NationStates Jolt Archive

There has been, is, and always will be a lot of disagreement and argument about the existence of God, gods, or the divine. I enjoy reading everyone's opinions about this issue, whether or not I agree with them. Since so many people have given this question thought over the course of history, are there any famous arguments for/against God that you like, or find particularly interesting or persuasive?

I’m thinking of philosophical ones here, like Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God versus Bertrand Russell’s rejection of such proofs, or Hume’s arguments for why it’s illogical to believe in God versus Pascal’s wager. It’s not that I don’t want to here your personal opinion, I just think there have been quite a number of threads were people post their personal opinions. I’m looking for the classical arguments here, because I find those very interesting.

I've always liked the classic, "Just because."

There has been, is, and always will be a lot of disagreement and argument about the existence of God, gods, or the divine. I enjoy reading everyone's opinions about this issue, whether or not I agree with them. Since so many people have given this question thought over the course of history, are there any famous arguments for/against God that you like, or find particularly interesting or persuasive?

What it boils down to for me is very simple. The total lack of any objective evidence of the existence of anything fitting the description of "God".

All the philosophical arguments for the existence of God are just a lot of mental thumb twiddling if that fundamental shortcoming is never addressed.

I like pascal's wager to some extent. That is only because my spirituallity is flawed and I hope that by serving God I can become a better person/believer and maybe even get a little earthly paradise(I do not want much, I would like to be guided to a plain and good life, where I feel devotion to my lord and feel good about my path). I know the flaw with pascal's wager and I know that it would not save me from hell, I simply hope that with time I can find my place in this world and hopefully become worthy of the next. :)

One is that the universe is too complicated to have been created by solely natural actions.

Pascal's wager (which is an argument in favor of believing in God, which I guess is slightly different): If you're right, and God exists, you're in luck. But if you're wrong, and God doesn't exist, it doesn't make much of a difference.

One is that the universe is too complicated to have been created by solely natural actions.

Even if that was the case (a point I think would be difficult to establish) that obviously means we have to assume that a mystical uber-intelligence magicked it into existence with its awesome but mysterious powers? This somehow solves the problem you've just claimed existed?

Pascal's wager (which is an argument in favor of believing in God, which I guess is slightly different): If you're right, and God exists, you're in luck. But if you're wrong, and God doesn't exist, it doesn't make much of a difference.

And your odds of picking the correct god out of the many thousands that humanity has dreamed up over the centuries are... well, approaching zero... and many of them have been described as being particularly nasty to people who worship gods other than themselves so by making a choice and getting it wrong you're running a significant risk of just really ticking off the real god... and then there's the idea that the real god, whoever it is, probably isn't a moron and will know if you're choosing him(her/it/whatever...) because you sincerely believe in him or just because you think it's the best way to cover your own ass...

Pascal's wager is one of the worst arguments for believing in God out there.

Pascal's wager is one of the worst arguments for believing in God out there.

Still, it is an interesting one.

Plus, I found an amusing story based around the wager here (http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/stories/pascals_wagering.php)

And I understand that it's not really about God's existance, it's about what to believe. Same as Hume's, or at least the one of Hume's that I'm thinking of. But hey, it's all good.

One is that the universe is too complicated to have been created by solely natural actions.


So God is extremely simple, since he was not created by anyone or anything?

Plus, I found an amusing story based around the wager here (http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/stories/pascals_wagering.php)
That was funny.

I rather like this page:
http://www.jhuger.com/pascal.php

Even if that was the case (a point I think would be difficult to establish) that obviously means we have to assume that a mystical uber-intelligence magicked it into existence with its awesome but mysterious powers? This somehow solves the problem you've just claimed existed?
A) I'm explaining the arguments of others. I don't think religion is something that can be explained logically. So forgive me if I sound slightly academic or disinterested.

B) We would have to assume that some being we can't conceive of created said life. What makeup that being has would not be known. But it would indeed prove that there was some force beyond human explanation at work.

C) I personally think that evolutionary theory can explain all of what goes on in complex biological systems, which is my problem with this argument.

And your odds of picking the correct god out of the many thousands that humanity has dreamed up over the centuries are... well, approaching zero... and many of them have been described as being particularly nasty to people who worship gods other than themselves so by making a choice and getting it wrong you're running a significant risk of just really ticking off the real god... and then there's the idea that the real god, whoever it is, probably isn't a moron and will know if you're choosing him(her/it/whatever...) because you sincerely believe in him or just because you think it's the best way to cover your own ass...

Pascal's wager is one of the worst arguments for believing in God out there.
Your arguments are objectively true. The wager, however, was something that called to be brought to attention on this thread.

Another such argument is that every event needs to be caused by something. Therefore, only a being that breaks all natural laws can have started the chain of events that created the universe as we know it.

That was funny.
I rather like this page:
http://www.jhuger.com/pascal.php

The Wager is really useless. I mean, I believe in God and consider it illogical bullshit.

Another such argument is that every event needs to be caused by something. Therefore, only a being that breaks all natural laws can have started the chain of events that created the universe as we know it.

A classic :D one put forwad by (among others) Aquinas, and Descartes used a similar idea in his proof for God. But then came Hume, who questioned this principle. How do we know that our standard conception of causality is true?

There has been, is, and always will be a lot of disagreement and argument about the existence of God, gods, or the divine. I enjoy reading everyone's opinions about this issue, whether or not I agree with them. Since so many people have given this question thought over the course of history, are there any famous arguments for/against God that you like, or find particularly interesting or persuasive?

I’m thinking of philosophical ones here, like Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God versus Bertrand Russell’s rejection of such proofs, or Hume’s arguments for why it’s illogical to believe in God versus Pascal’s wager. It’s not that I don’t want to here your personal opinion, I just think there have been quite a number of threads were people post their personal opinions. I’m looking for the classical arguments here, because I find those very interesting.

Kant's Moral Argument for the existence of God is probably the best and most formidable argument, although I'm still working on an ironclad reductio to confirm it.

1) There exists an objective and perfect moral law.
2) An objective and perfect moral law requires a mind to conceive it.
3) Only a perfectly wise and benevolent mind could conceive of an objective and perfect moral law.
4) Only God is a perfectly wise and benevolent mind.
5) God exists.

The reductio I've been working on is to confirm the first assertion. I haven't worked out all the kinks yet.

A classic :D one put forwad by (among others) Aquinas, and Descartes used a similar idea in his proof for God. But then came Hume, who questioned this principle. How do we know that our standard conception of causality is true?
I mean, we don't know anything for sure. But that axe cuts both ways. If our standard conception of causality is false, then how do we know that natural selection resulted in the evolution of new species? Or that pushing this set of buttons on my computer produced this sentence? If causality is false, than all of humanity's knowledge of the world around it is false. As that's the case, we have to assume that it's true, given that all observable evidence supports it (in that case, evolution is also presumed true. So a strict Biblicial constructionist probably wouldn't use that argument). So I suppose that could be the more modern answer to Hume.

The Wager is really useless. I mean, I believe in God and consider it illogical bullshit.

Amen brotha

Kant's Moral Argument for the existence of God is probably the best and most formidable argument, although I'm still working on an ironclad reductio to confirm it.

1) There exists an objective and perfect moral law.
2) An objective and perfect moral law requires a mind to conceive it.
3) Only a perfectly wise and benevolent mind could conceive of an objective and perfect moral law.
4) Only God is a perfectly wise and benevolent mind.
5) God exists.

The reductio I've been working on is to confirm the first assertion. I haven't worked out all the kinks yet.

Interesting, if you can prove the first premise.
Also, bears a little resemblence to Descartes. He argued that if I have an idea of a perfect being in my head, it had to come from a perfect being in reality (it's a little more complicated than that, but that's the jist of it).
I think the two are similar because of premise 3 and on of this arguement. That something "perfect" must come from a perfect source seems to imply the existance of a perfect being is the commone thread. Still, if you can't answer Hume's question about how we know every effect has a cause, then that idea (premise 2 of Kant's) seems irrelevant.

The reductio I've been working on is to confirm the first assertion.

That would present a bit of a problem, wouldn't it.

I haven't worked out all the kinks yet.

Seeing as the kink in question here requires you to demonstrate the existence of something which every observation seems to rather strongly indicate does not exist, good luck in your efforts...

1) There exists an objective and perfect moral law.
2) An objective and perfect moral law requires a mind to conceive it.
3) Only a perfectly wise and benevolent mind could conceive of an objective and perfect moral law.
4) Only God is a perfectly wise and benevolent mind.
5) God exists.

The reductio I've been working on is to confirm the first assertion. I haven't worked out all the kinks yet.
The problem with this argument, in my mind, lies in 2 and 3. The objective and perfect moral law may exist, but no one may know what it does. It doesn't have to be known in order to be true. Before anyone knew about the planet Mars, it existed. Human minds don't conceive things into existance; they only explain them to themselves and others. So this moral law may exist, but people may never find out about it.

Further, you don't have to be a perfect person in order to come up with an ironclad idea. You don't even have to follow your own perfect moral law to come up with it.

I mean, we don't know anything for sure. But that axe cuts both ways. If our standard conception of causality is false, then how do we know that natural selection resulted in the evolution of new species? Or that pushing this set of buttons on my computer produced this sentence? If causality is false, than all of humanity's knowledge of the world around it is false. As that's the case, we have to assume that it's true, given that all observable evidence supports it (in that case, evolution is also presumed true. So a strict Biblicial constructionist probably wouldn't use that argument). So I suppose that could be the more modern answer to Hume.

Based on what I've read of his, I think Hume would agree that it's logical to believe in causality, but, again, it's not certain. That would leave us (or me, at least) as agnostics, even if we lean one way.
And as for nothing being certain, I think "cogito, ergo sum" is the one truth that we can know for certain. But after that, Descarte kinda stopped making sense me :p

Interesting, if you can prove the first premise.
Also, bears a little resemblence to Descartes. He argued that if I have an idea of a perfect being in my head, it had to come from a perfect being in reality (it's a little more complicated than that, but that's the jist of it).
I think the two are similar because of premise 3 and on of this arguement. That something "perfect" must come from a perfect source seems to imply the existance of a perfect being is the commone thread. Still, if you can't answer Hume's question about how we know every effect has a cause, then that idea (premise 2 of Kant's) seems irrelevant.

Actually, it was Kant who debunked Anselm and Cartesian Ontological Arguments for the Existence of God. His argument was that that both Anselm and Descartes used "existence" as a predicate when it cannot be used that way (i.e. the assertion "To exist is more perfect than not to exist"), because unlike every other predicate, saying something exists adds no new information to the original subject. The truth conditions of "A dog is brown", and "A brown dog exists" are no different.

I'd need to read back up on it before I could make it more clear than that, as it's been a long time since I covered the various Arguments, but that is the primary reason why people don't accept the Ontological Argument.

Seeing as the kink in question here requires you to demonstrate the existence of something which every observation seems to rather strongly indicate does not exist, good luck in your efforts...

Not really. The reductio in question is more an argument proving that moral relativism is logically inchorent, because it requires the existence of a moral absolute in order to be considered true. While there are some problems with this, the reductio itself is pretty concrete. Moreover, I don't think that empirical evidence provides nearly the level of criticism of the idea of moral absolutism that you think it does. For one thing, even supposing that there was no one law that people have ever at all times unconditionally obeyed, that says only that people haven't obeyed a categorical imperative, not that they shouldn't, or that one doesn't exist. For another, you would be hard-pressed to find civilizations that didn't have some fundamental moral similarities with every other civilization; you would be highly unlikely to find a civilization that considered fleeing wildly from battle to be the pinnacle of moral excellence, for instance, because those civilizations would cease to exist in short order.

The real problem is one of moral essentialism. Wittgenstein's Tractatus is a big rambling work with seemingly no point, but it does have a really important argument within it. In that work, Wittgenstein tries to determine what one central element is shared by all things that fall under the name of "game", and ultimately, he can't find it. There are lots of things we call "games" that when taken as a whole, don't seem to share any common characteristics. There are some games that aren't fun, just as there are some that aren't played on a board, or with a ball, or for a prize, or any other common trait that defines and seperates them from non-games. So Wittgenstein hypothesizes that maybe "games" are really a family relationship, or that there are a cluster of related concepts that serve as the definition of game. The question I have is whether or not it's possible that the term "morality" has the same problem as "game", and I can't figure out how to get around it or dismiss that concern. Intuitively, I'm strongly convinced that there is one universal "good" in the world, but intuition counts for only so much.


The problem with this argument, in my mind, lies in 2 and 3. The objective and perfect moral law may exist, but no one may know what it does. It doesn't have to be known in order to be true. Before anyone knew about the planet Mars, it existed. Human minds don't conceive things into existance; they only explain them to themselves and others. So this moral law may exist, but people may never find out about it.

Further, you don't have to be a perfect person in order to come up with an ironclad idea. You don't even have to follow your own perfect moral law to come up with it.

Those I'm not so worried about, primarily because moral laws don't seem to follow the same kind of happenchance possibility that physical laws do. What I mean by this is that it may have been certainly possible that a universe was created where the force of an object did not equal the mass of that object multiplied by the acceleration of that object. It intuitively doesn't seem as possible, however, that the universe could just by random chance be created where murder is moral. Something seems to make murder immoral no matter what possible universe you talk about. That something seems to be that murder is wrong because reason, no matter what universe you are in, defines murder as wrong. That just brings us back to the notion of a perfect reasoner.

That probably isn't a very good way to define my argument; it's the best I could do on short notice. I'll try to better articulate my argument for you later, if you want.

This is the best I can do about arguements in relation to a god's or gods' existance.

By pure definition, gods generally exceed constraints of the human mind and the physical universe. This means logic, since logic is a purely human construct, does not apply to any god or gods that might exist. This means it is purely possible for a god, in its infinite power, to not exist even if logic demands it should, simply because logic does not apply to an omnipotent being.

You see, gods, as they are usually defined, are just so far beyond human comprehension that, in the end, it requires the abandonment of logic to honestly say one exists. Is this a necessarily bad thing? Of course not. We may view nihilists or their ilk as crazy for claiming they don't exist and nothing else does, but are they wrong? Perhaps not.

Logic is an unsubstantiated branch of philosophy because it is impossible to substantiate it. There is no solid base in philosophy from which to build arguements. Logical thought is axiomatic. Gods are also axiomatic, not a subsidiary of logic.

No one seems to be listing the classic arguments on the other side, so I will:

1. Occam's Razor (simple solutions are usually right, God is more complex than no God)
2. Babelfish (God won't prove his own existence, the babelfish is to weird to have evolved, thus it is proof and God vanishes in a puff of logic)
3. Existence of Suffering (God is good, yet even if you account for him allowing free will there are disasters people are unable to prevent)
4. My Favorite (Not a classic, but fun. The basic idea is that a being with free will would try its utmost to fullfill its desires and gain happiness, and a God could do this by defining itself so, thus eliminating the need to do anything else)

This is the best I can do about arguements in relation to a god's or gods' existance.

By pure definition, gods generally exceed constraints of the human mind and the physical universe. This means logic, since logic is a purely human construct, does not apply to any god or gods that might exist. This means it is purely possible for a god, in its infinite power, to not exist even if logic demands it should, simply because logic does not apply to an omnipotent being.

You see, gods, as they are usually defined, are just so far beyond human comprehension that, in the end, it requires the abandonment of logic to honestly say one exists. Is this a necessarily bad thing? Of course not. We may view nihilists or their ilk as crazy for claiming they don't exist and nothing else does, but are they wrong? Perhaps not.

Logic is an unsubstantiated branch of philosophy because it is impossible to substantiate it. There is no solid base in philosophy from which to build arguements. Logical thought is axiomatic. Gods are also axiomatic, not a subsidiary of logic.


Problem is that the only way Gods have been described, etc., is through things that can be logically defined. If a being is all-powerful, all-knowing, etc., there is no room for extra quirks that we wouldn't be able to understand. To give an analogy: it is very hard to calcualte 357687438906 times 238728065093868, but it is easy to calculate infinity times infinity. While very big things can be very complex, an infinite being must be very simple.

So Gods are relatively easy to understand through logic.

Problem is that the only way Gods have been described, etc., is through things that can be logically defined. If a being is all-powerful, all-knowing, etc., there is no room for extra quirks that we wouldn't be able to understand. To give an analogy: it is very hard to calcualte 357687438906 times 238728065093868, but it is easy to calculate infinity times infinity. While very big things can be very complex, an infinite being must be very simple.

So Gods are relatively easy to understand through logic.

I was just trying to demonstrate that gods and logic don't mix because they are both equal in philosophical importance. Indeed, one could say that gods are a rejection of logic and logic is a rejection of all possible gods. They're two seperate entities that don't intermix without creating contradictions amongst themselves.

snip
The real problem is one of moral essentialism. Wittgenstein's Tractatus is a big rambling work with seemingly no point, but it does have a really important argument within it. In that work, Wittgenstein tries to determine what one central element is shared by all things that fall under the name of "game", and ultimately, he can't find it. There are lots of things we call "games" that when taken as a whole, don't seem to share any common characteristics. There are some games that aren't fun, just as there are some that aren't played on a board, or with a ball, or for a prize, or any other common trait that defines and seperates them from non-games. So Wittgenstein hypothesizes that maybe "games" are really a family relationship, or that there are a cluster of related concepts that serve as the definition of game. The question I have is whether or not it's possible that the term "morality" has the same problem as "game", and I can't figure out how to get around it or dismiss that concern. Intuitively, I'm strongly convinced that there is one universal "good" in the world, but intuition counts for only so much.

That probably isn't a very good way to define my argument; it's the best I could do on short notice. I'll try to better articulate my argument for you later, if you want.

We could play a little Socrates here, you give us a definition of "moral" and we try to find the flaws in it.


4. My Favorite (Not a classic, but fun. The basic idea is that a being with free will would try its utmost to fullfill its desires and gain happiness, and a God could do this by defining itself so, thus eliminating the need to do anything else)


I disagree on the grounds that this denies that a being with free will would try to live a moral life at the expense of its own plearusre. I have free will (one could contend), yet I am a vegetarian despite the fact that I love the taste of meat. I simply find it immoral.

Kant's Moral Argument for the existence of God is probably the best and most formidable argument, although I'm still working on an ironclad reductio to confirm it.

1) There exists an objective and perfect moral law.
2) An objective and perfect moral law requires a mind to conceive it.
3) Only a perfectly wise and benevolent mind could conceive of an objective and perfect moral law.
4) Only God is a perfectly wise and benevolent mind.
5) God exists.

The reductio I've been working on is to confirm the first assertion. I haven't worked out all the kinks yet.

how can this be true when god doesnt follow his own perfect moral laws? so he thought them up but isnt bound by them?

Kant's Moral Argument for the existence of God is probably the best and most formidable argument, although I'm still working on an ironclad reductio to confirm it.

1) There exists an objective and perfect moral law.
2) An objective and perfect moral law requires a mind to conceive it.
3) Only a perfectly wise and benevolent mind could conceive of an objective and perfect moral law.
4) Only God is a perfectly wise and benevolent mind.
5) God exists.

The reductio I've been working on is to confirm the first assertion. I haven't worked out all the kinks yet.
besides which, what made kant think that there IS an objective and perfect moral law? what law is THAT? seems to me that we have the concept that such a law COULD exist but we have no knowlege of it actually existing.

how can this be true when god doesnt follow his own perfect moral laws? so he thought them up but isnt bound by them?

When hasn't God followed his own laws? I'm simply asking for purposes of the proof.

how can this be true when god doesnt follow his own perfect moral laws? so he thought them up but isnt bound by them?

It's always seemed to me (at least concerning the Christian descriptions of God) that tacked right on the end of God's perfect moral laws is, in fine print, the statement:

Celestial Legal Department
Anything and Everything that God does, regardless of what that may be, is by definition Perfectly Moral by virtue of the fact that God is the one doing it, and regardless of any apparent conflict with any of the other aforementioned Perfect Moral Laws.

2. Babelfish (God won't prove his own existence, the babelfish is to weird to have evolved, thus it is proof and God vanishes in a puff of logic)

The babelfish? Douglas Adams... honestly.

It's always seemed to me (at least concerning the Christian descriptions of God) that tacked right on the end of God's perfect moral laws is, in fine print, the statement:

Celestial legal department, lol.
But even though I don’t believe in the Christian God it is very hard to concretely prove he doesn’t follow a moral law, because the Christian God (as I understand his definition) is omniscience. You think it’s wrong he killed Bob? What you didn’t know was that Bob was going to create a doomsday device that would have destroyed the entire planet on it. By killing him, God was performing an act of infinite charity to the rest of the population and potential population of the Earth.

I disagree on the grounds that this denies that a being with free will would try to live a moral life at the expense of its own plearusre. I have free will (one could contend), yet I am a vegetarian despite the fact that I love the taste of meat. I simply find it immoral.
Ah, but would one not say you avoid eating meat because you think it's immoral and if you did eat it you'd feel guilty. So, you're just trying to avoid that guilt and your behaviour is either evidence that you're selfish (by doing something that makes you feel good and probably even morally superior to others) or weak (because you can't overcome a little guilt to do what makes you happy). God would suffer from neither of these problems because, simply speaking, it can define itself as not being guilty and, if guilty, is omnipotent and ergo could overcome that guilt easily.

how can this be true when god doesnt follow his own perfect moral laws? so he thought them up but isnt bound by them?

He does. Kant would probably say that much of what is attributed to him in the Bible is just wrong. If you really pressed him, he'd probably argue that God is certainly omni-benevolent, but might not be omnipotent. In other words, he might be all-good but not all-powerful.


besides which, what made kant think that there IS an objective and perfect moral law? what law is THAT? seems to me that we have the concept that such a law COULD exist but we have no knowlege of it actually existing.

Well, there's the fact that he came up with the three Categorical Imperatives:

1) Act only in such a way as you could have made into Universal Law.
2) Always treat other rational creatures as ends in themselves, and never as a means to an end.
3) Always act in such a way as would be a law in the Kingdom of Ends.

He came up with these rules as a result of realizing one of the few truths in philosophy that approach Descartes' Cogito for unfalsifiability: The only truly good thing in the universe is a good will. These rules are ways of determining whether or not your will is good; if your will can fit within these Categorical Imperatives, then it is good. If not, then it might be a good will, but only incidentally so.

Celestial legal department, lol.
But even though I don’t believe in the Christian God it is very hard to concretely prove he doesn’t follow a moral law, because the Christian God (as I understand his definition) is omniscience. You think it’s wrong he killed Bob? What you didn’t know was that Bob was going to create a doomsday device that would have destroyed the entire planet on it. By killing him, God was performing an act of infinite charity to the rest of the population and potential population of the Earth.

Of course if he killed Bob as a child rather than after Bob had already decided to go through with this action (and a lot of children have been snuffed by God according to a certain Holy text) you'd be kind of tossing the whole idea of free will right out the window with this line of argument.

We could play a little Socrates here, you give us a definition of "moral" and we try to find the flaws in it.

I disagree on the grounds that this denies that a being with free will would try to live a moral life at the expense of its own plearusre. I have free will (one could contend), yet I am a vegetarian despite the fact that I love the taste of meat. I simply find it immoral.
Yes, a little Socrates could would be fun.

I think the second half of your post is an oxymoron. Or at least you haven't defined what pleasure is.
I don't eat meat either. Yet, fairly recently, I was tempted to do it for practical reasons. I, like you, have chosen my diet for moral reasons, but my motivation have nothing to do with me thinking meat eating is wrong. If our industry and food distribution was different, I would most likely eat meat.
Yet, recently I found myself unable to eat meat. The thought of chewing on meat almost made me vomit on the spot. It was very suprising and I can't say I understand why I suddenly feel that way. I ate meat with great delight as a kid after all...

So what exactly is pleasure? Would meat eating bring you more pleasure than peice of mind does?
I very much doubt that's the case. And I doubt it because I think you would eat meat if you truely derived pleasure from doing it. Why else do we humans even have the concept of a guilty conscience?

Ah, but would one not say you avoid eating meat because you think it's immoral and if you did eat it you'd feel guilty. So, you're just trying to avoid that guilt and your behaviour is either evidence that you're selfish (by doing something that makes you feel good and probably even morally superior to others) or weak (because you can't overcome a little guilt to do what makes you happy). God would suffer from neither of these problems because, simply speaking, it can define itself as not being guilty and, if guilty, is omnipotent and ergo could overcome that guilt easily.

One could say that, but at the surface level it is not true. I consciously think that I act in order to prevent suffering to others. There is a difference between not doing something because it is wrong (moral), and not doing something because it makes you feel as if you were doing something wrong (guilt).
Perhaps I have a subconscious desire to avoid guilt and thus I consciously have to come up with a justification. But I can’t psychoanalyze myself, and thus have to go with the surface thinking behind my actions.

Yes, a little Socrates could would be fun.

I think the second half of your post is an oxymoron. Or at least you haven't defined what pleasure is.
I don't eat meat either. Yet, fairly recently, I was tempted to do it for practical reasons. I, like you, have chosen my diet for moral reasons, but my motivation have nothing to do with me thinking meat eating is wrong. If our industry and food distribution was different, I would most likely eat meat.
Yet, recently I found myself unable to eat meat. The thought of chewing on meat almost made me vomit on the spot. It was very suprising and I can't say I understand why I suddenly feel that way. I ate meat with great delight as a kid after all...

So what exactly is pleasure? Would meat eating bring you more pleasure than peice of mind does?
I very much doubt that's the case. And I doubt it because I think you would eat meat if you truely derived pleasure from doing it. Why else do we humans even have the concept of a guilty conscience?

I guess what I meant from pleasure was the corporeal enjoyment I felt whenever I ate meat. This enjoyment came from the taste of meat (if cooked right).
For the sake of simplicity, let’s call something like the positive feeling I get from eating meat “pleasure” and the positive feeling induced by acting morally as “contentment.” I understand that these are not precise or accurate definitions, I just think it would make conversation easier.
My argument was that the pleasure I garnered by not eating meat was outweighed by the loss of pleasure on the part of the animals. Contentment never entered my mind. I was willing to lose some pleasure so that others wouldn’t. That is what I meant.

He does. Kant would probably say that much of what is attributed to him in the Bible is just wrong. If you really pressed him, he'd probably argue that God is certainly omni-benevolent, but might not be omnipotent. In other words, he might be all-good but not all-powerful.



Well, there's the fact that he came up with the three Categorical Imperatives:

1) Act only in such a way as you could have made into Universal Law.
2) Always treat other rational creatures as ends in themselves, and never as a means to an end.
3) Always act in such a way as would be a law in the Kingdom of Ends.

He came up with these rules as a result of realizing one of the few truths in philosophy that approach Descartes' Cogito for unfalsifiability: The only truly good thing in the universe is a good will. These rules are ways of determining whether or not your will is good; if your will can fit within these Categorical Imperatives, then it is good. If not, then it might be a good will, but only incidentally so.
i know i shouldnt be messing with kant. he is smarter than i am. and i dont have much of a clue what those 3 things mean

but THIS is why i suggested that god doesnt follow his own laws..

miracles

they are in direct violation of the rules of the universe and he hands them out to those who are "unworthy" while ignoring the prayers of those who are blameless.

plus little things like killing everyone on earth besides noah (and regretting it afterwards) and sending bears to kill children who mocked his prophet.

lemme think about the 3 things for a while. ill see if i can understand them well enough to see if i agree with him or not.

Of course if he killed Bob as a child rather than after Bob had already decided to go through with this action (and a lot of children have been snuffed by God according to a certain Holy text) you'd be kind of tossing the whole idea of free will right out the window with this line of argument.

I feel that free will goes out the window with any divine intervention. The economic and family situation you are born in will affect you the rest of your life, and you hardly have a choice in that. If there is a free will, it is to carry out our actions within the framework in which God has placed us. Besides which, who says we have free will?

Celestial legal department, lol.
But even though I don’t believe in the Christian God it is very hard to concretely prove he doesn’t follow a moral law, because the Christian God (as I understand his definition) is omniscience. You think it’s wrong he killed Bob? What you didn’t know was that Bob was going to create a doomsday device that would have destroyed the entire planet on it. By killing him, God was performing an act of infinite charity to the rest of the population and potential population of the Earth.

Interesting but in order for this to be true I think there are two things that need to be established in order for this simulation to work. The first being would your god use people as "tools" in order to further his own means. And two if there is any other way to act in that situation that would bring a positive outcome other then the one you listed for example instead of killing bob God has a follower of his faith convert him and because of this he doesnt build the machine.

Interesting but in order for this to be true I think there are two things that need to be established in order for this simulation to work. The first being would your god use people as "tools" in order to further his own means. And two if there is any other way to act in that situation that would bring a positive outcome other then the one you listed for example instead of killing bob God has a follower of his faith convert him and because of this he doesnt build the machine.

To the first, I would reply that it is only in God’s interests as creating people was in God’s interests in the first place; by preventing the creation of a doomsday device, God would only be continuing that end, and we’d be into an interesting buy highly tangential discussion about why God created humans in the first place.
To the second, well, you might have got me there. The only thing that comes to mind is that by killing him, God is choosing a path for the fewest people. If he send someone to change Bob’s mind, he would be robbing two people of their free will (Bob and the guy sent to change his mind rather than just Bob).
Does this contradict my earlier assertion about free will? Probably. I don’t really have an opinion about free will. That means I get to use it however I fell best suits my argument.

To the first, I would reply that it is only in God’s interests as creating people was in God’s interests in the first place; by preventing the creation of a doomsday device, God would only be continuing that end, and we’d be into an interesting buy highly tangential discussion about why God created humans in the first place
I agree with that statement. But if god is omniscient and knew the guy was going to do that then why bother creating him? Why not just either stop his creation or make him good? I mean if we have free will then we can choose to reject god and by doing that act in a way contrary to god's interests. So if Bob freely chose to make said doomsday machine then by creating him god did something that was against his own interests. But the first premise I presented really isnt in line with the situation you had in mind. It is more meant for the people who say it was all part of god's greater plan when say a friend dies in a car accident

To the second, well, you might have got me there. The only thing that comes to mind is that by killing him, God is choosing a path for the fewest people. If he send someone to change Bob’s mind, he would be robbing two people of their free will (Bob and the guy sent to change his mind rather than just Bob.
But then again your statement there seems contradictory. How can god choose a path for people if they have free will?

Does this contradict my earlier assertion about free will? Probably. I don’t really have an opinion about free will. That means I get to use it however I fell best suits my argument.
But what happens when I use free will to best suit my arguement? We come to an impass because we both can assert that it suits our arguement best. I dont think if anything you should assume that something best suits your arguement unless it really does or else your going to run into problems when people contradict you.

I agree with that statement. But if god is omniscient and knew the guy was going to do that then why bother creating him? Why not just either stop his creation or make him good? I mean if we have free will then we can choose to reject god and by doing that act in a way contrary to god's interests. So if Bob freely chose to make said doomsday machine then by creating him god did something that was against his own interests. But the first premise I presented really isnt in line with the situation you had in mind. It is more meant for the people who say it was all part of god's greater plan when say a friend dies in a car accident


This brings up the concept of determinism. Unless one's life is already determined, how could God know that Bob was going to build the doomsday machine ahead of the act in order to stop him? And if human life is predetermined as such intervention would require, then how can humans have free will? Without free will, all action comes from God and so God would be guilty of all human crimes, and so contradict himself.

However, if humans do have free will, then God would have created him without the prior knowledge of the act in question, and so could not intervene by not creating him; but if God doesn't know that this event would happen, then he cannot be omniscent.

This is really raising some serious contradictions. Sorry if this post seems somewhat confusing.

I agree with that statement. But if god is omniscient and knew the guy was going to do that then why bother creating him? Why not just either stop his creation or make him good? I mean if we have free will then we can choose to reject god and by doing that act in a way contrary to god's interests. So if Bob freely chose to make said doomsday machine then by creating him god did something that was against his own interests. But the first premise I presented really isnt in line with the situation you had in mind. It is more meant for the people who say it was all part of god's greater plan when say a friend dies in a car accident


But then again your statement there seems contradictory. How can god choose a path for people if they have free will?


But what happens when I use free will to best suit my arguement? We come to an impass because we both can assert that it suits our arguement best. I dont think if anything you should assume that something best suits your arguement unless it really does or else your going to run into problems when people contradict you.

(Just to let you know I’m pulling at straws here, just trying to come up with something for the sake of continuing the conversation.)
I could say that perhaps Bob served a purpose before he was killed. Maybe he did some good charity work, or maybe something about the way he lived his life that inspired someone else to do some.
As for the free will, I wasn’t seriously saying that I could mold the argument my way based on a different assumption of free will. I was saying that so long as I don’t understand the exact nature of free will, then I could bring it up whenever there was a possibility of it applying.

This brings up the concept of determinism. Unless one's life is already determined, how could God know that Bob was going to build the doomsday machine ahead of the act in order to stop him? And if human life is predetermined as such intervention would require, then how can humans have free will? Without free will, all action comes from God and so God would be guilty of all human crimes, and so contradict himself.

However, if humans do have free will, then God would have created him without the prior knowledge of the act in question, and so could not intervene by not creating him; but if God doesn't know that this event would happen, then he cannot be omniscent.

This is really raising some serious contradictions. Sorry if this post seems somewhat confusing.

An old saying goes “All is foreseen, yet free will is granted.” What does that mean? It means that we each walk down the path of our own lives, as we choose. God is above us all, observing, seeing where the path will eventually lead us even if we are the ones who decide where we go, not God.
Just a thought; I still am undecided on free will.

(Just to let you know I’m pulling at straws here, just trying to come up with something for the sake of continuing the conversation.)
I could say that perhaps Bob served a purpose before he was killed. Maybe he did some good charity work, or maybe something about the way he lived his life that inspired someone else to do some.
Yep those there are some mighty fine straws :rolleyes: If he lived a good life why would he suddenly build a doomsday device???? Now your heading for the fantastical here man. It really boils down just to could God have avoided the situation in a different matter with the same or better outcome. In this case he could so according to the concept of god(theist or christian) God could not kill bob or even have the death of bob be part of his plan

As for the free will, I wasn’t seriously saying that I could mold the argument my way based on a different assumption of free will. I was saying that so long as I don’t understand the exact nature of free will, then I could bring it up whenever there was a possibility of it applying.
Whats not to understand the exact nature of free will. Either your capable of making a choice or things are predetermined. Ignorance is not a defense man.

Edit:

An old saying goes “All is foreseen, yet free will is granted.” What does that mean? It means that we each walk down the path of our own lives, as we choose. God is above us all, observing, seeing where the path will eventually lead us even if we are the ones who decide where we go, not God.
Just a thought; I still am undecided on free will.

But if God can see those paths beforehand then is there really a choice? Thats saying God knew that you were going to buy the pepsi before you did it but you chose to buy the pepsi and that doesnt really work.

Yep those there are some mighty fine straws :rolleyes: If he lived a good life why would he suddenly build a doomsday device???? Now your heading for the fantastical here man. It really boils down just to could God have avoided the situation in a different matter with the same or better outcome. In this case he could so according to the concept of god(theist or christian) he would not kill bob.


Whats not to understand the exact nature of free will. Either your capable of making a choice or things are predetermined. Ignorance is not a defense man.

I didn’t mean I was unclear on the concept, I was unclear whether or not we have it; that’s what I meant by the nature of it.
And would you admit that whether or not we have free will plays a large role in our discussion of God, especially in the context of whether or not God is violating anyone’s free will?

I didn’t mean I was unclear on the concept, I was unclear whether or not we have it; that’s what I meant by the nature of it.
And would you admit that whether or not we have free will plays a large role in our discussion of God, especially in the context of whether or not God is violating anyone’s free will?

I would definatly say that free will plays a large part in the arguements dealing with god. Free will comes up in the arguements about god and evil, the existance of hell, and god's omniscence. And those are just a few of the actual arguements. And its an issue that can be incredibly complex or as simple as wheter or not you want a coke or pepsi. I think its one of the more interesting aspects of debating wheter or not god exists.

I didn’t mean I was unclear on the concept, I was unclear whether or not we have it; that’s what I meant by the nature of it.
And would you admit that whether or not we have free will plays a large role in our discussion of God, especially in the context of whether or not God is violating anyone’s free will?

God can't violate free will, because by doing so it would not be free will anymore; the action would violate free will, causing God to violate his own law. By giving man free will, God must remove himself from our decisionmaking.

But if God can see those paths beforehand then is there really a choice? Thats saying God knew that you were going to buy the pepsi before you did it but you chose to buy the pepsi and that doesnt really work.

What I was saying was that you chose it, God simply knows before you chose it that you will whose it.
Now, does that mean you couldn’t have chosen it another way? Not according to this argument. Your choosing is not predicated on God’s knowing; in fact, the other way around. That you will chose it causes God to know it.
I like to think in terms of the Tralfamadorians from Slaughter House Five. They can see the future, but that doesn’t mean that they are controlling it.
And yes, I find it a fascinating topic.

God can't violate free will, because by doing so it would not be free will anymore; the action would violate free will, causing God to violate his own law. By giving man free will, God must remove himself from our decisionmaking.

Well, how could God remove himself from the decision making process when every action you take is determined to some extent by how you were brought up, which is determined by how the people who brought you up were brought up, etc, back to how God dealt with the first creatures, be they Adam and Eve or some bacteria that only exists because God created a world with a certain amount of food and other recourses? Free will, if it exists, would only be able to exist in the framework in which God has provided.

Edit: sorry if that was poorly worded/ a runon sentence.

What I was saying was that you chose it, God simply knows before you chose it that you will chose it.
But if god knows before hand that means the future is already set. If the path I walk down is already known then I cant really have a choice because my decisions are already set down in stone.

Now, does that mean you couldn’t have chosen it another way? Not according to this argument. Your choosing is not predicated on God’s knowing; in fact, the other way around.
You just contradicted yourself. At first you say that god knows before you chose it and then you say that god doesnt know before you chose it. Make up your mind.
That you will chose it causes God to know it.
Then god cant have knowledge of what is going to happen before hand.

I like to think in terms of the Tralfamadorians from Slaughter House Five. They can see the future, but that doesn’t mean that they are controlling it.
And yes, I find it a fascinating topic.
I havent read that book so your reference just flew over my head faster then a boeing 747

Well, how could God remove himself from the decision making process when every action you take is determined to some extent by how you were brought up, which is determined by how the people who brought you up were brought up, etc, back to how God dealt with the first creatures, be they Adam and Eve or some bacteria that only exists because God created a world with a certain amount of food and other recourses. Free will, if it exists, would only be able to exist in the framework in which God has provided

Then it wouldn't be free will, because free will is defined as all aspects of the decision process coming from ourselves; therefore, it seems that God contradicted himself in granting us free will because these parameters that inhibit free will are allowed to exist.

It seems like free will is only possible in a Utopian existence like the Garden of Eden; and like More's Utopia, this is nowhere, an impossibility.

But if god knows before hand that means the future is already set. If the path I walk down is already known then I cant really have a choice because my decisions are already set down in stone.


You just contradicted yourself. At first you say that god knows before you chose it and then you say that god doesnt know before you chose it. Make up your mind.

Then god cant have knowledge of what is going to happen before hand.


I havent read that book so your reference just flew over my head faster then a boeing 747

I guess you needed the reference to get my point. Tralfamadorians are aliens that are not bound by time. They see all time at once: past, present and future have no meaning to them.
That’s the way I would imagine God in this argument. He knows everything that has and will happen. He knows it because you will, at some point, choose it. But because that point hasn’t come for you doesn’t mean that it hasn’t come for God, because God’s conception in time would, theoretically, be different from your sense.
That make more sense?

Then it wouldn't be free will, because free will is defined as all aspects of the decision process coming from ourselves; therefore, it seems that God contradicted himself in granting us free will because these parameters that inhibit free will are allowed to exist.

It seems like free will is only possible in a Utopian existence like the Garden of Eden; and like More's Utopia, this is nowhere, an impossibility.

So do you accept my argument and say that free will, at least as it is defined that we have complete control over the decision making process, doesn’t exist?

So do you accept my argument and say that free will, at least as it is defined that we have complete control over the decision making process, doesn’t exist?

Yes, I agree.

From there, it raises the question if anything can be defined in absolutes, and where responsibility for our actions lies; however, this will likely require another thread in its entirety.

I guess you needed the reference to get my point. Tralfamadorians are aliens that are not bound by time. They see all time at once: past, present and future have no meaning to them.
How can they see the future if what you do isnt written in stone. If you have free will then you cant see the future because it isnt predetermined. You can see a possible outcome but what your seeing isnt the "future".

That’s the way I would imagine God in this argument. He knows everything that has and will happen. He knows it because you will, at some point, choose it. But because that point hasn’t come for you doesn’t mean that it hasn’t come for God, because God’s conception in time would, theoretically, be different from your sense.
That make more sense?
Once again god cant know the future if we have free will. How can you see something that isnt there. If god can see the future then that means that what will happen has already been preordained. If not then god really cant see the future.

Heh, I like this thread. It's mindboggling :)

Anyway, I have a couple of questions. They may well be silly or obvious, but I'm not well versed in philosophy, so please bear with me.

1. How can pleasure and contentment be seperated? Immediate physical gratification, and peice of mind.. How are these seperate? And if they are, which one is the more weighty for us humans?

2. If god simultainously perceives everything - time, space, conciousness - how can we even be sure god is itself conscious or have any sort of motivation, apart from perhaps automatic responses?
I mean, god does not have to be moral in any way. Assuming it intervenes in our world, could it not just be a reflex to preserve something?
Seeing how the real world works, I find that immensely more plausible than a moral god, handpicking Bob. For instance, why wouldn't a moral god have stopped whoever screwed the nice little HIV bearing monkey? - Yea I deliberately brought the sin aspect into that example. Ebola scenarios aren't nearly as good :p

3. Kant... Now that guy drives me nuts. I don't know a lot about his work, but I have read enough to bring on several intense headaches. I don't understand why he assumes there is such a thing as perfect morals. And I don't get understand why he assumes real altruism exists? Don't get me wrong, the idea is very compelling (at least to me), but it seems unfounded..?

How can they see the future if what you do isnt written in stone. If you have free will then you cant see the future because it isnt predetermined. You can see a possible outcome but what your seeing isnt the "future".


Once again god cant know the future if we have free will. How can you see something that isnt there. If god can see the future then that means that what will happen has already been preordained. If not then god really cant see the future.

I don’t accept the premise that just because someone knows it in advance, it is preordained. If I choose Pepsi over Coke, then God knows it. He knew it from the instance of creation. But it was still my choice, because he only knows that I would choose it because at some point I chose it. It was not God who made me choose Pepsi.
Made I should put it like this: I choose Pepsi. But why did I choose Pepsi? And could I have chosen Coke?
I chose Pepsi because my thoughts made my body pick up a different can. God did not make me pick up a different can (expect maybe in an indirect way, as proposed earlier). Just because he sees it happen in advance doesn’t mean he made it happen. I made it happen. It was my choice. I could have taken Coke. God knew that I wouldn’t. But he didn’t make it so I wouldn’t. I did.

Well, how could God remove himself from the decision making process when every action you take is determined to some extent by how you were brought up, which is determined by how the people who brought you up were brought up, etc, back to how God dealt with the first creatures, be they Adam and Eve or some bacteria that only exists because God created a world with a certain amount of food and other recourses? Free will, if it exists, would only be able to exist in the framework in which God has provided.

Edit: sorry if that was poorly worded/ a runon sentence.

Lets take a step back here and define free will. I'm going to use a text book definition of libertarian free will from william hasker. Libertarian freedom(free will) is meant freedom such that the agent who makes a choice is really able, under exactly the same circumstances, to choose something different from the thing that is in fact chosen. I would also venture to say that how you make decisions is not just a product of how you were raised. You make decisions that do not require you to think back to how you were raised every day. When you go to buy a soda do you think what would you mother want you to do?

I don’t accept the premise that just because someone knows it in advance, it is preordained. If I choose Pepsi over Coke, then God knows it. He knew it from the instance of creation.
Okay lets say that god knows your going to choose the pepsi from the isntant of creation. If that is true is there any way that you can choose the coke? If from the second your born god knows at the instance of your conception that your going to be a doctor becaus thats the field you choose is it really a choice? Could you have chosen to be something else? If you cant then you dont have free will.
But it was still my choice, because he only knows that I would choose it because at some point I chose it. It was not God who made me choose Pepsi.
I'm not saying god made you choose the pepsi. What I am trying to say is that if god knows the choice you are going to make before you make it is it really a choice?

How can they see the future if what you do isnt written in stone. If you have free will then you cant see the future because it isnt predetermined. You can see a possible outcome but what your seeing isnt the "future".


Once again god cant know the future if we have free will. How can you see something that isnt there. If god can see the future then that means that what will happen has already been preordained. If not then god really cant see the future.
I think the trick is that god knows everything on multiple levels. Ei, If I finish this sentence, the world will be one way. If I didn't, it would have been different. As long as we're talking about something with infinite comprehension, I don't see how this isn't possible. However, it does raise some questions about what omnipotence is. Knowing an infinite variations of reality...

I think I need a joint now.. Someone remind me why I gave that shit up...

Heh, I like this thread. It's mindboggling :)

Anyway, I have a couple of questions. They may well be silly or obvious, but I'm not well versed in philosophy, so please bear with me.

1. How can pleasure and contentment be seperated? Immediate physical gratification, and peice of mind.. How are these seperate? And if they are, which one is the more weighty for us humans?


Not that they are necessarily separate things; they both induce a postice feeling in me. I was just separating them for the purposes of showing why I made that decision: based soley on pleasure, not on contentment. I seperated them by their source. As for which is more weight, I was arguing that for me, pleasure was, but I think they were trying to convince me that it was just my contentment masking itself as my thought choosing pleasure.


2. If god simultainously perceives everything - time, space, conciousness - how can we even be sure god is itself conscious or have any sort of motivation, apart from perhaps automatic responses?
I mean, god does not have to be moral in any way. Assuming it intervenes in our world, could it not just be a reflex to preserve something?
Seeing how the real world works, I find that immensely more plausible than a moral god, handpicking Bob. For instance, why wouldn't a moral god have stopped whoever screwed the nice little HIV bearing monkey? - Yea I deliberately brought the sin aspect into that example. Ebola scenarios aren't nearly as good :p


Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we were working on the premise of a Christian God. The thread started about being about whether or not God exists, but I think at some point a ceded for the sake of argument that we were working with a Christian God.


3. Kant... Now that guy drives me nuts. I don't know a lot about his work, but I have read enough to bring on several intense headaches. I don't understand why he assumes there is such a thing as perfect morals. And I don't get understand why he assumes real altruism exists? Don't get me wrong, the idea is very compelling (at least to me), but it seems unfounded..?

Neither have I studied Kant, no more than a simple idea of the Categorical Imperative. And I’m sure that idea isn’t 100% correct, so I wouldn’t’ be the best person to answer Kant questions.

Okay lets say that god knows your going to choose the pepsi from the isntant of creation. If that is true is there any way that you can choose the coke? If from the second your born god knows at the instance of your conception that your going to be a doctor becaus thats the field you choose is it really a choice? Could you have chosen to be something else? If you cant then you dont have free will.

I'm not saying god made you choose the pepsi. What I am trying to say is that if god knows the choice you are going to make before you make it is it really a choice?

If God knew I would choose Pepsi, he knew it because I made him know it. If you acknowledge that I was the one who chose it, then you acknowledge that I was the one who picked the path on which I travel. Just because God knew it in advance doesn’t mean I had any less influence in which path it would be.

The reason I can’t choose Coke if God knows I will choose Pepsi is because the only reason he has the knowledge is of me choosing Pepsi because I made the choice on my own.

i know i shouldnt be messing with kant. he is smarter than i am. and i dont have much of a clue what those 3 things mean

but THIS is why i suggested that god doesnt follow his own laws..

miracles

they are in direct violation of the rules of the universe and he hands them out to those who are "unworthy" while ignoring the prayers of those who are blameless.

plus little things like killing everyone on earth besides noah (and regretting it afterwards) and sending bears to kill children who mocked his prophet.

lemme think about the 3 things for a while. ill see if i can understand them well enough to see if i agree with him or not.



1. Everyone on earth save Noah deserved it, as Genesis 6:5 explains...


5Then the LORD[b] saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.



2. The translation of that is incorrect, they weren't innocent little children but a group of unruly teenagers who represented a physical threat to Elisha, I have a book that discusses this very issue.....if only I can find it and elaborate...

If God knew I would choose Pepsi, he knew it because I made him know it. If you acknowledge that I was the one who chose it, then you acknowledge that I was the one who picked the path on which I travel. Just because God knew it in advance doesn’t mean I had any less influence in which path it would be.

The reason I can’t choose Coke if God knows I will choose Pepsi is because the only reason he has the knowledge is of me choosing Pepsi because I made the choice on my own.
But if you made god know it, it's very easy to argue god isn't omniscient at all. And he is definitely not omnipotent.

How could it be all knowing if you made it aware of something. For you to be able to make god aware of something, god has to have a gap in it's knowledge, and thus god isn't omniscient.

If God knew I would choose Pepsi, he knew it because I made him know it. If you acknowledge that I was the one who chose it, then you acknowledge that I was the one who picked the path on which I travel. Just because God knew it in advance doesn’t mean I had any less influence in which path it would be.
If I acknowledge you made a choice it doesnt mean that you do have free will. Free will is freedom such that the agent who makes a choice is really able, under exactly the same circumstances, to choose something different from the thing that is in fact chosen. If god knows the choice you will make before you make it then how can you make a different choice under the same circumstances. If god already knows that your going to choose a pepsi over a coke at a certain point during your life unless you can choose the coke under those same circumstances with god knowing your going to choose pepsi then you dont have free will.

If I acknowledge you made a choice it doesnt mean that you do have free will. Free will is freedom such that the agent who makes a choice is really able, under exactly the same circumstances, to choose something different from the thing that is in fact chosen. If god knows the choice you will make before you make it then how can you make a different choice under the same circumstances. If god already knows that your going to choose a pepsi over a coke at a certain point during your life unless you can choose the coke under those same circumstances with god knowing your going to choose pepsi then you dont have free will.
I need a better understanding of what free will, omniscience & omnipotence is.

Let's say god knows all possible choices in all time. God does not know which one will be taken, it only knows all choices and everything that can ever possibly happen because of it. Is that omniscience & free will?

Because I agree, if god knows what perticular course of action will be taken, then everything is predetermined. Possibly we do not know we have no free will, but that doesn't mean we have it.

However, if god only knows all possible reality, but doesn't know which reality will become the current one, then god cannot be omnipotent, can it? I mean, if it is omnipotent, there is no margin for error. Yet if god is omniscient without knowing which choice we will make, god cannot possibly interfere in anything without fucking up everything...

Also, the god that knows all, but knows nothing with certainty, cannot be infallible, unless it is unthinking and inactive.

If I acknowledge you made a choice it doesnt mean that you do have free will. Free will is freedom such that the agent who makes a choice is really able, under exactly the same circumstances, to choose something different from the thing that is in fact chosen. If god knows the choice you will make before you make it then how can you make a different choice under the same circumstances. If god already knows that your going to choose a pepsi over a coke at a certain point during your life unless you can choose the coke under those same circumstances with god knowing your going to choose pepsi then you dont have free will.


If God knows I will pick Pepsi, then yes, I have no chose. But I have a choice as to whether or not God knows I will pick Pepsi. So by that definition of choosing something different in the same circumstance, I would agree that there is no free will.

But does God have free will? Apparently not, because under the circumstance that I will pick Pepsi, he cannot know that I will pick Coke. His action (that of knowing) is predicated on my choice. But I don’t have free will, because under the given circumstances I cannot make a different decision.

But if I am the one who brings about the circumstances that restricts my will, that is I have control over whether or not that situation is the one that will come to fruition or another one in which I will pick Coke will come to fruition, then wouldn’t I have a choice then? That is, I cannot have a choice within a given situation, but since I get to pick the situation that I exist in, doesn’t that mean that I, admittedly convolutedly, have made the choice as to whether or not I pick Coke or Pepsi?

I'm out of this for a while, gotta take a breather.

I justify the existance of God on a few basic points...

Aquinas' belief.... I exist, therefore something must have created me and created life, or created the universe at some indefinite point in the past. God's form cannot be comprehended by the human mind, therefore it must be taken as an act of faith.


Also as Kurt Vonnegut had the "unwritten" answer to the purpose of life question as I recall...

What is the purpose of life?

To be
The Eyes
And Ears
And Conscience
of the Creator of the Universe
You Fool.

If God knows I will pick Pepsi, then yes, I have no chose. But I have a choice as to whether or not God knows I will pick Pepsi. So by that definition of choosing something different in the same circumstance, I would agree that there is no free will.
First two sentences seem so contradictory. Look if god has knowledge of a choice you make before you make it then god does not know the outcome because you choose it. He knows the outcome because the future is set out in a way where he can see it. Otherwise god cant know that your going to make a choice before you make it if the future is not set in stone.

But does God have free will? Apparently not, because under the circumstance that I will pick Pepsi, he cannot know that I will pick Coke. His action (that of knowing) is predicated on my choice. But I don’t have free will, because under the given circumstances I cannot make a different decision. Just because god does not know that you will pick coke doesnt mean it has no free will. It just means its not omniscient(all knowing)

But if I am the one who brings about the circumstances that restricts my will, that is I have control over whether or not that situation is the one that will come to fruition or another one in which I will pick Coke will come to fruition, then wouldn’t I have a choice then? That is, I cannot have a choice within a given situation, but since I get to pick the situation that I exist in, doesn’t that mean that I, admittedly convolutedly, have made the choice as to whether or not I pick Coke or Pepsi?

I'm out of this for a while, gotta take a breather.
Your posts have become so confusing that I am going to stop trying to look at them. I could try but its almost midnight and I'm tired as hell.

I justify the existance of God on a few basic points...

Aquinas' belief.... I exist, therefore something must have created me and created life, or created the universe at some indefinite point in the past. God's form cannot be comprehended by the human mind, therefore it must be taken as an act of faith.


Also as Kurt Vonnegut had the "unwritten" answer to the purpose of life question as I recall...

What is the purpose of life?

To be
The Eyes
And Ears
And Conscience
of the Creator of the Universe
You Fool.
I disagree with both of them. First and foremost, I believe love and friendship is the meaning of our lives. Assuming the Christian god is real, it's my understanding it would agree (but the finer points of biblery eludes me).

I disagree with the reasoning used to ascertain god's existence. Let's put it into a perspective we know something about; how did life start on this planet? Well, chances of it being a purely chemical thing looks pretty good. The explanation makes sense and doesn't defy our general observations of reality as we know it.
This removes the obvious "something must've created X because X is here, innit?!" We can't assume life, creation or anything else happened because a being actively made it happen. It may well be a case of "shit happens".

The idea of an interventionist God is to me simply a matter of faith--faith being something that you will continue to beleive in even in absence of sensory data or credible reference materials. An interventionist God , most argue, exists because one can 'feel' His presence if so inclined. This belief system doesn't technically ask us to [i]know anything or validate it using our own senses or our reason; it is essentially emotionalism; or to me, mysticism. As far as I'm concerned, any one person does have the right to 'think' this way, insofar as their interests will carry them.

However, I have rejected the idea of an interventionist God because, simply, I've seen no evidence to support or prove the concept as objective fact. I have noticed as of late that the tendancy of modern Christians seems to be shifting more towards justifying their arguments with science, since it's harder and harder to refute the things we're finding out about our universe. I can't say as I blame them; since this is an entirely different world we live in now, one must adapt their methods of justification. I often find it curious, at times, to ponder what would happen if aliens landed on our doorstep, defying a [admittedly fictional] passage in the Bible denoting Mankind as His only sentient creation.

Unfortunately, these arguments carry new connotations and new meanings; simply saying "I beleive just because" doesn't cut it in this day and age: today we want reasons; we want logic: we've pretty much been like this since the Renaissance. In the face of new discoveries, interesting and challenging facts have come to light that require at the very least an in-depth understanding and exposition on Christian theory. I do, in fact, have yet to see why there is no known archeological evidence of the Jews having wandered the desert for forty years. New methods and new discoveries are starting to make religions verify its facts; which is something most of them aren't very good at.

When you get right down to it, any assertation about God's existence [or, for that matter, his nonexistence] is an arbitrary statement that neither side is prepared to discuss or acknowledge; both make the mistake of trying to start with a zero; both are treating 'possibilities' as 'certainties' and both are probably wrong. Does creation require a catalyst? Yes, of course. I'm willing to point at $ENERGY that caused everyone's favorite explosion and call it 'God,' but that doesn't mean I'm prepared to accept that it cares about how I conduct the business of my life. An interventionist God is a contradiction in terms, since any action by God would cause onlookers and their descendants to pray for favors all the time; all of them asking for varying, often conflicting things. By the same token; if he's known and relatively passive for the most part, people stop believing in him. What's a God to do, damn it?!

Remember kids, you can't spell 'Belief' without 'Lie.' Examine your premise. Know reality, do not Believe reality.

<Snip> I often find it curious, at times, to ponder what would happen if aliens landed on our doorstep, defying a [admittedly fictional] passage in the Bible denoting Mankind as His only sentient creation.

Remember kids, you can't spell 'Belief' without 'Lie.' Examine your premise. Know reality, do not Believe reality.
Way to ruin a perfectly nice - if pointless - debate with brutal use of reason :eek:

Uhm.. Anyway, does the bible actually say there are no sentient aliens? - I ask because I have a christian friend who've several times claimed sentiend life must be fairly common in the universe (a huge friggin if in my opinion, but hey).

Way to ruin a perfectly nice - if pointless - debate with brutal use of reason :eek:

Uhm.. Anyway, does the bible actually say there are no sentient aliens? - I ask because I have a christian friend who've several times claimed sentiend life must be fairly common in the universe (a huge friggin if in my opinion, but hey).



My father believes that angels might have originally been another species God created, and their saints became celestial beings.

Way to ruin a perfectly nice - if pointless - debate with brutal use of reason :eek:
Thank you. It's my specialty.

Uhm.. Anyway, does the bible actually say there are no sentient aliens? - I ask because I have a christian friend who've several times claimed sentiend life must be fairly common in the universe (a huge friggin if in my opinion, but hey).
To my knowledge, the Bible does not address the possibility: if there is anything in there that mentions ETs, it's probably very vague and/or ambiguous, like just about everything else I've read in there. The fact that the Bible was originally written in a dead language is a really convenient lynchpin for various discrepancies. Aramaic died out a few centuries after Christ's death, so by the time Christianity had really begun to spread--guess what! No one speaks the language anymore. Different scholars had different interpretations of the texts, and as a result we have several dozen factions that worship more or less the same God.

And people are starting to get surprised because more than a few of us are starting to notice things like this?

To my knowledge, the Bible does not address the possibility: if there is anything in there that mentions ETs, it's probably very vague and/or ambiguous, like just about everything else I've read in there. The fact that the Bible was originally written in a dead language is a really convenient lynchpin for various discrepancies. Aramaic died out a few centuries after Christ's death, so by the time Christianity had really begun to spread--guess what! No one speaks the language anymore. Different scholars had different interpretations of the texts, and as a result we have several dozen factions that worship more or less the same God.

And people are starting to get surprised because more than a few of us are starting to notice things like this?
You're wellcome ;)
So the "defying a [admittedly fictional] passage..." was meant to be litteral? Sorry, I thought you were implying the bible is a work of fiction. My bad.

I don't think people are suprised.. Are they? I've already seen a lot of bitching about different interpretations of bible passages. Some of them radically different. I dunno if you follow any of the numerous gay/religion bashing threads at the moment, but I'm quite suprised at all the christians disagreeing over scripture.
Personally I don't think the bible is interesting enough to warrent that degree of scrutiny, but to each his/her own.

By the way, no that you killed the god argument, mind airing your veiw on Kant's altruism deal? - I gather from peoples comments, you know a great deal about philosophy.

First two sentences seem so contradictory. Look if god has knowledge of a choice you make before you make it then god does not know the outcome because you choose it. He knows the outcome because the future is set out in a way where he can see it. Otherwise god cant know that your going to make a choice before you make it if the future is not set in stone.

Just because god does not know that you will pick coke doesnt mean it has no free will. It just means its not omniscient(all knowing)


Your posts have become so confusing that I am going to stop trying to look at them. I could try but its almost midnight and I'm tired as hell.

Ok, so I’ll admit I was far from articulate last night. After a fresh night of sleep, I think I’ve found a better way to explain this. Bear with me for a moment.

I will use the operator “>” to mean “causes” or “is the cause of.” For example:
1) A > B
Where A = “Bill Clinton received more votes in the Electoral College than Bob Dole did,” and
B = “Bill Clinton won reelection.”

I could reverse the operator (“<”) and have it mean “caused by.” For example:
2) B < A
Where B = “Bill Clinton won reelection,” and
A = “Bill Clinton received more votes in the Electoral College than Bob Dole did.”

I will use the operator “}” to mean “came before” or “is chronologically prior to.” For example:
3) A } B
Where A = “Bill Clinton won reelection,” and
B = “George W. Bush became president.”

I could again reverse this operator (“{“) to mean “came after” or “is chronologically after.” For example:
4) B { A
Where B = “George W. Bush became president,” and
A = “Bill Clinton won reelection.”


Now let’s apply this to me choosing Pepsi rather than Coke. I would say that
5) A > B
Where A = “I chose Pepsi on my own volition,” and
B = “God knows I will choose Pepsi.

We could also write this as
6) B < A,
Where A and B mean the same thing as in 5.

In this instance, unlike with 1-4, causation and chronology are inverse to each other.
7) B } A
Again with the same A and B.

Now if we take 7 and use the cause operator instead of the chronological operator, we would have 6. This is what I’ve been trying to say (among other things), namely that just because B } A, it does not follow that B > A. In fact, in this case B < A.

So let’s define another term: “(P)” = “the real world is one in which I will choose Pepsi.” I could also define “(C)” = “the real world is one in which I choose Coke.” I will use (P) to be synonymous to “God knows, and has known since creation that I will choose Pepsi” because if God is everlasting and omniscient, a world in which I will choose Pepsi is the same thing as a world in which God knows I will choose Pepsi.

The way I am arguing against your conclusion is that
8) A > (P)
Where A = “I will choose Pepsi.”

While it necessarily follows that
9) “if (P), then A,”
it isn’t true that
10) (P) > A
In fact, it is
8) A > (P)
and I think this is where we have differed.

Once it is established that (P), I will agree that I have no choice but A. My contention is that because I choose A, (P) is true. That, to me, seems like free choice, because while (P) limits my choice, it is I who bring about (P), so it is I who limits my own choice by choosing A which leads to (P).

I hope that clarifies things, and thanks for bearing with me.

<Heavy handed snipping>
So let’s define another term: “(P)” = “the real world is one in which I will choose Pepsi.” I could also define “(C)” = “the real world is one in which I choose Coke.” I will use (P) to be synonymous to “God knows, and has known since creation that I will choose Pepsi” because if God is everlasting and omniscient, a world in which I will choose Pepsi is the same thing as a world in which God knows I will choose Pepsi.

The way I am arguing against your conclusion is that
8) A > (P)
Where A = “I will choose Pepsi.”

While it necessarily follows that
9) “if (P), then A,”
it isn’t true that
10) (P) > A
In fact, it is
8) A > (P)
and I think this is where we have differed.

Once it is established that (P), I will agree that I have no choice but A. My contention is that because I choose A, (P) is true. That, to me, seems like free choice, because while (P) limits my choice, it is I who bring about (P), so it is I who limits my own choice by choosing A which leads to (P).

I hope that clarifies things, and thanks for bearing with me.
This is exactly what I wrote a page ago... But I'll repeat. By the way, I assume we're still talking about the Christian god.

We assume god knows you'll be faced with the choice, and he knows each outcome of the situation. He knows what happens if you choose the coke and he knows what happens if you choose the pepsi.
But he's not omniscient. He doesn't know which one of the possible realities will come to pass. For god to be omniscient, he's got to know (P), but in your example, he only knows an infinite variation of (C)'s. (C) being a possible reality that have yet to come to pass, and most likely will not come to pass.

Because if he knew which (C) was identical to (P), you wouldn't have free will. God would know what your choice was beforehand...

Also, going with your assumption, god is fallible. Because as long as god does not know exactly what's real and what isn't, it can't know anything for certain.

God won't be omnipotent either. Simply because any action god takes, may theoretically be countered by someone/something's action.

We assume god knows you'll be faced with the choice, and he knows each outcome of the situation. He knows what happens if you choose the coke and he knows what happens if you choose the pepsi.
But he's not omniscient. He doesn't know which one of the possible realities will come to pass. For god to be omniscient, he's got to know (P), but in your example, he only knows an infinite variation of (C)'s. (C) being a possible reality that have yet to come to pass, and most likely will not come to pass.

Because if he knew which (C) was identical to (P), you wouldn't have free will. God would know what your choice was beforehand...


God is still omniscient. God does know which path I will take. That is what (P) means. If (P), then god knows before hand that I will choose Pepsi. If (C), then god knows before hand that I will choose Coke. If (N) , then god knows before hand that I will choose neither. If (B), then god knows before hand that I will choose both. And so on. We could use (X) to say, “God knows what I will choose, no matter what it is."

My point is that whichever is true [(P), (C), (N), or (B)] God is aware of what my action will be. (X) is always true.
And while I acknowledge that (X) } A, where A is my choice, that doesn’t deprive me of my free will, because A > (X) is still true. That is the key. Whatever I choose, god knows what will happed but hasn’t influenced my choice by knowing. His prior knowledge has no impact on my choice.
I could say that as (X) >` A, where “>`” means “doesn’t cause.”



Also, going with your assumption, god is fallible. Because as long as god does not know exactly what's real and what isn't, it can't know anything for certain.


I was saying that (P) was true in that case, and (X) is true in general. I am saying god knows. He knows what I will choose.


God won't be omnipotent either. Simply because any action god takes, may theoretically be countered by someone/something's action.

Is he omnipotent? All I have to say on that regard is the if an omnipotent being is capable of doing anything, then couldn’t he choose to withhold his influence in order to let us have free will?

Kant's Moral Argument for the existence of God is probably the best and most formidable argument, although I'm still working on an ironclad reductio to confirm it.

1) There exists an objective and perfect moral law.
2) An objective and perfect moral law requires a mind to conceive it.
3) Only a perfectly wise and benevolent mind could conceive of an objective and perfect moral law.
4) Only God is a perfectly wise and benevolent mind.
5) God exists.

The reductio I've been working on is to confirm the first assertion. I haven't worked out all the kinks yet.
Looking at the different public morals in different cultures I fail to see the truth of the very first thing in your arguement. Of cause this destroys the rest at well.

You're wellcome ;)
So the "defying a [admittedly fictional] passage..." was meant to be litteral? Sorry, I thought you were implying the bible is a work of fiction. My bad.

I don't think people are suprised.. Are they? I've already seen a lot of bitching about different interpretations of bible passages. Some of them radically different. I dunno if you follow any of the numerous gay/religion bashing threads at the moment, but I'm quite suprised at all the christians disagreeing over scripture.
Personally I don't think the bible is interesting enough to warrent that degree of scrutiny, but to each his/her own.
"It's fair to say that the Bible contains equal amounts of fact, history, and pizza." --Penn Jillette

By the way, no that you killed the god argument, mind airing your veiw on Kant's altruism deal? - I gather from peoples comments, you know a great deal about philosophy.
Ehhhhhhh, this isn't really the thread for that; suffice to say I despise both Kant and "altruism."

God is still omniscient. God does know which path I will take. That is what (P) means. If (P), then god knows before hand that I will choose Pepsi. If (C), then god knows before hand that I will choose Coke. If (N) , then god knows before hand that I will choose neither. If (B), then god knows before hand that I will choose both. And so on. We could use (X) to say, “God knows what I will choose, no matter what it is."

My point is that whichever is true [(P), (C), (N), or (B)] God is aware of what my action will be. (X) is always true.
And while I acknowledge that (X) } A, where A is my choice, that doesn’t deprive me of my free will, because A > (X) is still true. That is the key. Whatever I choose, god knows what will happed but hasn’t influenced my choice by knowing. His prior knowledge has no impact on my choice.
I could say that as (X) >` A, where “>`” means “doesn’t cause.”

Uhm... I have a feeling you missed something. Or maybe I do. Anyway, I try again :p
If god knows the outcome of a situation, then that situation is predetermined. You may think you have a choice, you can't actually choose anything. It's already decided.
If god knows your choices and their outcomes, but you have free will, then god cannot know which choice you make. Otherwise you do not have free will. And if god only knows possibilities, but not certainties (untill after they happen), then god isn't all-knowing.
Likewise, if god doesn't know what the reality will be like at any given moment, it is not infallible. It can fuck things up, just like I can, because it has bad info.
And! God cannot be all-powerful, simply because there are so many choice-based situations in the world, that some of them will contradict eachother. When god does not know which scenario will become reality, other beings (such as me or my friends dog) can concievably mess up his schemes.

My point is, you cannot have a conscious, intervening god that is also omniscient, if we have free will.

I was saying that (P) was true in that case, and (X) is true in general. I am saying god knows. He knows what I will choose.

And my answer is the same as before. Assuming there's just the one reality, god only knows possibilities. Not certainties. Gods perspective on the future will be vastly superior to mine, but it'll still just be guesswork.
If we assume there's a different reality for each scenario with multiple outcomes, then Free Will goes out the window. There's no free will if you do all possible things in all situations.

Is he omnipotent? All I have to say on that regard is the if an omnipotent being is capable of doing anything, then couldn’t he choose to withhold his influence in order to let us have free will?

Perhaps we should've discussed definitions to start with.
In any case, I argue that if god wavers it's omnipotence, by giving us free will, then that god is no longer omnipotent. If we're to have any sort of meaningfull debate involving omnipotence, I suggest we veiw is as a state, rather than a choice. Ei. God is either omnipotent or not. Not both at the same time.

Uhm... I have a feeling you missed something. Or maybe I do. Anyway, I try again :p

Ditto.

If god knows the outcome of a situation, then that situation is predetermined. You may think you have a choice, you can't actually choose anything. It's already decided.


Who has decided it? I have decided it. God didn't make any choice, I did.


If god knows your choices and their outcomes, but you have free will, then god cannot know which choice you make. Otherwise you do not have free will.


Why is this true? Why can't an all knowing being see into the future and see the choices will I make? You seem to be limiting what an omniscient god can know. Assume he knows everything. What I decide, how I decide, the inner workings of my thoughts, everything. Past, present, future, makes no difference. No limits on the knowledge of god. The only reason he knows it in advance is because, at some point, I will make the choice. It was my choice. He just saw it coming.


And if god only knows possibilities, but not certainties (untill after they happen), then god isn't all-knowing.
Likewise, if god doesn't know what the reality will be like at any given moment, it is not infallible. It can fuck things up, just like I can, because it has bad info.

My arguement never mentioned a god that doesn't know certainties. The god in my arguement always knew, well, everything.

And! God cannot be all-powerful, simply because there are so many choice-based situations in the world, that some of them will contradict eachother. When god does not know which scenario will become reality, other beings (such as me or my friends dog) can concievably mess up his schemes.

Again, I'm assuming that god knows everything. Explain the how some situations contradict eachother.

And my answer is the same as before. Assuming there's just the one reality, god only knows possibilities. Not certainties. Gods perspective on the future will be vastly superior to mine, but it'll still just be guesswork.

Why does he only know possibilities? We may be getting at why we don't see eye to eye here. What stops god from knowing certainties?

If we assume there's a different reality for each scenario with multiple outcomes, then Free Will goes out the window. There's no free will if you do all possible things in all situations.

No, I'm saying there is only one actual reality. God knows which reality this would be. You get to choose what this reality is, but god knows it in advance.

Perhaps we should've discussed definitions to start with.
In any case, I argue that if god wavers it's omnipotence, by giving us free will, then that god is no longer omnipotent. If we're to have any sort of meaningfull debate involving omnipotence, I suggest we veiw is as a state, rather than a choice. Ei. God is either omnipotent or not. Not both at the same time.
Maybe I explained that wrong. He is omnipotent. He simply chooses to not use his powers all the time.

Uhm... I have a feeling you missed something. Or maybe I do. Anyway, I try again
Ditto.
Hehehe, ok. Maybe I'll manage to explain myself better this time :)

If god knows the outcome of a situation, then that situation is predetermined. You may think you have a choice, you can't actually choose anything. It's already decided.
Who has decided it? I have decided it. God didn't make any choice, I did.
If god knows - with certainty - what you will do, then you have no choice in the matter. If god knows you'll get the coke, then you'll get the coke. Not the pepsi. Your sense of what motivates your action is irrelevant. You can't choose the pepsi if god knows you'll take the coke.

If god knows your choices and their outcomes, but you have free will, then god cannot know which choice you make. Otherwise you do not have free will.
Why is this true? Why can't an all knowing being see into the future and see the choices will I make? You seem to be limiting what an omniscient god can know. Assume he knows everything. What I decide, how I decide, the inner workings of my thoughts, everything. Past, present, future, makes no difference. No limits on the knowledge of god. The only reason he knows it in advance is because, at some point, I will make the choice. It was my choice. He just saw it coming.
You're limiting what an omniscient god is, because you claim to have free will.
I tried to explain this in the last post. If god knows everything you'll ever do, but you have free will, then you need multiple realities. Because unless your actions are predetermined, you can change the future. If you can change the future, so can everyone else. When everyone have real free will, their actions interact with eachother. If I kick my friends dog out now, and don't let it in again, chances are it'll fuck up someone's day inside the next week (yea it's a psycho dog). If I don't, the dog can only act within the confines of my flat.
If god knows for a fact what I'll do, but this instance of "me" can choose to let the dog stay in or kick it out, then there needs to be more than one reality. Or the following paradox happens:
A. God knows I'll kick out the dog.
B. I don't, because I have free will.
C. God proves to be fallible and not omniscient, because I just defied what he knew.

If there are multiple realities, god can be omniscient and this instance of me can act independent of god's knowledge of my actions... But the collected sum of my instances have no free will. Not in any meaningful way at least, because I will do all possible things in any situation. In this situation, one of my instances, in one of the realities, will be slowly roasting my friends dog, simply because that course of action is available.
And for god to be truely omniscient under these circumstances, all of my instances will be equally real.

And if god only knows possibilities, but not certainties (untill after they happen), then god isn't all-knowing.
Likewise, if god doesn't know what the reality will be like at any given moment, it is not infallible. It can fuck things up, just like I can, because it has bad info.
My arguement never mentioned a god that doesn't know certainties. The god in my arguement always knew, well, everything.
I was trying to examine the logical implications of just such a god. I assume we're still talking about the Christian god, right?

And! God cannot be all-powerful, simply because there are so many choice-based situations in the world, that some of them will contradict eachother. When god does not know which scenario will become reality, other beings (such as me or my friends dog) can concievably mess up his schemes.
Again, I'm assuming that god knows everything. Explain the how some situations contradict eachother.
Simple. If god knows everything, then there are no choices. If god knows I kick out my friends dog, then I'll do just that. Regardless of the fact that I think that would be a piss poor idea, for several, very good reasons
If I have free will and I let the dog out, the dog might just decide to attack you while you're considering what soda you should get. If god had anything riding on your choice.
For example, both soda's could instantly kill you for some reason, and god wanted that to happen because you'll bring about the end of the world. Alternatively, he could zap you with lightning, but since the dog will jump you at that very moment, he'll zap the both of you, killing the dog unintended.
Now just to make things a little bit complex, let's assume all of the above is known & intended by god. What happens when the local car theif comes into the picture? Assuming the car theif is being chased by the police and looses control of the car.. He crashes into the kiosk where you're about to be attacked by an insane dog, zapped by lightning, and miss a lethal softdrink. Instead, both you and dog are thrown clear of the kiosk as it's rammed by a stolen car. The lightning bolt intended for you and the dog instead hit's unlucky Habib, who owns the, now smashed store. He's throughly zapped as he's thrown out a window by the force of the stolen car.
The coke he was holding is thrown clear of his body, and flies through the windshield of one of the copcars, showering both officers with deadly coke. End result is that several people die horribly because of free will. God's plans gets skrewed up, and you end up killing the globe.

That's all highly implausible of course, but minor contradicting things happens all the time.

And my answer is the same as before. Assuming there's just the one reality, god only knows possibilities. Not certainties. Gods perspective on the future will be vastly superior to mine, but it'll still just be guesswork.
Why does he only know possibilities? We may be getting at why we don't see eye to eye here. What stops god from knowing certainties?
Because if god knows certainties, then we have no free will.
If god knows I kick the dog out, then I kick the dog out. Whatever my motivations may be for doing it, they really have no impact on anything, because god knows my course of action.
If god knows I'll light up a fag when I'm done typing this, then I'll do that. I won't throw myself out of the window first, regardless of my desire to do so (ok really, I have no intention of jumping out the window).

If we assume there's a different reality for each scenario with multiple outcomes, then Free Will goes out the window. There's no free will if you do all possible things in all situations.
No, I'm saying there is only one actual reality. God knows which reality this would be. You get to choose what this reality is, but god knows it in advance.
If god knows in advance, you don't choose. Because you can't choose something that would prove god wrong.
If god knows I'll finish this post now, then I won't be able to leave right this instant and not return untill tomorrow.

Perhaps we should've discussed definitions to start with.
In any case, I argue that if god wavers it's omnipotence, by giving us free will, then that god is no longer omnipotent. If we're to have any sort of meaningfull debate involving omnipotence, I suggest we veiw is as a state, rather than a choice. Ei. God is either omnipotent or not. Not both at the same time.
Maybe I explained that wrong. He is omnipotent. He simply chooses to not use his powers all the time.
This is where the argument becomes nonsensical. For god to be omnipotent, it has to be omniscient. Otherwise it can't know the outcome of it's actions with certainty. It can only guess.
Now if god limits itself, so that it is no longer omnipotent, then it isn't omnipotent anymore. That's what I meant by omnipotence being a state, not a choice. It either is or it isn't.


If you can explain how something conscious can be omniscient without taking away all free will (it's own included), then I'd love to hear it.

EDIT: I just want to make it clear that I love this fucked up dog to bits. Above I make it sound like I hate it. I don't. I love the damn thing.

Ok, I get what you’re saying. I believe you’re saying, and I don’t disagree, that if god knows I will do A, then I will do A. I have no objections to this argument. I think that given an omniscient god, this statement is true. Whenever he knows I will do A, I have no choice but to do A. (Correct me if this is not your argument.)

What I’m saying is that I cause god to know this. Let’s not deal with omnipotence here for a moment, and confine our discussion simply to omniscience. We can deal with omnipotence later, if we can reach an agreement on omniscience, but if we can’t even get omniscience settled we have no chance for omnipotence. (If you want to do both at the same time we can, but I feel that would get too convoluted to reach any real conclusion.)

Now, consider an argument that goes as such (without, for the moment, introducing god):
“I decide to do A. Therefore, I have no choice but to do A.”
I trust you would find that this is true, but doesn’t really prove much. It is self evident that if I do A, then I must do A. But what if we tacked on an extra piece?:
“I decide to do A. Therefore, I have no choice but to do A. Therefore, I have no free will.”
Clearly, this argument makes no sense. The first sentence (“I decide to do A”) contradicts the third (“I have no free will”). Would you not agree that I still have free will in this case?

Now I’ll try to introduce god and still show that I have free will. Consider an omniscient god. This god knows everything. Thus it knows what is true. God’s knowledge of what is true is derived from reality. If the sky is blue, God couldn’t know that “the sky is purple” is true, because the sky is not purple. God may or may not have set the color of the sky. But lets assume that if he didn’t, it stands to reason that he knows it is blue because it is blue. It is not blue because he knows it is blue.

Now, instead of “the sky is blue”, let’s use “I choose A.” God knows that I will choose A because it I will choose A. I don’t so much force god to come to this conclusion; it merely comes into reality through my action, and god has a perfect knowledge of reality.

Your argument seems to go like this:
“God knows I will choose A. Therefore, I have no choice but to choose A. Therefore, I will choose A. Therefore, I have no free will.”
But I would contend that it should go like this:
“I will choose A. Therefore, it is true that I will choose A. Because god knows all that is true, god knows I will choose A. Therefore, I have no choice but to choose A. Therefore, I will choose A. Therefore, I have no free will.”
And you can see that, just as before, it is untrue that I have no free will by an argument like this. The first statement and the last statement contradict each other. If I am the root cause, that is to say the first step is “I choose” then my choosing sets the rest into motion. I have free will.

To me, it doesn’t matter that the initial cause of god knowing I will choose A comes at a later point in time than god knowing I will choose A. I am looking for the root cause of my action, not the earlier chronological step in that casual chain. So long as that chain begins with, “I choose A” then I chose A on my own, not because something was causing me to choose A.

Hope that makes sense.

Ok, I get what you’re saying.

<Snip>

Your argument seems to go like this:
“God knows I will choose A. Therefore, I have no choice but to choose A. Therefore, I will choose A. Therefore, I have no free will.”
But I would contend that it should go like this:
“I will choose A. Therefore, it is true that I will choose A. Because god knows all that is true, god knows I will choose A. Therefore, I have no choice but to choose A. Therefore, I will choose A. Therefore, I have no free will.”
And you can see that, just as before, it is untrue that I have no free will by an argument like this. The first statement and the last statement contradict each other. If I am the root cause, that is to say the first step is “I choose” then my choosing sets the rest into motion. I have free will.

To me, it doesn’t matter that the initial cause of god knowing I will choose A comes at a later point in time than god knowing I will choose A. I am looking for the root cause of my action, not the earlier chronological step in that casual chain. So long as that chain begins with, “I choose A” then I chose A on my own, not because something was causing me to choose A.

Hope that makes sense.
You are, of course, dead on in your in your assumption... However :p

What of god, then?

Let me rephrase the question, so it makes more sense: Let's assume you, god and 2 soda's are the only things that exist. Now comes the moment where you will decide which soda you want. If god exists and is omniscient, at this point, then you do not make the choice. Because god knows the outcome already. If god instead springs into being immediately after you make the choice, or first becomes omniscient immediately after your choice, then you actually make the choice, and have free will.
The problem here is if we use the christian god (and ignore the omnipotence bit). It's been around long before we have, and we've been debating the implications of it for a couple of days. How can it be omniscient then?
One of the properties of omniscience is infallibility; if god can be wrong, then it doesn't truely know everything.

And what about when you have decided on the soda? Do you drink it? Do you just stand there, looking at the thing? God will know this if it's omniscient. And it will know so right away, otherwise you leave room for error in god's mind. I mean, assuming we could ask it whether you'll actually drink the soda at some point, god will either give you a right or a wrong answer. If it's wrong, the god doesn't know everything.

This bit about the sky being blue... If god springs into being right now, and thus obviously didn't create the sky, it will none the less know exactly why, when and how the sky came to be blue. Just like it'll know exactly what lead to the big bang and how the known (and unknown) universe will end up. Such knowledge is a prerequesite for being omniscient. Unless it knows all there is to know in all time everywhere, it's not omniscient, and it will be able to be wrong.

Of course, the simple solution to this scenario, is if god is like the Phonix. dying and being reborn each time someone exercises their free will. If the christian god really is like that, then I suddenly understand why it's such a mean old fuck. It myst be a pain in the arse to snap in and out of existence like that, infinitely many times each second. I think such a god would really bring the hammer down on agnostics :p

I hope this made sense?

Snip
If god exists and is omniscient, at this point, then you do not make the choice. Because god knows the outcome already.

Let me put it this way:

How do you define free will? That may be what we are contending over. My definition is
“The first link in the chain of cause and effects was brought about by me.” I don’t care that god knew what I was going to do a billion years before I did it. The only way he knew it was that the choice was mine. By my definition, I have free will.

Now I think you’re defining it differently. You’re saying, “Given current state of the universe, could you have chosen another way?” By state of the universe, I mean everything being as it is: this includes god having knowledge of what I will choose. So if was start with “an infallible god knows I will choose A,” as the state of the universe, then I don’t have a choice. (Correct me if I am wrong).

The reason I have a problem with such a definition is that I am the one who set the universe to be the way it is. I again ask the question: assuming an omniscient, infallible god who has existed since the dawn of creation and will exist after doomsday, how did this god come to the conclusion that I would choose A? Did he say, “at 12:37 July, 15, 2005, I will make him choose A.” Or did he say “at 12:37 July 15, 2005, he will choose A.” I think it is the latter. And the reason at “12:37 July 15, 2005, I will choose A” is true is because I make it true. Sure, it was known before, but at if we trace back the links of the casual chain, it was I who started things. God’s knowledge wasn’t the initial cause, my choice was.

Let me put it this way:

How do you define free will? That may be what we are contending over. My definition is
“The first link in the chain of cause and effects was brought about by me.” I don’t care that god knew what I was going to do a billion years before I did it. The only way he knew it was that the choice was mine. By my definition, I have free will.

That, my friend, is an oxymoron. If god knows, possitively knows, beyond any possibility of error, that you will stop on the way to work tomorrow, to have a meaningful monologue with a stopsign, then you can't help doing it.
Whatever you feel will justify said monologue, will be besides the point. If god knows you will do it, you have no choice in the matter, and you can't possibly be killed by any jetplanes that might otherwise have crashed on your house while you slept. NOTHING can prevent you from having the monologue. Not you and not anything else. People could shoot you full of lead and blow you up 10 times, yet you'd still go talk to the stop sign.
That's what omniscience is. To know everything with no margin of error what so ever


Now I think you’re defining it differently. You’re saying, “Given current state of the universe, could you have chosen another way?” By state of the universe, I mean everything being as it is: this includes god having knowledge of what I will choose. So if was start with “an infallible god knows I will choose A,” as the state of the universe, then I don’t have a choice. (Correct me if I am wrong).

Tying this in with the above, you're both right and wrong. You previously specified we're talking about the Christian god, if so, god's been around forever (as far as we know anyway).
Now I agree with your assumption that 1 leads to 2 that leads to 3 and so on... But if god came before you, and god is indeed omniscient, then nothing we have done or ever will do involves free will. Otherwise god cannot be omniscient. At least not if there's just this one reality. And even multiple realities still won't grant us free will... It just means we do everything instead of just 1 thing.


The reason I have a problem with such a definition is that I am the one who set the universe to be the way it is. I again ask the question: assuming an omniscient, infallible god who has existed since the dawn of creation and will exist after doomsday, how did this god come to the conclusion that I would choose A? Did he say, “at 12:37 July, 15, 2005, I will make him choose A.” Or did he say “at 12:37 July 15, 2005, he will choose A.” I think it is the latter. And the reason at “12:37 July 15, 2005, I will choose A” is true is because I make it true. Sure, it was known before, but at if we trace back the links of the casual chain, it was I who started things. God’s knowledge wasn’t the initial cause, my choice was.

If it's the Christian god we're talking about, it said "at 12:37 July, 15, 2005, I will make him choose A.", because the Christian god is omnipotent (but I agree, let's wait a bit with this).
If it's just a random omniscient god who's been around forever, then it will know “at 12:37 July 15, 2005, he will do A.”. Notice I switched 'choose' for 'do'. That's because, if your action was already known a friggazillion years ago, then how could you not do A? Or to put it another way; what choice did you have?
But I think you're asking how god know you'll do A if god didn't make you do it. I can imagine a couple of answers: Either god did make you do A (again, this would have to be the case with an omnipotent god), or something else, that god - alknowing as it is - of course knows all about. However, omniscience alone doesn't mean that god made it happen. It just means that god knows everything about it, and can't possibly be wrong.

Now if you dictate what god knows, assuming god is omniscient, then god has to be missing at the time of your choice. Otherwise you have no choice.

There's only so many ways this can work, and it really is rather simple. Substitute god with me for a moment, it might bring on a new perspective.

I know everything. That means I know all that has ever happened, why, and all that ever will happen and why.
If I know you will be eating a pretzel while you see your neighbour tomorrow, how can you possibly avoid eating a pretzel? If you say I only know this will occur because you will choose to eat a pretzel tomorrow, then you need to explain to me when you make the choice. If I'm older than you, exactly when did you decide to eat that pretzel?

You see, time may not be of any consequence for a god, but it sure as hell matters to us. So if we know the thing was before we were, and we know it knows absolutely everything there'll ever be to know, then it'll already know what your entire life will be like, long, long before you live.

As long as one half of the equation here, moves in accordance with time as we percieve it, then we can't avoid the time issue. That's why I keep talking of gods that flicker in and out of existence and multiple realities. I can't see any other way to explain a combination of free will and omniscience.

But then, what is free will to you?
How do you define omniscience?

By the way, have you considered the implications for the god? I mean, if god knows everything, then god has no more free will that you do. Only it's much worse off than you or me. Because it can just sit there for eternity while it waits for it's actions to unfold. It can't defy it's own actions, because it already knows what it will do... All-knowingness is truely a bitch :p

Let me put it this way:

How do you define free will? That may be what we are contending over. My definition is
“The first link in the chain of cause and effects was brought about by me.” I don’t care that god knew what I was going to do a billion years before I did it. The only way he knew it was that the choice was mine. By my definition, I have free will.
The real question is:

How do you define knowing? Knowing is absolute. If God knows what your decision will be, then that decision is set; there is no other way to know it. If there is no other way for the ball to bounce, then you were not the cause of your decision; there was no choice.

I again ask the question: assuming an omniscient, infallible god who has existed since the dawn of creation and will exist after doomsday, how did this god come to the conclusion that I would choose A? Did he say, “at 12:37 July, 15, 2005, I will make him choose A.” Or did he say “at 12:37 July 15, 2005, he will choose A.” I think it is the latter. And the reason at “12:37 July 15, 2005, I will choose A” is true is because I make it true. Sure, it was known before, but at if we trace back the links of the casual chain, it was I who started things. God’s knowledge wasn’t the initial cause, my choice was.
No, no, no... it wasn't a "conclusion." It was a "knowing." It was knowledge, not a conclusion. Different thing.

How did he know, unless it's a done deal?

That, my friend, is an oxymoron. If god knows, possitively knows, beyond any possibility of error, that you will stop on the way to work tomorrow, to have a meaningful monologue with a stopsign, then you can't help doing it.
Whatever you feel will justify said monologue, will be besides the point. If god knows you will do it, you have no choice in the matter, and you can't possibly be killed by any jetplanes that might otherwise have crashed on your house while you slept. NOTHING can prevent you from having the monologue. Not you and not anything else. People could shoot you full of lead and blow you up 10 times, yet you'd still go talk to the stop sign.
That's what omniscience is. To know everything with no margin of error what so ever

I agree with all of this. If god knows it, then nothing could stop me from doing it. But why did god know it?

Tying this in with the above, you're both right and wrong. You previously specified we're talking about the Christian god, if so, god's been around forever (as far as we know anyway).
Now I agree with your assumption that 1 leads to 2 that leads to 3 and so on... But if god came before you, and god is indeed omniscient, then nothing we have done or ever will do involves free will. Otherwise god cannot be omniscient. At least not if there's just this one reality. And even multiple realities still won't grant us free will... It just means we do everything instead of just 1 thing.


This is why I tried to introduce the ">" and "}" operators. He came chronologically before me. But not causally before me. Did his knowing cause me to do A? If not, then he certainly is not exercising control over me. I think we agree on this. Ignoring omnipotence for the moment, god isn’t making me do anything. His knowledge of this of my action, as you say, traps me, in a sense, into doing something. But what caused him to have posses that knowledge? His knowledge is chronologically before my action, but it is not causally before my action. He is not forcing me to do anything. He is not the cause of my action. So what is?


Snip
If it's just a random omniscient god who's been around forever, then it will know “at 12:37 July 15, 2005, he will do A.”. Notice I switched 'choose' for 'do'. That's because, if your action was already known a friggazillion years ago, then how could you not do A? Or to put it another way; what choice did you have?
But I think you're asking how god know you'll do A if god didn't make you do it. I can imagine a couple of answers: Either god did make you do A (again, this would have to be the case with an omnipotent god), or something else, that god - alknowing as it is - of course knows all about. However, omniscience alone doesn't mean that god made it happen. It just means that god knows everything about it, and can't possibly be wrong.


And here you seem to be asking just that question. If god wasn't the cause, what was?


Now if you dictate what god knows, assuming god is omniscient, then god has to be missing at the time of your choice. Otherwise you have no choice.

There's only so many ways this can work, and it really is rather simple. Substitute god with me for a moment, it might bring on a new perspective.

I know everything. That means I know all that has ever happened, why, and all that ever will happen and why.
If I know you will be eating a pretzel while you see your neighbour tomorrow, how can you possibly avoid eating a pretzel? If you say I only know this will occur because you will choose to eat a pretzel tomorrow, then you need to explain to me when you make the choice. If I'm older than you, exactly when did you decide to eat that pretzel?


Still the same problem. You didn't make me eat that pretzel. What was the cause of me eating the pretzel, if it wasn't you and it wasn't me?


You see, time may not be of any consequence for a god, but it sure as hell matters to us. So if we know the thing was before we were, and we know it knows absolutely everything there'll ever be to know, then it'll already know what your entire life will be like, long, long before you live.

As long as one half of the equation here, moves in accordance with time as we percieve it, then we can't avoid the time issue. That's why I keep talking of gods that flicker in and out of existence and multiple realities. I can't see any other way to explain a combination of free will and omniscience.


And here we get to the crux of the issue. You say that cause and time have to run in the same direction. I disagree.

Let’s say that god has existed forever. Thus, his knowledge of what will be has existed forever. So let me ask: what is the cause of that knowledge? Why does god know this? It certainly couldn’t come from anything before god, since god has always existed.

My solution to this problem is that cause can flow against time. God’s knowledge of what will be is based, of course, on what will be. That is why I say that what will be, call it reality, is the source of god’s knowledge. God’s knowledge of reality is derived from reality.

But in many cases, reality hasn’t happened yet. I haven’t stopped at that stop sign or eaten that pretzel. I will, if god knows it, stop at that stop sign and I will, if god knows it, eat that pretzel. God knows I will do this because it is a part of reality, and my doing it makes it part of reality, and god’s knowledge comes from reality.

That is what I mean by cause flowing against time. Because god knows the future, the future can affect him. Would you admit that something you know about can affect you? If you know, at the time you write your next post, what I say in this post, it affects what you will say in your next one. Your knowledge has affected your action. But you, not being omniscient, can only acquire knowledge of what has or is happening. Thus you can only be affected by the knowledge of what has or is happening. But if god knows what has, is or will happen, then he can be affected by the future. Cause has gone backwards in time.


By the way, have you considered the implications for the god? I mean, if god knows everything, then god has no more free will that you do. Only it's much worse off than you or me. Because it can just sit there for eternity while it waits for it's actions to unfold. It can't defy it's own actions, because it already knows what it will do... All-knowingness is truely a bitch :p

If my action is not caused by god, and it is not caused by me, and god's actions are caused by neither me nor god, then what is the cause of action?


With a major snipage,
If God knows what your decision will be, then that decision is set.

Again I ask, what made god know it? Becuase if it was I who made god know it, then I would be the root cause of my action.

I've always liked the classic, "Just because."

That was my mother's answer to everything to which I raised any objection. :p

This is why I tried to introduce the ">" and "}" operators. He came chronologically before me. But not causally before me. Did his knowing cause me to do A? If not, then he certainly is not exercising control over me. I think we agree on this. Ignoring omnipotence for the moment, god isn’t making me do anything. His knowledge of this of my action, as you say, traps me, in a sense, into doing something. But what caused him to have posses that knowledge? His knowledge is chronologically before my action, but it is not causally before my action. He is not forcing me to do anything. He is not the cause of my action. So what is?


Still the same problem. You didn't make me eat that pretzel. What was the cause of me eating the pretzel, if it wasn't you and it wasn't me?
It's not a matter of god controlling you, it's a matter of fate. The idea that god knows what we will do supports the concept of an inevitable fate. Fate is not compatable with free will.

Again I ask, what made god know it? Becuase if it was I who made god know it, then I would be the root cause of my action.
The idea that God is omniscient "made" God know it. It is the premise that was being refuted, that God knows all.

If God knows all, then we do not have free will.

That was my mother's answer to everything to which I raised any objection. :p
Good for her! I bet she developed a very enquiring mind in you. ;)

It's not a matter of god controlling you, it's a matter of fate. The idea that god knows what we will do supports the concept of an inevitable fate. Fate is not compatable with free will.


Fate. A pretty word, I don’t know how it answers my questions. Surely, my action has a cause? Are you denying causality?

The way I understand it, “fate” means “everything that will happen is already set.” Cool. But what set it? Because if I set my own action, then I have free will. If that is not how you define fate, then let me know, I think this could be an interesting point.


The idea that God is omniscient "made" God know it. It is the premise that was being refuted, that God knows all.

If God knows all, then we do not have free will.

Of course god knows. Our hypothetical god knows everything. I’m not asking through what manner god acquired his knowledge, I’ll let “omniscience” take care of that.

God know what will happen. His knowledge, or at least part of it, could be called, “The Knowledge of What Will Happen in the Universe, For All Time.” This knowledge is based on what will happen in the universe, for all time. What happens in the universe, at least in part, are actions. These actions define what will happen in the universe. Thus, these actions spell out a part of god’s knowledge. These actions affect god’s knowledge. What caused these actions?

Well, this might not be a 'classic' argument, but Ghost in the Shell uses all sorts of logic and philosophy in it. So, here's from a discussion from Stand Alone Complex. The person speaking is an AI 'think tank' known as a Tachikoma. Over the course of the series, they become increasingly more complex, but that'snother story. Ahem:

"You know that existence of God thing you were trying to explain to me, i think i get it now. Here's my theory. Maybe, just maybe, it's a concept that's similar to a zero in mathematics.That is, it's a symobl that denies the absence of meaning. A meaning that is necessitated by the deliniation of one system to another. In analog, that's God, in digital, it's zero."

i sometimes wonder if god created christians just to annoy us atheists...

Fate. A pretty word, I don’t know how it answers my questions. Surely, my action has a cause? Are you denying causality?

The way I understand it, “fate” means “everything that will happen is already set.” Cool. But what set it? Because if I set my own action, then I have free will.

But then you're taking free will away from God.

Free will and knowledge of the future are not compatible concepts. You simply can't have the two of them co-existing.


Of course god knows. Our hypothetical god knows everything. I’m not asking through what manner god acquired his knowledge, I’ll let “omniscience” take care of that.

God know what will happen. His knowledge, or at least part of it, could be called, “The Knowledge of What Will Happen in the Universe, For All Time.” This knowledge is based on what will happen in the universe, for all time. What happens in the universe, at least in part, are actions. These actions define what will happen in the universe. Thus, these actions spell out a part of god’s knowledge. These actions affect god’s knowledge. What caused these actions?

If it wasn't God, then God has no free will... because God was presented with the creation of a universe, from its inception to its heat death (or however else it ends), in which he could see the form of every single thing that was going to happen but had no choice but to create it exactly in the form that it was made known to him as a result of whatever other agency you wish to propose was responsible for those actions which formed that knowledge.

I really wish people would just stop trying to claim God knows the future AND that we have free will because it only results in either blatant contradictions, or outright absurdities like this one.

Fate. A pretty word, I don’t know how it answers my questions. Surely, my action has a cause? Are you denying causality?

The way I understand it, “fate” means “everything that will happen is already set.” Cool. But what set it? Because if I set my own action, then I have free will. If that is not how you define fate, then let me know, I think this could be an interesting point.
The religious concept of fate is predestination, the idea that God set in motion all events from the beginning of each of our lives to the end. The secular version is determinism, the essence of cause-and-effect: every effect is the cause of more effects in an endless cascade. Both concepts are incompatable with will, which says that we (humans, and other willful beings) can introduce new effects.

If it is known that I will choose door number 2, then door number 2 is what I will choose. It is inevitable. With no possibility of choosing door number 1 or 3, there is nothing new introduced by my decision, no new effect caused by me choosing door number 2. If I had been able to introduced a new effect, it would have been door number 1 or 3, and God would be... wrong (invalidated, actually).

The first (predestination) is specifically incompatable with free will (the "freedom" of "free will" is freedom from God's imposed will).

Of course god knows. Our hypothetical god knows everything. I’m not asking through what manner god acquired his knowledge, I’ll let “omniscience” take care of that.

God know what will happen. His knowledge, or at least part of it, could be called, “The Knowledge of What Will Happen in the Universe, For All Time.” This knowledge is based on what will happen in the universe, for all time. What happens in the universe, at least in part, are actions. These actions define what will happen in the universe. Thus, these actions spell out a part of god’s knowledge. These actions affect god’s knowledge. What caused these actions?
If God knows what will happen, then it will happen; then a concept of the inevitable exists. I could not have chosen differently. I cannot surprise God with a last-minute change. This smacks of fate. *smack* With determinism, any "choice" I apparently make is actually the result of prior physical and mental conditions. Those pre-exisiting conditions determined what the choice will be, not I. My "will" is subject to them; effectively, no will, because I cannot introduce anything that is not predetermined.

Well, this might not be a 'classic' argument, but Ghost in the Shell uses all sorts of logic and philosophy in it. So, here's from a discussion from Stand Alone Complex. The person speaking is an AI 'think tank' known as a Tachikoma. Over the course of the series, they become increasingly more complex, but that'snother story. Ahem:

"You know that existence of God thing you were trying to explain to me, i think i get it now. Here's my theory. Maybe, just maybe, it's a concept that's similar to a zero in mathematics.That is, it's a symobl that denies the absence of meaning. A meaning that is necessitated by the deliniation of one system to another. In analog, that's God, in digital, it's zero."
Interesting. God is precisely meaningful to most believers. I like.

But then you're taking free will away from God.


Sure. This wasn’t the issue. The issue was, “if we have an omniscient being that has always and will always exist, then is there free will?”


Free will and knowledge of the future are not compatible concepts. You simply can't have the two of them co-existing.



Why not. Was his knowledge the cause of my action, and therefore deprived me of free will?


If it wasn't God, then God has no free will... because God was presented with the creation of a universe, from its inception to its heat death (or however else it ends), in which he could see the form of every single thing that was going to happen but had no choice but to create it exactly in the form that it was made known to him as a result of whatever other agency you wish to propose was responsible for those actions which formed that knowledge.


Again, I'm fine with this taking away a messure of free will from god. But I think you inserted something that we were not dealing with. We were not dealing with a god that created the world. That is an entirely different arguement. If god is the cause of the universe, then there is no free will because he is the root cause. But we were not dealing with this. At least I wasn't. I was just saying that if we have no free will, it wasn't god's knowledge of everything that makes that so, it's his being the first cause.


I really wish people would just stop trying to claim God knows the future AND that we have free will because it only results in either blatant contradictions, or outright absurdities like this one.

And I wish people would stop trying to claim that god's knowledge is the cause of my action. It isn't, and therefore doesn't prevent me from having free will.

Again, I'm fine with this taking away a messure of free will from god.

It's not taking away a "measure" of free will, it's taking away his ability to choose for himself how to interact with the universe in any way whatsoever, which is a just plain silly thing to impose on a claimed deity figure.

But I think you inserted something that we were not dealing with. We were not dealing with a god that created the world. That is an entirely different arguement. If god is the cause of the universe, then there is no free will because he is the root cause. But we were not dealing with this.

Fine, drop the creation part. The point remains.

And I wish people would stop trying to claim that god's knowledge is the cause of my action.

I certainly didn't say it was.

The religious concept of fate is predestination, the idea that God set in motion all events from the beginning of each of our lives to the end. The secular version is determinism, the essence of cause-and-effect: every effect is the cause of more effects in an endless cascade. Both concepts are incompatable with will, which says that we (humans, and other willful beings) can introduce new effects.


And both deal with cause. Good, that's what I was talking about, "What is the cause of my action?" It wasn't the fact that god knows everything. It might be because god set everything into motion. I agreed, several times before, that if god is the first cause then we have no free will. But it would be his causing, not his knowing, that would take away my free will.


If it is known that I will choose door number 2, then door number 2 is what I will choose. It is inevitable. With no possibility of choosing door number 1 or 3, there is nothing new introduced by my decision, no new effect caused by me choosing door number 2. If I had been able to introduced a new effect, it would have been door number 1 or 3, and God would be... wrong (invalidated, actually).


I deny nothing of this. Once we introduce the premise that "God knows x" then x will happen. But again, I ask, what causes god to know? If I caused god to know, then either way it was me who started the chain of cause and effect.


The first (predestination) is specifically incompatable with free will (the "freedom" of "free will" is freedom from God's imposed will).


Again, as you defined predestination above, it deals with first cause, not prior knowledge.


If God knows what will happen, then it will happen; then a concept of the inevitable exists. I could not have chosen differently. I cannot surprise God with a last-minute change. This smacks of fate. *smack* With determinism, any "choice" I apparently make is actually the result of prior physical and mental conditions. Those pre-exisiting conditions determined what the choice will be, not I. My "will" is subject to them; effectively, no will, because I cannot introduce anything that is not predetermined.

First premise, if god knows what will happen then it will happen, is something I agree with. But if I caused god to know it, I had a prior link on the causual chain.
Second premise, my will is subject to pre-existing conditionx, sure, if you want to say I choose what I choose because something is making me choose, then I agree. I am, at heart, an agnostic determinist. Have been for a while. This disproves none on my points. Or point, because it was really only one, namely that an everlasting god possesing all knowledge does not take away free will.

It's not taking away a "measure" of free will, it's taking away his ability to choose for himself how to interact with the universe in any way whatsoever, which is a just plain silly thing to impose on a claimed deity figure.

:headbang: This has nothing to do with how god interacts with the world. It has to do with how a being with all knowledge is contradictory to my free will. If you want to say that god affects the world, then fine, he might be taking way my free will. But his knowing doesn’t affect it.


Fine, drop the creation part. The point remains.


Your post was

If it wasn't God, then God has no free will... because God was presented with the creation of a universe, from its inception to its heat death (or however else it ends), in which he could see the form of every single thing that was going to happen but had no choice but to create it exactly in the form that it was made known to him as a result of whatever other agency you wish to propose was responsible for those actions which formed that knowledge.


What was the point of the passage other than that god would be forced into creating the world a specific way?


I certainly didn't say it was.

Then what is?

This has nothing to do with how god interacts with the world.

Yes, it does. How he interacts with the world, in any way, shapes the events that occur in that world.

If he is given perfect foreknowledge of how events in the world will unfold right from the beginning then that includes his own actions regarding that world and their effects. And they can't be changed without invalidating that foreknowledge.

Which means that if you insist on saying you have free will AND that God has foreknowledge you're eliminating God having free will, which is silly.

What was the point of the passage other than that god would be forced into creating the world a specific way?

The act of creation is just one among all the possible manners in which God interacts with the word which he would no longer have any free will in if it is insisted upon the he has foreknowledge and you have free will.

Then what it?

I didn't say ANYTHING was taking away YOUR free will in this scenario.

And both deal with cause. Good, that's what I was talking about, "What is the cause of my action?" It wasn't the fact that god knows everything. It might be because god set everything into motion. I agreed, several times before, that if god is the first cause then we have no free will. But it would be his causing, not his knowing, that would take away my free will.
I think the point your missing is the fact that you can still make a "choice" to do something and not have free will. If that choice is predetermined ie someone knows what your going to do before you do it then you dont have free will. The cause is irrelevant because the situation has already been determined before it happens. This is why if God knows your going to do something before you do it then you dont have free will.


I deny nothing of this. Once we introduce the premise that "God knows x" then x will happen. But again, I ask, what causes god to know? If I caused god to know, then either way it was me who started the chain of cause and effect.
Generally people believe god is Omniscent and knows everything. You dont cause god to know anything he already knows everything. Because of this the cause you keep alluding to doesnt matter.


First premise, if god knows what will happen then it will happen, is something I agree with. But if I caused god to know it, I had a prior link on the causual chain.
If god knows all(omniscent) then you will never cause god to know anything. Also if God knows what your going to do before you do it your doing it does not cause god to have knowledge of the choice. He already knew and the predetermined event occurs. Even though you made a choice the actual choice was predetermined and you lack free will because of this.

Second premise, my will is subject to pre-existing conditionx, sure, if you want to say I choose what I choose because something is making me choose, then I agree. I am, at heart, an agnostic determinist. Have been for a while. This disproves none on my points. Or point, because it was really only one, namely that an everlasting god possesing all knowledge does not take away free will.
If god is omniscent(all knowing) you dont have free will. If he knows all then you dont cause god to know anything by making a choice. If what you are saying is that if god knows that you are going to buy a pizza before your born but because you choose to buy the pizza thats what causes god to know that you would buy it then you seem to be missing the point. The act of you buying the pizza doesnt give god the knowledge of your choice. He already knows this because either he is omniscent and knows all or he knows it because its been predetermined to occur. In either case you lack free will because in both situations you cannot make a different choice from the one that is going to happen.

Yes, it does. How he interacts with the world, in any way, shapes the events that occur in that world.

If he is given perfect foreknowledge of how events in the world will unfold right from the beginning then that includes his own actions regarding that world and their effects. And they can't be changed without invalidating that foreknowledge.

Which means that if you insist on saying you have free will AND that God has foreknowledge you're eliminating God having free will, which is silly.

The act of creation is just one among all the possible manners in which God interacts with the word which he would no longer have any free will in if it is insisted upon the he has foreknowledge and you have free will.



It's not that I was trying to say that this has nothing to do with god's free will, or lack thereof, but that once god affects the world willingly then there is no chance of free will. If god chose to, he could take away my free will by killing me right now. My point was that if he chooses not to, then we are left with the logical repercussions of an all knowing being. Sorry if that was unclear.


I didn't say ANYTHING was taking away YOUR free will in this scenario.
Fair enough.

I think the point your missing is the fact that you can still make a "choice" to do something and not have free will. If that choice is predetermined ie someone knows what your going to do before you do it then you dont have free will. The cause is irrelevant because the situation has already been determined before it happens. This is why if God knows your going to do something before you do it then you dont have free will.


I guess it just depends on our definitions, because I agree that it is predetermined in the sense that it is known before I do it, before I was even born. I consider free will to mean that I am the cause of my actions. If you don’t want this definition, and define it differently, then we would of course run into problems.


Generally people believe god is Omniscent and knows everything. You dont cause god to know anything he already knows everything. Because of this the cause you keep alluding to doesnt matter.

If god knows all(omniscent) then you will never cause god to know anything. Also if God knows what your going to do before you do it your doing it does not cause god to have knowledge of the choice. He already knew and the predetermined event occurs. Even though you made a choice the actual choice was predetermined and you lack free will because of this.


I’m not saying that my doing it gave god the knowledge at the moment I do it. I’m saying that my doing it in the future will cause god to know it from the beginning of time. I’m not teaching, or causing him to know, anything he didn’t already know. He knew it, because he knows everything and has known everything since the beginning of time. He knew it because it would happen, and it would happen because I will do it. That’s what I meant, not that he knows it as soon as I do it. Cause goes backwards in time. Thus it is predetermined, but I was still the cause.


If god is omniscent(all knowing) you dont have free will. If he knows all then you dont cause god to know anything by making a choice. If what you are saying is that if god knows that you are going to buy a pizza before your born but because you choose to buy the pizza thats what causes god to know that you would buy it then you seem to be missing the point. The act of you buying the pizza doesnt give god the knowledge of your choice. He already knows this because either he is omniscent and knows all or he knows it because its been predetermined to occur. In either case you lack free will because in both situations you cannot make a different choice from the one that is going to happen.

I admit it is predetermine in the sense that god knows it, and once god knows it there is no possibility that I could do otherwise. But not only does his knowing it not cause me to do it, but my doing it causes him to know (by this I mean my doing it 2005 AD causes him to know it before ten gazzilion BC). You’re saying I cannot make a different choice from the one I make. That makes sense; I cannot do anything other than what I will do. But I still am the cause of me doing it, which is all I am concerned about.

I think the point your missing is the fact that you can still make a "choice" to do something and not have free will. If that choice is predetermined ie someone knows what your going to do before you do it then you dont have free will. The cause is irrelevant because the situation has already been determined before it happens. This is why if God knows your going to do something before you do it then you dont have free will.
I guess it just depends on our definitions, because I agree that it is predetermined in the sense that it is known before I do it, before I was even born. I consider free will to mean that I am the cause of my actions. If you don’t want this definition, and define it differently, then we would of course run into problems.
See I had a feeling you were using a vastly different definition of omniscience, god & time than the rest of us.

Generally people believe god is Omniscent and knows everything. You dont cause god to know anything he already knows everything. Because of this the cause you keep alluding to doesnt matter.

If god knows all(omniscent) then you will never cause god to know anything. Also if God knows what your going to do before you do it your doing it does not cause god to have knowledge of the choice. He already knew and the predetermined event occurs. Even though you made a choice the actual choice was predetermined and you lack free will because of this.
I’m not saying that my doing it gave god the knowledge at the moment I do it. I’m saying that my doing it in the future will cause god to know it from the beginning of time. I’m not teaching, or causing him to know, anything he didn’t already know. He knew it, because he knows everything and has known everything since the beginning of time. He knew it because it would happen, and it would happen because I will do it. That’s what I meant, not that he knows it as soon as I do it. Cause goes backwards in time. Thus it is predetermined, but I was still the cause.
You're generating what's known as a paradox now.

If god is omniscent(all knowing) you dont have free will. If he knows all then you dont cause god to know anything by making a choice. If what you are saying is that if god knows that you are going to buy a pizza before your born but because you choose to buy the pizza thats what causes god to know that you would buy it then you seem to be missing the point. The act of you buying the pizza doesnt give god the knowledge of your choice. He already knows this because either he is omniscent and knows all or he knows it because its been predetermined to occur. In either case you lack free will because in both situations you cannot make a different choice from the one that is going to happen.
I admit it is predetermine in the sense that god knows it, and once god knows it there is no possibility that I could do otherwise. But not only does his knowing it not cause me to do it, but my doing it causes him to know (by this I mean my doing it 2005 AD causes him to know it before ten gazzilion BC). You’re saying I cannot make a different choice from the one I make. That makes sense; I cannot do anything other than what I will do. But I still am the cause of me doing it, which is all I am concerned about.
Let me try to outline your definition of the god we're talking about:
1. it's perpetual - meaning, it's always been there and it always will be there, regardless of what have and will happen.
2. It's omniscient
3. It may or may not have free will

And our properties:
1. We're what we can observe we are
2. We actually have free will - as in, we're capable of making choices, regardless of anything and anyone's knowledge.

I hope I got it...
I'm unaware if the implications of omniscience have truely dawned on you, so I'd very much like you to try to define omniscience. But I digress.

First of all, who - if anything - causes stuff to happen?
My answer is: It doesn't matter. No matter who or what causes things to happen, god will know about it. God may or may not be the cause of your actions, but it knows what cause your actions, and it knows what your actions will be.
Why? Because that is what omniscience is. It knows everything. Omniscience doesn't include activity or motivation, it's just the property of knowing everything.

Now then... If you determine your own actions - if you have choice - god can only be in one state: Nonexistence.
Why? Because, omniscience means the god is outside time. It knows everything at any time. It knew all about rocket science back when dino's walked the earth. It will know all about what stoneage men was up to on friday nights, way out in the future, when humanity have evolved into hyper intelligent shades of the color blue (yea, I have no imagination myself).
You can't be in a situation where you are the cause of god's knowledge. Not unless god isn't around. Even if god momentarily fails to exist when you choose a soda, it will have known which one you'd pick, before you did it. It'll also know which one you picked, when it manages to exist again.
It simply doesn't matter which way causality flows. If god is omniscient and exists at any point in time, then god will know everything - past present and furture. Unless you're somehow even further removed from reality, you can't make god know something. God will always have known, no matter how you make the argument.

Maybe it makes more sense if you imagine what it would be like if you were omniscient.
You wake up one morning, and suddenly you know you'll have a wife called Glenda, 2,5 kids called Arthur, Brian and Mangledmutantspareribboy. You'll know you get a raise on the 4/11-'12. You'll know you'll cheat on your wife at a company party, and you'll know it will ruin your life completely, because Glenda will find out, leave you and take the kids. You'll know exactly how completely destroyed you'll feel, and you'll know you'll kill yourself 3 days later. You'll also know you'll spend the rest of the morning feeling really happy, because you feel sure you'll win the lottery. And you'll know full well, that you won't ever win anything at all.

That is omniscience. It's brutal. And the thing that'll bug you the most is; Not only can't you change a thing, but Glenda WILL find out. Because you know she will. Not even running her through an industrial meatgrinder will stop her.

That's what an omniscient god is like. And not only does it have to put up with our pathetic mishaps, it has to put up with it's own.

Reversing the order in which things happens, doesn't change it. If god is omniscient, and exists before or during your choices, then your choices aren't choices.

If god isn't omnipotent, then we can have an interesting debate on what makes things happen. Because omniscience alone doesn't cause anything. It just makes the causes & effects known.

One of the major flaws with the predominant monotheisms is omniscience & omnipotence. Because I can't believe something with those properties wouldn't refuse to exist the very moment it came into being. I mean... Talk about having absolutely nothing to look forward to.

Uhm.. Got sidetracked slightly there :) I mentioned you creating a paradox. Dictionary.com says a paradox is: "An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises."

The paradox is: You know everything + you don't know everything.
So which is it?
The chain of events, as you described it, is like this:
1. Omniscient god
2. You make a real, free choice.

It doesn't work. And if you switch the order, then god can't exist while you choose. God can't even cease to exist while you choose, and then start existing again, because god was omniscient before it vanished... So it already knew what you'd do.

Free will + Omniscience simply can't work. They are mutually exclusive. Not even god can have free will if it's omniscient. Omniscience reduces everyone to actors & spectators. There are no participants with omniscience.

This is also why the whole concept of sin is moronic. I mean; the Christian god have known since before the dawn of time, that I'd smoke, drink, do drugs and not believe in it. It's also known, that I have 0 chance of not doing it, because god knows I will do it. So honestly, who's the sinner? The Christian god is even omnipotent. That means that it's - directly or indirectly - the cause of everything. If I sin, and god made me, and god is infallible, where does that twat get off, throwing me on an eternal bonfire? I'm suddenly reduced to a receptacle for god's abuse. I have nothing to do with it at all, I just supply a body & mind for it to torment... Still the omniscience may very well have driven god completely bonkers. And like me, it can just observe it's own actions, knowing all that will happen because of it. If that turns out to be the case, then it has my deepest sympathy, and I hope it knows I'll manage to kill it :p

But I'm done with my rant for now. I hope you understand why I don't think what you suggest is possible

See I had a feeling you were using a vastly different definition of omniscience, god & time than the rest of us.


Well, maybe a different definition of free will. And not a different definition of god, but just limiting what kind of god we were talking about, because I agree that omnipotence is a bitch for those who want free will. I was interested in only two properties of god, omniscience and everlasting, so that’s the god I was trying got deal with.


You're generating what's known as a paradox now.

Let me try to outline your definition of the god we're talking about:
1. it's perpetual - meaning, it's always been there and it always will be there, regardless of what have and will happen.
2. It's omniscient
3. It may or may not have free will

And our properties:
1. We're what we can observe we are
2. We actually have free will - as in, we're capable of making choices, regardless of anything and anyone's knowledge.

I hope I got it...


Yes you do, but that last point is a bit vague. I wouldn't say we have free choice regardless of anything, just regardless of anyone's knowledge.


I'm unaware if the implications of omniscience have truely dawned on you, so I'd very much like you to try to define omniscience. But I digress.


I’ll define omniscience as “having complete, perfect and total knowledge of absolutely everything, regardless of time or other limiting factors.”


First of all, who - if anything - causes stuff to happen?
My answer is: It doesn't matter. No matter who or what causes things to happen, god will know about it. God may or may not be the cause of your actions, but it knows what cause your actions, and it knows what your actions will be.
Why? Because that is what omniscience is. It knows everything. Omniscience doesn't include activity or motivation, it's just the property of knowing everything.


Ok, so then cause isn't important? You agree that god's knowing doesn't actuay cause anything?


Snip
That is omniscience. It's brutal. And the thing that'll bug you the most is; Not only can't you change a thing, but Glenda WILL find out. Because you know she will. Not even running her through an industrial meatgrinder will stop her.


And here you put cause into the equation. You said she will find out because I know she will. I'm saying I know she will find out because she will find out. Even if I know it before she did find out, the fact that she would fine out still causes me to know. See the difference?


That's what an omniscient god is like. And not only does it have to put up with our pathetic mishaps, it has to put up with it's own.

Reversing the order in which things happens, doesn't change it. If god is omniscient, and exists before or during your choices, then your choices aren't choices.

If god isn't omnipotent, then we can have an interesting debate on what makes things happen. Because omniscience alone doesn't cause anything. It just makes the causes & effects known.


Exactly. It doesn't cause anything, just makes what will happen known to the omniscient being. That, in and of itself, does not change what will happen.


snip
Uhm.. Got sidetracked slightly there :) I mentioned you creating a paradox. Dictionary.com says a paradox is: "An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises."

The paradox is: You know everything + you don't know everything.
So which is it?
The chain of events, as you described it, is like this:
1. Omniscient god
2. You make a real, free choice.

It doesn't work. And if you switch the order, then god can't exist while you choose. God can't even cease to exist while you choose, and then start existing again, because god was omniscient before it vanished... So it already knew what you'd do.


I never said that an omniscient being doesn't know everything, that's a paradox. But all I was saying is that even if he knew before I choose what I will choose, he knows it because it will happen in the future, and I am the cause of it happening.


snip
This is also why the whole concept of sin is moronic. I mean; the Christian god have known since before the dawn of time, that I'd smoke, drink, do drugs and not believe in it. It's also known, that I have 0 chance of not doing it, because god knows I will do it. So honestly, who's the sinner? The Christian god is even omnipotent. That means that it's - directly or indirectly - the cause of everything. If I sin, and god made me, and god is infallible, where does that twat get off, throwing me on an eternal bonfire? I'm suddenly reduced to a receptacle for god's abuse. I have nothing to do with it at all, I just supply a body & mind for it to torment... Still the omniscience may very well have driven god completely bonkers. And like me, it can just observe it's own actions, knowing all that will happen because of it. If that turns out to be the case, then it has my deepest sympathy, and I hope it knows I'll manage to kill it :p

Fine by me, I was never a Christian.


But I'm done with my rant for now. I hope you understand why I don't think what you suggest is possible

I think you didn't understand what I was saying. God has always known everything. He knows this because it will happen. I, in the future, make it happen, so that god, in the past, forever, has always known this. There has never been an instance when he didn't know it.

Perhaps I’m not really saying anything different with all these posts, so let me try to get someone much smarter than I am to make my point:


Euthyphro: I would say that the pious is what all the gods love.
Socrates: Consider this: is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?


Is something going to happen because god knows it? Or does god know it because it will happen? Either way there is no doubt that it will happen. That is a given of omniscience. But my point is that god knows it because it will happen, and not the other way around.

God is a metaphore. he exists in people hearts andm inds. Not mine though.


In that way, he exists... nd everybody makes their own god, their own religion. In everybody who needs a god for support he will support what they need support for and not support the things they don't support... That how it works. With some people, who don't know or don't want too have their own god will find someone elses which has believes they agree with. Then they trust that person too teach him in the ways of his god, requering governing and support(money), which causes anarchy, fascism, Differences, enclaves, gangs, sektes(sp?), hatred, war and pain, etc.

God is a metaphore. he exists in people hearts andm inds.
if a god exists in people's hearts, then wouldn't people get blood clots?

if a god exists in people's hearts, then wouldn't people get blood clots?

lol, and if he exists in people's minds then they would get brain aneurysms?

God said to man there is no proof on my existence you must beleive in me on faith alone.
But aha says man I've found this and proves you exist. This contricts your teaching and shows you don't exist.

lol, and if he exists in people's minds then they would get brain aneurysms?
hmm, maybe that is why so many americans get heart attacks and seziures, not from the fast food, but from having little people in their hearts or brains...

If it is known that I will choose door number 2, then door number 2 is what I will choose. It is inevitable. With no possibility of choosing door number 1 or 3, there is nothing new introduced by my decision, no new effect caused by me choosing door number 2. If I had been able to introduced a new effect, it would have been door number 1 or 3, and God would be... wrong (invalidated, actually).
I deny nothing of this. Once we introduce the premise that "God knows x" then x will happen. But again, I ask, what causes god to know? If I caused god to know, then either way it was me who started the chain of cause and effect.
If God is omniscient, knows all past, present and future, and is perfect, so that knowledge is also perfect, then there is no cause to his knowledge, anymore than there is cause to his being. If omniscience is the premise, then he knows all without cause.

If I read you correctly, and you are trying to say that his knowledge of the future is dependant upon your actions in the present, then he is not omniscient. He knows no more of the future than any of us, and can only make estimations and predictions to come to conclusions.
EDIT: I see in another post that you clarified that this is not what you meant. But it is still what you say.

I am, at heart, an agnostic determinist. Have been for a while. This disproves none on my points. Or point, because it was really only one, namely that an everlasting god possesing all knowledge does not take away free will.
If you are a determinist --believe that all actions (events) are the result of prior actions (events) --then you do not believe in will at all, for the concepts are contradictory.

Will allows you to introduce new events, and violate determinism.

I’m not saying that my doing it gave god the knowledge at the moment I do it. I’m saying that my doing it in the future will cause god to know it from the beginning of time. I’m not teaching, or causing him to know, anything he didn’t already know. He knew it, because he knows everything and has known everything since the beginning of time. He knew it because it would happen, and it would happen because I will do it. That’s what I meant, not that he knows it as soon as I do it. Cause goes backwards in time. Thus it is predetermined, but I was still the cause.
Really, there is no difference between God knowing it "from the beginning of time" or knowing it "now" (at the moment you do it), since "now" is a subset of all time, and God knows all time at once.

Again, it comes down to, What is knowing? Knowing is not just an observation, it is a statement of truth. If he knows what you will do in the future, then it will be what you will do in the future. You do not have freedom to do otherwise.

The very idea that God knows says that there is only one way it can be. If it cannot be any other way, then we cannot introduce new effects through choice; therefore, whatever the cause of events, it is not us. We are just executing a predetermined program. Free will is an illusion.

The very idea that God knows says that there is only one way it can be. If it cannot be any other way, then we cannot introduce new effects through choice; therefore, whatever the cause of events, it is not us. We are just executing a predetermined program. Free will is an illusion.
You're screwing with determinism here. The cause of events is always us. And here's why, even with an omniscient deity:
People, when presented with contradictory courses of action, pick one, or a synthesis of the two, based on an analysis of facts and emotional considerations. God simply knows what decision those people are going to make. Knowing is different than forcing someone to do something. Just because I know my friend is going to make a particular decision doesn't mean I'm pretermining her actions. Same thing here.

My favorite, anthropocentrism is wrong. Honestly why do humans think that they are important. It the great scheme of things Humans are dust on particles of dust that last for shorter that a blink of an eye. So why would we think that a God would create a universe or souls just for us.

My favorite, anthropocentrism is wrong. Honestly why do humans think that they are important. It the great scheme of things Humans are dust on particles of dust that last for shorter that a blink of an eye. So why would we think that a God would create a universe or souls just for us.
1. Off topic.

2. Grammar.

3. Anthropocentrism is good. If you want to have a throwdown on that, give some reasons as to why you think it's bad. I assure you, Naess, Devall, and Sessions can't save you now *Darth Vader breathing*

If you are a determinist --believe that all actions (events) are the result of prior actions (events) --then you do not believe in will at all, for the concepts are contradictory.

Will allows you to introduce new events, and violate determinism.

I’m not arguing for free will, I’m just arguing that an omniscient god is not a violation of free will. A creator cause god of course, but not an omniscient god. Sorry if I didn't make that clear, it's just that was how the conversation evolved.

Really, there is no difference between God knowing it "from the beginning of time" or knowing it "now" (at the moment you do it), since "now" is a subset of all time, and God knows all time at once.

Again, it comes down to, What is knowing? Knowing is not just an observation, it is a statement of truth. If he knows what you will do in the future, then it will be what you will do in the future. You do not have freedom to do otherwise.

The very idea that God knows says that there is only one way it can be. If it cannot be any other way, then we cannot introduce new effects through choice; therefore, whatever the cause of events, it is not us. We are just executing a predetermined program. Free will is an illusion.

Maybe I should ask the question this way: I am presented with a can of Coke and a can of Pepsi. If god knows I will choose Coke, then I will choose Coke. If God knows I will choose Pepsi, I will choose Pepsi.

Let’s say god knew that I would pick Pepsi, and ten thousand billion years later, I choose Pepsi. Why didn’t god know I would pick Coke?

Let’s say god knew that I would pick Pepsi, and ten thousand billion years later, I choose Pepsi. Why didn’t god know I would pick Coke?

He knew you didn't pick Coke because you did not.

It seems that God is made out to be the creator of all events. If you look at God as if he was an observer, things become easier to understand.

God can only KNOW things that happen. If you do not do something, God cannot know you did it. If you do something, God knows it. And God exists at ALL times. God cannot know something before or after, since God knows. Time is irrevelent.

Hope that made sense... :confused:

He knew you didn't pick Coke because you did not.

It seems that God is made out to be the creator of all events. If you look at God as if he was an observer, things become easier to understand.

God can only KNOW things that happen. If you do not do something, God cannot know you did it. If you do something, God knows it. And God exists at ALL times. God cannot know something before or after, since God knows. Time is irrevelent.

Hope that made sense... :confused:

Exactly what I meant. God can't know that I choose Coke because I won't. Not the other way around

Exactly what I meant. God can't know that I choose Coke because I won't. Not the other way around
Hmmm... How to explain this...

Unlike what the last poster said, time does very much play a part in this. It does, because you - the one with the alleged free will - isn't outside time.
God is, though. That's why you can't affect god's knowledge.

Also, to say that an omniscient thingy only knows what is real is completely wrong. Omniscience is knowing everything. That means god knows what you don't do, as well as what you do. God isn't limited in any way. It doesn't 'not know' things because you don't do them. It knows you don't do <action>. And most likely, that's why you don't do them.

I say most likely, because if there happens to be am omnopotent god in the equation as well, then that god is what caused your action. Of course, that omnipotent god would have had to be around before the omniscient one.
What I'm trying to get at is, the only way something omniscient isn't responsible for your actions, if there's a prior, equal-or-greater force around.

The omniscient god we've been talking about have been a perpetual thing. A constant. So it was around before you had to make the choice. It knew the outcome before you did.
If you just say: "Well this being knew what I was gonna do because it looks at everything at once, all the time" then it's not omniscience. Omniscience isn't just observation. It's an absolute. That means, if the omniscient god didn't happen to look at the particular action you performed, if would still know the outcome, both before, during and after the action takes place.

I think you're talking about something more along the lines of omnipresense. That's not the same thing at all though. Seeing everything isn't knowing everything. For example, the spectator god wouldn't know why you did what you did. The omniscient god would.

Hmmm... How to explain this...

Unlike what the last poster said, time does very much play a part in this. It does, because you - the one with the alleged free will - isn't outside time.
God is, though. That's why you can't affect god's knowledge.

Also, to say that an omniscient thingy only knows what is real is completely wrong. Omniscience is knowing everything. That means god knows what you don't do, as well as what you do. God isn't limited in any way. It doesn't 'not know' things because you don't do them.

I’ll admit “not know” was a stupid choice of words. What I was trying to say was that god knows everything, so he knows that “I will choose Pepsi in the future.” He also knows “I won’t choose Coke in the future.” To say that he knows “I will choose Coke,” would be limiting his ability to know the future, since in this world it is true that I would choose Pepsi and god knows what is true. His knowledge of the future (or if god is timeless, just call it his knowledge in general) is such that he is able to distinguish between what will happen and what won’t.
Now it seems possible, if we remove god and cause from the situation, that I could choose either Coke or Pepsi. But I only choose Pepsi. I make a choice. God knows this, and he knows I won’t choose Coke. Why is it that he knows “I will choose Pepsi,” and not “I will choose Coke?” Either way, he knows the opposite to be false, but why does he know one to be true and the other to be false?

It knows you don't do <action>. And most likely, that's why you don't do them.

Here I disagree. It knows I won't do <action>, but that's not the reason why won't do it. His knowledge does not affect me, does that force me to do anything, is not the cause of my actions.

I say most likely, because if there happens to be am omnopotent god in the equation as well, then that god is what caused your action. Of course, that omnipotent god would have had to be around before the omniscient one.
What I'm trying to get at is, the only way something omniscient isn't responsible for your actions, if there's a prior, equal-or-greater force around.

That’s what makes (or one of the things that make) an omnipotent god different from an omniscient god. Omnipotent means that he could affect our actions if he choose, because he can do anything. Omniscience means that he knows our actions, but does not affect them.

The omniscient god we've been talking about have been a perpetual thing. A constant. So it was around before you had to make the choice. It knew the outcome before you did.
If you just say: "Well this being knew what I was gonna do because it looks at everything at once, all the time" then it's not omniscience. Omniscience isn't just observation. It's an absolute. That means, if the omniscient god didn't happen to look at the particular action you performed, if would still know the outcome, both before, during and after the action takes place.

I think you're talking about something more along the lines of omnipresense. That's not the same thing at all though. Seeing everything isn't knowing everything. For example, the spectator god wouldn't know why you did what you did. The omniscient god would.

Observation is a vehicle for the acquisition of knowledge. I don’t think an omniscient has sight as the way it acquires all its knowledge. I think, by definition, it just simply knows everything. But going back to the Coke and Pepsi choice, it knows what I will do and what I won’t do, without employing observation. It simply knows, through its omniscience, that I will choose Pepsi. It knows, through its omniscience, that I will not choose Coke. It doesn’t need to observe anything to see this, it doesn’t need to be present, it knows. When I say “why does it know,” I’m not asking for the media or channel through which it acquires its knowledge, I’m asking for the reason it knows “I will choose Pepsi” is true, and the reasons why it knows “I will choose Coke” is false.

1. Off topic.

2. Grammar.

3. Anthropocentrism is good. If you want to have a throwdown on that, give some reasons as to why you think it's bad. I assure you, Naess, Devall, and Sessions can't save you now *Darth Vader breathing*
1. How so. Its an argument.

2. What is wrong with my grammar?

3. I meant bad in the sense that it is wrong. I'm fine with people thinking that they are important. But the concept of importance was created by humans and has no absolute meaning. And I am sure that aliens believe just as firmly is xenocentrism. (Who, who, and who?)

You're screwing with determinism here. The cause of events is always us.
Perhaps, but what I know of it is only what has been covered in discussions on these forums. This is how it was explained, here.

And here's why, even with an omniscient deity:
People, when presented with contradictory courses of action, pick one, or a synthesis of the two, based on an analysis of facts and emotional considerations. God simply knows what decision those people are going to make. Knowing is different than forcing someone to do something. Just because I know my friend is going to make a particular decision doesn't mean I'm pretermining her actions. Same thing here.
Right. It's not about forcing anything to happen. You are correct, there. It's about knowing and inevitabilty, and an inability to change that. HIS knowing about it means it will happen; if you truly beieve that God knows, right now, what you will do in the future, then you do not believe in will. Not as it's commonly defined, as having choices.

My favorite, anthropocentrism is wrong. Honestly why do humans think that they are important. It the great scheme of things Humans are dust on particles of dust that last for shorter that a blink of an eye. So why would we think that a God would create a universe or souls just for us.
Because we are individuals.

Hmmm... How to explain this...

Unlike what the last poster said, time does very much play a part in this. It does, because you - the one with the alleged free will - isn't outside time.
God is, though. That's why you can't affect god's knowledge.

Also, to say that an omniscient thingy only knows what is real is completely wrong. Omniscience is knowing everything. That means god knows what you don't do, as well as what you do. God isn't limited in any way. It doesn't 'not know' things because you don't do them.

I’ll admit “not know” was a stupid choice of words. What I was trying to say was that god knows everything, so he knows that “I will choose Pepsi in the future.” He also knows “I won’t choose Coke in the future.” To say that he knows “I will choose Coke,” would be limiting his ability to know the future, since in this world it is true that I would choose Pepsi and god knows what is true. His knowledge of the future (or if god is timeless, just call it his knowledge in general) is such that he is able to distinguish between what will happen and what won’t.
Now it seems possible, if we remove god and cause from the situation, that I could choose either Coke or Pepsi. But I only choose Pepsi. I make a choice. God knows this, and he knows I won’t choose Coke. Why is it that he knows “I will choose Pepsi,” and not “I will choose Coke?” Either way, he knows the opposite to be false, but why does he know one to be true and the other to be false?

Why do god know? There are two answers to this, both amount to the same thing.
God knows, because it's omniscient.
We can't really debate it, because we have no clue what makes omniscience work

We can either accept omniscience, or we can scrap the concept. There's no way we can speculate about what makes omniscience work, because it's magic. It's like when people try to do the math on how fast Santa's sled has to be for him to visit all the kids in the world... Rediculous.


It knows you don't do <action>. And most likely, that's why you don't do them.

Here I disagree. It knows I won't do <action>, but that's not the reason why won't do it. His knowledge does not affect me, does that force me to do anything, is not the cause of my actions.

If the god is omniscient, it knows everything. If you determine your own actions, then god does not know everything, and can't be omniscient. It's really rather simple.
Regardless of whether god is outside time or not, you aren't. Therefore, god knows your 'desicions' before you do. So either you magically jumped out of time before you & god existed, and made the choice, or you didn't have a choice.


I say most likely, because if there happens to be am omnopotent god in the equation as well, then that god is what caused your action. Of course, that omnipotent god would have had to be around before the omniscient one.
What I'm trying to get at is, the only way something omniscient isn't responsible for your actions, if there's a prior, equal-or-greater force around.

That’s what makes (or one of the things that make) an omnipotent god different from an omniscient god. Omnipotent means that he could affect our actions if he choose, because he can do anything. Omniscience means that he knows our actions, but does not affect them.

Actually.. And omnipotent god will be the cause of everything. Omnipotence means the god has unlimited power to affect stuff. Omniscience means it knows everything. So... An omnipotent god has to have been around before anything else. Since it was around before anything else way, it knew then how everything would end up (it's omniscience). So.. In having ultimate knowledge of everything, before anything have actually taken place, must mean that everything that will ever happen, will do so in accordence with god's knowledge.
Arguably, omnipotence is a natural property of any omniscient god that happens to come first. And it's why a second omniscient being can't be omnipotent. It can't do anything of it's own accord, if all it's actions are already known.
- Much like you picking a soda.


The omniscient god we've been talking about have been a perpetual thing. A constant. So it was around before you had to make the choice. It knew the outcome before you did.
If you just say: "Well this being knew what I was gonna do because it looks at everything at once, all the time" then it's not omniscience. Omniscience isn't just observation. It's an absolute. That means, if the omniscient god didn't happen to look at the particular action you performed, if would still know the outcome, both before, during and after the action takes place.

I think you're talking about something more along the lines of omnipresense. That's not the same thing at all though. Seeing everything isn't knowing everything. For example, the spectator god wouldn't know why you did what you did. The omniscient god would.

Observation is a vehicle for the acquisition of knowledge. I don’t think an omniscient has sight as the way it acquires all its knowledge. I think, by definition, it just simply knows everything. But going back to the Coke and Pepsi choice, it knows what I will do and what I won’t do, without employing observation. It simply knows, through its omniscience, that I will choose Pepsi. It knows, through its omniscience, that I will not choose Coke. It doesn’t need to observe anything to see this, it doesn’t need to be present, it knows. When I say “why does it know,” I’m not asking for the media or channel through which it acquires its knowledge, I’m asking for the reason it knows “I will choose Pepsi” is true, and the reasons why it knows “I will choose Coke” is false.

It's that question again... You're right, omniscience has nothing to do with observation, it just knows. And it knows because it's omniscient.. Religion is the perfection of circular logic ;)
No use arguing about it. Either accept that omniscience is omniscience, or scrap the concept.

I don't know if you believe there is something omniscient. I don't, and perhaps that's why I have an easier time comming to terms with the implications of such a thing.


And here's why, even with an omniscient deity:
People, when presented with contradictory courses of action, pick one, or a synthesis of the two, based on an analysis of facts and emotional considerations. God simply knows what decision those people are going to make. Knowing is different than forcing someone to do something. Just because I know my friend is going to make a particular decision doesn't mean I'm pretermining her actions. Same thing here.

Right. It's not about forcing anything to happen. You are correct, there. It's about knowing and inevitabilty, and an inability to change that. HIS knowing about it means it will happen; if you truly beieve that God knows, right now, what you will do in the future, then you do not believe in will. Not as it's commonly defined, as having choices.

Exactly. Deluze, unlike god, you do not know what your friend will do. You assume something, based on conjecture. I don't know that I'll still be breathing in 30 seconds. I assume I will, based on conjecture.
An omniscient god on the other hand, knows for a fact what your friend will do, and it knows for a fact exactly when I'll stop breathing.

Since it knows these things in advance, and it's knowledge is absolute - infallible - neither one of us can defy what it knows. If it knows I'll be hovering over my desk in a moment, then I'll be hovering above my desk in a moment. Not even nailing my arse to the floorboards will stop me from hovering above my desk.

Why do god know? There are two answers to this, both amount to the same thing.
God knows, because it's omniscient.
We can't really debate it, because we have no clue what makes omniscience work

We can either accept omniscience, or we can scrap the concept. There's no way we can speculate about what makes omniscience work, because it's magic. It's like when people try to do the math on how fast Santa's sled has to be for him to visit all the kids in the world... Rediculous.


As I said, it's not about the manner in which he acquires knowledge, it's why is it that he acquires that specific knowledge of what will happen. But I think you saw that later.


If the god is omniscient, it knows everything. If you determine your own actions, then god does not know everything, and can't be omniscient.


I make an action, god knows it. There is no contradiction there. His knowing did not affect my choice. It's like what I tried to ask before - will something happen because he knows it, or does he know it because it will happen?

Actually.. And omnipotent god will be the cause of everything. Omnipotence means the god has unlimited power to affect stuff. Omniscience means it knows everything. So... An omnipotent god has to have been around before anything else. Since it was around before anything else way, it knew then how everything would end up (it's omniscience). So.. In having ultimate knowledge of everything, before anything have actually taken place, must mean that everything that will ever happen, will do so in accordence with god's knowledge.


No arguement. Omnipotence would serve a barrier to free will (unless you make the case that if an omnipotent being can do anything than it could grant free will because granting free will is a "thing" that can be done, but that's not the point).


Arguably, omnipotence is a natural property of any omniscient god that happens to come first. And it's why a second omniscient being can't be omnipotent. It can't do anything of it's own accord, if all it's actions are already known.
- Much like you picking a soda.


When did a second being come into this? We were talking about one being, omniscient but not omnipotent.
If you're saying that omniscience implies omnipotence, well that's something else. I would say it doesn't, but if you want to we can argue this. I said before it would get more complicated if we put omnipotence into this, so unless you feel that's impossible let's just stick with omniscience.


It's that question again... You're right, omniscience has nothing to do with observation, it just knows. And it knows because it's omniscient.. Religion is the perfection of circular logic ;)
No use arguing about it. Either accept that omniscience is omniscience, or scrap the concept.


Still doesn't answer the question. Why Pepsi and not Coke? Did god actively determine it? Why does his store of knowledge, however he got it, tell him that "he will pick Pepsi" and not "he will pick Coke?" Nothing about an omniscient god deals with why the universe comes out the say it does, why the choices I make get made the way they do. Only free choice, or an omnipotent god or other source of cause, deals with that.


I don't know if you believe there is something omniscient. I don't, and perhaps that's why I have an easier time comming to terms with the implications of such a thing.


I am agnostic. I don't believe in an omniscient being, but I don't disbelieve. I take an open view and consider all arguements.

Why do god know? There are two answers to this, both amount to the same thing.
God knows, because it's omniscient.
We can't really debate it, because we have no clue what makes omniscience work

We can either accept omniscience, or we can scrap the concept. There's no way we can speculate about what makes omniscience work, because it's magic. It's like when people try to do the math on how fast Santa's sled has to be for him to visit all the kids in the world... Rediculous.
As I said, it's not about the manner in which he acquires knowledge, it's why is it that he acquires that specific knowledge of what will happen. But I think you saw that later.
Actually, I answered both questions twice. And I'm pretty sure I've done it several times before as well.

If the god is omniscient, it knows everything. If you determine your own actions, then god does not know everything, and can't be omniscient.
I make an action, god knows it. There is no contradiction there. His knowing did not affect my choice. It's like what I tried to ask before - will something happen because he knows it, or does he know it because it will happen?
"If I make an action, god knows it. There's no contradiction here" Only if we scrap omniscience. Otherwise this statement is false. Omniscience is (for the 1 gazillionth time) knowing everything. There is no limit to omniscience. It's all-encompassing.
The whole point is, there's no omniscience if you do something, and something else then knows it. What you're talking about rules out omniscience! ...Arg..

Again I urge you to define what you mean by omniscience, because it sure as hell isn't the traditional definition. No offence or anything.

Returning to your question... The answer still stands. God knows simply because it's omniscient. Unless you define whether there are other, prior gods present in this equation, it becomes moot who caused what. God is omnipresent, thus it knows what will happen. Things can't help but happen in accordance with god's knowledge. Perhaps god isn't the cause, but neither are you. You can't help make the choices you do, anymore than god can help the choices it makes.
Omniscience is predetermination. If it's not predetermination, it's fallible, and thus it's not omniscience. It really shouldn't be that difficult to comprehend.

Actually.. An omnipotent god will be the cause of everything. Omnipotence means the god has unlimited power to affect stuff. Omniscience means it knows everything. So... An omnipotent god has to have been around before anything else. Since it was around before anything else way, it knew then how everything would end up (it's omniscience). So.. In having ultimate knowledge of everything, before anything have actually taken place, must mean that everything that will ever happen, will do so in accordence with god's knowledge.
No arguement. Omnipotence would serve a barrier to free will (unless you make the case that if an omnipotent being can do anything than it could grant free will because granting free will is a "thing" that can be done, but that's not the point).
Heh, but it's a funny scenario none the less. Because if an omnipotent god gives you free will, it stops being omnipotent. It stops being omnipotent, because it kills off it's own omniscience. Without omniscience, it cannot be omnipotent.
If I was an omnipotent god, I'd immediately do this very thing.

Arguably, omnipotence is a natural property of any omniscient god that happens to come first. And it's why a second omniscient being can't be omnipotent. It can't do anything of it's own accord, if all it's actions are already known.
- Much like you picking a soda.
When did a second being come into this? We were talking about one being, omniscient but not omnipotent.
If you're saying that omniscience implies omnipotence, well that's something else. I would say it doesn't, but if you want to we can argue this. I said before it would get more complicated if we put omnipotence into this, so unless you feel that's impossible let's just stick with omniscience.
You've determined the frame of this debate. I just try to oblige.
See you keep saying that an omniscient god isn't by definition the cause of anything. I agree with you. But the only way that statement can be true is if there's an omnipotent being hiding in on the fringes of our debate.
If not, then the cause of everything is omniscience, because omniscience cannot be wrong, and it exists before you 'make' a 'choice'. In other words, omniscience makes everything predetermined... As I've already stated a number of times.

It's that question again... You're right, omniscience has nothing to do with observation, it just knows. And it knows because it's omniscient.. Religion is the perfection of circular logic
No use arguing about it. Either accept that omniscience is omniscience, or scrap the concept.
Still doesn't answer the question. Why Pepsi and not Coke? Did god actively determine it? Why does his store of knowledge, however he got it, tell him that "he will pick Pepsi" and not "he will pick Coke?" Nothing about an omniscient god deals with why the universe comes out the say it does, why the choices I make get made the way they do. Only free choice, or an omnipotent god or other source of cause, deals with that.
Assuming our omniscient, perpetual god is the only one around, then yes. God or god's omniscience determined your course of action. There's no two ways about it.
Your refusal to acknowledge that omniscience = omnipotence is why I brought up an extra god. Another (older) god is the only way our god wouldn't have made your choice for you (we can debate to what extent god actually does anything, and how exactly omniscience functions if you want, but...).

I don't know if you believe there is something omniscient. I don't, and perhaps that's why I have an easier time comming to terms with the implications of such a thing.
I am agnostic. I don't believe in an omniscient being, but I don't disbelieve. I take an open view and consider all arguements.

I very much hope god didn't intent for you to do that :p

Pascal's wager is one of the worst arguments for believing in God out there.

Quite true. The one I like is "God is supposed perfect. Requisite to perfection is existence, therefore God must exist." However, this turns circular, because it basically says "if he exists, he exists."

C.S. Lewis's argument is also intriguing; that for every basic desire of man, there is something to meet that desire. For hunger there is food, for lust there is sex, for thirst there is water. This, however, assumes that a desire for God is intrinsic to all humanity.

The fact is that you can't prove God's existence without first assuming something that many people will not agree with. You also cannot prove God's nonexistence because it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of ANYTHING. Therefore, the argument is pointless.

"If I make an action, god knows it. There's no contradiction here" Only if we scrap omniscience. Otherwise this statement is false. Omniscience is (for the 1 gazillionth time) knowing everything. The whole point is, there's no omniscience if you do something, and something else then knows it. What you're talking about rules out omniscience! ...Arg..


I never said, or never meant to say, that I do something, and then god knows it. Let me make this 100% clear: god knew it before I did it.What I am saying is that if god knows what the future holds, then god is affected by the future because we can be affected by what we know. That simple. I know something, it affects me. God knows something, it affects him. God knows somethign will happen, it affects him, regardless of it being in the future.


Again I urge you to define what you mean by omniscience, because it sure as hell isn't the traditional definition. No offence or anything.


I would define omniscience as having perfect, complete and absolute knowledge about everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. And since he knows what is in the future, and our knowledge can affect us, this definition means that he can be affected by the future. Or rather not that he can be affected, but that he is. He is affected in that future caused him to know the future, whenever it was he came into being.


Returning to your question... The answer still stands. God knows simply because it's omniscient. Unless you define whether there are other, prior gods present in this equation, it becomes moot who caused what. God is omnipresent, thus it knows what will happen. Things can't help but happen in accordance with god's knowledge. Perhaps god isn't the cause, but neither are you.You can't help make the choices you do, anymore than god can help the choices it makes.


Ok, so I'm not the cause, and god's not the cause. What is? Because if it's not god, then his omniscience is not preventing my free will.


Omniscience is predetermination. If it's not predetermination, it's fallible, and thus it's not omniscience. It really shouldn't be that difficult to comprehend.


He is infallible because he knows what will happen, it will not happen because he is infallible


Heh, but it's a funny scenario none the less. Because if an omnipotent god gives you free will, it stops being omnipotent. It stops being omnipotent, because it kills off it's own omniscience. Without omniscience, it cannot be omnipotent.
If I was an omnipotent god, I'd immediately do this very thing.


Perhaps a proof that omnipotence is a contradiction? Bah, a topic for another thread.


You've determined the frame of this debate. I just try to oblige.
See you keep saying that an omniscient god isn't by definition the cause of anything. I agree with you. But the only way that statement can be true is if there's an omnipotent being hiding in on the fringes of our debate.
If not, then the cause of everything is omniscience, because omniscience cannot be wrong, and it exists before you 'make' a 'choice'. In other words, omniscience makes everything predetermined... As I've already stated a number of times.

Assuming our omniscient, perpetual god is the only one around, then yes. God or god's omniscience determined your course of action. There's no two ways about it.


If there's a point to your arguement I'm not getting this would be it. How could it be the cause of our actions? What about him knowing makes me do it, and not me doing it makes him know?


Your refusal to acknowledge that omniscience = omnipotence is why I brought up an extra god. Another (older) god is the only way our god wouldn't have made your choice for you (we can debate to what extent god actually does anything, and how exactly omniscience functions if you want, but...).


But that older god had omnipotence, and thus was the cause, while this one isn't omnipotent. And yes, I think the two are different because on means "can do everything" and one means "knows everything."


I very much hope god didn't intent for you to do that :p

Not that I know of, but then again, I'm not omniscient :p

Quite true. The one I like is "God is supposed perfect. Requisite to perfection is existence, therefore God must exist." However, this turns circular, because it basically says "if he exists, he exists."


I think Anselm thought of that one, and it was later adapted by Descartes. People have been blowing it out of the water ever since.
Kant was particularly brutal, by demonstrating that "existance" is not a property, it's a predicate to properties. It's like looking for the perfect boyfriend/girlfriend, and adding "exists" to the list of things you're looking for. It doesn't change anything, and it certainly doesn't cause them to come into being.


C.S. Lewis's argument is also intriguing; that for every basic desire of man, there is something to meet that desire. For hunger there is food, for lust there is sex, for thirst there is water. This, however, assumes that a desire for God is intrinsic to all humanity.


Never heard that one before. Interesting, but I agree with your arguement against it. Maybe I'll have to read some of his stuff (other than Narnia).

"If I make an action, god knows it. There's no contradiction here" Only if we scrap omniscience. Otherwise this statement is false. Omniscience is (for the 1 gazillionth time) knowing everything. The whole point is, there's no omniscience if you do something, and something else then knows it. What you're talking about rules out omniscience! ...Arg..

I never said, or never meant to say, that I do something, and then god knows it. Let me make this 100% clear: god knew it before I did it.What I am saying is that if god knows what the future holds, then god is affected by the future because we can be affected by what we know. That simple. I know something, it affects me. God knows something, it affects him. God knows somethign will happen, it affects him, regardless of it being in the future.

This is persumably true. At least, I agree with it. But you contradictit further down.


Again I urge you to define what you mean by omniscience, because it sure as hell isn't the traditional definition. No offence or anything.

I would define omniscience as having perfect, complete and absolute knowledge about everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. And since he knows what is in the future, and our knowledge can affect us, this definition means that he can be affected by the future. Or rather not that he can be affected, but that he is. He is affected in that future caused him to know the future, whenever it was he came into being.

Actually, whether or not anything can have an impact on god isn't defined. And omniscience says nothing about it. Regardless, I agree.


Returning to your question... The answer still stands. God knows simply because it's omniscient. Unless you define whether there are other, prior gods present in this equation, it becomes moot who caused what. God is omnipresent, thus it knows what will happen. Things can't help but happen in accordance with god's knowledge. Perhaps god isn't the cause, but neither are you.You can't help make the choices you do, anymore than god can help the choices it makes.

Ok, so I'm not the cause, and god's not the cause. What is? Because if it's not god, then his omniscience is not preventing my free will.

Seriously. I know I'm bad at explaining things, but I'm not THIS bad. But look at it this way:
1: Omniscience cause god to know things. It's like your nerves causing you pain if something bites your hand.
2: Omniscience is not fallible. If it's fallible then it isn't omniscience at all.
3: Either something cronologically prior to the omniscient being caused everything, or the omniscient being caused everything. I've stressed this many many times. Please do not twist my words.
4: Regardless of what/who is the cause, you have no free will. Arguably, noone - god(s) included - have. Because the outcome of everything is already known. The question of god's free will is much more interesting than the question of our free will. Obviously we don't have free will, otherwise our actions could not possibly be known before they take place.
5: I say yet again; if our omnisceint god is the only one there, then it is the cause. In some way it does determine your actions.
6: Fate seems a distinct possibility if there's omniscience. Otherwise the god doesn't make much sense.
7: Repeat 3-6 untill it becomes clear. Free will and omniscience can't both be present.


Omniscience is predetermination. If it's not predetermination, it's fallible, and thus it's not omniscience. It really shouldn't be that difficult to comprehend.

He is infallible because he knows what will happen, it will not happen because he is infallible

Hah! I wouldn't be so quick to say that. How do you know? - This is like the hen & egg argument.


Heh, but it's a funny scenario none the less. Because if an omnipotent god gives you free will, it stops being omnipotent. It stops being omnipotent, because it kills off it's own omniscience. Without omniscience, it cannot be omnipotent.
If I was an omnipotent god, I'd immediately do this very thing.

Perhaps a proof that omnipotence is a contradiction? Bah, a topic for another thread.

No real argument there. At least omnipotence must be quite unlike what most people imagine. But yea... Another time.


You've determined the frame of this debate. I just try to oblige.
See you keep saying that an omniscient god isn't by definition the cause of anything. I agree with you. But the only way that statement can be true is if there's an omnipotent being hiding in on the fringes of our debate.
If not, then the cause of everything is omniscience, because omniscience cannot be wrong, and it exists before you 'make' a 'choice'. In other words, omniscience makes everything predetermined... As I've already stated a number of times.

Assuming our omniscient, perpetual god is the only one around, then yes. God or god's omniscience determined your course of action. There's no two ways about it.

If there's a point to your arguement I'm not getting this would be it. How could it be the cause of our actions? What about him knowing makes me do it, and not me doing it makes him know?

Because you can't make something known to an omniscient being. It's an oxymoron. It's like saying water start fires.
How could you possibly do anything that an omniscient being doesn't already know? If you could, then the being wouldn't be omniscient. It's that simple.

So you say: "But it knows because I did something". Alright... It knows you'll do something because you'll do something. That's more or less what I've been trying to say all along. It knows you'll do something. Where in this equation do you have a choice? And where do yopu make god aware of your actions?
The answer is you don't. God knows. It's omniscient. It's it's job to know. It's what it does. There's just no way you're the cause of god's knowledge, because if you were, then god couldn't be omniscient.


Your refusal to acknowledge that omniscience = omnipotence is why I brought up an extra god. Another (older) god is the only way our god wouldn't have made your choice for you (we can debate to what extent god actually does anything, and how exactly omniscience functions if you want, but...).

But that older god had omnipotence, and thus was the cause, while this one isn't omnipotent. And yes, I think the two are different because on means "can do everything" and one means "knows everything."

The two aren't so very different. Either the omniscient god is the cause of everything, fate is the cause of everything (in this case, fate rules god), or another, older god is the cause of everything.
There's only so many ways to skin this particular cat.
Without predetermination of some sort, omniscience can't work. It doesn't matter a whole lot who/what is the source of predetermination. As long as it's there, omniscience can work. If it's absent, then omniscience can't work.




I very much hope god didn't intent for you to do that

Not that I know of, but then again, I'm not omniscient

It was a joke. I meant; if god didn't intend you to, then you have free will ;)

So you say: "But it knows because I did something". Alright... It knows you'll do something because you'll do something. That's more or less what I've been trying to say all along. It knows you'll do something. Where in this equation do you have a choice? And where do yopu make god aware of your actions?
The answer is you don't. God knows. It's omniscient. It's it's job to know. It's what it does. There's just no way you're the cause of god's knowledge, because if you were, then god couldn't be omniscient.
Where in this equation don't you have a choice?
Okay... Think of it this way:

Universe #1: A universe without an omniscent god. Bob is given a choice. Coke or Pepsi. Bob chooses Coke. Bob made this choice of his own free will (Bob made his decision with no outside influence. I hope you agree...).
Universe #2: A universe with an omniscent god that knows everything. Bob is given a choice. Coke or Pepsi. The omniscent god has always known that Bob would choose Coke. Bob chooses Coke. Bob made this choice of his own free will (Below is why).

Universe #2 is subject to an 'if and only if' statement. God knows that Bob will choose Coke 'if and only if' Bob chooses Coke. Vice-versa is true. Bob chooses Coke 'if and only if' God knows Bob chooses Coke. God cannot know Bob did something if Bob never does it. Bob cannot do something God does not know. Therefore: God and Bob are subject to each other. There will never be a universe where God and Bob make a different decision. The decision will always be the same. Bob has free will because God is the "Observer" (as in God knows everything but does not affect an event by knowing. That would be omnipotence). Bob "causes" God to know because Bob is the only being that can make a choice (God is just an "observer"). Bob made his decision with no outside influence.

Another theory: It is like a loop. If God knows something, the loop stops and starts over and Bob does it. If Bob does something, the loop stops and starts over and God knows it. The loop is broken when what Bob does and what God knows, is the same. That is our universe with a omniscent God. Just an idea... :rolleyes:

Where in this equation don't you have a choice?
Okay... Think of it this way:

Universe #1: A universe without an omniscent god. Bob is given a choice. Coke or Pepsi. Bob chooses Coke. Bob made this choice of his own free will (Bob made his decision with no outside influence. I hope you agree...).
Universe #2: A universe with an omniscent god that knows everything. Bob is given a choice. Coke or Pepsi. The omniscent god has always known that Bob would choose Coke. Bob chooses Coke. Bob made this choice of his own free will (Below is why).

Universe #2 is subject to an 'if and only if' statement. God knows that Bob will choose Coke 'if and only if' Bob chooses Coke. Vice-versa is true. Bob chooses Coke 'if and only if' God knows Bob chooses Coke. God cannot know Bob did something if Bob never does it. Bob cannot do something God does not know. Therefore: God and Bob are subject to each other. There will never be a universe where God and Bob make a different decision. The decision will always be the same. Bob has free will because God is the "Observer" (as in God knows everything but does not affect an event by knowing. That would be omnipotence). Bob "causes" God to know because Bob is the only being that can make a choice (God is just an "observer"). Bob made his decision with no outside influence.
That's where you have no choice.

It has nothing to do with God affecting the events (it may, in fact, be fate that determines them); but in knowing it can only be one way, it cannot be any other way. Therefore, there is no choice.

Saying "Bob makes a choice" doesn't accurately describe what really happens, in the scenario as you've laid it out. It is the illusion of choice, Bob ignorantly believing he has a choice. But he does not; not in this scenario. That's not free will.

Will is not invalidated by coercion. When someone is coerced we say, "They did it against their will," but the will is still there. And it is still theirs.

That's where you have no choice.

It has nothing to do with God affecting the events (it may, in fact, be fate that determines them); but in knowing it can only be one way, it cannot be any other way. Therefore, there is no choice.

Saying "Bob makes a choice" doesn't accurately describe what really happens, in the scenario as you've laid it out. It is the illusion of choice, Bob ignorantly believing he has a choice. But he does not; not in this scenario. That's not free will.
Have you ever really the Dune books by Frank Herbert? Those books have some interesting insights into the ideas of omniscience.

I still believe that Bob causes God to know. Yeah, yeah, I know that the God is omniscient and all. In actuality... with my above arguement... Neither God nor Bob makes a choice as they are bound together in their universe.

(It has been said that if someone knew the exact position and velocity of every particle in the universe, that that person could reconstruct the past and predict the future exactly how it was and how it will be. SO in that sense, every choice could be determined at the exact start of the universe and everything is predestined by the laws of physics.)

But something had to make the choice and I stated God could not, so it had to be Bob (assuming no other controling Gods). Tell me, what else made the choice if God or Bob did not? I really don't think this topic is going to get anywhere because you believe Bob has the "illusion of choice", and I believe that he actually indeed has a choice.

Will is not invalidated by coercion. When someone is coerced we say, "They did it against their will," but the will is still there. And it is still theirs.
I'm not sure what that means. What does coersion have to do with the above arguement?

Have you ever really the Dune books by Frank Herbert? Those books have some interesting insights into the ideas of omniscience.
Long ago, yes, the first one. Too long ago to remember anything more than that I liked it.

But something had to make the choice and I stated God could not, so it had to be Bob (assuming no other controling Gods). Tell me, what else made the choice if God or Bob did not? I really don't think this topic is going to get anywhere because you believe Bob has the "illusion of choice", and I believe that he actually indeed has a choice.
There is no choice; this is what we're saying. There is just the execution of a pre-made program.

Originally Posted by Willamena
Will is not invalidated by coercion. When someone is coerced we say, "They did it against their will," but the will is still there. And it is still theirs.
I'm not sure what that means. What does coersion have to do with the above arguement?
Bob made this choice of his own free will (Bob made his decision with no outside influence...

You seemed to be implying that it's not "free will" if our decisions are influenced by others. Coercion was what came to mind. Perhaps I read more into it than was there.

I think it's pretty odd we can't agree on this.

1: God knows everything as soon as god starts to exist.
2: God knows it will ingest vast amounts of tea, while it waits a few gazillion years for something interesting to happen.
3: God also knows bob will eventually be born on planet Earth, and buy a coke.
4: NS comes into being, and god dies from laughter, because the NS'ers can't grasp that fate, omnipotence or predestination are the only ways in which omniscience can work.
5: People go about their business, killing in the name of random gods as usual.

:p

I think it's pretty odd we can't agree on this.
Yes; sadly reflected in the fact that I have to disagree with your #1... God always was, didn't just "start" existing.

;)

Seriously, I think the problem is that whatever omniscience is, it is not knowing, not as we define knowing. It has the same quality of being absolute, but allows somehow for free will.

Oh wait... that's magic.