Originally posted by knightmeister
er. No. I merely claim that once God enters our space time he cannot know the future as such knowledge results in time paradoxes.

-------whitey-------------

How so?

The moment information about the future (with God) enters the universe it affects the future. The affected future then affects the information thus affecting God thus affecting the future in a recursive manner. Hence a time paradox.

It can even be shown without the use of time.

God enters the universe complete with all knowledge of the universe. The total resulting sum (God plus universe) is now bigger than before thus resulting in God knowing not just the universe but also the now God plus universe. Again recursion results in an instantaneous infinity of information.

Originally posted by vistesd
But God’s “all at once” is effectively the same as saying that God knows a priori what I choose (as opposed to only ex post facto). You can say it seems like ex post facto from God’s “all at once” perspective. But I don’t see how that changes the logic of the case.

If simple knowledge has no determining agency (I think ...[text shortened]... clauses into that deductive inference that—without other alteration—relieves the contradiction.

(1) God knows what I choose;

(2) God cannot be wrong;


(3) I can choose contrary to God’s knowledge.

So let’s substitute free agency with, say, an apple falling off a tree. Or, going a step further, call the thing that God knows “all actions from beginning to end.” Then, the formula would look like this:

(1) God knows all actions from beginning to end;
(2) God cannot be wrong;
(3) Action other than what is known by God can occur.

Now, we are faced with another contradiction. Either all action is known by God prior to said action occurring, or God does not know all action from beginning to end prior to said action occurring. In the case of the former, one could make a case that no action is free--- even something as simple as an apple falling off a tree--- that all of it is nothing less than one big contrived fallacy of freedom, free from any manipulation on God's part. Such a view flies in the face of our everyday experience, as well as the known history of man’s existence.

In the case of the latter, well, that’s just blasphemous and unthinkable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Am I understanding you correctly, are you saying that God knew the future even before he created the universe? If so, doesn't that contradict the claim (which might not be yours) that he knows the future based on observing what we choose?


[b]Not only can He tell me what I will do tomorrow (and every day after that), He is able to tell me what I will ...[text shortened]... can.
If he does tell you, wont that potentially change what you do causing a time paradox?[/b]

Am I understanding you correctly, are you saying that God knew the future even before he created the universe?
Yes.

If so, doesn't that contradict the claim (which might not be yours) that he knows the future based on observing what we choose?
In a sense, it was all played out in His head prior to any action on His part, so I guess you could say that He observed it, but not in the strictest sense of the term.

If he does tell you, wont that potentially change what you do causing a time paradox?
That's one too many 'ifs' to consider. He only tells us what we need.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b](1) God knows what I choose;

(2) God cannot be wrong;


(3) I can choose contrary to God’s knowledge.

So let’s substitute free agency with, say, an apple falling off a tree. Or, going a step further, call the thing that God knows “all actions from beginning to end.” Then, the formula would look like this:

(1) God knows all actions fr ...[text shortened]... f man’s existence.

In the case of the latter, well, that’s just blasphemous and unthinkable.[/b]

In the case of the latter, well, that’s just blasphemous and unthinkable.

I assume you mean by “unthinkable” simply that it contravenes your theology: other theists have certainly “thunk” it. I don’t know why it would be blasphemous, per se; but, again, you likely mean it just contravenes your theology. I belabor this only because your assertion here is a theological, not a philosophical, one.

I submit that your theology, then, puts you between the Scylla of an illogical claim and the Charybdis of blasphemy.

I’ve enjoyed the engagement, however. Be well, old friend.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The moment information about the future (with God) enters the universe it affects the future. The affected future then affects the information thus affecting God thus affecting the future in a recursive manner. Hence a time paradox.

It can even be shown without the use of time.

God enters the universe complete with all knowledge of the universe. The ...[text shortened]... the now God plus universe. Again recursion results in an instantaneous infinity of information.

The moment information about the future (with God) enters the universe it affects the future.--whitey-----------

How?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In a sense, it was all played out in His head prior to any action on His part, so I guess you could say that He observed it, but not in the strictest sense of the term.

So you clearly believe that my actions are predictable. That contradicts libertarian free will.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's one too many 'ifs' to consider. He only tells us what we need.

In other words you simply don't want to think about the difficult questions.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The moment information about the future (with God) enters the universe it affects the future.--whitey-----------

How?

Because any change no matter how small in the universe can theoretically affect the future. If information enters the universe via God it changes the universe and changes the future. If it does not affect the universe in any way then it can hardly be said to be 'in' the universe anyway - nor can it really be said to even exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you clearly believe that my actions are predictable. That contradicts libertarian free will.

Only in your mind.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In other words you simply don't want to think about the difficult questions.

Difficult questions? You haven't even started touching the sand on the beach yet!

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]In the case of the latter, well, that’s just blasphemous and unthinkable.

I assume you mean by “unthinkable” simply that it contravenes your theology: other theists have certainly “thunk” it. I don’t know why it would be blasphemous, per se; but, again, you likely mean it just contravenes your theology. I belabor this only because your assertio ...[text shortened]... and the Charybdis of blasphemy.

I’ve enjoyed the engagement, however. Be well, old friend.[/b]

And with you, good sir.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Difficult questions? You haven't even started touching the sand on the beach yet!

are you even on the right beach? 😉

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Only in your mind.

Do I then assume that you disagree but do not wish to explain why?