Quick argument against Free Agency

[_madeleine]

Due to Einstein's theories, an observer far from us (or moving at relativistic speeds in relation to us) could potentially see everything that has ever happened or will happen on our planet. That would mean the past and future are fixed and there is no free agency.

Oh snap!

God is not a creature that exists within his own creation, but rather as the Creator, is outside of creation. Including time.

or in other words

God is not bound to our linear existence. God is the creator of it.

[_huckelberry]

Due to Einstein's theories, an observer far from us (or moving at relativistic speeds in relation to us) could potentially see everything that has ever happened or will happen on our planet. That would mean the past and future are fixed and there is no free agency.

Oh snap!

God is not a creature that exists within his own creation, but rather as the Creator, is outside of creation. Including time.

or in other words

God is not bound to our linear existence. God is the creator of it.

Tarski could correct, but I am almost absolutely certain that relativistic speeds slow time down a bit which would do nothing for seeing the future.

I am actually curious about the idea of God being outside of time. I am uncertain as to what meaning those words could have . I think if God is eternal it is fair to say God is not changed by time. That is a way of being outside of time. I think would remain self evident that God is still in the present just as we are. That is if words have meaning. Now Aquinas did propose an image of God seeing time like an observer of a passing train (merchants with pack animals) the early events on one end the future on the other. It is an image. I think Aquinas actually proposes that things are ideas in Gods mind and are conceived by him from beginning to their return to him in the future. He knows the future because it is flowing from his intention, he does not see it literally. I think that is an idea consistent with Gods knowing the future but is not perhaps the happiest construction for free will.

[_brade]

This argument seems already premised on determinism being true. It doesn't require there to be a future. It requires the future to be set such that you can make factual claims about it now.

In a way I think you're right, and if you've had any philosophical training that's pretty easy to see. The issue is that lots of people seem to hold two incompatible ideas: (1) God knows what everyone will do, and (2) people have the ability to do otherwise (i.e. Libertarian Free Will).

Few people grasp that God's knowing entails that there are facts to be known.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Everything is Cause and Effect.

- VRDRC

[_madeleine]

Oh snap!

God is not a creature that exists within his own creation, but rather as the Creator, is outside of creation. Including time.

or in other words

God is not bound to our linear existence. God is the creator of it.

Tarski could correct, but I am almost absolutely certain that relativistic speeds slow time down a bit which would do nothing for seeing the future.

I am actually curious about the idea of God being outside of time. I am uncertain as to what meaning those words could have . I think if God is eternal it is fair to say God is not changed by time. That is a way of being outside of time. I think would remain self evident that God is still in the present just as we are. That is if words have meaning. Now Aquinas did propose an image of God seeing time like an observer of a passing train (merchants with pack animals) the early events on one end the future on the other. It is an image. I think Aquinas actually proposes that things are ideas in Gods mind and are conceived by him from beginning to their return to him in the future. He knows the future because it is flowing from his intention, he does not see it literally. I think that is an idea consistent with Gods knowing the future but is not perhaps the happiest construction for free will.

Aquinas is a good example. I also like the often-used example of a painting. We see each brush stroke as it happens, God sees the complete painting. My favored explanation is that of the author of a book. The author has set the characters and context, and the story. Knows what is going to happen. But if we look at the characters, we see they have choices, and free will.

Eternal and infinite are two attributes of God (Christian belief). Infinite refers to God's attribute of immeasurable, unbound, unlimited, etc....attributes of space. God's omnipresence is connected to his attribute of infinite. Eternal refers to God's attribute of not being a creature of time. He has no beginning and no end, is everlasting to everlasting. His eternal attributes are described, theologically, as a branch of God's attribute of infinite. Simply, they are connected.

In regards to Aquina's theology on the ideas of God. It is Christian doctrine that creation exists in the will of God. So conversely, without the will of God, creation would cease to exist. Time and space both being part of creation, that is, existing in the will of God.

God, existing outside of time, therefore is present to all time simultaneously. Past, present and future. This is significant to Catholics (east and west), as Christ's Sacrifice is made present at every Mass. This Presence being the one Sacrifice of Christ re-presented, not reenacted or redone.

I have known people who will pray for past events, which is based on the belief that God is present to those events now. ("Now" being a term of a time-bound creature.)

[_huckelberry]

Aquinas is a good example. I also like the often-used example of a painting. We see each brush stroke as it happens, God sees the complete painting. My favored explanation is that of the author of a book. The author has set the characters and context, and the story. Knows what is going to happen. But if we look at the characters, we see they have choices, and free will.


In regards to Aquina's theology on the ideas of God. It is Christian doctrine that creation exists in the will of God. So conversely, without the will of God, creation would cease to exist. Time and space both being part of creation, that is, existing in the will of God.

Aquinas, to my limited but not entirely empty understanding, takes the idea of creation as a result of Gods will completely seriously. His construction however underlines the problem of complete determinism. Your illustration of a book is an example. When the character in the book does an awful sin he does so because the author made him that way. Yes in the process inside of time the character decides. It may appear that from eternity only God decides who commits what sins. My inexact memory says Aquinas at some points inserts a separation ,creation is deficient because made from nothing. A very large, useful and completely ambiguous consideration. I am inclined to imagine such a separation would also make a separation between God and the future. (it will all return to God when it does and before then God is present to the present,just as he is present in the Eucharist,now) Aquinas may well have not agreed with my parenthesis..

[_Tobin]

Due to Einstein's theories, an observer far from us (or moving at relativistic speeds in relation to us) could potentially see everything that has ever happened or will happen on our planet. That would mean the past and future are fixed and there is no free agency.

Oh snap!

God is not a creature that exists within his own creation, but rather as the Creator, is outside of creation. Including time.

or in other words

God is not bound to our linear existence. God is the creator of it.

I don't see what that has to do with whether or not our future is fixed?!? Again, relativity (which seems to be true) would mean that the future is observable and so must be fixed.

Tarski could correct, but I am almost absolutely certain that relativistic speeds slow time down a bit which would do nothing for seeing the future.

That is incorrect. Relativity shows that space time is affected by motion and distance. According to Einstein, an observer far from us using sophisticated means could by either moving away or towards us theoretically view everything that happened in our space time or will happen in our space time. That would seem to mean that our future is fixed and free agency is an illusion.

[_huckelberry]

That is incorrect. Relativity shows that space time is affected by motion and distance. According to Einstein, an observer far from us using sophisticated means could by either moving away or towards us theoretically view everything that happened in our space time or will happen in our space time. That would seem to mean that our future is fixed and free agency is an illusion.

Tobin, I am familiar with the idea from relativity that for something moving at a rate of speed close to the speed of light time process is slower, relatively. I am aware that an observer from far away is seeing events in the past due to the time it takes light to arrive for seeing. We see distant galaxies in the form they had millions of years ago. If we move closer to them we would see them in a form closer in time to the present. That does not have a path to get any closer to the future than the present.

[_MrStakhanovite]

It doesn't matter. The statement "X or not X" is true under any and all circumstances.

Yes, I agree 100% with this, but I can see how Mormons are forced to disagree. Let me put the argument like this:


(P1) There exists propositions about everything Bob Loblaw might do in the future.

(P2) All of those propositions about Bob Loblaw are either true or false (Principle of Bivalence)

(C1) There is now a set of true propositions that correctly predicts everything Bob Loblaw will ever do before Bob Loblaw actually does it.

(P3) If there is a set of true propositions that correctly predict everything Bob Loblaw will ever do before Bob Loblaw actually does it, then the future is unavoidable.

(C2) The future is unavoidable.

Some philosophers (Like William Lane Craig) will deny P2 because he believes that most propositions that predict the future do not have a truth value (his semantics are tensed). I would say that if a proposition is true, then it is always true (semantics are tenseless).

The statement "the future is not real" is not totally clear. Do you mean it is not actual?

Yes, not actual. I don’t subscribe to that view because I hold to the B theory of Time.

Now let X be the statement "Joe will choose to kill bill at noon exactly two years from today"

Now consider "X or not X".
Tell me a possible world where this statement would be false.

A world where that statement only has a truth value at certain times (tenses) instead of always being true (tenseless) Is such a world possible? Sure. Do we live in that world? I don’t think so.

[_brade]

It doesn't matter. The statement "X or not X" is true under any and all circumstances.

Yes, I agree 100% with this, but I can see how Mormons are forced to disagree. Let me put the argument like this:


(P1) There exists propositions about everything Bob Loblaw might do in the future.

(P2) All of those propositions about Bob Loblaw are either true or false (Principle of Bivalence)

(C1) There is now a set of true propositions that correctly predicts everything Bob Loblaw will ever do before Bob Loblaw actually does it.

(P3) If there is a set of true propositions that correctly predict everything Bob Loblaw will ever do before Bob Loblaw actually does it, then the future is unavoidable.

(C2) The future is unavoidable.

Some philosophers (Like William Lane Craig) will deny P2 because he believes that most propositions that predict the future do not have a truth value (his semantics are tensed). I would say that if a proposition is true, then it is always true (semantics are tenseless).

The statement "the future is not real" is not totally clear. Do you mean it is not actual?

Yes, not actual. I don’t subscribe to that view because I hold to the B theory of Time.

Now let X be the statement "Joe will choose to kill bill at noon exactly two years from today"

Now consider "X or not X".
Tell me a possible world where this statement would be false.

A world where that statement only has a truth value at certain times (tenses) instead of always being true (tenseless) Is such a world possible? Sure. Do we live in that world? I don’t think so.

So that people who haven't brushed against this can follow, A-Theory of Time says, roughly, that only the present is real. The present has a special nature. B Theory of Time says, roughly, that the past, present, and future are equally real. Put another way, A-Theory says of time that it is tensed in its nature. B-Theory says of time that it is not tensed in its nature.

The benefit of A-Theory is that it respects our commonsense notions of time and order. A major difficulty is that it is at odds with experimentally verified aspects of relativity. On the other hand, B-Theory is consistent with experimentally verified aspects of relativity, but it does violence to our commonsense notions of time and order.

Related to this discussion, A-Theory allows for the religiously popular libertarian free will (i.e. the ability to do otherwise). B-Theory does not*.

*It isn't clear to me that B-Theory is necessarily incompatible with libertarian free will, and there have been serious attempts to square B-Theory with libertarian free will. I haven't studied them, but my limited understanding is that such attempts haven't gone well.