Argument from Fatalism: A Reply to the Fatalist

[beardlessjoebae]

nice explosions in the sky song, it helped your argument

[stamboni316]

I was out after your failure with Ockham.

[telemantros]

@stamboni316 Unless you wish to explain how Ockham 'fails' then this is nothing more than an assertion, which is not an argument.

[stamboni316]

Ockham doesn't fail, your use does. My argument goes like this. Presupposition: god is an omniscient, omnipotent and eternal creator of everything with ineffible purpose. Statement: if events could unfold other than the way they would in god's prior foresight then god cannot be omniscient because he does not know how the alternative events will unfold. (cont.)

[stamboni316]

If you then posit that god can see all possible outcomes of all possible choices, events could unfold other than according to his plan unless god restricts the list of possibilities. Either way, there is a contradiction between the existence of free will and omniscience. Your points concerning certainty and necessity are irrelevancies due to the presuppositions of the properties of the biblical god hence my statement concerning your misapplication of Ockham.

[Hexdoll]

Is the argument for free will just a statement of ignorance of future events.

If I knew the future I still would need to make the same choices I would make as my future self or I would not truly know the future. If i had to make the decisions then where does the freedom come in.

[superjam18]

hey telemantros i don't know if you've ever heard of this youtuber called

Evid3enc3's

but he has an interesting deconversion story and I just want to know your thoughts on it if you choose to watch it sometime. :)

[richie3622]

I actually find fatalism to be absurd, but I don't find the counter-arguments in this video to hold much water. "Omniscience" coupled with "omnipotence" implies *absolute* knowledge. Not your "middle knowledge", but a strict, linear chain of events - known in full.

As stated, I still don't believe this implies a lack of "free will" as per common atheistic/agnostic positions, and that's why I have carefully avoided suggesting such things.

My terminology fails me, but such a position (con't)

[richie3622]

(cont'd)

ignores how thought processes work from a strictly naturalistic sense, all being the end point of a series of chemical reactions and neural impulses. You are bound to where your brain leads you, but this does not obstruct your "freedom".

I'd be leaning towards a problem of equivocation over the word "freedom" in arguments of this sort.

The way I see it, you are both fated and "free" - there is no issue of compatibility - and as such, attacking the necessity of X isn't needed.

[richie3622]

Might I also point out that my "Christianity to Atheism" video, in which I DO suggest an issue of fatalism, is severely dated (by almost two years), and my views have evolved heavily since then.

This was the case when you made your video response to it, and part of the reason for my demeanor in my response back.

[kkallebb]

When you say "monolist" do you mean "Molinist"?

[kkallebb]

Thanks for the vid.  In future please forego the music. It's distracting.

[fenoglios]

Hi there,

I'm curious as to which kind of Open Theism you think is problematic. There's at least four kinds of Open Theism that I know of. You ought to check out the recent response I made to Sysyphusredeemed on the divine foreknowledge problem. I'd like to see what you think of the Open Theism that I hold.

God bless.

[kitrana]

except if god knows that i will mow my lawn in 10 minutes due to his omniscience then the choice is a false choice. the apparent choice isnt a choice because if i choose different and god knew i would then he knew i WOULDNT mow my lawn. this is like a time travel dilemma where x happens and we know x happens but the time traveller doesnt know he caused x until after he has. he thought he had a choice it may even look like he did, but in reality he didnt.

[DRealfriknKeenan]

nice!

[WarrantedFaith]

A Calvinistic understanding of free will gives a much more easier and straight forward explanation for the compatibility of God's omniscience and man's freedom of choice.

You can't choose contrary to what God knows. Any time you change your mind, God still knows that you will make that alternate decision. Molinism is also incompatible with sound biblical theology.

[AaronM144000]

2 Kings 20:1

"In those days Hezekiah became mortally ill. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, "Thus says the Lord, Set your house in order, for you shall die and not live."

Was God lying when he told Hezekiah that he was going to die. And if God cannot lie how is it that God later added 15 years to Hezekiah's life.

[SonistheFatherofMan]

It can be stated simpler than that: G-d knows the outcome but you make the choice.

[Hexdoll]

nobody is talking about an infinite regression and I don't know beyond the big bang what caused anything nor do I know much about the big bang, just like everyone else.

well I am saying that free will does not exist if predestination does and we can logically infer the predestination does exsit.

In the case of god if something can be omniscient then everything is predestine and predestination and free will cannot coexist.

[seinfan9]

Your entire premise implies an infinite regression of causes because you stated that every cause has a cause. Let's provide a parallel example: there is no logic because you can't logically prove there is. Stupid, I know.

I'm telling you, your reasoning has absurd implications.

Once again, the inability to do something doesn't mean that you can't freely will to do it. I may want to draw square circles, but it can't be done. But I WANT to, I WILL to do so.

[seinfan9]

That first paragraph didn't flow. Think of the second sentence as a part of the second paragraph addressing how free will doesn't exist because you can't choose to have it (i.e. choose to exist in order to have it. It's simply circular reasoning.)

[Hexdoll]

Lets look at it from another angle

1. you say god can know the future

2. you say you are free to do things in spite of this future.

This is contradictory unless the word free in free will is vestigial.

[seinfan9]

What the fatalist is really saying is that we are unable to do something that God is unaware of. I don't see how this is incompatible with free will. It just means you are unable to do something.

If I couldn't do simple algebra, does that mean that algebra doesn't exist? Or that I lack the free will because I can't do it?

[Hexdoll]

the argument is god having knowledge of future events, total omniscience.

if god is omniscience and knows the future, your actions are predestine.

you only have the illusion you are making a choice.

[seinfan9]

I know that if someone were to deprive themselves of water, they will die.

Somebody decides to do such a thing and cannot continue to live. Therefore, they didn't have free will to live? My prior knowledge of such a thing predestined them to die? Whatever.

[Hexdoll]

but you did not know the outcome, you assume with a great deal of certainty this will happen.

this is not the same argument.

I know the choices I made yesterday but I have no means of changing them, hence do I any free will over the choices I have made?

[seinfan9]

Now you're getting into "we don't know anything absolutely", which is a self-refuting ideology.

You mean, you are unable to travel back in time to change the choices you made? Why then even call them 'choices'? You may be WILLING to change those 'choices', but you just can't do it. IDK if you are an atheist, theist, agnostic etc., but by your logic, even if God is not omniscient or does not exist, NOBODY has free will.

It seems like your definition of free will is the ability to do anything.

[therepentantmouth]

@seinfan9

easy to answer, did God know you were going to write this, yes He did...Why, He knows your heart and mind. He created you and knew you before you were even born, God knows if you will listen or not already...and He will harden your heart! You should read about the sons of Cane :) you never know, you just might be one of them! All of us have free will, but if God doesn't love you, well that sucks for you.

[seinfan9]

Your comment just seems like rambling more than anything.

[therepentantmouth]

@seinfan9

Sure it does :) the blind can't see, or understand.

Your comment is a perfect example of the meaning of my comment....God is not in you!

[seinfan9]

Alright, I won't respond to your stupidity anymore.

[Hexdoll]

what makes you think you do have free will? Unless you are stating you can make a decision antonymous of any causality, but to do this you would have to account for any and all causality that goes in to the decision making process. Otherwise given the same exact causality you would make the same decision every time, and this leaves free will as just an Illusionary concept.

[seinfan9]

So because I didn't choose to exist before I existed, my choices from there on are not of my own doing. Damn! I wish I existed before I existed so I could choose whether or not to exist. But then I would have to exist before that, and before that, and before that into an infinite regress of illogical nonsense. Sounds good to me.

[Hexdoll]

See if you could have chosen to exist then you would have free will but of course you would of needed to exist before you could have decided to.

[Hexdoll]

but of course that is just side stepping the cause and effect relationship that makes anything happen, even your decisions.

[seinfan9]

So the only people who have free will are the ones that do not exist, but do they choose not to exist?

That's retarded. To have free will, you need to exist. You need to exist to do math, so does math not exist because you need to meet the prerequisite? Apparently, everything doesn't exist because it requires our existence to percieve what it is. Thanks armchair guru!

[Hexdoll]

@seinfan9

I think maybe a simple concept of a causality chain of events eludes you or maybe you don't think that is how reality works...either way you don't get the point.

if it is true

1. all events happen in accordance with their cause.

2. all causes are events

3. all events are contingent on not only their causes but on the causes causes on back to a single cause.

therefore all events from the single cause are dictated from the single cause.

where is there free will in that?

[seinfan9]

Again, I ask: why should I think you're right if you didn't come to this conclusion/realization without your own doing? You may be tricked into thinking that it is true, but it just may be the case that isn't and you can't choose to realize that.

So, if there is no free will, there is no truth. BUT, that statement must be true if free will doesn't exist. Quite the conundrum we call reality.

[Hexdoll]

well only if I hold certain things to be true can I realize it to be true.

I don't think there is a causeless event.

I think all cause has cause of its own.

Nothing is random as this is just a word we use to describe things we cant calculate the cause of an observable effect.

[seinfan9]

Infinite regress. What caused the cause that caused that cause that caused that cause that caused that cause that caused that cause that caused that cause... that caused the universe to exist?

Give me an answer, please.

So really, your argument no longer hinges on God knowing everything precludes free will, but that since we had a cause that forced us into existence, free will does not exist.

So the answer to everything that everybody asks is 'because we came into existence.' Science fails?

[Hexdoll]

@seinfan9 depends on how you define -my own doing-

if you mean you are the agent of a cause and effect relationship then I don't think there is an argument.

but if you are laboring under the delusion that the decisions your are going to make is up for grabs then I think you might be mistaken as this would be a violation of our understanding of how the natural universe works.

[seinfan9]

But you didn't choose to exist, therefore you did not choose to understand how the natural universe works. How do I know that you're right?

[Hexdoll]

@seinfan9

i am not claiming anyone chose to exist, I am claiming for lets say the from big bang on, all events are predestine to happen they way they are going to happen simply because an event needs a cause and the nature of the cause(s) dictate the effect then effect itself becomes a cause. you could not not of existed eventually after the single event but you had no say in it.

[jarbon5]

Peter 3:9 is my way around this argument. Like it says, God doesn't want anybody to perish (go to hell), but for everyone to come to repentance. And yet, there are many that are, or will, end up there anyway. Some even seem to be chomping at the bit to get there.

Now, if God had already determined people to go to hell, then the Son of God would have never put on a flesh suit and given His life to save us (Jesus). So, Jesus destroys the argument from fatalism:)

[Bucklehairy]

Exactly! Foreknowledge is NOT equal to foreordainment.

[ToriesPolishBoy]

Wow! That was prompt to say the least. Thanks, Telemantros. I'm going to have to watch it a few times before I get the gist of it because I'm still fairly new to philosophy.

[jagmarz]

If God knew, at the moment he created existence, exactly what it was he was creating - which people would choose him, which ones wouldn't, and still created a Universe with any of the latter people in it, then, frankly, damn him.

On the other hand, if he truly is benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, then he could have created a universe where, ultimately, everyone would be saved.

[regelemihai]

Damn Him for what? Giving choice? The fact that He knows if one will choose Him or not doesn't mean he creates them with a predisposition towards it and then condemning it. It's all bound by free will.

[jagmarz]

Look. Either God's foreknowledge hampers free will or it doesn't.

The claim made in this video is that it doesn't.

Therefore, God could know every future aspect of his creation without them being "necessary".

Therefore, God could have created a Universe where everyone would eventually "choose" to be saved.

OR he deliberately chose one (I mean, the act of Creation wasn't cavalier, was it?) where some people would not choose salvation.

So. Which is it?

[regelemihai]

I still can't see your point. His foreknowledge doesn't inculcate anything. The fact that he knows what one given person will freely choose peforehand doesn't make that choice necessary. It's entirely up to us. What you're saying that he had to save us all and there's no more free will in that.

[jagmarz]

Was there ever a point before the course of the Universe was set, and God, without constraint, could chose the course of the Universe knowing exactly what would happen?

[regelemihai]

Yes.

[jagmarz]

Right. So, at that point, could God have chosen a Universe where, although all the humans had free will, none would have chosen, ultimately, to defy God?

[telemantros]

"Could God have chosen a Universe where, although all the humans had free will, none would have chosen, ultimately, to defy God?"

You hear this one a lot. It seems problematic, if God grants genuine freedom to choose, then it is impossible for him to guarantee what those choices will be. Thus, I'm not sure that it is possible to create a world where all people choose rightly.

[jagmarz]

Look, either he KNOWS ahead of time, or he doesn't. The point of your video was that he KNOWS, and that it's not incompatible with free will. I'm seeing where that assertion leads.

[telemantros]

Right, but what you just asked was whether God could choose specific world X (creatures choose freely in tune with God) or not. What I stated was that He might not even have that option to choose since there may not be such a world. Given human freedom, a world were all humans choose freely & with God may not exist.

[Pedromose]

I'm a Christian who has struggled with this dilemma quite a bit -- I guess my position is closer to being an Arminian -- although I am aware of contradictions in this position.

I like the point that God's knowledge of the future is seperate and apart from necessity.

On "middle knowledge" -- it seems to borrow a few lines from open theism (which I struggle with). Being aware of possibilities doesn't seem like awareness to me:

[Pedromose]

I mean, if I throw a dice that has six sides, I'm aware of six different possibilities. If I say the dice will be one of six numbers and it shows up as a 5 -- it's hard for me to see how I foreknew it. Foreknowledge would have to be more specific than that. The fact that I didn't know the dice was going to show up as "5" shows that there are limits to my foreknowledge. How limited does my foreknowledge have to be, I wonder, before it is no longer foreknowledge?

[Pedromose]

It seems that the more possibilities you allow in "middle knowledge," the more you invite the troubling question of how an omniscient God's foreknowledge can be limited.

If God's foreknowledge isn't separate from necessity, then the question of possibilities really effects free will and God's omniscience.

But if it's separated from necessity, as you suggest, then it may be possible for God to be omniscient and free will to exist w/out potentially problematic concept of "middle knowledge."

[Pedromose]

If you say, "based on a different set of circumstance, God's knowledge calculates that you would have done X," it seems that the only reason someone would find that statement necessary is if they had a determinstic view of the world -- that God knows free will is thoroughly conditioned by the world the individual is in -- which would take away free will. I guess I just don't see the point of inserting "middle knowledge" into this -- it seems to bring up more problems than it solves.

[Pedromose]

Like I said, I'm a Christian "fundamentalist," with questions, not an atheist. Again, I really appreciate what you stated about the difference between foreknowledge and necessity and may use that in my own walk with God and in my future conversations with those who ask questions about what I believe, so thanks!

[TerraFirma92]

Middle knowledge in no way borrows from open theism. I'll PM you about this.

[xdairybastardx]

I love this argument, it really shows how people fail to understand the difference in free will and God's knowledge.

Just because God knows I'm going to do it, doesn't mean I don't have the will to do it or not do it.

I have the choice to lie, but whichever I chose, God knows. This still does not mean I didn't make the choice.

I MADE the choice, therefore I have the free will to.

[vickmackey24]

Neither of these arguments work.

For the first argument to be valid, you need to prove that knowledge of X does not *necessitate* X. In other words, prove that NOT X is compatible with KNOWING X.

The 2nd argument fails because knowledge of all possibilities does not necessitate knowledge of all actions. Knowledge of the action is what's important. I can know that a person can only choose heads or tails when I flip a coin, but that doesn't mean I know what he's going to ACTUALLY choose.

[vickmackey24]

Free will is a paradoxical concept, with or without determinism, but let's assume it exists. I think your best bet for making omniscience compatible with free will is to use the whole "God exists outside of time" angle. So like a time traveler, one can think of it as God knowing what you WILL do as what you DID, which wouldn't preclude free will. God exists outside of time, so He knows all that we DID do, WILL do, and ARE doing, "simultaneously."

Assuming a timeless being even makes sense ;)

[95TurboSol]

I don't think simply being outside of time would change the tense of his knowledge in this case. God's timelessness would not make what we "will do" turn into what we "did do", to do this all moments of time would have to be equally real, sometimes called the B theory of time. If temporal becoming is real then even if God is timeless, events that are in our future have not happened, or exist yet.

[vickmackey24]

@95TurboSol

Well, admittedly, it's a flaky concept ;) But anyway, I'm not sure I understand your objection. If God exists outside of time, and sees past, present and future simultaneously, then what you "will do," relative to His perspective, is indistinguishable from what you "did"; it's only distinguishable relative to other moments WITHIN time. To a timeless being, all actualizations of choices are manifested instantly and simultaneously; relative to it, "before" and "after" don't apply.

[vickmackey24]

Basically, I'm trying to circumvent the whole determinism thing by way of "perspective." :)

[95TurboSol]

Hey, Vick.

Yeah I see what you are saying, people in the past have explained this view of Gods knowledge as he were looking down at a picture and he can see your past and your future on the same picture so to speak. My objection is that it's not Gods timelessness that could make this be the case, because God being an unchanging person does not make all of our moment in time real. For him to "see" our past present and future at the same time would mean all moments in time are equally real.

[95TurboSol]

I personally lean heavily towards the view that God came into temporal relations when he created the universe, I think this is the most plausible and consistent view.

[regelemihai]

Makes more sense than the alternative.

[vickmackey24]

Btw telemantros, the reason you need to prove knowledge of X does not *necessitate* X is because you cannot just presuppose a non-deterministic universe. Let's just take "knowledge" out of your example and simply say:

"If I mow the lawn, then I mowed the lawn, but not *necessarily*."

This begs the question of whether the universe is deterministic. If the universe IS deterministic, then anything you do, you NECESSARILY had to do. In such a case, if God knows you will do X, then you HAD to do X.

[telemantros]

"...because you cannot just presuppose a non-deterministic universe."

Vick, the argument from fatalism presupposes free will, otherwise there wouldn't be an argument. If we are determined, then there is no argument from fatalism. So i'm not begging the question, I'm working with the presuppositions of the argument in question.

[vickmackey24]

@telemantros

Ok, fair enough. Then I guess my question is, by what mechanism does something *know* you're going to do X without some sort of determinism on some level? You're inferring an indeterminate universe from the existence of free will. I'm inferring a deterministic universe from the existence of foreknowledge. How do you reconcile these two?

[95TurboSol]

That's a really good point, that actually didn't occur to me, it does presuppose free will doesn't it? That's funny :P

-Matt

[Hexdoll]

If god knows what might occur then we may have free will.If god knows what will occur we have the illusion of free will as we do not possess knowledge of the future.

If god is omniscience then all things are predestine and cannot happen another way

Just because we do not have knowledge of the future we feel as if we make a choice but if we cannot make another choice than the predestine one this is just an illusion of possibility, not actual possibility.

[thunderbolt94]

So wait. I'm confused about something.

If God know all the possible outcomes of my actions, and I still have freewill, does that mean God knows all the different possible actions I could take?

For example, here are 4 possible actions I might make:

1. I might mow the lawn

2. I might do my homework

3. I might go to the movies

4. I might order a pizza

If it's true that we have Free will, does that mean that God knows all about the possible outcomes, but knows what action I take?

[95TurboSol]

In the Molinist view God knows what any possible person he could create would freely do in any situation he might place him in, this is called Gods "middle knowledge" So for example God could have created a possible world in which you ended up choosing to do your home work. But in this world he knows you would instead choose to mow the lawn.

[95TurboSol]

Whats important to note is that this knowledge would not be necessary to God, it is contingent on what we would do in each world and on this knowledge he can choose which world to create. So our actions would not be dependent on which world he creates because it is his in his middle knowledge of what we would freely do that he chooses which world to create.

-Matt

[vickmackey24]

@95TurboSol

Silly concept, imo. Once God chooses which world to create based on what we would hypothetically do, the free will in the universe he creates goes away.

Think of it like a computer program that generates universe blueprints based on some input. I enter the number 5 and it creates a universe blueprint I like. I go ahead and create this universe which now has to behave according to the blueprint I selected. Can anyone reasonably say that WITHIN this universe, free will exists? No.

[95TurboSol]

Well with the example you gave, to parallel it, the blueprint would be created by our choices and God would choose which world to actualize. Now I take issue with the use of the word "has" to behave according to the blueprint, the reason is because this seems to imply the loss of free will which does not follow. God's necessary knowledge of x, does not make x itself necessary. Because God infallibly knows that x will occur, his knowledge does not "causally make x occur". Make sense?

-Matt

[vickmackey24]

@95TurboSol

Free will is the ability for YOU to actualize your choice, not God. Furthermore, can you explain the difference between God CAUSING a particular sequence of actions and God CHOOSING that *same* sequence of actions from an infinite sequence of possible actions (i.e., all possible manifestations of free will)?

[ElasticGiraffe]

Concerning the middle knowledge approach, the term isn't "Molonism" but Molinism, after the Jesuit theologian Louis de Molina.

[ElasticGiraffe]

Oops. I'm sorry. You said "Monolism," not Molonism. Either way, the term is Molinism. lol :)