virginia tech and determinism

Originally posted by knightmeister
Oh dear , in order for 1. to be the proof you want it to you would have to consider how God comes by his knowledge and also accept that God does in fact exist.

That God exists is an obvious requirement for him to have knowledge, so I don't know why you bring that up at all.
And I hold that it constitute proof HOWEVER God came by that knowledge.

Does it occur to you that God's omniscience and his eternal nature are linked. ? How do you think God knows what has already happened in the future? HMM let's think....it's because he's eternal! BUT...if he's eternal then he doen't need petty things like predestination to be able to know everything. Only entities trapped on timelines need the universe to be deterministic to be able to know everything...why? ....because they need to be able to predict the future because they can't be present in it (omnipresent) ...like an eternal entity can!

In short you have accepted God's omniscience but not all his other qualities along with it ...which is shall we say...selective at the very least.
The very existence of a being that is not part of the universe or 'eternal' implies directly that the universe is deterministic and that everything is predestined.
Sorry, but I neither accepted nor rejected Gods other possible qualities as they are irrelevant.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That God exists is an obvious requirement for him to have knowledge, so I don't know why you bring that up at all.
And I hold that it constitute proof HOWEVER God came by that knowledge.

[b]Does it occur to you that God's omniscience and his eternal nature are linked. ? How do you think God knows what has already happened in the future? HMM let's thin ...[text shortened]... I neither accepted nor rejected Gods other possible qualities as they are irrelevant.

The very existence of a being that is not part of the universe or 'eternal' implies directly that the universe is deterministic and that everything is predestined. WHITEY

How do you reach this conclusion ? If an entity exists which is a first cause or uncaused cause and is not part of the universe then what happens if said entity enters into our universe and plays some kind of role within it? Does this not open the door to other possibilities? Such an act would not mean that God had become 'part of' or reliant on the universe only that he voluntarily entered it in Christ.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That God exists is an obvious requirement for him to have knowledge, so I don't know why you bring that up at all.
And I hold that it constitute proof HOWEVER God came by that knowledge.

[b]Does it occur to you that God's omniscience and his eternal nature are linked. ? How do you think God knows what has already happened in the future? HMM let's thin ...[text shortened]... I neither accepted nor rejected Gods other possible qualities as they are irrelevant.

Sorry, but I neither accepted nor rejected Gods other possible qualities as they are irrelevant. WHITEY

Or you would like them to be irrelevant because you can then stick to your line af argument. Discussing free will and determinism without reference to God's eternal nature is like discussing evolution without reference to genetics.

You don't have to agree with my argument , but do try to understand that for me the universe doesn't have to be predestined for God to know what we are doing in our future (any more than you knowing hitler's future proves that he didn't have free will). Eternity comes into play. Dismiss it if you like , but try to understand it if you can.

Originally posted by knightmeister
How do you reach this conclusion ? If an entity exists which is a first cause or uncaused cause and is not part of the universe then what happens if said entity enters into our universe and plays some kind of role within it? Does this not open the door to other possibilities? Such an act would not mean that God had become 'part of' or reliant on the universe only that he voluntarily entered it in Christ.

The whole bit about the entity being a first cause or uncaused cause or interfering with the universe is quite irrelevant to the issue (and I suspect that you only introduce them to try and confuse the matter).

If there exists and entity (not necessarily intelligent) that is external to the universe and independent of time, then:
1. The universe exists as a single complete entity in the larger framework in which the external entity exists.
2. Unless multiple universes exist in this larger framework (one for each of the infinity of possible timelines) then it directly implies that there is actually only one timeline (as can be observed in the part of the universe we know as "history".)
3. This implies that the future is as fixed as the past and is necessarily predestined.

I personally do not see predestination as in there being only one future as a direct violation of physics (or free will) but the interference in any way by a being external to the universes time line especially if that includes the transfer of information backwards in time would be a violation of physics and could result in some paradoxes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The whole bit about the entity being a first cause or uncaused cause or interfering with the universe is quite irrelevant to the issue (and I suspect that you only introduce them to try and confuse the matter).

If there exists and entity (not necessarily intelligent) that is external to the universe and independent of time, then:
1. The universe exist ...[text shortened]... ormation backwards in time would be a violation of physics and could result in some paradoxes.

3. This implies that the future is as fixed as the past and is necessarily predestined. WHITEY


Is the past pre- destined? How is the past fixed? The issue of what does the fixing of our choices is crucial .

Originally posted by knightmeister
Is the past pre- destined? How is the past fixed? The issue of what does the fixing of our choices is crucial .

The past is not necessarily predestined. But it is fixed. What is crucial is not what does the fixing but whether there are multiple time lines. If there are multiple time lines (and universes) then we are in one particular timeline as regards the past but in an infinite number of future timelines thus the past is fixed but not the future. If there is only one timeline however then the future is as fixed as the past and everything both past and future are predestined.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The past is not necessarily predestined. But it is fixed. What is crucial is not what does the fixing but whether there are multiple time lines. If there are multiple time lines (and universes) then we are in one particular timeline as regards the past but in an infinite number of future timelines thus the past is fixed but not the future. If there is onl ...[text shortened]... ver then the future is as fixed as the past and everything both past and future are predestined.

I beg to differ . It IS crucial what sets the past in place. If our choices set the past in place then they become fixed by us and not by determinism. If they are fixed by deterministic forces entirely then free will is in trouble. However , since knowing the past is fixed proves nothing either way I am within my rights to point out that God knows your future in the same way as you know the past. For him the whole history of the universe is a past event and that is how he knows your future.

So here's the crucial point. God doesn't know what you WILL do tomorrow , he knows what you HAVE done tomorrow. But tomorrow hasn't come yet for you just as for hitler (in 1943) 1945 hasn't arrived yet. Once you understand that God needs you to do something tomorrow for him to know what you did you will see that from his perspective he knows your future as a past event and as such it does not have to be pre destined for him to know it. Just as hitler's action cannot be shown to be predestined just because you know his future as your past.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So here's the crucial point. God doesn't know what you WILL do tomorrow , he knows what you HAVE done tomorrow. But tomorrow hasn't come yet for you just as for hitler (in 1943) 1945 hasn't arrived yet. Once you understand that God needs you to do something tomorrow for him to know what you did you will see that from his perspective he knows your futur ...[text shortened]... r's action cannot be shown to be predestined just because you know his future as your past.

I agree He knows all future events as they were in the past. And knowing this, He is also capable of changing events. Any events that come about, do so because God either did or did not intervene in some way He could have to change them.

If future events are not fixed the way past events are in a linear fashion, then God knows all possible future outcomes - and how He should be able to effect them.

If future events are fixed in a linear fashion like the past, and God does not determine them but he still knows them, then God is powerless to do anything that will effect the future. His knowledge would rob Him of his own free will. He would effectively be controlled by a destiny or fate that he is helpless to change. He would see the Hitlers coming an be powerless to prevent them.

But at least the God of Scripture not only knows the future, but He determines it. He predestines all events, and nothing occurs outside of His willing it. Every hair on your head is numbered.

Originally posted by Coletti
He predestines all events, and nothing occurs outside of His willing it.

People break God's commands. Are God's commands things that he wishes be broken?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
People break God's commands. Are God's commands things that he wishes be broken?

"Wishes" sound too wishy-washy. 🙂

He wills it.

Originally posted by Coletti
"Wishes" sound too wishy-washy. 🙂

He wills it.

Makes you wonder why he'd go about commanding them in the first place.

How would you assess the sanity of a being that issues imperatives that he wills be broken?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Makes you wonder why he'd go about commanding them in the first place.

How would you assess the sanity of a being that issues imperatives that he wills be broken?

I'm thankful He sent Jesus Christ to die for my sins. I don't try to judge the inner workings of God's mind. Who is the clay to critize the potter?

Originally posted by Coletti
Who is the clay to criticize the potter?

Clay that has been made into a potty, has every right to criticize the potter. In fact if clay was sentient then I think it would criticize the potter for all sorts of reasons and who are you to say that it would have no right to do so?

Originally posted by Coletti
I'm thankful He sent Jesus Christ to die for my sins. I don't try to judge the inner workings of God's mind.

Sounds like "good slave" mentality. "Oh thank you master for not whipping me like you whipped all the other slaves today. You are such a good, good master".

Originally posted by twhitehead
Clay that has been made into a potty, has every right to criticize the potter. In fact if clay was sentient then I think it would criticize the potter for all sorts of reasons and who are you to say that it would have no right to do so?

The clay is in no position to complain. If I have a lump of clay, I can make it into an ashtray or a vase or a piss-pot. I can make it into whatever I want. I have no obligation to make all my clay into pretty flower pots.