Free will is logically incompatible with the teleological argument, i.e. that the universe was made with a purposeful design.

If we have free will then the universe is chaotic and purposeless, and so is our own existence.

The Roman Church was not really Christian?

This belies your earlier statement that the choice of church is irrelevant.

Putin, really, time/eternity, the Roman Church, and free will all in three consecutive posts? Lemme try short answers then. 1. Think of eternity as arching over time, and our "time" as a little bubble in eternity--so there's eternity past, present, and future. We live consecutive lives and are bound by time, but God is not. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." 2. My post and the Bible passage I quoted was not about churches but about individuals. Just because you're in a garage doesn't make you a car, and just because you're in a church doesn't make you a Christian. I know Roman Catholics who are saved and I know some who are not. I also knew the now-former missions chair of a major protestant denomination who freely admitted that he did not know God directly but only that he officially subscribed to the church's statement of belief but actually didn't ever experience the presence of God except as "the feeling between me and my congregation." 3. Free will: God created mankind with the ability to choose between him and selfish desire, as evidenced by the story of Adam and Eve in the garden. They chose wrong, and he didn't stop them even though he knew everything that would happen in advance. All that suffering, and Jesus' own death on the cross--that's how highly God values free will.

"Think of eternity as arching over time, and our "time" as a little bubble in eternity--so there's eternity past, present, and future. We live consecutive lives and are bound by time, but God is not"

That doesn't resolve the problem.

The logical problem is this:

A. All causal agents exist within the bounds of time
B. God exists outside the bounds of time
Therefore - God is not a causal agent

If God is not causal agent, it can hardly be a god.

"My post and the Bible passage I quoted was not about churches but about individuals."

Yes, and the specific question was about the actions of the Roman Church. Your response was to imply that the Roman Church, or at least the authorities at the time of Bruno & Galileo, were not true Christians.

"Free will: God created mankind with the ability to choose between him and selfish desire, as evidenced by the story of Adam and Eve in the garden. They chose wrong, and he didn't stop them even though he knew everything that would happen in advance."

And this is incompatible with teleological design. A universe cannot have a particular designed end if the matter within it has free will. Also, in order for there to be free will, some other outcome, other than the outcome foreseen by the deity, would have to be possible. Omniscience is incompatible with free will.

Mujus: You doged all my points . . .

Putin,

I won't really have time over the next few days to chase down either argument to its end, but I can help point out the basic errors at the base of your arguments, anyway. First of all, a Christian theist isn't going to accpet your premise "A. All causal agents exist within the bounds of time." So this argument doesn't show the logical inconsistency of theism -- it just shows that theism is incompatible with atheism, which is much less surprising.

As to the second, your "Omniscience is incompatible with free will" argument is going to fall apart if you allow reverse causation. Once again, most theists who believe in free will will believe that, where God is concerned, there is reverse causation (knowledge caused by later actions). Molinists go even further, positing the existence of middle knowledge to solve your first stated problem, as well.

These positions are not without controversy, but they're not trivially refutable by any argument using premises that a theist would actually accept, so they fail to demonstrate an inconsistency in theism.

ah well JECE, evasion seems to be Mujus' stock in trade response when it starts getting a bit too dificult.
@ Mujus, I REPEAT, the playername is MajorMitchell, do you see me calling you "jus"

Please quote my statement that requests you to "vouch for EVERY person that ever called themselves a christian " I have never made such a request so PLEASE do NOT MISREPRESENT what I have said.
You raised the issue of verbal evidence given in a court of Law in a response to another contributor & implied a link between statements given under oath in a court of Law & the truth.
I saw that and raised two court trials that were showtrials where the Church of Rome persecuted two of the intellectual talents of the 16th Century as good examples of the fallacy of thinking that "beliefs" can be transformed into "facts" via Biblical study/prayer/divine intervention.
There's an old saying, those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, and you seem to be wonderfully obtuse when it suits your purpose.

Another contributor seems to think that critics of Mujus like myself regard Jesus as stupid. That's not the case with me. I think Jesus is a very interesting chappy and his message does contain ideas that are of merit / value. The evolution of religious theologies in human history is most interesting. The two most dominant current religions ( Islam & Christianity ) are monotheistic and both represent a change from earlier religions that had multiple deities. I cannot think of any other "current" religion apart from the Indian Hindu faith that retains multiple deities.


I suppose the key difference is that I approach all these various religions with a fairly sceptical approach.

If Mujus & his pals want to have a private discussion of their faith they are perfectly entitled to do so PRIVATELY. However when they venture into the "public arena" then they must accept that in the "public arena" there is a "contest of ideas" they are not some "special protected species". If you do not want independent thinkers to participate because they question, criticise, apply scepticism to various claims & statements;
then simply let everyone know that you only welcome sycophantic acolytes.

I believe in a society that allows freedom of religious expression with one key limit, no person may use religious expression to incite Hatred or Violence. I expect everyone to realise that to have robust debates then the "offense sensitivity" has to be set on a coarse rather than fine setting, ie persons have to toughen up emotionally & intellectually.

I am content to allow
1 any persons who choose the Islamic faith to privately hold whatever religious
BELIEFS they choose.
2 any persons who choose Astrology & the Horoscope to privately believe in that
system.
3 any persons who choose Tarot cards to privately believe in that system.
4 any persons who choose any of the Christian Churches to privately follow those
belief systems
and so on
the thing is I see them all as a faith based, and of equal merit
So, if proponents of any of these faith based systems are content to exist as equals then I have no problems, they can engage in their various activities.
It's when they start to compete for Superiority & make claims that they have the SUPERIOR religion then I start to question & criticise, issue challenges for proof
etc.
So Mujus you are free to claim that you "believe a Biblical dragon threw one third of the stars in the sky to the earth", that's a faith based statement/belief.
It's when you "cross the line" and convert "statements of faith" to "statements of fact", so using the same example if you claim that " it is a fact that a Biblical dragon threw one third of the stars in the sky to the earth' then I will challenge that claim

I'll bet that sticks in your craw Mujus, seeing Christianity, the Islamic faith, Astrology & the Tarot rated as of equal credibility value & I'll bet followers of Islam are similarly hopping about having coniptions.
Since Jesus got a mention, lets discuss the way the two faiths, Christianity and Islam both see Jesus. Both the Bible & the Koran recognise the "human existence" of this Jesus chappy.
Christians would support the Biblical claim that Jesus is the Son of God
However in the Koran, Jesus is acknowledged as Prophet of God, but his divinity is specifically refuted.
Now I can sit back in the "nuetral corner" and acknowledge both claims as
"faith based beliefs" that can co exist, & so as long as the two Religions can
"agree to disagree" we should all be able to live harmoniously
But if either Religion, or both decide to "enhance it's claims" by appropriating "fact"
and rebadge their "statements of faith" as "statements of fact" then we have two competing and mutually exclusive "statements of fact" & I willl refute both

So to summarise that last post,
Both sets of claims about Jesus, those in the Bible and those in the Koran are of equal
credibility value, and people are free to choose which book and which set of claims about Jesus that they wish to BELIEVE. Let no person make any claim beyond that, so no claims of "indisputable fact" in support of either the Koran, or the Bible.

And just to show I'm not a complete ***** ( have to pander to Mujus' sensitivity here )
I've actually just sent up a brief prayer asking God to assist Mujus in his path toward enlightenment & understanding.

Mujus, misrepresenting my statements
( when have I asked you to vouch for every person who has
ever called themselves a christian )
and then providing some entirely irrelevant Biblical quotation does not "address my objection"
I admire your ability to be obtuse when it suits you, but even you cannot be so obtuse as to realise that it's the "rebadging" of articles of faith into articles of fact that has been my principal focus in just about every post I've made in this thread in last 2 days.
Please try to address the issue at hand, not some diverting irrelevancy

"First of all, a Christian theist isn't going to accpet your premise "A. All causal agents exist within the bounds of time." So this argument doesn't show the logical inconsistency of theism -- it just shows that theism is incompatible with atheism, which is much less surprising."

That's thoroughly unimpressive, Semck. Please define for me what causation is. You cannot define it any other way than being a relationship that occurs within time. In order for there to be cause and effect you have to have two points in time, or at least the notion of simultaneity, which again occurs within time. You cannot simply define concepts in logically impossible or meaningless ways in order to skirt around the logical incompatibility of god's various properties.

At least WL Craig tries to deal with this issue in an intellectually honest way by stating that prior to creation, god is timeless, while once creation occurs, god is temporal. That raises its own problems, but at least it's an honest way of dealing with a serious problem. Not the usual glib dismissal that we all too often see from Theists whenever they're confronted with an issue.

"Once again, most theists who believe in free will will believe that, where God is concerned, there is reverse causation (knowledge caused by later actions)."

If god is timeless then god cannot acquire knowledge caused by "later actions". There is no "later" time period with which god could do so - (thanks for acknowledging that causation occurs as a temporal relationship). Furthermore omniscience requires foreknowledge, knowledge of events which occur before they occur, and such knowledge is incompatible with free will. You cannot simply define omniscience in a way that is convenient for your argument for it to have any meaning. Anyway timelessness itself is imcompatible with omniscience in any definition of the term, and this problem cannot be waved away either. A god that is timeless cannot have experiential knowledge of beings that exist within nature. Such a god cannot have experiential knowledge of 'tensed facts' because god cannot experience tensed facts.

"These positions are not without controversy, but they're not trivially refutable by any argument using premises that a theist would actually accept, so they fail to demonstrate an inconsistency in theism."

You have to define terms in meaningful ways, you cannot just posit definitions for terms that have no meaning and escape the problem that way. You're defining omniscience and causation in definitionally meaningless ways.

"That's thoroughly unimpressive, Semck. Please define for me what causation is."

Nice, putin. But why, if you're allowed to operate at a level of analysis where you just state a premise without a shred of argument, is it "thoroughly unimpressive" if I operate at the same level and point out that it's not uncontroversial? Why jump straight to the insulting rhetoric when somebody answered you on your own terms?

The truth is, you have assumed a very controversial fact; if you felt you were in possession of a conclusive argument for that fact, then it was your mistake not to post that instead of posting this argument that already assumes it to be true.

Anyway, you asked somewhat nicely for a definition of causation, so I'll attempt to oblige. I'll be winging it a little -- I'm on vacation, and so don't have ready access to books like Leftow's "God and Necessity" that treat such things carefully.

To say that God causes X means that there is a possible world in which X, and that God decrees the existence of such a possible world, and that it obtains; and, finally, that there is no possible world in which God does not decree the existence of such a possible world and the world still obtains.

As I say, there are doubtless some holes to poke here, given that I haven't the time or resources to consult the professionals as I would wish, and you should go consult them if you feel so inclined. But you asked for an attempt, and there it is.

"(thanks for acknowledging that causation occurs as a temporal relationship)"

Haha. I didn't, but the language is often used Biblically, and in any case, forward causation is sufficient to establish your point, if reverse causation is not -- if at time t' < t, it is still the case that God knows what will happen at t (and it is), then by the time t comes around, reverse causation (at least) would have to be true for there to be freedom.

"Furthermore omniscience requires foreknowledge, knowledge of events which occur before they occur, and such knowledge is incompatible with free will. You cannot simply define omniscience in a way that is convenient for your argument for it to have any meaning."

I can define it in the way that Christian theology means it. There is no problem between the Christian doctrine of omniscience and free will. If you are still claiming that there is, then please present a (semi-)formalized version of it.

"Anyway timelessness itself is imcompatible with omniscience in any definition of the term, and this problem cannot be waved away either. A god that is timeless cannot have experiential knowledge of beings that exist within nature. Such a god cannot have experiential knowledge of 'tensed facts' because god cannot experience tensed facts."

The tensed-facts argument is, of course, a fairly long-raging debate in philosophy. It is notoriously technical analytic philosophy, and while I would be happy to provide references should you or others desire them (again, it would take some time to collect here), I doubt we're going to settle it on the webdip forum. I have seen no form of the argument that I consider strong and unrefuted, though. If you have one in mind, by all means please send a reference.

JECE, I did not mean to dodge all your points. Please list them one by one and let's talk about them.

MajorMitchell--At your request, I'll call you that when I'm talking to you. But your sensitivity meter is set way too high if you get offended that I use an abbreviated form of your name when referring to your posts in a conversation with someone else. And you want me to say that God's existence isn't a fact? Dude, facts can be true or false. Anytime anyone says that something is a fact, it just means that they BELIEVE it to be a fact. "You are wearing blue pants" is a statement of fact, rather than opinion. However, it may or may not be true--so just because someone states something as a fact does not excuse rational people from examining the evidence. But the monkey wrench in the works is that you need to examine all the evidence and judge for yourself, no matter what your previous opinion is or how strongly you hold it.

Facts are open to debate.

"But why, if you're allowed to operate at a level of analysis where you just state a premise without a shred of argument, is it "thoroughly unimpressive" if I operate at the same level and point out that it's not uncontroversial? "

What on earth is controversial about saying causation is a temporal relationship and that all causal agents exist within the bounds of time? Causation does not make sense outside of time. Provide a single causal explanation that exists without reference to time. David Hume produces the following criteria for cause & effect:

"1. "The cause and effect must be contiguous in space and time."
2. "The cause must be prior to the effect."
3. "There must be a constant union betwixt the cause and effect."

The notion that time and causation are inseparable is a well established. It is *not* controversial.

"To say that God causes X means that there is a possible world in which X, and that God decrees the existence of such a possible world, and that it obtains; and, finally, that there is no possible world in which God does not decree the existence of such a possible world and the world still obtains."

In your very definition you are invoking *time*, even though your definition isn't a definition of causation - at all. The divine decree would have to precede the "obtaining" of the universe. There would at least have to be a Time A in which the decree had not yet taken place and a Time B in which the decree did take place for there to be a "beginning" of the universe or for the universe to be caused.

You are claiming that there are two different times for reverse causation to work, yet you are also denying that this contradicts the allegedly timeless nature of god, and also denying that causation is linked to temporality. The mind boggles. Reverse causation = effect preceding cause, a temporal relationship!

As for the nonsense of retro-causality - it is odd that theists would dare to invoke it, considering it shakes the foundation of their other oft-used arguments to the very core. For example the common theistic cosmological argument claims that the notion of effects preceding causes is absurd and incoherent.

At any rate, reverse causality does not solve the problem of omniscience & free will. Reverse causation does not mean that the temporal arrow is going in reverse from future to past. That's nonsense. Reverse causation means that the effect preceded the cause, or to put it another (non-linear) way, entropy decreased from T1 to T2, instead of increasing, the latter being standard causation. But how could a timeless omniscient god ever exist in any point in time where it did not have knowledge of level of entropy? How could such a god exist where it had knowledge of effects but not knowledge of causes? Such a god is neither omniscient, nor timeless.

"I can define it in the way that Christian theology means it. There is no problem between the Christian doctrine of omniscience and free will. If you are still claiming that there is, then please present a (semi-)formalized version of it."

Please spare me the suspense, what is the Christian definition of omniscience, and does it bear any resemblance to the standard definition? I cannot come up with a formal problem until we agree on basic definitions.

Like I said, you're producing special definitions in order to make your argument work. You can call this "insulting rhetoric", but I can find no other description for what you're doing.

"I have seen no form of the argument that I consider strong and unrefuted, though"

It's not that complicated of an argument. Please explain how a timeless god can have knowledge of tensed facts - a tensed fact being a fact that is only true at a specific time - i.e. Yesterday was Saturday. It doesn't require a research paper or appeal to authority. Just give me a basic plausible explanation, or must we resort to absurdities like reverse causation for every step of the theist worldview?

e.g. not i.e.

@Putin,

"What on earth is controversial about saying causation is a temporal relationship and that all causal agents exist within the bounds of time?"

Plenty, when you use it to beg the question on a serious question. Already two serious philosophers have been cited in this thread who see causation more broadly. There are plenty more. Citing David Hume (outstanding as he is) does not close the matter. There are more kinds of causation that are discussed than just temporal causation, and you are trying to define them away.

Moving on. For reference, my definition of theistic causation:

""To say that God causes X means that there is a possible world in which X, and that God decrees the existence of such a possible world, and that it obtains; and, finally, that there is no possible world in which God does not decree the existence of such a possible world and the world still obtains."

You proceed,

"In your very definition you are invoking *time*, even though your definition isn't a definition of causation - at all. The divine decree would have to precede the "obtaining" of the universe."

No, I'm not, and no, it wouldn't. It wouldn't even make sense to speak of "preceding," would it? If you dislike the word "obtain," feel free to read "exists."

"There would at least have to be a Time A in which the decree had not yet taken place and a Time B in which the decree did take place for there to be a "beginning" of the universe or for the universe to be caused. "

On your definition, maybe, but certainly not on mine. Please remember you're trying to show an inconsistency in my views. You are not free to substitute your own definitions for mine while doing so.

You may find this definition of causation deeply dissatisfying, and you may wish to criticize it on any number of grounds (some I'm sure I'll agree with -- as I said, I've had little time to read up or be careful, and philosophical definitions are not something to throw out in 5 minutes if you can help it). But you are not free to simply insist on a definition that defines your position to be correct, and then call the Christian position inconsistent even though that is not the sense in which it is using the word. That would be fallacious.

I will suspend discussion of reverse causality until I see a semi-formalization of your argument on free will and omniscience. Entropy and the arrow of time is taking us a little far afield.

"Please spare me the suspense, what is the Christian definition of omniscience."

I confess I don't remember what I had in mind when I wrote that. I can't think of any necessary limitation from the standard definition, but for precision, we can adopt the common definition that, for any statement p, if p, then God knows p and does not believe not-p.

"Like I said, you're producing special definitions in order to make your argument work. You can call this "insulting rhetoric", but I can find no other description for what you're doing."

I wouldn't call that insulting rhretoric, for future reference -- that's just complaining about what you see as a bad argument I'm making, which is always legitimate (though it may be incorrect in a given instance). The "insulting rhetoric" remark was in reference to your requesting a definition and prepending an insult *when nothing in the argument so far had suggested that one was necessary* (and I hadn't refused to give one).

"It's not that complicated of an argument. Please explain how a timeless god can have knowledge of tensed facts - a tensed fact being a fact that is only true at a specific time - i.e. Yesterday was Saturday. It doesn't require a research paper or appeal to authority."

That's a little like saying, "Just tell me why Fermat's last theorem is true -- you don't need to cite a paper or make a big song and dance, just tell me." I exaggerate, obviously, but in truth this is a highly technical field and I'm not going to make any argument that doesn't have a stream of papers discussing it back and forth already.

That said -- God knows it the same way that you could know it. That is, suppose you go to Josh's party tonight and you see me there. You go home and crash, and then tomorrow, you check your email and find an unread message from me, dated 8 hours before the party, saying, "I'm going to Josh's party tonight." You don't have any problem evaluating the truth value of this proposition (it's true), even though it's not literally true in your own temporal context ("tonight" no longer means Monday night). The same aparatus that allows you to refer my statement to when I made it and evaluate it as true works just as well for a being that doesn't exist in time at all. To speak of knowledge in either case, you must distinguish between knowing a statement with its indexical references (such as now) fully intact, or knowing it by "dereferencing" them, i.e., by using what have been called quasi-indexical references. The key point is that refusing to acknowledge the latter undermines a vast number of ordinary human claims of knowledge, too, whereas a willingness to do so destroys the objection to the coexistence of omniscience and tensed facts. The analysis requires a subtlety in the mode of knowing a particular fact, but it is the same fact that is known.

A seminal and fairly readable short article on this is "Omniscience and Indexical Reference" by Castaneda (there's a tilde on the n). Even the basic definitions of these terms are too tediously long for me to type out here, but they are well discussed in that article's 8 pages.