Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Omniscience, Free will, and retro-causality.

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:05:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Omniscience and free will are compatible because if God exists, his knowledge doesn't cause our future actions, our future actions cause God's knowledge. This is a sound argument. However, this would mean that retro-causality exists, because something in the future (human action) would cause something in the past (God's knowledge). This seems to undermine cosmological arguments completely, because something after the universe exists could have caused The Big Bang if retro-causality is true (Getting rid of any need for a "causally prior"). How would one respond to this?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:08:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The point is that omniscience necessarily means our future actions can be determined without us 'being there.' I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:08:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:06:17 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Our FUTURE actions. How is THAT not incompatible?!

Your question isn't phrased clearly. What are you speaking about specifically?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:10:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:08:04 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The point is that omniscience necessarily means our future actions can be determined without us 'being there.' I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

The argument is that our future actions determine God's past knowledge, not that God's past knowledge determines our future actions (you are confusing cause and effect). Why is that so hard for you to understand? This makes sense, but opens up the door to retro-causality.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:10:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:08:36 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:06:17 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Our FUTURE actions. How is THAT not incompatible?!

Your question isn't phrased clearly. What are you speaking about specifically?

Our future actions cause God's knowledge, and not the other way around. I don't dispute this, and this is not even related to my argument. If God is truly omniscient, that means all actions can be determined without the action taking place, entailing a deterministic universe meaning free will is impossible.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:12:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:10:49 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:08:36 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:06:17 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Our FUTURE actions. How is THAT not incompatible?!

Your question isn't phrased clearly. What are you speaking about specifically?

Our future actions cause God's knowledge, and not the other way around. I don't dispute this, and this is not even related to my argument. If God is truly omniscient, that means all actions can be determined without the action taking place, entailing a deterministic universe meaning free will is impossible.

God having foreknowledge of 'x', is not the same as God determining 'x' in a causal fashion. So no, free will is not impossible.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:12:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The argument is that our future actions determine God's past knowledge, not that God's past knowledge determines our future actions (you are confusing cause and effect)"

ENOUGH.WITH.THAT
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:13:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:12:04 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:10:49 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:08:36 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:06:17 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Our FUTURE actions. How is THAT not incompatible?!

Your question isn't phrased clearly. What are you speaking about specifically?

Our future actions cause God's knowledge, and not the other way around. I don't dispute this, and this is not even related to my argument. If God is truly omniscient, that means all actions can be determined without the action taking place, entailing a deterministic universe meaning free will is impossible.

God having foreknowledge of 'x', is not the same as God determining 'x' in a causal fashion. So no, free will is not impossible.

God knowledge foreknowledge doesn't need to determine 'x' for God's knowledge necessarily entailing 'x' to be predetermined.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:13:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:13:25 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:12:04 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:10:49 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:08:36 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:06:17 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Our FUTURE actions. How is THAT not incompatible?!

Your question isn't phrased clearly. What are you speaking about specifically?

Our future actions cause God's knowledge, and not the other way around. I don't dispute this, and this is not even related to my argument. If God is truly omniscient, that means all actions can be determined without the action taking place, entailing a deterministic universe meaning free will is impossible.

God having foreknowledge of 'x', is not the same as God determining 'x' in a causal fashion. So no, free will is not impossible.

God knowledge foreknowledge doesn't need to determine 'x' for God's knowledge necessarily entailing 'x' to be predetermined.

God's
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:15:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:15:00 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The point is that 'x' must be independently predetermined for foreknowledge of it.

*being possible.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:15:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:13:25 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:12:04 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:10:49 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:08:36 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:06:17 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Our FUTURE actions. How is THAT not incompatible?!

Your question isn't phrased clearly. What are you speaking about specifically?

Our future actions cause God's knowledge, and not the other way around. I don't dispute this, and this is not even related to my argument. If God is truly omniscient, that means all actions can be determined without the action taking place, entailing a deterministic universe meaning free will is impossible.

God having foreknowledge of 'x', is not the same as God determining 'x' in a causal fashion. So no, free will is not impossible.

God knowledge foreknowledge doesn't need to determine 'x' for God's knowledge necessarily entailing 'x' to be predetermined.

How would this mean we don't have free will? Whatever I freely chose in the future, will be what God knows in the past, and what will necessarily happen. This doesn't undermine free will at all.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:15:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:15:00 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The point is that 'x' must be independently predetermined for foreknowledge of it.

There is no reason to believe this is true.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:16:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:05:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Omniscience and free will are compatible because if God exists, his knowledge doesn't cause our future actions, our future actions cause God's knowledge. This is a sound argument. However, this would mean that retro-causality exists, because something in the future (human action) would cause something in the past (God's knowledge). This seems to undermine cosmological arguments completely, because something after the universe exists could have caused The Big Bang if retro-causality is true (Getting rid of any need for a "causally prior"). How would one respond to this?:

We do not cause God's knowledge. God's knowledge existed before us and therefore we are just playing a script that has been written already with the opportunity to make the choice willingly of that script.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:19:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:16:17 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:05:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Omniscience and free will are compatible because if God exists, his knowledge doesn't cause our future actions, our future actions cause God's knowledge. This is a sound argument. However, this would mean that retro-causality exists, because something in the future (human action) would cause something in the past (God's knowledge). This seems to undermine cosmological arguments completely, because something after the universe exists could have caused The Big Bang if retro-causality is true (Getting rid of any need for a "causally prior"). How would one respond to this?:

We do not cause God's knowledge. God's knowledge existed before us and therefore we are just playing a script that has been written already with the opportunity to make the choice willingly of that script.

That makes no sense. If our future actions do not cause God's knowledge, then free will is impossible because we have no control over what will happen. The only way for omniscience and free will to be compatible, is if future actions determine in a causal fashion what God's knowledge of the future will be. Without this, free will cannot exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:21:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:16:17 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:05:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Omniscience and free will are compatible because if God exists, his knowledge doesn't cause our future actions, our future actions cause God's knowledge. This is a sound argument. However, this would mean that retro-causality exists, because something in the future (human action) would cause something in the past (God's knowledge). This seems to undermine cosmological arguments completely, because something after the universe exists could have caused The Big Bang if retro-causality is true (Getting rid of any need for a "causally prior"). How would one respond to this?:

We do not cause God's knowledge. God's knowledge existed before us and therefore we are just playing a script that has been written already with the opportunity to make the choice willingly of that script.

Either God's past knowledge determines our future, or our future determines God's past knowledge. If God's past knowledge determines our future, then free will does not exist. If our future actions determine God's past knowledge, then free will exists, but so does retro-causality.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:27:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:15:57 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:15:00 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The point is that 'x' must be independently predetermined for foreknowledge of it.

There is no reason to believe this is true.

There is every reason to know it's true.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:29:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:19:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:16:17 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:05:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Omniscience and free will are compatible because if God exists, his knowledge doesn't cause our future actions, our future actions cause God's knowledge. This is a sound argument. However, this would mean that retro-causality exists, because something in the future (human action) would cause something in the past (God's knowledge). This seems to undermine cosmological arguments completely, because something after the universe exists could have caused The Big Bang if retro-causality is true (Getting rid of any need for a "causally prior"). How would one respond to this?:

We do not cause God's knowledge. God's knowledge existed before us and therefore we are just playing a script that has been written already with the opportunity to make the choice willingly of that script.

That makes no sense. If our future actions do not cause God's knowledge, then free will is impossible because we have no control over what will happen. The only way for omniscience and free will to be compatible, is if future actions determine in a causal fashion what God's knowledge of the future will be. Without this, free will cannot exist.:

We will not change the course of that history. But, we still have free-will because even though we will still live that script written beforehand, we choose to live it willingly. Like if we was giving the script to live our life by and we did live by it, it was free-will we did, even though it was known.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:33:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:29:01 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:19:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:16:17 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:05:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Omniscience and free will are compatible because if God exists, his knowledge doesn't cause our future actions, our future actions cause God's knowledge. This is a sound argument. However, this would mean that retro-causality exists, because something in the future (human action) would cause something in the past (God's knowledge). This seems to undermine cosmological arguments completely, because something after the universe exists could have caused The Big Bang if retro-causality is true (Getting rid of any need for a "causally prior"). How would one respond to this?:

We do not cause God's knowledge. God's knowledge existed before us and therefore we are just playing a script that has been written already with the opportunity to make the choice willingly of that script.

That makes no sense. If our future actions do not cause God's knowledge, then free will is impossible because we have no control over what will happen. The only way for omniscience and free will to be compatible, is if future actions determine in a causal fashion what God's knowledge of the future will be. Without this, free will cannot exist.:

We will not change the course of that history. But, we still have free-will because even though we will still live that script written beforehand, we choose to live it willingly.

This is an incoherent stance. If God's knowledge determines our future in a casual fashion, then whatever God knows has to happen. This means that we cannot go off the script, meaning we have no free will. Free will is only compatible with God's omniscience, if our future actions determine God's prior knowledge on a causal fashion.

Like if we was giving the script to live our life by and we did live by it, it was free-will we did, even though it was known.

We have to live by it necessarily though. Meaning we don't have free will. We have no option of veering off the script, because if we did, that would mean God was not omniscient, because he would have known things that weren't going to necessarily happen.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:34:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:29:01 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:19:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:16:17 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:05:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Omniscience and free will are compatible because if God exists, his knowledge doesn't cause our future actions, our future actions cause God's knowledge. This is a sound argument. However, this would mean that retro-causality exists, because something in the future (human action) would cause something in the past (God's knowledge). This seems to undermine cosmological arguments completely, because something after the universe exists could have caused The Big Bang if retro-causality is true (Getting rid of any need for a "causally prior"). How would one respond to this?:

We do not cause God's knowledge. God's knowledge existed before us and therefore we are just playing a script that has been written already with the opportunity to make the choice willingly of that script.

That makes no sense. If our future actions do not cause God's knowledge, then free will is impossible because we have no control over what will happen. The only way for omniscience and free will to be compatible, is if future actions determine in a causal fashion what God's knowledge of the future will be. Without this, free will cannot exist.:

We will not change the course of that history. But, we still have free-will because even though we will still live that script written beforehand, we choose to live it willingly. Like if we was giving the script to live our life by and we did live by it, it was free-will we did, even though it was known.

The second you admit that our future actions are not the determining cause of God's knowledge of said action, you have just thrown the omniscience/ free will compatibility argument out of the window.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:48:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:33:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:29:01 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:19:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:16:17 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:05:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Omniscience and free will are compatible because if God exists, his knowledge doesn't cause our future actions, our future actions cause God's knowledge. This is a sound argument. However, this would mean that retro-causality exists, because something in the future (human action) would cause something in the past (God's knowledge). This seems to undermine cosmological arguments completely, because something after the universe exists could have caused The Big Bang if retro-causality is true (Getting rid of any need for a "causally prior"). How would one respond to this?:

We do not cause God's knowledge. God's knowledge existed before us and therefore we are just playing a script that has been written already with the opportunity to make the choice willingly of that script.

That makes no sense. If our future actions do not cause God's knowledge, then free will is impossible because we have no control over what will happen. The only way for omniscience and free will to be compatible, is if future actions determine in a causal fashion what God's knowledge of the future will be. Without this, free will cannot exist.:

We will not change the course of that history. But, we still have free-will because even though we will still live that script written beforehand, we choose to live it willingly.

This is an incoherent stance. If God's knowledge determines our future in a casual fashion, then whatever God knows has to happen. This means that we cannot go off the script, meaning we have no free will. Free will is only compatible with God's omniscience, if our future actions determine God's prior knowledge on a causal fashion. :
It is not incoherent. God is not in time. God stands outside of it. He sees the end and the beginning. He sees who we are, how we are, what we will do, from the very moment we are created. We still live it and do it willingly.


Like if we was giving the script to live our life by and we did live by it, it was free-will we did, even though it was known.

We have to live by it necessarily though. Meaning we don't have free will. We have no option of veering off the script, because if we did, that would mean God was not omniscient, because he would have known things that weren't going to necessarily happen.:
Imagine a straight line. Now the line starts and it ends and you have to get to the end from the beginning. The beginning and end are destined already. But, you are given no specific requirements on how to get to the end of the line. You are given warnings and examples of why you should stay on the line. You can bump off the line, veer from side to side, but you will end up on the line in the end. Even though you choose to stay on the line or off the line along the way, your way ends up where it was destined too. You made the choice to veer off the line or to stay on the line. Your choice determines what is at the end of the line.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 9:57:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:48:44 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:33:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:29:01 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:19:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:16:17 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:05:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Omniscience and free will are compatible because if God exists, his knowledge doesn't cause our future actions, our future actions cause God's knowledge. This is a sound argument. However, this would mean that retro-causality exists, because something in the future (human action) would cause something in the past (God's knowledge). This seems to undermine cosmological arguments completely, because something after the universe exists could have caused The Big Bang if retro-causality is true (Getting rid of any need for a "causally prior"). How would one respond to this?:

We do not cause God's knowledge. God's knowledge existed before us and therefore we are just playing a script that has been written already with the opportunity to make the choice willingly of that script.

That makes no sense. If our future actions do not cause God's knowledge, then free will is impossible because we have no control over what will happen. The only way for omniscience and free will to be compatible, is if future actions determine in a causal fashion what God's knowledge of the future will be. Without this, free will cannot exist.:

We will not change the course of that history. But, we still have free-will because even though we will still live that script written beforehand, we choose to live it willingly.

This is an incoherent stance. If God's knowledge determines our future in a casual fashion, then whatever God knows has to happen. This means that we cannot go off the script, meaning we have no free will. Free will is only compatible with God's omniscience, if our future actions determine God's prior knowledge on a causal fashion. :
It is not incoherent. God is not in time. God stands outside of it.

God is omnipresent if he exists. Meaning, he exists outside of time and within it.

He sees the end and the beginning. He sees who we are, how we are, what we will do, from the very moment we are created. We still live it and do it willingly.

We cannot freely chose to do something willingly, that will necessarily happen. The only way around this is if out future actions are the determining cause of said knowledge. Without this, your argument is illogical.



Like if we was giving the script to live our life by and we did live by it, it was free-will we did, even though it was known.

We have to live by it necessarily though. Meaning we don't have free will. We have no option of veering off the script, because if we did, that would mean God was not omniscient, because he would have known things that weren't going to necessarily happen.:
Imagine a straight line. Now the line starts and it ends and you have to get to the end from the beginning. The beginning and end are destined already.
But, you are given no specific requirements on how to get to the end of the line. You are given warnings and examples of why you should stay on the line. You can bump off the line, veer from side to side, but you will end up on the line in the end.

If you will necessarily end up on the line, then this contradicts your stance that we can veer off the line. Therefore, your position is self-contradictory.

Even though you choose to stay on the line or off the line along the way, your way ends up where it was destined too. You made the choice to veer off the line or to stay on the line. Your choice determines what is at the end of the line.

Once more, if staying on the line is necessary, then freely veering off the line is not an option anybody truly has. Therefore, your stance is incoherent, because one cannot freely chose to stay on a line, if the line is necessary. The only way omniscience, and free will are compatible, is if the prior line is determined by the future free action.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:01:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:48:44 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:33:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:29:01 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:19:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:16:17 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:05:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Omniscience and free will are compatible because if God exists, his knowledge doesn't cause our future actions, our future actions cause God's knowledge. This is a sound argument. However, this would mean that retro-causality exists, because something in the future (human action) would cause something in the past (God's knowledge). This seems to undermine cosmological arguments completely, because something after the universe exists could have caused The Big Bang if retro-causality is true (Getting rid of any need for a "causally prior"). How would one respond to this?:

We do not cause God's knowledge. God's knowledge existed before us and therefore we are just playing a script that has been written already with the opportunity to make the choice willingly of that script.

That makes no sense. If our future actions do not cause God's knowledge, then free will is impossible because we have no control over what will happen. The only way for omniscience and free will to be compatible, is if future actions determine in a causal fashion what God's knowledge of the future will be. Without this, free will cannot exist.:

We will not change the course of that history. But, we still have free-will because even though we will still live that script written beforehand, we choose to live it willingly.

This is an incoherent stance. If God's knowledge determines our future in a casual fashion, then whatever God knows has to happen. This means that we cannot go off the script, meaning we have no free will. Free will is only compatible with God's omniscience, if our future actions determine God's prior knowledge on a causal fashion. :
It is not incoherent. God is not in time. God stands outside of it. He sees the end and the beginning. He sees who we are, how we are, what we will do, from the very moment we are created. We still live it and do it willingly.


Like if we was giving the script to live our life by and we did live by it, it was free-will we did, even though it was known.

We have to live by it necessarily though. Meaning we don't have free will. We have no option of veering off the script, because if we did, that would mean God was not omniscient, because he would have known things that weren't going to necessarily happen.:
Imagine a straight line. Now the line starts and it ends and you have to get to the end from the beginning. The beginning and end are destined already. But, you are given no specific requirements on how to get to the end of the line. You are given warnings and examples of why you should stay on the line. You can bump off the line, veer from side to side, but you will end up on the line in the end. Even though you choose to stay on the line or off the line along the way, your way ends up where it was destined too. You made the choice to veer off the line or to stay on the line. Your choice determines what is at the end of the line.

If God's knowledge of the future is necessary, then nobody has the freedom to change it. Meaning, free will would be impossible. However, if God's knowledge is contingent upon our future actions, then omniscience and free will are compatible.

So, either free will doesn't exist, or free-will exists and so does retro-causality.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:10:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:05:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Omniscience and free will are compatible because if God exists, his knowledge doesn't cause our future actions, our future actions cause God's knowledge. This is a sound argument. However, this would mean that retro-causality exists, because something in the future (human action) would cause something in the past (God's knowledge). This seems to undermine cosmological arguments completely, because something after the universe exists could have caused The Big Bang if retro-causality is true (Getting rid of any need for a "causally prior"). How would one respond to this?

I think it would be more accurately stated this way, "...our future actions exist within, and make up a part of God's knowledge about the future". Retrocausality is logically incoherent, as an effect cannot logically pre-exist, or affect it's cause.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:18:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:10:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:05:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Omniscience and free will are compatible because if God exists, his knowledge doesn't cause our future actions, our future actions cause God's knowledge. This is a sound argument. However, this would mean that retro-causality exists, because something in the future (human action) would cause something in the past (God's knowledge). This seems to undermine cosmological arguments completely, because something after the universe exists could have caused The Big Bang if retro-causality is true (Getting rid of any need for a "causally prior"). How would one respond to this?

I think it would be more accurately stated this way, "...our future actions exist within, and make up a part of God's knowledge about the future".

Our future actions exist within what? This just pushes the question back anyway, because it means our future actions causally determine the "future actions existing within", prior to the action actually occurring itself.

Retrocausality is logically incoherent, as an effect cannot logically pre-exist, or affect it's cause.

There is nothing incoherent about a cause coming after it's effect, it's perfectly conceivable. Experiments involving quantum entanglement actually imply this.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:22:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:10:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:05:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Omniscience and free will are compatible because if God exists, his knowledge doesn't cause our future actions, our future actions cause God's knowledge. This is a sound argument. However, this would mean that retro-causality exists, because something in the future (human action) would cause something in the past (God's knowledge). This seems to undermine cosmological arguments completely, because something after the universe exists could have caused The Big Bang if retro-causality is true (Getting rid of any need for a "causally prior"). How would one respond to this?

I think it would be more accurately stated this way, "...our future actions exist within, and make up a part of God's knowledge about the future". Retrocausality is logically incoherent, as an effect cannot logically pre-exist, or affect it's cause.

So, if you don't believe that our future actions causally determine the truth of the future that God would have foreknowledge of, then you admit omniscience and free will are not compatible.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:23:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 9:57:59 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:48:44 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:33:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:29:01 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:19:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:16:17 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:05:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Omniscience and free will are compatible because if God exists, his knowledge doesn't cause our future actions, our future actions cause God's knowledge. This is a sound argument. However, this would mean that retro-causality exists, because something in the future (human action) would cause something in the past (God's knowledge). This seems to undermine cosmological arguments completely, because something after the universe exists could have caused The Big Bang if retro-causality is true (Getting rid of any need for a "causally prior"). How would one respond to this?:

We do not cause God's knowledge. God's knowledge existed before us and therefore we are just playing a script that has been written already with the opportunity to make the choice willingly of that script.

That makes no sense. If our future actions do not cause God's knowledge, then free will is impossible because we have no control over what will happen. The only way for omniscience and free will to be compatible, is if future actions determine in a causal fashion what God's knowledge of the future will be. Without this, free will cannot exist.:

We will not change the course of that history. But, we still have free-will because even though we will still live that script written beforehand, we choose to live it willingly.

This is an incoherent stance. If God's knowledge determines our future in a casual fashion, then whatever God knows has to happen. This means that we cannot go off the script, meaning we have no free will. Free will is only compatible with God's omniscience, if our future actions determine God's prior knowledge on a causal fashion. :
It is not incoherent. God is not in time. God stands outside of it.

God is omnipresent if he exists. Meaning, he exists outside of time and within it.

He sees the end and the beginning. He sees who we are, how we are, what we will do, from the very moment we are created. We still live it and do it willingly.

We cannot freely chose to do something willingly, that will necessarily happen. The only way around this is if out future actions are the determining cause of said knowledge. Without this, your argument is illogical.



Like if we was giving the script to live our life by and we did live by it, it was free-will we did, even though it was known.

We have to live by it necessarily though. Meaning we don't have free will. We have no option of veering off the script, because if we did, that would mean God was not omniscient, because he would have known things that weren't going to necessarily happen.:
Imagine a straight line. Now the line starts and it ends and you have to get to the end from the beginning. The beginning and end are destined already.
But, you are given no specific requirements on how to get to the end of the line. You are given warnings and examples of why you should stay on the line. You can bump off the line, veer from side to side, but you will end up on the line in the end.

If you will necessarily end up on the line, then this contradicts your stance that we can veer off the line. Therefore, your position is self-contradictory.:
Shakes head* You will end up on the line by the end of the line but you can go off the line the whole way.

Even though you choose to stay on the line or off the line along the way, your way ends up where it was destined too. You made the choice to veer off the line or to stay on the line. Your choice determines what is at the end of the line.

Once more, if staying on the line is necessary, then freely veering off the line is not an option anybody truly has. Therefore, your stance is incoherent, because one cannot freely chose to stay on a line, if the line is necessary. The only way omniscience, and free will are compatible, is if the prior line is determined by the future free action.

*Shakes head. Put your thinking cap on.
I said that staying on the line is not necessary, it is a choice, but a choice with consequences.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 10:27:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 10:23:40 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:57:59 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:48:44 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:33:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:29:01 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:19:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:16:17 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/23/2013 9:05:21 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Omniscience and free will are compatible because if God exists, his knowledge doesn't cause our future actions, our future actions cause God's knowledge. This is a sound argument. However, this would mean that retro-causality exists, because something in the future (human action) would cause something in the past (God's knowledge). This seems to undermine cosmological arguments completely, because something after the universe exists could have caused The Big Bang if retro-causality is true (Getting rid of any need for a "causally prior"). How would one respond to this?:

We do not cause God's knowledge. God's knowledge existed before us and therefore we are just playing a script that has been written already with the opportunity to make the choice willingly of that script.

That makes no sense. If our future actions do not cause God's knowledge, then free will is impossible because we have no control over what will happen. The only way for omniscience and free will to be compatible, is if future actions determine in a causal fashion what God's knowledge of the future will be. Without this, free will cannot exist.:

We will not change the course of that history. But, we still have free-will because even though we will still live that script written beforehand, we choose to live it willingly.

This is an incoherent stance. If God's knowledge determines our future in a casual fashion, then whatever God knows has to happen. This means that we cannot go off the script, meaning we have no free will. Free will is only compatible with God's omniscience, if our future actions determine God's prior knowledge on a causal fashion. :
It is not incoherent. God is not in time. God stands outside of it.

God is omnipresent if he exists. Meaning, he exists outside of time and within it.

He sees the end and the beginning. He sees who we are, how we are, what we will do, from the very moment we are created. We still live it and do it willingly.

We cannot freely chose to do something willingly, that will necessarily happen. The only way around this is if out future actions are the determining cause of said knowledge. Without this, your argument is illogical.



Like if we was giving the script to live our life by and we did live by it, it was free-will we did, even though it was known.

We have to live by it necessarily though. Meaning we don't have free will. We have no option of veering off the script, because if we did, that would mean God was not omniscient, because he would have known things that weren't going to necessarily happen.:
Imagine a straight line. Now the line starts and it ends and you have to get to the end from the beginning. The beginning and end are destined already.
But, you are given no specific requirements on how to get to the end of the line. You are given warnings and examples of why you should stay on the line. You can bump off the line, veer from side to side, but you will end up on the line in the end.

If you will necessarily end up on the line, then this contradicts your stance that we can veer off the line. Therefore, your position is self-contradictory.:
Shakes head* You will end up on the line by the end of the line but you can go off the line the whole way.

If you can do things that don't coincide with God's knowledge, then God doesn't necessarily have knowledge of the all future events. Meaning, he is not omniscient. Your arguments make no sense, and are self-refuting.


Even though you choose to stay on the line or off the line along the way, your way ends up where it was destined too. You made the choice to veer off the line or to stay on the line. Your choice determines what is at the end of the line.

Once more, if staying on the line is necessary, then freely veering off the line is not an option anybody truly has. Therefore, your stance is incoherent, because one cannot freely chose to stay on a line, if the line is necessary. The only way omniscience, and free will are compatible, is if the prior line is determined by the future free action.

*Shakes head. Put your thinking cap on.
I said that staying on the line is not necessary, it is a choice, but a choice with consequences.

Put your thinking cap on. If the line is "God's knowledge", and staying on the line is not necessary, this means God doesn't necessarily know the future, meaning he is not omniscient. Thus, your stance is logically incoherent and contradictory.