90 replies to this topic

[Hannibal]

Salam,

See the following post on how divine foreknowledge does not necessitate fatalism:

http://atheismproble...-free-will.html

Edited by Hannibal, 01 July 2012 - 07:32 PM.

[Belial]

Salam,

See the following post on how divine foreknowledge does not necessitate fatalism:

http://atheismproble...-free-will.html

If you look at his analogy,

"Think of it this way, if out of the corner you see someone's shadow approaching, you can conclude that someone going to come out of a corner. However, your foreknowledge of this does not mean that your knowledge caused the guy to come out of a corner. Similarly, although God knows what you will do in advance, his knowledge does not cause whatever action you may take in your life. Instead, is it your actions which determine God's knowledge of you even if that knowledge has existed eternally (that is, God's foreknowledge is determined by whatever actions you may take in the future)."

This analogy doesnt work because you dont actually have foreknowledge of someone walking out from behind the corner. They could stop and turn around before coming out. You only have knowledge of the appearance of the shadow.

One could ask, how would God know of an action that we will make, before we even exist to make that decision?

And the answer will remain, a big question mark. And with that big question mark, people should be more skeptical about what they are believing in.

And yes, we could just assume that God has this knowledge of anything and everything at any point in time in any dimension fathomable. But is there any practical supporting applicable evidence for this?

No. I could say that a pink magical elephant is flying around in space with this same knowledge of our future actions. But do I actually have evidence to demonstrate it? No. So people should be skeptical over my magical elephant claims. Just as we should all be skeptical over this claim of creation and free will.

To seperate belief, from knowledge. To seperate objects contained and created within the mind, from objects that exist beyond our mind.

Is there anyone who thinks we shouldnt be skeptical of such a claim?

Edited by Belial, 01 July 2012 - 08:34 PM.

[Ugly Jinn]

if we were truly to accept that we have no free will and that all of our actions are predetermined, then why should people be punished in the Afterlife for actions/sins/crimes they ultimately did not?

'Predetermined' gives the connotation that it was already "decided beforehand" which totally differs from "knowing beforehand".

The fundamental issue comes down to the question, "Is my will really free if it's not free from anyone knowing?"

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 01 July 2012 - 10:34 PM.

[Quisant]

Salam,

See the following post on how divine foreknowledge does not necessitate fatalism:

http://atheismproble...-free-will.html

The blogger (is that your blog?) has misunderstood the argument.

Nobody is saying that knowledge of the action causes the action.

But if perfect knowledge of what will happen exists before the event, then there is only one set of possible outcomes regardless of how much participants feel like they're choosing.

If an omniscient God knows that something is true, then it is necessarily true.
If something is necessarily true, then it can't be otherwise.

If pre-knowledge exists then there is only one possible future path. Free will an illusion.

wslm.
*

Edited by Quisant, 02 July 2012 - 07:45 AM.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

Still unsure why people can't, or won't, grasp the concept "The-One knows what you will choose". What is 'pre-determined' is by your own making. Your will is free to choose what has been determined.

zis iz very zimple to underztand.

[Shia_Debater]

[These are my own personal views]

The question here boils down to, if God did not have knowledge of every single action that is going to take place, would we still end up making those same decisions? The answer is yes

Because God knowing before hand or not does not affect our action so it doesn't make a difference on our actions whether he knew before hand or not.

The reason why he knows what we will choose before hand, is because we've chosen to do that in the present

Edited by Shia_Debater, 02 July 2012 - 03:47 PM.

[Ugly Jinn]

The question here boils down to, if God did not have knowledge of every single action that is going to take place, would we still end up making those same decisions? The answer is yes

Yes and no. There is an issue with divine intervention. Is free will really 'free' if God can intervene? And the concept of 'divine intervention' exists in practically every religion, there is no deistic influenced religion (not that I know of).

My original question was, ""Is my will really free if it's not free from anyone knowing?"

So I'll add another component to my question above, "Is my will really free if it's not free from divine intervention?"

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 02 July 2012 - 05:21 PM.

[Shia_Debater]

Yes and no. There is an issue with divine intervention. Is free will really 'free' if God can intervene? And the concept of 'divine intervention' exists in practically every religion, there is no deistic influenced religion (not that I know of).

My original question was, ""Is my will really free if it's not free from anyone knowing?"

So I'll add another component to my question above, "Is my will really free if it's not free from divine intervention?"

Can you give me an example please - just so I know that I know what you mean

[by the way I'm not here for a debate with anyone, I just gave my belief and would like you to elaborate on your belief so I can understand what you mean]

[Belial]

Still unsure why people can't, or won't, grasp the concept "The-One knows what you will choose". What is 'pre-determined' is by your own making. Your will is free to choose what has been determined.

zis iz very zimple to underztand.

Your will is free to choose what has been determined...as opposed to not free to choose what has not been determined?

The idea that that one knows what you will choose sounds like a simple concept. But the idea that something knows what you will choose, before you even choose it, doesnt really make any sense. You probably didnt know that i would choose to respond to you. How could you possibly know? How could anything or anyone possibly know?

So, you are making it sound like its a simple idea. But in reality, nobody here understands it at all. Its definitely not simple, thats for sure, or people wouldnt be debating it for the past couple thousand years.

And yes, we can assume things. But nobody on earth has knowledge of how such things work or could be possible. Nobody really even knows if it is true to begin with, that this being has infinite knowledge of events that havent occured.

The idea of a magical space elephant sounds simple...as an imaginative concept. But when you really consider how such a thing could possibly exist, the question becomes...absurdly complex.

Edited by Belial, 02 July 2012 - 07:03 PM.

[Ugly Jinn]

Can you give me an example please - just so I know that I know what you mean

It just means that according to Islam (and other religions) God can interfere with your free will. So, it comes back to the fundamental question that is our will truly free?

[Belial]

Belial

I don't know - people have been arguing about it for long
Therefore,
nobody knows.

I hope this is not how scientific argument proceeds. For science's sake, as well as the reputation of accomplished scientists.

Well, if people keep arguing about it, it demonstrates that we do not have the knowledge to reach an objective conclusion in our discussions. Therefore, its highly probable that nobody knows (at least nobody having the discussion). And no, this isnt scientific, but what is scientific is recognition of a lack of evidence for the religious side of the debate.

And that, we should both be able to agree on. And with that, it is even more probable that nobody knows.

And its nothing to be ashamed of. It is ok to not know things. Its just a matter of being honest about it.

Edited by Belial, 03 July 2012 - 05:24 PM.

[eThErEaL]

Our will is based on who we are--our identity. And our identities, just like everything else, are identical to God through His eternal knowledge of them (because His knowledge and His Being are not separable). This implies that we are at once predetermined and free; predetermined inasmuch as we are "ultimately" nothing but aspects or modes of God's Being, free inasmuch as we are still responsible for how we develop our identities since 1) from our point of view, our identities are not seen as static objects, but are constantly in flux moment to moment, and 2) we are and can be none other than ourselves. So inasmuch as God per se is concerned everything is nothing but aspects or modes of His Being and therefore predetermined. Inasmuch as man himself is concerned, he is free. Inasmuch as God and man are seen in relation to each other there is at once freewill and predestination.

Edited by eThErEaL, 03 July 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[Dante Alighieri]

The problem of theological fatalism is a problem since God's act of creation essentially "predetermines" one's actions, stripping one of free will if you hold to a libertarian theory of free will. This remains a problem even if you grant counterfactuals of freedom, which have led some theists like William Hasker and Robert Adams to completely abandon the idea of such things and adopt the radical doctrine of open theism: God does not know the future. However, God is still said to be "omniscient" since, under presentism, the future does not exist. So, insofar as you are committed to libertarian free will, it is a problem. However, the problem is more or less "dissolved" under compatibilist doctrines of free will. However, the more pressing problem is to seek an adequate answer to Galen Strawon's basic argument, which seeks to establish that the entire notion of free will and volition is ultimately incoherent. See "Luck Swallows Everything."

Edited by Dante Alighieri, 03 July 2012 - 07:39 PM.

[Ruq]

^ Its a problem if you believe everything exists in linear time. But for consciousness not attached to matter, time can be not linear. If everything is happening all at once, then everything can be 'known'.

Right?

[Quisant]

^ Its a problem if you believe everything exists in linear time. But for consciousness not attached to matter, time can be not linear. If everything is happening all at once, then everything can be 'known'.

Right?

Hi Ruqaya's Amal,

Time is a measure of change.
Consciousness is a process, not an object.
Processes take time.

Time necessitates materiality, so far as I've read, because time itself is a dimension of the psychical universe

If you believe that events occur one after the other then Time is linear.

wslm.
*

[Ruq]

Hi there,

Well, its not something i know very much about, just heard people talk about. How do you mean 'consciousness is a process'?
If 'time necessitates materiality', doesnt that mean time doesnt exist for anything attached to matter? at least in the linear sense we're used to percieving it?

[Belial]

Belial



Why should we agree? You haven't argued the point. There is no premise upon which we agree which entails this conclusion. So why should you expect agreement?

Well, if I asked what objective scientific evidence you have for a theistic God. What could you provide? I am currently under the impression that nothing could be provided by you.

And with that, I would assume you would agree that there is "a lack of objective evidence for the religious side of the debate". If you have some form of evidence, that meets these standards, that you could show me. Then you would demonstrate otherwise.

And you mentioned the premise upon which we agree. Well, science has its methodology and baseline premises. If you do not agree with these, then the evidence you would provide in a varying way, wouldnt be scientific.


"And that, we should both be able to agree on."

Edited by Belial, 04 July 2012 - 08:50 PM.

[Belial]

Belial


If I asked you for scientific evidence that it's impossible for a triangle's inner angles to add up to 180 degrees, what could you provide?

Nothing could be provided by you.

-----

Thus, in a conceptual question no scientific evidence is required. This is a question on whether the concept of omniscience excludes the concept of free-will. No scientific evidence is required.

I would not argue that it were impossible to begin with. However, it is actually impossible for certain triangles with 3 dimensions.

And, required or not, then we could agree that no scientific evidence exists.

Beyond that, having conceptual arguments based on physical reality, should help an argument. Which is why I would consider it valuable. If we had something objective to work with, there wouldnt even be an argument, it would just be a mutual agreement.

Edited by Belial, 04 July 2012 - 09:24 PM.

[Belial]

Belial

[b]

It makes no sense to even talk of there being or not being scientific evidence. It's not that Pythagoras had no scientific evidence for his theorem. It was that his theorem was not one which needed scientific evidence.

A concept is not divorced from reality. However, it is the content of the concept that is of significance, not the actual real counterpart (if there is any).

When people talk about Omniscience and Free Will, they talk of concepts - obviously they intend them to have meaning. The question is, what meaning do these concepts contain? Do they exclude one another?

Yes, his concept behind reality is important, but it couldnt exist without being grounded in reality. Its like the number 4. The number is distinguishable from reality, but 4 has no real meaning if you have no physical objective things to work with.

In regards to omniscience and free will, i wouldnt ask for scientific evidence for these in particular (though now that you mention it, scientific evidence, could be provided for these, hypothetically). However, there are plenty of relative concepts within the entire debate that could, in theory, use scientific support. Though that doesnt exist.

If Jesus for example, descended from heaven, and started demonstrating his omniscience, it would be a fairly easy argument to make on behalf of the religious that this God is omniscient.

How that could be, would be another difficult matter. But there is really nothing that couldnt hypothetically be supported through science. As long as you can find some sort of relation to physical reality, you can do it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know what? Ill stand down on the triangle statement. Its a mathematical proof. However, even mathematical proofs wouldnt be valuable if not for physical application. If not for the real world and scientific application, they would be nothing more than ideas in our imagination.

And you cannot base your faith and life around ideas, purely in your imagination. Well, you could, but that wouldnt make it real, nor would it make it exist.

So, and this relates to the other topic as well. If the faithful cannot demonstrate their proofs, then their faith, will only be valuable to them. It wouldnt necessarily be reality either.

Edited by Belial, 04 July 2012 - 09:59 PM.

[Belial]

Ill just add this as a final blurb for now. Ideas have to be grounded in reality in some way shape or form. There will always be a way to apply science to them, hypothetically. No matter what it is.

If the idea has 0 relation to reality and cannot be grounded in reality in any way shape or form...it may as well not exist. So even things like free will or omniscience, can be scientifically supported. Its just a matter of if they are or are not.

Something like a triangle having 3 angles that = 180 degrees may be able to be proven without any physically real object. You can prove it in your imagination. In your mind. But proofs of the mind arent necisserily proofs in reality. It doesnt matter if I can imagine an elephant with wings and I can prove its existance based on my fathomed ideas. What matters is what we can all relate to. That is physical reality. And that is why pathagoreans theorem is special, its becuase its grounded in reality. Unlike concepts we often discuss in these forums.

Edited by Belial, 04 July 2012 - 10:08 PM.

[Quisant]

Hi there,

Well, its not something i know very much about, just heard people talk about. How do you mean 'consciousness is a process'?
If 'time necessitates materiality', doesnt that mean time doesnt exist for anything attached to matter? at least in the linear sense we're used to percieving it?

Sorry for the late reply, I only spend a little time on the internet.

I often fail miserably at explaining what I mean because I cannot easily identify with the other person's knowledge.
(Also talking to paws is complicated. and my English could be better)

Time necessitates materiality in the sense that a mental process (consciousness) needs a physical brain (matter) in order to occur.

Time doesn't occur unless something changes. Conversely, Change can't occur without Time passing.
They are 2 sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other.

I perceive Time, If Time only exists for me then Time still exists.

Events occur one after the other therefore Time is Linear.

Wslm.
*