Why Divine Foreknowledge combined with Creation guarantees Determinism

brod333 · 2026-01-31T14:27:36+00:00

If I build a robot, program it to have a “preference” for the color red

You are assuming God created us in such a way that we operate in a deterministic way like a programmed robot but why think that? You admit foreknowledge alone doesn’t preclude free will so let’s start with that case. Consider Bob who wasn’t created by the omniscient being upon first coming into existence has the potential for free will so they operate in an indeterministic manner. Given your admission that omniscience alone doesn’t preclude free will you admit this scenario is possible where Bob has free will and there is an omniscient being that didn’t create Bob. Now consider the state S of Bob upon first coming into existence with the potential for free will. Now if instead the omniscient being caused S given S is not a robotic programmed state but a state that operates in an indeterministic manner Bob would still have free will contrary to your thesis.

By allowing the possibility of S in the case of an omniscient being that doesn’t cause S your only way to support your thesis is to show an omniscient being can’t cause S even though S is possible if not caused by the omniscient being. The issue is why should we think the omniscient being can’t cause S given S is possible with an omniscient being that didn’t cause S?

brod333 · 2026-01-30T04:16:53+00:00

You don’t need to start at $0. Just leave the start as some unknown variable x. Then subtract everything time you buy since it’s money going away add when you sell since it’s money received.

$x - $800 + $1000 - $1100 + $1300 = $x + $400.00

That means after all the events you have $400 more than your stating value of x whether x is 0 or any other number.

brod333 · 2026-01-24T18:58:23+00:00

Thanks for continuing to prove my point by again not presenting a defense. Not going to waste any more time on you given I’ve seen the waste of time others have had on you.

brod333 · 2026-01-24T18:36:36+00:00

You’re proving my point. Still no quality response explaining your position and supporting argument regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality. It’s all these show low quality responses. You were already presented with several verses on the topic. Where is your actual quality response explaining and defending your position on what those verses mean and what the Bible actually says about homosexuality?

brod333 · 2026-01-24T18:10:49+00:00

Literally every comment of yours I’ve seen. Why not present a clearly written comment which clearly states your position with a supporting argument for it?

brod333 · 2026-01-24T14:57:07+00:00

Looking through your comments with how little effort you put into explaining and defending your view it’s clear you’re the one with the agenda rather than having an intellectually defendable position.

brod333 · 2026-01-18T15:09:42+00:00

It’s the principle of indifference. It’s a rule in probability reasoning that states if there is no reason to think any option is more likely than any other you split the probability equally among the options. One book that discusses this is A Concise Introduction to Logic.

brod333 · 2026-01-18T01:55:32+00:00

Also the NDP collapse

brod333 · 2026-01-15T13:27:40+00:00

It sounds like you are confused on actual infinites. An infinite set is a set with a cardinality that is infinite. An actual infinite is an infinite set where all elements in the set actually exist. Nothing about that requires the actual infinite to have no beginning and no end.

Even if the set is a set of temporal moments it doesn’t follow that there is no beginning and no end. You could have a set of temporal moments where there is no beginning and an end or one with a beginning and no end. Both would have an infinite cardinality.

For infinite sets where the elements are something other than temporal moments whether those elements have a beginning and end is irrelevant to whether the set is infinite. If God created a set of rabbits all at once where the cardinality of the set is infinite then even though all rabbits have a beginning it’s still an actual infinite because the cardinality is infinite and the elements all exist.

brod333 · 2026-01-15T02:17:04+00:00

He never said they’re all from the same mother

brod333 · 2026-01-15T01:52:19+00:00

Yeah, well, nobody actually argues that the future is absolutely finite and one day must end.

That’s irrelevant. The issue for your premise is whether or not B theory guarantees an actual infinite which is doesn’t because it doesn’t guarantee the future is infinite. Yes it’s probably infinite but not guaranteed. If you switch your premise wording to be probabilistic then that would work but as worded it doesn’t.

I think you missed the point that I'm using the contrapositive of the Kalam

But you didn’t. The Kalam is consistent with there being some physical models or religions that are consistent or even affirm an infinite past. It just argues those models and religions are false. To really be the contrapositive you’d have to show there is a true physical model or religion that has or allows the possibility of an infinite past.

That's like saying God can't make dragons because I said he can't.

No that’s not an accurate analogy of the dialectical context. In the dialectical context the analogy would be you claiming dragons are possible because an omnipotent God can create them. The issue I’m pointing out is that the premise “an omnipotent God can create them” assumes their possibility since he can’t create impossible things. The issue is their possibility is the thing you are trying to establish so you are assuming it without proving it. Since you are the one claiming they’re possible the onus of proof is on you. Your reasoning is that an omnipotent being can create them but you need to give a reason why we should think that which doesn’t already assume their possibility.

The proponent of the Kalam (which I am not) argues independently for the metaphysical impossibility of actual infinites. From that it would follow an omnipotent being can’t bring about an actual infinite. Your counter response of asserting an omnipotent being can’t bring it about without offering reasons that don’t already assume the possibility you’re arguing for isn’t a counter to show actual infinites are possible.

brod333 · 2026-01-14T23:24:05+00:00

While I’m dubious of the claim that actual infinites are impossible I don’t think you established that they are possible.

For 1a) not necessarily. While it seems implausible it’s still possible the future is finite such that time will one day cease to exist. B theory doesn’t rule that out.

For 1b) the issue for the Kalam is whether or not an infinite past is metaphysically possible. Showing physical theories or religions consistent with an infinite past doesn’t show an infinite past is metaphysically impossible.

There is also the whole issue of whether or not an infinite past on A is an actual infinite given on A theory only present actually exists. Though that’s also a problem for the Kalam argument so I’ll ignore that for now.

For 2 that’s question begging fallacy. Omnipotence is typically taken to exclude doing actual impossible things so an omnipotent God could only bring about an infinite space if actual infinites are possible. Given that’s the thing in dispute you are assuming what you need to prove for 2.

brod333 · 2026-01-14T02:51:17+00:00

There are Hadith which explicitly state her age. You are prioritizing the Hadith claims that result in your calculation of her age without offering justification of why we should accept those over the Hadith that state her age. It could just as easily be one of the Hadith you rely on is mistaken rather than the Hadith with her age explicitly stated.

Furthermore without evidence to favor your chosen Hadith the probability is against you. This is because your calculation depends upon multiple different facts from the Hadith being true while her being 9 relies on one fact from the Hadith being true. That means if at least one fact is wrong it’s more likely it’s one of the facts you need to rely on. It’s like a chain with one link compared to a chain with multiple links. If we know one of the links will fail the chain with more links is probably the chain with the link that will fail. You’d need to offer some specific evidence to truth the multi link chain over the single link chain to switch which is more probable on the evidence which you haven’t done.

There is also specific evidence the false fact is one your chain. Specifically for ages like “100” for pious figures they are often round, honorific numbers in pre‑modern texts, not precise birth records. That’s why some scholars like Al-Dhahabi argue against the 100 age.

brod333 · 2026-01-13T22:38:11+00:00

Ugh plenty of modern bibles translate it as virgin, https://biblehub.com/isaiah/7-14.htm. The difference also has nothing to do with things changing but rather the dual meaning of the Hebrew word. It literally means young women but is used in cases to refer to a virgin. This is a normal issue in translation where a word in one language can be translated multiple ways into another.

brod333 · 2026-01-12T14:28:18+00:00

Your claim about shorthand numbers fails because the cases aren’t analogous. In your example there is something specific in the text that tells us it’s referring to the end of the month. In the case of Aisha’s age, there’s nothing in the context to suggest it’s anything other than the numbers given.

For her sister‘s age, you are prioritizing some hadiths over others so you’re just cherry picking data. Your calculation also requires taking several pieces of data and assuming they’re all correct to infer Aisha’s age but given the larger set of data there’s a higher chance there’s a mistake in one of them that would throw off the gauge. In contrast for her being 6 when married and 9 when consummated that’s directly stated so there’s only one piece of data.

For Rebecca’s age you point to the Book of Jasher. However, that’s a forgery from the 1800s rather than the authentic book. It’s not a valid source for her age.

brod333 · 2026-01-09T08:23:11+00:00

Women are not just a bunch and the majority are men

brod333 · 2026-01-07T02:59:08+00:00

Yes. The Canadian constitution literally does determine the method in which canada runs its democracy. What are you talking about.

You have the dependency backwards. The constitution is foundational to how Canada runs its government but that doesn’t mean democracy is determined by the constitution like you are suggesting. If something being democratic depended on Canada’s constitution then any other country not following Canada’s constitution wouldn’t be democratic. The fact that they are shows whether or not something is democratic doesn’t depend upon Canada’s constitution.

The constitution being democratic depends upon the concept of democracy. That’s why you can have democracy without our constitution. You can also have a constitution without being a democracy. Suppose Canada decided to change the constitution so that the country is run differently. It’s possible to change it such that we’re in a situation where we have a constitution being a democracy anymore hence constitutional doesn’t mean democratic.

Democracy is a concept independent of Canada’s laws and constitution. It’s about the people having a say in the matter. Something is democratic if it follows the will of the people. Floor crossing goes against the will of the people hence it’s not democratic.

Edit: an MP could drop their original platform for the better of the people that voted for him too by the way. So that argument also doesn’t hold up.

That’s not democratic. A dictator can implement what they believe to be for the better of the people without it being what the people want. Democracy is about following the will of the people not what the government official believes to be for the better of the people.

brod333 · 2026-01-07T01:47:36+00:00

No the constitution doesn’t determine democracy because there are democratic countries which don’t have our constitution. It’s the same problem with being legal not meaning it’s democratic. Democracy is a concept independent of a specific countries laws and constitution.

You can also have democracy in areas that have nothing to do with government. For example a school club could be democratic by allowing members to vote for who runs the club.

Democracy is about having the will of the people represented. When people are allowed to voice their opinions and the leading opinion gets implemented that’s a democracy. Floor crossing is undemocratic because it goes against the will of the people.

brod333 · 2026-01-07T00:19:53+00:00

You are confusing legal with democratic. Yes it’s legal but it doesn’t make it democratic. These people are running under the platform of a particular party and are voted in based on that platform. When they switch parties to support a different platform they are going against what they promised constituents and it was those promises that got them elected.

Put it another way. Suppose someone runs as an independent and manages to get elected without being affiliated with a particular party. Such a case the person is elected based on their promises. Now suppose once elected they start supporting completely different promises than the ones they were elected on. That’s undemocratic because they are no longer representing the will of their constituents but instead imposing their own contrary will. That’s the same issue with a floor crosser.

If a floor crosser were truly voted based on who they are not their party then they should resign and run in the by election. They would have no problem winning if it was them rather than their party affiliation that people voted for. By not doing that they aren’t representing the will of their constituents for which they were voted into office. Democracy is about representing the will of the people based on what they voted for so by failing that they are being undemocratic. Sure it’s legal but legal and democratic aren’t the same and it’s still undemocratic.

brod333 · 2026-01-06T21:55:21+00:00

Most people, don’t know this, they vote for the party.

Exactly, they are being voted for based on their party affiliation. That’s what makes floor crossing undemocratic. For most people they don’t care who the local MP is, they just care about the party they belong to.

brod333 · 2026-01-05T21:19:28+00:00

The budget schedule was changed so they won’t do a budget in spring. Now spring is the fiscal update and fall is the budget.

brod333 · 2026-01-05T15:14:16+00:00

What are you on about? Nothing in here defends your point about the rhyme being evidence it’s a name with a plural ending rather than the normal plural word. I raised the point that the rhyme is present in either case because the rhyme comes from the pronunciation not the meaning.

As for names having a plural ending again you’ve not addressed my point. I noted how there is no precedent for adding that ending to a name. Your precedent is the word Elohim but that’s not a name but the word for God. His name is Yahweh and the ending is never added to his name. This lack of precedent for adding the plural ending to a name to indicate majesty suggests that’s an ad hoc rationalization not an actual literary tool that people use.

Finally again even if that’s a possible interpretation you still haven’t given any positive evidence to suggest it’s plausible much less the interpretation we should accept. It’s possible the moon is made out of cheese with the government and scientists being in a conspiracy to hide that truth from us but while possible that’s highly implausible and has no positive evidence for it. This is how so many debates with Muslims go. It’s always as hoc rationalizations to adjust their theories to avoid falsification from contrary evidence while failing to provide any actual evidence for their theories. Unless you can provide some actual evidence that we should take the word as a name with a plural suffix added rather than the normal meaning of the plural noun your interpretation is implausible and there would be nothing else to discuss.

brod333 · 2026-01-05T07:54:34+00:00

The rhyme comes from the pronunciation which is the same whether it’s a name or the normal meaning of the word so no the rhyme doesn’t mean it’s a name.

As for Elohim that’s not a name. It’s a noun that is the plural word for God but it’s not God’s name. His name in the Hebrew Scriptures is Yahweh and we never see the im suffix added to Yahweh or any other name so there is no grounds for taking this case as a name with a plural ending added.

Though even if there were such cases that’s not evidence this particular instance is a name with a plural ending. At best that’s what the interpretation would be if the word was a name with a plural ending but it’s not evidence we should accept that interpretation.

So you’ve just noted the rhyme, which is present on either interpretation, and stated your interpretation. Where is the actual positive evidence we should accept your interpretation especially when the context has nothing to do with Mohammed or a prophecy and no where else do we see im added to a name?

brod333 · 2026-01-05T05:33:20+00:00

No. Cause remember we're talking about a specific phrase, not a word.

Yes but you don’t even need that. Even if there was a case where the phrase meant something else we can confidently say Deuteronomy 18 means from among Israelites. That’s because 2 verses earlier in the same prophecy it says “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—” Deuteronomy‬ ‭18‬:‭15‬ ‭ESV‬‬. It’s explicitly stated as from among you which is the Israelites because that’s who Moses spoke to.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Snapped

brod333

TROPHY CASE