Forgiven for what, eactly?

[laca]

No. If any entity knows X, then by definition X will occur. X and not X may still both be possible.

It must be magic! Both X and not X could happen! It's a miracle! Praise the lord!

Again, is "possible" an expression of what objectively can happen deterministically (what I call "capacity"), or what subjectively has a nonzero probability of happening based on the witness's knowledge? If the latter, then I agree with (1) for any agent that knows what God knows, but I also don't agree that free will requires that multiple choices subjectively have nonzero probabilities for all observers.

Possibly...

 

[SumDood]

If any entity knows X, then by definition X will occur. X and not X may still both be possible.

How are those two statement not contradictory?

Statement 1: X will occur
Statement 2: It is possible that X will not occur

 

[AvalonXQ]

Seriously, if your god knows I'm not going to lift my arm at t0, can I still lift it when the time comes?

Yes.

 

[laca]

Yes.

Then your god is not omniscient.

 

[AvalonXQ]

How are those two statement not contradictory?

Statement 1: X will occur
Statement 2: It is possible that X will not occur

If you claim that those two statements are contradictory, then everything is predetermined (there is no such thing as choice or chance). Allow me to explain.

Premise 1) A or not A
Premise 2) For any X: If X, then not possibly not X [assumed to show contradiction]
3) If A, then not possibly not A [from 2]
4) If not A, then not possibly A [from 2, assuming not not A -> A]
5) not possibly A or not possibly not A [1 with 3 and 4]
Since it is always true that A will occur or A will not occur, defining "possible" to be in contradiction to that means that there are no alternatives, ever.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Then your god is not omniscient.

Only if omniscient is defined as "An omniscient entity knowing choice X removes the capacity for choice ~X." You haven't demonstrated that this is a reasonable definition or the consequence of a reasonable definition, and I don't agree with it.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I've always found it odd that religious people who believe in the concept and value of free will given by God, don't find natural selection to fall in line more with such a God than a design. Natural selection is the ultimate expression of free will. Making everything be as it is, forever, is the opposite of free will.

 

[TimCallahan]

Let me posit, once again, a god that is not omniscient, not omnipotent, yet still vastly superior to the likes of us. Such a god, like any creative person, will allow his creation some degree of chance, spontaneity and unpredictability. Why? Because any creator (artist author, poet etc.) knows that one's creations sometimes turn out differently from what we originally intended, in very wonderful ways. Perhaps God allows for surprises.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I've always found it odd that religious people who believe in the concept and value of free will given by God, don't find natural selection to fall in line more with such a God than a design.

Most religious people I know embrace natural selection as an amazing and brilliant component of man's design -- I personally find evolutionary processes to be incredibly robust and fascinating.
Failing to agree on the historical facts of common ancestry does not remove the ability to agree regarding the particulars of the life's abilities to adapt today.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Let me posit, once again, a god that is not omniscient, not omnipotent, yet still vastly superior to the likes of us. Such a god, like any creative person, will allow his creation some degree of chance, spontaneity and unpredictability. Why? Because any creator (artist author, poet etc.) knows that one's creations sometimes turn out differently from what we originally intended, in very wonderful ways. Perhaps God allows for surprises.

Perhaps. I can't immediately point to anything inherent in the Biblical description of God that would necessarily contradict this.
I don't believe it's accurate, mind you, but it's certainly a reasonable idea.

 

[SumDood]

If you claim that those two statements are contradictory, then everything is predetermined (there is no such thing as choice or chance). Allow me to explain.

Premise 1) A or not A
Premise 2) For any X: If X, then not possibly not X [assumed to show contradiction]
3) If A, then not possibly not A [from 2]
4) If not A, then not possibly A [from 2, assuming not not A -> A]
5) not possibly A or not possibly not A [1 with 3 and 4]
Since it is always true that A will occur or A will not occur, defining "possible" to be in contradiction to that means that there are no alternatives, ever.

Thats actually pretty close to the conclusion to which I have arrived. Free will is an illusion. Check out 'Embrace the Horror' on Cracked.com for a more entertaining explanation. At any point in time all the matter in the universe can only be aligned in one certain way. Whether that point in time is in the past or in the future is irrelevant. It was impossible for me to have done anything other than what I was doing one hour ago. It is impossible for me to do anything currently other than what I am doing right now. It will be impossible for me to do anything other than what I am going to be doing one hour from now.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Most religious people I know embrace natural selection as an amazing and brilliant component of man's design -- I personally find evolutionary processes to be incredibly robust and fascinating.
Failing to agree on the historical facts of common ancestry does not remove the ability to agree regarding the particulars of the life's abilities to adapt today.

I grew up religious until my early adolescence, and I've always found natural selection with all species sharing common ancestors to make much more sense than a young earth. This is the way my mother presented it to me. It was later that I learned her brother, who was a minister, believed the earth to be less than ten thousand years old. I was dumbfounded that an adult could think such a thing. Absolutely dumbfounded.

You represent a strange example in my experience if you feel life's adaptive nature only extends back so far. I know Christians who subscribe to either the full theory of evolution stretching back to the original origin of life, where they then posit God set all these processes in motion, and I know those who disregard the entire thing. I've heard of those who accept only macro evolution, but I have never met someone that did.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You represent a strange example in my experience if you feel life's adaptive nature only extends back so far. I know Christians who subscribe to either the full theory of evolution stretching back to the original origin of life, where they then posit God set all these processes in motion, and I know those who disregard the entire thing. I've heard of those who accept only macro evolution, but I have never met someone that did.

I've never met anyone who actually denied the operation of natural selection on modern species; it's an obvious demonstrable fact.
Among creationists, the notion of a variety of progenitor "kinds" for which there is clear fossil evidence of descent to modern species is usually accepted, with those "kinds" matching up nicely with God's creation and Noah's preservation.
We're drifting off-topic and should probably address this elsewhere if at all.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Thats actually pretty close to the conclusion to which I have arrived. Free will is an illusion.

In the absence of free will, there's nothing to be forgiven for. Free will is a necessary part of man's culpability for sinning against God.

 

[qayak]

In the absence of free will, there's nothing to be forgiven for. Free will is a necessary part of man's culpability for sinning against God.

You're going to burn in hell anyway because the Mormons have it right.

 

[dafydd]

You keep implying that we think that it is God's knowledge of the future that somehow constrains our actions and removes free will.

I don't think anyone is saying that the knowledge itself causes or prevents anything.

I wish I had something better to add to this discussion, but it really makes my head hurt. And I think i just realized that even without God, free will is an illusion.

Not to mention that there is no proof of the existence of this god.

 

[SOdhner]

God created souls, which cause things to happen in a way that is not a consequence of God creating the world exactly as he did, but rather in a way that is a consequence of the souls' free choices.

You're still defining free will with itself.

You're saying that souls have free will because they have free will, and you are ignoring what we keep saying which is that souls, like the rest of god's creation, were known to god prior to being created. Here, let me re-word the post you were responding to:

If I understand what you are saying, it is "God created SOULS, and knew in advance everything that would happen as a consequence of his creating SOULS exactly as he did. But, SOULS still have free will because: magic." To me that is the same sort of logic problem as the rock question above. You can't just say "magic" to explain away something that fundamentally makes zero sense.

There. See? It's the exact same problem. You haven't explained anything, just changed a word. It still boils down to you trying to throw all logic out the window.

God knows that X will happen because God knows what choice A will make -- not because there is only one choice that A can make. A has the capacity to choose X or not X, but in exercising that capacity, A chooses X and God knows this.

Right. But it's about WHEN god knows this.

God knows this PRIOR TO CREATING THE UNIVERSE.

God also knows what would happen if he created the universe in a different way.

Knowing this, god CHOOSES to create the universe in a way that will result in A choosing X.

Thus, god has chosen X.

God has free will, but A does not.

 

[laca]

If you claim that those two statements are contradictory, then everything is predetermined (there is no such thing as choice or chance).

Interesting choice of word. If your god knows everything that's ever going to happen, then everything is predetermined. It's just that we don't know it and it feels as if events are random, as if we have some choice in the matter. In reality, you god's omniscience is equivalent to determinism.

If we define determinism as the fact that any state of the universe is a function of the previous states and of the previous states only, then from omniscience we have determinism (the states are not actually a function of the previous states, they are fixed).

Using the same definitions, if we have determinism, adding the premise that your god is the creator (which means it knows state 0), then it knows everything, hence omniscience.

So from omniscience we get to determinism and from determinism we get to omniscience. This means they are equivalent. I await your contorted definition of determinism to refute this.

 

[H'ethetheth]

In the absence of free will, there's nothing to be forgiven for. Free will is a necessary part of man's culpability for sinning against God.

So, including the popular notion that the christian god is omniscient, this neatly presents the reason why you need to believe in things like "supernatural foreknowledge", i.e. logically impossible things.

 

[laca]

Only if omniscient is defined as "An omniscient entity knowing choice X removes the capacity for choice ~X." You haven't demonstrated that this is a reasonable definition or the consequence of a reasonable definition, and I don't agree with it.

You're begging the question again by assuming there is a choice to remove. That is the very conclusion we're trying to arrive at: whether there is choice (i.e. free will) or not.