WL Craig on God's foreknowledge

[Tigers!]

Not only is there a universe to speak of, and no apparent god to speak of... there is also the simple fact that 'atheists' do not say, "god popped out of nothing". Theists say that god popped out of nothing as a response to the question, "where did this alleged god come from?". The problem the theist faces with this is that they are in a catch 22... if something created god, then god is not "greatest" (so he magically came from nothing). but then they leave themselves in the position that "something can come from nothing", so the most parsimonious explanation for the universe becomes, "it popped out of nothing"... but "Atheists" aren't making that claim, Theists are.

I am a little confused here. Above you say that theists,not atheists make the claim that the "universe pooped out of nothing".
And yet below

Science makes the observation that the universe may have come from nothing (much like how we observe certain types of 'symmetry breaking' particles coming from nothing), OR it may have always existed (in a continuous cycle of expansion to heat death, to expansion). OR, something else that science is open for discovery of...

You now say that atheists make that claim viz. we observe certain types of 'symmetry breaking' particles coming from nothing. Though you say science and I assume that you have science, naturalism, scientists, atheists as being almost synomyns for each other.

So who makes the claim theists or atheists?

Lastly you claim

OR, something else that science is open for discovery of...

How about a creator? Or is that deemed illegitimate?

 

[Tigers!]

It always amuses me to see some atheist post about how ridiculous it is to think that the "God just popped out of nothing", while offering us a universe that just popped out of nothing, or always existed, universe's "aseity". Of course the false vacuum isn't nothing.

(Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.)

While I certainly appreciate your argument there is one huge advantage the atheist has in this line of argumentation. The atheist actually has a universe that can be demonstrated to exist. A universe that can be evaluated, tested, verified, etc. Experiments involving the universe can be conducted with such predictability that clever people can use these findings to calculate exactly how much fuel it will take to propel rocket with x mass to Jupiter, and then calculate Jupiter's mass and momentum with enough precision to calculate a trajectory necessary to use Jupiter as the pivot of a slingshot to propel the craft at even higher velocity towards the edge of the solar system.

And not a single one of those experiments or demonstrations disproves the existence of a creator. You may provide an alternative explanation but you have not shown that it is the only possible explanation.
The explanation of the origin ot the universe with all it's majesty and beauty is not one we will ever be able to fathom entirely due to its size and our limitations of time & space.

As to the claim of a hidden God - we have to agree to disagree.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

And not a single one of those experiments or demonstrations disproves the existence of a creator.

No need to "disprove" it. Only need to show that something is exceedingly unlikely, to the point where there is a high degree of reasonable doubt.

 

[Learner]

The atheist actually has a universe that can be demonstrated to exist. A universe that can be evaluated, tested, verified, etc. Experiments involving the universe can be conducted with such predictability that clever people can use these findings to calculate exactly how much fuel it will take to propel rocket with x mass to Jupiter, and then calculate Jupiter's mass and momentum with enough precision to calculate a trajectory necessary to use Jupiter as the pivot of a slingshot to propel the craft at even higher velocity towards the edge of the solar system.

I guess these experiments can also be in favour of Theists. If the idea to think from the perspective of design, as to 'why the universe can always be calculated?' What ever units of measure we invent or decide on, the universe with all its existing properties can always be deemed formulated. 'Mechanisms and Processes' is a fitting given scientific desciption to all 'natural' functions of matter.

If by the same logic,these 'steady and fixed' laws of physics should then seem unlikely to just form out of chaos after nothing without considerable intention for a universe to hold to the rules of physical law. It is a valid idea.

 

[Tigers!]

And not a single one of those experiments or demonstrations disproves the existence of a creator.

No need to "disprove" it. Only need to show that something is exceedingly unlikely, to the point where there is a high degree of reasonable doubt.

The possibility of you existing based upon chance random processes is also exceedingly unlikely yet you are here.

 

[Methinx]

And not a single one of those experiments or demonstrations disproves the existence of a creator.

Surely it does not matter if something is "unseen" or "seen."

It only matters that for us to accept its existence there must be evidence of that existence.
(Evidence includes all the effects the unseen thing has on the material world.)

We go about detecting the unseen... through its effects.
If there is nothing observable about God, then it's the same as non-existence.

?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

And not a single one of those experiments or demonstrations disproves the existence of a creator.

Surely it does not matter if something is "unseen" or "seen."

It only matters that for us to accept its existence there must be evidence of that existence.
(Evidence includes all the effects the unseen thing has on the material world.)

We go about detecting the unseen... through its effects.
If there is nothing observable about God, then it's the same as non-existence.

?

Exactly. Physics, Gods or fairies. We see evidence of physics, galaxies form, and starts from simple rules governing basic properties of matter. Evolution. And so on. So why would we think that deeper layers of the puzzle of existence would depend on something else? Which brings us back to the concept of evidence instead of just theory. Verification.

 

[Learner]

Theists will find it difficult by science methods. I'm sure we all think the same thing when we ask; How does one measure or quantify such existence of God? I have a problem with 'natural law' as just being there.

It can not be explained. Mistakenly I have often heard (outside the forum) Natural Law used as a ruler inbetween or foundation to demonstrate why there is nothing beyond or unseen,simply because it is believed nothing can exist if undetected by the applications of the physical rules. Natural law is beyond being disected and studied.

My opinion I dare say the obvious;There is only the observation of what 'Natural laws' does even so not understood. Perhaps I dare say again ;Equallly Atheists and Theists can make challenges only with 'deductions by observation'.

Why does Natural Law behave the way it does?' The forces unseen,no strings attached affecting allphysical properties is remarkable.

If natural law is said to be just is.Then this is a faith of some sort without grounds. Even with my limited knowledge I would still ask why just is?

 

[RCW]

If by the same logic,these 'steady and fixed' laws of physics should then seem unlikely to just form out of chaos after nothing without considerable intention for a universe to hold to the rules of physical law. It is a valid idea.

Okay. I agree it's an idea. So how to we proceed? What's the next step in verifying or falsifying the hypothesis that what we observe are the results of intentional acts by an agent? Could it be true that an unseen agent is "pulling the strings"? I suppose it's possible. Is that it?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

And not a single one of those experiments or demonstrations disproves the existence of a creator.

No need to "disprove" it. Only need to show that something is exceedingly unlikely, to the point where there is a high degree of reasonable doubt.

Strong Atheism. The omni-everything creator gods of major religions, who derive their claims about their god(s) from supposed revelations have the problems of multiple problems. Self contradictions based on claimed attributes of these Gods demonstrates they are not possible as defined.

 

[bilby]

That sounds reasonable.

It is almost a shame that it isn't, in fact, reasonable.

Of course, the characters in a book cannot influence the ending; they may be described as having free will in the text, but they cannot actually choose an ending other than the one the author wrote - they have no freedom at all. Sure, the author can change the ending during the drafting process; but in that case, he has no foreknowledge of any kind and is as much in the dark as anyone as to how things will end (I'm looking at you, G.R.R.Martin). Once the author knows how the book will end, the ending is inevitable, and free will is gone.

your argument is only as good as the analogy of a book, which is written with fixed text, and our experiences with reading books gives us this impression that you are saying that if time is like a book then it must be fixed, therefore no free will.

This is really arguing the wrong thing... as you are arguing against the weakness of the analogy, not the argument.

Sure; but I never said I was doing anything else. If the analogy is inapt, then I don't even know what the argument is - all I have to go on is the analogy. If I grant the presumption that the analogy is apt, then my argument against the analogy also must be an argument against the argument. If I don't grant that presumption, then my argument against the argument is that it has yet to be coherently stated at all.

the simple point is that this version of the god character that exists such that all of time is visible to him at "the same time" (<- lack of a temporally detached preposition - a 'failure' of English), does not violate the idea of free will (if you believe in free will - I do not, but that is another argument).

You can change your mind all you want, or never make up your mind... at some point in the future, your mind will be in one place or another with respect to a decision.. and this god thing has visibility into that. So what is the problem? It sounds like those that argue this free will problem are saying that to be aware of a decision is to eliminate the ability to make the decision.

That's exactly what I am arguing. Once it is known - for certain and by ANY entity - what the result of a decision will be, there is no longer any possibility to decide otherwise, and so foreknowledge MUST imply that the decision was constrained to be what the foreknower knew it would be.

Let's say that you come into work today wearing a red tie. I see you in that red tie. I say to you, "nice tie". At that point, it seems you are saying that your choice to wear that tie retroactively became predetermined by me.

At that point, you know what tie I chose; and I cannot change that decision. You never see me in a red tie that I decided not to wear.

Let's say I am god, and I didn't say anything about it... but I KNEW that your tie would be red. and it was. How does that change anything at all?

If you KNEW my tie would be red, how could I have chosen anything else? If I can't choose anything else, then my freedom to choose is a fantasy - I can tell myself I had a choice, but YOU, as a God, know that I did not.

Let's take it further and say that 2 days ago, I said to you that I knew that you were going to wear a red tie the next day. How that changes your decision to wear a red tie is a personal one... maybe you are spiteful, maybe not... since I am not god, I don't know how you will react. If I was this god guy, with these magic attributes, then I would KNOW how that information I passed on to you would affect your choice. So until the claim is made that free will is only in jeopardy if god TELLS YOU what he knows, I still reject the idea that the knowing of something makes the something not freely chosen.

Nope. I don't need to know what you know to be constrained by it.

If I put my tie on in the dark, and have no idea what colour it is; and you see that it is red, but don't tell me, it is not possible for me to have chosen a different tie today.

As soon as anyone KNOWS what colour my tie (is/was/will be) today, that information cannot be changed; the decision is fixed and immutable. I have no choice to wear a blue tie tomorrow if God has foreseen that tomorrow's tie will be red, any more than I can choose to have work a blue tie yesterday if someone saw me in a red tie yesterday - I can't change the past, because the past can only be as we observed that it was; and nor could I change the future, if it has been observed to be a certain way.

If time is a single line, stretching into the past and the future, then the present is the only point where it can be 'steered', and even that is only possible if the future has not yet been observed by any entity. If, rather than a single line, time is a set of lines that bifurcates at each decision point (the Many Worlds hypothesis), then God cannot have foreknowledge - if He knows which timeline will be the 'real' timeline, then we are back with the 'single line' idea; and if He doesn't know which timeline will be the 'real' one, then he loses foreknowledge - he can see what is possible, but not what will be, and is in no better position to know which tie I will wear tomorrow than anyone who looks at my tie collection and says 'it will be one of these, but I don't know which'.

Knowledge can exist; or choice can exist - but not both at the same time. If anyone or anything knows what happened, then there is no choice. And note the past tense - once something KNOWS what happened, that happening is in the past, for that entity.

 

[Tigers!]

If there is nothing observable about God, then it's the same as non-existence.

?

And that is precisely what the argument is all about.
Theists and atheists alike all have access to the same information via our senses. Yet we arrive at widely divergent conclusions as to what information means.

 

[Learner]

Okay. I agree it's an idea. So how to we proceed? What's the next step in verifying or falsifying the hypothesis that what we observe are the results of intentional acts by an agent? Could it be true that an unseen agent is "pulling the strings"? I suppose it's possible. Is that it?

Considered that accepted that it's possible/plausible then at least there is some merit worth the investigation. He or she doesn't have to be a believer, but would delve into it for the sake of scientific curiosity. There are of course some who are investigating,however they are not taken seriously by others (Atheists in science).

How does one proceed? Well I have to say we are going to need to put phillosophy back into science. All the varied science fields other than just physics would no doubt paint a better picture of our existence. I dare say also including information from non scientists. Not meaning certain people who interpret dreams and so on or those that speak to the dead.

 

[RCW]

Considered that accepted that it's possible/plausible then at least there is some merit worth the investigation. He or she doesn't have to be a believer, but would delve into it for the sake of scientific curiosity. There are of course some who are investigating,however they are not taken seriously by others (Atheists in science).

How does one proceed? Well I have to say we are going to need to put phillosophy back into science. All the varied science fields other than just physics would no doubt paint a better picture of our existence. I dare say also including information from non scientists. Not meaning certain people who interpret dreams and so on or those that speak to the dead.

Science is based on a philosophy. The philosophy that the answers that are suspected to be true must be both verifiable and falsifiable. And that passing these tests is essential before they are considered to be conditionally true.

Is that philosophy not sound? Is that philosophy somehow unfair when applied to readers of dreams and non-scientists?

What is the philosophy that would improve mankind's search for determining which ideas are untrue from those that conditionally true?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

"There is nothing so absurd that it has not been said by some philosopher."
- Cicero.

So one has to be careful what philosopher you choose to believe..

 

[RCW]

If there is nothing observable about God, then it's the same as non-existence.

?

And that is precisely what the argument is all about.
Theists and atheists alike all have access to the same information via our senses. Yet we arrive at widely divergent conclusions as to what information means.

Just because we have access, doesn't mean we approach or interpret this information the same way. How many times have I heard an theist say, " You don't believe in God? Just look a that tree!" as though the presence of the tree somehow is automatically a point for a creator. What I see is a tree.
Certainly a tree may contain many mysteries worthy of study but the simple observation of a mystery falls far short of solving the mystery.

It's that eagerness to solve every mystery with the same answer that I reject.
Why did my mother die so young? God's will. Why does it not rain? God's not happy with us.
It's the conviction that there is a simple answer to every question that I find inane..

Just insert "God" as needed and you're good.

Well, nothing is simple. Have to courage to dig into anything deep enough and you may well find many interesting things. But two things no one has ever found are "simple" and "god".

 

[Learner]

Science is based on a philosophy. The philosophy that the answers that are suspected to be true must be both verifiable and falsifiable. And that passing these tests is essential before they are considered to be conditionally true.

Is that philosophy not sound? Is that philosophy somehow unfair when applied to readers of dreams and non-scientists?

What is the philosophy that would improve mankind's search for determining which ideas are untrue from those that conditionally true?

Similar to another post I made,but I say in short ; Science can not deal with paradoxes when it violates natural law. How does one test this as verifiable and falsifiable? Perhaps here enters the readers of dreams? I say lightly and in jest

The philosophy is simply being open minded and imaginative. Agnostic scientists will do better than Atheist scientists in this regard.

We will advance more of course as time goes by, but eventually we will reach a limit point.(IMO)

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Okay. I agree it's an idea. So how to we proceed? What's the next step in verifying or falsifying the hypothesis that what we observe are the results of intentional acts by an agent? Could it be true that an unseen agent is "pulling the strings"? I suppose it's possible. Is that it?

Considered that accepted that it's possible/plausible then at least there is some merit worth the investigation. He or she doesn't have to be a believer, but would delve into it for the sake of scientific curiosity. There are of course some who are investigating,however they are not taken seriously by others (Atheists in science).

How does one proceed? Well I have to say we are going to need to put phillosophy back into science. All the varied science fields other than just physics would no doubt paint a better picture of our existence. I dare say also including information from non scientists. Not meaning certain people who interpret dreams and so on or those that speak to the dead.

Most scientists hold to methodological naturalism. That is, in science there are no other forces outside of naturalistic forces to consider when judging a scientific claim. This is because nothing else has ever produced any sort of useful scientific knowledge. Not religion, theology, occultism or mysticism. In other words, results matter and as far as the natural world is concerned, only naturalism in for of science has ever produced useful results. The burden is on non-methodological naturalists to demonstrate that any other way of developing useful knowledge works. Metaphysical naturalism, the idea that there is something non-naturalistic that underlies material existence is not provable, which is what one would expect if that is a false hope and is simply wrong. The success of methodological naturalism would seem to point to the fact that there is nothing outside of naturalism. The usual argle-bargle that some theologians et al tend to say, "ground of being", vibrations, etc, doesn't help prove anything no matter how portentious it may sound to some.

This is argument from ignorance, we don't know the nature of ultimate reality, therefore it is possibe, God, fairies, or something else. Woo woo of the gaps. It can be fun to speculate, but its not something you can take to the bank. Even if somebody could point to some mysterious phenomenon, that seemed to be outside our materialistic world, it doesn't mean it is, until it is understood and no longer mysterious. The non-localism of the Universe as demonstrate by experiments with Bell's theorum are odd, but we can't call the underlying phenomena as being somehow, supernaturalistic.

 

[RCW]

Science is based on a philosophy. The philosophy that the answers that are suspected to be true must be both verifiable and falsifiable. And that passing these tests is essential before they are considered to be conditionally true.

Is that philosophy not sound? Is that philosophy somehow unfair when applied to readers of dreams and non-scientists?

What is the philosophy that would improve mankind's search for determining which ideas are untrue from those that conditionally true?

Similar to another post I made,but I say in short ; Science can not deal with paradoxes when it violates natural law. How does one test this as verifiable and falsifiable? Perhaps here enters the readers of dreams? I say lightly and in jest

The philosophy is simply being open minded and imaginative. Agnostic scientists will do better than Atheist scientists in this regard.

We will advance more of course as time goes by, but eventually we will reach a limit point.(IMO)

I hope you're not arguing that this "open-minded / imaginative approach hasn't been tried for centuries, because that's pretty much all that was tried until 500 or 600 years ago. So what would you list as the five major bits of useful knowledge that has come from the Centuries of Woo?

- - - Updated - - -

Science is based on a philosophy. The philosophy that the answers that are suspected to be true must be both verifiable and falsifiable. And that passing these tests is essential before they are considered to be conditionally true.

Is that philosophy not sound? Is that philosophy somehow unfair when applied to readers of dreams and non-scientists?

What is the philosophy that would improve mankind's search for determining which ideas are untrue from those that conditionally true?

Similar to another post I made,but I say in short ; Science can not deal with paradoxes when it violates natural law. How does one test this as verifiable and falsifiable? Perhaps here enters the readers of dreams? I say lightly and in jest

The philosophy is simply being open minded and imaginative. Agnostic scientists will do better than Atheist scientists in this regard.

We will advance more of course as time goes by, but eventually we will reach a limit point.(IMO)

I hope you're not arguing that this "open-minded / imaginative approach hasn't been tried for centuries, because that's pretty much all that was tried until 500 or 600 years ago. So what would you list as the five major bits of useful knowledge that has come from the Centuries of Woo?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And that is precisely what the argument is all about.
Theists and atheists alike all have access to the same information via our senses. Yet we arrive at widely divergent conclusions as to what information means.

Just because we have access, doesn't mean we approach or interpret this information the same way. How many times have I heard an theist say, " You don't believe in God? Just look a that tree!" as though the presence of the tree somehow is automatically a point for a creator. What I see is a tree.
Certainly a tree may contain many mysteries worthy of study but the simple observation of a mystery falls far short of solving the mystery.

It's that eagerness to solve every mystery with the same answer that I reject.
Why did my mother die so young? God's will. Why does it not rain? God's not happy with us.
It's the conviction that there is a simple answer to every question that I find inane..

Just insert "God" as needed and you're good.

Well, nothing is simple. Have to courage to dig into anything deep enough and you may well find many interesting things. But two things no one has ever found are "simple" and "god".

When a believer in any various incarnations of the Great Woo says, "Look at that tree," they are just saying, "What about my emotions?"