Can there be free will while God knows all things?

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I would dare say this is highly inaccurate. Maybe a topic for a different thread though. But faith is not belief. Belief is it's own separate principle that is important. But it stands on it's own. It's not just another word for something like charity is for love. They are separate principles. Belief is one (probably only moderately important) part of faith. But it is not the same thing as faith.

In this context faith is a belief in something one holds to be or assumes will be true.

[The Folk Prophet]

18 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

In this context faith is a belief in something one holds to be or assumes will be true.

The only part of this that strikes me as accurate is the "holds to" part, though it would be natural for one to hold to something they believe in and assume true (which is the same thing). But belief is not requisite to faith. It's natural to it. Faith is action based on hope. It is commitment to a cause. It is trust and loyalty. It is much more than mere belief, which even the devils have when it comes to God.

Edited April 12, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Rob Osborn]

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The only part of this that strikes me as accurate is the "holds to" part, though it would be natural for one to hold to something they believe in and assume true (which is the same thing). But belief is not requisite to faith. It's natural to it. Faith is action based on hope. It is commitment to a cause. It is trust and loyalty. It is much more than mere belief, which even the devils have when it comes to God.

I think we are saying the same thing but semantics get in the way.

[The Folk Prophet]

7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think we are saying the same thing but semantics get in the way.

The only reason I even responded with the tangent is because I think it's all too common to see people who think that their faith is belief. Then they hit something that stretches their understanding or ability to fully believe and they think they have lost their faith. That's a problem we're seeing all too often. As with all things in the gospel, belief is a choice. But it's a choice that FOLLOWS faith, which is also a choice. One first chooses to commit and to give loyalty too, and then one chooses to believe. As with many things in the gospel that isn't, of course, black and white, of course. Some belief can come first. But overall, this is why hope comes first. We hope for something to be true, so we want to believe it. Then we exercise our faith by committing to it, trusting it, and acting upon it, and in doing so choose to strengthen our belief. Then the seed grows, etc.

As it relates to your initial thought -- that God acts by faith -- the point would be that this idea being true would not have any reflection on God knowing all things or not. He is loyal, committed, trusting, and faithful (specifically, I think, to truth). That doesn't mean He only "believes" without knowledge.

Edited April 13, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The only reason I even responded with the tangent is because I think it's all too common to see people who think that their faith is belief. Then they hit something that stretches their understanding or ability to fully believe and they think they have lost their faith. That's a problem we're seeing all too often. As with all things in the gospel, belief is a choice. But it's a choice that FOLLOWS faith, which is also a choice. One first chooses to commit and to give loyalty too, and then one chooses to believe. As with many things in the gospel that isn't, of course, black and white, of course. Some belief can come first. But overall, this is why hope comes first. We hope for something to be true, so we want to believe it. Then we exercise our faith by committing to it, trusting it, and acting upon it, and in doing so choose to strengthen our belief. Then the seed grows, etc.

As it relates to your initial thought -- that God acts by faith -- the point would be that this idea being true would not have any reflection on God knowing all things or not. He is loyal, committed, trusting, and faithful (specifically, I think, to truth). That doesn't mean He only "believes" without knowledge.

But, God may have as much knowledge as possible and yet still proceed forward in faith not actually knowing exactly every single outcome in advance.

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

But, God may have as much knowledge as possible and yet still proceed forward in faith not actually knowing exactly every single outcome in advance.

Except for, of course, the fact that scriptures, prophets, apostles, etc., all declare that he does know exactly that. But I won't debate that with you. Believe as you will...as always.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Except for, of course, the fact that scriptures, prophets, apostles, etc., all declare that he does know exactly that. But I won't debate that with you. Believe as you will...as always.

Its back to square one in the argument then. If God did know the future exactly, he doesnt have free will as he would be unable to make any decision. It would mean he could only do exactly as what is expected of him. It would mean God would lack omnipotence.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its back to square one in the argument then. If God did know the future exactly, he doesnt have free will as he would be unable to make any decision. It would mean he could only do exactly as what is expected of him. It would mean God would lack omnipotence.

Meh. According to your limited mortal view of logic. I'll trust that there are things I simply don't understand, trust in God's words by His prophets, and thereby trust that he is both omnipotent and omniscient.

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, Armin said:

Always those Latin words like "omnipotent" and "omniscient"... sounds like Catholicism. When will we make us free from that vocabulary...?

That's a....weird reply.

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, Armin said:

It's certainly a matter of opinion and understanding.

Ah...you edited before I could reply.  I was going to say:

That is true.

That being said, words have meaning that are shared. What's wrong with a word that everyone tends to understand to mean approximately the same thing? The source of the word doesn't seem particularly relevant. Just curious about your bias.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Armin said:

Always those Latin words like "omnipotent" and "omniscient"... sounds like Catholicism. When will we make us free from that vocabulary...?

I have no idea what you're getting at here.  Not a criticism.  I am simply puzzled by what you're trying to say.

Part of it is that to an English speaker, those words are English, albeit Latin cognates, so I don't know why that is significant.  And I have no idea why it is a bad thing that it sounds like Catholicism.  We're both Christian faiths.  We're bound to have some things in common.

And we can be free from vocabulary when we have spirit-to-spirit communication.  (There, that's the second post in as many minutes where I used that term)..  But seriously folks, when we really try to listen to the Spirit, it won't matter what words we use (specifically).  It's the overall message that we want to communicate that means something.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Armin said:

The question is, how complicated is this universe (maybe multiverse)? I think it's very, very, very complicated. When we're talking about future, the outcome of probabilities in advance, we should find out and define what future actually means. Does the future exist? Is it maybe an existing part of a superdimensional spacetime or super-reality, divided in uncountable branches or paths, that only could be described as a "something", does it not exist and is it only an abstract concept resulting from our view about "time"...? Each thought changes the probability of the constellation of subatomic particles, and they influence even themselves (their spin, quantum coherence), and the reality we live in might only be the surface of  fundamental (for us not and maybe never understandable) events: the effects described by the quantum theory. If our actions and our thoughts influenced and were part of the outcome in advance, and God wouldn't know about the outcome, we'd maybe have a free will, whatever it means. Thus, you've held indirectly a plea for the free will by your statement.

http://werner-huemer.net/gespraeche/ulrich-warnke-2014

Science fiction fantasy aside, we know that the future is not an actual physical place that exists alongside the present. Only one physical place exists and it does so forever in the precise moment of the present.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Armin said:

Exactly, it would mean God had a lack of unlimited power or allmightyness, but only in our minds' eyes.   (I hate the Latin word, so forgive me I've created a new one).

God isnt outside of a physical reality of time and space. He is in it, part of it, and his works work inside the laws of the universe.

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, Armin said:

That's what the Japanese believe, too. Their religion is called Shintoism. Can you define the "precise moment of the present"...? Are we talking about the Plancksche Sekunde (Planck's second), the most littlest quantum of time, and when you're talking about this moment, it's already gone. there is no present I can see, only some kind of floating and moving elements. Our reality is a construction of our mind and consciousness bounded and fixed on the surface of a higher reality.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck-Zeit

Its not rocket science. I can prove the exact moment of the present in every action I do, otherwise I wouldnt be able to act and cause effects. Whether we exist or or not our mind exists or not, the reality of the universe still exists. Its not a construct of the mind, the mind just recognizes the reality that already exists.

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, Armin said:

How can you prove it...? Prove an illusion...? The "reality" of the universe? I would recommend books like "A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime" by John A. Wheeler or about super gravity and super strings, M-theory and quantum effects. I'm sure your foundations would be going to sway.

Im not into spooky science. There isnt real proofs in them. We can pretty much all agree on what we see, feel, hear, etc. To say or suggest its just an illusion is baseless and bordering on craziness.

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, Armin said:

Yea, like it has once been craziness and witchcraft to say a man could fly in the sky (maybe in some object), or the world was round, or planet Earth turned on the sun.

Completely different. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Armin said:

Sure... omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent etc.  The words are not only Latin cognates, but refer to and have their origin in the Catholic doctrine. I think there is certainly more than one magnificent difference between both Christian faiths, and I guess you would agree. Let me say it like this: "Wer sich der Sprache des Gegners bedient, hat sich ihm schon unterworfen." Or let it be said with the words of Brigham Young, paraphrasing from Journal of Discourses: If  one makes only one step in direction to that church, he will stand with one leg in hell. Well, it's only paraphrasing and not the exact citation, because I forgot his exact words. I'm sure you could present the exact words of the second prophet of your church.

It always matters what words you use. In my belief God Almighty wouldn't be pleased if you talked to him in the language of the Malleus Maleficarum. I know that English has many, many Latin cognates, words that sprang from Latin. Why...? The Romans once occupied England, and the old Celtic and other elements were forgotten, and they began to speak in the language of the invaders. But they have never occupied Germany. Arminius (my name springs from that name) once taught Varus' legions a lesson the Roman empire would never forget. Even today in the Teutoburger Wald there are things you can find that tells us about the Romans' defeat. Thus, for each Latin word we have a German equivalent.

I think we're just on completely different planets.  You apparently didn't understand anything of what I said.  And I still don't get what your point is.  Thanks for trying.

I don't even know where you got the impression that we are enemies of the Catholic Church.  We might be considered rivals like football teams might be rivals.  But that's about as far as it goes.  No, I'm not familiar with the BY quote you paraphrased.  But I'll try to look it up.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Armin said:

that all the churches and their doctrines were wrong...? "WRONG".

Of course they are wrong.  Why would they not be?  If we're right, of course they're wrong.  And they believe we are wrong.  Why would that make us enemies?

I believe socialism is an evil political system that was perfectly designed to prey upon the soft hearted who don't know any better.  Does that mean I hate and belittle (or persecute) any socialist on the planet?  FYI, I don't.  I never see it that way.

Likewise, just because I believe other Christian faiths are wrong, it doesn't mean that I want to persecute all those in other faiths.  Instead, I reach out to them.

3 hours ago, Armin said:

Please try to look up what Brigham Young exactly said, I can't find it any more, and I would be thankful if you gave me a link or only the correct citation.

I really have tried to find something... anything... based on what you quoted.  I can't find anything.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

18 hours ago, Armin said:

Really...? So you don't believe in scientific progress because everything (scientifically and divine) has been discovered or revealed yet...? Not "completely different" - just realize that there are things beyond our awareness. You do so, I might guess...

I believe in progress but pure science fiction fantasy doesnt do it for me. I like hard evidence.

[Traveler]

On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 10:31 AM, Armin said:

I see your standpoint, but even if my explanations seem to be based on SF, I would assure you that there's already so much evidence presented by scientific research, that no one can deny we're going to open a new chapter of human knowledge and insights. See the following article as an example, and I'm glad that I've found it at the right time:

"Neurons alone aren’t sufficiently complex to explain consciousness and provide a computational model for thought, according to Stuart Hameroff. He wants to go smaller, into a universe of structures within neurons where quantum mechanics help formulate a physical theory of consciousness."

http://www.kurzweilai.net/consciousness-connects-our-brains-to-the-fundamental-level-of-the-universe

 

I have read some of your posts on this thread.  I do not believe you and I have discussed much but I find your thinking interesting.  Allow me to introduce myself.  I am semi-retired guy that runs a small consulting business from my home.  I consult in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.

I would ask you two questions concerning possibilities you have like to consider?

The first is what is sometimes referred to as “the ghost in the machine”.    This is the possibility that sentient thought, like the software of a computer, is something quite different than the what we empirically identify as “hardware”.  Many religions deal with the possibility of “spirit” that is directed towards things that think and live.  The LDS (Mormon) doctrine is that what is spirit of a living thing is an intelligence that existed independent of our “created” physical space time universe.  We believe that this spirit governs our will and determines our choices – but is temporally denied access to our memory database of our experiences prior to our birth.  In essence we are intelligences forced into a primitive physical experience in order to experience physical corruption and death.  However, we come into this physical experience not really by force but by choice – and therein lies our free will choice (what we call agency) – this life and experience is a consequence of choices made eons before we were born.  For me this is the only logical possibility in which humans are not forced into a birth and life experience that is our choice and allows free will and agency.

The second possibility concerns what is real?  This is a question that philosophers have struggled with for thousands of years without much progress.  One thought presented through religious thinking is that what we think and perceive as our physical empirical universe is a sensory projection (a complexly sophisticated but emporary kind of virtual reality).  That intelligent thought is the actual reality that is eternal and creation of things eternal.  In my work, I build complex simulation models in order to project complex manufacturing operations and their viability.   This kind of modeling takes conceptual projection and adjustments and predicts outcomes before the expense of actual production is made.  The idea of conceptual testing.  Often, I run models at 100 or 1000 times normal time to generate possible longterm outcomes over short periods of time.  We know enough scientifically to realize that time is not a true dimension of our perceived universe.  Maybe this life is a canned simulated platform to represent reality that G-d fully understand (even the outcome) – and that we also once understood but to increase the opportunity of experience we are blind to critical parameters.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

6 hours ago, Armin said:

There is no ghost in a machine, except it's assumed that electric states can somehow "enlighten" the computer's software in a way that awakes some consciousness. But I would say there is none - at least not yet based on the state of the today's technology.

 

I will respond to this idea.  The software (program – or the extension to the ghost in the organic machine) is dependent on an intelligence to make order in the empirical computer architecture.  But that order can change.  And there are two levels of order.  One is the intelligence of the software program (with computers we call this intelligence artificial intelligence) - the other is the intelligence that creates the program.  Searching the empirical evidence of the computer hardware will not connect with proof of intelligence only that we will see a direct correlation in "traces" of the effect.  In science, we are not able to deal with thoughts empirically because thoughts change inconsistently and are not isotropic.

But intelligence requires a means of memory or recall.  Some have suggested that thoughts are elementary and nothing more than “pieces” of memory – but the process of evolution indicates that intelligence can also build on the past and create something different – something new that has no previous foundation from which there could have been a recall.

There is no empirical measurement of intelligence – except to see the effect it has on other things that are empirical.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

Intelligence, where it comes from, and how it works is the paramount enigma of the sciences. So far, the only answer we have comes from religion.

[Traveler]

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 2:09 AM, Armin said:

"Searching the empirical evidence of the computer hardware will not connect with proof of intelligence only that we will see a direct correlation in "traces" of the effect."  Would you explain this further? "In science, we are not able to deal with thoughts empirically because thoughts change inconsistently and are not isotropic." Wait a minute, what about all those written or stored thoughts and publications, stored data etc., let's say according to Karl Popper's World 3 of his "Three Worlds Conception"  (I mentioned it before)...? "But intelligence requires a means of memory or recall."  So far, I would agree.

"Some have suggested that thoughts are elementary and nothing more than “pieces” of memory – but the process of evolution indicates that intelligence can also build on the past and create something different – something new that has no previous foundation from which there could have been a recall."  I think we both agree that thoughts are more than only pieces of memory. To create something different can result from new impressions, new challenges, and it can build on the past and former experience or knowledge at the same time. This is what can be described as creativeness and maybe located as some "paramount enigma" of science what is mentioned just in the posting before.

"There is no empirical measurement of intelligence – except to see the effect it has on other things that are empirical."  What about IQ tests? They are the most empiric instrument to analyse the human intelligence, but, admittedly, they can only measure the relative intelligence, and of course they ignore the metaphysical and the inexplicable. I would rather say there is no graduation or measurement for an absolute and not comparable intelligence, which is maybe subject to speculation or exists on a metaphysical level, but this, however, might also be speculative.

You may want to Google "Intelligent slime mold".

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

We can compare a great deal about the intelligence of slim mold with a German politician.  For example, we can compare intelligent dietary choices containing various percentages of necessary nutrient content.  If one prefers beer and less nutritious food than the other, can we assume the one selecting the better diet to be more intelligent?

I would say in general that making better survival choices (may I include reproductive behavior) is a sign of greater intelligence.  What is your opinion?

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

5 minutes ago, Armin said:

Nope. Making better survival choices, especially reproductive behavior, is just a sign of the most rudimental intelligence I can imagine. Greater intelligence might ignore that reproductive behavior and trust on something beyond.

"If one prefers beer and less nutritious food..." - Let me tell you that we have a German proverb that says: "Dummheit frisst, Intelligenz saeuft".

wirklich?  das ist zu schade. 

 

The Traveler