knowing proves nothing at all....

Originally posted by Starrman
Bull. God putting his power on hold to allow apologists to confirm their positions is a load of baloney. God's either omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or he's not. If he is, you're predetermined.

Knowing Alexander's future proves his choices were predetermined or his future could not be known. If I know his future I know what the processes ...[text shortened]... or the premises, being true, would invalidate it and you get a nonsense argument again.

If I know his future I know what the processes that brought him from point A to point B are, if those choices are still up for grabs, the future is not known. Why can't you see this? ---starrman----

But you DO know his future and the choices that lead him there are not up for grabs now . BUT**** the choices were up for grabs at that time. The only thing needed for free will to occur is the choice being up for grabs AT THAT POINT IN TIME. The fact that his future is now known to you and those choices are no longer (for you) "up for grabs" doesn't matter because at the time when it did matter they were.

Originally posted by Starrman
Bull. God putting his power on hold to allow apologists to confirm their positions is a load of baloney. God's either omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or he's not. If he is, you're predetermined.

Knowing Alexander's future proves his choices were predetermined or his future could not be known. If I know his future I know what the processes ...[text shortened]... or the premises, being true, would invalidate it and you get a nonsense argument again.

God's either omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or he's not. ---starrman---

Why do you resort to such rigid all of nothing thinking? It's obvious that omnipotence (for example) is more complicated than this. Are you saying that God is not powerful enough to put his power on hold ? If he can't then he's not very omnipotent is he? Even a child can make choices about whether to exercise his power over a situation or not , I'm sure God could manage it if he put his mind to it LOL!!!.

Originally posted by Starrman
Bull. God putting his power on hold to allow apologists to confirm their positions is a load of baloney. God's either omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or he's not. If he is, you're predetermined.

Knowing Alexander's future proves his choices were predetermined or his future could not be known. If I know his future I know what the processes ...[text shortened]... or the premises, being true, would invalidate it and you get a nonsense argument again.

Either:

I know what will happen before it happens
What I know happens
_______________________________
What happens is predetermined.

Or:

I know what will happen before it happens
What I know doesn't happen
______________________________
What happens is predetermined.

-----------starrman----------

I have consistently said that God doesn't foresee anything NOR does he know what "will" happen. All he knows is what you ARE doing in your future because he's there watching you do it.

Notice how what you are saying here applies only to a being on your timeline in your "now" . You have unconsciously placed God on your imaginary timeline but you have not placed God in eternity where theists say he is. I am not interested in what YOU might know about the future happenings. Do you not see this?

NB- God does not look along our timeline "into" the future.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is where you are wrong. See my analogy below as posed in the time travel thread. The fact that we know history, sets it in context and removes all 'potentiality'. It does not rule out other contexts, but within this context it does enable us to draw conclusions.

My point is that God being eternal and outside time knows our timelines. To him our li ...[text shortened]... therefore wrong - or your talk of free will and potential futures is incoherent.

I think your computer analogy fails to convey the point because the computer is but one selector. What knighty is trying to say is:

God knows the end from before the beginning.
For God, the future is just as perspicuous as the past.
God's knowledge of the past, present and the future is perfect (or, whole).
Although that time described by us as future is open to myriad possibilities, it is just certain as the past to God.
In the realm of 'what-ifs' and speculation, God is able to extrapolate all eventualities to their certain ends. For instance, if the three people shooting at JFK had all missed instead of hit their intended target, God knows what would have transpired from that point to the end of time.

I think your computer analogy fails in that it only considers one decision. If your analogy contained, say, a hundred computers all running the same program, God's knowledge would be the super computer that accurately calculates the randomly-generated number from each of the hundred, given their possible choices.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But how does this model relate to time and the universe? This may work as a mathematical model that is strictly deterministic but unless you can prove that the universe is strictly deterministic then your model may or may not apply. It's like I said before about having a preassumed position. "The universe works deterministically because I think it doe ...[text shortened]... an you prove that your X= 2+y model is the correct model for the universe and men's choices?

My model is not about determinism. My model is about context. In fact determinism is a conclusion of my model not an assumption.
Please look at my x=2+y model again. If you cannot show me where the determinism is, then answer the question.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I think your computer analogy fails to convey the point because the computer is but one selector. What knighty is trying to say is:

No, knighty has a different model from yours.
You are claiming:
God knows all possible futures.
Knighty is claiming:
God knows the one and only unique future.

So, in your model, God knows all possible futures. But what use is that, if he does not know which future will come to pass? In fact your model essentially shows Gods ignorance.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Either:

I know what will happen before it happens
What I know happens
_______________________________
What happens is predetermined.

Or:

I know what will happen before it happens
What I know doesn't happen
______________________________
What happens is predetermined.

-----------starrman----------

I have consistently said ...[text shortened]... Do you not see this?

NB- God does not look along our timeline "into" the future.

You're talking utter gobbledygook. Your argument relies on a notion of time you cannot possibly define or implement and the generalisation of specific definitions. To use bbarr's phrase, it's word salad.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If I know his future I know what the processes that brought him from point A to point B are, if those choices are still up for grabs, the future is not known. Why can't you see this? ---starrman----

But you DO know his future and the choices that lead him there are not up for grabs now . BUT**** the choices were up for grabs at that time. The only t ...[text shortened]... er (for you) "up for grabs" doesn't matter because at the time when it did matter they were.

You're highly confused, either the future (lets call it T2) is known at T1 or it isn't. If it is, upon reaching T2 the exact prediction made at T1 will be in existence. If it isn't then the prediction made at T1 to knowing the future was false. So if at T1 you have choices the you cannot predict T2. If at T1 you are predetermined in your choices then T2 is predictible.

How can you possibly know T2 if there are possible variables at T1?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, knighty has a different model from yours.
You are claiming:
God knows all possible futures.
Knighty is claiming:
God knows the one and only unique future.

So, in your model, God knows all possible futures. But what use is that, if he does not know which future will come to pass? In fact your model essentially shows Gods ignorance.

I must be reading knighty incorrectly then. I apologize for the unwarranted insertion on his behalf.

However, according to the Bible, as I stated in my post, the past is just as perspicuous to God as is the future. I was not implying that God knows only all futures without knowing the actual future. Just as the past had multiple possibilities prior to actual events, God knows any and all items within what is known as time, both possible and actual.

Originally posted by Starrman
You're highly confused, either the future (lets call it T2) is known at T1 or it isn't. If it is, upon reaching T2 the exact prediction made at T1 will be in existence. If it isn't then the prediction made at T1 to knowing the future was false. So if at T1 you have choices the you cannot predict T2. If at T1 you are predetermined in your choices then T2 is predictible.

How can you possibly know T2 if there are possible variables at T1?

This makes perfect sense if time is all that there is. What the idea of an eternal God proposes is that both T1 and T2 are equally known by E (eternity). E is not in T so E knows T1 and T2 simultaneously (so to speak). This means that no "prediction" is neccessary to know T2 because T2 has already happened. T2 is not known at T1 it is known at E. You think I am saying something I am not.

Your model is perfectly logical if one excludes the possibility of an eternal dimension beyond time itself. However , since the idea of God tends to (by most accounts) include him as eternal and not time limited then your model breaks down. The argument is IF God exists the how can he know my future if I have free will?

Part of the answer to this is to hypothetically accept an eternal dimension to God . If you exclude this from the start and pretend that God is looking along a timeline just like you are then you have scuppered the hypothesis from the start.

You might as well say that God is not eternal and be done with it. But don't pretend to yourself you have proved anything.

Originally posted by Starrman
You're talking utter gobbledygook. Your argument relies on a notion of time you cannot possibly define or implement and the generalisation of specific definitions. To use bbarr's phrase, it's word salad.

You're talking utter gobbledygook. Your argument relies on a notion of time you cannot possibly define or implement and the generalisation of specific definitions. To use bbarr's phrase, it's word salad. ----starrman---

It doesn't totally rely on a notion of time. It does rely on a notion of eternity , which you seem to exclude. If you think that eternity is a silly idea then just say so , but this would not be a proof that an eternal God could not see time in this way.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My model is not about determinism. My model is about context. In fact determinism is a conclusion of my model not an assumption.
Please look at my x=2+y model again. If you cannot show me where the determinism is, then answer the question.

What context? You have not said how your model relates to time and the universe. What analogy are you making here? Is X T1 and Y T3?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, knighty has a different model from yours.
You are claiming:
God knows all possible futures.
Knighty is claiming:
God knows the one and only unique future.

So, in your model, God knows all possible futures. But what use is that, if he does not know which future will come to pass? In fact your model essentially shows Gods ignorance.

Can I clarify? I don't think God knows "the future" because for God it's not the future anyway. He knows YOUR future not THE future. The reason is that the future and past is relative in time. Hitler's future is YOUR past and YOUR future is someone else's past.

You know Hitler's future but you don't know "THE " future. It all depends upon where you are in time. Once you realise that the "NOW" you are living in is not neccessarily a universal constant NOW but just happens to be your NOW you can start to imagine how God can know your future. He does not know your future as "the" future , for him it's just another of a series of nows.


In short this thing you call "the future" is actually only YOUR future in this model. Look at the universe . The hubble telescope probes deep space and literally looks into the past . We can see the past laid out "behind" us. So what does the idea of "NOW" mean in the universe. The light leaves the sun and 8 minutes later reaches us . Is there some great Newtonian clock that says that the NOW is on the sun , or is it on the earth? Two clocks get sent round the earth at high speed and one comes back slower than the other. Which one is right? Are they both now?

For God your future is his Now , but for you it is "the" future. For him it is not. Why is it so hard for you to think of time being viewed from different perspectives and angles?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why is it so hard for you to think of time being viewed from different perspectives and angles?

I don't find it hard at all. I do however find it hard to figure out what point you are trying to make.
I am quite comfortable with thinking about Gods perspective as being similar to our own observation of Hitler. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, as long as we are Hitlers only future, my conclusions apply.

Originally posted by knightmeister
What context? You have not said how your model relates to time and the universe. What analogy are you making here? Is X T1 and Y T3?

x and y are not times.
Read my original computer example again, and tell me which pieces you don't understand.
The x=2+y model is a specific example of my model to help you understand it:
a) a computer is programmed with the program x=2+y.
b) the program is run with input y=3.
c) we, as eternal beings as far as the computer and program are concerned can see that observing the program in isolation, there are multiple 'potential' values of x.
d) we can also see that since the program is run, with y=3, there is only one resulting value of x, ie x=5.
e) we realize that in the context in which the program is run with y=3, it is incoherent to talk about 'potential' values of x.

Do you understand my argument so far?