Inaction

Originally posted by Agerg
My point? You just stated it.

Furthermore, to use the word omniscience in any sense other than complete knowledge (without some form of modifier to the word) is to sow confusion.

maybe free will is an illusion and god is in fact omniscient

We would not have an argument then! (at least not in the setting of free will and omniscience that is) :]

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
wiki
Peter Geach describes and rejects four levels of omnipotence. He also defines and defends a lesser notion of the "almightiness" of God.

1. "Y is absolutely omnipotent" means that "Y" can do everything absolutely. Everything that can be expressed in a string of words even if it can be shown to be self-contradictory, "Y"is not bound in action, as one of the things that makes God count as omnipotent.[8]

I'd say from a feasibility point of view, (1) and (2) are untenable; in particular, with (2) suppose we let X="make a rock so heavy it can't be lifted by it's maker" then if god ever had the potential to create such a rock and supposing at some point it did we still have the two states*:
- God can lift the rock (contradicting that it made a rock it can't lift)
- God cannot lift the rock (contradicting that God is omnipotent (since there exists a rock it cannot lift))
There really is a logical contradiction here. (moreover to say a 'man' can create a boat so heavy it cannot lift raises no problems because there is no assumption of omnipotence)
(3) is dicey when you start talking about changing the past (though I have no problem with a lying god)
(4) and (5) seem feasible




*I say it would be fallacious to argue a 3rd state: 'God may or may not be able to lift the rock' since the falsehood of one implies and is implied by the truth of the other; this 3rd option is little more than a failure to acknowledge the problem.

Originally posted by whodey
There is no doubt, therefore, that it exists.

I am not sure if you thought you derived that from what you wrote before (hence the use of the word 'therefore'😉, but I would like to know if you do have any good reason (other than personal desire) for thinking free will exists.
I personally would argue that libertarian free will - especially the kind that would eliminate the possibility of a God that knows the future - does not exist.
But then I would equally argue that the existence of a God that can see the future constitutes time travel and thus falls prey to time paradoxes.

Originally posted by Agerg
If god knows I will do X in the future then my inability to know I will do X is of no consequence. By some mechanism inherent within me or the universe around me I am compelled to do X otherwise I contradict your god's omniscience in doing ¬X. Free will is only illusionary here.

You have failed to show how anyone's knowledge of anything in any way, shape or form alters the event. Does my knowledge of last year's Super Bowl winner--- either while watching the event unfold or after the fact--- impact the same?

While gold hovered around $600/ounce, I noted all of the signs indicating that its trading value was ready for a big bolt: you could say I knew it would eventually roll into the K's... of course, my knowledge wasn't infallible, but I was willing to bet everything on it. Of course, my wife wasn't willing, so all I could do as it crested $1,000 and onward was watch as my knowledge received its just reward. The point is, my knowledge did nothing about the price, one way or another. I could have acted (but did not) and even this would have had no impact on the price.

Originally posted by PBE6
I will likely never hear a satisfactory response to that question because there is no satisfactory answer to that question.

Answer the real query and you'll be getting close to what you think you need to know.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Presumably you are speaking about a libertarian construal of freedom. If so, then it should depend on the nature of the foreknowledge in question. If the foreknowledge is held infallibly, then it should indeed preclude libertarian freedom. If not, then I think the proponent of libertaranism need not fear. These points have already been debated at length in this forum. Perhaps I can find the old threads somewhere.

The distinction (as I see it) is whether God's perfect knowledge of history (all of it, not merely the future) is in any way predetermined. The Bible doesn't characterize God as determining the actions of other agents outside of observation. There is no impelling of their action on His part.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Basically. He's not empistemically (how tf do you spell that) omniscient, he's for all intents and purposes omniscient.

Wrong. His knowledge is perfect. He knows all possible outcomes from the beginning, including the actual.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You have failed to show how anyone's knowledge of anything in any way, shape or form alters the event. Does my knowledge of last year's Super Bowl winner--- either while watching the event unfold or after the fact--- impact the same?

Knowledge of past events does not affect them because a curious property of time is that information never travels backwards.

The critical factor is whether or not knowledge of the future can be used to affect the present thus changing the future and potentially the original knowledge leading to a time paradox.

If the knowledge cannot be used to impact the present, then the question is whether or not God can truly be said to know the future now - as his knowledge cannot be communicated to us or in fact to the present i.e. it is totally independent of the present and thus is not in the present.

The point is, my knowledge did nothing about the price, one way or another.
But it did affect the present and could have potentially affected the price. Sure you chose an example in which your knowledge did not and likely would not affect the price, but and example does not prove the rule.
If you had acted, and affected the price, it would have changed the future, thus changing your knowledge (or proven you to be fallible), thus changing your decision, thus causing a time paradox.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Knowledge of past events does not affect them because a curious property of time is that information never travels backwards.

The critical factor is whether or not knowledge of the future can be used to affect the present thus changing the future and potentially the original knowledge leading to a time paradox.

If the knowledge cannot be used to imp ...[text shortened]... wledge (or proven you to be fallible), thus changing your decision, thus causing a time paradox.

As I said, my knowledge of the future is predictive, not complete. His knowledge is complete, not predictive. No one has yet demonstrated how His complete knowledge (unknown by us) in any way impedes our action: He's only interrupted human history a limited amount of times, and always with advance notice for us to assess our own positions.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Wrong. His knowledge is perfect. He knows all possible outcomes from the beginning, including the actual.

Perfection is a human term. It is like the finger pointing to the moon. Do not mistake it for the moon itself, likewise do not think that human perfection is anything at all resembling the "perfection" of God . I suspect She doesn't need a use for such a term.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As I said, my knowledge of the future is predictive, not complete. His knowledge is complete, not predictive. No one has yet demonstrated how His complete knowledge (unknown by us) in any way impedes our action: He's only interrupted human history a limited amount of times, and always with advance notice for us to assess our own positions.

And again , if "His" knowledge is unknown by us, how can you know anything about "him" at all? (The bible? )

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Answer the real query and you'll be getting close to what you think you need to know.

It's not a trick question. How could a God who acts in a manner consistent with the Christian teachings about said God ever allow a child to be sexually molested? What point is this God trying to prove? And why does this God feel the need to prove this point at the expense of a child's physical and emotional well being? Where is the upside to all this?

Originally posted by PBE6
It's not a trick question. How could a God who acts in a manner consistent with the Christian teachings about said God ever allow a child to be sexually molested? What point is this God trying to prove? And why does this God feel the need to prove this point at the expense of a child's physical and emotional well being? Where is the upside to all this?

Neither is the answer a 'trick' answer. You cannot possibly know the motivations behind allowing human history to continue without interference until you know the answer to the question I put to you.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
And again , if "His" knowledge is unknown by us, how can you know anything about "him" at all? (The bible? )

Revelation from Him. Just because He tells us about Himself doesn't mean He tells us everything He knows.