22 Feb 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloThis is not off topic and a very valid question that I sadly fear most Christians or god believing theists can honestly answer. My answer is limited and somewhat defeatist:
By the way (maybe off-topic), one of your assumptions is "that God created everything". So God created himself too? That also seems weird.
I believe God has always existed (I agree, it does seem weird)
I believe this because thus far my experiences in this life have re-affirmed my beliefs and because it seems to be the most logical choice.
If you would like to talk about this one with me, I would gladly discuss it over private messages (more time to think over answers, be more respectful, avoid senseless straw-man arguments by people who agree with me or you). Not that I would try to convince you (clearly you have well thoughtout your system of beliefs), but rather to adequetly explain what I think so that you can see me as a belief challenging individual rather than a brain-washed "the bible is true because it says it's true" christian....cause I really really really hate those guys
22 Feb 09
you haven't responded yet (not that you are by any means required to), so I am going to call it a night (it's 1230am where I am) and will check up on this thread in the morning. Hopefully it hasn't been over run by horrifically biased "debaters" trusting there opinions as fact (I do my best to state my assumptions and when I call on them)
22 Feb 09
4 edits
Originally posted by c guy1I see. I think we radically differ in how we view 'time'. You seem to think there is this thing 'time' that exists and, for instance, we measure or keep track of this thing through some standardized events. I, on the other hand, would say that I have a reductionist (or relationist) view with respect to time. I do not think there is at bottom any such thing as 'time' itself per se, and I think all talk of time can be reduced to talk of relations between events/changes. There is a page here that gives some background on "reductionism vs. Platonism" with respect to time, and I think we may be on two opposing sides:
alright, now that I know we are not living off of the same assumptions then I will gladly change my methodology.
What I meant by God created time is this:
Time exists. The way we measure it (relative to yesterday or a year ago) can be different but it does exist.
Furthermore, it can't be infinite. If it was then eventually one of two things would hap f the system. However, he can adjust it, radically alter it, or even destroy it at his whim
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/
The concept of all-powerful means that nothing is impossible.
Surely God is still bound by logical possibility. I mean, He does not have the power to build a square circle, does He? Similarly, under my relationist view of time, I think it is logically contradictory to say that God can enter into and out of time. If it is a logically impossible state of affairs, then not even an omnipotent being has the ability to bring about the state of affairs.
Under your view of time, however, I would say that it is not contradictory to say God can enter into and out of time.
22 Feb 09
3 edits
Originally posted by c guy1So, if God has always existed (and represents an instance of something that exists but was not created), then your earlier assumption that God created everything is false, correct?
This is not off topic and a very valid question that I sadly fear most Christians or god believing theists can honestly answer. My answer is limited and somewhat defeatist:
I believe God has always existed (I agree, it does seem weird)
I believe this because thus far my experiences in this life have re-affirmed my beliefs and because it seems to be the m is true because it says it's true" christian....cause I really really really hate those guys
Anyway, yes, if you would like to discuss this topic more over private messages, that would be cool with me, thanks.
22 Feb 09
Originally posted by vistesdIf God’s perspective can shift at all to any point prior to that (God’s “now” is relative and open—open in the sense that all points might appear, from God’s perspective, to be simultaneous), then I am precluded from choosing other than X.
I’ve followed this debate with interest. I think that LJ has already essentially deconstructed this in the other thread, but I’ll see if I understand him correctly by taking a stab here:
If God infallibly knows that I do X from any time perspective (God’s) except at the moment when I actually do it/have done it, then that infallible knowing precludes me ...[text shortened]... s in my own (fallible) consciousness. To God’s (infallible) consciousness, that is my illusion.
--------------------visted--------------------------
Why?
22 Feb 09
Originally posted by LemonJellothen it is still the case that there is no possibility that I can refrain from A-ing at time T. There is nothing in your post that demonstrates anything to the contrary.
[b]we will start thinking that God can infallibly predict future events (which with free will would be impossible)
Even if God himself has no future (even if all events are "present" all at once to him because he's off in some masturbatory static pose in 'eternity'😉, the content of his eternal knowledge still involves OUR future as temporal beings. ...[text shortened]... ng track of the ones you've recently started all touching on this same ridiculous topic.[/b]
--------------------------lemon----------------------------------
The issue is not whether you are able to refrain from A-ing , but whether you ever were ABLE to refrain or not do A. The fact that you do eventually do A is established by your future choice. But the fact that that is what you do actually choose does not mean that there was never another possibility for you.
The point is that if you do refrain from A then God will know that you do refrain and will refrain and that you are B-ing instead , except it won't be "instead" it will just be , because you cannot do both. In one sense you could say his knowledge of what you do at T is instantaneously updated , but that's a clumsy way of stating it.
You could ask God "can I refrain from doing A at T?" - His response might be " Feel free to refrain if you want , I just know that you didn't choose to refrain in the end "
22 Feb 09
Originally posted by LemonJellointeresting link...I just skimmed over a good junk and I definantly will be revisiting that page.
I see. I think we radically differ in how we view 'time'. You seem to think there is this thing 'time' that exists and, for instance, we measure or keep track of this thing through some standardized events. I, on the other hand, would say that I have a reductionist (or relationist) view with respect to time. I do not think there is at bottom any such ...[text shortened]... ver, I would say that it is not contradictory to say God can enter into and out of time.
As far as the square circle arguement goes a "square circle" would then cease to be either a square or circle.
So I guess I do agree, God is bound by logic in a sense. In another sense (according to my beliefs and others) he also chose to manifest himself on earth through a virgin birth, recieved capital punishment while innocent, and rose from the dead...by earthly standards I don't see that as logical but I believe it due to logical deduction and most likely case scenario.
I am happy to see though that you see me on just another camp, rather than an ignorant fool...I tire of people who claim people on the other side are idiots because they are on the other side.
22 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI guess in a literal sense, you caught me in a faulty assumption. Not because my intent was bad, but rather my wording was. By the assumption that God created everything, I mean that everything except himself, because he has also was existed. I agree it is a contradiction, however every belief system or "religion" is based upon one critical assumption or contradiction, which is why everyone will debate this until one side or another is proved correct.
So, if God has always existed (and represents an instance of something that exists but was not created), then your earlier assumption that God created everything is false, correct?
Anyway, yes, if you would like to discuss this topic more over private messages, that would be cool with me, thanks.
EDIT: I do ask, though (if you want to send it in a PM so that this thread does not get hijacked) what your opinion is as to how we find ourselves existing in our present state?
22 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterOn reflection, I think I was over-complicating your model—
If God’s perspective can shift at all to any point prior to that (God’s “now” is relative and open—open in the sense that all points might appear, from God’s perspective, to be simultaneous), then I am precluded from choosing other than X.
--------------------visted--------------------------
Why?
Your model, if I understand it correctly now, is one in which God’s “now” is an “absolute now” which embraces the entire body of “relative nows” in time. Hence, God infallibly knows that I choose X simply because God “sees” me choose en flagrante. God’s “absolute now” incudes my “relative now”.
That seems to be a fair summary of your position?
In such case, from God’s perspective, everything is fully determined, all choices are already made. You cannot claim that God infallibly “sees” me choose X, while at the same time [pun] claiming that I am nevertheless free to choose not-X. God’s “absolute now”, under your model, includes my “will choose, now choose, have chosen” all at once.
The contradiction here is not my relative view of time; the contradiction is in claiming that God’s infallibility is consonant with my freedom to choose any alternative to X. If I choose any not-X, then God’s seeing/knowing is not infallible.
I repeat my question: Is there any case in which I can choose Y if God knows that I choose X? From any time-perspective?
Note: God’s passive observation, infallible or not, does not itself determine my choices; that is why I stressed “from God’s perspective”. It is God’s infallibility that is at issue here, not determinism. I think I can choose X or not-X; my subjective sense of free will remains. But my choices are based upon an illusion.
Actual determinism would require that God not simply observe, but act. See below—
_______________________________________________
If God changes things (which to him are happening “now” ), so that I choose something other than X “now”—presumably God could change things so that the outcome is always in accord with God’s will—then my new choice is determined “now” by God’s action.
In this case God is no longer a non-determining observer. Which raises the question: if God is able to change anything so that it concords with God’s will, and God changes nothing, then can one not assume that everything—including my choice of X—is in accord with God’s will? In other words, if God is (a) omnipotent, as well as infallibly knowing, and (b) God chooses to act or to refrain from acting to determine outcomes in accord with God’s own will—then everything is actually determined.
Further, if such an omnipotent God does not choose to act or refrain from acting in accord with God’s own will—then God is choosing against God’s own will! Can your God be such a conflicted personality?
22 Feb 09
Originally posted by vistesdGod infallibly knows that I choose X simply because God “sees” me choose en flagrante. God’s “absolute now” incudes my “relative now”.
On reflection, I think I was over-complicating your model—
Your model, if I understand it correctly now, is one in which God’s “now” is an “absolute now” which embraces the entire body of “relative nows” in time. Hence, God infallibly knows that I choose X simply because God “sees” me choose en flagrante. God’s “absolute now” incudes my ...[text shortened]... ill—then God is choosing against God’s own will! Can your God be such a conflicted personality?
---------visted----------
That's the closest yet anyone has got! -KM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You cannot claim that God infallibly “sees” me choose X, while at the same time [pun] claiming that I am nevertheless free to choose not-X. - visted------------------------------------------------------------------
I can claim this . You were free to choose X and or not X at time T - and you chose X , if you had chosen Y then God would know Y. You will be free to choose X or not X at T , but you will choose X. Choices are made in present moments , not in the past or future.
Right now (in this present moment) you are free to choose X or not X and you are choosing X. God knows you are choosing X and knows this eternally. How could he not know. Free will would not stop him.
22 Feb 09
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterYour assertion only works here if when God (from its perspective) sees you have done X, then X has been done from your perspective too.
God infallibly knows that I choose X simply because God “sees” me choose en flagrante. God’s “absolute now” incudes my “relative now”.
---------visted----------
That's the closest yet anyone has got! -KM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You cannot claim that God infallibly “sees” me choose X, while ...[text shortened]... u are choosing X and knows this eternally. How could he not know. Free will would not stop him.
If from my perspective I have not done X then I'd better bloody well do X otherwise your infallible God who saw me do X from its perspective whilst I hadn't done X from mine will be proven wrong if I choose ¬X
(oh...and before you add the usual newtonian limitations nonsense, this conceptualisation of your God is not encapsulated in/ supported by relativity theory)
22 Feb 09
Originally posted by vistesdI repeat my question: Is there any case in which I can choose Y if God knows that I choose X? From any time-perspective?
On reflection, I think I was over-complicating your model—
Your model, if I understand it correctly now, is one in which God’s “now” is an “absolute now” which embraces the entire body of “relative nows” in time. Hence, God infallibly knows that I choose X simply because God “sees” me choose en flagrante. God’s “absolute now” incudes my ...[text shortened]... ill—then God is choosing against God’s own will! Can your God be such a conflicted personality?
------------vsited---------------------------------
There is no case in which you will choose anything other than X . You cannot choose Y because you have "already" chosen X (I know that sounds wierd). Your timeline is being set by you in what you call your "future".
This is not the same as saying that Y was never ever possible though. Y was always possible but X was selected BY YOU at some future time , which for God is not the future.
In a way you could say that your future is determined , but it is determined by your future free choices.
22 Feb 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloI think it is logically contradictory to say that God can enter into and out of time.
I see. I think we radically differ in how we view 'time'. You seem to think there is this thing 'time' that exists and, for instance, we measure or keep track of this thing through some standardized events. I, on the other hand, would say that I have a reductionist (or relationist) view with respect to time. I do not think there is at bottom any such ...[text shortened]... ver, I would say that it is not contradictory to say God can enter into and out of time.
-lemon-----------
Why ? Think of eternity as a fifth dimension. Like other dimensions it could intersect with lower dimensions , just as 3 dimensions intersects with 2 etc. Ever read Flatland by any chance?
22 Feb 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut if God CAN tell us if we will die tomorrow, no paradox--and no problem, right?
Many of us recognize that Christians hold a wide variety of beliefs. The fact that you get very little support in your threads leads me to believe that your beliefs on this particular topic are not widely held.
[b]My point is that unless we re-wind and re-visit the way we view the original proposition (about God knowing our future) and think about what ...[text shortened]... If not then there is something wrong with the claim that God knows know what I will do tomorrow.
22 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou cannot choose Y because you have "already" chosen X (I know that sounds wierd). [My italics.]
I repeat my question: Is there any case in which I can choose Y if God knows that I choose X? From any time-perspective?
------------vsited---------------------------------
There is no case in which you will choose anything other than X . You cannot choose Y because you have "already" chosen X (I know that sounds wierd). Your timeline is being set could say that your future is determined , but it is determined by your future free choices.
It may sound weird, but I understand it from the perspective of God’s “absolute now”, which is the only perspective from which I have “already” chosen it. (Agerg’s post is spot on here.)
But, you then say—
This is not the same as saying that Y was never ever possible though.
Yes, it is (again, see Agerg’s post). That “never ever” is a fiction, based on my non-omniscient perspective of time. Perspectivism neither changes what actually happens, nor how it happens.
If you say that—at any time (from my perspective)—I could choose Y, then God cannot infallibly know—from God’s all-time/no-time perspective, which includes all my “any times”—that I do/will/did (from my perspective) choose X.
There is no way that I can choose against God’s infallible knowing, no matter how I think I weigh the apparent options in my own mind, and no matter how my perspective on time is different from God’s.