Originally posted by knightmeisterAt that time it wasn't determined. After it happened, it is perfectly determined. Right?
I said known in the past not "in advance" ! You guys really need to learn how to read and stop making assumptions. Read CAREFULLY.
Someone makes a decision in the past based on a random effect or event. Let's say a physicist is playing around one day and decides to do something based on that radnomness. You then get to read about what he did. You now know what happened. Does you knowing what happened prove the decision was determined?
If God can see all time, and know all, then all things are determined for him, Right?
They won't happen any other way, Right?
I rest my case, unless you disagree with any of these 3 points.
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf know what happened, you know the outcome, and it doesn't matter for discussion.
Okay so you see truely random things happening. You know the outcome of these things yes? Does the fact that they happened and you know the outcome mean that they are not random anymore? Of course not!
Therefore it is possible to know the outcome of a non determined event if you happen to be in the right place within the dimension of time.
If previously to the occurrence, you know the outcome, it is NOT random. That's the point we seem to disagree...
Originally posted by PalynkaI do not understand your latin terms very well. However, I stand by my claims, and it is a bit more complicated than you seem to think. The key condition is that the situation is viewed from an external perspective, ie the future is seen to be an existent entity.
This is obviously false.
Proof:
1) Postulate that Hitler had free-will in 3 binary choices of his life {A,B,C}, each with options {1,0}. The set of possibilities is then:
{{0,0,0},{0,0,1},{0,1,0},{0,1,1}, {1,0,0}, {1,0,1}, {1,1,0}, {1,1,1}}
2) Hitler, using his free-will, makes his A,B,C choices along his life.
3) After Hitler's death we observe only ...[text shortened]... s doesn't prove that free-will exists. Just that this particular argument against it is false.
My understanding of your use of ex-ante implies that the free will you are referring to requires that the future does not exist.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't know the context of that phrase, so I was comment on the phrase as a stand-alone.
I do not understand your latin terms very well. However, I stand by my claims, and it is a bit more complicated than you seem to think. The key condition is that the situation is viewed from an external perspective, ie the future is seen to be an existent entity.
My understanding of your use of ex-ante implies that the free will you are referring to requires that the future does not exist.
Regarding the ex-ante comment, I'd say that in such a perspective the future would exist as a possibility tree and not as a straight line.
Regarding my personal views on free will, I'm much closer to LemonJello's compatibilistic view than some theists libertarian ones. So, obviously, I don't believe free-will requires a future as possibility tree as I describe above. What I'm saying, is that the argument contained in that single phrase is flawed or, at least, incomplete.
Originally posted by PalynkaI realize that my comment is not entirely clear on all points but I think that implicit in my comment is that I am talking about the historical Hitler and not some hypothetical 'possible' Hitler. Hence, I believe that talk of possibility trees in that context is incoherent with the scenario.
I don't know the context of that phrase, so I was comment on the phrase as a stand-alone.
Regarding the ex-ante comment, I'd say that in such a perspective the future would exist as a possibility tree and not as a straight line.
My claim is that if there is only one timeline in existence, then talk of possibility trees is incoherent.
My argument with knightmiester is he insists on claiming that there are other possible outcomes to any given choice, while simultaneously claiming that there is only one actual outcome, which is knowable by some hypothetical being.
If you can show that I am wrong, or am expressing it wrongly or unclearly, I would be interested, as I find it an interesting subject.
Originally posted by serigadoOk , so now try and understand that God does not know what you will choose "in advance " , he knows it AS you are doing it. It only seems to us as if he knows it in advance. I agree with your logic I just disagree with your understanding of eternity.
If know what happened, you know the outcome, and it doesn't matter for discussion.
If previously to the occurrence, you know the outcome, it is NOT random. That's the point we seem to disagree...
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy argument with knightmiester is he insists on claiming that there are other possible outcomes to any given choice, while simultaneously claiming that there is only one actual outcome, --whitey----
I realize that my comment is not entirely clear on all points but I think that implicit in my comment is that I am talking about the historical Hitler and not some hypothetical 'possible' Hitler. Hence, I believe that talk of possibility trees in that context is incoherent with the scenario.
My claim is that if there is only one timeline in existence, t ...[text shortened]... xpressing it wrongly or unclearly, I would be interested, as I find it an interesting subject.
And what is contradictory about this? A possible outcome is not the same as an actual outcome. If a point in time contains within it the possibility for many outcomes then only one of these possibilities will become an actuality . This may be true , it may not be , but there is nothing illogical or contradictory about it.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI know it is hard to understand. Let me take you back to my card game scenario.
And what is contradictory about this? A possible outcome is not the same as an actual outcome. If a point in time contains within it the possibility for many outcomes then only one of these possibilities will become an actuality . This may be true , it may not be , but there is nothing illogical or contradictory about it.
We each have 4 cards face down on the table. We do not know what they are. We can say that there is a possibility that you have 4 aces or 4 kings. But when we turn over the cards, only one combination will actually be seen. It is possible too that the dealer knows what the cards are before we start playing. Now tell me, if the dealer knows that he gave you 4 queens but does not tell you, is it still logical for you to claim that there is a possibility that you have 4 aces? Think before answering, don't just shout 'bad analogy'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is illogical to claim that you have possibly 4 aces but it could be logical to claim that you might have had 4 aces instead. Even the dealer himself could not know about the 4 queens until they emerged from the pack.
I know it is hard to understand. Let me take you back to my card game scenario.
We each have 4 cards face down on the table. We do not know what they are. We can say that there is a possibility that you have 4 aces or 4 kings. But when we turn over the cards, only one combination will actually be seen. It is possible too that the dealer knows what the ca ...[text shortened]... s a possibility that you have 4 aces? Think before answering, don't just shout 'bad analogy'.
I think it's a decent analogy actually but I don't think God (dealer) deals out our choices.
even if the outcome of a determined event is known DOESN'T mean it will occur.
if you can see an child is going to get hit by a car at a precise moment you can prevent the incident if you distract the child at the time it was supposed to happen.
by the same token, by trying to stop an event from happening, you may inadvertently CAUSE an event to occur.