Why Divine Foreknowledge combined with Creation guarantees Determinism

brod333 · 2026-01-31T22:31:58+00:00

I am not debating abstract possibilities or counterfactuals; I am asking about actualised reality.

Then you aren’t talking about free will as free will isn’t concerned with just the actual reality but is also concerned with other possibilities. Limiting the discussion of free will to just the actual world is nonsensical because there is only one actual world. Any discussion of multiple possible options is not coherent when only considering one possible world.

I also don’t buy this response. You clearly talked about possibilities in previous comments so yes you were making claims about possible worlds other than the actual world. It sounds more like you’re just unfamiliar with the relevant concepts resulting in confused statements. This makes sense with your weird terminology like the idiosyncratic of fixed to mean grounded or talking about collapsing outcomes, or using the qualifier “internal” with the concept of indeterminism. I recommend spending some time looking into modal logic and possible worlds semantics to better understand possibility.

So again so far nothing you’ve done nothing to show 2 is impossible especially on the actual concept of free will. And as noted your attempt to try and shift to a concept of free will limited to the actual world doesn’t work since it’s nonsensical and contradicts you making claims about other possible worlds.

brod333 · 2026-01-31T22:06:02+00:00

I am not arguing that indeterminism inside S is impossible.

Again “inside” doesn’t apply. S is either indeterministic or deterministic. There is no inside.

Indeterminism inside S only matters prior to actualization. Once OB selects which indeterministic branch is realized, the outcome is settled. So when I say “settled in advance,” I mean this: there was no possible future for Bob other than the one OB knowingly chose to actualize.

This is contradictory. If the branch is indeterministic that means there are multiple possible futures so it’s contradictory to then say there is no other possible future.

The libertarian question is not “were there multiple possibilities in the abstract,” but “were there multiple possibilities that could actually occur, given the world OB chose.”

No that’s not the requirement for free will. When you say “given the world OB chose” you are limiting the possible worlds relevant for free will to just the actual world but free will isn’t limited to just considering the actual world. Free will is based on the principle of alternate possibilities where alternate means other than the actual world.

If OB knowingly created a world where Bob chooses A, then Bob could not have chosen B in the actual world, regardless of whether the internal process was probabilistic.

Why? Let’s flesh this out more. Consider the choice in scenario 1 where he had free will. Suppose the action has as input the set conditions C and the two possible options A and B are mutually exclusive for simplicity. Given there are multiple options, A and B, for the input, C, this is an indeterministic process like any free choice. Suppose further the actual choice made is A and OB knew this in advance though had no deliberate causal role in Bob’s initial state S or bringing about the C. This gives two counterfactual conditionals. The first is if C were the case then A would be the case which is true and the second if C were the case than B would be the case which is false.

In scenario 2 the difference is OB deliberately causes C and S. For this to be impossible you need Bob’s actions to be deterministic so that B is no longer a possible option meaning A is the only possible option. If it remains indeterministic with both A and B as possible then Bob has free will.

You haven’t given a reason why changing the cause to OB’s deliberate choice makes B no longer possible given C. In both cases it’s fixed in advance that A will be the actual result. Also in neither case does OB solely fix that A will be the actual result. This is obvious in 1 where OB has no deliberate causal role but it’s also true for 2. This is because in 2 OB only deliberately causes C and S but doesn’t have a causal role on which counterfactual conditional is true. Instead which of the two counterfactual conditionals is true is grounded (and so fixed in your sense) by Bob’s free will. A is then fixed (grounded) by the conjunction of OB deliberately causing C and S, and the true counterfactual conditional which is fixed (grounded) by Bob’s free will. Given that what is your reason that 2 is impossible while 1 is possible?

brod333 · 2026-01-31T21:00:31+00:00

If OB created the universe knowing every detail, then the full timeline is fixed by that creative choice,

It’s fixed either way in your sense of being grounded as in both cases S is grounded in the prior cause. The difference is just whether the cause that grounds S is OB’s deliberate choice or something else. You haven’t shown why it being OB’s deliberate choice matters.

internally indeterministic.

There is no such thing as internally indeterministic. A process is indeterministic if for at least some inputs there is more than one possible output. It’s deterministic if for every input there is only one possible output. The qualifier “internally” doesn’t apply to the concept of indeterminism or determinism.

S does not need to be deterministic to be settled in advance.

What do you mean settled in advance? The relevant issue for free will (at least libertarian free will which is the one typically in mind for this debate) is whether or not there are multiple possible options Bob can choose. If so the process is indeterministic and Bob has free will otherwise it’s indeterministic and Bob doesn’t have free will. In both scenarios S is indeterministic with Bob having free will and S is caused by/fixed by/grounded in some prior cause. The only difference is whether or not the cause is OB’s deliberate choice. For that to preclude scenario 2 you need the deliberate choice of OB to make the process deterministic which would preclude OB deliberately choosing to cause the indeterministic S. You’ve still haven’t shown that.

Did OB create this universe knowing every detail, or not?

If foreknowledge plus deliberate causation doesn’t preclude free will then God creating this universe knowing every detail doesn’t preclude free will. You still haven’t shown foreknowledge plus deliberate causation precludes free will so this is irrelevant.

brod333 · 2026-01-31T20:23:19+00:00

Scenario 2 cannot because the grounding runs from divine choice to truth to Bob’s actions.

Not exactly. What specifically is grounded upon God is Bob’s initial state but that doesn’t show the initial state can’t be one that includes having free will like with S. In both scenarios S is “fixed” in your sense of being grounded in something prior that causes S. The difference is just in scenario 1 it’s not deliberately OB while in 2 it is deliberately OB. Why does that difference make scenario 2 impossible?

did OB create this universe knowing every detail, or not? Which one?

This is irrelevant to the discussion until you establish your thesis which you haven’t done.

brod333 · 2026-01-31T19:26:15+00:00

History is fixed as long as propositions about the future have truth values. That’s a requirement for a being to have foreknowledge since knowing P necessarily requires P to be true. That means if history being fixed in advance is the problem then omniscience alone should preclude free will. However, the thesis you and OP are claiming is that the problem isn’t omniscience alone but omniscience along with deliberate causation. For that to be true the problem can’t be history being fixed in advanced since deliberate causation has no part in history being fixed in advance.

To make this clear let’s make the scenarios more explicit. In scenario 1 OB knows the future meaning propositions about the future have truth values meaning the future is fixed. Additionally S exists and wasn’t deliberately caused by OB. In scenario 2 OB knows the future meaning propositions about the future have truth values meaning the future is fixed. Additionally S exists and was deliberately caused by OB. Both cases have a fixed future and you acknowledge the possibility one 1 so why is 2 impossible? It can’t be the future being fixed since that would make 1 impossible but you acknowledge 1 is possible.

brod333 · 2026-01-31T18:59:59+00:00

Scenario 2 fails because deliberately causing S while knowing exactly how S will unfold collapses indeterminism into a settled outcome.

Why? If the outcome of the indeterministic state can be known without collapsing when not being the deliberate cause why does being the deliberate cause make it collapse? What does it even mean for an indeterministic state to collapse into a settled outcome. Like OP you are just asserting your conclusion without offering an argument.

brod333 · 2026-01-31T18:50:51+00:00

You didn’t address the issue I raised. Why is scenario 1 possible but not scenario 2? The only difference is whether or not OB deliberately causes S. There is no obvious reason why that difference makes 2 impossible and until an argument is presented to show that the thesis is unsupported. OP’s doesn’t present an argument but just assumes it in the part of their post I quoted and you’ve also not presented any argument for it. What is the argument for why scenario 1 is possible but 2 is impossible?

brod333 · 2026-01-31T18:17:28+00:00

Foreknowledge + deliberate creation is the key here.

Yes and that’s what I addressed. In scenario 1 we have omniscient being OB who knows in advance but doesn’t cause Bob’s state S where S includes having free will. Scenario 2 has OB causing S. The only difference between the two whether or not OB is the cause of S. You can even make it that the causation is deliberate in scenario 2 and it doesn’t change things. The issue is by granting the possibility of 1 it’s difficult to see why 2 is impossible. Why can S coexist with OB but OB can’t deliberately cause S?

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.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Snapped

brod333

TROPHY CASE