25 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI did, and duly posted a question there. 🙂 However—
I am addressing the majority of these points in the thread "Doctrine of the Divine Decree," to which I just posted another segment tonight. This post, 'G' though 'O,' address the points being raised here.
Please refer to that thread.
In that thread, you say that God is omniscient with respect to all actualities and all possibilities. My “proof” above addresses the former; my note at the bottom of that post addresses the latter.
In that thread, you distinguish between omniscience and foreknowledge, and that seems perfectly fair as a technical distinction within that presentation (after all, you need to choose some term to identify the distinction., and you articulated the definitions). In this thread, we have been using foreknowledge as omniscience with regard to future events. That, too, seems fair in the context of this discussion; but if the two become “intertwined,” so to speak, I’m happy to use a different term.
25 Mar 06
Perhaps our definition of foreknowledge needs alteration. C.S. Lewis reasoned that since God is not constrained by time, instead of seeing time as sequential events (like we do), He sees all the events of time at once. If this were true, it would keep our free will intact, while allowing God to know (in the truest sense of the word) the future.
25 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseI’m going to try to dispense with the word “sees,” since that is producing a terribly frenetic image in my head. 😉
Perhaps our definition of foreknowledge needs alteration. C.S. Lewis reasoned that since God is not constrained by time, instead of seeing time as sequential events (like we do), He sees all the events of time at once. If this were true, it would keep our free will intact, while allowing God to know (in the truest sense of the word) the future.
If I understand this correctly, it reduces to God simply knowing all of what’s happening all of the time, since the future is part of God's present?
EDIT: It strikes me that this only removes determination with regard to God's perspective; since God knows what's happening, it's still a set of events with 100% probability, even though I don't know it yet....?
25 Mar 06
1 edit
To say that God possesses perfect foreknowledge of all future events says nothing about our free will. I think it definitely would if we were to take a libertarian account of free will; but the libertarian sort of free will is positively incoherent to begin with. The last thing I would desire is for my willings to be random, which is what the libertarian view entails. That leaves us with a compatibilist notion of free will; and under compatabilism, God's perfect foreknowledge (which entails determinism) is irrelevant as long as I can still consider myself a genuine 'source' of my actions. Free will is very tricky and gets trickier the more I think about it, but I am pretty certain that the common view of free will (held by most people and of a libertarian variety) is mad as a box of frogs.
25 Mar 06
Try looking at free will like this: Suppose there is a god who knows everything that has, is, and will happen but is like an anthropologist in that said god knows if it makes itself known it will interfere with whatever is being observed so said god observes but does not EVER interfere. So you have free will because said god never opposes what you do, even if the society being observed eventually got the power to destroy the universe, said god would not interfere. Said god knows there are lots of spare universes so no big deal.
25 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI’m going to try to dispense with the word “sees,” since that is producing a terribly frenetic image in my head. 😉
I’m going to try to dispense with the word “sees,” since that is producing a terribly frenetic image in my head. 😉
If I understand this correctly, it reduces to God simply knowing all of what’s happening all of the time, since the future is part of God's present?
EDIT: It strikes me that this only removes determination with regard to God's perspecti 's still a set of events with 100% probability, even though I don't know it yet....?
🙂
If I understand this correctly, it reduces to God simply knowing all of what’s happening all of the time, since the future is part of God's present?
Yes.
EDIT: It strikes me that this only removes determination with regard to God's perspective; since God knows what's happening, it's still a set of events with 100% probability, even though I don't know it yet....?
God's knowing of a given event, is because it's busy happening in His non-time/space perspective. This is not the case of God doing a little time-travel to see the future and then applying it to the present. From God's perspective, everything is happening in the present, while from our perspective, our actions are still in the making... or something like that... 😕 😉
25 Mar 06
The decrees must be in logical order. Though the entire decree is one thought in the mind of God, the logical principle of cause and effect is involved in human thinking and understanding. This falls under the doctrine of lapsarianism, and the term is applied to how everything "falls" out from the divine decree.
Lapsarianism is derived from the Latin lapsare meaning "to fall," and this area of doctrine is concerned with explaining the logical, not chronological, order within God's elective decrees. The differing distinctions are related to whether the decree to elect comes before or after the decree to permit the Fall.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Mar 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloI'm confused. What does it mean to be the "genuine source of my actions"?
To say that God possesses perfect foreknowledge of all future events says nothing about our free will. I think it definitely would if we were to take a libertarian account of free will; but the libertarian sort of free will is positively incoherent to begin with. The last thing I would desire is for my willings to be random, which is what the libertaria ...[text shortened]... iew of free will (held by most people and of a libertarian variety) is mad as a box of frogs.
In a purely determined environment (one with God's foreknowledge or even scientific foreknowledge), such actions would be determined by an amalgam of environmental conditions and predispositions etc. Thus, how could I be the "genuine source of my actions"? And how does this presuppose free will?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Mar 06
Originally posted by HalitoseLet me think of an analogy. Say God is like a movie enthusiast and in front of him is the entire movie with each individual frame in an ordered sequence. God can look at one frame and see the beginning of the universe, and in another see us (furiously typing away trying to refute/proove that free will is compatible with God's omniscience). We see the film in an animated version with us as the characters. God would see it as still frames which he can peruse in any order He wants. This analogy seems to cohere with your argument (or does it?). However, as far I can see, I can only act one way; the way that appears in the film. This seems to preclude free will. Do you disagree?
God's knowing of a given event, is because it's busy happening in His non-time/space perspective. This is not the case of God doing a little time-travel to see the future and then applying it to the present. From God's perspective, everything is happening in the present, while from our perspective, our actions are still in the making... or something like that... 😕 😉
26 Mar 06
Originally posted by Conrau KBut if no-one acts on what is seen, even if we are a movie frame or something like that, then where is the part that we don't have free will?
Let me think of an analogy. Say God is like a movie enthusiast and in front of him is the entire movie with each individual frame in an ordered sequence. God can look at one frame and see the beginning of the universe, and in another see us (furiously typing away trying to refute/proove that free will is compatible with God's omniscience). We see the film i ...[text shortened]... t one way; the way that appears in the film. This seems to preclude free will. Do you disagree?
If there is a god and it does nothing to stop whatever it wants that pretty much says we have free will since our actions are what makes each movie frame. It was our actions that made the frame and if you go back and rewind it to change things, maybe you just start off another universe at that frame and a new movie is born. You still have free will. At any point in your life you can decide to not kill, decide to kill, usually nobody can stop you if you seriously go about to kill, you may even end up being killed yourself but that does not bring back those you killed so you used your allotment of free will to kill people. Its still your free will that did that. Who shives a git if its all being recorded? Personally I think the recording concept is a pile of crap anyway.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
26 Mar 06
Originally posted by sonhouseMy point is, that in this movie you can only act ONE way. So how can your will , so to speak, be free?
But if no-one acts on what is seen, even if we are a movie frame or something like that, then where is the part that we don't have free will?
If there is a god and it does nothing to stop whatever it wants that pretty much says we have free will since our actions are what makes each movie frame. It was our actions that made the frame and if you go back and ...[text shortened]... t if its all being recorded? Personally I think the recording concept is a pile of crap anyway.
By the way, it your will that makes you kill people. Not your free will. I am not disputing the existence of the will.
26 Mar 06
Originally posted by Conrau KLook, claiming that my actions are determined is not identical to claiming that my actions are determined by factors other than ME. This is what you always seem to assume without any good reasons. It seems to me that you constantly keep begging the question. Compatibilism is not just 'semantics', as you claimed earlier. The compatibilist will say that it is perfectly compatible with my will's being free that my willings are determined by my psychological states, the integral/abiding features of my character, my motivations, etc.
I'm confused. What does it mean to be the "genuine source of my actions"?
In a purely determined environment (one with God's foreknowledge or even scientific foreknowledge), such actions would be determined by an amalgam of environmental conditions and predispositions etc. Thus, how could I be the "genuine source of my actions"? And how does this presuppose free will?
You still seem to think that 'free will' can only be a libertarian sort, which is exactly why we disagree and will continue to disagree. I can only reiterate the fact that any libertarian account of free will is utter nonsense. This is because 'free will' should be in reference to actions that I can call my own and for which I am responsible; so if one stipulates that a lack of determinism is a necessary condition for free will, then he has just defeated the entire purpose. How am I to call my actions mine if they are not even determined by me? That would be a desperately sad form of 'freedom'.
26 Mar 06
Originally posted by LemonJello
Look, claiming that my actions are determined is not identical to claiming that my actions are determined by factors other than ME. This is what you always seem to assume without any good reasons. It seems to me that you constantly keep begging the question. Compatibilism is not just 'semantics', as you claimed earlier. The compatibilist will say that ...[text shortened]... they are not even determined by me? That would be a desperately sad form of 'freedom'.
26 Mar 06
Originally posted by Conrau K
I'm confused. What does it mean to be the "genuine source of my actions"?
In a purely determined environment (one with God's foreknowledge or even scientific foreknowledge), such actions would be determined by an amalgam of environmental conditions and predispositions etc. Thus, how could I be the "genuine source of my actions"? And how does this presuppose free will?