Theological Fatalism

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I've only recently started to read about this idea of temporal necessity (i.e. past events are necessary because you can't do anything about them), but I have to say I don't buy it.

For me, necessity isn't about whether something can be controlled or not. It's either logical (e.g. Pv~P, 1+1=2, the sum of angles in a triangle is two right angles etc ...[text shortened]... rue or false, necessary or contingent whether or not T is in the past, present or future.

LJ has already claimed that the tense has no bearing on the argument (although from my perspective, I fail to see how it wouldn't). As BDN has already hinted at, ascribing to God human characteristics (i.e., development of knowledge) smacks of anthropomorphism--- clearly necessary in a formula which allows uncertainty to be part of God's thinking.

For whatever reason, LJ cab't get his mind around the fact of God's certain knowledge. For God, the future is just as perspicuous as the past, seeing all of time at once as one comprehensive and cohesive unit.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For whatever reason, LJ cab't get his mind around the fact of God's certain knowledge. For God, the future is just as perspicuous as the past, seeing all of time at once as one comprehensive and cohesive unit.

Why not say that God is the future, present and past?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why not say that God is the future, present and past?

Because He isn't. Time is created by God for the benefit of man, therefore, God cannot also be part of that creation. While God is said to be the alpha and the omega, this is in reference to reality compared to Him... not in reverse order.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's cute but not applicable. If I were ascribing to God some arcane or unique characteristic not immediately available through a superficial reading of Scripture, your charge of 'secret magic' might apply. I am not the one originally claiming omniscience on God's behalf: He is. I am not the one who said that He knows the end from before the beginning ...[text shortened]... ll game, does the experience of our knowledge have any impact on the outcome of the game?

I repeat: insert 'knows' and 'knew' into the argument in place of 'believes' and 'believed' and then tell me in your opinion whether or not the argument is sound and why.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You believe that you are looking at a computer screen now because you are present in the same time and space as said screen. There is some "belief" on your part because you need to trust your senses (eg the computer screen may be a figment of your imagination or you may be hallucinating) .
You may also feel that you have a mental construct of yoursel ...[text shortened]... e also knows the ultimate nature of all reality , belief is not necessary. Only omnipresence.

Yeah, I get it. God holds knowledge without holding beliefs, according to you and Freakster.

😵🙄

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I've only recently started to read about this idea of temporal necessity (i.e. past events are necessary because you can't do anything about them), but I have to say I don't buy it.

For me, necessity isn't about whether something can be controlled or not. It's either logical (e.g. Pv~P, 1+1=2, the sum of angles in a triangle is two right angles etc rue or false, necessary or contingent whether or not T is in the past, present or future.

Right. I agree with your sentiment: I have some insecurites talking about such 'necessity' too. That's why I usually feel the urge to call it something like 'accidental' necessity.

But in the sense of asking what sort of conditions would, if established, preclude freedom of the libertarian variety; ostensibly, I think the sort of 'necessity' related to things that are strictly about the past would, in type, be enough. But, again, I don't think the argument succeeds.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I repeat: insert 'knows' and 'knew' into the argument in place of 'believes' and 'believed' and then tell me in your opinion whether or not the argument is sound and why.

Since you're allowing the free interchange of words, why not change 'necessary' to 'actual,' and see what that yields. The fact remains, God's knowledge regarding reality is as one comprehensive and cohesive whole.

Until P occurs, (from man's perspective) it is merely a possibility. Once P occurs, (from man's perspective) P is actual. The possibilities are no longer factors. Changing P would yield attendent ripple effects, with the passage of time, agents and action eventually rendering some things actual while leaving other things as possibilities never actualized.

God's knowledge, however, is not simply limited to the actual (those things which occur in time). He knows not only all actual within time, but He also knows the yield of possibilities becoming actual.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Since you're allowing the free interchange of words, why not change 'necessary' to 'actual,' and see what that yields. The fact remains, God's knowledge regarding reality is as one comprehensive and cohesive whole.

Until P occurs, (from man's perspective) it is merely a possibility. Once P occurs, (from man's perspective) P is actual. The possibili ...[text shortened]... y all actual within time, but He also knows the yield of possibilities becoming actual.

Since you're allowing the free interchange of words

Hardly. I'm "allowing" you to insert knowledge in place of belief because it doesn't alter the argument in any way that should concern us. Really, I'm just trying to accommodate your obtuseness. So, okay Freaky, we'll pretend like it doesn't make sense to say God believes P but that it makes sense to say God knows P (even though knowledge is true, justified belief).

I'm afraid I don't see what you're driving at with the rest of your post. Which premise of the argument are you rejecting and why?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Since you're allowing the free interchange of words

Hardly. I'm "allowing" you to insert knowledge in place of belief because it doesn't alter the argument in any way that should concern us. Really, I'm just trying to accommodate your obtuseness. So, okay Freaky, we'll pretend like it doesn't make sense to say God believes P but that it makes ...[text shortened]... with the rest of your post. Which premise of the argument are you rejecting and why?[/b]

2-8, because of their dependence upon necessity, as well as the lack of distinction between man's knowledge (which depends upon the progression of time in order to develop) and God's (which is independent of outside agency or input).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
2-8, because of their dependence upon necessity, as well as the lack of distinction between man's knowledge (which depends upon the progression of time in order to develop) and God's (which is independent of outside agency or input).

Well, let's take these one at a time. So let me get this straight: you reject Premise 3?

3. Necessarily, if yesterday it was true that God eternally [knows] P, then P.

You reject that?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, let's take these one at a time. So let me get this straight: you reject Premise 3?

3. Necessarily, if yesterday it was true that God eternally [knows] P, then P.

You reject that?

Again, the rejection hinges on the use of the word 'necessity' and 'necessary.' 'Certain' and/or 'actual' are more accurate descriptions of God's knowledge.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Again, the rejection hinges on the use of the word 'necessity' and 'necessary.' 'Certain' and/or 'actual' are more accurate descriptions of God's knowledge.

I often fear for your reading and comprehension skills. Nowhere does the argument use the word 'necessity' or the word 'necessary' to describe God's knowledge. For the sake of the argument, God's knowledge is assumed to exist and to be infallible. That alone should assuage your concern that we view God's knowledge as actual and certain.

In the argument, 'necessary' is only used to describe past events and any events that follow necessarily from necessary events. And in reference to Premise 3, 'necessarily' only expresses the necessity of the consequence (that the consequent follows with necessity from the antecedent). As I was trying to get at, I really don't think you want to reject all Premises 2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8 -- for example, I don't think you want to reject Premise 3.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Because He isn't. Time is created by God for the benefit of man, therefore, God cannot also be part of that creation. While God is said to be the alpha and the omega, this is in reference to reality compared to Him... not in reverse order.

I guess that's precisely where our viewpoints differ!

Originally posted by LemonJello
I often fear for your reading and comprehension skills. Nowhere does the argument use the word 'necessity' or the word 'necessary' to describe God's knowledge. For the sake of the argument, God's knowledge is assumed to exist and to be infallible. That alone should assuage your concern that we view God's knowledge as actual and certain.

In the argum ...[text shortened]... ises 2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8 -- for example, I don't think you want to reject Premise 3.

I think I'm just not being specific enough for the conversation. When I say the words are used to describe God's knowledge, I have in mind the fact that God sees all of time as one comprehensive and cohesive unit. When the word 'necessary' is used to desribe events within the framework of that unit, I take that to be a description of God's knowledge.

That is the reason for the rejection. Once the word 'actual' or 'certain' is exchanged, a closer approximation of God's knowledge is found.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I guess that's precisely where our viewpoints differ!

Essplain.