Quote Groverleaf:
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Crazy Anglican.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
response:
You're welcome, I've enjoyed talking with you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Groverleaf:
I appreciate your argument, but must say that I find it unconvincing. Your linear timeline vs. multiple timeline theory fails in part because you're merely renaming "choices" with "alternate timelines." Allowing for alternate timelines is the same thing as allowing free will. But this still fails to address the fundamental point--that if God is omniscient, then he knows which of the "multiple timelines" will come to pass before they do. Whether or not God allows me to choose one or more possible futures is merely the same thing as saying he allows me free will. In either nomenclature, an omniscient God must know which choice will be made or which of the many timelines I will walk. The fact remains that God knows what the future holds, and therefore my choices are already made for me.
I am not saying God or a deity intrudes on free will and forces us to take a predestined action. Rather, God already knows what path will be taken, and since that path is already decided, any "free will" I might perceive or God may "allow" is merely an illusion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
response:
By definition, from our vantage point, the future has not yet occurred, and we have at least the illusion of personal choice. I think we should back up to clarify some points here though. I’m not in any sense talking about alternate timelines. As far as I know this is the only one we have, and I see no reason for the purposes of the argument to assume any others. At least it wasn’t my intent to insinuate any other ones. With only one timeline and an omniscient deity, the question becomes “is our timeline linear” (in which case the deity could only be considered omniscient if he/she knew every individual choice before it was made) or “is our (future) timeline branching” (in which case a deity who could calculate all of the consequences for all of the choices made by the myriad individuals in the Universe would have at least an equal claim to the title omniscient). In essence, in the second scenario, God already knows all of the possible futures you might choose, but leaves the choosing up to you. Since we only have a finite number of choices that will be available to us in our lifetimes, the simple fact that an omnipotent God would know all of them in no way limits our choices. My assertion really is that the deity who “knows all” of the choices possible to and variables affecting every individual in the Universe could more rightly be considered “All-Knowing” or omniscient than the one who merely tends a single timeline with all of the possibilities already determined. My question is simply put. Between these two deities, which one knows more? If one knows more than another how could he/she not be considered more deserving of the title All-Knowing? Your definition simply means, “knows all of the answers” where mine means, “knows all of the possibilities”. Taking it down to brass tacks they both know all. You’re not going to surprise either of them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Groverleaf:
Finally, and this goes to several comments on this terrific thread, the idea that Man cannot understand God's mind is, in my opinion, a cop out. This is equally unconvincing as the "quantum mechanics made me do it" ... To me, both these arguments are unconvincing because they use ignorance and mystery as a reason. That God's mind and/or entropy combined with quantum mechanics are so complicated that we cannot possibly follow may be true, but I don't believe that is a convincing result.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
response:
I think the “not knowing God’s nature” part is the only one that applies to me in this section. I wasn’t as much using the “well, its a mystery to us” line as I was asserting that my alternate definition is equally plausible, even though only one definition for the terms in question had been set forth to that point in the conversation. It was merely acknowledging that I, like you, have latched onto an idea which may not be true. So, it’s not so much an appeal to ignorance as an acknowledgement of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Groverleaf:
Obviously, I don't have an answer to the question either. I think about this sort of thing a lot. Crazy Anglican is right that this has been argued about for thousands of years. I'm not sure we are going to have an answer in our mortal lives, but (to me) not having an answer but trying to find one is different than saying that an answer is simply beyond our reach so we should just accept it on faith/science. A semantic distinction? Yeah, probably. ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
response:
In which case, I think we’re kindred spirits in this regard. knowing that I’ll probably not get to a definitive answer probably won’t dissuade me from the attempt either. J
Weekend Gamewith Pause
)
)
)
)
)
)
