The omniscience issue

[bobevenson]

Sounds fun, I Think I'll stick to Texas hold 'em for pennies and dimes though if it's all the same to you.

Oh, no, it's not all the same to me. You see, I'm taking liar's poker to a much higher level in the game of Ouzo as it relates to "The Ouzo Prophecy" at http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/ouzo-prophecy.pdf, and while the game can be played for money, it can also be played for score to be certified by the Ouzo Players Association.

[thedoc]

and while the game can be played for money, it can also be played for score to be certified by the Ouzo Players Association.

Wow! That would be much better than money. 'Der Fuhrer would be pleased'.

[Blaggard]

Sounds fun, I Think I'll stick to Texas hold 'em for pennies and dimes though if it's all the same to you.

Oh, no, it's not all the same to me. You see, I'm taking liar's poker to a much higher level in the game of Ouzo as it relates to "The Ouzo Prophecy" at http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/ouzo-prophecy.pdf, and while the game can be played for money, it can also be played for score to be certified by the Ouzo Players Association.

Sounds like a plan, the Pirate in me approves of all forms of debauchery including gambling.

[Blaggard]

and while the game can be played for money, it can also be played for score to be certified by the Ouzo Players Association.

Wow! That would be much better than money. 'Der Fuhrer would be pleased'.

I doubt it that man was an angry, angry man at the best of times. Still he was kind to animals and a vegetarian so he wasn't all bad.

[thedoc]

and while the game can be played for money, it can also be played for score to be certified by the Ouzo Players Association.

Wow! That would be much better than money. 'Der Fuhrer would be pleased'.

I doubt it that man was an angry, angry man at the best of times. Still he was kind to animals and a vegetarian so he wasn't all bad.

Is it possible for anyone to be 'all bad' or 'all good'?

[bobevenson]

Sounds fun, I Think I'll stick to Texas hold 'em for pennies and dimes though if it's all the same to you.

Oh, no, it's not all the same to me. You see, I'm taking liar's poker to a much higher level in the game of Ouzo as it relates to "The Ouzo Prophecy" at http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/ouzo-prophecy.pdf, and while the game can be played for money, it can also be played for score to be certified by the Ouzo Players Association.

Sounds like a plan, the Pirate in me approves of all forms of debauchery including gambling.

Well, you see, liar's poker is a watered-down version of Ouzo promulgated by Satan, like an attenuated virus he inoculates people with to keep them from catching the real thing. That's why liar's poker has always been a gambling game played in bars and taverns to give it a disreputable image.

[Immanuel Can]

A helpful distinction: foreknowledge vs. determinism.

One can foreknow something without predetermining it.

For example, you may know that I am a Notts Forest fan, and you may accurately predict that I will be a Notts Forest fan tomorrow. You foreknow it. And tomorrow will show your knowledge was 100% correct.

But you did not "make" me a Forest fan, and you certainly are not "forcing" me to be a Forest fan. You did not predetermine it. You are not implicated in the causal chain, though you know the outcome of it.



[Although, given the last few years, I will admit that being a Forest fan has felt like a doom of sorts... ]

[Blaggard]

A helpful distinction: foreknowledge vs. determinism.

One can foreknow something without predetermining it.

For example, you may know that I am a Notts Forest fan, and you may accurately predict that I will be a Notts Forest fan tomorrow. You foreknow it. And tomorrow will show your knowledge was 100% correct.

But you did not "make" me a Forest fan, and you certainly are not "forcing" me to be a Forest fan. You did not predetermine it. You are not implicated in the causal chain, though you know the outcome of it.



[Although, given the last few years, I will admit that being a Forest fan has felt like a doom of sorts... ]

I am not 100% sure you will be a Forest fan tomorrow, God however knows from the day you are born to death what football club you will support.

I believe that if determinism is true free will is incompatible. I have yet to see a decent argument that is anything more than an excuse to doubt my belief tbh.

[Blaggard]

Is it possible for anyone to be 'all bad' or 'all good'?

No although some people give it a ruddy good go.

[Immanuel Can]

I am not 100% sure you will be a Forest fan tomorrow, God however knows from the day you are born to death what football club you will support.

Ah, my expectation is vindicated...I anticipated you'd say that.

Welll, you're right: but let me make your case stronger for you. "Knowing" is not sufficient to establish "causing." But if we're talking about the Creator of the Universe, the situation looks a bit different -- The Creator "knows," yes; but presumably He also "makes" everything. If so, does that now establish that he "causes" everything?

Alas for your case, the answer is still no. A person "creates" a child through childbirth. That child is thereafter increasingly responsible for his or her own actions. If he were *only* a child -- or even worse, simply a robot -- his mother could take the blame for all he does; but if he grows up and acquires an independent will, then she no longer can. We may always say she had *some contribution* to his decisions, in an increasingly remote sense, but we may no longer think of throwing her in jail for what he does. He's his own man.

I believe that if determinism is true free will is incompatible. I have yet to see a decent argument that is anything more than an excuse to doubt my belief tbh.

Determinism is incompatible with free will. Agreed. The real question, though, is "Is Determinism the truth?"

[thedoc]

A helpful distinction: foreknowledge vs. determinism.

One can foreknow something without predetermining it.

But the question remains, doesn't foreknowledge fix the future so that it is effectively determined? I have heard this argument from Christians, that God knows the future, but people still have free will. If the future is knowable, how can there be a real choice?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, we're talking about the nature of the Supreme Being here, so it's pretty complicated stuff. But I'll have a go.

Time is one of the dimensions limiting humanity. But by definition, the "Supreme" Being would not be limited in such a way. All moments in time would be present to consciousness for Him, for He would see cause and consequence simultaneously.

However, remember my example, given earlier: it's easy to show, even on a human level, that to "know" what I am going to do is not the same as to "make" me do it. To add a further example, suppose you know I prefer red condiments. But I'm at your house, so in a spirit of hosptality you offer me a wide selection of many-coloured condiments. Still, you know I'll choose one of the red ones. Yet is there anything in that scenario that suggests you "made" me choose only a red condiment? Of course not. Your foreknowledge does not at all impinge on the genuineness of your offer of choice, and it does not render my choice ineffective; nor did you "make" my choice happen.

Therefore, the mere fact of God's knowledge would not be limiting as to my action. It would merely mean that no thing I could choose was out of the range of His knowledge; but it would not entail the strong Determinist conclusion that "therefore He made me do it."

In any case, only if we confine the Supreme Being to a linear timeline would we even have reason to think it did. But how do you so confine the Supreme?

[3Sum]

A helpful distinction: foreknowledge vs. determinism.

One can foreknow something without predetermining it.

But the question remains, doesn't foreknowledge fix the future so that it is effectively determined? I have heard this argument from Christians, that God knows the future, but people still have free will. If the future is knowable, how can there be a real choice?

I guess they'd say that god knows what our choice will be but doesn't stop us from choosing it. But this answer also has many problems.

For example, how can we even say we have free will? Our choices are determined by our DNA and the chemical reactions in our brain. God designed our DNA, our brains and the natural laws by which the chemical processes occur. Therefore it's god who really determines what will happen and when, intentionally or not and knowingly or not.

Another example: I can't be homosexual no matter how much I wish I was. Also, I want to like math and physics yet I like philosophy and logic. I know that math and physics are generally more useful( not meaning to offend anyone, but that's how it is) and I have bigger chances of succeeding and making more money. But no matter how much I wanted to like math and physics I find them boring and like philosophy instead.

Also, what about when we make evil choices? I may be going a bit offtopic here but why would god even give free will to those he knew are going to be evil? Cause if somebody KNOWS that Hitler will do what he did and doesn't do anything about it I consider that person to be EXTREMELY IMMORAL, moreover, god is the one who supposedly created and designed Hitler. And Hitler is just one of many (in fact, too many) examples of evils.

And a fun thing I once heard which, ridiculous as it is, has a very good, clear point. If god knows everything then does god know how does it feel to snort cocaine from a hooker's anus?

[thedoc]

And a fun thing I once heard which, ridiculous as it is, has a very good, clear point. If God knows everything then does God know how does it feel to snort cocaine from a hooker's anus?

Vicariously? One of the qualities I attribute to God is empathy, so if you have experienced that particular "Pleasure", God has experienced it as well.

[Immanuel Can]

Our choices are determined by our DNA and the chemical reactions in our brain.

Ah. Causal fallacy. Coincidence is not causality. The fact that we "have" DNA, or even the fact that when we have a particular thought certain chemicals are detectible, does not show that DNA or chemicals "cause" anything. They might be symptoms or manifestations of a third thing that is the *true* cause of a brain event.

Also, what about when we make evil choices? I may be going a bit offtopic here but why would god even give free will to those he knew are going to be evil?

Another good question: but there's an answer. Both sides of the issue recognize that whatever would justify such a thing, it would have to be an overriding "good" known to God. The Atheists say, "No such good could possibly exist." Theists say, "I think it could, and I might even know what it is." It might be the good of genuine choice.

What would be so "good" about genuine choice? Just this: that it is a necessary condition for genuine relationship. You cannot enter into a reciprocal relationship of love with someone who has no choice in the matter.