Retired Boards (Archived)
Omniscience
Posted by: dorel
« on: June 09, 2016, 04:05:20 AM » "I don't understand how could one quantify free will, or what would that mean. Care to elaborate?"
i don't have to.
you have to explain how you will quantify free will in your prediction?
"that's why I gave you accurate scientific predictions and how they are knowledge."
again, a prediction is not knowledge if is not testable and cannot be repeated
you say, yes but this is not applicable tu god.
if is not applicable to god, what is your point.
"He wholly knows us, because He created us in the first place and we exist the way we do due to His creative decree."
exist a contradiction in your argument:
we are as we are because of the creative decree of god (you say)
then you say:
"thus your personal will also changes, then you may donate when passing by the donation box."
we are as we are but we can change, so not god's creation make us who we are, the circumstances of our life shapes our character.
you can say:
yes, but god created those circumstances
AND YES:
GOD CREATED THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, GOD CREATED THIS WORLD WITH ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THIS IS HOW GOD KNOWS OUR FUTURE ACTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE.
i don't have to.
you have to explain how you will quantify free will in your prediction?
"that's why I gave you accurate scientific predictions and how they are knowledge."
again, a prediction is not knowledge if is not testable and cannot be repeated
you say, yes but this is not applicable tu god.
if is not applicable to god, what is your point.
"He wholly knows us, because He created us in the first place and we exist the way we do due to His creative decree."
exist a contradiction in your argument:
we are as we are because of the creative decree of god (you say)
then you say:
"thus your personal will also changes, then you may donate when passing by the donation box."
we are as we are but we can change, so not god's creation make us who we are, the circumstances of our life shapes our character.
you can say:
yes, but god created those circumstances
AND YES:
GOD CREATED THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, GOD CREATED THIS WORLD WITH ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THIS IS HOW GOD KNOWS OUR FUTURE ACTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE.
Posted by: kravarnik
« on: June 08, 2016, 05:27:06 AM »"An example - you see a hole in the ground, and you know how holes come to be, thus you can infere that a certain amount of force HAVE BEEN applied, or NEED TO BE APPLIED IN THE FUTURE if you were to form yourself a hole. If X, then Y. Similarly, God knows you're X kind of person, in Y kind of situation, then He through logical inferences could arrive at you doing K."
I see you constantly comparing us with objects, or natural phenomena.
Are we just objects?
If we take your example of gravity I can ask you:
-we have two objects, an 80 kg mannequin and a person with the same kg, same shape.
-you believe that if we throw them from an airplane the outcome will be the same?
I think not, because the free being can take a form what increases his aerodynamics resistance,so they will not fall down with the same acceleration.
Can be predicted our actions as a natural phenomena?
How you quantify in your prediction our free will?
"The same way predictive theories in science are considered knowledge. Scientists wholly know gravity, they also know about some object's essential nature(mass, shape and form, density, etc.), thus when they know both(the object's essential nature and its environment), they yield true results."
Where from you take that a prediction is knowledge?
If you predict that in such and such situation an object will do so and so, if is not testable and repeatable is considered not to be part of science.
If you make a prediction will be true if after you test it result to be right, if not will be a false prediction.
And if your prediction imply a free being how you will test it?
You will put me 10 time in the same situation S, to see how i will act?
If 7 from 10 time i will betrayed god what will be your conclusion?
"Middleknowledge is when God knows what would one do when put in different circumstances. If I were a rich, spoiled brat I'd do X, and if I were a poor peasent I'd do Y. This is in simple terms. But to give an answer to your assertions:"
No, this is totally wrong, entirely.
Craig explain in youtube what is middle knowledge, you can see it, but in essence is:
-two posible worlds:
1)Petre deny Jesus.
2)Peter not deny Jesus.
God created world number 1, so he know that in this world Peter will choose do deny Jesus.
My comparison of us with objects is done, because no other reference point I can use exists. We are much more complex than physical objects, for we are subjects of personal character and will. However, I am using physical objects to show that when one knows fully the essential nature of something, in this case an object, and the environment the object is in, then they can logically infere what would happen.
Now, this is much more complex with us, because we have free will, and what we do isn't necessarilly happening through physical regulations, such as natural laws. However, we still possess finite being, and finite characer. You cannot acquire infinite amount of virtues to your character, nor are there infinite amount of virtues in existence, or vices(these things that shape up one's essential character, which shapes subsequent free willed decisions).
I'd wholeheartedly agree with your reasoning, if free will was just a random number generator and isn't logically bound. That is - one's decisions are not subject to any internal, or external, regulations, such as internal personal character, or external ordered environment, which gives rise to different situations, where one makes decisions. But if they are, and if those are finite, God can come to know them and logically infere, without exercising any causal force upon one's decisions, what one would/will do.
I don't understand how could one quantify free will, or what would that mean. Care to elaborate?
What you say of science is true. But as I said earlier, it's different with us and God. We do science, by discovering knowledge and building on it. God does not need to first experimentially verify His predictions, for He is the creator of creation. So, He doesn't need to confirm those to be true, but know them in before they become actual and concrete - as I said earlier, our decisions are secondary to God's creative decree. We don't surprise God, as you seem to think, but God has instantiated us the way we are, for He was the one creating in the first place. God doesn't need to verify those, because He isn't in state of affairs, where He just discoevered us and know nothing about us, but the exact opposite of it - He wholly knows us, because He created us in the first place and we exist the way we do due to His creative decree. You seem to be using the examples I give for wrong ends. I didn't mean to say God's logical inferences that predict in advance are meant to be exactly identical with scientific proceedings. All my analogy had to achieve is show your assertion false - that predictions are not knowledge, - that's why I gave you accurate scientific predictions and how they are knowledge. This isn't to mean that God does it the same way, but to counter your assertion that God "guessess," or what God does, in logically inferring truths about the future, isn't "guessing" or "non-knowledge." You then set-up a red-herring based on that. I didn't mean this as the precise mechanism through which God foreknows. You're confusing the purpose of the analogy.
As to your hypothetical example of predicting free will:
If you are X kind of person in all 10 experiments, then the same results will yeild 10 out of 10. Say, if you're a greedy person and hate donating, if you pass by a donation box, 10 out of 10 times if you're this exact person, you won't donate. However, if in one of those 10 times your essential nature is changed, thus your personal will also changes, then you may donate when passing by the donation box. However, if you're the same person X in all of the situations, you will be willing to do the same thing 10 out of 10. Once again - I don't take free will to mean randomness, but decisions determined by the person's essential character, as opposed to undetermined decisions, made for no reason, based on nothing, but sheer chance and randomness. The latter I don't believe to be free will, but simply random number generator. Free will is a property of personhood -> personhood is based on being -> being has essential nature of some sort -> essential nature determines what said being's personhood will be like and thus what the person will do.
As to middle knowledge, I don't think a mere claim that I'm wrong, makes me wrong. It is indeed the case that middle knowledge is conditional knowledge. According to the conditionals, the knowledge changes. if the condition is - kravarnik is a pacifis (then)-> kravarnik enters a situation, where he is being robbed -> kravarnik will non-violently give all his money and possessions, without fighting back. If kravarnik is a 150kg muscle and might, and is as well a fan of violence (then)-> if a pitty robber approaches him to rob him -> kravarnik will subjugate the bastard and have him arrested.
Middle knowledge(from wiki) - Molinists hold that in addition to knowing everything that does or will happen, God also knows what His creatures would freely choose if placed in any circumstance.
This is perfectly fine with what I provide. In any circumstance -that is conditional(if circumstances are Y, and the person is K, J will happen ; but if the circumstances - or in other words, the conditions - are L, and the person is till K, N will happen ; and so on). I don't see how I misrepresented middle knowledge. What I say is perfectly fine and consistent with it, mainly cause I've read on it in the past, and while I am no expert, I am at least confident that I understood what it meant.
Posted by: dorel
« on: June 06, 2016, 04:56:21 AM »"An example - you see a hole in the ground, and you know how holes come to be, thus you can infere that a certain amount of force HAVE BEEN applied, or NEED TO BE APPLIED IN THE FUTURE if you were to form yourself a hole. If X, then Y. Similarly, God knows you're X kind of person, in Y kind of situation, then He through logical inferences could arrive at you doing K."
I see you constantly comparing us with objects, or natural phenomena.
Are we just objects?
If we take your example of gravity I can ask you:
-we have two objects, an 80 kg mannequin and a person with the same kg, same shape.
-you believe that if we throw them from an airplane the outcome will be the same?
I think not, because the free being can take a form what increases his aerodynamics resistance,so they will not fall down with the same acceleration.
Can be predicted our actions as a natural phenomena?
How you quantify in your prediction our free will?
"The same way predictive theories in science are considered knowledge. Scientists wholly know gravity, they also know about some object's essential nature(mass, shape and form, density, etc.), thus when they know both(the object's essential nature and its environment), they yield true results."
Where from you take that a prediction is knowledge?
If you predict that in such and such situation an object will do so and so, if is not testable and repeatable is considered not to be part of science.
If you make a prediction will be true if after you test it result to be right, if not will be a false prediction.
And if your prediction imply a free being how you will test it?
You will put me 10 time in the same situation S, to see how i will act?
If 7 from 10 time i will betrayed god what will be your conclusion?
"Middleknowledge is when God knows what would one do when put in different circumstances. If I were a rich, spoiled brat I'd do X, and if I were a poor peasent I'd do Y. This is in simple terms. But to give an answer to your assertions:"
No, this is totally wrong, entirely.
Craig explain in youtube what is middle knowledge, you can see it, but in essence is:
-two posible worlds:
1)Petre deny Jesus.
2)Peter not deny Jesus.
God created world number 1, so he know that in this world Peter will choose do deny Jesus.
I see you constantly comparing us with objects, or natural phenomena.
Are we just objects?
If we take your example of gravity I can ask you:
-we have two objects, an 80 kg mannequin and a person with the same kg, same shape.
-you believe that if we throw them from an airplane the outcome will be the same?
I think not, because the free being can take a form what increases his aerodynamics resistance,so they will not fall down with the same acceleration.
Can be predicted our actions as a natural phenomena?
How you quantify in your prediction our free will?
"The same way predictive theories in science are considered knowledge. Scientists wholly know gravity, they also know about some object's essential nature(mass, shape and form, density, etc.), thus when they know both(the object's essential nature and its environment), they yield true results."
Where from you take that a prediction is knowledge?
If you predict that in such and such situation an object will do so and so, if is not testable and repeatable is considered not to be part of science.
If you make a prediction will be true if after you test it result to be right, if not will be a false prediction.
And if your prediction imply a free being how you will test it?
You will put me 10 time in the same situation S, to see how i will act?
If 7 from 10 time i will betrayed god what will be your conclusion?
"Middleknowledge is when God knows what would one do when put in different circumstances. If I were a rich, spoiled brat I'd do X, and if I were a poor peasent I'd do Y. This is in simple terms. But to give an answer to your assertions:"
No, this is totally wrong, entirely.
Craig explain in youtube what is middle knowledge, you can see it, but in essence is:
-two posible worlds:
1)Petre deny Jesus.
2)Peter not deny Jesus.
God created world number 1, so he know that in this world Peter will choose do deny Jesus.
Posted by: kravarnik
« on: June 06, 2016, 01:57:02 AM »actually a justified true belief is knowledge.
how this work?
is like this:
I ask you
-do you believe that 2+2=4
If you know matt your answer will be YES I BELIEVE
So, you are justified in believing that 2+2=4, you have a justified true belief, A KNOWLEDGE
Now, let us to suppose that you do not know matt, and your answer will be:
I BELIEVE that it is highly probable that 2+2=4.
Now, this is not a justified true belief, is not knowledge, is guessing with a high probability to being right.
The middle knowledge is about knowing not guessing.
Where comes god's middle knowledge/foreknowledge.
from knowing us very well?NO
It comes from knowing which world he created from all the possible worlds.
simplifying to two worlds.
1)god can create a world in which Peter freely deny Jesus (action A)
2)god can create a world in which Peter feely not deny Jesus (action not A)
So, god's foreknowledge will come from knowing which world he created, not from knowing what kind of person is Peter.
God knows that a person P will do action A in a given situation S, because he created the world in which the person P will do action A in the situation S.
Is not that god created a world in which he knows us very well, therefore he knows what we will do.
God, among an infinite number of possible worlds created this one, and he knows what we will do in any situation.
An exemple:
Peter in a given situation could deny or could not deny Jesus, freely.
So, god created the world in which Peter freely will choose to deny Jesus.
But is not that Peter is such a creation of god who in any given situation will deny Jesus.
In this world Peter deny Jesus, but exist other posible worlds in which he can not deny Jesus, but those worlds was not created, because god want to create this one.
If you want to say that what god knows is that Peter is such a being which in any given situation will deny Jesus, i will reply to you that such a person is no a free being at all.
Why?
Because Peter is god's creation, and god created him in such way that no matter the circumstances, he will deny Jesus, he has no election.
"What is being proposed in your rationale is explicitly defining the world as pre-determined, while I am giving you a rationale where free will is compatible with foreknowledge, where God's knowledge of your action is predicated upon Him knowing you very well. Instead of saying how this is incoherent, you re-assert your notion that - God knows these things, because He pre-determines them to happen in this way."
Ok, now I see you don't know what is middle knowledge.
You know that this discussion is about the supposed contradiction between free will and middle knowledge?
-a pure pre-deterministic world has no free will
-in a pure free world god has no foreknowledge
-the middle knowledge is about a predetermined world which allows free will
Go do your homework and come back
And, where in any of my rationale, have I proposed God ascribing probabilities to free willed action? Once again, you simply re-assert your position and call what I do X, or Y, without showing it as such. You're basically strawmanning. Let me flesh out what I mean:
- our universe is finite, thus it contains logical boundaries and a finite amount of objects, which God knows wholly, due to them being finite(thus actually knowable)
- we, human beings, are also such - we have logical boundaries and our essential nature is not infinite, - thus God wholly knows us
> thus, God through logical inference can know what a finite being may do in a finite environment. Proper logical inferences lead to true beliefs, which is what knowledge is. An example - you see a hole in the ground, and you know how holes come to be, thus you can infere that a certain amount of force HAVE BEEN applied, or NEED TO BE APPLIED IN THE FUTURE if you were to form yourself a hole. If X, then Y. Similarly, God knows you're X kind of person, in Y kind of situation, then He through logical inferences could arrive at you doing K.
The same way predictive theories in science are considered knowledge. Scientists wholly know gravity, they also know about some object's essential nature(mass, shape and form, density, etc.), thus when they know both(the object's essential nature and it's environment), they yield true results. The difference is that in human scientific endeavour, scientists may make mistakes, due to insufficient knowledge, or some other imperfection we have, but with God no such thing is taking place. God is not ignorant and does fully know His creation - both us and the universe, - so He yields those results unmistakebly.
Your second point, I don't get. I will simply comment on your conclusion in it - God created a world, where Peter will freely choose to deny Him. Even though, Peter didn't get the choice in which world to be created, he got the choice to deny Him or not. Peter denied Him. Your main reason for arguing is that foreknowledge isn't compatible with free will, but if Peter denies Him through his own will, regardless if God has chosen to create this world, or some other, the matter of fact is that God simply chose to place Peter in a situation, where he would freely deny Him. So, what's the issue exactly? If there are many different possible worlds, where we freely choose and do different things(in one world, I get to freely murder someone; in another I don't), the matter of fact is that God HAS TO CHOOSE ONE SPECIFIC ONE, so He has to arrange us outside of our power to decide where. But wherever He has placed us, we do what we do freely. So, your point stand false - for foreknowledge is indeed compatible iwth free will in such a case.
I am sorry, but could you be more substansive and less assertive, especially in light of your last point. Middleknowledge is when God knows what would one do when put in different circumstances. If I were a rich, spoiled brat I'd do X, and if I were a poor peasent I'd do Y. This is in simple terms. But to give an answer to your assertions:
- God arranges our free willed decisions to an end to His liking, where He arranges people making the free willed decisions they do, so that they can lead to, say, them murdering Christ on the Cross. However, it's done by using the knowledge of what they freely do and place them in such circumstances, as to do it. In such a scenario, the individuals possess free will, and God possesses middle knowledge. What exactly is the isssue, then? Just because God has the prerogative to arrange His creation - for He is the creator... it only makes sense that He arranges it to His liking - doesn't mean we have no free will.
- in a pure free world,where free will is random and of infinite potential and possibilities for choice, then God won't have foreknowledge. But we live in a world, where free will is based on essential nature - that is, according to one's essential nature, the decisions they make change accordingly for example -> if Peter is a greedy person and against charity(has "greed" as vice essential to his nature), he will choose acquiring money for himself over donating it to the poor. And we also live in a world, where the essential nature of the environment(the universe) has logical boundaries, and isn't infinite. For example, we cannot "choose" to fly. We cannot choose to not get old. We cannot choose to be taller. So, our choices are narrowed down to a finite degree, and the universe allows for a finite number of possible choice, for there are finite numbe rof possible situations one could be in. Thus, God can know those. If we were of inifinant capacity, and we made choices based on randomness(and not essential nature, which has its logical boundaries), then I'd agree with you. But the reality we are in isn't like this. Nor is our free will like this - based on randomness. We usually choose stuff, based on our essential character, and our essential character is finite.
- perhaps you're right about that, but only if you mean predetermined in the sense of God arranging the final outcome yielded, and not where God forces each and every one of us to do the things we do. The former I agree with - middle knowledge pre-determines the world to yield certain results(to God's desired end), but not through God forcing each and every decision made against individuals' personal will, but individuals themselves make the choices they do and God simply foreknows them and decides to instantiate them, so that they lead to a result to His liking. In this way, we still make free choices and have free will. God simply arranges the world(pre-determines it to lead to certain end result), in such a case, but it's through using His knowledge on what we will/would do, and not through Him leaving us no other choice and forcing us against our will to make the choices we make.
I hope you can get more substansive and less assertive. I have done my homework. Then again, I am not an expert, and I have still much to learn, but I don't think what I propose should be dismissed and handwaved away that easily, without any substance and effortlessly. I also see some misunderstandings on your part, especially when it comes to logic, but I don't go to tell you how you need to go and read and then come back and talk to me. Rather, I clarify and explain what I deem to be wrong. You should do the same. If not, let me know that you have no desire to do so, because then I'd simply cease dialoging with you.
Posted by: toknowthetruth
« on: June 05, 2016, 10:36:00 AM »
-the middle knowledge is about a predetermined world which allows free will
That's how I understand it. Good definition.
Posted by: dorel
« on: June 05, 2016, 01:57:36 AM »actually a justified true belief is knowledge.
how this work?
is like this:
I ask you
-do you believe that 2+2=4
If you know matt your answer will be YES I BELIEVE
So, you are justified in believing that 2+2=4, you have a justified true belief, A KNOWLEDGE
Now, let us to suppose that you do not know matt, and your answer will be:
I BELIEVE that it is highly probable that 2+2=4.
Now, this is not a justified true belief, is not knowledge, is guessing with a high probability to being right.
The middle knowledge is about knowing not guessing.
Where comes god's middle knowledge/foreknowledge.
from knowing us very well?NO
It comes from knowing which world he created from all the possible worlds.
simplifying to two worlds.
1)god can create a world in which Peter freely deny Jesus (action A)
2)god can create a world in which Peter feely not deny Jesus (action not A)
So, god's foreknowledge will come from knowing which world he created, not from knowing what kind of person is Peter.
God knows that a person P will do action A in a given situation S, because he created the world in which the person P will do action A in the situation S.
Is not that god created a world in which he knows us very well, therefore he knows what we will do.
God, among an infinite number of possible worlds created this one, and he knows what we will do in any situation.
An exemple:
Peter in a given situation could deny or could not deny Jesus, freely.
So, god created the world in which Peter freely will choose to deny Jesus.
But is not that Peter is such a creation of god who in any given situation will deny Jesus.
In this world Peter deny Jesus, but exist other posible worlds in which he can not deny Jesus, but those worlds was not created, because god want to create this one.
If you want to say that what god knows is that Peter is such a being which in any given situation will deny Jesus, i will reply to you that such a person is no a free being at all.
Why?
Because Peter is god's creation, and god created him in such way that no matter the circumstances, he will deny Jesus, he has no election.
"What is being proposed in your rationale is explicitly defining the world as pre-determined, while I am giving you a rationale where free will is compatible with foreknowledge, where God's knowledge of your action is predicated upon Him knowing you very well. Instead of saying how this is incoherent, you re-assert your notion that - God knows these things, because He pre-determines them to happen in this way."
Ok, now I see you don't know what is middle knowledge.
You know that this discussion is about the supposed contradiction between free will and middle knowledge?
-a pure pre-deterministic world has no free will
-in a pure free world god has no foreknowledge
-the middle knowledge is about a predetermined world which allows free will
Go do your homework and come back
how this work?
is like this:
I ask you
-do you believe that 2+2=4
If you know matt your answer will be YES I BELIEVE
So, you are justified in believing that 2+2=4, you have a justified true belief, A KNOWLEDGE
Now, let us to suppose that you do not know matt, and your answer will be:
I BELIEVE that it is highly probable that 2+2=4.
Now, this is not a justified true belief, is not knowledge, is guessing with a high probability to being right.
The middle knowledge is about knowing not guessing.
Where comes god's middle knowledge/foreknowledge.
from knowing us very well?NO
It comes from knowing which world he created from all the possible worlds.
simplifying to two worlds.
1)god can create a world in which Peter freely deny Jesus (action A)
2)god can create a world in which Peter feely not deny Jesus (action not A)
So, god's foreknowledge will come from knowing which world he created, not from knowing what kind of person is Peter.
God knows that a person P will do action A in a given situation S, because he created the world in which the person P will do action A in the situation S.
Is not that god created a world in which he knows us very well, therefore he knows what we will do.
God, among an infinite number of possible worlds created this one, and he knows what we will do in any situation.
An exemple:
Peter in a given situation could deny or could not deny Jesus, freely.
So, god created the world in which Peter freely will choose to deny Jesus.
But is not that Peter is such a creation of god who in any given situation will deny Jesus.
In this world Peter deny Jesus, but exist other posible worlds in which he can not deny Jesus, but those worlds was not created, because god want to create this one.
If you want to say that what god knows is that Peter is such a being which in any given situation will deny Jesus, i will reply to you that such a person is no a free being at all.
Why?
Because Peter is god's creation, and god created him in such way that no matter the circumstances, he will deny Jesus, he has no election.
"What is being proposed in your rationale is explicitly defining the world as pre-determined, while I am giving you a rationale where free will is compatible with foreknowledge, where God's knowledge of your action is predicated upon Him knowing you very well. Instead of saying how this is incoherent, you re-assert your notion that - God knows these things, because He pre-determines them to happen in this way."
Ok, now I see you don't know what is middle knowledge.
You know that this discussion is about the supposed contradiction between free will and middle knowledge?
-a pure pre-deterministic world has no free will
-in a pure free world god has no foreknowledge
-the middle knowledge is about a predetermined world which allows free will
Go do your homework and come back
Posted by: kravarnik
« on: June 04, 2016, 12:40:14 PM »"Similarly, personal free will doesn't equal "random stuff for no reason," but is usually based on essential nature of sort. God knows my essential nature and how it would prompt me to act in certain way in particular situation. Thus, God may know my essential nature sufficiently enough as to know what I would do in different situations. But this knowledge would be, because He knows my essential nature and the subsequent actions that my will desires based on my nature, and not because He pre-determined me to be so and do so."
This has nothing to do with middle knowledge
Actually what you propose is no knowledge, is guessing
In other words, god knows us very well, not that he foreknows our actions.
He knows that it is highly probable that in a given situation S we will do action A , because we are such kind of persons who will do action A
this is not knowledge, is probabilistics CALCULATION
" It's akin to saying "if God knows atoms in existence would structure in different forms and shapes, and say stars are spherical, what would happen if in reality, stars were square?" Then, it's either logically impossible for such a world to exist, where God creates a universe and foreknows that stars will be spherical, but they are square ; or God's foreknowledge then would be that stars will be square."
So we are like stars, just atoms?
Our atoms have free will or our spirit?
If what you say is that god having middle knowledge foreknows that a person P will do action A in a given situation S, I'm agree.
now a concrete question:
if Peter would know about the middle knowledge of god, he can ask himself:
-a god told me that I will deny him
-can I freely choose to not deny him?
-NO, because the god who told mi is the god who created the world in which I will deny him, and he cannot be wrong about my future actions.
It does have to do with middle knowledge. And what I propose is knowledge. In science, when accurate predictions are made, then the principle by which they are made, and the end result based on this principle, is KNOWLEDGE(cause it's justified and true):
" 1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:
knowledge of many things.
2.
familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning" - http://www.dictionary.com/browse/knowledge
"There are three components to the traditional (“tripartite”) analysis of knowledge. According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge." - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnoJusTruBel
Knowledge is justified true belief. God, due to His omniscience(part of which is foreknowledge and middleknowledge), knows what you're going to do and it is true. Thus, it's knowledge. It would be guessing, if He was capable of mistaking, or being unaware of some factor. This is not the case. God knows wholly His creation - both the environment we are in(the universe) and ourselves(human beings), - thus He cannot be said to be "guessing" what would happen, but TO KNOW. I am not proposing guessing at all, but logical inferences - such as environment E, situation S, person P = P doing action A. At no point is God unaware of something, but the exact opposite - He knows it all.
As to your second response, I am not comparing us to stars. I am giving an analogy, where the same reasoning is exemplified as in your hypothetical thought experiment, to make it easier to understand. What is being proposed in your rationale is explicitly defining the world as pre-determined, while I am giving you a rationale where free will is compatible with foreknowledge, where God's knowledge of your action is predicated upon Him knowing you very well. Instead of saying how this is incoherent, you re-assert your notion that - God knows these things, because He pre-determines them to happen in this way.
This isn't so much of a rebutall, but rather an inability on your part to engage and comprehend what the opposition is saying. If what I say is coherent, then there's nothing wrong with foreknowledge and free will. Just because you decide to think that we do what we do, cause God doesn't leave us any other choice, doesn't make my hypothesis incoherent and invalid. If it is coherent and valid, then there's no issue at all, other than your stubborn refusal to admit that it is coherent and valid and personal choice to interpret the situation as God forcing us to do stuff, as opposed to what I propose.
Posted by: dorel
« on: June 04, 2016, 12:04:05 PM »"Similarly, personal free will doesn't equal "random stuff for no reason," but is usually based on essential nature of sort. God knows my essential nature and how it would prompt me to act in certain way in particular situation. Thus, God may know my essential nature sufficiently enough as to know what I would do in different situations. But this knowledge would be, because He knows my essential nature and the subsequent actions that my will desires based on my nature, and not because He pre-determined me to be so and do so."
This has nothing to do with middle knowledge
Actually what you propose is no knowledge, is guessing
In other words, god knows us very well, not that he foreknows our actions.
He knows that it is highly probable that in a given situation S we will do action A , because we are such kind of persons who will do action A
this is not knowledge, is probabilistics CALCULATION
" It's akin to saying "if God knows atoms in existence would structure in different forms and shapes, and say stars are spherical, what would happen if in reality, stars were square?" Then, it's either logically impossible for such a world to exist, where God creates a universe and foreknows that stars will be spherical, but they are square ; or God's foreknowledge then would be that stars will be square."
So we are like stars, just atoms?
Our atoms have free will or our spirit?
If what you say is that god having middle knowledge foreknows that a person P will do action A in a given situation S, I'm agree.
now a concrete question:
if Peter would know about the middle knowledge of god, he can ask himself:
-a god told me that I will deny him
-can I freely choose to not deny him?
-NO, because the god who told mi is the god who created the world in which I will deny him, and he cannot be wrong about my future actions.
This has nothing to do with middle knowledge
Actually what you propose is no knowledge, is guessing
In other words, god knows us very well, not that he foreknows our actions.
He knows that it is highly probable that in a given situation S we will do action A , because we are such kind of persons who will do action A
this is not knowledge, is probabilistics CALCULATION
" It's akin to saying "if God knows atoms in existence would structure in different forms and shapes, and say stars are spherical, what would happen if in reality, stars were square?" Then, it's either logically impossible for such a world to exist, where God creates a universe and foreknows that stars will be spherical, but they are square ; or God's foreknowledge then would be that stars will be square."
So we are like stars, just atoms?
Our atoms have free will or our spirit?
If what you say is that god having middle knowledge foreknows that a person P will do action A in a given situation S, I'm agree.
now a concrete question:
if Peter would know about the middle knowledge of god, he can ask himself:
-a god told me that I will deny him
-can I freely choose to not deny him?
-NO, because the god who told mi is the god who created the world in which I will deny him, and he cannot be wrong about my future actions.
Posted by: kravarnik
« on: June 04, 2016, 11:28:11 AM »
You're proposing an inherent contradiction here. If God is your creator and knows your essential will, and He created you and the environment you're in to begin with, then your decisions are secondary to God's act of creation and instance of prior foreknowledge.
Good point. Hadn't thought about that. Thanks for pointing that out.
Thank you, tkt.
There's a fitting analogy, to simplify the matter:
When playing pool, I may know what would happen if I hit the cue ball in certain way, and how it would then travel at certain direction and speed and hit another ball, and all that follows from it. Then I take the shot and it happens. But it wouldn't happen, because my foreknowledge of it, but because I know physics well enough, to know that.
Similarly, personal free will doesn't equal "random stuff for no reason," but is usually based on essential nature of sort. God knows my essential nature and how it would prompt me to act in certain way in particular situation. Thus, God may know my essential nature sufficiently enough as to know what I would do in different situations. But this knowledge would be, because He knows my essential nature and the subsequent actions that my will desires based on my nature, and not because He pre-determined me to be so and do so.
If one says I'd do so and so, cause of God's foreknowledge, then it's akin to the following:
I open up a physics book and read what gravity is. Then I acquire foreknowledge about how objects with certain weight and shape would behave in environment with gravity. But it would be wrong to say that gravity and objects are the way they are, because the physics books say so. It would mean that those who wrote the physics book knew physics well enough. Just like God knows us well enough to know what we would do in different situations, and we do so in virtue of our essential nature and the will that stems from it, and not in virtue of His foreknowledge.
Posted by: toknowthetruth
« on: June 04, 2016, 11:05:40 AM »
You're proposing an inherent contradiction here. If God is your creator and knows your essential will, and He created you and the environment you're in to begin with, then your decisions are secondary to God's act of creation and instance of prior foreknowledge.
Good point. Hadn't thought about that. Thanks for pointing that out.
Posted by: toknowthetruth
« on: June 04, 2016, 10:57:19 AM »"My assertion is that to ask God to tell you what you are going to do when He knows You will do contrary to whatever He tells you is logically impossible."I think there are some distinctions that you are missing. This is how I see it. Even though you can, God knows you won't do contrary to His foreknowledge.
You don't see that this is impossible if you accept that god have middle knowledge.
If you can do the contrary of what god predicted, is that god does not have middle knowledge.
What he told you is not based on his middle knowledge, is just a guess if you can do otherwise.
Instead if god has middle knowledge he will predict you what you will actually do.
And you will do the predicted action.
So, in a world created by god, in which in a situation S, a person P will do action A, the logically impossible will be to do NOT A.
In no way will be impossible to say you that you will do action A.
However, considering the fact that you can do contrary to God's foreknowledge, if in the case that God had foretold you, you would deliberately do the contrary, God would know that you would.
In that case, as I pointed out, God wouldn't have been able to foretell you because it would be logically impossible for Him to do so. Therefore that scenario would never be possible.
This would only be in the case of when He knows you will do the contrary if He foretells you. Otherwise, if He knows you will choose to do what He foretells you regardless of your disposition to not do so, like in Peter's case, then it is not logically impossible that He can foretell you.
Posted by: kravarnik
« on: June 04, 2016, 10:42:58 AM »"My assertion is that to ask God to tell you what you are going to do when He knows You will do contrary to whatever He tells you is logically impossible."
You don't see that this is impossible if you accept that god have middle knowledge.
If you can do the contrary of what god predicted, is that god does not have middle knowledge.
What he told you is not based on his middle knowledge, is just a guess if you can do otherwise.
Instead if god has middle knowledge he will predict you what you will actually do.
And you will do the predicted action.
So, in a world created by god, in which in a situation S, a person P will do action A, the logically impossible will be to do NOT A.
In no way will be impossible to say you that you will do action A.
You're proposing an inherent contradiction here. If God is your creator and knows your essential will, and He created you and the environment you're in to begin with, then your decisions are secondary to God's act of creation and instance of prior foreknowledge.
Thus, He wouldn't fail to know the actual thing you'd do, before you do it. What you're proposing there, as thought experiment, is logical contradiction, given the above terms.
It's akin to saying "if God knows atoms in existence would structure in different forms and shapes, and say stars are spherical, what would happen if in reality, stars were square?" Then, it's either logically impossible for such a world to exist, where God creates a universe and foreknows that stars will be spherical, but they are square ; or God's foreknowledge then would be that stars will be square.
In other words, your thought experiment doesn't show that free will doesn't exist with foreknowledge, or can't exist with foreknowledge, but that you haven't grasped what foreknowledge is. It would be impossible for P, in S to do NOT A, because P's essential nature(in other words - P is that kind of person, who wouldn't do NOT A), which God foreknows, and not because God pre-determined P and P has no free-will.
Posted by: dorel
« on: June 04, 2016, 02:39:18 AM »"My assertion is that to ask God to tell you what you are going to do when He knows You will do contrary to whatever He tells you is logically impossible."
You don't see that this is impossible if you accept that god have middle knowledge.
If you can do the contrary of what god predicted, is that god does not have middle knowledge.
What he told you is not based on his middle knowledge, is just a guess if you can do otherwise.
Instead if god has middle knowledge he will predict you what you will actually do.
And you will do the predicted action.
So, in a world created by god, in which in a situation S, a person P will do action A, the logically impossible will be to do NOT A.
In no way will be impossible to say you that you will do action A.
You don't see that this is impossible if you accept that god have middle knowledge.
If you can do the contrary of what god predicted, is that god does not have middle knowledge.
What he told you is not based on his middle knowledge, is just a guess if you can do otherwise.
Instead if god has middle knowledge he will predict you what you will actually do.
And you will do the predicted action.
So, in a world created by god, in which in a situation S, a person P will do action A, the logically impossible will be to do NOT A.
In no way will be impossible to say you that you will do action A.
Posted by: toknowthetruth
« on: June 03, 2016, 06:50:41 PM »"I'm not sure what you mean here. Does that mean you don't disagree with me in what I was saying about the logical impossibility of what you were suggesting?"
NO
I think that we are agree that if you accept that god has middle knowledge your argument is invalid.
Is not possible that god has middle knowledge and tells you that you will do X, and you will do not X.
Oh, I'm a little confused. What does your statement above have to do with logical impossibility. My assertion is that to ask God to tell you what you are going to do when He knows you will do contrary to whatever He tells you is logically impossible. It would be similar to asking Him to tell you what the distance is of a line that continues to infinity.
You say you disagree, but it's still not clear to me why? So far I haven't been aware of you directly addressing this issue. If you have please point it out to me. If not, could you please state your directly related reasons for disagreeing?
So this frase of yours ""Only if you assume that God can tell us what we are going to do even when He knows we will do contrary to what He tells us " is totally wrong.
You accept that god has middle knowledge.
So:
1) god knows what you will do
2) god tells you what you will do
3) you necessarily will do what god tells you that you will do, because god cannot be wrong.
I agree with this, but it says nothing about logical impossibility, nor whether or not we have free will. If I understand Molinism correctly, the action you will take will necessarily be what God knows in His foreknowledge you will freely choose to do. So He's not wrong, not because He's controlling your decision, but because He knows what you will choose to do.
"Moreover, in this case Jesus was able to tell Peter what he would do because in His foreknowledge He knew that, even though Peter would desire to do differently, he wouldn't have the courage to do so. So again, he could have done differently, but he didn't. Not because he wasn't free to, but in this case, because of his lack of courage to do so."
OK, i conceive you that Jesus knew that Peter will not have enough courage to not deny him.
let see Peter thoughts after the prediction of a god, a second after
- A god predicted to me that i will deny him
-So, since this god cannot be wrong i'm not free to not deny him, no matter how coward or brave I am.
it is just like this:
G;-what do you want to eat sunday?
P:-pizza
G:-ok, you will eat pizza
P:-G can I eat macaroni instead of pizza?
G:- NO, because I said that "ok you will eat pizza" and I cannot be wrong.
I don't follow your reasoning here. For one thing God doesn't have to ask you what you want eat on Sunday. He already knows. Secondly, He would also know that you are going to change your mind, so He won't make the statement that you will eat pizza. He'll simply say, OK, if you want to eat pizza go ahead. You haven't asked Him here to tell you what you will eat. You only have Him asking you what you want to eat. So I would say you'll need to rephrase the above in order for it to make sense.
Posted by: dorel
« on: June 03, 2016, 04:17:12 AM »"I'm not sure what you mean here. Does that mean you don't disagree with me in what I was saying about the logical impossibility of what you were suggesting?"
NO
I think that we are agree that if you accept that god has middle knowledge your argument is invalid.
Is not possible that god has middle knowledge and tells you that you will do X, and you will do not X.
So this frase of yours ""Only if you assume that God can tell us what we are going to do even when He knows we will do contrary to what He tells us " is totally wrong.
You accept that god has middle knowledge.
So:
1) god knows what you will do
2) god tells you what you will do
3) you necessarily will do what god tells you that you will do, because god cannot be wrong.
"Moreover, in this case Jesus was able to tell Peter what he would do because in His foreknowledge He knew that, even though Peter would desire to do differently, he wouldn't have the courage to do so. So again, he could have done differently, but he didn't. Not because he wasn't free to, but in this case, because of his lack of courage to do so."
OK, i conceive you that Jesus knew that Peter will not have enough courage to not deny him.
let see Peter thoughts after the prediction of a god, a second after
- A god predicted to me that i will deny him
-So, since this god cannot be wrong i'm not free to not deny him, no matter how coward or brave I am.
it is just like this:
G;-what do you want to eat sunday?
P:-pizza
G:-ok, you will eat pizza
P:-G can I eat macaroni instead of pizza?
G:- NO, because I said that "ok you will eat pizza" and I cannot be wrong.
NO
I think that we are agree that if you accept that god has middle knowledge your argument is invalid.
Is not possible that god has middle knowledge and tells you that you will do X, and you will do not X.
So this frase of yours ""Only if you assume that God can tell us what we are going to do even when He knows we will do contrary to what He tells us " is totally wrong.
You accept that god has middle knowledge.
So:
1) god knows what you will do
2) god tells you what you will do
3) you necessarily will do what god tells you that you will do, because god cannot be wrong.
"Moreover, in this case Jesus was able to tell Peter what he would do because in His foreknowledge He knew that, even though Peter would desire to do differently, he wouldn't have the courage to do so. So again, he could have done differently, but he didn't. Not because he wasn't free to, but in this case, because of his lack of courage to do so."
OK, i conceive you that Jesus knew that Peter will not have enough courage to not deny him.
let see Peter thoughts after the prediction of a god, a second after
- A god predicted to me that i will deny him
-So, since this god cannot be wrong i'm not free to not deny him, no matter how coward or brave I am.
it is just like this:
G;-what do you want to eat sunday?
P:-pizza
G:-ok, you will eat pizza
P:-G can I eat macaroni instead of pizza?
G:- NO, because I said that "ok you will eat pizza" and I cannot be wrong.