|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How do you see time?
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
If he didn't then he wouldn't be all knowing, would he. But then "tomorrow" doesn't apply to God.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So He knows the spins of all electrons in their tomorrow?
[ 17. May 2015, 17:07: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
What do you mean "how"? God sees creation, including "time", in its fulness.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Does that mean it is Gods will that shit happens to us?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alyosha
Shipmate
# 18395
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Does that mean it is Gods will that shit happens to us?
Supposedly he just allows it to happen and so he doesn't play an active part in causing it.
Posts: 162 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Free will is, to my mind, the ability to make a choice of two actions. If God - or anyone - knows the choice we will make, it is not free.
Why is it not free?
If God can predict correctly on the basis of circumstances other than our choice that we will choose one way rather than another, then our choice is free. God could make that prediction because the circumstances constrain our choice. But that's not what's in question. The claim is that the reason God knows what our choice will be is that God sees what it will be. The choice causes God's knowledge of the choice. And so God's knowledge doesn't make our choice any less free than it would otherwise be.
Or to put it another way I'll distinguish between two tenses: present tense in time (-t) and present tense eternal (-e).
If God knows(-t) what our choice will be then you could say the choice is(-t) already determined. But that's not the claim. The claim is that God knows(-e) what our choice will be. That doesn't mean our choice is(-t) already determined. And our choice is only determined (-e) because we choose(-e) it.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
I have never got to terms with God the micro-manager, which is the difficulty I have with the God who sees all time idea. The fine details of the future are not set.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How?
As I said, I don't know what you mean.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Does that mean it is Gods will that shit happens to us?
I think ultimately we have to accept that God allows shit to happen, for the time being at least. I don't think there's any way round that.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Dafyd - it is not free because it is not simply a prediction, it is a knowledge. If God can work out from circumstances what our decision is likely to be, that is not knowledge. If he can see all possible futures, and know that there is an 80% chance of my choosing x, that is prediction, not knowledge.
I think that that is what he knows. Hos "all-knowing" means that he knows all possible outcomes. He can know that, without knowing what my decision will be.
But if God - or anyone - knows that I will choose x, that is not then my free choice, because I no longer have the option of choosing y.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Does God know if it's going to rain tomorrow?
I think chaos theory would indicate that the answer is no, but he does know how likely it is to rain tomorrow. Knowing that there is a 90% change of it raining tomorrow is pretty good.
There is another question as to whether God can change these possibilities. I am tempted to say that he can, but with a full knowledge of the implications. Maybe, like in Stephen Orams "Quantum Confessions", god can find a reality where it doesn't rain tomorrow, but most other things stay the same.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alyosha
Shipmate
# 18395
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Does that mean it is Gods will that shit happens to us?
I think ultimately we have to accept that God allows shit to happen, for the time being at least. I don't think there's any way round that.
There is no way around it. All that matters is whether God has a conscience over allowing some of the stuff which happens. He certainly seems to accept no responsibility for the bad things that he allows. I say 'seems', before someone defends him.
Posts: 162 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What do you mean "God sees creation, including "time", in its fulness."?
How does God see the spins of electrons before their determination? How does He 'see' the phenomena that are dependent on their determination? The spinning of tossed coins is dependent on the fall of photons. So is the fall of raindrops. These are indeterminate phenomena. Until they happen. Worse, until they are observed. They cannot even be deduced once they are past. Worse. As they are happening. The information does not exist. Anywhere. Ever.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snuffy
Apprentice
# 18404
|
Posted
Interesting question posed by the OP; something I ponder from time to time. [NPI] After a speed read through 2.5 pages (am a bit short on time at present - again NPI) I am intrigued to note that no-one seems to have considered the physics of it all and what is time as far as us creatures are concerned.
It is merely based upon the turning of the planet The Good Creator made and placed His creatures upon.
As a bit of a Trekkie (not sure which bit - must have fallen off someone/something on a set somewhere) may I be so bold as to set hand and go boldly on a first SoF post and draw attention to the Star Date they used toward the start of each programme. As soon as you leave this rotating sphere of ours, time as we know it ceases to exist. The writers of Star Trek had apparently got that covered.
--------------------
Keeping everyone up to snuff, self included, while breathing in the fumes of failure
Posts: 9 | From: Go to London but then turn left | Registered: May 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In space no one can hear you tick?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What do you mean "God sees creation, including "time", in its fulness."?
How does God see the spins of electrons before their determination? How does He 'see' the phenomena that are dependent on their determination? The spinning of tossed coins is dependent on the fall of photons. So is the fall of raindrops. These are indeterminate phenomena. Until they happen. Worse, until they are observed. They cannot even be deduced once they are past. Worse. As they are happening. The information does not exist. Anywhere. Ever.
For us, perhaps, but why should that be so for God?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Snuffy - welcome! When we leave "this sphere", time does not stop, not least because those who have been to the moon have returned, in time.
What we have to separate is the measurement of time (clocks etc.) and the reality of the passing of time, which happens even if the clocks recording it may vary.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's neither about us, nor God. We - including Him - are irrelevant. The information, like the past and the future, does not exist. Cannot. There is no such thing as absolute reality. Now is fuzzy. The non-existent future (and past) yet fuzzier. There is nothing God can do about that except supervene. Make it so. And why would He do that?
There's only one thing ahead of us. Love.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snuffy
Apprentice
# 18404
|
Posted
"Snuffy - welcome! When we leave "this sphere", time does not stop, not least because those who have been to the moon have returned, in time.
What we have to separate is the measurement of time (clocks etc.) and the reality of the passing of time, which happens even if the clocks recording it may vary."
Absolutely true, SC, but you are still refering to earth time. And that is where the Star Trek writers made an effort, to leave all that behind with the understanding of the universe 1969-style. Unfortunately, it starts to fall apart now (as I have been led to understand it) because the universe should be doing one of two things: continuing to expand, accelerating and moving apart (stretching star time) or collapsing back in on itself under the influence of gravity (condensing star time) & ending with a big bang. Cosmologists are scratching their heads on that one and resorting to the theory of 'the elastic universe'.
It could be argued that time only exists for us mortals - now - in life, purely referenced to the rotation & wobbles of this world. Am inclined to resort to Colossians 1v17 as an explanation for puzzled cosmologists and anyone else. What - science and the Bible?
Science IN the Bible ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Keeping everyone up to snuff, self included, while breathing in the fumes of failure
Posts: 9 | From: Go to London but then turn left | Registered: May 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
if God is outside of time and has definitive knowledge of the future, it is then that free will is meaningless, since we cannot choose other that what God has eternally known us to chose.
Why is free will then meaningless? Why does God's foreknowledge of our actions somehow mean that our choice was not (or is not) free?
Surely free will is exercised independently of God knowing what choice will be made. You could choose 'plan A' or 'plan B' (or from a multitude of others)and he would have known what you'd pick all along....but why on earth assume that his knowledge somehow impinges on your freedom?
What is the actual mechanism whereby free will is nullified by God's foreknowledge of the choice which shall be made?
Because if God foreknows that you will choose A, then you cannot choose B. If you cannot choose B, then for choice of A was not freely made, and what appeared to be free will was in fact an illusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If he didn't then he wouldn't be all knowing, would he. But then "tomorrow" doesn't apply to God.
God is all-knowing because he knows everything that can be known. He knows everything about the past and everything about the present. And he knows every future possibility (and has a plan for each contingency)-- which means he knows MORE (at least in quantity) than what he would know in the foreknowledge scenario.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But then "tomorrow" doesn't apply to God.
This is one of those things we've said so often that it's become a "just so" without anyone feeling like they need to prove or defend it. But it actually doesn't fit with either biblical revelation or our experience of God.
[ 17. May 2015, 21:34: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's neither about us, nor God. We - including Him - are irrelevant. The information, like the past and the future, does not exist. Cannot. There is no such thing as absolute reality. Now is fuzzy. The non-existent future (and past) yet fuzzier. There is nothing God can do about that except supervene. Make it so. And why would He do that?
There's only one thing ahead of us. Love.
Then I don't know what God it is you worship.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
cliffdweller - I think we are agreeing here. What I meant was that God can be outside time, but not know which of many paths we will choose, just the futures that each decision will mean. If God knows the single future that will happen, that is where free will ceases
I agree with the 2nd part, but not the first. I do not believe God is outside of time.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Brenda and The Rhythm Methodist - Free will is, to my mind, the ability to make a choice of two actions. If God - or anyone - knows the choice we will make, it is not free. The comparison of children is not the same - in this case, we know the most likely outcome, because we know their character. Knowing the most likely result is not knowing the future.
And God, knowing the character of each person more intimately than we know ourselves, and knowing the character of each person we will interact with, as well as everything about the past and present, is able to predict with much greater probability than we are able. Unlike us, he is able to anticipate every potential future. But, as Schroedinger's cat said, knowing the most likely result, or even knowing every possible result, is not the same as definitively knowing the one and only choice that will be made in the future.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
if God is outside of time and has definitive knowledge of the future, it is then that free will is meaningless, since we cannot choose other that what God has eternally known us to chose.
Why is free will then meaningless? Why does God's foreknowledge of our actions somehow mean that our choice was not (or is not) free?
Surely free will is exercised independently of God knowing what choice will be made. You could choose 'plan A' or 'plan B' (or from a multitude of others)and he would have known what you'd pick all along....but why on earth assume that his knowledge somehow impinges on your freedom?
What is the actual mechanism whereby free will is nullified by God's foreknowledge of the choice which shall be made?
Because if God foreknows that you will choose A, then you cannot choose B. If you cannot choose B, then for choice of A was not freely made, and what appeared to be free will was in fact an illusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If he didn't then he wouldn't be all knowing, would he. But then "tomorrow" doesn't apply to God.
God is all-knowing because he knows everything that can be known. He knows everything about the past and everything about the present. And he knows every future possibility (and has a plan for each contingency)-- which means he knows MORE (at least in quantity) than what he would know in the foreknowledge scenario.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But then "tomorrow" doesn't apply to God.
This is one of those things we've said so often that it's become a "just so" without anyone feeling like they need to prove or defend it. But it actually doesn't fit with either biblical revelation or our experience of God.
You speak as if the future, as we understand it, does not exist to God. I would argue otherwise, that it does exist. It might not appear to us as such, but that's only because we are linear.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Does God know if it's going to rain tomorrow?
Most likely. Tomorrow's weather is not based on free-will choices, but on factors that operate with cause-and-effect in the created universe. What he would not know as a certainty (but would know as a probability) is any future weather patterns determined or impacted by human actions/free choices (e.g. global warming). But those would probably be much further out in time than a day or even a year. And, again, they would be possibilities that would be known to him as that-- contingent possibilities.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snuffy
Apprentice
# 18404
|
Posted
Martin 60, all I can do is encourage you to read that first chapter of Colossians (maybe again & again), especially from verses 3 to 22, which blends infinite & eternal Love with short-lived, very finite mortals to produce something wonderful. Or maybe you were offering a precis of just that?
It blows my mind every time I read that passage! I find myself worshiping a living God with great joy & thankfulness. The God of science who created a planet and the universe with all its vibrations & rotations and loved it so much He just had to step into it and subject Himself to its timekeeping.
--------------------
Keeping everyone up to snuff, self included, while breathing in the fumes of failure
Posts: 9 | From: Go to London but then turn left | Registered: May 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
Originally posted by cliffdweller, in response to <snip> "What is the actual mechanism whereby free will is nullified by God's foreknowledge of the choice which shall be made?"
quote:
Because if God foreknows that you will choose A, then you cannot choose B. If you cannot choose B, then for choice of A was not freely made, and what appeared to be free will was in fact an illusion.
Thank you for the response, cliffdweller.
The concept of freewill presupposes you could choose A or B. Until the moment your decision is reached, both options are open to you. It is entirely irrelevant to the freewill process if God or even your goldfish knows what choice you will make - that knowledge in no way influences your choice, or curtails the freedom in which it was made. The real illusion here, is the notion that foreknowledge negates freewill. I have yet to see any logical reason presented for that supposition.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's neither about us, nor God. We - including Him - are irrelevant. The information, like the past and the future, does not exist. Cannot. There is no such thing as absolute reality. Now is fuzzy. The non-existent future (and past) yet fuzzier.
How do you know? And can you offer the rest of us any reason to agree with you?
(Reading your posts feels like trying to convince the Delphic Oracle that smoking volcanic fumes is not a reliable epistemic methodology.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Does that mean it is Gods will that shit happens to us?
Exactly. Once you go down the road of placing God outside of time, you end up diminishing free will, which means you've got to place God at the center of evil, whether as an active cause or as passively permitting it to occur.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Because if God foreknows that you will choose A, then you cannot choose B. If you cannot choose B, then for choice of A was not freely made, and what appeared to be free will was in fact an illusion.
Let's distinguish between de re necessity and de dicto necessity.
De re necessity is part of the fabric of reality.
De dicto necessity is merely the logical consequence of the situation presupposed.
Example: if a couple have three children, then their third child cannot have any younger siblings. It's impossible. But that's a de dicto necessity. It's not a de re necessity. The parents could have another child. If both parents became infertile, then they couldn't have another child, and that would be a de re necessity.
Now, if you have a mental block meaning that you cannot pick chocolate cake when offered a menu, that's a de re necessity: you cannot choose chocolate cake. That's a limit on your free will. But if you say 'if God foreknows that you will choose apple strudel, then you cannot choose chocolate cake', then that's merely de dicto. De dicto necessity is not a limit on your free will, since it derives from your choice.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Originally posted by cliffdweller, in response to <snip> "What is the actual mechanism whereby free will is nullified by God's foreknowledge of the choice which shall be made?"
quote:
Because if God foreknows that you will choose A, then you cannot choose B. If you cannot choose B, then for choice of A was not freely made, and what appeared to be free will was in fact an illusion.
Thank you for the response, cliffdweller.
The concept of freewill presupposes you could choose A or B. Until the moment your decision is reached, both options are open to you. It is entirely irrelevant to the freewill process if God or even your goldfish knows what choice you will make - that knowledge in no way influences your choice, or curtails the freedom in which it was made. The real illusion here, is the notion that foreknowledge negates freewill. I have yet to see any logical reason presented for that supposition.
And I don't see any logical refutation of the argument I presented. Saying "foreknowledge doesn't negate freewill" doesn't make it so. If God foreknows you will choose A, is it at all possible for you to choose B? If the answer to that question is "no"-- as it must be if God has definitive foreknowledge of the future-- then your choice cannot in any way be deemed to be freely made, even if it feels like it is at the time.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You speak as if the future, as we understand it, does not exist to God. I would argue otherwise, that it does exist. It might not appear to us as such, but that's only because we are linear.
Yes, you understand my position. The future exists for God as contingent possibilities. He knows each contingent possibility as deeply and completely as we know settled realities. But he cannot foreknow them as definitive realities if the future is truly open.
[ 17. May 2015, 22:26: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But if God - or anyone - knows that I will choose x, that is not then my free choice, because I no longer have the option of choosing y.
To reiterate points I made in other posts.
I want to distinguish between knowing something in time, and knowing something eternally outside time. (-t) on a verb means it refers to the present in time. (-e) means outside time.
If anyone knows(-t) that I will choose x, then that is not my free choice (since their knowledge must be derived from factors in the present that determine my future choice). But that doesn't apply if they know(-e) I will choose x, since knowing(-e) can derive from my choice itself. Free will requires simply that I have(-t) options; knowing(-e) doesn't abolish having(-t) options.
Equally: if I chose x, then I couldn't have chosen y. That doesn't mean it was impossible for me to choose y (which would be de re necessary that I didn't choose y). It just means that because I chose x I couldn't have chosen y as well (de dicto necessary that I didn't choose y). If God knows I will choose x, that is a merely de dicto necessity that I won't choose y; it doesn't mean that there's anything creating a de re necessity that will prevent me choosing y.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Does that mean it is Gods will that shit happens to us?
Exactly. Once you go down the road of placing God outside of time, you end up diminishing free will, which means you've got to place God at the center of evil, whether as an active cause or as passively permitting it to occur.
The alternative is an impotent God who is unable to do anything about evil.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Because if God foreknows that you will choose A, then you cannot choose B. If you cannot choose B, then for choice of A was not freely made, and what appeared to be free will was in fact an illusion.
Let's distinguish between de re necessity and de dicto necessity.
De re necessity is part of the fabric of reality.
De dicto necessity is merely the logical consequence of the situation presupposed.
Example: if a couple have three children, then their third child cannot have any younger siblings. It's impossible. But that's a de dicto necessity. It's not a de re necessity. The parents could have another child. If both parents became infertile, then they couldn't have another child, and that would be a de re necessity.
Now, if you have a mental block meaning that you cannot pick chocolate cake when offered a menu, that's a de re necessity: you cannot choose chocolate cake. That's a limit on your free will. But if you say 'if God foreknows that you will choose apple strudel, then you cannot choose chocolate cake', then that's merely de dicto. De dicto necessity is not a limit on your free will, since it derives from your choice.
If I'm following your definitions, you have argued my point and your final summation does not follow logically. Foreknowledge is a limit on free will, as a logical consequence of the situation presupposed. A logical consequence of God having definitive foreknowledge of the future is that we cannot choose other than what he foreknew-- which means we cannot choose freely.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You speak as if the future, as we understand it, does not exist to God. I would argue otherwise, that it does exist. It might not appear to us as such, but that's only because we are linear.
Yes, you understand my position. The future exists for God as contingent possibilities. He knows each contingent possibility as deeply and completely as we know settled realities. But he cannot foreknow them as definitive realities if the future is truly open.
No. That's not what I meant at all.
[ 17. May 2015, 22:32: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Because if God foreknows that you will choose A, then you cannot choose B. If you cannot choose B, then for choice of A was not freely made, and what appeared to be free will was in fact an illusion.
Let's distinguish between de re necessity and de dicto necessity.
De re necessity is part of the fabric of reality.
De dicto necessity is merely the logical consequence of the situation presupposed.
Example: if a couple have three children, then their third child cannot have any younger siblings. It's impossible. But that's a de dicto necessity. It's not a de re necessity. The parents could have another child. If both parents became infertile, then they couldn't have another child, and that would be a de re necessity.
Now, if you have a mental block meaning that you cannot pick chocolate cake when offered a menu, that's a de re necessity: you cannot choose chocolate cake. That's a limit on your free will. But if you say 'if God foreknows that you will choose apple strudel, then you cannot choose chocolate cake', then that's merely de dicto. De dicto necessity is not a limit on your free will, since it derives from your choice.
If I'm following your definitions, you have argued my point and your final summation does not follow logically. Foreknowledge is a limit on free will, as a logical consequence of the situation presupposed. A logical consequence of God having definitive foreknowledge of the future is that we cannot choose other than what he foreknew-- which means we cannot choose freely.
Foreknowledge is a poor word. Strictly speaking I don't think it can apply to God, that is if what we call past, present and future are present to God now.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Does that mean it is Gods will that shit happens to us?
Exactly. Once you go down the road of placing God outside of time, you end up diminishing free will, which means you've got to place God at the center of evil, whether as an active cause or as passively permitting it to occur.
The alternative is an impotent God who is unable to do anything about evil.
That's certainly one alternative, but there are others.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Foreknowledge is a poor word. Strictly speaking I don't think it can apply to God, that is if what we call past, present and future are present to God now.
But there's no reason to assume that is the case, other than habit.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You speak as if the future, as we understand it, does not exist to God. I would argue otherwise, that it does exist. It might not appear to us as such, but that's only because we are linear.
Yes, you understand my position. The future exists for God as contingent possibilities. He knows each contingent possibility as deeply and completely as we know settled realities. But he cannot foreknow them as definitive realities if the future is truly open.
No. That's not what I meant at all.
I wasn't suggesting that you agree with me-- clearly we're on very opposite spectrums here. I just meant you accurately represented my beliefs, then I went on to explicate them further.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
This one.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That's certainly one alternative, but there are others.
Yeah. An old Gypsy woman who tries to predict the future through her crystal ball.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But there's no reason to assume that is the case, other than habit.
It's the only one that makes any sense. It's the only one where God remains almighty and all knowing.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snuffy
Apprentice
# 18404
|
Posted
We debate free will & determinism and God's omnipotence & omniscience until our heads explode with the counter arguments & contradictions.
God doesn't seem to have that problem. He grants us the will to turn our backs on Him but continually calls us to turn to Him, to seek Him. He knows 'His sheep' but still calls others to enter the fold and due the free will granted appears to have no idea who they will be but does rejoice when it happens as though it is something He wished for but is completely surprised by the event!
That sheepfold is full with those who should be there but continually expands to encompass those whose change of heart leads them to choose to enter; the one in the hundred that is rejoiced over when unexpectedly but hopefully sought out and found by the Shepherd.
While we are rebels He provides His Holy Spirit to give conviction of sin to a heart & spirit genuinely seeking and soft enough to receive it. God's Spirit, knowing exactly who will accept or reject this grace, goes on labouring both in the hope, the expectation that someone will accept it sometime but also knows when not to intrude. He quietly & patiently accepts rejection only to to gladly accept a change of heart by the creature at any moment in that creature's lifetime. Then, knowing who will accept but not whether they will accept but at the same time outside of [our] time knowing exactly who are His; that same God then offers the revelation of who Jesus is and what He has done on the Cross, sealing it with a gift of faith to the new believer.
So, two gifts available to be received at the right time to the seeker of salvation who is known from before the beginning of time to be the one who at some time in the future will at his or her choice accept the gift of life for eternal time after the death of their time.
All totally contradictory to us humans who demand 'either' 'or' to satisfy our meagre brains. (In Snuffy's case anyway: he is a bear of small brain which is now aching a bit.) But for a God who is outside time and created time, it's not so difficult - He is big enough to not have to endure 'either' 'or' but to enjoy 'both' 'and' .....
... eternally ............
--------------------
Keeping everyone up to snuff, self included, while breathing in the fumes of failure
Posts: 9 | From: Go to London but then turn left | Registered: May 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If I'm following your definitions, you have argued my point and your final summation does not follow logically. Foreknowledge is a limit on free will, as a logical consequence of the situation presupposed. A logical consequence of God having definitive foreknowledge of the future is that we cannot choose other than what he foreknew-- which means we cannot choose freely.
I'm not sure you are following my definitions. It's a logical consequence of the fact that you posted what you did that you couldn't have chosen not to post. That's a de dicto couldn't. It doesn't follow that you de re couldn't have chosen not to post.
To put it another way: a de re couldn't explains why you had to post. If there were a de re couldn't then you didn't have freedom. A de dicto couldn't doesn't explain why anything: it merely describes the situation further. A de dicto couldn't merely explains the consequences of your choice.
To say that God's foreknowledge means we can't choose otherwise is merely de dicto: that just explains what it means for us to choose. It is merely that it is one of the consequences of our free future choices that God 'foreknows' them. It doesn't say that God's foreknowledge makes us choose or forces us to choose or interferes with our freedom to choose. How would that be supposed to work?
I also don't agree that the claim that God is outside time is merely arbitary or traditional. There were good reasons for believing it then; there are good reasons for believing it now. (Some mystical experience; Einsteinian physics (contra your friend, whose argument I haven't seen), the belief that time depends on God and not the other way round...)
[ 18. May 2015, 10:23: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Does God depend on meaning, truth, beauty, love? Or do they depend on Him beyond instantiation?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If I'm following your definitions, you have argued my point and your final summation does not follow logically. Foreknowledge is a limit on free will, as a logical consequence of the situation presupposed. A logical consequence of God having definitive foreknowledge of the future is that we cannot choose other than what he foreknew-- which means we cannot choose freely.
I'm not sure you are following my definitions. It's a logical consequence of the fact that you posted what you did that you couldn't have chosen not to post. That's a de dicto couldn't. It doesn't follow that you de re couldn't have chosen not to post.
To put it another way: a de re couldn't explains why you had to post. If there were a de re couldn't then you didn't have freedom. A de dicto couldn't doesn't explain why anything: it merely describes the situation further. A de dicto couldn't merely explains the consequences of your choice.
To say that God's foreknowledge means we can't choose otherwise is merely de dicto: that just explains what it means for us to choose. It is merely that it is one of the consequences of our free future choices that God 'foreknows' them. It doesn't say that God's foreknowledge makes us choose or forces us to choose or interferes with our freedom to choose.
Again, your argument seems to be making my very point-- the fact of God's foreknowledge means that we can't choose otherwise is a natural consequence of the foreknowledge argument. Whether you want to use the language "force" or "interferes" it is the natural consequence. The fact that you suddenly switch gears in the last sentence and post a conclusion that is completely contrary to your argument up until the final sentence does not change the logical thrust of the argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If I'm following your definitions, you have argued my point and your final summation does not follow logically. Foreknowledge is a limit on free will, as a logical consequence of the situation presupposed. A logical consequence of God having definitive foreknowledge of the future is that we cannot choose other than what he foreknew-- which means we cannot choose freely.
I also don't agree that the claim that God is outside time is merely arbitary or traditional. There were good reasons for believing it then; there are good reasons for believing it now. (Some mystical experience; Einsteinian physics (contra your friend, whose argument I haven't seen), the belief that time depends on God and not the other way round...)
I haven't seen any good reasons-- here or elsewhere.
fwiw, I am not arguing that God depends on time. Simply that God exists in time as we exist in time. There are several theories within the open/process/relational field as to why that might be, including that God voluntarily chose to create this sort of universe and then dwell within it so that he could relate to finite creatures. Some process theologians might argue that God depends on time, but that would definitely not be an open argument.
Again, physics is way beyond my wheelhouse so I won't be able to make a convincing argument on that front. However, as I said, the issue of Einstein's theories has come up many times in the area of open/process/relational theology. It is not a "friend" but rather contemporary physicists working in the field who I referenced earlier, who have presented papers at academic conferences I've attended indicating that this area of Einstein's theory is currently disputed/ fallen out of favor within the field. All of which, again, not a convincing argument due to it being very much beyond my area of expertise, just an explanation why the "Einstein" argument is not a deal-breaker for me personally. ymmv.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snuffy:
We debate free will & determinism and God's omnipotence & omniscience until our heads explode with the counter arguments & contradictions.
While it may seem like a trivial argument, it has real-world consequences that for me change everything about the way I relate to God. It particularly has real-life consequences for the way we understand the purpose and meaning of prayer. It has real life consequences for the way we understand the problem of theodicy, and the ways we engage evil and suffering in the world, both human-caused and natural. For many of us, making a shift from an Augustinian/Calvinist understanding of divine nature to an open/relational paradigm has breathed life into our reading of Scripture and brought passion, immediacy, and intimacy to our experience of God in our world today.
At the same time, I would argue that, despite our default Augustinian/Calvinist paradigms that so pervade our thinking that many posters can make these "just so" arguments, I would argue that the open/relational paradigm is the way most Christians naturally relate to God. Despite our systematic theology, most of us pray, worship and experience God as if he were in time, and as if future history were impacted by those choices. And that's a problem, because when we adopt an intellectual paradigm that is contrary to our experience of God it distances us from God. We intuitively experience God one way, but we have to discount those experiences because they don't fit our paradigm. But when we adopt an intellectual paradigm that is consistent with our experience of God (much like physicists and other scientists will adapt their theories to fit better with the evidence of their exploration) we find life and joy and passion as we come to understand God on a deeper level.
Or at least that's been my experience. ymmv.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The fact that you suddenly switch gears in the last sentence and post a conclusion that is completely contrary to your argument up until the final sentence does not change the logical thrust of the argument.
If you think I'm switching gears you haven't understood my argument.
Consider the following fallacious argument:
I read your post. So you couldn't have posted anything other than what you did post. If you couldn't have posted anything other than what you did post, you don't have free will.
The argument is fallacious because it depends upon an ambiguity in 'couldn't have'. (It is de dicto in the first usage, and de re in the second usage.) My contention is that your argument about God's foreknowledge is fallacious for exactly the same reason.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
For many of us, making a shift from an Augustinian/Calvinist understanding of divine nature to an open/relational paradigm has breathed life into our reading of Scripture and brought passion, immediacy, and intimacy to our experience of God in our world today.
Or at least that's been my experience. ymmv.
Well indeed. My experience is just the opposite.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
