instantaneous travel. The day after one of his solar system's sun goes supernova, Bob pops in and visits Joe here on this planet.
After doing the math in his head, Bob takes Joe up to Palomar one night, points out his solar system's two suns and tells him that in x amount of days, that star on the left will disappear.
If it is conceivable within our frame of reference, it shouldn't be too far of a leap to consider God as able to see all of time at once... and as one whole.
09 Mar 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut for both Bob and Joe the sun has gone supernova, for both it s a past event. Joe just has to wait a little longer to see it.
Something to think about.
Bob on Planet X some light years away from us lives in a dual solar system. Bob has the unusual ability of instantaneous travel. The day after one of his solar system's sun goes supernova, Bob pops in and visits Joe here on this planet.
After doing the math in his head, Bob takes Joe up to Palomar one night, points out h ...[text shortened]... be too far of a leap to consider God as able to see all of time at once... and as one whole.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
09 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHthat you don't know what you will choose is a consequence of not having all the variables and the ability to process them. Your god who is in possession of all the data knows you will choose X.
Which no one here has yet to prove.
When the time comes to choose X, X is precisely as you will choose (for some reason you don't know yet)
You have to do precisely as God knows you will, your actions are scripted.
09 Mar 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo would you agree that from that in your story the star has no free will? There is no possibility that it will choose not to go supernova? Its apparent 'future' already exists. But this is really just a result of the fact that light travels at a finite speed so we do not normally learn of events until after they happen. It is quite a different claim to say that it is possible to learn of an event before it happens.
Bob on Planet X some light years away from us lives in a dual solar system. Bob has the unusual ability of instantaneous travel. The day after one of his solar system's sun goes supernova, Bob pops in and visits Joe here on this planet.
After doing the math in his head, Bob takes Joe up to Palomar one night, points out his solar system's two suns and tells him that in x amount of days, that star on the left will disappear.