Forgiven for what, eactly?

[AvalonXQ]

God has always known that Harry Truman would run for president. God knew this before Truman was born.

I agree.

It would have been impossible for Harry Truman to have ended his life without running for president. The 'capacity' for Harry Truman to not run for president never existed.

I disagree.
God's knowledge does not act as a restraint on action; it doesn't remove the capacity for something to occur.

 

[Sophronius]

Fortune teller =/= god.

As you may have noticed, the post I was responding to used a fortune teller as example. Secondly, a fortune teller who is all knowing is identical to an all knowing god for the purpose of this exercise.

 

[Myriad]

God's knowledge does not act as a restraint on action; it doesn't remove the capacity for something to occur.

Perhaps not, but it does prove (if accepting God's knowledge and infallibility as premises) that no such capacity existed in the first place.

That's because the occurrence of an event contrary to God's prediction in that case would cause a logical contradiction. God's prediction of P is proof of P. The occurrence of the contrary event would prove ~P. Logical contradictions cannot actually occur. P and ~P cannot both be true. Therefore the contrary event cannot occur. Therefore no capacity to cause such an event could exist, by any meaningful definition of capacity.

The ability to posit a counterfactual (~P) that can only result in a logical contradiction is not sufficient to demonstrate capacity to choose ~P.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Robin]

I get confused without brackets. I assume P3 can be expressed ((possibly ~P & possibly Q) -> possibly R). Is this correct?

My bad - you are correct - it should be as you state it.

 

[SOdhner]

God's knowledge does not act as a restraint on action; it doesn't remove the capacity for something to occur.

No, but his actions do - in this case, the creation of the entire universe and all events in it.

 

[Robin]

I disagree.
God's knowledge does not act as a restraint on action; it doesn't remove the capacity for something to occur.

Well you asked earlier for the explicit contradiction and I gave you my version which I reproduce below (with D'rok's amendment). Can you tell me why this is not a contradiction?

P = Truman chooses to run for president at t1.
~P = Truman chooses not to run for president at t1.
Q = God makes a statement in the world at t0<t1 that P
R = God's can make a wrong statement
S = God is omniscient

P1: possibly P & possibly ~ P Hyp
P2: possibly Q By definiition
P3: ( possibly ~P & possibly Q ) -> possibly R Hyp
P4: possibly R MP P1&P2,P3
P5: S -> ~ possibly R By definition
P6: S Hyp
P7: ~ possibly R MP P5,P6

Contradiction between P4 and P7

 

[SumDood]

Or rather, it is impossible for the event of you returning it to occur. There is a simple but distinct difference here. Let me show you:

Premise A: You always make the same decision given a specific situation
Conclusion A: The outcome is 100% certain
Conclusion B: Because of conclusion A, the fortune teller is able to predict the outcome with 100% certainty

The argument that you and others here are using is "If we assume conclusion B to be true, Conclusion A must be true, therefore premise A, therefore no free will". You're looking at it backwards. A --> B therefore B --> A does not follow.

I think we're getting somewhere, but I might need you to dumb it down a bit more because my brain is starting to hurt.

I'm having trouble with the phrase "Because of conclusion A", and I'm having a hard time explaining why (even to myself). It is not 100% certain because the fortune teller says so, it is 100% certain because it just is. I am 100% certainly embarrassed to put it that way, but I can't think of anything better. Like 1+1=2 and the speed of light being constant and gravity working the way it does. Its the nature of the universe that the same decision will be made in a given situation.

Another way:

At noon tomorrow, I will raise either my right or my left hand. At that point in time, one and only one of my hands will be raised. At 12:01, I will know which hand it was that I raised. But our fortune teller already knows which hand it will be. He does not affect the outcome either way, but he knows today what will happen tomorrow. He knows the future now the way I will know the past at 12:01 tomorrow. He can't change the future any more than I can change the past.

Premise A: At noon tomorrow, I will raise my left or right hand
Conclusion A: The outcome is 100% certain
Conclusion B: A fortune teller with an accuracy of 100% knows today what hand will be raised.

I have a very shaky hold on the whole idea already so I hope this made at least a little bit of sense.

 

[laca]

Well you asked earlier for the explicit contradiction and I gave you my version which I reproduce below (with D'rok's amendment). Can you tell me why this is not a contradiction?

I believe it would boil down to this:

<snip>
Premise 3: For all x at t, if God knows x before t, then ~C(~x). (If God knows something to be true before it happens, then it does not have the capacity to not happen. THIS PREMISE IS UNTRUE, and without it, I don't know of any way to get the contradiction you want. I would love to see you do so.)
<snip>

He just asserts that it is untrue. The "problem" with your argument is that it is too concise for him to be able to just assert something like that. That's why he avoided answering and is in deep silence, probably entering denial mode soon.

BTW. AvalonXQ, this assertion of yours is a flagrant begging the question fallacy, since it is the very conclusion you're trying to disprove. And mid-reasoning you just assert that it is untrue. Magic!

 

[SumDood]

I disagree.
God's knowledge does not act as a restraint on action; it doesn't remove the capacity for something to occur.

Okay, lets try this:

God knew Truman would run for president long before Truman was born.

Could Truman have lived his entire live without running for president?

 

[Robin]

I believe it would boil down to this:



He just asserts that it is untrue. The "problem" with your argument is that it is too concise for him to be able to just assert something like that. That's why he avoided answering and is in deep silence, probably entering denial mode soon.

Yes, I have also demonstrated the contradiction without using the premiss he says I would need - it is not even implicit in my argument.

 

[Sophronius]

*snip*

I have a very shaky hold on the whole idea already so I hope this made at least a little bit of sense.

What you say makes perfect sense, that was exactly what I was trying to point out.

I have to say, I appreciate the amount of effort you are putting into fully understanding my position. It's a nice change from the sound-bite type responses some people here will give you.

God knew Truman would run for president long before Truman was born.

Could Truman have lived his entire live without running for president?

I believe I can answer that one for Avalon. Truman could have lived his entire live without running for president, but in that case god would have known that he would do exactly that. The fact that god knew that Truman would run for president means that this is not the case, however. It helps if you see the entire future of the universe as unfolding in a single instance, with all future choices being made instantly (or more accurately: being determined).

It's all magic of course, but if you accept that this hypothetical God knows the future, there's really nothing contradictory.

 

[tsig]

What you say makes perfect sense, that was exactly what I was trying to point out.

I have to say, I appreciate the amount of effort you are putting into fully understanding my position. It's a nice change from the sound-bite type responses some people here will give you.



I believe I can answer that one for Avalon. Truman could have lived his entire live without running for president, but in that case god would have known that he would do exactly that. The fact that god knew that Truman would run for president means that this is not the case, however. It helps if you see the entire future of the universe as unfolding in a single instance, with all future choices being made instantly (or more accurately: being determined).

It's all magic of course, but if you accept that this hypothetical God knows the future, there's really nothing contradictory.

Except for saying that you could have acted differently than god's knowledge of the future said you had to act.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Except for saying that you could have acted differently than god's knowledge of the future said you had to act.

God's knowledge of the future said nothing about how you had to act; only how you would act. God predicted the outcome of your choice; he did not take away that choice.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Any chance we'll get a merger or post move between this thread and the Free Will / Omniscience thread?

 

[Sophronius]

Except for saying that you could have acted differently than god's knowledge of the future said you had to act.

See, these are the sound-bite responses I was talking about.

You have displayed absolutely zero interest in responding to any of the arguments that have been given by me and others. All you do is repeat the same bloody claim over and over again. I'm not going to bother arguing this with you.

 

[SOdhner]

God predicted the outcome of your choice; he did not take away that choice.

No, that's only true if he didn't create the universe. If he created the universe, he didn't just PREDICT it, he CAUSED it. Every aspect of the universe and all events within it are god's will, chosen and implemented by him alone.

 

[D'rok]

Incorrect. Cause and effect does that just fine.

If A --> B, and A takes place, then there is no possibility of any other outcome than B. Whether there is some old guy in the sky going "I told you so!" or not is completely irrelevant.

You misunderstand what induction is. But that's a derail for another day.

 

[Robin]

Any chance we'll get a merger or post move between this thread and the Free Will / Omniscience thread?

will you address my argument if I post it there?

 

[SumDood]

What you say makes perfect sense, that was exactly what I was trying to point out.

I have to say, I appreciate the amount of effort you are putting into fully understanding my position. It's a nice change from the sound-bite type responses some people here will give you.

Thank you very kindly.

I believe I can answer that one for Avalon. Truman could have lived his entire live without running for president, but in that case god would have known that he would do exactly that. The fact that god knew that Truman would run for president means that this is not the case, however. It helps if you see the entire future of the universe as unfolding in a single instance, with all future choices being made instantly (or more accurately: being determined).

It's all magic of course, but if you accept that this hypothetical God knows the future, there's really nothing contradictory.

I'm going to work on the whole 'future unfolding in a single instance' with a 6 pack sometime soon. I think it might help.

When you say "all future choice being made instantly (or more accurately: being determined)" doesn't that support my position? If it was determined that Truman would run for president in the instant "time unfolded", isn't it impossible for him to NOT run for president?

God's knowledge of the future said nothing about how you had to act; only how you would act. God predicted the outcome of your choice; he did not take away that choice.

For some reason, that clarifies it slightly for me. Except I agree with SOdhner in that God does not just predict outcomes, he causes them.

So back to my original question:

With this premise: God knew Truman would run for president long before Truman was born.

Could Truman have lived his entire life without running for president? Yes or no?

 

[AvalonXQ]

So back to my original question:

With this premise: God knew Truman would run for president long before Truman was born.

Could Truman have lived his entire life without running for president? Yes or no?

Yes, he could have.