The Unchangeable Nature of the Future

[sofyst]

Hello all, I am new to this board; therefore you must be kind to me!

The question is dealing more so with determinism and free-will. While I understand it is a question that usually finds its home within Christian debate, it is nonetheless a question that can step out into the realms of secular thought, as it has quite often.

I do not know anyone here, save perhaps one, therefore I do not now the philosophies of most here. Therefore let me just shed light on my views.

I am a Christian, a reformed Southern Baptist (go ahead think of all the evil connotations involved with all of these labels...). I am a determinist, yet a soft-determinist as the label has been drawn. Given the idea that I believe God to be simple and perfect, knowing all that is to be known, I would likewise say that the future is as the future will be...therefore fixed and unchangeable.

I was just interested in a topic being started dealing with arguments for or against the nature of the future. Moreso interested in those who do not believe in the issue of free-will, strictly from an atheistic (or non-Christian) viewpoint.

Any takers?

[QED]

I believe He is so very concerned with the minutia. And I would base this on Scripture (useful if you believed Scripture), yet since you do not, I cannot 'prove' one way or the other now can I?

I would be most interested to know if you could believe this based on anything else. Your self confessed inability to prove it one way or another renders it to be no more than futile speculation.

The mere idea that the outcome of every quantum interaction amongst approximately 10 to the power of 85 protons, neutrons and electrons making up our universe - happening at the Plank time scale (roughly 10 to the power -43 seconds) for at least 10 to 20 billion years (should it all come to and end this afternoon) might be at some level 'knowable' is hard enough to swallow - let alone the consequence that this would have regarding determinism and free will.

[sofyst]

I would be most interested to know if you could believe this based on anything else. Your self confessed inability to prove it one way or another renders it to be no more than futile speculation.

My belief based upon my 'faith'; your belief based upon your observations. In the end neither can prove the basis of our belief now can we. Unless of course you can adaquately prove that what you observe is truly what is real, without only speculating or hoping that you are not simply a brain within a vat being stimulated to feel as you do, observe what you do.

Futile speculation? Speculation...yes. Futile...no more so than anything else. I call it faith, you call it futile speculation. Tomatoes tomotoes.

[QED]

My belief based upon my 'faith'; your belief based upon your observations. In the end neither can prove the basis of our belief now can we. Unless of course you can adaquately prove that what you observe is truly what is real, without only speculating or hoping that you are not simply a brain within a vat being stimulated to feel as you do, observe what you do.

Futile speculation? Speculation...yes. Futile...no more so than anything else. I call it faith, you call it futile speculation. Tomatoes tomotoes.

I'm sorry, but for you to have to resort to the old "brain within a vat being stimulated to feel as you do" trick, you are just using the same old trick all over again - you put forward a postulate you know to be impossible to refute, not becasue it is true but becasue it is untestable. Until you understand the total worthlesness of such a device you will be unable to impress anyone employing the slightest degree of rational thinking.

The type of thought experiments that you are putting forward here are typical of the sort practised by early philosophers from the times of the ancient greeks right up until the scientific approach first clealy identified by Newton. The problem with using common-sense reasoning alone is that it has no feedback mechanism to provide for its validation.

For example, in the fifth century BC Empedocles reasoned that 'seeing' was acomplished by light radiating from the observers eye, thus illuminating the objects and making them visible. This seemed to make enough sense for this hypothesis to persist right up until the middle-ages when Abu Ali al-Hassan had a bit of time on his hands to figure things out! The fact that nobody until then asked why therefore you couldn't see in the dark is testament to the willingness of people to accept the 'wisdom' of others.

Once a hypothesis has been developed to explain an observation it is worthless until it has been tested by way of experiment. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested by such means has an equal chance of being right or wrong and cannot therefore be accepted as a valuable explanation.

The best and safest method pf phiosophising seems to be, first to enquire diligently into the properties of things, and then to establish those properties by experiments and then to proceed more slowly to hypotheses for the explanation of them. For hypotheses should be employed only in explaining the properties of things, but should not be assumed in determining them; unless so far as they may furnish experiments.

[sofyst]

I'm sorry, but for you to have to resort to the old "brain within a vat being stimulated to feel as you do" trick, you are just using the same old trick all over again - you put forward a postulate you know to be impossible to refute, not becasue it is true but becasue it is untestable. Until you understand the total worthlesness of such a device you will be unable to impress anyone employing the slightest degree of rational thinking.

Sir, that is my entire point. I did not entend to posit the idea that I believe this idea to be true, only that I knew it to be untestable and therefore unable to be refuted. In the end proving that it must be upon some manner of limited faith that you accept that since this is unable to be refuted, we then believe it is not true; not because of testable refutations of this posit, but because of belief.

If I put this forth as truth, you would be unable to prove it wrong; just as I would be unable to prove it correct. Therefore we would both have to resort to a manner of faith to believe as we do. I for, you against.

[mrmufin]

What if God is more of a "big picture" kinda guy, who doesn't concern himself with minutia like guiding thorium through its decay chain or determining the winning numbers for tomorrow's Pick-6? Heck, if God made the thorium in the first place, then he knows all about its impredicatbility. Perhaps God has better things to do, what with that whole Universal Expansion Project and all...

What if...what if not? I believe He is so very concerned with the minutia. And I would base this on Scripture (useful if you believed Scripture), yet since you do not, I cannot 'prove' one way or the other now can I?

With or without scripture, and without regard to my beliefs, the subject of infinite foreknowledge eludes proof, theory, and/or measured hypothesis. Proofs (at least the rigorous, mathematical ones) should work the same for everyone, shouldn't they?

I would say that if God knew some would like to believe...then they would believe. However, if their desire towards faith is so built upon need for evidence, it is not truly a desire towards faith, but a desire towards proof. And that would be exactly what they are given, the proof they so require (which is not there, which is why faith is required )

I don't require proof per se; but some convincing evidences to shore up the wholly deterministic model might be nice. Currently, all of the evidences point to a not-so-deterministic model, where certain events happen with incredibly high probability. As to God's alleged foreknowledge about some not believing, all that is pretty much neither here nor there so long as there are no major consequences attached. If I am not choosing, the "wrong event" (nonbelief) could, according to a great many Christians, land me in a very bad place for a very long time. So if the deterministic model and hellish punishments are both true... well, I question the ethics of such a god that would spend human life like cheap ammunition.

Nope. Sorry. I've played this game before. If, right now, 6:48 EST God knows that I am going to shave at 7:15 EST, I have no real choice. I will be shaving at 7:15 EST and that's that. That's exactly what "infinite foreknowledge" is all about. Anything that has the appearance of choice is just illusion.

Granted...your choice is taken away. You ability to choose differently than that which you would choose (and God knew you would choose) is completely erradicated, yet you still have the ability to 'choose' that which you do choose. (And it is so difficult to say choose because this word automatically implies a like ability towards a second option.)

Yeah, that can be a problem--calling a choice a choice where there is none. It's just another predetermined event.

No, I wouldn't be the one willing it. If God knew in advance what I would do, I have no real choice in the matter. You can't have it both ways.

Let me ask you this. And bare with me for the time being. If I 'knew' you would shave...and I could honestly say I was correct in my knowledge, would you not still be the one who willed yourself to pick up the razor and touch it to your skin? Would my knowledge, by being true and prior to the fact, somehow transport myself willing your hand to move and shave your face?

If foreknowledge (not foreguessing, foreopining, foreconjecture; just foreknowledge), no freedom of will. Whether that knowledge is held by the many and varied gods, the neighbor's dog, the very lovely msmufin, etc. is of no matter. With prior certainty, any freedom of will is illusory. This is not about saying you're correct and being honest, determinism means being undoubtedly correct.

What disciplines do you think would be most useful toward trying to determine what, if anything, is fixing the outcomes?

Faith...I do not know, good question.

Yet faith has a reputation for being not-so-impartial.

Regards,
mrmufin

[QED]

Having got to the heart of this difficult issue I'm going to do my best to break the apparent symetry that exists for some:

Sir, that is my entire point. I did not entend to posit the idea that I believe this idea to be true, only that I knew it to be untestable and therefore unable to be refuted.

Taking the above words as the starting point we agree that we are considering an idea known to be untestable.

In the end proving that it must be upon some manner of limited faith that you accept that since this is unable to be refuted, we then believe it is not true; not because of testable refutations of this posit, but because of belief.

This reveals a misconception... we would not "believe it is not true". The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the idea has a precisely 50:50 probability of being true or false, as there will never be any additional data available to bias this probability in one direction or the other.

If I put this forth as truth, you would be unable to prove it wrong; just as I would be unable to prove it correct. Therefore we would both have to resort to a manner of faith to believe as we do. I for, you against.

This is where the asymetry finally appears - I have shown that any idea you believe to be true, despite your own admition that it is untestable, cannot have anything other than a 50:50 chance of actually being true. Unless you admit that you may equally well be wrong in your faith as right, then you have broken the symetry - for I and all thinkers like me are guided by balance of probability, not faith.

[sofyst]

This is where the asymetry finally appears - I have shown that any idea you believe to be true, despite your own admition that it is untestable, cannot have anything other than a 50:50 chance of actually being true. Unless you admit that you may equally well be wrong in your faith as right, then you have broken the symetry - for I and all thinkers like me are guided by balance of probability, not faith.

I think that I understand what you are saying. Correct me though if I am mistaken.

If I were to admit that I could be wrong about my faith (as I do), recognizing that there is a 50:50 probability rate to it, what progess would be made?

Would we both recognize that this topic is untestable? I think we would.
Would we both recognize that it has a 50:50 ratio of being as equally wrong as right? I think we would.
Therefore would I be able to fault you for holding the fifty percent that it may be in error, or you me for holding the fifty percent that it may be true? I do not think so.

Are we both not on equal status as far as our belief is concerned? Seeing as how we both have just as much probability of being correct as we do of being incorrect?

Could I not echo this statement to you: "Unless you admit that you may equally well be wrong in your non-faith as right, then you have broken the symetry"

If I break the symmetry by saying that I cannot be wrong, would you not likewise break the symmetry by saying you cannot be wrong? If this idea has just as much probability of being wrong as it does right, are we both not at the same status of believing as we do; all the while recognizing that we may be incorrect?

Therefore I would like to address your last statement. "for I and all thinkers like me are guided by balance of probability, not faith."

What does it mean to be guided by balance of probability?
If the ideas that I posit have an equal balance of being as incorrect as they do of being correct, would it not say that this is a balance of probability. And if I do understand this, and affirm it, how then would my belief of it being correct (all though recognizing it may be incorrect) be guided by faith rather than by balance of probability?

Please help my misunderstanding, if it exists.

[/b]

[QED]

Well, seeing as how it was obvious that there was a general misconception about there being a total symmetry between faith and science I decided to start a separate topic for debate (even though mrmufin didn't quite see it that way)

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 6509#16509

In it I outline the reasons why science, given enough time, has the capacity to reveal an increasingly coherent and accurate picture of all objective truth in the universe - whereas faith will render an increasingly incoherent and inaccurate picture. This is the essential asymmetry that I am presenting.