God and Free Will - Page 6

luckyme · #51 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. · #52 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 · #53 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 · #54 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 · #55 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 · #56 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 · #57 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 · #58 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 · #59 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 · #60 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.