Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 02/17/05 

Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:30:36 -0500

Albert said:
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> > Albert said:
> >
> >>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> >>
> >>>Albert said:
> >>>
> >>>>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Albert said:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>>>>>If God
> >>>>>>>knows you will have Cheerios, can you possibly choose instead to have
> >>>>>>>Rice Krispies?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Of course. You can chosen either. Foreknowing is not the same as
> >>>>>>determining. The future isn't fixed, but to one outside of
> >>>>>>space-time, observation of any point in space-time is not a problem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If God knows you will eat Cheerios, and you choose Rice Krispies
> >>>>>instead, then God was wrong, and therefore not omniscient.
> >>>>
> >>>>I can't believe that you don't see the absurdity of this remark.
> >>>>How can God be wrong about what you ate when what he is seeing is
> >>>>what you actually did?
> >>>
> >>>The question was whether God knew exactly what you were going to do at
> >>>some future time, and whether you were able to choose to do other than
> >>>what God knows you will do.
> >>
> >>As a gedanken, take God out of it, and leave just yourself: The
> >>question you are actually asking is whether it is possible for
> >>you to change the past and do what you didn't do.
> >>
> >>If you say yes to that, then I ask can you do it without God's
> >>knowledge?
> >
> > First of all, my statement was about the incompatibility of the
> > omniscience of god and the existence of free will.
>
> Which I showed you was wrong.
No you didn't. Here was your refutation:

"No, the easy way out is for you to understand the logical
absurdity you pose. However, for the record: God is certainly
not bound by his own creations, which include you, logic, and
your poor understanding of logic."

Your refutation of my logic was that logic does not apply to God, which
is not a logical refutation at all. So, the problem is MY poor
understadning of logic? Maybe the problem is your preference for
dispensing with logic in favor of maintining contradictory emtional
beliefs.

>
> > If you take god out
> > of the picture, then we're not discussing the same thing.
>
> Of course we are. The the logical problem is the same.
>
> > Secondly, it
> > is not possible for me to change the past,
>
> OK.
>
> > so your second question is
> > meaningless.
>
> No. It would only be asked if you replied 'yes' to the first.
Right, that's why it's meaningless.
>
> > Freedom of will doesn't mean you can do A AND B, but that
> > you can choose A OR B.
>
> Agreed. The future will be contingent on your choice today.
>
> >>>Either you can, and therefore what God
> >>>"knew" was wrong, so God's not omniscient. Or, you can't because God is
> >>>never wrong, and therefore you have no freedom to will otherwise.
>
> Dammint, Tony. Where did you pick up that stupid belief that
> stating the same thing over and over negates any previous
> refutations.
The logic is simple. Maybe my hope is that you'll have one of your
epiphanies. You haven't given any refutation of the problem, yet claim
you have. Logically there is contradiction, yet you refuse to see it. Is
there a thrid possibility I am not seeing that preserves free will and
omniscience of God? Try to be logical about it.
>
> >>That is a false dichotomy that you base on false concepts of
> >>time, foreknowledge, determination and who knows what else.
> >
> > That is about as unspecific a criticism as I've seen from you Albert.
>
> It is very specific. You committed a logical fallacy, and I
> spelled it out. I can't do your thinking for you.
You did not spell it out. There is no fallacy. Furthermore you never
said specifically what was false about my concepts of time (oh yeah,
time is imaginary - as if!), foreknowledge (pretty straight forward
concept), determinism, or who know what else? Could you be more specific
about a particular logical problem, either with one of the premises or
construction?
>
> > What false concepts is my argument based on, the idea that knowing what
> > is going to happen implies that it is going to happen?
>
> Yes.
Knowing a fact, and not being wrong, is generally taken to mean that
that fact is true. That's what "knowing" means. So, if God knows what's
going to happen, it might not? Then, I can only conclude that God is
sometimes wrong, and therefore doesn't know everything. Now, point out
the specific logical fallacy in that set of statements.
>
> > Where is the error in that?
>
> Your belief that knowing what choice you made in your past means
> that in that past you had no choice.
No, I said that, if it is a fact that something will happen, then it
will, otherwise that fact is wrong. Just because soemthing is in the
past doesn't mean it couldn't have been different, only that it wasn't,
and never will be. I was talking about foreknowledge of the FUTURE.
>
> >
> >>Endless repetition does not make it true.
> >>
> >>Knowledge about your future by a being outside of time is not
> >>determinism.
> >
> > It is if there is nothing you can do to change it.
>
> You can only choose in the now.
>
> > How else do you define determinsm?
>
> You have no choice in the now.
Of course you have choice. It's just that the choice you make is
ultimately determined by factors in the environment and your makeup,
which aren't your making.
>
> >>>I know
> >>>this may be offensive to you, Albert, and I'm sorry,
> >>
> >>Don't be sorry. Your inability to grasp the logic of what I say
> >>is in no way offensive to me. But it does reflect poorly on you.
> >
> > You haven't used any logic, Albert. You're usually pretty good with
> > that, but I have hit a sore point for you, and you're getting emotional
> > about it ("and who knows what else").
>
> LOL. Yes, bemusement is emotional.
>
> >>>but the logic is
> >>>pretty simple. Maybe God can defy logic? Is that the easy out?
> >>
> >>No, the easy way out is for you to understand the logical
> >>absurdity you pose. However, for the record: God is certainly
> >>not bound by his own creations, which include you, logic, and
> >>your poor understanding of logic.]
> >
> > So, your concept of god is illogical? Okay, enough said. Mine isn't.
>
> We need a simple word for this consistent behaviour of yours
> where you put words in my mouth.
I haven't put words in your mouth that didn't come from there. You can
accuse me over and over of that, but each time I show you exactly what
you said and shown myself not to be unreasonably twisting things. It's
you that doesn't listen to you. All too common in this world....
>
> How about another gedanken:
>
> Assume it is the morning of February 5, 2006.
> Assume that a being exists that is outside of time. (Or if that
> is too hard, then assume a being exists that can travel in time,
> backwards and forwards.)
> Lets call this being The Traveler.
> Assume that this creature has no control over you and that you
> have free will.
>
> You are about to choose your breakfast, Cheerios or Rice Crispies.
>
> Sitting beside you is The Traveler. He holds in his hand a
> sealed envelope.
>
> You ask him, "Do you know which cereal I will choose?"
>
> He replies, "Yes, It's written down in this sealed envelope"
>
> You reply, "OK, let's test".
>
> You then make a choice, exercising your free will.
>
> Lets say you choose Cheerios.
>
> The Traveler then hands you the sealed envelope.
>
> You open it and find, in your own handwriting the message: "The
> Traveler was here today, February 6, 2006, and asked me to write
> down what I had for breakfast yesterday. I had Cheerios."
>
> Now, was your free will violated in any way?

This is an entirely different situation. In this case the foreknowledge
was accurate, and is explained by the traveler having gone into the
future and returned with foreknowledge. This is the source of the
Traveler's knowledge, and it turns out to be correct. No contradiction
there (except with realtivity of course). Now, say the letter said,
"Yesterday I had Corn Flakes." Say it was wrong. What would be your
conclusion? That the Traveler went into the future of a different
universe? That the Traveler was full of crap? If the Traveler claimed to
know everything, would you believe him? This is the situation I am
posing. 

-- 
Smiles,
Tony

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... That was not my refutation of your absurd statement: ... "If God knows you will eat Cheerios, ... You irrational belief that foreknowledge is equivalent to ... >>Sitting beside you is The Traveler. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... That was not my refutation of your absurd statement: ... "If God knows you will eat Cheerios, ... You irrational belief that foreknowledge is equivalent to ... >>Sitting beside you is The Traveler. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... That was not my refutation of your absurd statement: ... "If God knows you will eat Cheerios, ... You irrational belief that foreknowledge is equivalent to ... >>Sitting beside you is The Traveler. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> omniscience of god and the existence of free will. ... Here was your refutation: ... >> That is about as unspecific a criticism as I've seen from you Albert. ... > Sitting beside you is The Traveler. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> omniscience of god and the existence of free will. ... Here was your refutation: ... >> That is about as unspecific a criticism as I've seen from you Albert. ... > Sitting beside you is The Traveler. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
Quantcast