Judgement day? When a god knows all?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Just because you don't buy into an idea doesn't mean it is incoherent.

Would you care to give your definition? Then we can check whether or not it coherent. Just because you accuse people of not buying in, doesn't make your beliefs coherent. A coherent belief should be able to withstand the questions of even someone that doesn't buy into it.

Originally posted by sonhouse

Why would there be a judgement day when a god would have known when the universe and Earth was created, who would be naughty and who would be nice, this deity would have known that from day 1.

So why would there be a NEED for a judgement day? Or ANY of the tests put up in the bible. Like poor old Abe asked to off his own son Isaac.

A god would have known when the Earth was created that old Abe would have gone through with it. So why the test when it knew beforehand the outcome.

God's foreknowledge and His created beings free will is a age old difficult philosophic problem. I don't think I know the solution.

However, there are a number of ways we might think of this. IE. God has ordained freedom of will in humans. Yet He controls the world by what He knows humans will choose with their freedom.

Knowing what people will do with their freedom is not the same as ordaining what they must do against their free will. Forcing men against their free will would not be compatible with God's love for man. But we could hardly fault an all-knowing God for knowing what we will do with our freedom in a time transcending way.

His love comes across as persuasive in the Bible rather than coercive.
His wooing of man is not a usurping of the human will. We ascertain God has created being that can choose to love Him. But they have the freedom to choose not to want to have anything to do with Him.

God then is ultimately responsible for their freedom. But His creatures are responsible for their free acts. God is responsible for the fact of freedom. Man is responsible for the acts of freedom. Both God and man take responsibility for some aspect of this arrangement. The concept does not prove the non-existence of God.

God could cause human free acts indirectly in response to His foreknowledge of the way in which men choose. He foreknows what men will freely do with the choice of their free will because He transcends time.

Human freedom does not disprove God but may instead strongly imply God.

My wife was a woman who had an alcoholic parent and disliked the concept of marriage. Some women are eager to find a husband. My wife was not such a person. She never attended weddings if she could help it. A husband to her, was a bad and abusive thing.

When I first walked into a meeting hall she said God spoke to her that I was the person she was going to marry. I had absolutely no idea of this.
She told God that she was going to put up a fight because the prospect of marriage was distasteful to her. As of yet we still did not know each other personally.

Some years latter I decided to start looking around for a wife. I was adamant about not being influenced by anyone else's taste of matchmaking. It was an intensely personal matter to me and nobody but nobody was going to influence me according to their opinion.

To shorten the story, eventually after a failed list of other candidates and a difficult courtship, we were married. Only some years latter she finally told me that God had told her that He knew the man she was going to marry from the first day she saw me.

This is probably a real experience of freedom of human will with foreknowledge of God. It calls forth in me worship and praise to the "heavenly Father". It engenders love and trust not resentment of suspicion of an atheist worldview as more probable.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Why would there be a judgement day when a god would have known when the universe and Earth was created, who would be naughty and who would be nice, this deity would have known that from day 1.

So why would there be a NEED for a judgement day? Or ANY of the tests put up in the bible. Like poor old Abe asked to off his own son Isaac.

A god would ...[text shortened]... t engenders love and trust not resentment of suspicion of an atheist worldview as more probable.

Knowing what people will do with their freedom is not the same as ordaining what they must do against their free will. Forcing men against their free will would not be compatible with God's love for man.

I can't help feeling that this is an argument from adverse consequences. In the two threads bbarr posted they came to the conclusion that there was no incompatibility with infallible omniscience and free will, so I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, I just don't think the argument works.

Human freedom does not disprove God but may instead strongly imply God.

That's an interesting claim. You seem to be saying that without the presence of God we couldn't have free will. Care to expand on that?

In propositional logic:
L = libertarian free will
G = God exists
Your claim is:
L -> G if libertarian free will exists then God exists.
¬G means God does not exist, in which case using modus tollens ¬L. In other words if God does not exist we have no free will. Your claim is then that because we do have free will God must exist.

Originally posted by DeepThought

Knowing what people will do with their freedom is not the same as ordaining what they must do against their free will. Forcing men against their free will would not be compatible with God's love for man.

I can't help feeling that this is an argument from adverse consequences. In the two threads bbarr posted they came to the conclusion tha ...[text shortened]... xist we have no free will. Your claim is then that because we do have free will God must exist.

How do you define free will? Is it simply a formula for you? Not trying to
be nasty here just asking.

If in the wide scope of things you have several forces all pushing and pulling
at you to do this or that, and you pick the road you wish to travel in the
middle of all of those forces, is it your will choosing? You could be presented
with choices, and some with a powerful influence, but if you resist the
powerful influences and do what you think is best or at least do what you
want to do is that not you freely choosing?

If there isn't a script for you to follow you cannot get out of, or there isn't
a gun to you head, are you not making your choices?

Originally posted by KellyJay
How do you define free will? Is it simply a formula for you? Not trying to
be nasty here just asking.

If in the wide scope of things you have several forces all pushing and pulling
at you to do this or that, and you pick the road you wish to travel in the
middle of all of those forces, is it your will choosing? You could be presented
with choices, an ...[text shortened]... ollow you cannot get out of, or there isn't
a gun to you head, are you not making your choices?

No the logical algebra at the bottom was to clarify what I was reading into sonship's post. It's easy to misread what people are saying so the formula was in the hope of clarifying his statement and thereby check his claim was what I thought it was.

I don't think there's a formula for free will, at least not any simple one, and because of the natural variation between people it would be a different one for each person anyway if such a thing exists.

To be honest I was thinking of starting a thread on free will, as in what is it? What do we mean when we say we have free will. There's absence of coercion by another person (including God), but that's only political free will or what is sometimes called freedom to act. But there is also metaphysical free will. Suppose I have some choice, which could be quite trivial let's say tea or coffee, I tend to prefer coffee but don't mind tea and it makes a nice change from time to time. So when I'm asked "tea or coffee?" I don't really make a choice I just say coffee, because that's what I'm predisposed to. Is that the same for all choices? On the occasions when I choose tea is that just random? When I will something is it inevitable that I will will coffee into my life or am I able in some way, without it being random, to overcome my predisposition to coffee.

How about more long term choices like careers or belief. Although there's a notion that we define ourselves through our work, I chose physics and later computing - and not in a trivial way it just became amplified over time - they didn't choose me. So I ended up defining myself. A theme in some threads is that we can't choose our beliefs - now I don't think that it's possible for me to completely overturn everything I believe in overnight - but with sufficient cause and some time to think about it (new evidence say) I might change my beliefs, or else go into denial. This means that there is something like free will, but what is it?

Originally posted by DeepThought
No the logical algebra at the bottom was to clarify what I was reading into sonship's post. It's easy to misread what people are saying so the formula was in the hope of clarifying his statement and thereby check his claim was what I thought it was.

I don't think there's a formula for free will, at least not any simple one, and because of the natural ...[text shortened]... efs, or else go into denial. This means that there is something like free will, but what is it?

You are already in denial. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are already in denial. 😏

But all the denial is just mental masturbation, because their claims that free will does not exist, therefore they could not be held accountable for their choice, is a fool's alibi. One that simply will not hold up on Judgement Day.

But you and I know this. Let them have their pyric victory.*








*Yes, I meant 'pyric'. Even though the pun is that it sounds like, and actually IS, also, a 'Pyrrhic victory'.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are already in denial. 😏

Did you read my post? What is there that I'm denying. I've asked a question which is "What is free will?" claiming I'm in denial over its existence is not answering the question.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But all the denial is just mental masturbation, because their claims that free will does not exist, therefore they could not be held accountable for their choice, is a fool's alibi. One that simply will not hold up on Judgement Day.

But you and I know this. Let them have their pyric victory.*








*Yes, I meant 'pyric'. Even though the pun is that it sounds like, and actually IS, also, a 'Pyrrhic victory'.

You mean it is a hollow victory?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You mean it is a hollow victory?

It's actually quite clever. Pyrrhic (Suzianne spelt it pyric) is a term out of poetry meaning two short syllables quickly repeated. Wikipedia quotes Poe who has this to say:

The pyrrhic is rightfully dismissed. Its existence in either ancient or modern rhythm is purely chimerical, and the insisting on so perplexing a nonentity as a foot of two short syllables, affords, perhaps, the best evidence of the gross irrationality and subservience to authority which characterise our Prosody.

Pyrrhic victory in a battle refers to a defeat at significant cost. After a battle against the Romans the King of Epirus, called Pyrrhus said something along the lines of "Another victory such as this and we are finished."

She spoilt it a little by pointing out the double meaning as someone might have tried to point out that she'd mispelt Pyrrhus' name, and she could have sat back feeling smug, but there you go.

Even cleverer would have been to realise I was asking a genuine question about free will and not trying to deny it exists.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No the logical algebra at the bottom was to clarify what I was reading into sonship's post. It's easy to misread what people are saying so the formula was in the hope of clarifying his statement and thereby check his claim was what I thought it was.

I don't think there's a formula for free will, at least not any simple one, and because of the natural ...[text shortened]... efs, or else go into denial. This means that there is something like free will, but what is it?

I see thanks for cleaning that up. I see making choices as just that, and
we have the ability to do good or evil, we have the ability to forgive or hold
a grudge, we have the ability to care or not. We have the ability to drink
tea or coffee as you say.

Since we choose we can and should be held accountable for our choices, but
to what degree? If we have no choice really, than all things are just
products of what?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Even cleverer would have been to realise I was asking a genuine question about free will and not trying to deny it exists.

Fists swing, therefore they exist.

Google indicates that I have minted a brand new philosophical statement.