Jewish Discussion Thread

[Ethel mermania]

no,

knowledge of an event does not dictate control of the event.

I never said he was controlling it. But if he is truly omniscient and knows event x will happen event x will happen. Nobody can change it since it's predetermined.

foreknowlege by the actor, is not premeditation by the observer.

[Grave_n_idle]

We are not discussing divine commands...

And neither am I. Perhaps taking long enough to actually read responses will help?

I don't mind waiting.

[Evraim]

Their ideology is ascetic in nature.

no it is not, it is about equality. A true socialist paradise has opera and ice cream for everybody.

Why hasn't anybody mentioned this before now? And to think I spent all my time opposing the thrice-accursed pinkos.

[Conserative Morality]

1. Eisther Menassa is incorrect, or your interpretation is incorrect. He can control everything but chooses not to.

Really. From what do you derive this conclusion.

2. Knowledge is not control,

No, but absolute knowledge demands determinism.

3. That is a thought, because we believe he sometimes does act, and we call those miracles.

In which case he is interfering with human free will if He is still omniscient.

[Ethel mermania]

That doesn't make sense.

In your example, she had a choice - and he already knew which choice she would make. That's not inconsistent.

Then free will does not exist as all actions are predetermined. That is the point of EM's example.

Have you been following this conversation?

you misunderstand my point, deliberately i believe,

Knowledge does not equal control.

[Conserative Morality]

And neither am I. Perhaps taking long enough to actually read responses will help?

I don't mind waiting.

Because you can't understand the reasoning of god, does not mean you can't understand what god says if he speaks to you. You appear to be conflating 'understanding' as in comprehending the mechanisms and psychology - with 'understanding' as in being able to comprehend that which intrudes into our mundane reality.

Which I followed with

We are not discussing divine commands, we are discussing the nature of God, which supposedly cannot be understood.

Do try to read what you write, or rather read what you respond to. Or rather, if you can't understand the point I'm driving at, get the hell out of the debate.

[Grave_n_idle]

no,

knowledge of an event does not dictate control of the event.

I never said he was controlling it. But if he is truly omniscient and knows event x will happen event x will happen. Nobody can change it since it's predetermined.

I think, perhaps, the phrase 'predetermined' is causing confusion, rather than helping.

It has two different meanings, if you think about it - and one of them is actually somewhat inaccurate - i.e. when we use 'predetermined' to say that we already know the result of something - what we're actually saying is that it has been pre-witnessed, since pre-determined theoretically means that the choice is made in advance.

[Conserative Morality]

you misunderstand my point, deliberately i believe,

Knowledge does not equal control.

Absolute knowledge requires determinism.

[Grave_n_idle]

And neither am I. Perhaps taking long enough to actually read responses will help?

I don't mind waiting.

Because you can't understand the reasoning of god, does not mean you can't understand what god says if he speaks to you. You appear to be conflating 'understanding' as in comprehending the mechanisms and psychology - with 'understanding' as in being able to comprehend that which intrudes into our mundane reality.

Which I followed with

We are not discussing divine commands, we are discussing the nature of God, which supposedly cannot be understood.

Do try to read what you write, or rather read what you respond to. Or rather, if you can't understand the point I'm driving at, get the hell out of the debate.

You repeated the same irrelevant comment again - I don't think you actually read my post - because it really wasn't that confusing.

[Ethel mermania]

no it is not, it is about equality. A true socialist paradise has opera and ice cream for everybody.

Why hasn't anybody mentioned this before now? And to think I spent all my time opposing the thrice-accursed pinkos.

Depends on how you feel about Opera i suppose.

[Evraim]

Do try to read what you write, or rather read what you respond to. Or rather, if you can't understand the point I'm driving at, get the hell out of the debate.

Please, do play nice.

Why hasn't anybody mentioned this before now? And to think I spent all my time opposing the thrice-accursed pinkos.

Depends on how you feel about Opera i suppose.

I like opera - and, to keep this line of discussion on the Jewish train-tracks, Yiddish opera.

[Conserative Morality]

[
You repeated the same irrelevant comment again - I don't think you actually read my post - because it really wasn't that confusing.

I really think you lack the basic understanding required to participate in this argument, or, perhaps, you're just willingly pretending to miss the point, as you have in previous debates. If you don't understand what I'm saying, I don't feel the need to waste my time with you. And if you're willingly missing the point, I still don't feel the need to waste my time on you.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm relatively skeptical of free will as it is traditionally understood - even from a materialistic perspective. I suppose that's a discussion for another time though. I would say the second denies absolute omniscience but not necessarily the potential for omniscience. Finally, I saw the rigorous intercourse you've been having on the subject, though I'm not convinced meaningless is the most precise word to use, but then you were a self-professed moral nihilist last time we met.

That was a long time ago.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I never said he was controlling it. But if he is truly omniscient and knows event x will happen event x will happen. Nobody can change it since it's predetermined.

foreknowlege by the actor, is not premeditation by the observer.

I never said it was by him. Works with any kind of true precognition really. If precognition is real and through precognition someone knows that someone else will do action x on a given date then there is no way that he will not do action x on that date. It's inevitable that it will happen. Choice is an illusion in that context, since the person will perform action x no matter what. It's already happened before it's happened, in a sense.

[Ethel mermania]

you misunderstand my point, deliberately i believe,

Knowledge does not equal control.

Absolute knowledge requires determinism.

1. No it doesn't.

honestly this is 2nd year philosophy, when you have taken it with a passing grade get back to me in a general discussion thread.

2. Even if you are right, which you are not, Faith, by definition, precludes us from having to prove it. We believe God acts this way, and that is good enough for us.

[Conserative Morality]

1. No it doesn't.

honestly this is 2nd year philosophy, when you have taken it with a passing grade get back to me in a general discussion thread.

Really, so tell me, if someone has absolute knowledge that something will happen, is there a chance that it will not happen? Yes or no.

2. Even if you are right, which you are not, Faith, by definition, precludes us from having to prove it. We believe God acts this way, and that is good enough for us.

It really shouldn't be.

[Evraim]

I'm relatively skeptical of free will as it is traditionally understood - even from a materialistic perspective. I suppose that's a discussion for another time though. I would say the second denies absolute omniscience but not necessarily the potential for omniscience. Finally, I saw the rigorous intercourse you've been having on the subject, though I'm not convinced meaningless is the most precise word to use, but then you were a self-professed moral nihilist last time we met.

That was a long time ago.

So, you've recognized the error of your ways?

[Grave_n_idle]

In which case there is no choice.

That's not a logical conclusion.

Exactly. Which way she will lean. You may have a 99.9999% chance of being right, but you are not entirely infallible in your predictions.

Indeed. There is data that I lack, since I cannot see what is in her head. If there is some new stimulus, I won't know it until it becomes apparent.

Omniscience demands a lack of choice precisely because whatever choice is going to happen is already known and understood for all eternity.

No, you made another faulty leap of logic there. Just because I know the extra bit of information, and thus - which choice she will make - does not change whether or not she made the choice. It just means I'll already know, with 100% certainty, what she'll choose.

If free will exists, then there is still the possibility that you (Or God) will be wrong,

Not if God is omniscient - since, by definition, that would mean he sees all - and thus, would have seen which outcome will transpire of all possible outcomes.

...as the person may pick a different choice. If they cannot pick a different choice, since God already knows what choice they'll make, then it's predetermined.

As I said elsewhere, I think the phrase 'predetermined' actually hinders more than helps, here. The choice is not being made before the moment of the choice - it is merely being witnessed.

If you know what she will do with absolute certainty before she makes the choice, then her thought processes cannot deviate from a certain line that you have predicted, making this whole situation dependent on a deterministic system in the universe.

No, the fact that her thought process WILL NOT deviate does not mean they cannot - they could - but if I had perfect knowledge, I'd know they would, and I would STILL know which way her choice would resolve.

[Conserative Morality]

So, you've recognized the error of your ways?

Yeah, NSG has a way of helping that process along.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I never said he was controlling it. But if he is truly omniscient and knows event x will happen event x will happen. Nobody can change it since it's predetermined.

I think, perhaps, the phrase 'predetermined' is causing confusion, rather than helping.

It has two different meanings, if you think about it - and one of them is actually somewhat inaccurate - i.e. when we use 'predetermined' to say that we already know the result of something - what we're actually saying is that it has been pre-witnessed, since pre-determined theoretically means that the choice is made in advance.

In a way it has. By pre-witnessing it before it happens, from the point of view of an omniscient God, the choice has already been made, and the path has been determined. Hence predetermined is not an inaccurate description.

[Evraim]

So, you've recognized the error of your ways?

Yeah, NSG has a way of helping that process along.

I always thought that NSG was counter-intuitive to that cause. I'm becoming worse and worse, but I'm rather silly any how.

[Grave_n_idle]

[
You repeated the same irrelevant comment again - I don't think you actually read my post - because it really wasn't that confusing.

I really think you lack the basic understanding required to participate in this argument...

You twice pretended I said something other than that which is easily verifiable.

It's interesting that you present YOUR failure to understand MY posts, as me somehow failing to understand yours.

[Ethel mermania]

foreknowlege by the actor, is not premeditation by the observer.

I never said it was by him. Works with any kind of true precognition really. If precognition is real and through precognition someone knows that someone else will do action x on a given date then there is no way that he will not do action x on that date. It's inevitable that it will happen. Choice is an illusion in that context, since the person will perform action x no matter what. It's already happened before it's happened, in a sense.

I dont think so, if i know a given set of circumstance is true, I can know the next step will also be true. Lets go back to the old tried and true

Socrates is a man
all men are mortal

I know the third step, without being able to act upon it and change it is also true

Socrates is mortal,

and i can draw a whole vast set of conclusions that will also be true based on the known truth of the first two statement. So my certain knowledge of the truth of a future event, has nothing to do with whether that event takes place or not.

I am not picking on you, or trying to avoid the conversation, but right now I am tired. I would really like to drink heavily, watch football and just have light conversation, if any.

So i for now am going to drop out of this conversation.

[Grave_n_idle]

I think, perhaps, the phrase 'predetermined' is causing confusion, rather than helping.

It has two different meanings, if you think about it - and one of them is actually somewhat inaccurate - i.e. when we use 'predetermined' to say that we already know the result of something - what we're actually saying is that it has been pre-witnessed, since pre-determined theoretically means that the choice is made in advance.

In a way it has. By pre-witnessing it before it happens, from the point of view of an omniscient God, the choice has already been made, and the path has been determined. Hence predetermined is not an inaccurate description.

Again, I think the phrase is causing confusion - you've used it both ways, right there - as though they were the same thing.

I'm going to try to illustrate the point I'm making using physics.

You and I are stood on hills a large distance apart. We have a clear line to one another.

I hold a deck of cards, from which I am going to draw a card of my choice. I will then hold up the card, and shout out the value and suit.

I pull from the deck the Ace of Spades. I hold the card up to you, and you look through a telescope to see the value. A few moments later, my voice echoes across the valley.

From the moment you saw the card, you knew what the echoing voice was going to say when it arrived. The fact that you had foreknowledge didn't change the experiment in any way. It didn't change which card I chose.

What we're looking at here, with this conversation of 'predetermination' - is just about having a tool better than that telescope - one that sees the card before I show it to you, not just before my voice reaches you. Having already witnessed it, you know which card I'll choose, which you'll see, and what you will hear - but I'll still make the choice to pull the Ace of Spades, and ignore 51 other possible cards. Not because I can't choose those cards - but because I didn't - and you've already seen the choice made.

[Grave_n_idle]

foreknowlege by the actor, is not premeditation by the observer.

I never said it was by him. Works with any kind of true precognition really. If precognition is real and through precognition someone knows that someone else will do action x on a given date then there is no way that he will not do action x on that date. It's inevitable that it will happen. Choice is an illusion in that context, since the person will perform action x no matter what. It's already happened before it's happened, in a sense.

If precognition renders choice an illusion, then choice is always an illusion - because right now, I'm looking back at choices I made in my past. I have knowledge about those choices, and yet those choices seemed real and genuine at the time - yet, from the point of view of someone in the past, I am seeing the future, and it has already transpired exactly as I have seen it.