RE: Jesus' Mission....
November 14, 2019 at 11:18 am
(This post was last modified: November 14, 2019 at 11:44 am by The Grand Nudger.)
@Grandizer
It's not knowledge because all possible choices are made in all possible worlds, with god arbitrarily selecting one of those multiple worlds for "actualization". It didn't know which one you would choose beyond knowing that you would choose all options. It merely selected one of all of the options you "chose". The shots were fired, the holes were in the barn, and it drew a circle around them. Again, though, irrelevant, as knowing that you would choose everything in a many worlds interpretation still includes the fatalist requirement that you would choose everything in many worlds interpretation. You couldn't -not- choose everything, and your "choice", known from a past state, could have no other outcome. The specific world privileged, itself and additionally, being outside of your influence or control. You "chose" all the worlds, and you didn't choose the actualized one.
I agree with you that in the actual world only one choice was made, and that this choice being made does not make it necessary, but here again you assume your intended conclusion and ignore the fatalist requirement in the possibility of foreknowledge in -whatever- choice was made.
OFC my sideline doesn't attack your argument, your defense of the compatibility between the two concepts is irrelevant to the incompatibility between them, as I continue to stress with every reply. Free will is the direct and explicit rejection of fatalism, and fatalism is the direct and explicit rejection of free will. You can only have both if you redefine free will, fatalism, or both. In context of knowledge, knowing all that can be known must exclude your future choices, or in context of mans free will..it must exclude those things which can be known before the fact.
Again, we don't even have to use a god. We can use ourselves, or the sheer (and mere) p[ossibility of knowing. We make excellent guesses about human behavior, having alot of knowledge about people..being people..and studying ourselves. Thing is, there's always the possibility that a person will confound expectations, no matter how well informed they are. This is the essence of free will. The ability to choose more than one option, which we cannot do and are not doing, if the outcome "chosen" can be known, rather than guessed at, even with a high degree of success. Is the future knowable, or guessable? Bringing god back into the fold, is he a super-knower, or a super-guesser...if it's the latter, and we insist on using the term that refers to knowledge rather than guessing, we'll have redefined another term.
The two concepts are completely and necessarily un-salvageable in relation to each other. Requiring us to talk (and argue) about some other x (or multiple x's) called by the same name. Subtle but effective equivocation. If all-knowledge does not contain future knowledge, then lets call it most knowledge, and if free will doesn't contain the freedom to confound expectation..lets call it human will. We can cut out the possible and actual worlds, and gods, and even the possession of such knowledge.
In a world where most knowledge can be had, and where human will is constrained, there is no necessary dilemma between most knowledge and human will. Notice that there's nothing to object to here, and compare that to any argument where the assertion of a choice is used to establish that we have a choice, when the item in question is the possibility of choice? Or where some "knower" draws a circle around a select handful of all choices made and calls this foreknowledge?
It's not knowledge because all possible choices are made in all possible worlds, with god arbitrarily selecting one of those multiple worlds for "actualization". It didn't know which one you would choose beyond knowing that you would choose all options. It merely selected one of all of the options you "chose". The shots were fired, the holes were in the barn, and it drew a circle around them. Again, though, irrelevant, as knowing that you would choose everything in a many worlds interpretation still includes the fatalist requirement that you would choose everything in many worlds interpretation. You couldn't -not- choose everything, and your "choice", known from a past state, could have no other outcome. The specific world privileged, itself and additionally, being outside of your influence or control. You "chose" all the worlds, and you didn't choose the actualized one.
I agree with you that in the actual world only one choice was made, and that this choice being made does not make it necessary, but here again you assume your intended conclusion and ignore the fatalist requirement in the possibility of foreknowledge in -whatever- choice was made.
OFC my sideline doesn't attack your argument, your defense of the compatibility between the two concepts is irrelevant to the incompatibility between them, as I continue to stress with every reply. Free will is the direct and explicit rejection of fatalism, and fatalism is the direct and explicit rejection of free will. You can only have both if you redefine free will, fatalism, or both. In context of knowledge, knowing all that can be known must exclude your future choices, or in context of mans free will..it must exclude those things which can be known before the fact.
Again, we don't even have to use a god. We can use ourselves, or the sheer (and mere) p[ossibility of knowing. We make excellent guesses about human behavior, having alot of knowledge about people..being people..and studying ourselves. Thing is, there's always the possibility that a person will confound expectations, no matter how well informed they are. This is the essence of free will. The ability to choose more than one option, which we cannot do and are not doing, if the outcome "chosen" can be known, rather than guessed at, even with a high degree of success. Is the future knowable, or guessable? Bringing god back into the fold, is he a super-knower, or a super-guesser...if it's the latter, and we insist on using the term that refers to knowledge rather than guessing, we'll have redefined another term.
The two concepts are completely and necessarily un-salvageable in relation to each other. Requiring us to talk (and argue) about some other x (or multiple x's) called by the same name. Subtle but effective equivocation. If all-knowledge does not contain future knowledge, then lets call it most knowledge, and if free will doesn't contain the freedom to confound expectation..lets call it human will. We can cut out the possible and actual worlds, and gods, and even the possession of such knowledge.
In a world where most knowledge can be had, and where human will is constrained, there is no necessary dilemma between most knowledge and human will. Notice that there's nothing to object to here, and compare that to any argument where the assertion of a choice is used to establish that we have a choice, when the item in question is the possibility of choice? Or where some "knower" draws a circle around a select handful of all choices made and calls this foreknowledge?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
