h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Taliesin
>>Are you, (gasp), suggesting God does not possess free will? Or that He does, and freely chooses not to exercise it?<<

Do you understand the concept of predestination?

Why not ask me on the original conversation thread?

Not that I have any objection to discussing things here, but why inconvenience others who may benefit from the exchange?

To answer you: I was raised in the Catholic flavor of Christianity, and had the doubtful privilege of attending various private and semi-private Catholic schools and institutions, through high-school graduation.

I therefore have a fairly good grasp of rather convoluted Catholic dogma, which includes *a* definition of predestination.

I no longer believe in it, naturally!

How would *you* define it?

I found this webpage from 'Catholic Encyclopedia' on predestination:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm
It's a bit confusing to me. Maybe you understand it better.

I look at things a whole lot simpler,imo.

Quote from > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience <:
God stands outside time, and therefore can know everything free agents do, since He does not know
these facts "in advance", he knows them before they are even conceived and long after the actions
have occurred. The free agent's future actions therefore remain contingent to himself and others in
linear time but are logically necessary to God on account of His infallibly accurate all-encompassing view.
This was the solution offered by Thomas Aquinas.

I'm only an amateur theologian, but it looks to me.

I found this 'guide entry' about Aquinas > A2669231 <

Yes, you've heard of him, haven't you.

"Thomas Aquinas is considered by many Catholics to be the Catholic Church's greatest theologian and philosopher.
Aquinas is held in the Catholic Church to be the model teacher for those studying for the priesthood."

>>It's a bit confusing to me. Maybe you understand it better.<<



Told you it was convoluted.

I doubt the author of that piece understood it. Like most theological explications, it contains little logic, and is primarily excess verbiage. Can you spot the contradiction implicit in the first sentence?

I agree Aquinas' definition is less obfuscatory, and pretty much explains the basic idea. However, it refers to certain assumptions that are not satisfactorily accounted for, which if ignored eventually likely lead to false conclusion.

For most theologians, the fundamental problem with ultimate characteristics such as omnipotence and omniscience, is their unlimited, absolute nature. Omniscience, for example, literally means 'all-knowing', and cannot be 'partially all-knowing'

Theologians naturally wish to avoid the looming, inescapable contradiction, and attempt to rationalize this really rather straightforward concept by obscurantist nonsense such as that laughable encyclopedia entry.

Claiming God is omniscient means nothing more, nor less, than that God completely and absolutely knows completely and absolutely everything -- past, present and future. This is a totality claim, and once the theologian starts hedging, it no longer has any coherent meaning.

But, of course, predestination is an invalid concept.

>> Claiming God is omniscient means nothing more, nor less, than that God completely and absolutely
knows completely and absolutely everything -- past, present and future.<<

Yes, that's my position, and I believe Thomas Aquinas' too.
I think I know what you will say, but tell me:
>>predestination is an invalid concept.<<
Why?

More on h2g2; the classical five proofs of (St) Thomas Aquinas are here >> A2495199

Hi Warner

I would agree with the assessment of Thomas Aquinas being a great theologian of the Roman Catholic Church though I would hold with Augustine of Hippo as the greatest Christian theologian. His seminal doctrinal writings leave me shaking when I consider their depth and profundity. Augustine's grasp of predestination was so complete that Calvin just essentially reaffirmed them in his " Institutes."

Have you read Augustine's " Immortality of the Soul?" It took me three tries over nearly an hour to begin to make sense out of the first section.

Cheers!

RC

>>I think I know what you will say, but tell me:
>>predestination is an invalid concept.<<
Why?<<

Well, I really will tell you why I consider the notion of predestination is not a valid concept, but I'm now consumed with curiosity about what you think my answer would be.

Do tell

Later, perhaps we'll discuss the flaws in Aquinas' famous five 'proofs'

~~~

Hi RC ~waves~

Welcome to my PS

I congratulate you on your patience with Augustine

Would it be something like "The ability to know the future means that you must be powerless to change it?"
ie. mankind's free-will and a predestined future are incompatible

>>Would it be something like "The ability to know the future means that you must be powerless to change it?"
ie. mankind's free-will and a predestined future are incompatible<<

Not quite.

The first bit, "The ability to know the future means that you must be powerless to change it" is pretty close, but the second bit, "mankind's free-will and a predestined future are incompatible" seems ambiguous.

Refuting a doubtful idea (predestination) with a debatable one (free will) isn't very satisfying

Let's stick to the predestination claim, exploring it using what evidence we may agree is observably true, and try to eliminate that which is purely additional speculation, or contingent upon untestable ideas.

Predestination is defined as the religious doctrine (typically associated with Christianity) which claims divine foreordaining of all that will happen
Philosophically it is a kind of determinism.

Unsurprisingly, theologists are pleased to endlessly debate the details, but I think it's safe to say predestination presupposes a purposeful universe

(here universe is taken to mean all that exists or potentially exists in and out of observable reality of space/time),

Claiming a purposeful universe alleges the existence of an answer to the question, 'Why does the universe exist?'

In specifying a divinity, predestination additionally posits that in order for there to be a purpose to the universe, there must be, or must have been at some time, a purposeful agent, possessing complete and total knowledge of all outcomes, (all that will happen), to ordain and determine that purpose.

Predestination, therefore, implicitly assumes the current or past existence of an omniscient, intelligent agency responsible for providing the reason for existence.

If, however, the concept of an omnipotent/omniscient agency is invalid, it follows the concept of predestination is also invalid, because the notion that the universe has a purpose cannot be proven, and remains invalid, unless and until evidence is provided for even the possibility of the existence of a purposeful agent capable of providing a universal purpose.

If, as is claimed, such a purposeful agent must necessarily be omniscient, the concept is rendered invalid due to self-contradiction, because an omniscient agent cannot exist -->

Consider: An agent, by definition, must be able to act with intent, but to have intention it is first necessary to choose from among uncertain future possibilities, making a prediction, or 'best guess' regarding the choice leading to the most desirable outcome.

But omniscience is not merely extremely accurate prediction; it is absolute and certain fore-knowledge.

From an omniscient perspective, by definition, there is no time; the unchangeable future is as immutable as the unchangeable past.
An omniscient entity could no more alter events which are to occur than it could those which have occurred.

Awareness and perception of all past, current and future events, including the omniscient entity's very own thoughts, precludes any intervention, removes any possibility of choice, does not allow any changes -- all of which are necessary for the existence of purposeful agency.

What remains is paradox: An agent capable of pre-determining all events for all time must, by definition, be omniscient; but omniscience is fundamentally incompatible with agency. It cannot be both omniscient *and* purposeful

Therefore, an omniscient agent is impossible, and the concept of omniscient agency is invalid

Therefore, the concept of predestination is invalid.

Yep, I guessed it would be something along those lines. Let's see if I can earn my cake

>>From an omniscient perspective, by definition, there is no time; the unchangeable future is as immutable
as the unchangeable past. An omniscient entity could no more alter events which are to occur than it could those
which have occurred.<<
That's fine with me. All events past, present and future are totally fixed and unchangeable.

>>No possibility of choice, does not allow any changes -- all of which are necessary for the existence
of purposeful agency.<<
Ah, this is where I don't agree. The fact that Almighty God (purposeful agency) is omniscient, does not mean say,
that if we pray to Him, He can't "change anything". Consider the following:

Suppose a particular election has crucial significance for some important issues that will affect the direction
of the world, and the election has just ended. They are now counting the votes. What if many people pray
for the election to go a certain way, and God answers those prayers in the affirmative? God ensures that certain
events happen in the right way to convince enough people to vote a certain way. But that would involve making
sure that all sorts of things had already happened. The only way God could answer such a prayer is by foreseeing
that people would pray a certain way and answer it ahead of time. That would mean God’s action was caused
by people’s later prayers.


That's the difficulty we face when trying to understand omniscience, because, we are NOT omniscient, and tend
to think in terms of our own limited faculties.

>>The only way God could answer such a prayer is by foreseeing that people would pray a certain way and answer it ahead of time. That would mean God’s action was caused by people’s later prayers.<<

You may have a , but no Sorry.

Omniscience is not 'foreseeing', but 'knowing'

From the omniscient perspective, there is no difference between future and past events. All are therefore immutable -- as if they had already occurred, including actions, thoughts, prayers etc.

An omniscient being could not act, or have future actions influenced by prior events, because from the omniscient perspective cause/effect, (past/future) no longer has meaning or relevance.

Every thing just *is* in the timelessness of omniscience, with neither causes nor effects

>>That's the difficulty we face when trying to understand omniscience, because, we are NOT omniscient, and tend to think in terms of our own limited faculties.<<

Oo. Try to avoid the fallacy of Argument from Incomprehensibility, ok?

Regardless, it is not necessary to attempt to actually *think* omnisciently in order to understand how the concept itself is invalid.

Cubic spheres cannot exist, by definition. It is not necessary to attempt to imagine one. Omniscience and intentionality are also mutually incompatible, by definition.

<-- for the

Hey, that cake was for sharing, you know

>>Omniscience and intentionality are also mutually incompatible, by definition.<<
No, there not. That's what I'm trying to explain.
It's no good me starting by saying "imagine you were omniscient", because many people think
that the whole concepts nonsense anyway

The fact that God can see everthing in the past, present and future, does not mean that mankind can't change his destiny.
He is free, within the constraints of his environment, to make any choice he wishes.
To take the example in the last post, when you pray to God, He doesn't answer you by changing anything,
the word 'foreseeing' is used in the context that He operates omnisciently. It's a HUGE thing to be able to do,
as it is to know everthing that ALL mankind is thinking simultaneously. In other words, His power is TREMENDOUS.
God is not a person or being that we can compare to any material thing on . God is not he or she, but a mighty power
somehow woven with the Universe (including time).

I've never thought that predestination wasn't possible, but I did find it difficult to understand.
It's taken years of pondering to come to any sort of detailed logical explanation. But I'm satisfied that I've grasped
the main concept.
Sorry if you're having difficulty understanding me ..

Hi Taliesin

re an agent predetermining all events

Interesting concepts here, but I think you are putting too much importance on the necessity of an omniscient being predetermining all events. The matter of predestination and foreknowledge intersect along the way. The use of the term predestination in the Bible is with respect to election alone. It is not used in any way that would encourgae one to construct a theology of absolute fatalism.

God's predestination and His foreknowledge intersect. Yet the foreknowledge of God does not presuppose a Divine intervention in all of the affairs of His creation. God will obviously intervene, prevent or redirect the way of man to align with His plan for the universe. That God does not always interfere is clear when one faces the amount and severity of war and heinous criminal activity. Yet, we can never fully comprehend the number of times that God has prevented evil or slowed its proliferation.

God cuts man a lot of slack and He is not confused or flummoxed by the wayward directions taken by certain individuals since He already knows what action(s) they will take. God does not predestine these actions per se -- man being given the ability to act out of his will of choice. That God allows pain and suffering through wicked conduct is essential if man is to understand that he is innately evil and needs salvation. Our crimes testify that humanity is unrighteous since we all commit crime (though we do not all get caught and brought to justice). The purpose of the moral law seeded into our conscience is to convince us of this moral deficiency. It smites us when we do evil against the moral law of God. Also, that law of conscience is what God has endued in mankind ensuring he will formulate tribal/national codes of justice that are universal and virtually identical.

RC

>>|>>Omniscience and intentionality are also mutually incompatible, by definition.<<
No, there not. That's what I'm trying to explain.|<<

Yes, they are. You'll have to try harder

>>It's no good me starting by saying "imagine you were omniscient", because many people think that the whole concepts nonsense anyway<<

It is. 'Invalid' means, in this context, it is nonsense.
Previously, you posted: ".. the difficulty we face when trying to understand omniscience, because, we are NOT omniscient, and tend to think in terms of our own limited faculties." Was my reply unclear?
Let me rephrase it: In order to invalidate the concept of omniscience, (and predestination), it is not necessary to attempt to *be* omniscient, or to *imagine* one is omniscient.
All that is required is to show that omniscience, as defined, is incompatible with the other claimed attribute of agency/intentionality.

>>The fact that God can see everthing in the past, present and future, does not mean that mankind can't change his destiny.<<

I had the impression we were not considering precognition here, wherein future events are merely predicted, but omniscience, which is *not* simply seeing, it is *knowing*, in which the future is functionally indistinguishable from the past.

The past is immutable -- not subject to change. Omniscience, *by definition*, treats the future as also immutable -- not subject to change. Thus, agency/intentionality is obviated by omniscience.

>>He is free, within the constraints of his environment, to make any choice he wishes.<<

Yes, humans, like other sentient creatures, demonstrate intentionality, which we may regard as 'free will', subject to causal interconnectedness. That they may thus be agents, because they are *not* omniscient, actually supports my argument.
Thank you.

>>To take the example in the last post, when you pray to God, He doesn't answer you by changing anything,
the word 'foreseeing' is used in the context that He operates omnisciently. It's a HUGE thing to be able to do,
as it is to know everthing that ALL mankind is thinking simultaneously. In other words, His power is TREMENDOUS.
God is not a person or being that we can compare to any material thing on earth . God is not he or she, but a mighty power
somehow woven with the Universe (including time).<<

Well, the only 'person-like' attribute we are concerned with in this discussion is agency, or intentionality.
Incidentally, if you are claiming God does not have that particular attribute, you'll get little argument from me!

But then, what is the point of prayer?

btw, you seem to be forgetting what I said about the fallacious Argument from Incomprehensibility?

>>I've never thought that predestination wasn't possible, but I did find it difficult to understand.
It's taken years of pondering to come to any sort of detailed logical explanation. But I'm satisfied that I've grasped
the main concept. Sorry if you're having difficulty understanding me ..<<

I understand predestination is *not* possible, because the pre-conditions for it are invalid, incoherent, and impossible, as has been demonstrated.

Ah well.

Have some anyway.

You too, RC

>>All that is required is to show that omniscience, as defined, is incompatible with the other claimed attribute of agency/intentionality.<<
You are thinking, as is natural, within the confinements of non-omniscient mankind.
What about the mathematical answer to infinity + 1. Is it infinity?
Our minds can only deal with finite concepts, unless we really PUSH them.

>>The past is immutable -- not subject to change. Omniscience, *by definition*, treats the future
as also immutable -- not subject to change<<
Again, I agree with that definition. Perhaps, you are considering the concept of God being an agent, in a fleeting moment of time. Our senses only comprehend time non-omnisciently; we have no organ to sense it like eye or ear etc.
Actually, I think that's another factor involved when people refuse the existence of non-material. They mistakenly think that what is hidden to them due to their relatively primitive senses not being able to comprehend, is not real. Hence the modern trend of believing that 'human knowledge', obtained from scientific theory and experimentation, is all that exists in the universe.

So let's now TRY to consider Almighty God in his rightful place, as an OMNISCIENT AGENT. As you say, 'foreseeing' is meaningless in a strict sense, but He knows the future.
Life in the world appears to us as history is fixed and the future dependent on our actions and evolutionary factors, as the future is 'hidden' from us. If we pray to God and ask him to help those in need etc, the future can't be changed, that's RIGHT.
But God knows everything, including our actions of prayer at any given moment. So we can't think of it as God's listening now and answering us, because for an omniscient being, 'now' has no meaning.
But, there's no doubt AT ALL, that mankind's behaviour on the effects it's outcome.

We can't expect to be able to reason like Almighty God, that's preposterous, but we are priveledged enough
to obtain a glimpse of His magnificence.

>>You'll have to try harder<<
There's more, but later ...

Unlike you, I seem incapable of simultaneously believing two mutually contradictory ideas.

I appear to be incapable of pushing my mind beyond itself

Since, as far as I can determine, my mind is merely finite, I am not able to deal with anything other than finite concepts.

Sad, I know.

For example, my standard-issue mind understands 'immutable' as the quality of being unable to be changed.
To my ordinary mind, 'immutable' is an absolute -- something cannot be 'partly immutable', or 'only immutable under certain circumstances'.

'Infinity' is another absolute value. At least, so it seems to my common-or-garden-variety mind

I interpret the word, 'omniscient' just as literally.
Omniscient means, to my limited brain, nothing more nor less than all-knowing, and is, like 'immutable', another absolute value.
Despite which, even my little mind has no problem comprehending the meaning, and seems to realize actually attempting the impossible feat of *having* such a perspective is not necessary to understand, and use word consistently.

When considering agency, or intentionality, again I am unable to think in other than finite, simple terms.
I consider the philosophical definition of agency to be a thing or a person that acts to produce a certain result.

Agency, as I regard it from my limited perspective, cannot exist apart from causality.

Intentionality, as I use it here, is related to agency, in that agency is implied by intent.
At least, that is the meaning which my tiny mind intends

Considering immateriality:
I understand that the immaterial, defined as that which is independent of the material, has little meaning or, indeed, relevance.
I realize it is the opposite of 'material', but am incapable of grasping any additional significance.

In my admittedly materialistic view, it is not a case of refusing the existence of non-material, but of never having encountered a coherent explanation of it.
To my finite mind, a concept must at minimum be coherent, before it can be deemed either true or false.
Perhaps if someone offered a reasonable description of, for example, the means by which the immaterial interfaces with, or can reliably be detected by the material, I would possibly be more able to comprehend what, exactly, is being proposed.

In the meantime, I seem to be unable to PUSH my limited intellect to regard the immaterial as no more than non-existent.

'Perhaps if someone offered a reasonable description of, for example, the means by which the immaterial interfaces with, or can reliably be detected by the material, I would possibly be more able to comprehend what, exactly, is being proposed.'


well, I see I'm not needed here.

anhaga
I wouldn't say that. Perhaps you can help me to explain how omniscience and omnipotence ARE mutually compatible,
as Gif also agrees with me on that. ( although he doesn't agree with anything else )