|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 07/10/2011 : 10:34:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
We were talking about whether we have free will or not, so the question of who or what controls are actions is exactly the issue at hand. If God doesn't control us, yet still knows everything we're going to do, then the control must be with us. |
But that's irrelevant to the logical contradiction that still exists.| There are no other players in this except for us and God, are there? At least none who it could be argued "control" what we do. |
That isn't something that's been established at all.| Your "contradiction" was that if God knows what we're going to do, then what we're going to do must be decided for us, meaning we don't have free will. Right? But if God isn't the one controlling what we do, and we aren't in control of what we do, then who or what is? Who writes the script? |
Who writes the script is irrelevant when the answer to the question is that we are following a script. Finding the author is a reasonable next step, but it doesn't matter to the discovery that a script exists.| Personally, I'd say that we will do what we will do, and God just knows what "what we will do" will be. But the control still lies with us. |
If we cannot do other than what god has seen us do, then we're not in control.| Omniscience doesn't imply predetermination, though. |
How could it not?| Not unless knowing equals controlling, which it doesn't. |
You've left the realm of logic again, and are looking for a mechanism. The mechanism is irrelevant to the logical contradiction.| Omniscience is only about knowledge, nothing more. |
And knowing that you'll get a glass of water means that you can't not get a glass of water, because if you could, then god's knowledge was wrong. This isn't that difficult, but you keep on repeating "knowing isn't controlling" like it's a magical incantation that will somehow grant you free will. It won't. Not in the face of the logical contradiction.| Yes, he would be part of linear time. But his omniscience only means that he knows what he is going to do, not that he doesn't control what he is going to do. |
If he could control his actions, then he should be able to do something that he hasn't seen himself do. Otherwise, he's just following the script in his head.| His knowing and deciding could still be one and the same, as it is with God. If he foresees every move he is going to make, it just means that he pre-decides every move he is going to make. |
No, he knows everything. The things he knows don't change over time. There's no time for him to have made any decisions, ever. He just knows what he will do throughout his entire life, the moment he's born (say).| Well, there's the empty space beyond the expanding universe. If there's nothing moving in that area (including light), then I'd say it's not subject to linear time, at least currently. |
There's no evidence that there is any space outside of our spacetime.| But I'm not sure how that helps us. |
If you could have come up with an example of something that we could agree exists but is not subject to linear time, then I would have been more open to the idea of god not being subject to linear time. You couldn't, though, so I think the idea of god existing outside of time is just more apologetics, and not a substantive argument. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2011 : 04:25:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by KingDavid8
| Your "contradiction" was that if God knows what we're going to do, then what we're going to do must be decided for us, meaning we don't have free will. Right? But if God isn't the one controlling what we do, and we aren't in control of what we do, then who or what is? Who writes the script? |
Who writes the script is irrelevant when the answer to the question is that we are following a script. Finding the author is a reasonable next step, but it doesn't matter to the discovery that a script exists. |
What I'm saying is that the script is written as the events happen. When I've chosen "A" over "B", the choice of "A" is written into the script. But if God is all-knowing, then that means that He knows what will be written into the script.
| Personally, I'd say that we will do what we will do, and God just knows what "what we will do" will be. But the control still lies with us. |
If we cannot do other than what god has seen us do, then we're not in control. |
Sure we are. We will do what we will do, and God just sees "what we will do." All that's required is for us to do something, no matter how makes the decision to do it.
| Omniscience is only about knowledge, nothing more. |
And knowing that you'll get a glass of water means that you can't not get a glass of water, because if you could, then god's knowledge was wrong. |
No, I could not get the class of water. I just won't. I can choose to get the glass of water or not, but, eventually, one of the choices must be made. God just knows what that choice will end up being.
| This isn't that difficult, but you keep on repeating "knowing isn't controlling" like it's a magical incantation that will somehow grant you free will. It won't. Not in the face of the logical contradiction. |
There is no logical contradiction if knowing doesn't equal controlling, which it doesn't.
| His knowing and deciding could still be one and the same, as it is with God. If he foresees every move he is going to make, it just means that he pre-decides every move he is going to make. |
No, he knows everything. The things he knows don't change over time. There's no time for him to have made any decisions, ever. |
If there is time for him to foresee what he will do, then there is time for him to decide what he will do.
| He just knows what he will do throughout his entire life, the moment he's born (say). |
Then he would also decide every action he will take the moment that he's born.
| Well, there's the empty space beyond the expanding universe. If there's nothing moving in that area (including light), then I'd say it's not subject to linear time, at least currently. |
There's no evidence that there is any space outside of our spacetime. |
I believe there is, and was using that as an example. If you think that there isn't, then this would be a bad example for you.
[quote[| But I'm not sure how that helps us. |
If you could have come up with an example of something that we could agree exists but is not subject to linear time, then I would have been more open to the idea of god not being subject to linear time.[/quote]
Fair enough. But I'm sure that you could imagine the idea of a universe in which nothing is expanding or moving, with no physical life in it. Such a universe would not be subject to linear time.
With that, I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I think we're mostly going in circles at this point, and I'm heading off on vacation soon. It's been great talking to all of you, and I will see you all later in another thread, I'm sure. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Mythicist position
