Forgiven for what, eactly?

[qayak]

By what mechanism does the omnipotent being's knowledge eliminate your ability to change?

By their omnipotence. Once they "know" you can never change and they "know" everything about you before you exist.

No. It means that if you feel like going to Burger King, and you do, then God knew you were going to Burger King.
By what mechanism does foreknowledge restrain choice?

Absolutley not. You have missed the two important factors here.

1) God "knows." That means it is etched in stone and can't be changed.

2) If I can change something that god "knows" then he didn't "know" and therefore he isn't omnipotent.

Once your omnipotent being "knows" there is no changing. And he knows before I am born so I never have a chance to change anything. If I could change, he wouldn't "know", in which case, he isn't omnipotent.

You have to decide; either your god is not omnipotent or you don't have free will.

This is such a simple concept, early high school philosophy actually, that I don't understand why you can't grasp it. The two are mutually exclusive and there is no way around it.

 

[iknownothing]

No. It means that if you feel like going to Burger King, and you do, then God knew you were going to Burger King.
By what mechanism does foreknowledge restrain choice?

It means that you aren't really choosing, but only under the illusion that you are choosing. You have already been destined to go to Burger King, since before you were born; since before the dawn of time, actually.

If you have knowingly done something morally wrong, then you will face the consequences of that -- that and that alone is the cause of any punishment you receive.

The punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime.

For an average person, your crime is this: You were born with both flaws and virtues. You live your life, probably hurting a few people along the way but also probably showing some love.

The punishment: An eternity of screaming torment! Much wailing and gnashing of teeth!

But the Good News is, there's a way out! God so loved the (imperfect) world (that he created, with its imperfection), that he wanted to save us from the consequences of our terrible (and entirely unavoidable) sin. So he sacrificed Himself (the Saviour aspect of Himself) to Himself to save us from Himself (the Creator aspect that concocted the punishment from which we need saving).

It just doesn't make any sense, moral or otherwise.

You can talk all you want about free will, but since you also state that ALL people will sin, then how free are we? We aren't capable of making the choice to never do wrong. So how does it make sense to punish us for not achieving something we are inherently unable to achieve?

 

[Halfcentaur]

Sadly, when I was a believer as a child, I made myself consider that just because God knew the choice I was going to make, I was still choosing it, he only knew the choice I would make with my free will. This really makes no sense, but to the mind of a Christian, it has to. Otherwise they would be wrong. God can do things "just because", and when you don't see why, it's because of human limitation. God knows why three plus four is ten, and not seven. How a person who considers them self rational and cares for truth can accept this is sadly because a life without this great meaning and plan is terrifying and empty.

As a child, when I would consider a world of arbitrary meaning and subjectivity in all things, I would feel extreme anxiety and derealization and dissociation. This terrified me.
The idea that anything could be perfect at all is just ludicrous. But these absolutes offered me safe harbor. When i finally admitted to myself that the world could be as it seems without any god, I realized I knew it all along and just never could face it. It's a wonder to me at times to find so many people who had the courage to do the same thing, but it's great that so many are doing it. I only hope this rejection of dogma and myth is not founded on being raised with contempt for these beliefs, or out of arrogance alone. Most teenage and adolescent atheists I meet seem to be rejecting these things out of the angst that comes with that age. Sadly, the great majority of theists I encounter believe all atheists are in it for that arrogant rejection. How many times have I been asked "don't you think this idea that you are all there is, is arrogant?"

How they are blind to the arrogance of theism, is beyond me. In theism, you are more important than every other thing in the universe. The most important thing in all of the universe is personally responsible for your life and what happens to you. The Earth still remains the center of the universe. And they dare accuse others of arrogance?

 

[AvalonXQ]

It means that you aren't really choosing, but only under the illusion that you are choosing. You have already been destined to go to Burger King, since before you were born; since before the dawn of time, actually.

I know that Harry Truman chose to run for President. How does my knowledge of what he did, mean that he didn't have free will to choose it?

 

[D'rok]

I know that Harry Truman chose to run for President. How does my knowledge of what he did, mean that he didn't have free will to choose it?

Did you know this before Harry Truman existed?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Did you know this before Harry Truman existed?

Why does when I knew this make a difference?
Would my travelling back to the time of the Romans, having a glass of tea, and then returning to the present suddenly take away Harry Truman's free will? If so, by what mechanism would it do so?

 

[iknownothing]

I know that Harry Truman chose to run for President. How does my knowledge of what he did, mean that he didn't have free will to choose it?

Because it was in the past?

But if it was the year 1711 (random!) right now, and I knew that Harry Truman would run for president, then is he still choosing or merely acting out his lines in a sort of theater?

 

[dafydd]

Why does when I knew this make a difference?
Would my travelling back to the time of the Romans, having a glass of tea, and then returning to the present suddenly take away Harry Truman's free will? If so, by what mechanism would it do so?

So you won't answer my question? I am surprised.

 

[iknownothing]

Why does when I knew this make a difference?
Would my travelling back to the time of the Romans, having a glass of tea, and then returning to the present suddenly take away Harry Truman's free will? If so, by what mechanism would it do so?

I don't think there's a mechanism so much as a logical conclusion.

If it is knowable that Harry Truman certainly will run for president, then it is the only possible choice for him to make, so how can he choose otherwise?

But it's not actually the most important point that anyone here is making. It's a kind of fun little mind bending mental exercise, but not the main point. Since you're responding mainly to this issue right now, you're ignoring some of the more important stuff. I know I put a lot more time and thought into the second part of my post above, which you didn't respond to.

 

[AvalonXQ]

But if it was the year 1711 (random!) right now, and I knew that Harry Truman would run for president, then is he still choosing or merely acting out his lines in a sort of theater?

He is still choosing. That's my point.
There is no connection between my knowledge of what he will, and whether or not he has a choice as to what to do.
Many people on this thread seem to believe that in order to have a choice, there must be a nonzero chance that something else will actually happen. No. Having a choice simply means that you could have chosen something else, whether or not you did.
I simply don't agree that the definition of free will requires that nobody knows what your choice will be. There's nothing inherent in making a free choice that requires that no one else knows the outcome of that choice.

 

[dafydd]

He is still choosing. That's my point.
There is no connection between my knowledge of what he will, and whether or not he has a choice as to what to do.
Many people on this thread seem to believe that in order to have a choice, there must be a nonzero chance that something else will actually happen. No. Having a choice simply means that you could have chosen something else, whether or not you did.
I simply don't agree that the definition of free will requires that nobody knows what your choice will be. There's nothing inherent in making a free choice that requires that no one else knows the outcome of that choice.

What choice did the children of Aberfan have?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Would my travelling back to the time of the Romans, having a glass of tea, and then returning to the present suddenly take away Harry Truman's free will? If so, by what mechanism would it do so?

Yes, incidentally, this is why we can't travel in time. Said mechanism is not conceivable in this universe but it is trivial to construct a time paradox.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So you won't answer my question? I am surprised.

To the question, "Why did God allow specific event X," my answer is, "I don't know."
Truth be told, I'm not really sure why this discussion is even in this thread; it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the other things we're discussing here.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm sure AXQ thinks his beloved celestial tyrant's answer will be the same:

"I'm God! I can do what I want and if I say it's 'good' then it's good!"

One of the Reasonable Doubts Podcasters, Jeremy IIRC, reformulated that thought into a question for believers. My rough paraphrasing would be:

When you pray to God as "all good" it must have some meaning, as opposed to a tautology. So, what action could God take that would not be good?

The obvious problem here is that for every bad act we can think of God has gone on record as either doing or supporting in some part of the Bible. Murder, rape, lying, genocide, infanticide, . . . shellfish! He never eats shellfish. Ah, that's it, the only sin that is really bad is eating shellfish!*


*This last bit is my attempt at levity and should not be attributed to RD or Jeremy.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yes, incidentally, this is why we can't travel in time.

We can't travel in time because you can't work out the implications? I find that an unreasonable position.
The Greeks came up with all sorts of apparent paradoxes that were trivially (or sophisticatedly) resolved when empiricism caught up.

 

[dafydd]

To the question, "Why did God allow specific event X," my answer is, "I don't know."
Truth be told, I'm not really sure why this discussion is even in this thread; it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the other things we're discussing here.

Really? It is awkward when reality impinges on the world of the believer in any religion.

 

[D'rok]

Why does when I knew this make a difference?
Would my travelling back to the time of the Romans, having a glass of tea, and then returning to the present suddenly take away Harry Truman's free will? If so, by what mechanism would it do so?

I don't believe that this is an honest response. I think you are quite aware of the omniscience/free-will problem and are simply dodging.

Obviously, you bring your knowledge about Truman back with you.

Now, please answer the question honestly and in the spirit it was asked:

Did you know this before Harry Truman existed?

 

[AvalonXQ]

What choice did the children of Aberfan have?

None that I know of. What's the relevance?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I don't believe that this is an honest response. I think you are quite aware of the omniscience/free-will problem and are simply dodging.

No, I'm not. It's honestly a case that the "problem" is a purely visceral one without any theoretical/logical underpinning, and that I've never, not once, understood what the conflict between the two concepts is supposed to be.
And to my knowledge no one has ever really tried to explain it; they've just asserted it as obviously true. There must be some assumption you're making that I'm not.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Really? It is awkward when reality impinges on the world of the believer in any religion.

It is awkward when you use emotional appeals to try to short circuit a discussion. Since you apparently can't explain the relevance, I'll ignore the topic until it's brought up in a more appropriate thread.