|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 30, 2011 9:21:11 GMT -5
Probability speaks to random events, not decisions. Even within a random event, if one could predict an outcome it does not mean the probability becomes 0% since you can't know if the prediction is right before the event takes place. Probably can be applied to pretty much any sort of events, decisions included. And again, God does not predict, he knows (omniscience). Therefore the chance of him being wrong is 0% and thus any alternative is impossible. If the outcome was guaranteed 100%, than it would be. That is not a prediction, as by definition a prediction involves uncertainty. Really, how is the computer affecting the outcome of the match? It's not, it is merely predicting the outcome. Predicting with 100% certainty, or knowing, same difference. They are not the same as predetermined. Predetermined would be controlling the outcome. God is not doing that. It would not be predicting the match (again, as a prediction by definition involves uncertainty) or affecting the outcome. If it could truly with 100% certainty give the outcome of a sports match before it happens, it would be observing a fixed outcome, which would demonstrate that the outcome was predetermined. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 30, 2011 9:23:05 GMT -5
Does being omniscient mean seeing a linear future or seeing all possible futures? Just something to add to the discussion to ponder about. Both (as in seeing what will happen as well as knowing what would happen if things went differently). It does mean knowing everything. |
|
|
|
Post by askold on Sept 30, 2011 9:23:20 GMT -5
I can't see how this would interfere with free will.
It would be a different case if god would choose those destinies and force people to follow them. But "all-knowing" does not mean that.
"Perfect prediction" will not effect the outcome in itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 30, 2011 9:26:39 GMT -5
I can't see how this would interfere with free will. It would be a different case if god would choose those destinies and force people to follow them. But "all-knowing" does not mean that. "Perfect prediction" will not effect the outcome in itself. Again, there's no predicting on god's part, he knows. If he knows, than there's 0% chance of any alternative and by definition that outcome is certain. Thus, predetermined. Also, see John's post back on page 1. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 30, 2011 9:53:45 GMT -5
Does being omniscient mean seeing a linear future or seeing all possible futures? Just something to add to the discussion to ponder about. I would think that one would see all possible futures. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 30, 2011 10:04:04 GMT -5
Probably can be applied to pretty much any sort of events, decisions included. And again, God does not predict, he knows (omniscience). Therefore the chance of him being wrong is 0% and thus any alternative is impossible. If the outcome was guaranteed 100%, than it would be. That is not a prediction, as by definition a prediction involves uncertainty. There is always uncertainty until the even takes place. While it is said that God knows for certain, that can't be assessed until we see it. It would not be predicting the match (again, as a prediction by definition involves uncertainty) or affecting the outcome. If it could truly with 100% certainty give the outcome of a sports match before it happens, it would be observing a fixed outcome, which would demonstrate that the outcome was predetermined. ...and what if the match was canceled? There would then be no outcome, so it could not have been a fixed. This goes to the question, can God choose to be wrong? If God foresees and event, but then prevents it from happening did he foresee the outcome incorrectly, or did he change that outcome? |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 30, 2011 10:14:43 GMT -5
There is always uncertainty until the even takes place. While it is said that God knows for certain, that can't be assessed until we see it. So you're saying God would have to not be omniscient for free will to exist? Well, now we're getting somewhere. ...and what if the match was canceled? There would then be no outcome, so it could not have been a fixed. The outcome would be a cancellation, and if the machine didn't say so, than it's not in fact 100% accurate like it's claimed to be. This goes to the question, can God choose to be wrong? If God foresees and event, but then prevents it from happening did he foresee the outcome incorrectly, or did he change that outcome? How's that choosing to be wrong? That's just simply intervening. He's right about what would happen if he left things as is and knows what would happen if he changed things as he did. Of course, he'd also have known he'd step in at that point and intervene too, so in fact not even God would have free will (which of course would also mean he's not actually omnipotent). Isn't it interesting how badly theology falls apart when you analyse it a little? |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 30, 2011 10:36:06 GMT -5
So you're saying God would have to not be omniscient for free will to exist? Well, now we're getting somewhere. No I'm saying that you can't show him to be correct in any prediction until the event happens, so uncertainty remains. The outcome would be a cancellation, and if the machine didn't say so, than it's not in fact 100% accurate like it's claimed to be. The machine is only able to predict who will win a match up. If that match up does not happen, you simply do not know if it is correct. How's that choosing to be wrong? That's just simply intervening. He's right about what would happen if he left things as is and knows what would happen if he changed things as he did. Of course, he'd also have known he'd step in at that point and intervene too, so in fact not even God would have free will (which of course would also mean he's not actually omnipotent). Isn't it interesting how badly theology falls apart when you analysis it a little? If God knows something can happen if he does not intervene, it means that event is a possibility, which means there was a choice. Foreknowledge does not preclude free will. It seems as if you are looking at it after the choice is made, not before. |
|
|
|
Post by John E on Sept 30, 2011 10:40:26 GMT -5
Let say you built a computer program that could predict the winners and losers of football matches with 100% accuracy. That would not mean that the games were predetermined. Just that the outcomes could be predicted. That depends. Did the computer also write the rules or the game, build the stadium, pick the teams, set the date and time for the game, etc.? Was the computer able to predict with 100% accuracy exactly how the game would go, down to each individual play, for any possible starting conditions it set? If so, then yes, the games were predetermined by the computer. That's a more accurate analogy to what we're talking about here. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 30, 2011 10:53:12 GMT -5
That depends. Did the computer also write the rules or the game, build the stadium, pick the teams, set the date and time for the game, etc.? Was the computer able to predict with 100% accuracy exactly how the game would go, down to each individual play, for any possible starting conditions it set? If so, then yes, the games were predetermined by the computer. That's a more accurate analogy to what we're talking about here. God would not have build the stadium or write the rules of that particular game either. Even if it had done all of those things, does it then somehow control the real people, or would those people still have the choice to do something else? Or here is the questions, what happens when you give both teams the computer prediction on that level? Will the teams still play the game that way, or will the game and the outcome now change? Let me put it this way, I can tell you that I will not go home pick up my TV and smash it into the floor tonight. By knowing that, did I just take away my free will? Do I no longer have a choice. |
|
|
|
Post by John E on Sept 30, 2011 11:34:37 GMT -5
God would not have build the stadium or write the rules of that particular game either. God set up the initial conditions, knowing when he did so exactly what choices everyone would make. He had the ability to set up different initial conditions that would lead to people making different choices. Therefor he made all of our choices for us. Then you're changing the conditions and possibly causing them to do something else. If the computer can predict exactly how their choices will change if it shows them the prediction, then their choices are still being controlled. That's VERY different, because you're making a choice in the first place not to smash your TV later. Not to mention that you could change your mind. "But I won't." Probably. But you could, and you might. If God knows with 100% certainty what you're going to do, AND set the initial conditions that he knew would lead to you doing it, AND had the ability to set different initial conditions that would cause you to do something else, then he's in control of your actions, not you. The point I'm getting at is that omniscience in and of itself doesn't negate free will, but when you pair it with omnipotence, it does. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 30, 2011 12:00:22 GMT -5
God set up the initial conditions, knowing when he did so exactly what choices everyone would make. He had the ability to set up different initial conditions that would lead to people making different choices. Therefor he made all of our choices for us. Again knowing what choices and making the choices are to very different things. Then you're changing the conditions and possibly causing them to do something else. If the computer can predict exactly how their choices will change if it shows them the prediction, then their choices are still being controlled. Just the mere fact that they can choose something else means they have free will and are not being controlled. I could change my mind, but I won't. In that situation I not only do I know what choice I will make, I also have the power over that situation, yet I still have the choice. Saying that God is controlling you because he set the conditions and has foreknowledge of the events would be like saying that I can control you simply by putting you in a certain situation. If I put you in a room with one door, then point a gun at you and tell you to go through that door am I controlling you? No, you still have a choice of what you do. I am most likely swaying you to make a certain decision, but I'm not controlling you. That will not change even if I have the foreknowledge of what your decision is. Unless, I change the conditions to get a desired response. So unless God changed or set the conditions to get a certain outcome free will is not removed. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 30, 2011 12:03:14 GMT -5
It doesn't have to be God making the bloody choice. It could be anything, but as long as an external agent always knows the choice picked in advance, there's not free will. The agent doesn't have to be making the choice, it merely needs to know it. The choice could be from something entirely different (for example, laws of physics).
To use an example, we know how fast an object will fall, it does not have a say in the matter. We don't have to be the agent making the decision in its velocity for it to not have a choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Sept 30, 2011 12:09:51 GMT -5
It doesn't have to be God making the bloody choice. It could be anything, but as long as an external agent always knows the choice picked in advance, there's not free will. The agent doesn't have to be making the choice, it merely needs to know it. The choice could be from something entirely different (for example, laws of physics). To use an example, we know how fast an object will fall, it does not have a say in the matter. We don't have to be the agent making the decision in its velocity for it to not have a choice. Objects do not make choices, nor is how fast something falls a choice. We can say that an agent, such as God, knows for certain but that does not become ture, until that event happends. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 30, 2011 12:23:15 GMT -5
It doesn't have to be God making the bloody choice. It could be anything, but as long as an external agent always knows the choice picked in advance, there's not free will. The agent doesn't have to be making the choice, it merely needs to know it. The choice could be from something entirely different (for example, laws of physics). To use an example, we know how fast an object will fall, it does not have a say in the matter. We don't have to be the agent making the decision in its velocity for it to not have a choice. Objects do not make choices, nor is how fast something falls a choice. No fucking shit, that's kind of the point. You're assuming a priori that there is free will, but in a circumstance where actions are able to be predicted with 100% accuracy, there can't be choice in the matter. Knowing something will happen with absolute accuracy puts it on the level of a physical law. Same with the falling object, it doesn't happen until it happens (wow, meaningless statement), but we know that it will and we know there is no choice in the matter. |
|
