User Tag List

Page 1 of 40 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 587

Thread: Omniscience means fatalism.

  1. #1
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,056
    Thanks
    283
    Thanked 9,967 Times in 7,446 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147821

    Omniscience means fatalism.

    If an entity is omniscient, that means it knows everything — down to the movement of every subatomic particle throughout all history.

    That entity must precede every physical thing.

    The entity must be the source of everything.

    The entity cannot have arrived at omniscience.

    The entity had no option but to create exactly as it knew would happen.

    An man living in this universe would be fated at every moment of his life.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    glorydaz (August 17th, 2018),Tambora (August 19th, 2018)

  3. #2
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    8,993
    Thanks
    1,119
    Thanked 1,335 Times in 1,009 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501705

    Omniscience and free will

    Whether omniscience, particularly regarding the choices that a human will make, is compatible with free will has been debated by theologians and philosophers. The argument that divine foreknowledge is not compatible with free will is known as theological fatalism. It is argued that if humans are free to choose between alternatives, God could not know what this choice will be.

    A question arises: if an omniscient entity knows everything, even about its own decisions in the future, does it therefore forbid any free will to that entity?


    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    If an entity is omniscient, that means it knows everything — down to the movement of every subatomic particle throughout all history.

    That entity must precede every physical thing.

    The entity must be the source of everything.

    The entity cannot have arrived at omniscience.

    The entity had no option but to create exactly as it knew would happen.

    An man living in this universe would be fated at every moment of his life.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Theological fatalism means that God has no free will.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to genuineoriginal For Your Post:

    Ktoyou (August 25th, 2018)

  5. #3
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    8,993
    Thanks
    1,119
    Thanked 1,335 Times in 1,009 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501705

    The unmoved mover
    The way in which Aristotle seeks to show that the universe is a single causal system is through an examination of the notion of movement, which finds its culmination in Book XI of the Metaphysics. As noted above, motion, for Aristotle, refers to change in any of several different categories. Aristotle’s fundamental principle is that everything that is in motion is moved by something else, and he offers a number of (unconvincing) arguments to this effect. He then argues that there cannot be an infinite series of moved movers. If it is true that when A is in motion there must be some B that moves A, then if B is itself in motion there must be some C moving B, and so on. This series cannot go on forever, and so it must come to a halt in some X that is a cause of motion but does not move itself—an unmoved mover.

    Since the motion it causes is everlasting, this X must itself be an eternal substance. It must lack matter, for it cannot come into existence or go out of existence by turning into anything else. It must also lack potentiality, for the mere power to cause motion would not ensure the sempiternity of motion. It must, therefore, be pure actuality (energeia). Although the revolving heavens, for Aristotle, lack the possibility of substantial change, they possess potentiality, because each heavenly body has the power to move elsewhere in its diurnal round. Since these bodies are in motion, they need a mover, and this is a motionless mover. Such a mover could not act as an efficient cause, because that would involve a change in itself



    If Aristotle is right, then there can't be more than one unmoved mover.
    Since God's actions are dictated by Omniscience, then the one unmoved mover would be Omniscience and not God.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  6. #4
    Over 5000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,191
    Thanks
    560
    Thanked 958 Times in 728 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    704243
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    The unmoved mover
    The way in which Aristotle seeks to show that the universe is a single causal system is through an examination of the notion of movement, which finds its culmination in Book XI of the Metaphysics. As noted above, motion, for Aristotle, refers to change in any of several different categories. Aristotle’s fundamental principle is that everything that is in motion is moved by something else, and he offers a number of (unconvincing) arguments to this effect. He then argues that there cannot be an infinite series of moved movers. If it is true that when A is in motion there must be some B that moves A, then if B is itself in motion there must be some C moving B, and so on. This series cannot go on forever, and so it must come to a halt in some X that is a cause of motion but does not move itself—an unmoved mover.

    Since the motion it causes is everlasting, this X must itself be an eternal substance. It must lack matter, for it cannot come into existence or go out of existence by turning into anything else. It must also lack potentiality, for the mere power to cause motion would not ensure the sempiternity of motion. It must, therefore, be pure actuality (energeia). Although the revolving heavens, for Aristotle, lack the possibility of substantial change, they possess potentiality, because each heavenly body has the power to move elsewhere in its diurnal round. Since these bodies are in motion, they need a mover, and this is a motionless mover. Such a mover could not act as an efficient cause, because that would involve a change in itself



    If Aristotle is right, then there can't be more than one unmoved mover.
    Since God's actions are dictated by Omniscience, then the one unmoved mover would be Omniscience and not God.
    Or omniscience is total bunk.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  7. #5
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    8,993
    Thanks
    1,119
    Thanked 1,335 Times in 1,009 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501705
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Or omniscience is total bunk.
    Aristotle could be wrong.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  8. #6
    TOL Legend Ktoyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Alabama and Florida
    Posts
    9,781
    Thanks
    2,367
    Thanked 6,952 Times in 4,818 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147719
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Or omniscience is total bunk.
    or it means many sciences?
    So, what?

    believe it!

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ktoyou For Your Post:

    glorydaz (September 3rd, 2018),Rosenritter (August 26th, 2018)

  10. #7
    TOL Legend Ktoyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Alabama and Florida
    Posts
    9,781
    Thanks
    2,367
    Thanked 6,952 Times in 4,818 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147719
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    The unmoved mover
    The way in which Aristotle seeks to show that the universe is a single causal system is through an examination of the notion of movement, which finds its culmination in Book XI of the Metaphysics. As noted above, motion, for Aristotle, refers to change in any of several different categories. Aristotle’s fundamental principle is that everything that is in motion is moved by something else, and he offers a number of (unconvincing) arguments to this effect. He then argues that there cannot be an infinite series of moved movers. If it is true that when A is in motion there must be some B that moves A, then if B is itself in motion there must be some C moving B, and so on. This series cannot go on forever, and so it must come to a halt in some X that is a cause of motion but does not move itself—an unmoved mover.

    Since the motion it causes is everlasting, this X must itself be an eternal substance. It must lack matter, for it cannot come into existence or go out of existence by turning into anything else. It must also lack potentiality, for the mere power to cause motion would not ensure the sempiternity of motion. It must, therefore, be pure actuality (energeia). Although the revolving heavens, for Aristotle, lack the possibility of substantial change, they possess potentiality, because each heavenly body has the power to move elsewhere in its diurnal round. Since these bodies are in motion, they need a mover, and this is a motionless mover. Such a mover could not act as an efficient cause, because that would involve a change in itself



    If Aristotle is right, then there can't be more than one unmoved mover.
    Since God's actions are dictated by Omniscience, then the one unmoved mover would be Omniscience and not God.
    Omniscience? I thought God was the boss?
    So, what?

    believe it!

  11. #8
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    8,993
    Thanks
    1,119
    Thanked 1,335 Times in 1,009 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501705
    Quote Originally Posted by Ktoyou View Post
    Omniscience? I thought God was the boss?
    Omniscience (theological fatalism) means that God has no free will.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to genuineoriginal For Your Post:

    Rosenritter (August 26th, 2018)

  13. #9
    TOL Legend Ktoyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Alabama and Florida
    Posts
    9,781
    Thanks
    2,367
    Thanked 6,952 Times in 4,818 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147719
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Omniscience (theological fatalism) means that God has no free will.
    God being omnipotent can beat up omniscience.
    So, what?

    believe it!

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ktoyou For Your Post:

    Rosenritter (August 26th, 2018),Tambora (August 19th, 2018)

  15. #10
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    19,938
    Thanks
    1,669
    Thanked 4,883 Times in 3,678 Posts

    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147720
    is God powerful enough to limit His omniscience?

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    Rosenritter (August 26th, 2018)

  17. #11
    Over 5000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,191
    Thanks
    560
    Thanked 958 Times in 728 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    704243
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Aristotle could be wrong.
    And probably is:
    "Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating."

    By Aristotle's own implication this unmovable mover seems moved to create by the (its own?) standards of perfection, beauty, contemplation and indivisibility.

    Both (this and omniscience) are merely limited conceptual semantics...that's the best mankind may muster.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  18. #12
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    8,993
    Thanks
    1,119
    Thanked 1,335 Times in 1,009 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501705
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    is God powerful enough to limit His omniscience?
    Should God have to limit His omniscience?
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  19. #13
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,233
    Thanks
    95
    Thanked 146 Times in 125 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    If an entity is omniscient, that means it knows everything — down to the movement of every subatomic particle throughout all history.

    That entity must precede every physical thing.

    The entity must be the source of everything.

    The entity cannot have arrived at omniscience.

    The entity had no option but to create exactly as it knew would happen.

    An man living in this universe would be fated at every moment of his life.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Sounds like you're a naturalistic atheist. All hail the natural universe as it unthinkingly determines the movement of all matter at all moments. You can do nothing that nature has not programmed you to do.

  20. #14
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,629
    Thanks
    13,445
    Thanked 35,376 Times in 17,778 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147792
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Sounds like you're a naturalistic atheist. All hail the natural universe as it unthinkingly determines the movement of all matter at all moments. You can do nothing that nature has not programmed you to do.
    You actually deduced that from Stripe's post?

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    Grosnick Marowbe (August 19th, 2018),JudgeRightly (August 17th, 2018),Tambora (August 19th, 2018)

  22. #15
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,233
    Thanks
    95
    Thanked 146 Times in 125 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    You actually deduced that from Stripe's post?
    I'm simply pointing out that naturalistic atheism teaches the fatalism stryper brought up.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us