Talk:Theological fatalism

message: For the February 2005 deletion discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Theological fatalism. Decision was to keep this article. jni 11:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

message: Should be something on Islamic connection (Ash`arism etc.)... AnonMoos 11:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic

message: See Talk:Fatalism. --24.57.157.81 01:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge to fatalism

message: There is also an implied causual relationship between God's knowledge and the free agent's decisions in the argument at 3.  It states that because God knows you will do X then you will do X.  However, knowledge about events does not cause those events, events cause the stated knowledge.  More specifically, the knowledge of an event must be based on that event having occured, in the process of occuring, or occuring in the future (in this case God's knowledge could not be "complete").  
Decisions and actions are events and thus God must know the decision or action either because he experienced it or knows something about the process by which it will come to be that is complete enough that he can predict it with absolute accuracy.  Obviously it is true that there are some types of rules that may exist that could negate free will for other reasons, and God might know these rules, but that doesn't mean that God's knowledge itself creates this negation.
The argument is circular and also uses a causation fallacy.  It must be shown HOW God's knowledge of an event causes the event.  (3) simply states this causual relationship, which as already mentioned is the conclusion of the argument.  The argument tries to say that knowledge is the cause of the events it is about and this certainly needs some support.
:Yes, the argument in this article is admittedly terribly written. I believe sounder alternatives exist, but I am no philosopher and have no access to these arguments. Eebster the Great (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causation Rebuttal 

message: In Bible it is clearly stated that God knows your future acts. E.g. in the New Testament "you know everything" (Peter to Jesus); in Old Testament it is stated somewhere (perhaps in Psalms) that "God knows what you're going to say even before you open your mouth/take a breath/whatever" (sorry for not remembering the exact phrase). In the New Testament God foreknows what people do (e.g. about the case of Jesus). Furthermore, St.Paul even says in some of his letters that all our good deeds are foreplanned and prepared by God (and that they are grace, that they are not our contributions etc.), which means that God knows all good deads throughout the history. And how you can know a good deed without knowing circumstances in which it happens? Events have no sense as isles, everything has its share in the future, evil too.
It just needs some looking throughout the Bible and you'll have enough arguments. E.g. people predestinated (praeordinati) for eternal life and those not... (Acts: "and all predestinated for eternal life followed him" -- when Paul said that he has to go to pagans, because in Israel noone listens to him... or similar).
Finally, if God is invariable and beyond time, then his knowledge certainly doesn't change with our earthly time. Otherwise it would involve the problem of creation, i.e. if the Old God is within time, then did he perhaps create the world after the ellapse of eternal boredom? Is it possible that eternity ends? If eternity is defined as an infinite amount of time, and infinity is defined as something that cannot be passed, then the moment of creation certainly couldn't come.
-- 77.114.107.233 (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible 

message: This whole page is horrendous; it literally consists of presenting a bad argument it admits is "rough" and an "example," savagely attacking that poorly written argument in the very same section, then providing another unconvincing counterargument with no sources or criticism. It sounds like somebody really wanted to defeat the notion of theological fatalism without actually researching even so much as its definition, let alone a single philosopher's stance or argument. Even the logic on the page is extremely unsound from both formal and informal perspectives. This is the height of original research, nonverifiability, lack of references, severe point of view, poor prose, unencyclopedic material, and overall bad writing.
The page should be completely redone and honestly does not deserve "Start" class, lacking even a single citation. Eebster the Great (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm entirely in agreement. --Nathanmx (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw man