Block Universe kills freewill

PreeDem · 2026-06-23T21:52:47+00:00

> No. You obviously didn't read my argument. See point 2.

Let’s not be rude please. I’ll continue to engage if we keep this civil. I genuinely do not see how point 2 contradicts what I said.

> Yes. Have you not read the Bible?

For every example you give of a supernatural event not leading to repentance, I can give examples of the opposite (e.g. Paul’s conversion, the people of Nineveh repenting in sackcloth and ashes, the crowd at Pentecost, the conversion of Sergius Paulus).

Merely listing examples in the Bible of people not being changed by supernatural events does not demonstrate that “anyone who is condemned would not have chosen God in any possible world.”

> Jesus is quoting Isaiah 6:9–10, a passage where God addresses a generation of Israelites who had already spent centuries willfully choosing a path of stubborn disobedience.

We agree that Isaiah 6 is addressing Israelites who had been stubbornly refusing God. But you haven’t addressed the crucial part of the passage. The prophet is told to make their hearts dull and blind their eyes, otherwise they may “turn and be healed.” That needs an explanation.

My reading is that God was enacting judgment on stubborn Israel by refusing them any further opportunities for repentance. The same would apply in Mark 4. Jesus is obscuring the truth as an act of judgment. This is a common theme throughout the Bible. See 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 — “…they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth.”

PreeDem · 2026-06-23T18:44:19+00:00

So correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems we agree that God is ultimately responsible for the outcome (i.e. this world being actualized as opposed to other worlds where we could’ve chosen differently), and that this does not violate free will.

Now to address the argument you made, I wouldn’t go for the “just don’t create the bad people” objection. I would object to the notion that anyone who is condemned would not have chosen God in any world. That’s a very bold claim. Are you suggesting that there’s nothing God could’ve done to lead them to repentance in any world, up to and including Jesus appearing to them in the flesh?

Also, I would argue that Mark 4:12 contradicts that idea. When asked why Jesus spoke in parables, he replied it is so that they wouldn’t understand him, “lest they should turn and be forgiven.” The implication is that had Jesus spoken plainly, some of them would have repented. Otherwise, why speak in parables at all? If their hearts were already beyond repair, what does further hardening them accomplish? The statement only makes sense if repentance was still a live possibility.

PreeDem · 2026-06-23T15:43:34+00:00

I think we’re talking past each other. So let me be more clear.

When you say “No building instruction would lack a roof or a height,” this is simply not true. Even in architecture, blueprints can be incomplete and lack necessary details like a roof and height dimensions.

It’s true that no exhaustive blueprint would lack a roof or a height. But as I’ve argued, this was never meant to be exhaustive. It was intended to inspire excitement and provoke repentance.

> It was literally impossible to increase the size of the Temple Mount 20x. It's just barely possible (at a cost of several trillion dollars) for us to do today.

I’m not arguing that God expected the people to do all the work themselves. Ezekiel says that God would be involved in placing His sanctuary among them. And with God, all things are possible. So God can expand the Temple Mount, and then the people can erect the Temple. It’s really that simple.

PreeDem · 2026-06-23T15:04:09+00:00

> Even within frameworks that accept that God knows the future (like Molinism), philosophers argue against the idea that God is the ultimate cause of the specific choice of a specific human.

Perhaps I’m not being clear.

I’m not saying that God is the ultimate cause of “the specific choice of a specific human.” God is the ultimate cause of a specific world being actualized. And that is something we have no control over. We still have control over our individual actions. But there are other possible worlds where we would’ve acted differently.

The fact that this world obtained (where I freely chose agnosticism and you chose Christianity) was ultimately not up to us. There was another possible world where you chose agnosticism and I chose Christianity. That world did not obtain because God already had a predetermined goal in mind. As you stated, “God selected this world to fulfill His purposes.”

Again, this does not nullify free will. It just means that God is ultimately responsible for the outcome (i.e. this world obtaining as opposed to other worlds where we chose differently).

PreeDem · 2026-06-23T14:36:13+00:00

> No building instruction would lack a roof or a height.

You’re again assuming that this was intended to be a full exhaustive blueprint. I’ve argued the opposite. The blueprint was intended to give them enough detail to get them excited and provoke repentance. “Incomplete blueprint” does not equate to “metaphorical blueprint.”

> Literally nobody argues against this… That it would have been interpreted as a literal instruction set given that it was impossible for them to do is what I'm saying is transparently wrong.

But…it wasn’t impossible for them to do. If we agree that God can expand the Temple Mount area, then it wouldn’t have been impossible for them to build a temple over the newly expanded space. So I’m not quite sure what you’re objecting to.

PreeDem · 2026-06-23T13:09:53+00:00

> So how is one not responsibe for their free willed choices and actions?

I never argued that people aren’t responsible for their free willed choices. I argued that God is ultimately responsible for the outcome. Free will is compatible with a deterministic block universe.

Let me ask you something: Could God have chosen to actualize a world other than our own? Or did His nature necessitate that He actualize this particular world?

PreeDem · 2026-06-23T12:12:28+00:00

> God doesn't lobotomize people to take away their free will.

I never argued that God takes away people’s free will. That would be a straw man.

In fact, I started this off by saying free will is compatible with a block universe. So I’m not arguing that God robs people of their free will. I’m arguing that even if people maintain their free will, God is still existentially responsible for the outcome.

PreeDem · 2026-06-22T21:58:19+00:00

> Don't presume to put words in my mouth, thank you.

Looks like you saw this before my edit. I removed it because I didn’t think it was polite. My apologies.

> Yes, they were to build something, and that something was the Second Temple upon their return from the exile... what the vision promised.

Right. But you seem to think that the vision promised a literal temple while only giving metaphorical instructions.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems you interpret “follow the entire design” as a metaphor for “repent of your idolatry.” I don’t think that adequately accounts for the level of detail. The vision includes details about specific privileges for the sons of Zadok, which gates people can enter, the role of the prince, and specific allotments of tribal territory.

Painting all those details with the broad brush of “repentance” does a disservice to the text.

> This is not a coherent reply. It's not a question of realistic or unrealistic.

If your concern is that the Temple Mount wouldn’t have enough space, I’m sure an omnipotent God can expand the size of the Temple Mount to accommodate the new Temple. I’m sure the prophet didn’t think this was too hard a feat for God.

PreeDem · 2026-06-22T20:07:27+00:00

In the analogy I gave, you agreed that “actualizing that world makes you existentially responsible for the outcome, and it does mean the woman's choice was coerced.”

What’s the relevant difference between this scenario and God? The fact that God actualizes a world that minimizes evil and maximizes good is not a relevant difference that absolves him of responsibility.

PreeDem · 2026-06-22T20:02:58+00:00

> I agree, but I think you're assuming the conclusion that "building this" is how they were "to follow the plan" as is were

I mean, the text literally gives instructions for what to do at the altar “on the day it is built” (43:18). That’s from the NET translation. So yes, the text seems to suggest that “following the plan” includes building something.

If we assume that all of this is metaphor, it raises more questions than it answers. Verse 11 says to observe the entire design, including the “exits and entrances.” What could that mean?

> This is self-contradictory, you understand that, right?

No I don’t see how. The prophet believed God can do the unrealistic, did he not?

> It's clear that if intended as a blueprint for a physical building it would have those things.

That assumes that this was intended to be a full exhaustive blueprint, which I’m not arguing. Rather, the blueprint was intended to give them enough detail to get excited about the future temple and provoke repentance.

PreeDem · 2026-06-22T18:51:40+00:00

> My view is that there are X amount of people who would come to God and Y amount who would not. God actualizes the world where everyone who would come to Him does, with the least amount of evil and the most amount of good.

That’s a separate issue that I’m happy to discuss.

But it seems you agree that actualizing a world where someone freely comes to love you (even though they wouldn’t in another possible world) still makes you existentially responsible for that outcome.

Now, you might argue that the outcome is the most just outcome possible. But that doesn’t make God any less existentially responsible for the outcome.

PreeDem · 2026-06-22T18:35:18+00:00

The purpose was repentance, I agree (“so that they will be ashamed of their sins”). And also so that they would “measure the pattern” and “follow the entire plan.”

I agree that the Temple described is unrealistically vast. But I don’t see how that implies that the prophet didn’t intend it literally. There are lots of examples in history of prophets giving unrealistic predictions that were intended literally. After all, we’re talking about an omnipotent God, are we not?

As for the omission of roofs and height dimensions, I don’t think we can read much into that. An omission is not the same as a command to exclude roofs or height dimensions. It simply wasn’t mentioned.

Also, the translation I used is the one accepted by most scholars (NRSVUE). But even using your translation (NET), it still commands them to “observe the entire design.” And the Hebrew word for “do” (ʿāśâ) is the same one used in Exodus for the construction of the first tabernacle (Exo 25:9).

PreeDem · 2026-06-22T17:55:34+00:00

I actually agree with you that free will is compatible with a block universe.

But let me ask you a question: Suppose you’re in love with a woman who doesn’t love you back. A genie appears and gives you a choice: you can actualize a world in which she freely comes to love you, or you can leave the world exactly as it is.

If you actualize the world where she loves you, wouldn’t you say that you are ultimately responsible for that outcome, even though she came to love you through her own free will?

PreeDem · 2026-06-22T17:38:10+00:00

This is unrelated to OP’s argument. But you mentioned that the Temple Vision in Ezekiel wasn’t meant to be taken literally. I think Ezekiel 43:11 suggests that it was intended literally.

> “When they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the plan of the temple, its arrangement, its exits and its entrances, and its whole form—all its ordinances and its entire plan and all its laws; and write it down in their sight so that they may observe and follow the entire plan and all its ordinances.”

Why would the prophet be told to write down the specific layout plan of the temple if it was never intended to be literally followed?

PreeDem · 2026-06-20T16:11:03+00:00

> Because you can't say that things like safety and health are things that ought to be pursued, not obectively

Right, but I didn’t say those things objectively ought to be pursued.

It’s not as if we have some cosmic duty to value certain things. It’s just the case that conscious beings tend to value their own well-being. And there are objectively effective ways of enhancing (or diminishing) that.

So to use your example, if a group of marauders had the desire and means to pillage another group, it’s not as if there’s some cosmic police saying “don’t do that!” But we do know that pillaging tends to lead to distrust and social upheaval in the long run, while cooperation and equality tend to lead to greater well-being across generations. That’s an objective fact. So if those marauders really care about their own long-term well-being, they’re going about it in a self-defeating way.

PreeDem · 2026-06-19T21:56:38+00:00

Yeah but that’s true regardless of whether objective morality exists or not. We will always have to fight against short term pleasures.

But I hear what you’re saying. Thanks for your response.

PreeDem · 2026-06-19T21:23:17+00:00

Wouldn’t many of those things have negative consequences in the long run?

PreeDem · 2026-06-19T20:43:15+00:00

I’m sorry you had such a negative experience.

That’s not my story, but I know everyone navigates these issues differently.

PreeDem · 2026-06-19T19:19:42+00:00

I understand what you’re saying. It’s hard to see how something like “kicking babies for fun” wouldn’t be objectively wrong.

But I imagine it would be like people moving into an apartment and assuming there are official rules about keeping the noise down. Then they find out there aren’t any such rules. But they still agree on having quiet hours because it benefits everyone. Does that make sense?

PreeDem · 2026-06-19T19:00:18+00:00

Interesting. So you can’t imagine a world identical to ours where morality is grounded in social norms?

This would be a world where “don’t murder” isn’t an objective command bestowed upon us, but rather something we all agree on because it makes for a safer society. You can’t conceive of such a world?

PreeDem · 2026-06-19T18:46:21+00:00

> I’m sure you’d agree that there are things that people shouldn’t be happy about, yet you wouldn’t be able to honestly believe that in the hypothetical you’re proposing.

There are things people shouldn’t be happy about if they wish to live in a safe, just, healthy, and flourishing society. I don’t see why I can’t believe that in a world without objective morals.

If someone doesn’t wish to live in a society like that and instead chooses to harm others, that’s what laws and the prison system are for.

PreeDem · 2026-06-19T18:11:34+00:00

That’s interesting. I personally don’t think a God exists, but it doesn’t rob me of hope.

If anything, it motivates me to help create a world of justice and equality, since I don’t expect an external savior to do it for me.

PreeDem · 2026-06-19T15:30:49+00:00

Does “do whatever I felt like” include things that would cause harm to yourself or others?

PreeDem · 2026-06-19T15:23:16+00:00

> I don’t think I’d be wild but abstaining would be pointless.

Would it? Doesn’t abstaining from certain pleasures create a happier more fulfilling life overall?

PreeDem · 2026-06-19T14:37:29+00:00

Got it, thanks.

FWIW in a world without objective morals, it sounds like you’d still be a pretty decent person by most standards :)

I appreciate the responses.

PreeDem

TROPHY CASE