God and Free Will [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

chezlaw

04-14-2006, 10:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Non theists have no problem, as the initial assumption of an omni3 God is invalid, any problems with the consequences of this assumption are a non-issue.

The Omni3 assumptions are confusing and lead to logical problems depending on how they are defined.

It is much clearer to avoid words like omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and instead just say what the being can are can’t do. Rather than letting confusing ambiguous potentially logically inconstant words that you don’t really understand do the work for you.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's more difficult than that. Does omnipotent mean able to do whatever he wants, can he chose not to know things?

Does knowing everything mean knowing what you will do or just what you've done.

Can god make the world non-determinstic if he wants to?

chez

Sharkey

04-14-2006, 10:22 PM

As far as God’s unlimited knowledge coexisting with free will is concerned, there is no contradiction between the following propositions:

1. The causes of your next action are entirely your own.

2. God knows everything about you.

spoohunter

04-14-2006, 10:23 PM

You are hitting upon the bigger issue here which is that omniscient and omnipotent are mutually exclusive. There is an answer to the age old theological riddle, which is can God microwave a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it? The answer : by theorizing God you also say "no burrito can exist that he cannot eat".

By saying "omnipotent" you are saying "he cannot possess omniscience" after all, all powerful means being able to do anything and omniscience limits what God can do (since he knows exactly what he will do).

But really... the whole concept of religion and God is so retarded I don't really know why I am bothering to respond. There is no God people wake up.

luckyme

04-14-2006, 10:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Does knowing everything mean knowing what you will do

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm..if you know what you will do, then you don't have free will. If you don't know what you will do then you don't know the outcome and you're just bumbling along with the rest of us.

luckyme

chezlaw

04-14-2006, 10:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are hitting upon the bigger issue here which is that omniscient and omnipotent are mutually exclusive. There is an answer to the age old theological riddle, which is can God microwave a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it? The answer : by theorizing God you also say "no burrito can exist that he cannot eat".

By saying "omnipotent" you are saying "he cannot possess omniscience" after all, all powerful means being able to do anything and omniscience limits what God can do (since he knows exactly what he will do).

[/ QUOTE ]
Its faily easy to make the concepts consistent (and therefore meaningful) but many people refuse to.

If the definitions are inconsistent then anything is possible includiong free-will. Make them consistent and we can see what follows.

None of this is anything to do with god's existence.

chez

guesswest

04-14-2006, 10:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Non theists have no problem, as the initial assumption of an omni3 God is invalid, any problems with the consequences of this assumption are a non-issue.

The Omni3 assumptions are confusing and lead to logical problems depending on how they are defined.

It is much clearer to avoid words like omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and instead just say what the being can are can’t do. Rather than letting confusing ambiguous potentially logically inconstant words that you don’t really understand do the work for you.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's more difficult than that. Does omnipotent mean able to do whatever he wants, can he chose not to know things?

Does knowing everything mean knowing what you will do or just what you've done.

Can god make the world non-determinstic if he wants to?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

3 of the many reasons why I don't think this idea of god makes any sense.

But the problem isn't understanding what the terms mean - it's with reconciling them with each other. Seems impossible to me that anyone could, but maybe I am missing something.

guesswest

04-14-2006, 10:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As far as God’s unlimited knowledge coexisting with free will is concerned, there is no contradiction between the following propositions:

1. The causes of your next action are entirely your own.

2. God knows everything about you.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there is no contradiction there, but that wasn't the initial question. The missing part in your equation is that god created you, and thus your actions (and he must know what these will be) - so how is it you not him who chooses those actions?

chezlaw

04-14-2006, 10:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Non theists have no problem, as the initial assumption of an omni3 God is invalid, any problems with the consequences of this assumption are a non-issue.

The Omni3 assumptions are confusing and lead to logical problems depending on how they are defined.

It is much clearer to avoid words like omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and instead just say what the being can are can’t do. Rather than letting confusing ambiguous potentially logically inconstant words that you don’t really understand do the work for you.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's more difficult than that. Does omnipotent mean able to do whatever he wants, can he chose not to know things?

Does knowing everything mean knowing what you will do or just what you've done.

Can god make the world non-determinstic if he wants to?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

3 of the many reasons why I don't think this idea of god makes any sense.

But the problem isn't understanding what the terms mean - it's with reconciling them with each other. Seems impossible to me that anyone could, but may be missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't see the problem.
Omnipotent means that god can do whatever he wants. That means if he makes the world P then it is necessarily that not-P isn't the case (otherwise god hasn't done what he wanted).

Oniscient means being able to know anything that is knowable.

Omnipresecent adds nothing as far as I can see.

chez

Sharkey

04-14-2006, 10:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as God’s unlimited knowledge coexisting with free will is concerned, there is no contradiction between the following propositions:

1. The causes of your next action are entirely your own.

2. God knows everything about you.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there is no contradiction there, but that wasn't the initial question. The missing part in your equation is that god created you, and thus your actions (and he must know what these will be) - so how is it you not him who chooses those actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what your question really comes down to is: How is it possible for God to create free will?

That is a mystery I don’t expect a solution to in this lifetime.

guesswest

04-14-2006, 10:52 PM

I meant reconciling them in terms of making such an entity internally consistent so that it could feasibly exist - we've only scratched the surface in terms of all the contradictions that'd involve. I think it's fairly easy to come up with a definition of the independent attributes.

chezlaw

04-14-2006, 10:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I meant reconciling them in terms of making such an entity internally consistent so that it could feasibly exist - we've only scratched the surface in terms of all the contradictions that'd involve. I think it's fairly easy to come up with a definition of the independent attributes.

[/ QUOTE ]
The definitions I gave have no consistency problem.

The problem is that most people insist on leaving the terms vaguely defined in a haze of inconsistency and then want to draw conclusions.

chez

guesswest

04-14-2006, 11:00 PM

Unless I've misunderstood your definitions, they retain the problem that one power could be used to diminish the other?

chezlaw

04-14-2006, 11:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I've misunderstood your definitions, they retain the problem that one power could be used to diminish the other?

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, I don't think so. I may be wrong and/or the definitions may need clarifying.

chez

luckyme

04-14-2006, 11:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Omnipotent means that god can do whatever he wants. That means if he makes the world P then it is necessarily that not-P isn't the case (otherwise god hasn't done what he wanted).

Oniscient means being able to know anything that is knowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be misreading this because I seem caught in a loop along the lines of -
Edible means everything that can be eaten.

There seems something missing or perhaps just clarified.

Also, can an omnipotent want to know more than what is knowable? there does seem some overlap issues.

luckyme

guesswest

04-14-2006, 11:24 PM

chez - i have a lengthy rambling monologue forming in my head RE: your suggestion that we carefully define this concept of god, but I have to run, so will post it tomorrow....

But quick question, do you think it's possible to come up with an internally consistent model that also includes the attribute 'good'? - then we'd be talking about the christian god.

atrifix

04-14-2006, 11:24 PM

I see this as more of a paradox than a contradiction. Consider just the 2O being who is omnipotent and omniscient, where omnipotence is being able to do what's logically possible and omniscience is being able to know anything that's knowable. Being able to create an indeterministic universe seems paradoxical but not contradictory, at least to me.

chezlaw

04-14-2006, 11:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, can an omnipotent want to know more than what is knowable? there does seem some overlap issues.

[/ QUOTE ]
god has made what he wants knowable, that necessarily means that anything he chose to make un-knowable cannot be known by him (otherwise he hasn't done what he wanted).

The general problem with omnipotence comes when we don't recognise that doing what we want precludes doing other things. Not recognising this makes god powerless to do anything not omnipotent.

chez

luckyme

04-14-2006, 11:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
god has made what he wants knowable, that necessarily means that anything he chose to make un-knowable cannot be known by him (otherwise he hasn't done what he wanted).

The general problem with omnipotence comes when we don't recognise that doing what we want precludes doing other things. Not recognising this makes god powerless to do anything not omnipotent.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

How does the bootstrapping work? How would he know what he wants to know? He would seem to need some a priori kick start or ?

luckyme

spoohunter

04-14-2006, 11:38 PM

Well this is all fine and well I don't think many theists will agree with you that God knows only what he made knowable and will instead claim that he knows everything. Maybe I am wrong I am no expert but that is what they taught me in God school (church).

chezlaw

04-14-2006, 11:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
chez - i have a lengthy rambling monologue forming in my head RE: your suggestion that we carefully define this concept of god, but I have to run, so will post it tomorrow....

But quick question, do you think it's possible to come up with an internally consistent model that also includes the attribute 'good'? - then we'd be talking about the christian god.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes, I see no problem with that logically but it can't be extended to a god that demands belief on faith.

chez

Matt R.

04-14-2006, 11:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But really... the whole concept of religion and God is so retarded I don't really know why I am bothering to respond. There is no God people wake up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phew... it ALL MAKES SENSE NOW. What were all the great minds of the past thinking when considering the ultimate questions of reality? Those dunces. All we ever wanted to know is clearly summed up in this profound and poetic little statement.

I look forward to the imminent publication of your works on a unified theory of physics, which given your confidence presumably explains the very origins of our universe. It is mind boggling that such an astounding intellect could be right under our noses here in SMP.

luckyme

04-14-2006, 11:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well this is all fine and well I don't think many theists will agree with you that God knows only what he made knowable and will instead claim that he knows everything. Maybe I am wrong I am no expert but that is what they taught me in God school (church).

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way that theists can solve these issues, their hands are tied in many ways.

luckyme

chezlaw

04-14-2006, 11:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well this is all fine and well I don't think many theists will agree with you that God knows only what he made knowable and will instead claim that he knows everything. Maybe I am wrong I am no expert but that is what they taught me in God school (church).

[/ QUOTE ]
True but they're silly /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Note they have no basis for their claim. They just chose to interpret a few words in a non-sensical manner.

chez

chezlaw

04-14-2006, 11:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
god has made what he wants knowable, that necessarily means that anything he chose to make un-knowable cannot be known by him (otherwise he hasn't done what he wanted).

The general problem with omnipotence comes when we don't recognise that doing what we want precludes doing other things. Not recognising this makes god powerless to do anything not omnipotent.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

How does the bootstrapping work? How would he know what he wants to know? He would seem to need some a priori kick start or ?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea.

I think that's always the correct answer to bootstrapping questions /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

spoohunter

04-14-2006, 11:48 PM

Sarcasm aside, the question why Einstein et al. were believers is actually quite worthy. I assume it is social conditioning at any early age that hard wires your core beliefs that are for the most part impenetrable to self reprogramming.

luckyme

04-15-2006, 12:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Sarcasm aside, the question why Einstein et al. were believers is actually quite worthy. I assume it is social conditioning at any early age that hard wires your core beliefs that are for the most part impenetrable to self reprogramming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly they didn't have the enough practical knowledge of how the world works and amazingly even without it some of them came right to the wall but couldn't possibly see the door.

Hume's Philo almost discovered evolution just in his head without needing a Beagle journey.

(oh, einstein wasn't a believer, not that it matters other than record correction).

luckyme

Matt R.

04-15-2006, 12:01 AM

I think a more interesting question is how can a supposedly "open-minded" atheist consider all sorts of unprovable hypotheses explaining the origin of our universe (infinite # of universes, "spontaneous" big bang from nothingness... whatever). Yet when considering the possibility of a God, they say "Ehh, anything but that one."

luckyme

04-15-2006, 12:04 AM

chezlaw

04-15-2006, 12:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hume's Philo almost discovered evolution just in his head without needing a Beagle journey.

[/ QUOTE ]
The ancient greeks also came up with the general idea of evolution. They just never bothered to look at the world to see if that's how it worked.

chez

Matt R.

04-15-2006, 12:15 AM

There are 2 possibilities:

1) God created our universe.

2) God did not create our universe. (his existence is irrelevant in this case)

So, if the "open-minded" atheist can completely and utterly dismiss possibility #1 he must have a reasonable explanation to how our universe came into existence. If he doesn't have some semblance of proof, then it would be silly to dismiss reasonable alternatives. So, what is the hypothesis? Will it be getting published in respected scientific journals any time soon? If no such hypothesis exists, why would you dismiss everything that includes the word "God"? Isn't that diminishing your options? It would seem this is being rather closed minded.

Note that I only have a problem when people who have no clue what they're talking about start brandishing about statements like "God and religion are retarded". They take a freshman philosophy class and all of a sudden they have the answers to questions people have been debating for millenia.

I have no problem with agnostics or more reasonable atheists (I have a problem with the unreasonable theists as well, typically).

luckyme

04-15-2006, 12:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea.

I think that's always the correct answer to bootstrapping questions

[/ QUOTE ]

An algorithmic approach will often do in normal cases, but these omni-whatever ones are tough. It's hard to look omni if you have to go through a short pants stage.

luckyme

spoohunter

04-15-2006, 12:15 AM

Everything I believe is based on the principle of 'preponderance of evidence', to answer your question.

luckyme

04-15-2006, 12:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There are 2 possibilities:

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Is that you GeorgeW?
I'm often suspecious of black-white dichotomies as the lead-in to an issue. ( not that it can't prove out, I'm just sorta sigh and say... gawwliee can't there be at least 3 options).
Fortunately, in this case there seems other approaches.

luckyme

DougShrapnel

04-15-2006, 12:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think a more interesting question is how can a supposedly "open-minded" atheist consider all sorts of unprovable hypotheses explaining the origin of our universe (infinite # of universes, "spontaneous" big bang from nothingness... whatever). Yet when considering the possibility of a God, they say "Ehh, anything but that one."

[/ QUOTE ] I have asked many times for evidence of this God, and i never seem to get any but hersey, and prophesy, and personal experience. The 03 god is by far the most extraordinary claim I've ever heard in my life. Something from nothing, I realy have no idea about the properties of nothings. So while I certainly find it extraordinary, I'm not all that shocked. However the most complex being fathomable posited to have always been arranged in that fashion just boggles my mind. Very complex systems, nah the ultimate complex system to have always been for no reason sounds more like sweet fantasy than anything real. I also personaly don't like to discuss the very unliklyness with people because I think it borders on unethical to do so. Unless of course you have the care and time to replace what is useful(e.g. morality..) about religion. I have tried a couple times to get a conversation going about just what is useful about religion. It appears that both sides do not wish to discuss the benefits of religion. Theists because they think my intent is to belittle them, and/or because they don't want to have anything to do with the thought that their theism is a means to get things. And atheists don't want to discuss it because they'd rather belittle the benefits of religion than give them merit.

But to answer your question, it's because although it's unproven there is lots of evidence, and not much evidence for god.

Oh and unreasonalble people to tend to get on my nerves also. I try my best to understand that at one point in time I didn't know what I know either, and be as understanding as I can about that.

Matt R.

04-15-2006, 12:25 AM

What? Any possibility that does not include "God created our universe" is included in my second option. There is no third option based on how I defined it. If you want to split it up into more options, go right ahead. But that would still leave option number 1 -- and there would be no reason to dismiss it over other unprovable (all) hypotheses.

Matt R.

04-15-2006, 12:35 AM

I keep hearing the word "evidence". The problem is that science is simply about understanding and classifying physical phenomena. It will not and cannot ever make claims regarding something such as God, or things which exist beyond where we can observe and experiment.

Just because we can see some tiny structures in an electron microscope and name them molecules, or smash atoms together and see little blips on a screen and call them quarks, doesn't mean we automatically know why they are there in the first place. If God DID create the universe, wouldn't we still be able to make observations and create our scientific theories? Does our universe have to be "magical" and without logic or science for God to exist? Of course not. Just because we can make observations and try to understand our universe does not mean this is "evidence" against some type of God.

luckyme

04-15-2006, 12:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Any possibility that does not include "God created our universe" is included in my second option.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to help chez get his boots on right now, but here's one scenario to mull - I have a daughter that discovered the cure for cancer. I paid for her medical training. Don't I get any credit?

Actually, a version of this is what theists were forced into after Darwin ( but I'm not referring to that, just secondary and joint efforts and ...)

oh. remember I said that there are times that black-white is the state, just that I'm awfully suspicious of it as a premise.

luckyme

Copernicus

04-15-2006, 12:40 AM

luckyme

04-15-2006, 12:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It will not and cannot ever make claims regarding something such as God,

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless claims for god go against observed fact, other than that, no, science is not into the supernatural by definition.
[ QUOTE ]
or things which exist beyond where we can observe and experiment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Darn,where the H were you during the "exist" discussion. Does something exist if we can't observe it and it doesn't show itself by experiment. What does that rule out of 'exist' then, it certainly qualifies elves.

luckyme

Sharkey

04-15-2006, 12:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Everything I believe is based on the principle of 'preponderance of evidence' ...

[/ QUOTE ]

How about your belief in the principle of preponderance of evidence?

luckyme

04-15-2006, 12:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
do you think it's possible to come up with an internally consistent model that also includes the attribute 'good'?

[/ QUOTE ]

What if good isn't an attribute? The best I've seen is that 'good' is a judgement from an external standpoint, not a property of the entity under examination. Didn't ol' Soc have a few word s on this?

luckyme

Matt R.

04-15-2006, 12:51 AM

But such things are only proven in our universe. If we try to extend these theories beyond space-time itself, all it really amounts to is dubious hand waving. Sure, it sounds good and scientific on the surface and makes you feel smart ("Oh, now I *really* know everything!"), but honestly all it amounts to is playful theorizing.

Hrmm, this post sounds antagonizing but I don't intend it to be. Basically my point is that these supposed theories are like religions unto themselves -- they are unprovable explanations to where we came from. Just because they sound "smarter" doesn't mean they are better than another explanation, and people who don't even fully grasp these theories certainly shouldn't go around insulting religion. (Keeping your thoughts on the matter respectful or to yourself is perfectly fine obviously).

DonkNitUP

04-15-2006, 12:52 AM

God clearly cant be all knowing yet still give free will. Before you were born, not even having set a foot on this Eath God knows ur future if he is all knowing. How is this free will? It is.

Also, God is all good, right? Well before you set a foot on this earth he also knows if you are going to heaven or hell (since he is all knowing) so basically before you are born, God (as most religious people know Him) knows some people are going to hell. some kind of all-good god that is!

yukoncpa

04-15-2006, 12:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think a more interesting question is how can a supposedly "open-minded" atheist consider all sorts of unprovable hypotheses explaining the origin of our universe (infinite # of universes, "spontaneous" big bang from nothingness... whatever). Yet when considering the possibility of a God, they say "Ehh, anything but that one."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its really quite simple. The as of now unprovable hypotheses about the possible origins of the universe are plausible extensions of things that are proven (under a standard of preponderance of evidence).

On the other hand there hasnt been a single piece of evidence presented for the existence of god. Therefore including that possiblity adds an implausible, unproven and unnecessary layer on top of those other hypotheses.

Show me any way in which god is plausible, necessary or any evidence of his existence, and I will consider it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to clarify ( or muddy the situation further ). If your saying the big bang theory and the multi-universes theory are extensions of what is proven - I agree.

If your saying that the "big bang from nothingness" idea is an extension of what is proven - I disagree.

If again, your saying that including the possibility of God, adds an implausible, unproven, and unnecessary layer on top of other hypothesis - I agree.

Copernicus

04-15-2006, 12:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everything I believe is based on the principle of 'preponderance of evidence' ...

[/ QUOTE ]

How about your belief in the principle of preponderance of evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not a belief, it is a standard used to judge the plausibility of a proposition.

Eg. there is a preponderance of evidence that you are a twit (and not even an upperclass twit), and there is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore one can make that judgement without any other underlying beliefs, until and unless it is proven/disproven to a stricter standard.

chezlaw

04-15-2006, 12:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
do you think it's possible to come up with an internally consistent model that also includes the attribute 'good'?

[/ QUOTE ]

What if good isn't an attribute? The best I've seen is that 'good' is a judgement from an external standpoint, not a property of the entity under examination. Didn't ol' Soc have a few word s on this?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we use the word 'attribute' loosely. I would go with a definition like: god is good if in retrospect all those who make goodness judgements recognise that what god did was good.

chez

DougShrapnel

04-15-2006, 01:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
God clearly cant be all knowing yet still give free will.

[/ QUOTE ] Sure he can refer to the fate and free will post, specifically bunny's post.

[ QUOTE ]
some kind of all-good god that is!

[/ QUOTE ] This I agree with, it doesn't seem possible to have so much sufferening in this world, as well as suffering in the after life just for a lack of belief if god was all-good. He could have just as easily spared the sinners their existance.

chezlaw

04-15-2006, 01:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God clearly cant be all knowing yet still give free will.

[/ QUOTE ] Sure he can refer to the fate and free will post, specifically bunnies post.

[ QUOTE ]
some kind of all-good god that is!

[/ QUOTE ] This I agree with, it doesn't seem possible to have so much sufferening in this world, as well as suffering in the after life just for a lack of belief if god was all-good. He could have just as easily spared the sinners their existance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its the eternal suffering in the after-life that isn't possible for a good god. just an invention of bad men.

chez

luckyme

04-15-2006, 01:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think we use the word 'attribute' loosely. I would go with a definition like: god is good if in retrospect all those who make goodness judgements recognise that what god did was good

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, 'attribute' is in a mess, but not as much as 'good' is.

About 100 years ago a pregnant lady stepped in front of a Beer wagon. A passerby pulled her back in the nick of time, she died but they managed to save the birth. It was a good thing, she was carrying Albert Einstein. oh,..ooops, it was Adolf Hitler.. this 'good' stuff is tricky.

How long do we have to wait to pass judgment?

Working it into to an omni- would it limit what it could want or what it could do? How could it do anything without knowing it was good if the goodweighers may have to wait millenia to figure it out themselves.

luckyme

Sharkey

04-15-2006, 01:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everything I believe is based on the principle of 'preponderance of evidence' ...

[/ QUOTE ]

How about your belief in the principle of preponderance of evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not a belief, it is a standard used to judge the plausibility of a proposition.

Eg. there is a preponderance of evidence that you are a twit (and not even an upperclass twit), and there is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore one can make that judgement without any other underlying beliefs, until and unless it is proven/disproven to a stricter standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look up the word “belief” and see that its definition is not inconsistent with my use of it referring to an accepted tenet, you low-grade self-soiling troll.

chezlaw

04-15-2006, 01:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How long do we have to wait to pass judgment?

Working it into to an omni- would it limit what it could want or what it could do? How could it do anything without knowing it was good if the goodweighers may have to wait millenia to figure it out themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
As long as we reach that state in a finite amount of time and remain in it for eternity then it doesn't matter when.

For god to be good, god would have to want to be good.

chez

DougShrapnel

04-15-2006, 01:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
About 100 years ago a pregnant lady stepped in front of a Beer wagon. A passerby pulled her back in the nick of time, she died but they managed to save the birth. It was a good thing, she was carrying Albert Einstein. oh,..ooops, it was Adolf Hitler.. this 'good' stuff is tricky.

[/ QUOTE ] Can we really make judgements about the goodness of action based off of unrealated ex post facto's.

DonkNitUP

04-15-2006, 01:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God clearly cant be all knowing yet still give free will.

[/ QUOTE ] Sure he can refer to the fate and free will post, specifically bunny's post.

[ QUOTE ]
some kind of all-good god that is!

[/ QUOTE ] This I agree with, it doesn't seem possible to have so much sufferening in this world, as well as suffering in the after life just for a lack of belief if god was all-good. He could have just as easily spared the sinners their existance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I went back and read Bunny's post about time. And I have to admit I know absolutely nothing about it so I did a search to see what I could find. After I started reading I got more and more confused. Hell I dont even know how we could possibly go back in time, yet alone thinking about block time with (present past and future) all on one "landscape" /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Copernicus

04-15-2006, 01:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everything I believe is based on the principle of 'preponderance of evidence' ...

[/ QUOTE ]

How about your belief in the principle of preponderance of evidence? [/q

That is not a belief, it is a standard used to judge the plausibility of a proposition.

Eg. there is a preponderance of evidence that you are a twit (and not even an upperclass twit), and there is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore one can make that judgement without any other underlying beliefs, until and unless it is proven/disproven to a stricter standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look up the word “belief” and see that its definition is not inconsistent with my use of it referring to an accepted tenet, you low-grade self-soiling troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is irrelevant that its consistent with your reference as an accepted tenet, it is not consistent with it being a standard by which to judge, which is neither a tenet nor a belief, you obfuscating, illogical descendent of the most ignorant of apes.

yukoncpa

04-15-2006, 02:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
you low-grade self-soiling troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
you obfuscating, illogical descendent of the most ignorant of apes.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are most beautiful examples of invective. May I have permission from both of you to use these lines in future novels?

Sharkey

04-15-2006, 02:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hell I dont even know how we could possibly go back in time, yet alone thinking about block time with (present past and future) all on one "landscape"

[/ QUOTE ]

That sort of simultaneous past and future has been adopted by theoreticians as 4-dimensional spacetime in which the course of a person’s life might be represented by a so-called world line.

bunny

04-15-2006, 02:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming an omni3 (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent) god created you, he must know all the choices you will make in your lifetime. So it seems those choices will be made by god, not yourself.

Is it possible to reconcile this god with the idea of free will? For theists and non-theists alike.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it is crucial to the theist position that God not exist within time. I also think it is crucial to the Christian faith that free will exists.

It seems to me that your question presupposes that God has a temporal existence - something along the lines of God exists and thinks "I'm gonna make bunny who will choose such-and-such" God then makes me an lo and behold I choose such-and-such. There does seem a good argument here that God has made the choice, not me, (or at least that he is partly responsible) as he could have made me differently.

I think this is an erroneous conception of the theistic God as I believe he must exist outside of time and space. I claim that God experiences time all-at-once. He creates me (voluntarily limiting his omnipotence to allow me freedom of choice amongst alternatives), observes my entire life, sees every choice I make, watches all consequences of those choices, etc etc...all-at-once. (Even this "all-at-once" involves a concept of time - I dont think this is accurate either but it is the best I can do).

As I have mentioned before - this conception of omniscience doesnt contradict free will since all times are the same for him - his knowing a choice I will make in my future has no more bearing on my freedom to choose it than his knowing a past choice I have made.

With regard to - "He made me, and I chose option A. He could have made me such that I would choose option B. Therefore God chose option A." I think this is incorrect as it seems to presuppose determinism. That is, it seems equivalent to "God could have created me, predetermined to choose option A or predetermined to choose option B. He created me predetermined to choose option A. Therefore God chose option A."

My belief is that God left it up to me (and saw my choice and its consequences in the same moment). I think free will is an "obvious" fact about the world and the burden of proof lies with the determinist.

Parenthetically, Omnipresent is not part of my conception of God as I dont understand what it means. I conceive of God as omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent.

Paraparenthetically (?) - benevolence is the most difficult property to reconcile with the world as I experience it. Omniscience and omnipotence are so fuzzily defined and I think this is what leads to confusion or contradictions. I dont find them probelmatic once I have nailed down exactly what I mean by them. Benevolent is easy to understand and is what I find hardest to defend.

Sharkey

04-15-2006, 02:12 AM

Fine by me.

What you run into on message boards.

DougShrapnel

04-15-2006, 02:17 AM

Omnipresent = God experiences time all-at-once

It's a foundation of your argument

Copernicus

04-15-2006, 02:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you low-grade self-soiling troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
you obfuscating, illogical descendent of the most ignorant of apes.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are most beautiful examples of invective. May I have permission from both of you to use these lines in future novels?

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free, though my comment was not meant as invective, just two statements of fact and one belief based on a standard (!= belief) of preponderance of evidence.

bunny

04-15-2006, 02:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hell I dont even know how we could possibly go back in time, yet alone thinking about block time with (present past and future) all on one "landscape" /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is a very salient point. I think it is impossible for us to conceive what it would be like to experience time like this. Nonetheless, I think the theist has to believe God exists outside of time or will run into paradox after paradox (the omniscience vs free will one being a good example).

Perhaps it is useful to think of the universe as a big novel. God is outside it and can access any single part of it, all the events are just references on different page numbers with no "flow" happening at all. This is despite the fact that the characters in the book are trapped in a past-present-future view of time. Look at the state of a character on any one page and they have a clear opinion about what has and hasnt happened yet. (This analogy breaks down fairly easily since when we read a book we do so within a meta-time and I am not claiming God has this nature - nonetheless it may help you conceptualise what I am talking about).

bunny

04-15-2006, 02:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Omnipresent = God experiences time all-at-once

It's a foundation of your argument

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok - if that's what it means, thanks! People usually try and explain it to me as "God is everywhere" or something which just seems strange. As you said though - your explanation is a foundation of my argument.

DougShrapnel

04-15-2006, 02:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Omnipresent = God experiences time all-at-once

It's a foundation of your argument

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok - if that's what it means, thanks! People usually try and explain it to me as "God is everywhere" or something which just seems strange. As you said though - your explanation is a foundation of my argument.

[/ QUOTE ] Does everywhere include past, present, and future? Present everywhere simultaneously; is the dictionary def. If it does I believe that omnipresence is essential to the argument.

bunny

04-15-2006, 02:27 AM

I agree - I was perhaps ignorant of what omnipresent actually meant.

Edit: I would claim God doesnt actually exist at every point in space and time though. Merely that they are all equally accessible.

chezlaw

04-15-2006, 02:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree - I was perhaps ignorant of what omnipresent actually meant.

[/ QUOTE ]
me too.

I'm wondering if god could exist in time but not our time. bit like a simulation programmer.

chez

DougShrapnel

04-15-2006, 02:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree - I was perhaps ignorant of what omnipresent actually meant.

Edit: I would claim God doesnt actually exist at every point in space and time though. Merely that they are all equally accessible.

[/ QUOTE ] Then nope, not omnipresence very similair ideas tho, your were right. Although, omnipresence would imply the all times simultaneuosly.

edit: I don't think there is a closer word to what you are describing other than omnipresent.

bunny

04-15-2006, 02:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering if god could exist in time but not our time. bit like a simulation programmer.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
The only way I can begin to imagine what it is like to "be God" is by imagining myself in a sort of meta-time (like the reader of a novel who experiences the same sort of time as the characters in the book but the two are completely unrelated).

This is how I imagine the "hyperdimensional chemistry set kid" making the universe.

Copernicus

04-15-2006, 02:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hell I dont even know how we could possibly go back in time, yet alone thinking about block time with (present past and future) all on one "landscape" /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is a very salient point. I think it is impossible for us to conceive what it would be like to experience time like this. Nonetheless, I think the theist has to believe God exists outside of time or will run into paradox after paradox (the omniscience vs free will one being a good example).

Perhaps it is useful to think of the universe as a big novel. God is outside it and can access any single part of it, all the events are just references on different page numbers with no "flow" happening at all. This is despite the fact that the characters in the book are trapped in a past-present-future view of time. Look at the state of a character on any one page and they have a clear opinion about what has and hasnt happened yet. (This analogy breaks down fairly easily since when we read a book we do so within a meta-time and I am not claiming God has this nature - nonetheless it may help you conceptualise what I am talking about).

[/ QUOTE ]

Free will, time as a landscape without past present or future from an external frame of reference and the influence of a creator (hell..throw in the many universes solution to quantum uncertainty) can be conceptualized as a very robust interactive DVD.

There are millions of copies of the DVD, which can only be played interacitvely once, has many decision points, the options available depend on prior decisions, and the selection of an option is governed by a "belief system" selected in the opening scene of the DVD plus a randomizing element.

The creator of the DVD knows all possible outcomes before the DVD is played...he is omniscient. He created all of the possbilities for each character...he is omnipotent. Once he has set the DVD in action by instilling (choosing) a belief system the characters have free will within that belief system.

Each copy that is played generates a new "parallel" universe. The characters in the DVD have a past present and future at any time mark, but to an outside observer time inside the DVD is a landscape, any point in which can be accessed at will.

(This one breaks down by trying to incorporate "free will" as a randmonizing factor, a necessity borne of the characters not being alive or conscious, but can proably be improved to make a better fit).

DougShrapnel

04-15-2006, 02:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering if god could exist in time but not our time. bit like a simulation programmer.

[/ QUOTE ] I've always assumed this to be the case. Turns out it's very inconsistant of me to do so.

luckyme

04-15-2006, 03:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree - I was perhaps ignorant of what omnipresent actually meant.

[/ QUOTE ]
me too.

I'm wondering if god could exist in time but not our time. bit like a simulation programmer.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a concern that if this cover gets blown we could fall back on god existing outside of the space and time that's outside of this space and time, and if that's fails then...

I realize people are sincere when they reach for this cover story but I don't think I could base my belief on anything so contrived and look somebody in the eye and tell them. I think somewhere in there is one of the psychological differences between some atheists and some theists, at the least.

No doubt to some theists my view of the existance of an external reality would be just as difficult to adopt. no harm, no foul.

luckyme

chezlaw

04-15-2006, 03:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's a concern that if this cover gets blown we could fall back on god existing outside of the space and time that's outside of this space and time, and if that's fails then...

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a concern for me because its not about belief. Just trying to understand what's possible.

Doug - why is it inconsistent?

chez

luckyme

04-15-2006, 03:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Its not a concern for me because its not about belief. Just trying to understand what's possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was building on Bunny's comment -
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is impossible for us to conceive what it would be like to experience time like this. Nonetheless, I think the theist has to believe God exists outside of time or will run into paradox after paradox

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't like the wave-particle duality where we have the evidence we just can't conceptualize it's actuality. Here, we don't have any evidence and even have counter evidence, nor can we grasp how it would manifest or the implications of it. We just 'need' it. It's like, "I know pigs can fly, but they only do it when we're not looking".

Is there any criteria for 'possible' that would help get us into this besides just pointing to a curtain?

luckyme

bunny

04-15-2006, 03:58 AM

My point is I believe in God (for whatever reason some would say irrational although I wouldnt). I still subject my beliefs to rational scrutiny and as such - if they lead to a logical inconsistency I must amend them. That is all I meant - I have to believe God is outside space and time or my beliefs are a nonsense. This is no different from a mathematician accepting proof by contradiction.

Copernicus

04-15-2006, 09:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My point is I believe in God (for whatever reason some would say irrational although I wouldnt). I still subject my beliefs to rational scrutiny and as such - if they lead to a logical inconsistency I must amend them. That is all I meant - I have to believe God is outside space and time or my beliefs are a nonsense. This is no different from a mathematician accepting proof by contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not at all uncomfortable with things existing outside our realization of space and time, by analogy with a Flatland creature or similar construct.

For example take a sentient wood eating "worm" that is confined to a plane, and who's only senses are vision which is very limited distance wise, sees no color, and can only see straight ahead, and feel that is limited to feeling his own heartbeat.

Every 12,000 beats of his worm heart the "sun comes up" and during the next 12,000 beats of his worm heart he must find food that at first seems to be randomly located on his plane, however over time he begins to discover a pattern to the placement of the food that is related to its prior position in an imaginary grid he visualizes his plane to be marked in. His metabolic rate (and correspondingly all bodily functinons) is very fast relative to a human's.

To him, time is measured in sequential light and dark periods and heartbeats that he perceives to pass very slowly (relative to a humans perception) due to his high metabolic rate. Space is measured by his plane and the grid that he has discovered during his search for food.

The human that is turning lights off on every minute or so, and is moving a wooden chess knight in accordance with chess rules on a chess board is easily concepetualized to be in a different "space" because of the added dimension which the limited vision of the worm is unable to see.

Different time is somewhat dodgier since it still sequential, but as you speed up the worms metabolism to infinity and decrease the human time between worm heartbeats, all of the worms time exists in a very brief period of the human's time, so he sees the worms "past, present and future" so rapidly that in "worm time" the human is seeing it all at once.

(Its been 30+ years since I read Flatland..if this is a direct ripoff, my apologies!).

chezlaw

04-15-2006, 09:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its not a concern for me because its not about belief. Just trying to understand what's possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was building on Bunny's comment -
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is impossible for us to conceive what it would be like to experience time like this. Nonetheless, I think the theist has to believe God exists outside of time or will run into paradox after paradox

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't like the wave-particle duality where we have the evidence we just can't conceptualize it's actuality. Here, we don't have any evidence and even have counter evidence, nor can we grasp how it would manifest or the implications of it. We just 'need' it. It's like, "I know pigs can fly, but they only do it when we're not looking".

Is there any criteria for 'possible' that would help get us into this besides just pointing to a curtain?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
This is metaphysics, the curtain stays.

It seems untroubling though, isn't it necessary that a being that creates something exists outside the thing it created.

chez

guesswest

04-15-2006, 11:06 AM

And isn't such a being then not omnipresent?

It seems like in order to make these meanings sensible we have to redefine them in such a way that they no longer mean anything like the same thing. If you take the 'omni' away from any of these characteristics they no longer bear much resemblence to the original characterization. I can define omnipotent and omnipresent as meaning 'plays the banjo and forecasts the weather' but I'm not sure there'd be any value in conclusions drawn from those premises.

alThor

04-15-2006, 11:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no God people wake up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lucky for some of us. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=inet&Number=3243069&page= 0&fpart=all)

luckyme

04-15-2006, 11:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is metaphysics, the curtain stays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, in those terms we are into "beyond metaphysics". Doesn't metaphysics stop at the logically coherent( not merely the physically possible)? Everyone seems to be saying we haven't a clue how this conceptualized condition 'omnipresence' would play out, so how can we discuss it's logical coherence?

In any way I've seen it expressed, I can't distinguish it from "..and then magic happened". There's no problem if we want to suspend all the known laws of nature and substitute new ones. But to stay in the bounds of metaphysics don't our new ones have to be internally consistant, which we can't state in this case?

All we've done is say "there is this strange situation behind the curtain and THAT is what allows this strange event on this side of the curtain" ... where's the gain?

chez, you seem to have a grasp of this... where am I going wrong in my understanding of metaphysics?

thanks, luckyme

luckyme

04-15-2006, 12:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It seems untroubling though, isn't it necessary that a being that creates something exists outside the thing it created.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't the possibility that the creation is a expansion of the initial state make more sense? or a nanotechnology situation where the creation creates itself? Your conditional seems designed to support a specific outcome rather than a review of all logical possibilities, and has the further problem that it's not just 'outside', there seems no conceptual way to grasp the interaction. A super version of 'how does Caspers hand go through the wall but pick up the phone?"

In prinicple, we could explore it as one possibility, but there is no evidence to weigh even if it is conceptually ungraspable. We can deal with one or the other but not both ??

luckyme

bunny

04-15-2006, 05:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is metaphysics, the curtain stays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, in those terms we are into "beyond metaphysics". Doesn't metaphysics stop at the logically coherent( not merely the physically possible)? Everyone seems to be saying we haven't a clue how this conceptualized condition 'omnipresence' would play out, so how can we discuss it's logical coherence?

In any way I've seen it expressed, I can't distinguish it from "..and then magic happened". There's no problem if we want to suspend all the known laws of nature and substitute new ones. But to stay in the bounds of metaphysics don't our new ones have to be internally consistant, which we can't state in this case?

All we've done is say "there is this strange situation behind the curtain and THAT is what allows this strange event on this side of the curtain" ... where's the gain?
thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think there is any "gain" but I am not trying to persuade you it is true. My claim about theists needing to claim that God exists outside of time and space was that this was essential to maintain logical consistency. I'm not making any kind of testability claim merely that if God exists this must be a characteristic or else the theist position is untenable. (There may be other reasons it is untenable, of course, but if you believe God exists at a particular point of time or space you will run into a contradiction).

I think what I'm actually saying is that there is a strange event on this side of the curtain - in order for the world to be sensible, the following strange event must occur on the other side.

luckyme

04-15-2006, 05:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think what I'm actually saying is that there is a strange event on this side of the curtain - in order for the world to be sensible, the following strange event must occur on the other side.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was fishing along the lines of "the limits of metaphysics" unless we're going to take a postmodernist view and just bang away at the keys and the reader adds the meaning.

This side of the curtain ... a strange concept to grasp. We try to explain/understand it by postulating a hidden contributing factor. If it was, 'a feather weighs more than a truck' that bailed out our this-side mess that would be a valid metaphysical approach. It's logically consistant to visualize a realm where weight is inverse from on this one. But in the omnipresent case nobody can say, "ah, ok, thet set of laws of nature behind the curtain".

We have no way of knowing that state of affars is logically consistant ( it's related to your issue with square-circles and 5 factor primes). "all at once time" is indistinguishable from "all at once time and two tuesdays".

It's worse than the 'turtles all the way down' solution.

I don't think this will get us there, maybe you can point to what needs tweaking.

luckyme

bunny

04-15-2006, 06:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was fishing along the lines of "the limits of metaphysics" unless we're going to take a postmodernist view and just bang away at the keys and the reader adds the meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did enjoy this. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
This side of the curtain ... a strange concept to grasp. We try to explain/understand it by postulating a hidden contributing factor. If it was, 'a feather weighs more than a truck' that bailed out our this-side mess that would be a valid metaphysical approach. It's logically consistant to visualize a realm where weight is inverse from on this one. But in the omnipresent case nobody can say, "ah, ok, thet set of laws of nature behind the curtain".

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true I guess - I am implicitly assuming that God is beyond the laws of nature and dont regard complete understandability as a constraint on my conception of God. I still dont know what omnipresent means and dont ascribe that property to God.

Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. I believe in a thing not governed by physical laws but governed by logical necessity. That means I cant test it's properties with science but have to use logic to guide me in my definition. I think what I am saying has some content...

[ QUOTE ]
We have no way of knowing that state of affars is logically consistant ( it's related to your issue with square-circles and 5 factor primes). "all at once time" is indistinguishable from "all at once time and two tuesdays".

It's worse than the 'turtles all the way down' solution.

I don't think this will get us there, maybe you can point to what needs tweaking.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I do accept that "all at once time" is meaningless. I think this is either a failure of language or a failure of the user (ie me) to utilise it properly. I used that phrase hoping people would "get" what I mean - I dont believe God exists in any form of time but have no idea how to make statements about him without reference to (at the very least) a present. Two possibilities present themselves to me - I am struggling because it is impossible to talk sensibly about things which dont exist, or he does exist and human comprehension and language is ill-equipped to deal with defining him. I dont think there is a way to resolve which is which based on rational argument.

DonkNitUP

04-15-2006, 06:15 PM

I dont know if this belongs under this topic or a new one but I was thinking: if God had people killed during the 10 commandments, noahs ark, or whatever event (assuming atleast 1 occurence where he actually killed someone is true) wouldnt that diminish the stance of free will?

bunny

04-15-2006, 06:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And isn't such a being then not omnipresent?

It seems like in order to make these meanings sensible we have to redefine them in such a way that they no longer mean anything like the same thing. If you take the 'omni' away from any of these characteristics they no longer bear much resemblence to the original characterization. I can define omnipotent and omnipresent as meaning 'plays the banjo and forecasts the weather' but I'm not sure there'd be any value in conclusions drawn from those premises.

[/ QUOTE ]
There would be value in that it would clarify what you mean by God (a banjo playing weatherman who exists everywhere). It seems to me that when I say God I can only define what I mean by words. Having used the words omnipotent and omniscient with their usual, all-encompassing meanings, my atheist friend points out this is a logical contradiction. I then modify what I mean, he points out another contradiction, I modify it again, etc etc

Some atheists regard this as "squirming" to preserve an untenable position - I dont think this is fair though. To me philosophising like this is a good way to come to a limited understanding of what God is like. It seems like the equivalent to scientific observation of the natural world. It will never answer the "Does God exist?" question but can cast light on "If he does, what must he be like?"

I agree that if the terms are redefined to be completely different from where they started then it becomes hard to see the point (or at the very least that whoever begun the whole thing used a very poor choice of words). I dont think that is a true characterisation of the philosophy of religion though - omnipotent and omniscience have retained their basic meaning - the only argument is "how omni?". My admittedly limited reading suggests that the consensus theist position is "Limited only by what is logically possible"

bunny

04-15-2006, 06:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know if this belongs under this topic or a new one but I was thinking: if God had people killed during the 10 commandments, noahs ark, or whatever event (assuming atleast 1 occurence where he actually killed someone is true) wouldnt that diminish the stance of free will?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see this - can you elaborate? Do you mean it would limit the existence of free will in some way?

DonkNitUP

04-15-2006, 06:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont know if this belongs under this topic or a new one but I was thinking: if God had people killed during the 10 commandments, noahs ark, or whatever event (assuming atleast 1 occurence where he actually killed someone is true) wouldnt that diminish the stance of free will?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see this - can you elaborate? Do you mean it would limit the existence of free will in some way?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know this could be stupid so go ahead and laugh if it is (ha):
As of right now, lets just say there is Christian God. Lets also say that in the Bible somewhere (many places from what I understand) lets just say he killed some people. Whether by flood, starvation or whatever... he wiped them out for not believe in Him.

Lets say that the Christian God comes back today and wipes out ppl that dont believe in Him. I would be getting killed. What if tomorrow I WOULD HAVE changed my mind and would be commited to the Christian God, but instead I am going to hell bc of him killing me.

bunny

04-15-2006, 06:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know this could be stupid so go ahead and laugh if it is (ha):
As of right now, lets just say there is Christian God. Lets also say that in the Bible somewhere (many places from what I understand) lets just say he killed some people. Whether by flood, starvation or whatever... he wiped them out for not believe in Him.

Lets say that the Christian God comes back today and wipes out ppl that dont believe in Him. I would be getting killed. What if tomorrow I WOULD HAVE changed my mind and would be commited to the Christian God, but instead I am going to hell bc of him killing me.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you mean there is a window of opportunity to exercise your free will and by mass floods, the second coming or whatever, God has closed that window?

I think this is indeed a limit on our ability to exercise free will - we can only do so during the period that we are alive. However, I dont see it as a limitation to whether it exists or not. There are things we can change and things we cant and there are times we can make choices and times when we cant (we cant change what has already happened - I dont think that means I cant change the future though).

I havent really thought about it before - that's a first guess at an answer though /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

DonkNitUP

04-15-2006, 06:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont know this could be stupid so go ahead and laugh if it is (ha):
As of right now, lets just say there is Christian God. Lets also say that in the Bible somewhere (many places from what I understand) lets just say he killed some people. Whether by flood, starvation or whatever... he wiped them out for not believe in Him.

Lets say that the Christian God comes back today and wipes out ppl that dont believe in Him. I would be getting killed. What if tomorrow I WOULD HAVE changed my mind and would be commited to the Christian God, but instead I am going to hell bc of him killing me.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you mean there is a window of opportunity to exercise your free will and by mass floods, the second coming or whatever, God has closed that window?

I think this is indeed a limit on our ability to exercise free will - we can only do so during the period that we are alive. However, I dont see it as a limitation to whether it exists or not. There are things we can change and things we cant and there are times we can make choices and times when we cant (we cant change what has already happened - I dont think that means I cant change the future though).

I havent really thought about it before - that's a first guess at an answer though /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

But, I think in one of your other posts you say God can see the future and past but does not have an influence on it.
Dying because of a heart attack, tornados, hurricanes or whatever are ok because we know something caused it.

In the Bible saying that God caused the flood (insert any other event that you believe God caused to kill people), and therefore you died; I think that definately puts a limitation on Free Will and making it not free will. I dont think you can say free will exists every other time, except when God wants it to not exist, so he kills you.

This seems to me like God is acting on what he knows (perhaps what he knows about you in the future)--- but not free will

bunny

04-15-2006, 06:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But, I think in one of your other posts you say God can see the future and past but does not have an influence on it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not quite what I meant - I meant him knowing a choice you will make at a point in time doesnt imply you are not making the choice.

[ QUOTE ]
Dying because of a heart attack, tornados, hurricanes or whatever are ok because we know something caused it.

In the Bible saying that God caused the flood (insert any other event that you believe God caused to kill people), and therefore you died; I think that definately puts a limitation on Free Will and making it not free will. I dont think you can say free will exists every other time, except when God wants it to not exist, so he kills you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is exactly right though - I do have free will but I believe God could change that if he wanted to. I also think God gives me a limited amount of time to exercise that free will in (whether cutting it short by flood or heart attack).

luckyme

04-15-2006, 08:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think there is a way to resolve which is which based on rational argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My admittedly limited reading suggests that the consensus theist position is "Limited only by what is logically possible"

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a cut/paste from two posts so if it butchers your meaning just clarify.

"logically possible" would seem to mean we can apply logic to it within some framework, or it means nothing.

You can apply logic to a totally warped imaginary universe, but you do need something defined in some way to apply it to. ??

Is there some way you can sew this together?

thanks, luckyme

bunny

04-16-2006, 08:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think there is a way to resolve which is which based on rational argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My admittedly limited reading suggests that the consensus theist position is "Limited only by what is logically possible"

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a cut/paste from two posts so if it butchers your meaning just clarify.

"logically possible" would seem to mean we can apply logic to it within some framework, or it means nothing.

You can apply logic to a totally warped imaginary universe, but you do need something defined in some way to apply it to. ??

Is there some way you can sew this together?

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand this point - does it appear the two are contradictory? What I mean is I dont believe God's existence is resolvable by logic alone. I do believe whatever we mean by "God" must satisfy the criteria of being logically consistent. So when I say God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent I define each of those terms to inherently exclude logical contradictions. That's what I mean when I say God - I dont claim that I am defining him into existence in some way, or that he may not be bound by the laws of logic.

As I say - I think we are possibly in different books here, let alone not on the same page. I doubt this has answered your question in any way - perhaps you can clarify?

chezlaw

04-16-2006, 08:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think there is a way to resolve which is which based on rational argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My admittedly limited reading suggests that the consensus theist position is "Limited only by what is logically possible"

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a cut/paste from two posts so if it butchers your meaning just clarify.

"logically possible" would seem to mean we can apply logic to it within some framework, or it means nothing.

You can apply logic to a totally warped imaginary universe, but you do need something defined in some way to apply it to. ??

Is there some way you can sew this together?

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand this point - does it appear the two are contradictory? What I mean is I dont believe God's existence is resolvable by logic alone. I do believe whatever we mean by "God" must satisfy the criteria of being logically consistent. So when I say God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent I define each of those terms to inherently exclude logical contradictions. That's what I mean when I say God - I dont claim that I am defining him into existence in some way, or that he may not be bound by the laws of logic.

As I say - I think we are possibly in different books here, let alone not on the same page. I doubt this has answered your question in any way - perhaps you can clarify?

[/ QUOTE ]
This thread is good stuff but time is limited for me at the moment.

Luckyme, I agree 100% with Bunny here, can you clarify what your concern is with this.

chez

luckyme

04-16-2006, 11:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think we are possibly in different books here, let alone not on the same page.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I'm just sitting here scrunching and squiriming while pouring over your scattered notes, if I could form them into a pamphlet even I'd be happy. this note may help, providing I can be clearer in reply.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand this point - does it appear the two are contradictory? What I mean is I dont believe God's existence is resolvable by logic alone. I do believe whatever we mean by "God" must satisfy the criteria of being logically consistent. So when I say God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent I define each of those terms to inherently exclude logical contradictions. That's what I mean when I say God - I dont claim that I am defining him into existence in some way, or that he may not be bound by the laws of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll do some point-by-point, but overall the above seems to be trying to have it both ways and doesn't fit it's stated goal of logical consistancy.

[ QUOTE ]
I do believe whatever we mean by "God" must satisfy the criteria of being logically consistent

[/ QUOTE ]

That may contain a clue. Perhaps I demand more of "being" <logically consistant> and I see your attempt as "deemed to be". Remember, I'm not focusing on an unspecified god here, I'm focusing on the omni-stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
So when I say God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent I define each of those terms to inherently exclude logical contradictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be the key. I don't think you , nor has anyone else that I've read managed that "define each of those". Your claim reads like wand-waving. We gather an armful of ill-defined omni-attributes, which we seem incapable of describing clearly, and we wave the wand saying, "this group shall henceforth contain no logical contradictions."

We could create any group of words, give them a fuzzy definition and wand them into consistancy.

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I mean when I say God - I dont claim that I am defining him into existence in some way, or that he may not be bound by the laws of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but you are trying to define his existance logically ?? If you aren't, and just want to stop at the leap-of-faith in a irrationally defined god ( I think that is the best if not only route )we wouldn't be typing.

People seem to allow an incredible amount of fuzziness in this area that they don't allow in other topics when they demand logical consistancy.

I raised the bootstrapping and circular issues earlier -
Omniscience is knowing what is knowable.
Omnipotent means that god can do whatever he wants.

"what is knowable"..who gets to define that? If it's god, aren't we now at "god knows what he knows"? That puts him in my category :-)
If the condition of 'knowability' is beyond gods power to assign, he can't succeed in any 'want to know more'.

We can hardly say we've defined something with "I am what I am" ( I saw the movie :-)

my earlier question to chez on the attempt to reconcile omniscience and omnipotence ( let alone as stand-alones)-
[ QUOTE ]
How does the bootstrapping work? How would he know what he wants to know? He would seem to need some a priori kick start or ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get sidedtracked thinking I'm raising issues of the existance of 'god/s'. It's the "logically coherent" part of the situation that is necessary to keep certain god discussions in the realm of metaphysics that appears to have received special treatment, and we allow wand-waving to take the place of logical rigor.

If this only focuses you on my area of concern, I'll treat it as progress. It certainly isn't my 'list of objections' because I can't counter a claim that is fuzzy in itself, other than pick at the fluff as it pops up.

thanks bunny, interesting road, luckyme

bunny

04-16-2006, 07:12 PM

I would claim -

Omnipotent means having the ability to do anything which doesnt result in a logical contradiction.
Omniscience means being able to know anything which doesnt result in a logical contradiction.

These seem well defined to me (although it is hard to tell whether a proposed instantiation of either satisfies the definition - I think this is a weakness of definition but not an ultimate failing.)

As an example of a similar definition - I think knowledge is true, justified belief (modified slightly for gettier problems). Yet, this definition seems to answer the question "What is knowledge?", but leave me helpless to determine whether a belief of mine is knowledge or not. I think that makes it the definition less useful but still meaningful.

If these are accepted as definitions then it seems fine to say "When I say "God" I am referencing an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being." I may be attempting to reference a non-existant object, the ultimate creator of the universe or something else - my definition cant tell me which (and I think rational argument cant either, though I beleive this without proof).

I think I can almost understand where you are coming from but I am really struggling to see how someone could object to the above (in principle - obviously they could object to the definitions...)

Are you perhaps suggesting that the definitions are meaningless without being able to decide whether something fits? I dont see this as a problem. Mathematicians can posit the existence of all kinds of objects without ever providing an actualised example of one - eg "the first pair of twin primes greater than a googleplex to the power of a googleplex" - I would put money on nobody ever providing an example of that, yet it is well defined....

Does this post mean anything?

guesswest

04-16-2006, 10:35 PM

DougShrapnel

04-16-2006, 11:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Doug - why is it inconsistent?

[/ QUOTE ] Sorry Chez missed this the 1st time around. Allways beingness. The only way a God could even have the knowledge of his always existingness, is if he exist outside of anytime barrier what so ever. We cannot say god always was if we have an element of time. For 2 reasons if there is time, god cannot be allknowing, for he cannot know if something created him. To be able to know he would also have to exist at a place without time. So it is possible that god's exist in a "time" different then ours, with the addition that he must also exists in some form without time.

atrifix

04-17-2006, 12:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Omnipotent means having the ability to do anything which doesnt result in a logical contradiction.
Omniscience means being able to know anything which doesnt result in a logical contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the definition of omnipotence, but I don't think that omniscience is quite right--imagine that there is an indeterminate universe that exists outside of the 2O being (God'--who is not omniprescent but exists at a certain point in time). God' doesn't know the future, but that isn't a logical contradiction, it's a metaphysical one. Since he's omnipotent, he could change the universe to be such that he does know the future, but suppose he doesn't (or, alternatively, we could reduce him to only an omniscient being). I don't see that it makes God any less omniscient. I think an omniscient being need only know what is knowable, at least, so that it does not entail any sort of contradiction, logical, epistemic, metaphysical, or otherwise.

luckyme

04-17-2006, 12:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Does this post mean anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure does. You seem to be looking in the right spot for the concerns I'm raising and perhaps even see the edges of them.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you perhaps suggesting that the definitions are meaningless without being able to decide whether something fits?

[/ QUOTE ]

That touches on it, but I don't think that's the best way to express the flaw in the definitions.

Your math and knowledge examples do work as definitions, by comparison.

Let's say god is going over his list of 'do-ables' and is considering adding X and Y.
He notices adding both will make the bundle logically inconsistent but he can add one or the other. Which one can he add?. He looks at the definition of “what god can do”, ooops.

Shouldn't a definition of "what I can do" define what I can do?

Normal definition - "Buffalo - bigger than a breadbox, brown, humpy ... ".
circular-definition - "Buffalo - breeds with other Buffalo".

The second definition seems even clearer than yours for omni's and we even know it's a true test, but is it really a definition? Could we tell we were looking at a buffalo and not a tse-tse fly if we used it?

To go in the other direction… I may be an OMNI. I can also do anything that isn’t logically inconsistent. But that’s against a backdrop of constraints. I don’t see building a list of omni-do-ables without the constraints. The X-Y issue is also perhaps an example of the chicken-egg problem of bootstrapping chez will likely be commenting on. Perhaps X-Y wouldn’t be a problem together if AB hadn’t been preselected.

Even if we get past the internal problems with omniscience, what happens if we run into a conflict with omnipotent .. which one rules and why.

Communication by example and analogy isn’t the greatest way but it can keep a topic on course at times, that’s the main point of these comments,

Did it move us forward? luckyme

bunny

04-17-2006, 05:03 AM

It is a struggle for me to leave God's existence out of it (although I am trying) but this may be why our positions exclude each other. I think of God as an object with certain properties - when it comes to him deciding which of X or Y he is able to do I think there is a "fact of the matter" (which, incidentally I think he knows).

My claim of omnipotence & omniscience being usefully defined in this way is that it helps me decide if my beliefs about God are rational (presupposing he exists which I understand you dont). I think this deciding is indeed in this either/or kind of way.

So, for example, if I'm deciding "Does God know the future?" I realise that also believing "God exists within time" and "Free will exists" imply a contradiction. Therefore they cant all be true. I then proceed to a conclusion (irrationally deciding which is which perhaps, although not always) which maintains internal consistency. I dont think it is like this for God though - I think he has direct knowledge of his limitations, he doesnt "work out" what he can do. Nonetheless, the complete package satisfies my definitions.

(In answer to you question re internally consistent vs consistent with each other I mean both).

I think this may be the root of our differences - I believe God has properties and try and make statements about them preserving consistency. You think I am trying to explain what I mean and there is no way to "get it?" without already knowing what those properties are. Is that it?

bunny

04-17-2006, 05:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Omnipotent means having the ability to do anything which doesnt result in a logical contradiction.
Omniscience means being able to know anything which doesnt result in a logical contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the definition of omnipotence, but I don't think that omniscience is quite right--imagine that there is an indeterminate universe that exists outside of the 2O being (God'--who is not omniprescent but exists at a certain point in time). God' doesn't know the future, but that isn't a logical contradiction, it's a metaphysical one. Since he's omnipotent, he could change the universe to be such that he does know the future, but suppose he doesn't (or, alternatively, we could reduce him to only an omniscient being). I don't see that it makes God any less omniscient. I think an omniscient being need only know what is knowable, at least, so that it does not entail any sort of contradiction, logical, epistemic, metaphysical, or otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is indeed closer to what I meant - any sort of contradiction. I havent really thought about this before though...

guesswest

04-17-2006, 09:43 AM

The reason I asked about internal contradictoins vs contradictions between attributes is - if a contradiction emerges and you have to change the meaning of one of these attributes, which one do you change, which do you diminish? And how to you decide that, is it arbitrary?

chezlaw

04-17-2006, 11:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think knowledge is true, justified belief (modified slightly for gettier problems).

[/ QUOTE ]
When you speak of god knowing stuff, you don't mean JTB do you?

chez

chezlaw

04-17-2006, 11:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doug - why is it inconsistent?

[/ QUOTE ] Sorry Chez missed this the 1st time around. Allways beingness. The only way a God could even have the knowledge of his always existingness, is if he exist outside of anytime barrier what so ever. We cannot say god always was if we have an element of time. For 2 reasons if there is time, god cannot be allknowing, for he cannot know if something created him. To be able to know he would also have to exist at a place without time. So it is possible that god's exist in a "time" different then ours, with the addition that he must also exists in some form without time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly /images/graemlins/smile.gif

If god's timestream is eternal and he know that, then he know that he has always existed. He would also know that nothing exists outside this eternity. How he would know any of this stuff is a complete mystery but then how he would know simple stuff like what I had for dinner is also a mystery.

Knowledge must come to god in a way we have no conception of.

These sort of discussions always become a bit silly but its also possible that god chose to exstinguish his timeless element.

chez

luckyme

04-17-2006, 11:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
These sort of discussions always become a bit silly but its also possible that god chose to exstinguish his timeless element.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does seem that in spite of the sincerity of the participants to have an interesting discussion in this area, at some stage we run into a version of "and then magic happened".

luckyme

chezlaw

04-17-2006, 11:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These sort of discussions always become a bit silly but its also possible that god chose to exstinguish his timeless element.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does seem that in spite of the sincerity of the participants to have an interesting discussion in this area, at some stage we run into a version of "and then magic happened".

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Its more 'magic happended and then'

What we are attempting to do is come up with an unexplainable but logically consistent state of affairs (by magic) and then proceed from there in a way that can explain everything.

Its the same without god. We start with big bang or something else (by magic) and then try to explain everything that follows.

chez

ShakeZula06

04-17-2006, 04:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
God clearly cant be all knowing yet still give free will. Before you were born, not even having set a foot on this Eath God knows ur future if he is all knowing. How is this free will? It is.

Also, God is all good, right? Well before you set a foot on this earth he also knows if you are going to heaven or hell (since he is all knowing) so basically before you are born, God (as most religious people know Him) knows some people are going to hell. some kind of all-good god that is!

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you considered that maybe God knows what the actions of your free will will be? If somebody can genuinely see in to the future and know what will happen to you, this doesn't stop you from making those choices. I don't see why no other theist has mentioned this (well they might have, but I haven't read it yet).

Free will =/= no omni 3 God

Copernicus

04-17-2006, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God clearly cant be all knowing yet still give free will. Before you were born, not even having set a foot on this Eath God knows ur future if he is all knowing. How is this free will? It is.

Also, God is all good, right? Well before you set a foot on this earth he also knows if you are going to heaven or hell (since he is all knowing) so basically before you are born, God (as most religious people know Him) knows some people are going to hell. some kind of all-good god that is!

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you considered that maybe God knows what the actions of your free will will be? If somebody can genuinely see in to the future and know what will happen to you, this doesn't stop you from making those choices. I don't see why no other theist has mentioned this (well they might have, but I haven't read it yet).

Free will =/= no omni 3 God

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, its been mentioned.

bunny

04-17-2006, 06:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think knowledge is true, justified belief (modified slightly for gettier problems).

[/ QUOTE ]
When you speak of god knowing stuff, you don't mean JTB do you?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I think so - but he can rely on a justification none of us can, namely that he is always right so it becomes trivial - God's beliefs = God's knowledge.

DonkNitUP

04-17-2006, 07:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God clearly cant be all knowing yet still give free will. Before you were born, not even having set a foot on this Eath God knows ur future if he is all knowing. How is this free will? It is.

Also, God is all good, right? Well before you set a foot on this earth he also knows if you are going to heaven or hell (since he is all knowing) so basically before you are born, God (as most religious people know Him) knows some people are going to hell. some kind of all-good god that is!

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you considered that maybe God knows what the actions of your free will will be? If somebody can genuinely see in to the future and know what will happen to you, this doesn't stop you from making those choices. I don't see why no other theist has mentioned this (well they might have, but I haven't read it yet).

Free will =/= no omni 3 God

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, its been mentioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the point still stands that i have mentioned in a previous post. once God has taken ur life u no longer have free will as he has acted upon it

Copernicus

04-17-2006, 07:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God clearly cant be all knowing yet still give free will. Before you were born, not even having set a foot on this Eath God knows ur future if he is all knowing. How is this free will? It is.

Also, God is all good, right? Well before you set a foot on this earth he also knows if you are going to heaven or hell (since he is all knowing) so basically before you are born, God (as most religious people know Him) knows some people are going to hell. some kind of all-good god that is!

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you considered that maybe God knows what the actions of your free will will be? If somebody can genuinely see in to the future and know what will happen to you, this doesn't stop you from making those choices. I don't see why no other theist has mentioned this (well they might have, but I haven't read it yet).

Free will =/= no omni 3 God

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, its been mentioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the point still stands that i have mentioned in a previous post. once God has taken ur life u no longer have free will as he has acted upon it

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is stated too strongly. Once God has taken your life, that influences your choices, but doesnt eliminate free will.

Couldnt you just as easily posit "once atheism has taken your life, you have no free will"? I dont see the distinction.

DonkNitUP

04-17-2006, 08:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God clearly cant be all knowing yet still give free will. Before you were born, not even having set a foot on this Eath God knows ur future if he is all knowing. How is this free will? It is.

Also, God is all good, right? Well before you set a foot on this earth he also knows if you are going to heaven or hell (since he is all knowing) so basically before you are born, God (as most religious people know Him) knows some people are going to hell. some kind of all-good god that is!

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you considered that maybe God knows what the actions of your free will will be? If somebody can genuinely see in to the future and know what will happen to you, this doesn't stop you from making those choices. I don't see why no other theist has mentioned this (well they might have, but I haven't read it yet).

Free will =/= no omni 3 God

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, its been mentioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the point still stands that i have mentioned in a previous post. once God has taken ur life u no longer have free will as he has acted upon it

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is stated too strongly. Once God has taken your life, that influences your choices, but doesnt eliminate free will.

Couldnt you just as easily posit "once atheism has taken your life, you have no free will"? I dont see the distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

i meant.. if we assume (and there is for this arguments sake) that there is a God and he takes ur life (noahs arks flood, 10 commandments or at any other point in the Bible where it says God killed someone, then we have to assume there is no free will.
If God is standing on the outside looking in at our choices that is fine. But as soon as he influences our choices (by him killing us) we no longer have a choice. -- Basically I was just saying what i said in a previous post. I know Bunny said we have only so long to make our choices and then God can interact but i think its still not free will if, at any point, he interacts and causes something.
As for if there was no God then the argument wouldnt need to be made, i wouldnt think

bunny

04-17-2006, 08:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i meant.. if we assume (and there is for this arguments sake) that there is a God and he takes ur life (noahs arks flood, 10 commandments or at any other point in the Bible where it says God killed someone, then we have to assume there is no free will.
If God is standing on the outside looking in at our choices that is fine. But as soon as he influences our choices (by him killing us) we no longer have a choice. -- Basically I was just saying what i said in a previous post. I know Bunny said we have only so long to make our choices and then God can interact but i think its still not free will if, at any point, he interacts and causes something.
As for if there was no God then the argument wouldnt need to be made, i wouldnt think

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see how this follows - assuming there is no God and I am going through life, making free choices and a tree falls on me killing me...has the tree curtailed my free will in some way? Only in the sense that it limits the period of time in which I can exercise it but this is true of everything I do - I cant breathe after that either but it doesnt mean breathing doesnt exist.

DonkNitUP

04-17-2006, 09:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i meant.. if we assume (and there is for this arguments sake) that there is a God and he takes ur life (noahs arks flood, 10 commandments or at any other point in the Bible where it says God killed someone, then we have to assume there is no free will.
If God is standing on the outside looking in at our choices that is fine. But as soon as he influences our choices (by him killing us) we no longer have a choice. -- Basically I was just saying what i said in a previous post. I know Bunny said we have only so long to make our choices and then God can interact but i think its still not free will if, at any point, he interacts and causes something.
As for if there was no God then the argument wouldnt need to be made, i wouldnt think

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see how this follows - assuming there is no God and I am going through life, making free choices and a tree falls on me killing me...has the tree curtailed my free will in some way? Only in the sense that it limits the period of time in which I can exercise it but this is true of everything I do - I cant breathe after that either but it doesnt mean breathing doesnt exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

no no..i dont think im trying to get across what im saying...if there is no God, we obviously have free will.
(lets assume noahs ark is a true story, or 10 commandments or some other piece in the Bible where God kills, but for this example the ark.)
If there is no God:
1. A flood happens, you die.. sorry you are SoL thats just survival of the fittest
If there is a God that doesnt intervene with lives:
2. A flood happens, you die.. same as number 1.. survival of the fittest still applies because God didnt control your death
If there is a God (who has killed people as in the Bible):
3. A flood happens WHICH HE CAUSED, you... you do not have free will. There is no survival of the fittest there because he intervened and purposely did it

bunny

04-17-2006, 09:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i meant.. if we assume (and there is for this arguments sake) that there is a God and he takes ur life (noahs arks flood, 10 commandments or at any other point in the Bible where it says God killed someone, then we have to assume there is no free will.
If God is standing on the outside looking in at our choices that is fine. But as soon as he influences our choices (by him killing us) we no longer have a choice. -- Basically I was just saying what i said in a previous post. I know Bunny said we have only so long to make our choices and then God can interact but i think its still not free will if, at any point, he interacts and causes something.
As for if there was no God then the argument wouldnt need to be made, i wouldnt think

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see how this follows - assuming there is no God and I am going through life, making free choices and a tree falls on me killing me...has the tree curtailed my free will in some way? Only in the sense that it limits the period of time in which I can exercise it but this is true of everything I do - I cant breathe after that either but it doesnt mean breathing doesnt exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

no no..i dont think im trying to get across what im saying...if there is no God, we obviously have free will.
(lets assume noahs ark is a true story, or 10 commandments or some other piece in the Bible where God kills, but for this example the ark.)
If there is no God:
1. A flood happens, you die.. sorry you are SoL thats just survival of the fittest
If there is a God that doesnt intervene with lives:
2. A flood happens, you die.. same as number 1.. survival of the fittest still applies because God didnt control your death
If there is a God (who has killed people as in the Bible):
3. A flood happens WHICH HE CAUSED, you... you do not have free will. There is no survival of the fittest there because he intervened and purposely did it

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand you are asserting there is a difference because God intervened and purposely did it. I dont see why this should be true though. Change my example to be a murderer intervening and purposely killing me rather than a tree falling on me. Does my murder mean I dont have free will?

guesswest

04-17-2006, 09:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if there is no God, we obviously have free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this obvious? It'd remove one of the barriers to free will but the biggie would still stand. Namely this idea that the universe works causally and our 'actions' are just a part of that causal sequence.

bunny

04-18-2006, 12:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I asked about internal contradictoins vs contradictions between attributes is - if a contradiction emerges and you have to change the meaning of one of these attributes, which one do you change, which do you diminish? And how to you decide that, is it arbitrary?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry - missed this when you posted it. I try and form my opinion based on evidence - hence rationally. If I cant do that, I am forced by my theistic beliefs to make an irrational choice (ie I go by what feels right or I maintain contradictory beliefs).

For example, in the originally posed problem:
"God knows everything" (is omniscient)
"God exists everywhere simultaneously" (is omnipresent)
Leads to the conclusion that there is no free will. I have evidence there is free will, so must amend one of these premises. I have previously found "God exists everywhere simultaneously" to lead to other contradictions - this is my reason for limiting his omnipresence rather than his omniscience.

My position throughout this thread is that I change and amend my beliefs as my understanding deepens. Ultimately I believe in God and think there is a fact of the matter about all these questions. God knows the truth about them and my struggles with defining terms is not something he has to go through. Adopting this position seems best to me (in a pascal's wager kind of way) since if I am right and a logically consistent God exists then I will come to a better knowledge of him (which is probably a good thing). If God doesnt exist then I will probably discover this truth through trying to nail down and clarify exactly what the consequences of his existing would be.

DonkNitUP

04-18-2006, 01:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if there is no God, we obviously have free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this obvious? It'd remove one of the barriers to free will but the biggie would still stand. Namely this idea that the universe works causally and our 'actions' are just a part of that causal sequence.

[/ QUOTE ]

so say we are atheist and there is no god.. you are telling me that without a God the universe is based on predistination? if so, what rational are you using to come up with this?

DonkNitUP

04-18-2006, 01:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i meant.. if we assume (and there is for this arguments sake) that there is a God and he takes ur life (noahs arks flood, 10 commandments or at any other point in the Bible where it says God killed someone, then we have to assume there is no free will.
If God is standing on the outside looking in at our choices that is fine. But as soon as he influences our choices (by him killing us) we no longer have a choice. -- Basically I was just saying what i said in a previous post. I know Bunny said we have only so long to make our choices and then God can interact but i think its still not free will if, at any point, he interacts and causes something.
As for if there was no God then the argument wouldnt need to be made, i wouldnt think

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see how this follows - assuming there is no God and I am going through life, making free choices and a tree falls on me killing me...has the tree curtailed my free will in some way? Only in the sense that it limits the period of time in which I can exercise it but this is true of everything I do - I cant breathe after that either but it doesnt mean breathing doesnt exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

no no..i dont think im trying to get across what im saying...if there is no God, we obviously have free will.
(lets assume noahs ark is a true story, or 10 commandments or some other piece in the Bible where God kills, but for this example the ark.)
If there is no God:
1. A flood happens, you die.. sorry you are SoL thats just survival of the fittest
If there is a God that doesnt intervene with lives:
2. A flood happens, you die.. same as number 1.. survival of the fittest still applies because God didnt control your death
If there is a God (who has killed people as in the Bible):
3. A flood happens WHICH HE CAUSED, you... you do not have free will. There is no survival of the fittest there because he intervened and purposely did it

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand you are asserting there is a difference because God intervened and purposely did it. I dont see why this should be true though. Change my example to be a murderer intervening and purposely killing me rather than a tree falling on me. Does my murder mean I dont have free will?

[/ QUOTE ]

bunny, i still dont understand your point. It seems to me if a murderer killed you that would be more of a basis for free will-- seeing how the murderer had a choice to kill you or not.

whether there is a god or not doesnt matter (according to your premise of having free will and god being a bystander or observer)--meaning no matter what there is free will.

How can you say we still maintain free will even if God kills us though? It seems to me that if a tree, a murderer, a stone, water or anything killed us then we were meant to die.
As soon as God INTERACTS WITH US(because of you saying he is an observer and does not interact with us in our world.. therefore our free will) how do you leave us the choice of COMPLETE free will?

bunny

04-18-2006, 01:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
bunny, i still dont understand your point. It seems to me if a murderer killed you that would be more of a basis for free will-- seeing how the murderer had a choice to kill you or not.

whether there is a god or not doesnt matter (according to your premise of having free will and god being a bystander or observer)--meaning no matter what there is free will.

How can you say we still maintain free will even if God kills us though? It seems to me that if a tree, a murderer, a stone, water or anything killed us then we were meant to die.
As soon as God INTERACTS WITH US(because of you saying he is an observer and does not interact with us in our world.. therefore our free will) how do you leave us the choice of COMPLETE free will?

[/ QUOTE ]
My question to you was why does God's killing me imply I do not have free will? Your answer was that it was because he intervened and purposely did it.
I then suggested this would imply that a murderer intervening and purposely killing me would also imply I have no free will - a conclusion you say does not follow.

I guess I would ask what's the difference? If my life is cut short by tree, God, murderer, old age...I've still been making choices up til then and have had free will for as long as I am alive. If it isnt the "intervening" and "purposive" nature of God acting which limits my free will, what is it?

To requote:
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me if a murderer killed you that would be more of a basis for free will-- seeing how the murderer had a choice to kill you or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As soon as God INTERACTS WITH US...how do you leave us the choice of COMPLETE free will?

[/ QUOTE ]
Isnt this "more of a basis for free will" seeing how God had a choice to kill me or not?

DonkNitUP

04-18-2006, 01:42 AM

how can u say God and the tree or the murderer are all the same..meaning you do not have free will in each scenario?
Obviously if all 3 kill you, you do not have free will. My stance is, is that if something part of nature or the physical Earth kills you that is part of this Earth and you die, whether an accident, part of nature or whatever. In your examples you say that God is present past and future and is not apart of your "choice or free will"... but once he interacts with us (kills us as with the flood or whatever) then he no longer gives us free will. Obviously everyone has to die. If it is done by nature.. a tree, a murdered, cancer, something physical on Earth, that is one thing.. for God.. the supernatural being.. for whom you say is a bystander and does not interact and influence our decisions, IMO i think that draws the line of free will.

A tree can not interact or draw conclusions and is not a higher being in which we go to.
A muderer has free will in which he draws his conclusions for which some of us have to follow.
God is the supernatural being in which he,according to you is the bystander watching our "choice" we make. How can u see once he kills you we are still maintaining free will?

bunny

04-18-2006, 02:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously everyone has to die. If it is done by nature.. a tree, a murdered, cancer, something physical on Earth, that is one thing.. for God.. the supernatural being.. for whom you say is a bystander and does not interact and influence our decisions, IMO i think that draws the line of free will.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that is your claim - I am asking what property it is of God's that implies his interacting with me means I have no free will?

[ QUOTE ]
A muderer has free will in which he draws his conclusions for which some of us have to follow.
God is the supernatural being in which he,according to you is the bystander watching our "choice" we make. How can u see once he kills you we are still maintaining free will?

[/ QUOTE ]
I just dont understand what property it is God has that the murderer doesnt which would lead me to think him killing me curtails my free will. When I asked you this you seemed to say it was because God acted "purposely" and "intervened" but the murderer is doing this too so it is clearly not those properties. I would repeat that I understand your claim but dont understand your reasons for making it.

bunny

04-18-2006, 02:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
God is the supernatural being in which he,according to you is the bystander watching our "choice" we make. How can u see once he kills you we are still maintaining free will?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know if this is the source of our confusion - but you do realise that I am not claiming we maintain free will once we are dead? If what you are saying is we have free will up until God kills us (or anything else) and then we dont then I agree - I never meant to imply we had free will forever.

BLdSWtTRs

04-18-2006, 05:29 AM

First time I've been to this part of the forum and I see this post. I've thougth for a long time that there is no such a thing as free will as we are a function of genetics and environment, neither of which we control.
Assuming an omni3 god with an infinite IQ, all these choices are essentially made by him, and there is no way he could randomize it...

guesswest

04-18-2006, 08:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if there is no God, we obviously have free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this obvious? It'd remove one of the barriers to free will but the biggie would still stand. Namely this idea that the universe works causally and our 'actions' are just a part of that causal sequence.

[/ QUOTE ]

so say we are atheist and there is no god.. you are telling me that without a God the universe is based on predistination? if so, what rational are you using to come up with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea of god is one potential barrier to free will, but it's far from the only one. The 'classic' basis for determinism doesn't depend on the existence of god. The idea is that a causes b causes c etc and everything is just a manifestation of that process.

For example, I'm writing this because you wrote that and you wrote that because of something I said previously. With a gazillion (to use a precise mathematical term) other variables coming into play. Such as the mood I'm in when I sat down at my computer, determined by me being woke up by a pneumatic drill tearing up my street, determined by everything I've ever done or experienced before.

guesswest

04-18-2006, 09:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My position throughout this thread is that I change and amend my beliefs as my understanding deepens. Ultimately I believe in God and think there is a fact of the matter about all these questions. God knows the truth about them and my struggles with defining terms is not something he has to go through. Adopting this position seems best to me (in a pascal's wager kind of way) since if I am right and a logically consistent God exists then I will come to a better knowledge of him (which is probably a good thing). If God doesnt exist then I will probably discover this truth through trying to nail down and clarify exactly what the consequences of his existing would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised by that. What I get from everything else that you've written (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you believe god exists already, before philosophy. Which is why, when it's demonstrated that xyz definition is internally incompatible, there's a move to change xyz.

Without the prior knowledge that the target does in fact exist, surely the rational thing would be to conclude from these contradictions that the object in question doesn't exist, rather than change the definition? If you come from a theistically neutral starting point (I understand you're a theist, but open to the idea that rationality could change your belief) - why isn't god another square-circle?

bunny

04-18-2006, 06:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My position throughout this thread is that I change and amend my beliefs as my understanding deepens. Ultimately I believe in God and think there is a fact of the matter about all these questions. God knows the truth about them and my struggles with defining terms is not something he has to go through. Adopting this position seems best to me (in a pascal's wager kind of way) since if I am right and a logically consistent God exists then I will come to a better knowledge of him (which is probably a good thing). If God doesnt exist then I will probably discover this truth through trying to nail down and clarify exactly what the consequences of his existing would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised by that. What I get from everything else that you've written (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you believe god exists already, before philosophy. Which is why, when it's demonstrated that xyz definition is internally incompatible, there's a move to change xyz.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes this seems to be my view - I dont think this is contradicted by the quote above?

[ QUOTE ]
Without the prior knowledge that the target does in fact exist, surely the rational thing would be to conclude from these contradictions that the object in question doesn't exist, rather than change the definition? If you come from a theistically neutral starting point (I understand you're a theist, but open to the idea that rationality could change your belief) - why isn't god another square-circle?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say prior belief is enough to look at other options rather than prior knowledge. Nonetheless, when a description of God I give turns out to be unviable, I do conclude that the object as I attempted to define it doesnt exist (ie that it is another square-circle) that means one of two things to me:

1) I am wrong that God exists and my efforts to describe him are doomed from the start
2) He does exist, but the facts of his existence and especially the properties he has are different from the ones I ascribe to him

Up until this point - I have adopted position 2) because my belief has not so far been undiminished (I dont regard my belief in God as something I chose - in fact I tried very hard to deny it for many years until eventually realising that I had come to believe in spite of myself). I acknowledge the possibility that 1) may be the correct explanation and it seems to me that, in the face of my belief, rational enquiry into logical consequences is the only real way to convince myself of this.

On a side note - my position is pretty clearly heretical. Although I call myself a christian (as would most people in Australia where I live) I think I would be challenged much more by mainstream christians if I lived in America - they could probably construct an argument that I am "testing" God or somesuch. I cant live a life of unquestioning obedience (not honestly anyway) and my faith is that my "testing" will not result in me disbelieving, since God exists....all kind of a digression but it seems like a weakness in my position (although perhaps not one an atheist would identify).

pilliwinks

04-18-2006, 11:16 PM

I think the vast majority of the 'Heroes of the Bible' questioned God (and did what he said, of course). If anyone challenges you for asking the hard questions, tell them to read Job, taking particular notice of what God says about his 'friends'.

With regard to Donk, I think he's saying that if God kills people, he clearly intervenes in the world. I think he also concludes that if he intervenes this once, what's to stop him controlling you like a puppet from the moment of your conception.

I think the standard Christian response is that he could but doesn't. Of course there are Christians who think that is exactly what he does, and are very thankful for it. There is plenty of biblical evidence for predestination, for those that are that way inclined. I'm not sure God minds particluarly whether you believe in free will or not, as long as you act like him (by design or choice).

bunny

04-19-2006, 01:25 AM

I agree. I was more thinking specifically of the appearance of "watering down" theism so much that it has no content. I try hard to maintain logical rigor in my beliefs and this is probably why I dont believe in literal interpretations of the bible, intercessionary prayer, miracles, etc... It could be argued that I am saying something like "God exists but only where we cant notice him."

pilliwinks

04-19-2006, 09:00 AM

You mean the God who has no existance other than a wierd feeling in your head, somewhat similar to that experienced by some with hallucinogens and others by brain trauma?

By all means try to sort out which properties of God are consistent with the others, but if you start out from a 'feeling in my head', you have a big job to make it to the resurrection!

If you find that the theism you have ended up with has no relationship to what you actually do, then I'd quietly suggest that the watering down has gone too far. The bible says that such people make God want to spew. Literally.

purnell

04-19-2006, 09:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i meant.. if we assume (and there is for this arguments sake) that there is a God and he takes ur life (noahs arks flood, 10 commandments or at any other point in the Bible where it says God killed someone, then we have to assume there is no free will.
If God is standing on the outside looking in at our choices that is fine. But as soon as he influences our choices (by him killing us) we no longer have a choice. -- Basically I was just saying what i said in a previous post. I know Bunny said we have only so long to make our choices and then God can interact but i think its still not free will if, at any point, he interacts and causes something.
As for if there was no God then the argument wouldnt need to be made, i wouldnt think

[/ QUOTE ]

If I, acting on my own will, attempt to steal your property, and you catch me in the act and, acting on your own will, kill me, have you negated my free will?

bunny

04-19-2006, 06:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
By all means try to sort out which properties of God are consistent with the others, but if you start out from a 'feeling in my head', you have a big job to make it to the resurrection!

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it is impossible to rationally decide between two religious views (ie make it to the resurrection). This is outside the scope of my rationalising - I make an irrational decision because (among other things) I have to.

[ QUOTE ]
If you find that the theism you have ended up with has no relationship to what you actually do, then I'd quietly suggest that the watering down has gone too far.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree - of course, my faith (currently at least) leads me to believe that in fact this path will lead to a greater understanding of God, not distance. I cant claim that rationally though.

J. Stew

04-20-2006, 02:07 AM

Why do you talk about God as if It were something different from yourself. Do you not have the ability to alter someone else's course of life? If you do not at the moment maybe you are not tapping into your well of potential. Einstein changed the way we perceive things. Where did his creative intelligence come from. Was he just really smart . . . yes, but where does that intelligence come from if not the mysterious depths of his own consciousness. Then what is consciousness. . . the background/stage for conceptual thinking to occur, but also vision logic, feeling, hearing, the culmination of the senses but also more subtle aspects which deepen into the causal. How far down does the well go if not infinite. Omni3 can be explained by one word . . . infinite, that is describable only as infinite, but the thought of infinite is only a concept. The experiential meaning of infinite is different than just the concept infinite. To use logic to explain infinite misses the point because concepts are used to box something in . . . define it. We try to define infinite by saying infinite and then we have an 'idea' of infinite, but the manifestation of 'infinite' is not finite, like a concept is. Free will? If I have to take a poop I can choose not to or I can choose to, that is my choice. If I do great, if I don't I will just be full of sh*t.

Philo

04-20-2006, 02:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This just came up on another thread....

Assuming an omni3 (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent) god created you, he must know all the choices you will make in your lifetime. So it seems those choices will be made by god, not yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't follow. God's knowing what you will choose does not mean god makes the choice. I may know that my friend hates vanilla and loves chocolate ice cream, so when he's at the store and has to choose between the two, I know he will choose chocolate, but that doesn't mean that I made the choice for him.

I didn't create my friend, and I'm not omniscient, so the reasons why I know what choice he will make are different, but that just means that my knowledge is not infallible like god's is, but it still doesn't follow that we made the choices.

Hererdebert

04-20-2006, 07:53 AM

based on these assumptions here is my reply:
1. We live in a closed physical universe.
2. That we have three areas to be considered as causal determinates: Physical, genetic and social.
3. that all of these elements are reducible to physical causality.
4. Free will is the idea that in a given situation, with the choice of a or b, a human is free to choose either without the influence of causal determinates.

Everything which I am, which makes me specifically me, is determined by my genetic make-up and the experiences which I have throughout my life. Both of these forms of causality are ultimately reducible to physical causality (although at a level of such complexity it doesn't bare thinking about). When I make a decision, I make it on the basis of my past experiences and my genetic predispositions. This is a deterministic view of human behaviour.
Looking at this view, it becomes clear that if you accept that the 'I' is a physically determined process (a story which we tell to ourselves and develops according to certain predefined and acquired constraints/predispositions). So every choice which 'I' make is caused by these different determined factors.
Looking at free will then: As defined in my 4th assumption free will can be characterised by the idea that if I went back in time to exactly the same point, with exactly the same conditions determining the situation, I could make a different decision each time. I.E., If I chose A the first time and then went back to that exact point, and all the determining factors (internal and external) were the same then I could still choose B.
Comparing the two, in the first we say that everything which makes 'I' 'I' determines the decisions which I make. In the later we see a situation in which 'I' (ie, our history, genetic make up and predispositions) has no determining role in our decisions.
In short, this notion of free will is a coin toss at the centre of human functioning. I personally find this to be a horrifying idea. I have no interest in believing that my acts are essentially random and uncaused.

vhawk01

04-20-2006, 08:53 AM

Ummm....huh? You know he likes vanilla, and hates chocolate. And from this it follows that you KNOW he will choose vanilla? Thats asinine. You certainly know no such thing.

guesswest

04-20-2006, 09:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This just came up on another thread....

Assuming an omni3 (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent) god created you, he must know all the choices you will make in your lifetime. So it seems those choices will be made by god, not yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't follow. God's knowing what you will choose does not mean god makes the choice. I may know that my friend hates vanilla and loves chocolate ice cream, so when he's at the store and has to choose between the two, I know he will choose chocolate, but that doesn't mean that I made the choice for him.

I didn't create my friend, and I'm not omniscient, so the reasons why I know what choice he will make are different, but that just means that my knowledge is not infallible like god's is, but it still doesn't follow that we made the choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP wasn't suggesting that god's omniscience negates free will by itself, and I agree omniscience in isolation wouldn't be a barrier to free will. The OP was suggesting that omniscience coupled with him 'creating' us removes free will, since he's essentially creating our actions.

Philo

04-22-2006, 07:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This just came up on another thread....

Assuming an omni3 (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent) god created you, he must know all the choices you will make in your lifetime. So it seems those choices will be made by god, not yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't follow. God's knowing what you will choose does not mean god makes the choice. I may know that my friend hates vanilla and loves chocolate ice cream, so when he's at the store and has to choose between the two, I know he will choose chocolate, but that doesn't mean that I made the choice for him.

I didn't create my friend, and I'm not omniscient, so the reasons why I know what choice he will make are different, but that just means that my knowledge is not infallible like god's is, but it still doesn't follow that we made the choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP wasn't suggesting that god's omniscience negates free will by itself, and I agree omniscience in isolation wouldn't be a barrier to free will. The OP was suggesting that omniscience coupled with him 'creating' us removes free will, since he's essentially creating our actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure he's creating our actions in creating us, but let's say he is. It still wouldn't follow that we are not performing those actions from free will or by choice.

WaterlooPoker

04-22-2006, 08:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This just came up on another thread....

Assuming an omni3 (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent) god created you, he must know all the choices you will make in your lifetime. So it seems those choices will be made by god, not yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't follow. God's knowing what you will choose does not mean god makes the choice. I may know that my friend hates vanilla and loves chocolate ice cream, so when he's at the store and has to choose between the two, I know he will choose chocolate, but that doesn't mean that I made the choice for him.

I didn't create my friend, and I'm not omniscient, so the reasons why I know what choice he will make are different, but that just means that my knowledge is not infallible like god's is, but it still doesn't follow that we made the choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is not that God "makes the choice". The point is that if you cannot choose there is no choice.

bunny

04-22-2006, 08:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This just came up on another thread....

Assuming an omni3 (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent) god created you, he must know all the choices you will make in your lifetime. <font color="blue"> So it seems those choices will be made by god, not yourself. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't follow. God's knowing what you will choose does not mean god makes the choice. I may know that my friend hates vanilla and loves chocolate ice cream, so when he's at the store and has to choose between the two, I know he will choose chocolate, but that doesn't mean that I made the choice for him.

I didn't create my friend, and I'm not omniscient, so the reasons why I know what choice he will make are different, but that just means that my knowledge is not infallible like god's is, but it still doesn't follow that we made the choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is not that God "makes the choice". The point is that if you cannot choose there is no choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the original poster's claim was that God does make the choice (which I think is incorrect). In terms of there being no choice this seems like a separate claim and nothing to do with God's properties - it seems to depend more on a belief in determinism (with or without a God).

WaterlooPoker

04-22-2006, 08:32 PM

Teach me for reading only part of a thread... I thought philo was the OP of that quoted section. My apologies for anything incorrect and misleading that may have resulted as part of what I posted.

guesswest

04-23-2006, 10:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This just came up on another thread....

Assuming an omni3 (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent) god created you, he must know all the choices you will make in your lifetime. So it seems those choices will be made by god, not yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't follow. God's knowing what you will choose does not mean god makes the choice. I may know that my friend hates vanilla and loves chocolate ice cream, so when he's at the store and has to choose between the two, I know he will choose chocolate, but that doesn't mean that I made the choice for him.

I didn't create my friend, and I'm not omniscient, so the reasons why I know what choice he will make are different, but that just means that my knowledge is not infallible like god's is, but it still doesn't follow that we made the choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP wasn't suggesting that god's omniscience negates free will by itself, and I agree omniscience in isolation wouldn't be a barrier to free will. The OP was suggesting that omniscience coupled with him 'creating' us removes free will, since he's essentially creating our actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure he's creating our actions in creating us, but let's say he is. It still wouldn't follow that we are not performing those actions from free will or by choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely that has to follow. Part of the idea of free will is that person A may choose action A and person B may choose action B. If our actions are a product of who we are, and god creates us, then god creates our actions. The alternative is to say that our actions aren't a product of who we are, and that wouldn't be free will or determinism, it'd just be randomness.

jaustin

04-23-2006, 10:17 PM

Not sure if it's been mentioned already, but this topic is addressed in John Perry's "Dialogue on Good, Evil, and the Existence of God." The book is an extremely easy, extremely interesting and extremely good read, addressing the reconciliation of the existence of evil w/ the existence of an omni3 god, as well as a reconciliation of the existence of free will w/ the existence of an omni3 god. The dialogue's, like, 70 pages, and very entertaining. Go read it.

pilliwinks

04-24-2006, 03:33 AM

So if my mum made me, and I made a joint, then my mum made the joint? Lock her up /images/graemlins/grin.gif

guesswest

04-24-2006, 10:33 AM

Our mothers aren't omniscient, though it sometimes feels like they are.

DrewDevil

04-25-2006, 01:52 PM

Just because God has the *power* to control our choices does not mean that he *is* controlling our choices.

God could have created humans without free will, meaning they would all inevitably follow a certain path, but he was not required to do so.

An all-powerful God can choose to limit his power without losing his omnipotence.

Also, all these discussions of God "knowing what you will do before you do it" place an artificial time construct on God. God, supposedly, does not exist on a linear time line, but exists outside of time. So the very use of words like "before" and "after" do not apply to God. He is not looking forward into the future nor backward into the past, but at all things always.

It is difficult to understand the infinite with a finite mind, so it's confusing to me, but I think it does make it possible for an omniscient God to exist with free will.

On the other hand, if there is *no* God, is free will possible? Can free will exist without the "soul," which is supposedly created by God. Do animals have free will, or are they just acting according to biological demands and instincts? If there is no God to create free will, how can human beings claim to have it? Without God, aren't humans, also, simply reacting to chemical reactions in the brain, biological and external stimuli, and instinct?

???

bunny

04-25-2006, 06:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, if there is *no* God, is free will possible? Can free will exist without the "soul," which is supposedly created by God. Do animals have free will, or are they just acting according to biological demands and instincts? If there is no God to create free will, how can human beings claim to have it? Without God, aren't humans, also, simply reacting to chemical reactions in the brain, biological and external stimuli, and instinct?

[/ QUOTE ]
You can be an atheist without being a materialist. In other words, there can still be a non-physical part of us making decisions in a non-deterministic way (a mind is probably a more acceptable term to these people than soul). If the physical world is created by some non-divine source, there doesnt seem any reason the mental world cant have been created by the same source.