Omnipotence Doesn't Imply Seeing The Future.

[soon2bepro]

I don't see why God's desition can't work by causality too. I'm not saying they MUST, I'm just saying that if we are to understand any of them, it's because they're at least partially deterministic. And again, I don't see the fundamental contradiction here. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Sure, I'm open to hearing any arguments on the matter, bring them on [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (if you think they're worth listening)




You can reduce this, but then you'll be making the wrong assumption that you already know what all the parts of our internal selfs are. I don't really see a reason to do that; unless it is for giving someone an example so they can understand the idea.

I understand the idea, and I too don't see a way for us to measure that. However I will add that as far as we know, humans can be extremely different individuals as far as their mind and opinions go, so long as the information they receive from outside influence during their life is entirely different. We do know that much. Of course you could consider stored external information to be part of the "self", and only consider external influence that which is being taken as of the moment (maybe, all external information that resides in consciousness before being stored). In that case it would be easier to conclude that we have free will.
In all examples though, there is really no way to measure this, so the idea that we have free will would be purely based on faith.

[ QUOTE ]
It also addresses this issue that we empirically idenfity with ourselves as possessing free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, yes, but also our empirical knowledge of the world suggest that (theoretically) we dont. At least not in the way we assume we do. (this assumption is usually unclear as to what it exactly suggests, btw)
My opinion is that what we have is the feeling/sensation of free will. Ultimately there isn't very much of a difference as far as how to act and feel about it; but philosophically speaking, there is a difference.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why God's desition can't work by causality too. I'm not saying they MUST, I'm just saying that if we are to understand any of them, it's because they're at least partially deterministic. And again, I don't see the fundamental contradiction here. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Sure, I'm open to hearing any arguments on the matter, bring them on [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (if you think they're worth listening)




You can reduce this, but then you'll be making the wrong assumption that you already know what all the parts of our internal selfs are. I don't really see a reason to do that; unless it is for giving someone an example so they can understand the idea.

I understand the idea, and I too don't see a way for us to measure that. However I will add that as far as we know, humans can be extremely different individuals as far as their mind and opinions go, so long as the information they receive from outside influence during their life is entirely different. We do know that much. Of course you could consider stored external information to be part of the "self", and only consider external influence that which is being taken as of the moment (maybe, all external information that resides in consciousness before being stored). In that case it would be easier to conclude that we have free will.
In all examples though, there is really no way to measure this, so the idea that we have free will would be purely based on faith.

[ QUOTE ]
It also addresses this issue that we empirically idenfity with ourselves as possessing free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, yes, but also our empirical knowledge of the world suggest that (theoretically) we dont. At least not in the way we assume we do. (this assumption is usually unclear as to what it exactly suggests, btw)
My opinion is that what we have is the feeling/sensation of free will. Ultimately there isn't very much of a difference as far as how to act and feel about it; but philosophically speaking, there is a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

God cannot be instructed by causality - I feel like a broken record here, but 'by definition'. God is supposed to be the creator of all things. There is nothing before god, there is only god, therefore there is nothing which god can be reacting to. Nothing else exists to 'cause' anything, he is the primary agent, that's what being the creator means.

And the fact that something can't be accurately measured doesn't mean it's taken on 'faith'. I can't tell you how many cups of water are in the Pacific, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that there are more cups of water in the Pacific than there are in my bathtub. I suppose for those balancing the internality of self against the external world, that tipping point would arrive at the point where free will is experienced.

And empiricism tells us the opposite, it tells us we do have free will, that's our everyday experience of life. Which isn't to say this empirical understanding is necessarily valid - I just meant that, and even the strictest of rationalists would have to concede this, if there's going to be a higher level of convincing needed, it's with the rationale refuting empirical truths vs the one confirming them.

[soon2bepro]

Your argument that God can't be a part of a deterministic system just because He created the universe is really bad. I stand by my point, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion from that argument.

At first, God can be reacting to Himself, or other parts of Himself, or parts of another reality that is unknown for us. Or none of the above. If you somehow were able to isolate a particular organism/object from all outside influence, it wouldn't be a part of the cause-effect system, but that doesn't mean that when put in a situation where intereaction would occur, that organism/object would fail to form a part in that system. Just like this, God could become forming a part of the causality system once other factors start influencing Him.



You can't measure if the pacific ocean has more cups than your bathtub? Take your bathtub to the coast, fill it up in the ocean, then compare that there's still plenty of water left in the ocean. In fact you don't need to do this, since you know how much water your bathtub can carry, and you can easily find out how much there is in the pacific ocean (even if they're only approximates or even guesses, the measures are probably close enough to correct to make an argument).

But suppose I give you two glasses full of water, which are each about as large as a zillion times the universe, but there's a slight difference in how much water they contain. Now I ask you to do an average guess on which one has more water on it, without resorting to complex science (since you can't really do that in our free will case). If you believe one of them does, you'd be basing that assumption on faith alone.


On the other point, I suppose it's agreeable, though it depends on what you call a proof. Since there's also empirical evidence that suggests we can't know that. And even some that suggests that it's the other way around.

[guesswest]

RE: God being determined. The definition of god is that he is the creator of all things, so there is no 'another reality'. If there is, he didn't create everything, therefore he is not god, plain and simple. As for his actions being based on internal causality - sure, but that is not what is known as determinism in philosophy, that is internal functioning. And that btw would be all things, since god is supposedly omnipresent also.

I think you missed my point with the bathtub analogy, I possibly chose a bad example. It's not about whether it could be rationally quantified, either in actuality or in theory. It's that it's entirely self-evident that there is zero need to do so. Which is to say, that which is empirically manifest is sometimes inherently reliable.

Some would argue on the issue of free will in terms of external vs internal reaction that it is empircally manifest that the internality has more weight and thus free will emerges. Again, I'm not one of those people, I'm a determinist, I tend to feel that if this thing was that empirically obvious we wouldn't be debating it so furiously over the years. But it's clearly the case that empirical understandings can be reliable in some instances, such as in the bathtub analogy, so the fact that something can't be or hasn't yet been rationally quantified doesn't NECESSARILY preclude it from being valid (by more than coincidence). In other words, our senses have the potential to provide us with valid information.

The bathtub analogy is possibly a bad one because it could also be rationally quantified, but there is no need is the essential principle. People knew it was hotter when the sun was out way before we had means of quantifying heat.

[soon2bepro]

When you talk about things that are real, you talk about this reality. Another reality implies that it is in no contact with this one. When we said "there could be another reality", the state of existance of that reality is not real for us. It's just something that might exist for someone else, but has no connection with us whatsoever (in this sense I agree that all truths are relative and therefore there is no absolute truth, an idea that I would normally stand against). So you see, God could've created this "everything" yet be affected by something else which we're not directly affected from (only through Him).

Internal functioning is not considered a part of determinism? Well then that determinism is obsolete [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


About the bathtub analogy: There is zero need to prove that internal functioning is more important than external influence when it comes to human desitions?? I don't see how that can be so obvious to you. If anything, I'd be inclined towards the other side, but I think it's way out of our current league as a species.

I really don't know what is all this empirical evidence you talk about. We know that people who grow up in different enviroments turn out to be much different persons. And that averagely speaking, these enviroments do influence people into having a personality of certain aspects that can be predicted by us. The main idea of psychology and sociology is to help people by trying to understand these patterns.

[guesswest]

Again, there is no reality which god did not create, that's how god is defined. Whether there is some reality completely external to the human condition is entirely irrelevant, if he didn't create all such realities, he is not god.

And with regards to there being no need to prove that internal functioning is more potent than external influence in human decision making: As I said originally, I DON'T think it's obvious, I'm a determinist, I don't buy this. I'm just playing devils advocate here and pointing out that those things which are empirically manifest can in some cases produce reliable data without the ability to rationally quantify, and that to that end we shouldn't dismiss this idea entirely just on the grounds that we can't measure it. I just don't think free will is a good example of an empirically manifest truth, there's too much grey area to consider it one - I don't think it's that apparent.

And the last thing was just another example of an instance where empircal evidence is reliable. The empirical evidence is 'it's hotter when the sun is out' - that information was clearly reliable way before we ever conceived of temperature scales.