Old Tom:If the future is fixed, then we do no have freedom of choice.

MM: Unless knowing what we will choose, before we choose it, does not make us robots.

Tom: You're using a difficult construction here, with many negatives. Let me put what you are saying in a positive way.
1) If knowing what we will choose before we choose it does not make us robots,
2) Then it follows that the future can be fixed without impacting our freedom of choice.

I'm going to refrain from responding to the rest of your post for now because I think this is an important point to address. I think your argument is not valid for two reasons.

First of all, the conclusion is false. It is not the case that the future can be fixed without impacting our freedom of choice. This can be easily demonstrated.

1)Assume the future is fixed.
2)By definition, this means there is nothing we can to do impact the future.
3)From which it follows that at any given time in the future, we can only make one choice.
4)Which contradicts the meaning of "freedom of choice" ("Freedom of choice" means more than one option is available).
5)Therefore if the future is fixed, we do not have freedom of choice.

Please note that this is irrespective of God's foreknowledge.

The second reason your argument is invalid is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Given the hypothesis that God's foreknowledge does not make us rebots, it does not follow that the future can be fixed without impacting our freedom of choice.

Tom, I think it is safe to assume we are never going to agree on this point. God sees the future after the fact. Thus, His knowledge of the future does not rob us of our freedom to choose - it merely reflects the results of our freedom to choose. It in no way hinders us.

We are free to choose as we please. Just because God knows in advance the choices we will make does not mean we are choiceless. I realize you cannot accept this premise. God's knowledge of our future choices no more makes us robots than His knowledge of the past.

You believe God only knows the different choices we are capable of choosing, and for some reason you do not believe this limits our freedom to choose. How is your view any more or less restricitng, as you put it, than the one I am advocating?

In all the posts we've had on this issue, you've not once dealt with the issue I have presented. I don't know why you refuse to do this. I don't if it's due to a lack of ability to understand the point I'm making, or a deliberate choice to avoid it.

You didn't respond to the post I wrote immediately before this one. Please take a look at the argument, and respond. Please note that the argument does not depend upon God's foreknowledge.

The simple answer to your question to me is that if the future is fixed, then that is obviously a more restrictive view than if it is not fixed. This is self-evident.

Tom, I simply disagree with your view of a fixed future and our freedom of choice. I am not avoiding it. You want to divorce God's knowledge of the future from the equation, but were it not for His knowledge of the future we wouldn't even be discussing this topic. The future is fixed based solely on divine hindsight.

Again, I believe God sees the future after the fact, like watching a rerun. You disagree. I believe His knowing our choices, before we make them, in no way robs us of our freedom to make them. You disagree. I believe His knowledge of the future merely reflects the choices we are free to make. You disagree. I believe my logic is sound. You disagree.

Our disagreements are not due to my inability to understand your line of logic. I understand what you are saying. It's just that I don't agree with you. I do not agree that just because the future is "fixed", which is based solely on divine hindsight, that it means we are incapable of exercising our freedom to make choices, or that it means we are not truly free to make choices.

Again, I believe it is safe to assume that we are never going to agree on this point. It is obvious to me that God has known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming from eternity. You disagree. You believe God has never known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming. And I disagree.

Well it may be that we won't agree, but I would appreciate it if you would consider my argument. For your convenience, I will reproduce it here:

First of all, the conclusion is false. It is not the case that the future can be fixed without impacting our freedom of choice. This can be easily demonstrated.

1)Assume the future is fixed.
2)By definition, this means there is nothing we can to do impact the future.
3)From which it follows that at any given time in the future, we can only make one choice.
4)Which contradicts the meaning of "freedom of choice" ("Freedom of choice" means more than one option is available).
5)Therefore if the future is fixed, we do not have freedom of choice.

Please note that this is irrespective of God's foreknowledge.

The second reason your argument is invalid is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Given the hypothesis that God's foreknowledge does not make us rebots, it does not follow that the future can be fixed without impacting our freedom of choice.

The first argument shows why it is the case that if we assume the future is fixed, we do not have freedom of choice. Please point out which of the steps of the argument you disagree with and why.

The second point I addressed is that your argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from your premise. You didn't even make an attempt to demonstrate that it did. You just made as assertion, and keep repeating it. That's not an argument. An argument reasons from cause to effect. You are asserting that because God's foreknowledge does not make us rebots it follows that the future can be fixed without denying us the ability to have freedom of choice. I'm asking you to explain how that follows.

Thank you.

1) Assume the future is fixed.

It is not “fixed” in the sense you are assuming. It is based solely of God’s hindsight. Divine hindsight is like watching a rerun.

2) By definition, this means there is nothing we can to do impact the future.

Not if it is based on divine hindsight. Knowing the facts, after the fact, doesn’t change the facts. It’s like reading a history book. Do you understand this insight? I’m not asking if you agree with it.

3) From which it follows that at any given time in the future, we can only make one choice.

We will decide on one choice, a decision God knows in advance, like watching a rerun, which does not mean our choices are limited to one.

4) Which contradicts the meaning of "freedom of choice" ("Freedom of choice" means more than one option is available).

We are free to choose as we please. We will choose one choice. God knows our choice before we choose it.

5) Therefore if the future is fixed, we do not have freedom of choice.

I disagree. Divine hindsight merely reflects what happened. God knows the end, and He knows it from the beginning. You understand this inspired insight to mean that God doesn’t know our future choices, that He only knows our future options. I disagree.

quote:

---

Again, I believe it is safe to assume that we are never going to agree on this point. It is obvious to me that God has known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming from eternity. You disagree. You believe God has never known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming. And I disagree.

---

Do you agree with these two statements?

The statements you asked if I agreed with were unclear to me because they themselves included questions relating to agreement and disagreement. So I wasn't sure if I was agreeing we were disagreeing, or what.

Regarding Christ's coming, I do not believe the future is fixed. I do believe we can hasten or delay His coming, and indeed, we have already delayed it.

Regarding my argument, I appreciate your attempt to address it, but you still have not addressed MY argument. You keep redefining it into something YOU believe. I'm interested in your addressing the argument I have set forth. I am making the argument; I get to specify what it is.

Old Tom: 1) Assume the future is fixed.

MM: It is not “fixed” in the sense you are assuming. It is based solely of God’s hindsight. Divine hindsight is like watching a rerun.

Tom: This is not addressing my argument! It start s out "ASSUME" the future is fixed. The whole point of the argument is to make the case that if the future is fixed, then it follows that we are not free. AFTER that point has been established, it was my intention to go into more detail regarding the premace. But before doing that, I wanted to establish that you agree with the validity of the argument. But so far I have been unable in my attempts to induce you to consider my actual argument.

Old Tom: 2) By definition, this means there is nothing we can to do impact the future.

MM: Not if it is based on divine hindsight.

Tom: HOW the future were fixed would have not bearing on IF it were fixed. My argument is stemming from the premise that it is fixed.

Allow me to define exactly what I mean in saying that the future is fixed. I mean that it cannot be in any other way then what it will actually be. For any given future circumstance at any future point in time, there is only one possible outcome.

MM: Knowing the facts, after the fact, doesn’t change the facts. It’s like reading a history book. Do you understand this insight? I’m not asking if you agree with it.

Tom: You're asking me if I understand the principle that knowing the facts, after the fact, doesn't change the facts is like reading a history book? Yes, I think I can follow that.

Old Tom: 3) From which it follows that at any given time in the future, we can only make one choice.

MM: We will decide on one choice, a decision God knows in advance, like watching a rerun, which does not mean our choices are limited to one.

Tom: This is irrelevant to the point being made. There's nothing in step 3) which addresses foreknowledge.

Old Tom:4) Which contradicts the meaning of "freedom of choice" ("Freedom of choice" means more than one option is available).

MM: We are free to choose as we please. We will choose one choice. God knows our choice before we choose it.

Tom: This again does not address the argument. The argument is reasoning from cause to effect. What I am arguing here is that if we can only make one choice, then we are not free. Do you agree with this statement?

Old Tom: 5) Therefore if the future is fixed, we do not have freedom of choice.

MM: I disagree. Divine hindsight merely reflects what happened. God knows the end, and He knows it from the beginning. You understand this inspired insight to mean that God doesn’t know our future choices, that He only knows our future options. I disagree.

Tom: My argument never mentioned "divine hindsight" or addressed it in any way. You keep introducing your own ideas into what I'm saying. I'm not asking you to do that, but rather to consider MY ideas.

Old Tom: This is not addressing my argument! It start s out "ASSUME" the future is fixed. The whole point of the argument is to make the case that if the future is fixed, then it follows that we are not free.

MM: So, let me get this straight. You want me to agree with an assumption I disagree with so you can base an argument against it? Did I miss something, or what?

Tom: Yes, you missed something. The validity of an argument and its truth are two different things. An argument can be valid without being true. An argument is true if it is valid and the premises are true. If a premise is false, then the conslusion can still be false, even though the argument is valid. I wanted you to address the validity of the argument. If you agree the argument is valid, then we can work on addressing the premise. If you don't agree the argument is valid, then establishing the truth of the premise will not be sufficient to establish the truth of the conclusion.

Old Tom: Allow me to define exactly what I mean in saying that the future is fixed. I mean that it cannot be in any other way then what it will actually be. For any given future circumstance at any future point in time, there is only one possible outcome.

MM: In light of this definition, how is the future fixed? Is it something God arbitrarily decides irrespective of our freedom to choose? Or, is it based on divine hindsight, like watching a rerun? I realize you don’t think it matters either way, but to me it does. So please, humor me.

Tom: The future being fixed is independent on the knowledge of it, just like gravity is independent on one's knowledge of gravity. If the future were fixed, it would be because that were an inherent characteristic of it, a property of it; it's nature, it's essence. It would be something built into the structure or fabric of time.

Old Tom: You're asking me if I understand the principle that knowing the facts, after the fact, doesn't change the facts is like reading a history book? Yes, I think I can follow that.

MM: Good. Does it help you understand why I believe God’s knowledge of the future does not rob us of our freedom to choose? Since He knows about it after the fact, how can it mean we are not free to choose?

Tom: I haven't been addressing this question. I've been addressing the point that if the future is fixed, then we cannot be free. Think of a maze that only has one path. There is no way to fail. Now introduce a second path, one that dead ends. Which maze is the future like? Does it only have one path? If it has one path, then God will see it as having one path. If it has more than one path, then God will see it as having more than one path.

God sees things as they really are. To the best of my knowledge, you have not responded to this point, although I have made it many times. Do you understand what I'm saying here? Do you agree with it? I.e. reality is what it is irrespective of one's perception of it.

Old Tom: This again does not address the argument. The argument is reasoning from cause to effect. What I am arguing here is that if we can only make one choice, then we are not free. Do you agree with this statement?

MM: You keep using the word “can”, whereas, I prefer the word “will”.

Tom: That's not what I'm asking though. I'm asking "can". If we can only make one choice, then we are not free. Do you agree with this?

MM: You also insist divine hindsight has nothing to do with the equation, but I believe it has everything to do with it.

Tom: Nope. God knowledge of the past doesn't affeect the past. It is what it is. His knowledge perfectly reflects the reality of it. Similarly, God's knowledge of the future does not alter it (except that, unlike the past, God can take actions to alter it).

MM: We will make the choice that agrees with what God saw after the fact, like watching a rerun.

Tom: This is only possible if the future is of a nature that it can be viewable as a rerun; IOW, it must be fixed, like the one-pathed maze.

MM: Since God saw it after the fact it cannot mean we are not free to choose as we please.

Tom: This is an invalid argument. You are stating:

1)God saw the future after the fact.
2)Therefore it cannot mean we are not free to choose as we please.

Not only is this invalid, it's convoluted. You write "it cannot mean we are not free" which is to say, it must mean we are free. So let me rephrase your argument so the invalidity is more apparent:

1)God saw the future after the fact.
2)Therefore it must mean we are free.

Your conclusion in no way follows from your premise. Your posts are full of assertions like this. You make these invalid arguments one after the other, and I point them out to you, yet you don't acknowledge their invalidity.

Please bear in mind I'm not dealing here with the truth of what you are writing, but the validity. That is, the reasoning concerned. The reasoning you are using in the above statement is unsound. Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Just look at the contrapositive:
~2)We are not free.
~1)Therefore God cannot see the future like a re-run.

If your argument were valid, then so would this one be. It's obviously not (our lack of freedom would not cause God to see the future in one way or another), so your argument is not valid.

MM:A fixed future that is based on divine hindsight merely reflects the results of our freedom to choose, like reading a history book. Do you understand why I believe a fixed future based on divine hindsight does not mean we are not free to choose as we please? I am not familiar with the fixed future that you are talking about, one that means we are not free to choose, or one that means our choices are limited to one, or one that means our choice is fore-ordained.

Tom: There's only one kind of fixed future, and that's one which is fixed. I provided a definition. It means for any given time in the future, there's only one thing we can do. That's what the word "fixed" means; it means unmoveable, unchangeable, unalterable.

Old Tom: My argument never mentioned "divine hindsight" or addressed it in any way. You keep introducing your own ideas into what I'm saying. I'm not asking you to do that, but rather to consider MY ideas.

MM: But you want me to assume something I totally disagree with. And why? So you can prove that my view of the future means we are not truly free to choose as we please.

Tom: No, that's not why. My purpose was to establish the validity of an argument. It's just the first step of a journey.

MM: Is that what you’re trying to do? If so, how can you ask me to consider such a thing? I do not believe divine hindsight and freedom of choice are incompatible.

Tom: I can ask you to consider such a thing because this is how one goes about determining the validity of an argument.

MM: Again, I believe it is safe to assume that we are never going to agree on this point. It is obvious to me that God has known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming from eternity. You disagree. You believe God has never known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming. And I disagree.

Tom: "You believe God has never known the exact day and hour of Jesus' coming. And I disagree."

Um, where did I write this?

I have asked you repeatedly to quit stating matter of factly what I believe. You may ask if I believe a certain thing, as you have done in the past, and you may write something like "it appears to me you believe" blah, blah, blah, but please don't write "You believe" etc. Please just quote me, or couch your opinions more carefully as such.

The points I have been making are:
1) The future is not fixed.
2) If the future is fixed, we are not free.

Why don't you write that I believe this? *This* is what I've been arguing. The only assertions I have made regarding God's foreknowledge is that it is perfect; that God sees the future as it really is. Why don't you write I believe this?

Please limit your statements of what I believe to statements I have made about what I believe.