[PLUG-TALK] Michael, On the subject of God.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Fri Nov 14 22:16:45 UTC 2003


On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> * Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> [2003-11-14 12:31]:
> > > > Just because one outcome out of a set of outcomes occurs, that does
> > > > not prove there was only one possible outcome.
> > > Thank you for proving my point.
> > He didn't prove your point, Russ.  You're just too stuck in natural
> > thought to comprehend the supernatural jive he's laying down.
>
> This IS my point. There's no such thing as "supernatural". What he's
> laying down is just that... jive. Definition, 2b at m-w.com.

You're not arguing that there's no such thing as "supernatural".  That's
not your point at all.  Your point was that an omniscient God denies the
idea of free will.  He didn't prove that point at all.

And my use of the word "jive" was an intentional.

> > Is it logical?  No.  But it doesn't have to be because it's about a
> > magical being who lives above the clouds.
>
> So now, you defend a mythical beings, but discount muppets. At least the
> muppets can be proven to exist.
> :p

You know, of course, that I'm not defending it.  I'm just writing that his
idea of God doesn't fit your idea of time.

> > ...because God, in this line of argument, is outside time.  The
> > decision is not "looming" because the timeline is only linear and
> > unidirectional to us limited natural beings.
>
> You miss the point. Or you are ignoring it.

Or you're misunderstanding me.  Or I wasn't clear.  Or...or...or.  There
are many more possibilities than come immediately to your narrow mind.
Hee.

> If God knows what I'm going to do 4 years from now, regardless of what
> *I* know, then the decision is already made, and *I* can't change that.

No, because God doesn't know it BEFORE you do it; God knows BECAUSE you do
it.  To say that it happens before is to misunderstand the nature of God.

> I do not have free will to make a different decision, because God knows
> what I'm going to do.

God doesn't know what you're GOING to do because "going to" doesn't mean
anything to that kind of God.

> At that point, free will becomes an illusion.

No, at the point of dismissing the supernatural, free will becomes an
illusion.

> > Does the act of filming a person and watching it later remove the free
> > will of the filmed at the time of filming?  That's a mediocre analogy
> > because we're stuck in a linear, forever-moving, unidirectional
> > timeline, but it does go a little bit to showing the idea here.
>
> Apples and oranges.

As I wrote, it's an imperfect analogy, but not so faulty as comparing
apples and oranges.

> If god is timeless, then we have no freewill.

This does not follow.

> If god doesn't know what we're going to do, then he's not omnipotent.

Omnipotence and omniscience are not the same thing.

See above regarding your use of "going to".  If God is outside time, you
cannot apply temporal restrictions.

> Of course, you have to believe in god first.

We're supposing a particular kind of being.  The actual existence of such
a thing is completely unknowable to natural beings.

> As far as the film analogy goes, at the time of the filming, the actors
> have free will. Watching the film 20 times won't change what's on it. If
> god knows what's going to happen, then we are living in an already post
> production movie where he knows the outcome.

No, we are living at the time of filming and God is living at the time of
post-production.  There is no reason to conflate the two timelines.

> I would think he has a rather boring existance, since he knows what's
> going to happen.

Boredom is a temporal phenomenon and therefore does not apply.

> > Assume there is a God who is outside time.
> > There is no "before" and "after" to such a thing.  God would now know
> > things before you did them,
>
> And if it does know these things, then my decision is set in stone, and
> I lose free will.

Your argument hinges on the idea that God knows these things BEFORE you do
them.  That is simply not the case.

And you can't lose what you don't have.

> > It would just know things.  God doesn't do this, then that.  God would
> > not know things before you because God is not in your temporal stream.
> > That God is always in the present tense and there is no future or
> > past.
>
> That's not logical, and doesn't make sense. Now you are saying gods
> knows, but he doesn't know.

No, I'm not.  Open up a bit.  If God is outside time, then God doesn't
know BEFORE, but simply knows.  To say that God KNEW is meaningless
because such a being is always in the present tense.

Did God know?  No.
Will God know?  No.
Does God know?  Yes.

> > I'm not going to argue the point because it's stupid.  The point of
> > this email is just to correct Russ' messed-up reasoning in Michael's
> > imaginary world.
>
> Messed up in your mind. It's quite logical.

No, it's not logical.  It is contrary to the base assumption that God is
not temporal.  Logic is a process of deducing necessarily true and false
statements based on a set of arbitrary axia.  Your statements are
inconsistent with one of those.

> > You're wrong on both counts, Russ.
> I don't believe so.

Then you're wrong about at least three things.

> > First, if you think you know what choice you're going to make, that
> > knowledge and attitude will influence the actual choices you make.
>
> Yes, if *I* know what choice I'm going to make. That wasn't the
> question. The question was if some omnipotent being knows what choice
> I'm going to make.

No, Michael's question was whether or not knowing you are going to make a
particular choice influences that choice.

> Michaels assertion is that this omnipotent being knows what answer I
> will give before the question is asked.

NO NO NO NO NO.  Michael's assertion is that this omnipotent being knows
the answer you will give to the question.  WHEN does not come into it.
God doesn't know before because "before" has no meaning to this God.

> My response is that given those facts, I no longer have free will,
> because my "choice" is already known to this omnipotent being.

Not "already".  Get time out of it and see if it makes any sense.

And it's not true that you "no longer" have free will because you didn't
have it in the first place.

> > Second, some being's knowledge of your choices only calls into
> > question your free will (I don't think any logic could show that your
> > free will is actually removed) IF that knowledge is acquired before
> > the decision point.  To say that God (assuming above definitions of
> > such a thing) knows what you WILL decide is to imply that God knows it
> > before you act which further implies that God is temporal.
>
> That is exactly what "all knowing" means.


> It's perfectly logical. If god knows that I will make choice "C" on a
> test I take in some point in the future, then I have no free will to
> choose "B" on that test.

There is no "in the future" to God.

> I have the illusion of free will, because I can't prove this non-linear,
> non-corporeal being exists.

No, you have the illusion of free will because it is wired into your brain
to have this illusion.  Even if you believed in predestination, you would
still have th illusion of free will.  It is an utterly convincing illusion
that is completely independent of your thoughts, ideas, beliefs,
conclusions, logic, reason or imagination.

And you can't prove or disprove the supernatural.  By any definition, free
will would have to be supernatural, too, because will does not manipulate
electrons.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list