DBT
Contributor
That's not what a cyclic universe means, syed. Nor is it faith to formulate ideas and possibilities, faith is believing that you have the answer: god did it. That is faith.
-
Features
Syed's Mega-Thread
- Thread starter Syed
- Start date
That's not what a cyclic universe means, syed. Nor is it faith to formulate ideas and possibilities, faith is believing that you have the answer: god did it. That is faith.
DBT
Contributor
That remark being your own rationale for faith. The cyclic universe model is not something I came up with.
It's not even my idea. Your remark is an expression your own desperation.
Nor did I say that the universe is in fact cyclic. I said there are several different possibilities under consideration...the various cyclic models not being on the list of possibilities.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Dude, your opinion on whether or not something makes sense has absolutely no bearing on its factuality.
cyclic universe is bs and you knew it
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
No, actually, i don't know that it's BS.
To be frank, the fact that YOU call it BS tends to lend it a certain amount of credibility in my heart of hearts.
But still and all, i already knew you were going to call it BS no matter how simply it's ever explained to you, so why should anyone bother?
DBT
Contributor
It doesn't mean anything to me personally. There are several models of cyclic universes, which are not mine, these being readily available online. Read for yourself and then provide us with your critique on each model.
Atheos
Veteran Member
Syed seems to be resorting to a form of Tu Quoque fallacy. Or possibly Syed is just attempting to goad, who knows? I'm certain that Syed thinks he knows where the universe comes from, which gives him the ability to claim "You don't know but we do." But the allegations that atheists believe in black magic are just plain silly. Perhaps some do but I doubt any of them believe black magic is responsible for the creation of the universe.
"I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer to a question if you honestly don't know. People once knew that it was necessary to sacrifice virgins to appease volcano gods. Many no doubt regretted this unfortunate truth but accepted that it was necessary. They knew it with the same level of certainty that theists like Syed "know" that their god created the universe.
They were wrong. Virgins did not have to be sacrificed to appease angry volcano gods. Their evidence was actually better than Syed's because eventually, if you fed enough virgins to it, the volcano would settle down. And if it didn't you could be equally certain that these weren't actually virgins that were being sacrificed.
"I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer to a question if you honestly don't know. People once knew that it was necessary to sacrifice virgins to appease volcano gods. Many no doubt regretted this unfortunate truth but accepted that it was necessary. They knew it with the same level of certainty that theists like Syed "know" that their god created the universe.
They were wrong. Virgins did not have to be sacrificed to appease angry volcano gods. Their evidence was actually better than Syed's because eventually, if you fed enough virgins to it, the volcano would settle down. And if it didn't you could be equally certain that these weren't actually virgins that were being sacrificed.
DBT
Contributor
Syed, maybe this will help you to choose an ideal religion:
lol
Quran
"Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. * They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. * Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.
''Those who have been unjustly expelled from their homes only because they said, "Our Lord is Allah." Had not Allah repelled some people by the might of others, the monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which Allah's praise is daily celebrated, would have been utterly demolished. Allah will certainly help those who help His cause; most surely Allah is Mighty, Powerful'' Surah 22. Al-Hajj, Ayah 40
DBT
Contributor
Which, Syed, means that you have made your choice (call it consciously or unconsciously as you please) from a vast selection of opposing alternatives. Alternatives that are logically incompatible, therefore cannot all be true, but they can all be false.
Gila Guerilla
Junior Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Messages
- 84
- Basic Beliefs
- No religious beliefs held
Examining the "God" of Syed
I promised some time back that I would post on the topic of: 'Does Syed's concept of "God" make sense, (to me to others and generally)'.
Here are postings which delineate some of the characteristics of "God" as Syed tells us he understands the concept :-
I am about to post about Syed's concept of "God". It is a critical examination of some issues, in connection with that. I hope that it is coherent, logical and valid. If any part of it seems to be in error, I ask that any reader will quote the portion(s), and explain what is wrong. Thanks. The critique is in nine parts.
I promised some time back that I would post on the topic of: 'Does Syed's concept of "God" make sense, (to me to others and generally)'.
Here are postings which delineate some of the characteristics of "God" as Syed tells us he understands the concept :-
I assume this means that "God is not omniscient, due to "God's" limitations, (in Syed's view).
To "God knowing in advance of something non-human, like a particular apple falling from a particular tree, you reply: to MY understanding of islam NO but god does know appleS will fall to the ground
Just a quick read through of the above will illustrate to any reader, that Syed's concept of "God" has a number of contradictions.
I am about to post about Syed's concept of "God". It is a critical examination of some issues, in connection with that. I hope that it is coherent, logical and valid. If any part of it seems to be in error, I ask that any reader will quote the portion(s), and explain what is wrong. Thanks. The critique is in nine parts.
Gila Guerilla
Junior Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Messages
- 84
- Basic Beliefs
- No religious beliefs held
Examining the "God" of Syed, part 1
Some theological ponderings
The key to Anselm's concept of "God" is greatness, (as in great => greater => greatest = "God"). "God" is the greatest that can be conceived, and which also exists. See his argument below . . .
Some theological ponderings
Anselmo d'Aosta, (St. Anselm), presented a non-denominational argument for the existence of "God". It did not define any properties or characteristics of "God". This is its value, and yet its downfall as well. It does not yield the god of Islam, nor the gods of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Mormonism or Pastafarianism !!! It leaves the notion of what the god is, up to human conception. So if I can conceive of a god that is greater than any of the gods I have mentioned, then the argument should conclude that it is my god which exists in reality.
The key to Anselm's concept of "God" is greatness, (as in great => greater => greatest = "God"). "God" is the greatest that can be conceived, and which also exists. See his argument below . . .
In Islam, Muslims affirm that: "God" is the greatest: "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic: الله أكبر;; meaning "Allah is [the] Greatest," or "Allah is Greater"). But Syed's concept of "God" is that "God" is great, (but could be greater). In other words his concept of "God" is one in which "God" is significantly less great than even I, an atheist, can conceive. Syed's concept of "God" takes away from "God" the capacity to foresee acts of human "free will", (if free will exists). This certainly seems like an ad hoc conjecture, made up to preserve Syed's concern that "God's" foresight will preclude supposed human libertarian "free will". As Syed's concept of "God" is of a diminished "God", it makes other greater conceptions theo-ontologically more likely.
Gila Guerilla
Junior Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Messages
- 84
- Basic Beliefs
- No religious beliefs held
Examining the "God" of Syed, part 2
Contradiction
If there is a god, it must have some specific attributes and abilities. If two conceptions of what "God" is, or what "God" can be, are disparate conceptions which are incompatible, then one of the conceptions is necessarily incorrect. Syed's contention is that "God" has foresight of everything that is to be found in the universe, except for actions of human "free will". Yet in one of his posts, he told us that "God" does not[/u] have foresight over when a particular apple will fall from a particular tree.
But an apple falling from a tree is not an act of human "free will", and so Syed is contradicting himself in this assertion. Syed is saying that, (with respect to falling apples), his "God" has no foresight over an event which lacks anything to do with "free will" at all. He apparently tries to bolster his position, by telling us that "God" knows that apples do fall from trees, but not at what future time. In Syed's conception, as I interpret it :-
1. "God" has foresight of everything that is in the universe, except for actions of human "free will"
and
2. "God" does not have foresight over when a particular apple will fall from a particular tree.
But 1. and 2. form a contradictory pair of statements - one of them must be false. I leave it to Syed to fix this problem, (or else let the problem stand as an unresolved error).
In addition, it is worth considering that the contention about "God's" fore-knowledge of falling apples reduces "God" to having no better ability in that regard, than an ordinary human being. I know that, left on the twig, apples will fall off, but I know not exactly when. It is possible that scientists could monitor the situation, and predict the falling of an apple reasonably accurately, and with sufficient data, the accuracy might be quite high. One would think that a god with great knowledge, (of the locations and actions of atoms, and with intimate knowledge of the nature of physics), would be able to predict the falling of an apple with a high degree of accuracy ~ the scientists not so far before the fact, and the god lo-o-o-o-n-g before the fact.
As an analogy, and in trying to get as good a view of omniscience as I can, I view omniscience as what for me as a human, would be like having memory. As a human, I can remember past events, but my memory is patchy. An omniscient god, I conjecture, would have a kind of memory, for the whole of existence, (all of time past-present-future). That god's memory experience would be complete, and perfect, (the greatest of perfection in ability to "recall"). In that analogy, it is hard to understand how a god with 'total' recall of some things, could have holes in its recall as well. Of course, the model of memory is not quite right, because the god is in fact looking 'down' at all that is, over all time, and is not remembering, but having direct and immediate knowledge.
Syed allows for holes in his conception of "God", in that his "God" cannot oversee, or have fore-knowledge of acts of human supposed "free will". Syed's god must therefore have fore-knowledge of all other aspects of a human's life[\u][\i][\b], being as close as the jugular vein ! ! ! This conception of "God" must allow for that god to have fore-knowledge of all "non-free will" phenomena in the life of the person.
Contradiction
If there is a god, it must have some specific attributes and abilities. If two conceptions of what "God" is, or what "God" can be, are disparate conceptions which are incompatible, then one of the conceptions is necessarily incorrect. Syed's contention is that "God" has foresight of everything that is to be found in the universe, except for actions of human "free will". Yet in one of his posts, he told us that "God" does not[/u] have foresight over when a particular apple will fall from a particular tree.
But an apple falling from a tree is not an act of human "free will", and so Syed is contradicting himself in this assertion. Syed is saying that, (with respect to falling apples), his "God" has no foresight over an event which lacks anything to do with "free will" at all. He apparently tries to bolster his position, by telling us that "God" knows that apples do fall from trees, but not at what future time. In Syed's conception, as I interpret it :-
1. "God" has foresight of everything that is in the universe, except for actions of human "free will"
and
2. "God" does not have foresight over when a particular apple will fall from a particular tree.
But 1. and 2. form a contradictory pair of statements - one of them must be false. I leave it to Syed to fix this problem, (or else let the problem stand as an unresolved error).
In addition, it is worth considering that the contention about "God's" fore-knowledge of falling apples reduces "God" to having no better ability in that regard, than an ordinary human being. I know that, left on the twig, apples will fall off, but I know not exactly when. It is possible that scientists could monitor the situation, and predict the falling of an apple reasonably accurately, and with sufficient data, the accuracy might be quite high. One would think that a god with great knowledge, (of the locations and actions of atoms, and with intimate knowledge of the nature of physics), would be able to predict the falling of an apple with a high degree of accuracy ~ the scientists not so far before the fact, and the god lo-o-o-o-n-g before the fact.
As an analogy, and in trying to get as good a view of omniscience as I can, I view omniscience as what for me as a human, would be like having memory. As a human, I can remember past events, but my memory is patchy. An omniscient god, I conjecture, would have a kind of memory, for the whole of existence, (all of time past-present-future). That god's memory experience would be complete, and perfect, (the greatest of perfection in ability to "recall"). In that analogy, it is hard to understand how a god with 'total' recall of some things, could have holes in its recall as well. Of course, the model of memory is not quite right, because the god is in fact looking 'down' at all that is, over all time, and is not remembering, but having direct and immediate knowledge.
Syed allows for holes in his conception of "God", in that his "God" cannot oversee, or have fore-knowledge of acts of human supposed "free will". Syed's god must therefore have fore-knowledge of all other aspects of a human's life[\u][\i][\b], being as close as the jugular vein ! ! ! This conception of "God" must allow for that god to have fore-knowledge of all "non-free will" phenomena in the life of the person.
Gila Guerilla
Junior Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Messages
- 84
- Basic Beliefs
- No religious beliefs held
Examining the "God" of Syed, part 3
Consequences
Consider some of the events that are known to happen, and that do not involve human supposed "free will''. Amongst these will be apples falling, volcanoes erupting, trees seeding and sprouting, hearts beating#, anything sleeping - including humans*, storms, the sound of the wind, stars forming and collapsing, where atoms sit in three dimensional space, (that is to say their sub-particles ‡), and so on.
______________________________________________________
Note: # and * = humans do not sleep as an act of free will, and their hearts don't beat due to free will either. Many bodily functions are automatic.
‡ = the observation of sub-atomic particles may be a problematic part of physics, which I don't know enough about, to go into. I do know that in quantum mechanics, some events seem to be dependent on observation - observing them brings them about, or alters their behaviour. The possible problem is that can an observer really know where quantum particles will be, without observing them directly, and if not then it would alter the position or velocity of those quantum entities ? ? ? 'I dunno'.
______________________________________________________
Further events which are not of supposed "free will", that humans make on a daily basis include: digesting food, the changes in blood flow due to exercise, reflexes like pulling one's hand away when accidentally touching a hot plate, dreaming; (not daydreaming), falling of a cliff and so on. As these are events which occur automatically, and lacking "free will", then according to Syed's concept of "God", "God" has fore-knowledge of all of these things and many more.
Consider what actions of supposed "free will" humans make on a daily basis: teeth cleaning, eating, walking, driving, thinking, looking at things and so on. So Syed's "God" is unaware of these actions, and many more, until after the fact.
Consequences
Consider some of the events that are known to happen, and that do not involve human supposed "free will''. Amongst these will be apples falling, volcanoes erupting, trees seeding and sprouting, hearts beating#, anything sleeping - including humans*, storms, the sound of the wind, stars forming and collapsing, where atoms sit in three dimensional space, (that is to say their sub-particles ‡), and so on.
______________________________________________________
Note: # and * = humans do not sleep as an act of free will, and their hearts don't beat due to free will either. Many bodily functions are automatic.
‡ = the observation of sub-atomic particles may be a problematic part of physics, which I don't know enough about, to go into. I do know that in quantum mechanics, some events seem to be dependent on observation - observing them brings them about, or alters their behaviour. The possible problem is that can an observer really know where quantum particles will be, without observing them directly, and if not then it would alter the position or velocity of those quantum entities ? ? ? 'I dunno'.
______________________________________________________
Further events which are not of supposed "free will", that humans make on a daily basis include: digesting food, the changes in blood flow due to exercise, reflexes like pulling one's hand away when accidentally touching a hot plate, dreaming; (not daydreaming), falling of a cliff and so on. As these are events which occur automatically, and lacking "free will", then according to Syed's concept of "God", "God" has fore-knowledge of all of these things and many more.
Consider what actions of supposed "free will" humans make on a daily basis: teeth cleaning, eating, walking, driving, thinking, looking at things and so on. So Syed's "God" is unaware of these actions, and many more, until after the fact.
Gila Guerilla
Junior Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Messages
- 84
- Basic Beliefs
- No religious beliefs held
Examining the "God" of Syed, part 4
Logic or illogic
I'll continue with Syed's assertion that "God" has foresight, (pre-knowledge) over the positions and behaviours of all of the atoms in the universe. If "God" can foresee all future circumstances like that, then "God" is not limited by time; "God" can overlook and see all events, locations, interactions etc. of all the atoms, sub-atomic particles and energy in the universe. Yet at the same time, "God" is time limited in the case of actions of human "free will". So we have :-
{a} "God" is not limited by time
and
{b} "God" is limited by time, (has to wait for time to pass to have knowledge of some events).
But {a} and {b} are surely incompatible.
From a logical perspective, something cannot be A and not(A) at the same time. Examples are . . .
i) a woman cannot be married and single at the same time, (married and single ~ not married)
ii) a mountain cannot be over 2,000 feet tall, and 1,923 feet tall at the same time, (i.e. over 2,000 feet, and something under 2,000 feet)
iii) a man cannot be dead, and alive at the same time, (dead, and not dead).
iv) a god cannot be timeless, and time limited at the same time, (free of time restriction and also tied to time restrictions).
Logic or illogic
I'll continue with Syed's assertion that "God" has foresight, (pre-knowledge) over the positions and behaviours of all of the atoms in the universe. If "God" can foresee all future circumstances like that, then "God" is not limited by time; "God" can overlook and see all events, locations, interactions etc. of all the atoms, sub-atomic particles and energy in the universe. Yet at the same time, "God" is time limited in the case of actions of human "free will". So we have :-
{a} "God" is not limited by time
and
{b} "God" is limited by time, (has to wait for time to pass to have knowledge of some events).
But {a} and {b} are surely incompatible.
From a logical perspective, something cannot be A and not(A) at the same time. Examples are . . .
i) a woman cannot be married and single at the same time, (married and single ~ not married)
ii) a mountain cannot be over 2,000 feet tall, and 1,923 feet tall at the same time, (i.e. over 2,000 feet, and something under 2,000 feet)
iii) a man cannot be dead, and alive at the same time, (dead, and not dead).
iv) a god cannot be timeless, and time limited at the same time, (free of time restriction and also tied to time restrictions).
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,435
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
FTFY.
Atheist - Believes in no gods
Monotheist - Believes in one god
Polythieist - Believes in more than one god
Idiot - Uses words to mean the opposite of their accepted definitions
Gila Guerilla
Junior Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2009
- Messages
- 84
- Basic Beliefs
- No religious beliefs held
Examining the "God" of Syed, part 5
Oversight and deduction
Syed has said it's only minor details which "God" doesn't know, (which IMHO seems trite and ad hoc). I have prepared an animated
.gif to show a particular event E in which a person 'K' kills another person 'V', (i.e. Killer and Victim).
The diagram represents the universe, from before creation, through the creation, up to the event E and onwards past the event E.
The diagram also attempts to show what "God" knows before, and after the event. So everything on the diagram represents "God's"
knowledge at the time 'Age of universe', according to Syed. The diagram attempts to show what "God" knows at all times along the
scale continuously. Left of the marker Age of universe is the past (so far), and to its right is the future. The marker Age of universe
may be taken to be NOW, at any instant in the history of the universe.
So in the freeze-frame below, at the time Age of universe, the shaded area left of Age of universe is past, (in the history of the universe),
up to NOW, (at Age of universe). To the right of Age of universe is the future, and events to come, (in the history of the universe).
The totality of the data on the diagram represents "God's" supposed knowledge of the event E at the time Age of universe).
Since the death of 'V' is not minor, (in accordance with Syed's declaration that "God" does not have advance knowledge of some
minor events), "God" has fore-knowledge of the death of 'V'. The death of 'V' is not an act of "free will" by 'V', and once 'V' is dead,
the body of 'V' cannot have "free will" any more . So both the date and time of the death of 'V', killed by 'K', is known in advance
by "God", and "God" has that prior knowledge, throughout the entire history of the universe, (from Time = 0 up and then beyond
the time of event E occurring).
Yet knowing this about the death of 'V', during all of the history of the universe, up to the time of the death of 'V', "God" supposedly
does not know that 'K' will kill 'V'. As I interpret him, according to Syed, there is a contradiction. At the same time:
{i} "God" has fore-knowledge of the killing of 'V' by 'K', (because 'V’s' corpse is dead and has no "free will", and is not a minor thing),
and
{ii} also fails to have that fore-knowledge . . .
[p] "God knows before the fact, the date and time of the death of 'V', killed by 'K' - "he" knows in advance of the corpse);
BUT
[q] "God" does not know in advance, the date or time of the death of 'V' - Syed says so.
[p] and [q] are contradictory, so one or both of them must be wrong. I leave it to Syed to work which it is, (or for him to
leave it as something wrong and not bother to correct it).
In extension, not only will "God" have fore-knowledge of the presence of the dead corpse of 'V', from the time of event 'E'
onwards, but "God will also have fore-knowledge of the "non-free will" aspects in the life of 'V', (such as sleeping), through-
out the life span of 'V'.
Thus "God" must have access to fore-knowledge of the death of 'V'.
Similarly for the birth of 'V', (or any other person),"God" will have fore-knowledge of "non-free will" aspects in the life of 'V',
(such as sleeping, heartbeat, digestion, reflexes etc.). Thus "God" will have fore-knowledge of a complete absence of
"free will" actions by 'V', up until the birth of 'V", and then suddenly, the commencement of a multitude of "non-free will"
aspects in the life of 'V', starting at the future time of the birth of 'V'.
Syed says that "God" is a logical god, and follows the laws of logic. To depict in a diagram what Syed has stated that "God"
can have fore-knowledge about take a look at :-
In the above summary diagram, showing an overview of the history of the universe, a person 'P' is born at point B and dies
at point D.
According to Syed's conception of "God", his god cannot foresee the events B and D, but "God" can foresee the beating of the
person 'P's' heart, the digestive processes in 'P's' gut, the sleeping of 'P' and so on, in between events B and D, in the interval
marked with a check mark, (tick in a box). Of course, before B or after D, in the intervals marked with crosses, (in boxes), "God"
will be able to foresee the absence of those biological signs of life for 'P.'
At a stretch, and as another ad hoc supposition, one might object and say that "God" can see all this, yet not know that it is
person 'P', but merely that it is a somebody. But surely, in the period B to D, "God" must be able to see mail addressed to 'P',
arriving at 'P's' place of residence, and "God must be able to read many public records regarding 'P', ones which any human
detective could associate with person 'P', in short order. So the objection fails.
Oversight and deduction
Syed has said it's only minor details which "God" doesn't know, (which IMHO seems trite and ad hoc). I have prepared an animated
.gif to show a particular event E in which a person 'K' kills another person 'V', (i.e. Killer and Victim).
The diagram represents the universe, from before creation, through the creation, up to the event E and onwards past the event E.
The diagram also attempts to show what "God" knows before, and after the event. So everything on the diagram represents "God's"
knowledge at the time 'Age of universe', according to Syed. The diagram attempts to show what "God" knows at all times along the
scale continuously. Left of the marker Age of universe is the past (so far), and to its right is the future. The marker Age of universe
may be taken to be NOW, at any instant in the history of the universe.
So in the freeze-frame below, at the time Age of universe, the shaded area left of Age of universe is past, (in the history of the universe),
up to NOW, (at Age of universe). To the right of Age of universe is the future, and events to come, (in the history of the universe).
The totality of the data on the diagram represents "God's" supposed knowledge of the event E at the time Age of universe).
Since the death of 'V' is not minor, (in accordance with Syed's declaration that "God" does not have advance knowledge of some
minor events), "God" has fore-knowledge of the death of 'V'. The death of 'V' is not an act of "free will" by 'V', and once 'V' is dead,
the body of 'V' cannot have "free will" any more . So both the date and time of the death of 'V', killed by 'K', is known in advance
by "God", and "God" has that prior knowledge, throughout the entire history of the universe, (from Time = 0 up and then beyond
the time of event E occurring).
Yet knowing this about the death of 'V', during all of the history of the universe, up to the time of the death of 'V', "God" supposedly
does not know that 'K' will kill 'V'. As I interpret him, according to Syed, there is a contradiction. At the same time:
{i} "God" has fore-knowledge of the killing of 'V' by 'K', (because 'V’s' corpse is dead and has no "free will", and is not a minor thing),
and
{ii} also fails to have that fore-knowledge . . .
[p] "God knows before the fact, the date and time of the death of 'V', killed by 'K' - "he" knows in advance of the corpse);
BUT
[q] "God" does not know in advance, the date or time of the death of 'V' - Syed says so.
[p] and [q] are contradictory, so one or both of them must be wrong. I leave it to Syed to work which it is, (or for him to
leave it as something wrong and not bother to correct it).
In extension, not only will "God" have fore-knowledge of the presence of the dead corpse of 'V', from the time of event 'E'
onwards, but "God will also have fore-knowledge of the "non-free will" aspects in the life of 'V', (such as sleeping), through-
out the life span of 'V'.
Thus "God" must have access to fore-knowledge of the death of 'V'.
Similarly for the birth of 'V', (or any other person),"God" will have fore-knowledge of "non-free will" aspects in the life of 'V',
(such as sleeping, heartbeat, digestion, reflexes etc.). Thus "God" will have fore-knowledge of a complete absence of
"free will" actions by 'V', up until the birth of 'V", and then suddenly, the commencement of a multitude of "non-free will"
aspects in the life of 'V', starting at the future time of the birth of 'V'.
Syed says that "God" is a logical god, and follows the laws of logic. To depict in a diagram what Syed has stated that "God"
can have fore-knowledge about take a look at :-
In the above summary diagram, showing an overview of the history of the universe, a person 'P' is born at point B and dies
at point D.
According to Syed's conception of "God", his god cannot foresee the events B and D, but "God" can foresee the beating of the
person 'P's' heart, the digestive processes in 'P's' gut, the sleeping of 'P' and so on, in between events B and D, in the interval
marked with a check mark, (tick in a box). Of course, before B or after D, in the intervals marked with crosses, (in boxes), "God"
will be able to foresee the absence of those biological signs of life for 'P.'
At a stretch, and as another ad hoc supposition, one might object and say that "God" can see all this, yet not know that it is
person 'P', but merely that it is a somebody. But surely, in the period B to D, "God" must be able to see mail addressed to 'P',
arriving at 'P's' place of residence, and "God must be able to read many public records regarding 'P', ones which any human
detective could associate with person 'P', in short order. So the objection fails.