THE WORD OF GOD

Originally posted by Darfius
Why do you say "must" rather than will? You chose the word must to insinuate that you were forced, when you really weren't.

In this debate, the skeptic constantly attempts to place focus on God's foreknowledge, rather than personal responsibility. No one is forcing you to do what you will do. His knowledge is not an entity that restricts your opt ...[text shortened]... It is a result of what you will do that He can access now because He is not restricted by time.

(a) I wasn’t insinuating anything.

(b) I hold that I am totally responsible for all my decisions/actions.

(c) I did miss a bit of the “time/out-of-time” discussion before I posted.

So, you’re understanding is that, from God’s perspective, God knows that I am typing these words right now, but did not know beforehand (since “beforehand” is not applicable to God?), so that, in fact, I could’ve chosen to write different words? Is that it?

EDIT: Mis-spelling edit.

Originally posted by vistesd
Is there a confusion here (this is addressed to both of you) between "will" and "free will?" I confess, if an omniscient being knows that I am going to commit act X, then even though act X results from my decisions ("will" ), there is really no way I could not have done X. (Presumably, an omniscient being also knows the chain of causal ...[text shortened]... ou and bbarr have a thorough discussion on this some months past? I wish I could remember it...

No confusion here.

I'm happy to distinguish between "will," "free will" and "illusory free will."

Darfius is proposing that we have illusory free will, although he insists on calling it free will.

I don't recall having any sort of debate with bbarr on this matter. I'm fairly sure he and I would have no disagreement on this matter. I suspect that he would agree that only things that have been determined can be known, and that beings with free will do the determining. Hence, omniscience is not compatible with free will.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No confusion here.

I'm happy to distinguish between "will," "free will" and "illusory free will."

Darfius is proposing that we have illusory free will, although he insists on calling it free will.

I don't recall having any sort of debate with bbarr on this matter. I'm fairly sure he and I would have no disagreement on this matt ...[text shortened]... beings with free will do the determining. Hence, omniscience is not compatible with free will.

Yeah, I didn't recall the bbarr discussion as a debate--more a "fleshing out." Some example about knowing who will get the drinks at the bar or something, (Must've been someone else.)

Originally posted by vistesd
(a) I wasn’t insinuating anything.

(b) I hold that I am totally responsible for all my decisions/actions.

(c) I did miss a bit of the “time/out-of-time” discussion before I posted.

So, you’re understanding is that, from God’s perspective, God knows that I am typing these words right now, but did not know beforehand (since “beforehand” is not appl ...[text shortened]... , in fact, I could’ve chosen to write different words? Is that it?

EDIT: Mis-spelling edit.

God knows all the potential outcomes, but does not know what you will choose until you choose it. But since He is not restricted by time, the moment He "found out" is the same moment as now, or now, or now. All the same "moments" to Him. So He has really always known.

Originally posted by Darfius
God knows all the potential outcomes, but does not know what you will choose until you choose it. But since He is not restricted by time, the moment He "found out" is the same moment as now, or now, or now. All the same "moments" to Him. So He has really always known.

This is an incoherent position. Additionally, you are slow and dense.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This is an incoherent position. Additionally, you are slow and dense.

Presumably it is incoherent because you have no conception of time. May I suggest "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking.

Additionally, calling me stupid does not refute what I've said. In fact, it's pure ad hominem.

Originally posted by Darfius
Presumably it is incoherent because you have no conception of time. May I suggest "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking.

Additionally, calling me stupid does not refute what I've said. In fact, it's pure ad hominem.

I've read that work and many others that deal with the universe's temporal aspect. I am a mathematician by education and trade, and my skills render me quite qualified to intelligibily discuss the concepts of time, dimensions and extra-universal beings.

Your position refutes itself. My commentary is directed at why you would adhere to a self-refuting position in the first place.

Originally posted by Darfius
God knows all the potential outcomes, but does not know what you will choose until you choose it. But since He is not restricted by time, the moment He "found out" is the same moment as now, or now, or now. All the same "moments" to Him. So He has really always known.

What do you mean that God doesn't know the choices you will make?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No confusion here.

I'm happy to distinguish between "will," "free will" and "illusory free will."

Darfius is proposing that we have illusory free will, although he insists on calling it free will.

I don't recall having any sort of debate with bbarr on this matter. I'm fairly sure he and I would have no disagreement on this matt ...[text shortened]... beings with free will do the determining. Hence, omniscience is not compatible with free will.

Doesn't Darfius' position logically entail that an omniscient God who exists "outside of time" (whatever that is) also cannot have free will?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This is an incoherent position. .

Could you explain why it is an incoherent position ?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This is an incoherent position. Additionally, you are slow and dense.

Why is it incoherent? It seems that the term “omniscience” has been limited (from what might be a usual understanding) to one of “omniscience of potential,” rather than omniscience of actuality, until such actuality is manifest.

Just so you know where I’m coming from, I don’t believe that there is an “extra-natural” God who is omniscient in any sense. That is my decision. But I do want to understand what a claim of omniscience necessarily entails. Now, it seems to me that (1) omniscience of what is (at present) happening, (2) omniscience of what could happen, and (3) omniscience of what will happen are three different things. It seems to me that Darfius is claiming (1) and (2), but not (3).

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Could you explain why it is an incoherent position ?

Because it formally asserts (A and Not-A) among its claims.

In particular, it asserts that God doesn't know things until they happen, and that God's knowledge is the same at all moments since all moments are the same.

Alternatively, it asserts that "He has really always known" and that God doesn't know things until they happen.

Alternatively, it asserts that God both does and does not experience time.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I've read that work and many others that deal with the universe's temporal aspect. I am a mathematician by education and trade, and my skills render me quite qualified to intelligibily discuss the concepts of time, dimensions and extra-universal beings.

Your position refutes itself. My commentary is directed at why you would adhere to a self-refuting position in the first place.

DoctorS: "Your position refutes itself."

I have to remember this one, Dear Doctor ..... 😉

Originally posted by no1marauder
Doesn't Darfius' position logically entail that an omniscient God who exists "outside of time" (whatever that is) also cannot have free will?

Now that is an interesting thought!

Originally posted by vistesd
Why is it incoherent? It seems that the term “omniscience” has been limited (from what might be a usual understanding) to one of “omniscience of potential,” rather than omniscience of actuality, until such actuality is manifest.

Just so you know where I’m coming from, I don’t believe that there is an “extra-natural” God who is omniscient in any sense. ...[text shortened]... n are three different things. It seems to me that Darfius is claiming (1) and (2), but not (3).

Then we are all omniscient if (3) isn't required.

For example, I am going to roll a die. I know the possible outcomes. Do I have omniscience with regard to the die's roll? If I do, then omniscience is a trivial property.