NationStates Jolt Archive

I came up with this the other day whilst in France on a school trip; it's an argument against God in the classical sense of Him/Her being both free from sin and omniscient.
If you can see any flaws then be brutal and tell me; I'm an agnostic so it won't make much difference.
I just enjoy philosophy.

Straight from my notepad:
If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.
If, however, He/She allows only the illusion of free will, then this would imply that either there is a power greater than God which has determined the course of the Universe (thus showing that God is not the greatest power) or that God Him/Herself controls life and action; this would mean, however, that God was the cause of sin and thus sinful Himself/Herself.

What do you think?
I don't want a religious fight/war; just a philosophical/theological discussion.

Ilaer

If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.

Why would God not know what will occur if He allows free will? It is possible to know something will happen without interfering in it.

If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.

I don't think it's such a strict dichotomy. For example, I know how to multiply. If I take the time to work it out, I might discover that 7 x 73 x 137 x 191 = 13371337. However, at any given moment, I am not certain of the result of such simple calculations, although I am quite capable of obtaining the answer. Similarly, God may be able to see in the future, thus negating free will; however, he opts not to do this, although he retains the capacity to do so. Thus, he may both be omniscient and allow free will.

This may be me trying to force my belief on others but...

I really disagree with it when people describe God as a He/She. It wrongly implies (according to my beliefs) that God and humans can be compared.

Divine Providence is not in a position to know or not know the future, since the Divine is the future.

Why would God not know what will occur if He allows free will? It is possible to know something will happen without interfering in it.

But then it would not, by definition, be free will. Free will implies choice; however, if God is cognizant of what a given person will choose, this seems to contradict that freedom. A computer doesn't have free will -- it runs according to some algorithms and natural law. The same thing would apply to humans if the outcome in a given situation was determined by God prior to its unfolding.

I came up with this the other day whilst in France on a school trip; it's an argument against God in the classical sense of Him/Her being both free from sin and omniscient.
If you can see any flaws then be brutal and tell me; I'm an agnostic so it won't make much difference.
I just enjoy philosophy.

Straight from my notepad:
If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.
If, however, He/She allows only the illusion of free will, then this would imply that either there is a power greater than God which has determined the course of the Universe (thus showing that God is not the greatest power) or that God Him/Herself controls life and action; this would mean, however, that God was the cause of sin and thus sinful Himself/Herself.

What do you think?
I don't want a religious fight/war; just a philosophical/theological discussion.

Ilaer

No more, please. They made Smunkee leave. I suggest we ban religious threads, like "Challenge to Christianity" or "Challenge to Atheism".

*puts on anti-flame armour* This is NSG.

God can be both omniscient and allow free will.

Just because God can see what your life will lead to (thus being omniscient), it does not mean you did not freely choose how and where to go. Everyone chooses to do something, which invariably leads them to something else, until they die. God being able to see the final outcome does not negate that the will was free.

I think there is a flaw in my argument.. that since God can see the outcome of your life it must already be "set in stone" and therefore the will is not free..

I have no idea really.

I will now explain how God can be both omniscient and entirely good as well. (that sure sounds cocky..)

Since God is a divine being and knows of course that there is in fact an afterlife, God does not see the suffering of the world as all that important. This is not to say that God is "cold-hearted" or "cruel" but rather knows the truth, whereas we humans may or may not believe/truly understand that there is an afterlife. If we all Truly believed in "Heaven", we would not think as much of suffering, as it is merely temporary and hardly a bother at all in the end.

Analogy: God is like the Coach that watches us all run around on the track, "suffering", but since he knows the outcome is a great improvement, the "suffering" is negligible.

Why would God not know what will occur if He allows free will? It is possible to know something will happen without interfering in it.

I did not think of this; however, if one already knows that something is going to happen, if one knows with absolute certainty, then does free will really exist for that thing?
It is like saying that I will choose to save a life as opposed to ending a life; if the outcome was known beforehand with absolute certainty and there was not any chance whatsoever, no matter how infinitesimally small, that I would choose the other option, then I would say that I do not have free will, as if I did then there is always the chance that I will not choose the predicted outcome.

I don't think it's such a strict dichotomy. For example, I know how to multiply. If I take the time to work it out, I might discover that 7 x 73 x 137 x 191 = 13371337. However, at any given moment, I am not certain of the result of such simple calculations, although I am quite capable of obtaining the answer. Similarly, God may be able to see in the future, thus negating free will; however, he opts not to do this, although he retains the capacity to do so. Thus, he may both be omniscient and allow free will.

But at the time when He/She chooses not to see the future and thus does not know the future, are they omniscient?

This may be me trying to force my belief on others but...

I really disagree with it when people describe God as a He/She. It wrongly implies (according to my beliefs) that God and humans can be compared.

Divine Providence is not in a position to know or not know the future, since the Divine is the future.

I did that to appease any ardent feminists. As an agnostic I'm really not bothered.

Ilaer

Straight from my notepad:
If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.
If, however, He/She allows only the illusion of free will, then this would imply that either there is a power greater than God which has determined the course of the Universe (thus showing that God is not the greatest power) or that God Him/Herself controls life and action; this would mean, however, that God was the cause of sin and thus sinful Himself/Herself.

What do you think?
I don't want a religious fight/war; just a philosophical/theological discussion.

Ilaer
Just because you've read the book doesn't mean you wrote the book.

The characters in the book may well hav had free will - you didn't influence their behaviour - but you do know what they did.

This is easier to understand if you think of God as existing outside linear time. After all, he created the universe, so he created time. There is no reason why time should constrain him (in fact, if it did that would remove his omnipotence).

No more, please. They made Smunkee leave. I suggest we ban religious threads, like "Challenge to Christianity" or "Challenge to Atheism".

Smunkee left?! :(
I'm not happy now.
I don't want to challenge anything except thought; not beliefs. I want a philosophical argument.

*puts on anti-flame armour* This is NSG.

God can be both omniscient and allow free will.

Just because God can see what your life will lead to (thus being omniscient), it does not mean you did not freely choose how and where to go. Everyone chooses to do something, which invariably leads them to something else, until they die. God being able to see the final outcome does not negate that the will was free.

I think there is a flaw in my argument.. that since God can see the outcome of your life it must already be "set in stone" and therefore the will is not free..

I have no idea really.

I would argue that that flaw exists; I daresay it could be overcome, though. I want a philosophical debate and will happily discuss any flaw in any argument, including my own or your own.

Ilaer

I came up with this the other day whilst in France on a school trip; it's an argument against God in the classical sense of Him/Her being both free from sin and omniscient.
If you can see any flaws then be brutal and tell me; I'm an agnostic so it won't make much difference.
I just enjoy philosophy.

Straight from my notepad:
If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.
If, however, He/She allows only the illusion of free will, then this would imply that either there is a power greater than God which has determined the course of the Universe (thus showing that God is not the greatest power) or that God Him/Herself controls life and action; this would mean, however, that God was the cause of sin and thus sinful Himself/Herself.

What do you think?
I don't want a religious fight/war; just a philosophical/theological discussion.

Ilaer

While I'm certainly willing to blame the whole thing on God, I fail to see the connection between causing sin and being sinful.

This may be me trying to force my belief on others but...

I really disagree with it when people describe God as a He/She. It wrongly implies (according to my beliefs) that God and humans can be compared.

Divine Providence is not in a position to know or not know the future, since the Divine is the future.

Man, that's a skew post :)

But at the time when He/She chooses not to see the future and thus does not know the future, are they omniscient?

That's a question of semantics. What is knowledge, in the first place? Do you know that the capital of France is Paris? Do you know that 1+1 is 2? Do you know that 51+51=102? If you know all these, it is similarly possible to "know" the fate of the world without actively contemplating it.

I came up with this the other day whilst in France on a school trip; it's an argument against God in the classical sense of Him/Her being both free from sin and omniscient.
If you can see any flaws then be brutal and tell me; I'm an agnostic so it won't make much difference.
I just enjoy philosophy.

Straight from my notepad:
If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.
If, however, He/She allows only the illusion of free will, then this would imply that either there is a power greater than God which has determined the course of the Universe (thus showing that God is not the greatest power) or that God Him/Herself controls life and action; this would mean, however, that God was the cause of sin and thus sinful Himself/Herself.

What do you think?
I don't want a religious fight/war; just a philosophical/theological discussion.

Ilaer

Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are, in and of themselves, impossible.

For omnipotence: Can God create a boulder so big even He/She/It/They/Those/Pasta can't lift it/ a taco so hot even He/She/It/They/Those/Pasta can't eat it? Either answer constrains his ability to either create or manipulate, so this obviously is false.

And if God were everywhere, how could anything else be? According to physics, no two objects can be in the same place at the same time. Unless everything is God (which we know is false, obviously), then that is incorrect.

And omniscience... I forgot the proof but it's also impossible.



So God (as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent He/She/It/They/Those/Pasta) does not exist by virtue that none of those three things can exist.

Just because you've read the book doesn't mean you wrote the book.

The characters in the book may well hav had free will - you didn't influence their behaviour - but you do know what they did.

This is easier to understand if you think of God as existing outside linear time. After all, he created the universe, so he created time. There is no reason why time should constrain him (in fact, if it did that would remove his omnipotence).

The book analogy is a bad one; if it is a book that is complete then the path is predetermined and also implies an author; however, of the book is being written as you read it, then you are reading it slightly behind the point when it is being written and thus you do not know the future, or even the present no matter how fast you read; you would not know everything.
I have always disliked the way that people will put God outside of time and space; it seems to be a rather lazy way of avoiding an argument, taking the easy way out, as it were. One might as well say that the Universe has always existed and had no beginning and that everything was pure chance.

A polite request which I don't really mind if you follow, then: please, no placing God outside of time in a manner as has just been done.
I don't particularly mind, but it does strike me as a very cheap and easy argument.

Ilaer

While I'm certainly willing to blame the whole thing on God, I fail to see the connection between causing sin and being sinful.

Left on its own a knife will do no damage to anyone.
If I take a knife and stab someone with it, however, it is harming someone; it is my fault because the knife has no control over its actions and I have over both my own and its actions.

That's a question of semantics. What is knowledge, in the first place? Do you know that the capital of France is Paris? Do you know that 1+1 is 2? Do you know that 51+51=102? If you know all these, it is similarly possible to "know" the fate of the world without actively contemplating it.

But those are also bad analogies, at least to myself; they are all set in stone, especially the mathematics ones. Mathematics is the one thing that I know to be certain and true. God with all his omnipotence could not change the fact that 1 + 1 = 2.

Omnipotence and omnipresence are, in and of themselves, impossible.

For omnipotence: Can God create a boulder so big even He can't lift it/ a taco so hot even He can't eat it? Either answer constrains his ability to either create or manipulate, so this obviously is false.

And if God were everywhere, how could anything else be? According to physics, no two objects can be in the same place at the same time. Unless everything is God (which we know is false, obviously), then that is incorrect.

And omniscience... I forgot the proof but it's also impossible.



So God (as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent force) does not exist by virtue that none of those three things can exist.

Omniscience may be along the lines of knowing quite literally everything, including something that would cause one not to exist if one knew it?
As for omnipresence: our understanding of physics may be wrong.
However, I have never found any way around the omnipotence argument, other than taking the horrible route and removing God from time.

Ilaer

Straight from my notepad:
If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.
I'm sure someone has already mentioned this, but he/she could know something is going to happen and refuse to act upon it.

If, however, He/She allows only the illusion of free will, then this would imply that either there is a power greater than God which has determined the course of the Universe (thus showing that God is not the greatest power) or that God Him/Herself controls life and action; this would mean, however, that God was the cause of sin and thus sinful Himself/Herself.

I think God does allow free will, and that is the origin of sin. If God did not allow free will then there would be no difference between our lives and our afterlives.

I'm sure someone has already mentioned this, but he/she could know something is going to happen and refuse to act upon it.

I think God does allow free will, and that is the origin of sin. If God did not allow free will then there would be no difference between our lives and our afterlives.

Originally Posted by Widfarend
*puts on anti-flame armour* This is NSG.

God can be both omniscient and allow free will.

Just because God can see what your life will lead to (thus being omniscient), it does not mean you did not freely choose how and where to go. Everyone chooses to do something, which invariably leads them to something else, until they die. God being able to see the final outcome does not negate that the will was free.

I think there is a flaw in my argument.. that since God can see the outcome of your life it must already be "set in stone" and therefore the will is not free..

I have no idea really.

With his last point he echoes my thoughts about such an idea.

Ilaer

Smunkee left?! :(
I'm not happy now.
I don't want to challenge anything except thought; not beliefs. I want a philosophical argument.

Yeah, she did. I understand, though.

Left on its own a knife will do no damage to anyone.
If I take a knife and stab someone with it, however, it is harming someone; it is my fault because the knife has no control over its actions and I have over both my own and its actions.



But those are also bad analogies, at least to myself; they are all set in stone, especially the mathematics ones. Mathematics is the one thing that I know to be certain and true. God with all his omnipotence could not change the fact that 1 + 1 = 2.



Omniscience may be along the lines of knowing quite literally everything, including something that would cause one not to exist if one knew it?
As for omnipresence: our understanding of physics may be wrong.
However, I have never found any way around the omnipotence argument, other than taking the horrible route and removing God from time.

Ilaer
Your knife analogy eludes me. I understand how God may cause sin. Why does that make God sinful?
And 1 + 1 = 0, in a Mod(2) system ;)

Your knife analogy eludes me. I understand how God may cause sin. Why does that make God sinful?


If I caused sin, would that not make me sinful?

But I think I see what you mean, that causing sin, and committing sin are different. Causing being just letting it happen, and committing obviously being doing the act itself. You might want to replace causing with "allowing", as I think that is what you are trying to ask.

I came up with this the other day whilst in France on a school trip; it's an argument against God in the classical sense of Him/Her being both free from sin and omniscient.
If you can see any flaws then be brutal and tell me; I'm an agnostic so it won't make much difference.
I just enjoy philosophy.

Straight from my notepad:
If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.
If, however, He/She allows only the illusion of free will, then this would imply that either there is a power greater than God which has determined the course of the Universe (thus showing that God is not the greatest power) or that God Him/Herself controls life and action; this would mean, however, that God was the cause of sin and thus sinful Himself/Herself.

What do you think?
I don't want a religious fight/war; just a philosophical/theological discussion.

Ilaer

In a way this is more of a question of omnipotence than anything. So I ask you: can an omnipotent being revoke a portion of his omnipotence in one regard or another? Can an omnipotent being, in other words, willfully blind himself to the future, in order to preserve the free will he has bestowed on mankind?

should god exist, he would not be subject to any human notion of paradox.

so YES he can make a rock so big that he cant lift it. HOW? i dont know, im not god.

can he know everything that has ever and will ever happen and still allow us free will? SURE if that is the way he wants the universe to be.

the smallness of the human mind is not a limitation on god.

In a way this is more of a question of omnipotence than anything. So I ask you: can an omnipotent being revoke a portion of his omnipotence in one regard or another? Can an omnipotent being, in other words, willfully blind himself to the future, in order to preserve the free will he has bestowed on mankind?

not that you want MY answer but of course he can.

but DOES he? thats more to the point eh?

To know vague result of one's action before you take action is wisdom.

To know all the results of actions is to be divine.

If I caused sin, would that not make me sinful?

But I think I see what you mean, that causing sin, and committing sin are different. Causing being just letting it happen, and committing obviously being doing the act itself. You might want to replace causing with "allowing", as I think that is what you are trying to ask.

Nope, I know the difference between "causing" and "allowing" ;)
I don't get that causing sin is sinful. Someone else is sinning, not you.

Yeah, she did. I understand, though.

Thanks for understanding. As I said, I don't want a religious argument; just one of philosophy.
I feel really sad now. I liked Smunkee; she was ace. :(

Your knife analogy eludes me. I understand how God may cause sin. Why does that make God sinful?
And 1 + 1 = 0, in a Mod(2) system ;)

We're currently using the system as used by most of the human race regularly. :D
Not Mod(2).
Mod systems are useful for checking for primes, though.

In a way this is more of a question of omnipotence than anything. So I ask you: can an omnipotent being revoke a portion of his omnipotence in one regard or another? Can an omnipotent being, in other words, willfully blind himself to the future, in order to preserve the free will he has bestowed on mankind?

If they revoked it then they would no longer be omnipotent, though; if the definition of God is considered to be an omnipotent being (a grossly over-simplified definition, I know) then as soon as that was done the being would no longer be God.

If I caused sin, would that not make me sinful?

But I think I see what you mean, that causing sin, and committing sin are different. Causing being just letting it happen, and committing obviously being doing the act itself. You might want to replace causing with "allowing", as I think that is what you are trying to ask.

Was that last suggestion aimed at me or the other person?
If God controls our actions then we are not accountable for them; we are as a dagger in someone's hand being used to stab someone.
It would not be the dagger at fault but the one that wielded it.

Ilaer

not that you want MY answer but of course he can.

but DOES he? thats more to the point eh?

Well, that's not really something we can answer, really. But if he can do it, then it follows that he might do it, and so if we assume he's not lying to us and therefore has given us free will, then we have to assume that he has done it.

If we take the deterministic approach, even if he can do it, he's chosen not to.

Well, that's not really something we can answer, really. But if he can do it, then it follows that he might do it, and so if we assume he's not lying to us and therefore has given us free will, then we have to assume that he has done it.

If we take the deterministic approach, even if he can do it, he's chosen not to.

and since i find the supposition of no free will to be useless, im going with the "he can and he did" approach.

should god exist, he would not be subject to any human notion of paradox.

so YES he can make a rock so big that he cant lift it. HOW? i dont know, im not god.

can he know everything that has ever and will ever happen and still allow us free will? SURE if that is the way he wants the universe to be.

the smallness of the human mind is not a limitation on god.

It is stated that we are made in the image of God and that we are his special children; why then should we lack the ability to understand important concepts?

Ilaer

and since i find the supposition of no free will to be useless, im going with the "he can and he did" approach.

*nod* And since I dislike the concept of fate espoused by my old religion, I'm going to go with "If he exists, he can and he probably did."

Nope, I know the difference between "causing" and "allowing" ;)
I don't get that causing sin is sinful. Someone else is sinning, not you.

(I like the knife analogy.)
If you stab someone you are causing the knife to harm someone, thus causing it to sin; yet it would be harmless had you not wielded it. It would be physically unable to sin.
Therefore, if something is unable to sin of its own accord, then where does the blame lie if someone wields it in such a manner that it commits a sin? The blame lies in the one who wielded it, as that person is merely sinning through an instrument which itself is unable to sin.

Ilaer

It is stated that we are made in the image of God and that we are his special children; why then should we lack the ability to understand important concepts?

Ilaer

because god is by definition so much greater than we are. to think that he is limited to things that we can understand is to make him not be particularly powerful.


we understand more than dogs do and less than angels.

It is stated that we are made in the image of God and that we are his special children; why then should we lack the ability to understand important concepts?

Ilaer

Because children need to grow up in order to grasp the really important stuff?

*nod* And since I dislike the concept of fate espoused by my old religion, I'm going to go with "If he exists, he can and he probably did."

its odd to have a preferred view of god when you are an atheist eh?

its odd to have a preferred view of god when you are an atheist eh?

Agnostic, and it's not so much a preferred view of god, so much as a preset outlook on the world. I come from a society that believes horoscopes have predictive power if done right, remember.

I have always disliked the way that people will put God outside of time and space; it seems to be a rather lazy way of avoiding an argument, taking the easy way out, as it were. One might as well say that the Universe has always existed and had no beginning and that everything was pure chance.

A polite request which I don't really mind if you follow, then: please, no placing God outside of time in a manner as has just been done.
I don't particularly mind, but it does strike me as a very cheap and easy argument.

It's not a matter of laziness. God being outside of space and time is a direct logical consequence of God being the Creator of the Universe. It is impossible to discuss God as Creator without placing God outside of the Universe - and thus outside space and time (at least as we know it).

Because children need to grow up in order to grasp the really important stuff?

And how do we grow up?
I would argue that some amongst us are grown up already; I know many a person who is both benevolent and intelligent and moral. You yourself appear to be one such person.
And it is not enough?

because god is by definition so much greater than we are. to think that he is limited to things that we can understand is to make him not be particularly powerful.


we understand more than dogs do and less than angels.

But the Sun is incredibly powerful and yet we understand that. Supernovae, even hypernovae; they are awe-inspiringly powerful and yet we understand them.
And we understand the theory behind the beginning of the Universe itself; if it occurred, then that indubitably required more power than we might hope to gather with fifty Dyson spheres in thousands upon millions of years.
I would argue that such things would require almost god-like powers and yet we understand them very well.
And is it not difficult to state that we know more than dogs do when the only side we have experienced is the human?

Ilaer

It's not a matter of laziness. God being outside of space and time is a direct logical consequence of God being the Creator of the Universe. It is impossible to discuss God as Creator without placing God outside of the Universe - and thus outside space and time (at least as we know it).

Not really. One might imagine a god creating the universe around him, and incorporating himself into it.

And how do we grow up?
I would argue that some amongst us are grown up already; I know many a person who is both benevolent and intelligent and moral. You yourself appear to be one such person.
And it is not enough?

It's enough for us, or rather, I think it's all we need. But we don't know everything, and really, we can't know everything. One would imagine then, that if an omnipotent deity existed, and an afterlife existed, one could look at life as a "cocoon" from which we emerge mature. Or if you take a Hindu/Buddhist pov, multiple stages of development to bring us closer to an ultimate realization of "Truth."

It's not a question I can answer, and I'm merely speculating.

But the Sun is incredibly powerful and yet we understand that. Supernovae, even hypernovae; they are awe-inspiringly powerful and yet we understand them.
And we understand the theory behind the beginning of the Universe itself; if it occurred, then that indubitably required more power than we might hope to gather with fifty Dyson spheres in thousands upon millions of years.
I would argue that such things would require almost god-like powers and yet we understand them very well.
And is it not difficult to state that we know more than dogs do when the only side we have experienced is the human?

Ilaer

we understand some of the mechanisms of the universe. we have some theories of how certain other things work.

you are talking about a being so powerful that he set the stars in their places. he thought up and created the conditions that led to the big bang. he started countless ecosystems throughout the universe.

no you arent going to be able to understand him any more than your dog is going to understand how the car works.

Not really. One might imagine a god creating the universe around him, and incorporating himself into it.It'd still place God outside the universe. At least if this is the universe we're talking about.

Another theological peculiarity about the God character though; if God has created a Heaven where people have free will, does this mortal realm not make God malevolent, rather than benevolent?

It's enough for us, or rather, I think it's all we need. But we don't know everything, and really, we can't know everything. One would imagine then, that if an omnipotent deity existed, and an afterlife existed, one could look at life as a "cocoon" from which we emerge mature. Or if you take a Hindu/Buddhist pov, multiple stages of development to bring us closer to an ultimate realization of "Truth."

It's not a question I can answer, and I'm merely speculating.

thats the original gnostic idea that was going around at the time christianity started. that this body is just a precursor to our true life that happens after we die and start our spirit life in heaven. perhaps in heaven we still grow in understanding.

It'd still place God outside the universe. At least if this is the universe we're talking about.

Another theological peculiarity about the God character though; if God has created a Heaven where people have free will, does this mortal realm not make God malevolent, rather than benevolent?

it definitely makes god "not benevolent" to us in this life. this life SUCKS. bad things happen all the time. good and bad things happen at random to people regardless of their adherence to gods rules.

the only way god can be considered to love us is that he allows us access to heaven if we meet his minimum requirements.

thats the original gnostic idea that was going around at the time christianity started. that this body is just a precursor to our true life that happens after we die and start our spirit life in heaven. perhaps in heaven we still grow in understanding.

I'd prefer that, really. I don't want all the answers the instant I die.

If they revoked it then they would no longer be omnipotent, though; if the definition of God is considered to be an omnipotent being (a grossly over-simplified definition, I know) then as soon as that was done the being would no longer be God.

Suppose I were the queen of a country. Suppose that, within said country, I could make any law I wanted to. Now suppose that I decided that there were certain laws I would absolutely not make and that, in fact, I would make laws saying I couldn't do so. Does that suddenly make me no longer the queen?


As for the free will argument, the problem isn't a matter of free will vs. determinism. It's a matter of how people want to understand free will. In a deterministic universe (which, when you get right down to it, most people believe we exist in), free will in the sense of "I can make choices and there's no way anyone could ever have foreknowledge of them because they're actually random," doesn't exist. Someone with knowledge of all the rules of the universe and all the starting conditions could predcit, with absolute accuracy, your next action. The very idea of free will only makes sense from our perception, not from an outside one (as in, outside our universe) or an omniscient one.


But the Sun is incredibly powerful and yet we understand that.

Do we? Are there no things we do not know about the Sun? Do we fully understand all of its workings? How would we know if we did?

Supernovae, even hypernovae; they are awe-inspiringly powerful and yet we understand them.

Do we? Are there no things we do not know about them? Do we fully understand all of their workings? How would we know if we did?

and so on....


Not really. One might imagine a god creating the universe around him, and incorporating himself into it.

That God would still have existence outside the universe, as said deity would have existence before the universe even existed. In order to create the components of the universe, God would have to exist outside of those components.

A caterpillar builds itself into a cocoon, but it has existence outside of that cocoon - before that cocoon, and after it. In order to make the components of that cocoon, it had to exist separately from them, even as it enveloped itself within them.

It is possible to imagine a deity that created the universe around it and then ceased to exist as a concrete entity by becoming part of that universe, but that definitely wouldn't be "God" in the classical sense.

I'd prefer that, really. I don't want all the answers the instant I die.

yeah it is an attractive notion. especially since we are supposed to live in the spirit world forever. who wants to be handed everything at the door and then just exist "as is" for eternity?

That God would still have existence outside the universe, as said deity would have existence before the universe even existed. In order to create the components of the universe, God would have to exist outside of those components.

A caterpillar builds itself into a cocoon, but it has existence outside of that cocoon - before that cocoon, and after it. In order to make the components of that cocoon, it had to exist separately from them, even as it enveloped itself within them.

It is possible to imagine a deity that created the universe around it and then ceased to exist as a concrete entity by becoming part of that universe, but that definitely wouldn't be "God" in the classical sense.

nicely said in the stuff i deleted.

im not sure that such a god WOULD be outside the universe. if god made the universe, what did he make it out of? if he made it out of himself, he IS the universe, not outside of it.

kinda like *I* am the universe for my intestinal flora.

yeah it is an attractive notion. especially since we are supposed to live in the spirit world forever. who wants to be handed everything at the door and then just exist "as is" for eternity?

I'd "die" of boredom.

It'd still place God outside the universe. At least if this is the universe we're talking about.

Another theological peculiarity about the God character though; if God has created a Heaven where people have free will, does this mortal realm not make God malevolent, rather than benevolent?

According to my beliefs, God tried to place humans in Heaven without having them pass the mortal realm test - Adam and Eve. That didn't turn out too well, so God, being still benevolent, devised a way for humans to get into Heaven and have learned enough not to get "kicked out". A mortal realm (Planet Earth). If God were malevolent, he would have just said "Screw this!" or something and abandoned the idea of 'humans'. Or maybe something worse.

nicely said in the stuff i deleted.

im not sure that such a god WOULD be outside the universe. if god made the universe, what did he make it out of? if he made it out of himself, he IS the universe, not outside of it.

kinda like *I* am the universe for my intestinal flora.

If God made the universe, God made it out of whatever God wanted to.

If God made the universe out of himself, then he still has existence outside the universe, as he existed "before" he did so and has existence outside of being the universe.

No matter how you look at it, the act of creation requires that the creator have existence outside of the created, even if the creator is somehow built in to the creation.

And I don't think intestinal flora are a good example here. They didn't exactly create you, now did they? Nor did you create them. And they are not you.

If God made the universe, God made it out of whatever God wanted to.

If God made the universe out of himself, then he still has existence outside the universe, as he existed "before" he did so and has existence outside of being the universe.

No matter how you look at it, the act of creation requires that the creator have existence outside of the created, even if the creator is somehow built in to the creation.

And I don't think intestinal flora are a good example here. They didn't exactly create you, now did they? Nor did you create them. And they are not you.

doesnt that depend on whether or not anything other than god existed before the universe? if he was alone, and he made the universe out of himself (meaning that he used his whole self and became the universe) he does not exist outside of himself.

in the same what that the universe doesnt exist in a greater universe. there is no existence outside this universe.

According to my beliefs, God tried to place humans in Heaven without having them pass the mortal realm test - Adam and Eve. That didn't turn out too well, so God, being still benevolent, devised a way for humans to get into Heaven and have learned enough not to get "kicked out". A mortal realm (Planet Earth). If God were malevolent, he would have just said "Screw this!" or something and abandoned the idea of 'humans'. Or maybe something worse.Sounds a little like you don't actually think God's benevolent, but just appreciative that God's not as malign as it can be.

Because your belief is basically that we're being collectively punished for the shortcomings of some long dead people God itself created and tutored (or neglected to tutor). I don't see how that isn't malign.

Let me sum up the idea of this thread with this:http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20070307.gif

If god does or can know the future, then the future must be predetermined. If the future is predetermined, then we have no control over our actions, and therefore can't be held responsible for them, making heaven and hell completely illogical concepts.

doesnt that depend on whether or not anything other than god existed before the universe?

I don't see how. If God existed "before" the universe (although "before" is not really the right term here), then God has existence outside the universe - by definition. It doesn't matter if God was/is alone in that or not.

if he was alone, and he made the universe out of himself (meaning that he used his whole self and became the universe) he does not exist outside of himself.

Such a God wouldn't exist outside of himself, but would exist outside the universe, as the God would be even if the universe did not exist.

You're trying to confine something that has existence "before" or outside of the very existence of time within a timeline. What you're basically saying is, "If God is the Universe, then God doesn't exist outside the Universe right now." However, if God and the Universe did not come into being at exactly the same time (which would mean that God did not create the universe), then "right now" or even "within the universe" does not confine the existence of God. God exists outside the Universe, because God is not confined by its timeline or its rules. If God were confined by said rules, God could not have created them.

in the same what that the universe doesn't exist in a greater universe. there is no existence outside this universe.

Is there not?

Is there not?

no there isnt.

just going by stuff ive read that was written by people who know these things. its well beyond my level of understanding.

I did that to appease any ardent feminists. As an agnostic I'm really not bothered.



Thats the thing. So many people are up in arms over the gender of Divine Providence. According to my belief system, thats like trying to assign a gender to the sky.

Let me sum up the idea of this thread with this:

If god does or can know the future, then the future must be predetermined. If the future is predetermined, then we have no control over our actions, and therefore can't be held responsible for them, making heaven and hell completely illogical concepts.

nope

its like knowing that your kid will put his hand into that cookie jar. your knowing it doesnt mean it wasnt his choice.

god is not limited by human paradox.

no there isnt.

just going by stuff ive read that was written by people who know these things. its well beyond my level of understanding.

If there is no existence outside the universe, then God as an entity separate from it (ie. as creator) does not exist. In fact, nothing that at all is supernatural exists.

Nobody "knows" these things. These things are beyond all of our understanding and we're all trying to figure them out the best way we know how. But none of us "knows." Anyone who claims to is either lying or delusional.

no there isnt.

just going by stuff ive read that was written by people who know these things. its well beyond my level of understanding.Just in addition to Demp's comment, look at it this way; the universe is the sum total of existence in any way we can objectively conceive of existence. From a purely objective standpoint, discussing the absence or presence of something outside the realm of existence, is absurd.

Our minds happens to allow our imaginations to dispense with reality, but since our imaginations are the only things we know of that can do it, there's no way to falsify the products of them.

For better or worse, we can't know that existence is the sum total of existence, because if it isn't, whatever extra existence exists, effectively don't exists to us.

Writing that made me cringe.

I came up with this the other day whilst in France on a school trip; it's an argument against God in the classical sense of Him/Her being both free from sin and omniscient.
If you can see any flaws then be brutal and tell me; I'm an agnostic so it won't make much difference.
I just enjoy philosophy.

Straight from my notepad:
If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.
If, however, He/She allows only the illusion of free will, then this would imply that either there is a power greater than God which has determined the course of the Universe (thus showing that God is not the greatest power) or that God Him/Herself controls life and action; this would mean, however, that God was the cause of sin and thus sinful Himself/Herself.

What do you think?
I don't want a religious fight/war; just a philosophical/theological discussion.

Ilaer
Its possible God allows free will, knows what will happen however doesn't have a hand in causing it, no?

But then it would not, by definition, be free will. Free will implies choice; however, if God is cognizant of what a given person will choose, this seems to contradict that freedom. A computer doesn't have free will -- it runs according to some algorithms and natural law. The same thing would apply to humans if the outcome in a given situation was determined by God prior to its unfolding.

It hasn't been determined by, he lets things happens as he will. yet he still knows what will happen.

*4,000th post, w00t*

Its possible God allows free will, knows what will happen however doesn't have a hand in causing it, no?Yes. If by that you mean God wouldn't oppose the purely fictional concept of free will, and is itself an impotent spectator to it's own existence.

what makes you think he/she is watching? or cares? or even rembembers our tiny unimportant world?

The book analogy is a bad one; if it is a book that is complete then the path is predetermined
Only after the book is written. From the point of view of the actors, it hasn't yet (because it's simply a non-fiction account of their actions).
and also implies an author; however, of the book is being written as you read it, then you are reading it slightly behind the point when it is being written and thus you do not know the future, or even the present no matter how fast you read; you would not know everything.
But God is presupposed to be omniscient. He does know the whole book, regardless of whether it's been written.
I have always disliked the way that people will put God outside of time and space; it seems to be a rather lazy way of avoiding an argument, taking the easy way out, as it were.
It is easy, but there's also no reason to constrain your argument otherwise.
A polite request which I don't really mind if you follow, then: please, no placing God outside of time in a manner as has just been done.
I don't particularly mind, but it does strike me as a very cheap and easy argument.
Then you're engaging in a very narrow discussion, and one in which I have little interest.

Only after the book is written. From the point of view of the actors, it hasn't yet (because it's simply a non-fiction account of their actions).

But God is presupposed to be omniscient. He does know the whole book, regardless of whether it's been written.

It is easy, but there's also no reason to constrain your argument otherwise.

Then you're engaging in a very narrow discussion, and one in which I have little interest.

Consider that I requested it quite politely and stated that I didn't really mind if you didn't adhere to it.
And if you such little interest in it then why did you post?
I am an agnostic and a philosopher. As such, I dislike such simple solutions as that of removing a being from time and space.
Such a simple argument denies any attempt at philosophical debate, a thing which I hold to be possibly the greatest, most entertaining and most intellectually stimulating activity on Earth.

Ilaer

Consider that I requested it quite politely and stated that I didn't really mind if you didn't adhere to it.

He's right, however. By making that request, you narrowed the discussion to the point that there really can be no discussion. God, in the classical sense, is the Creator of the Universe. As such, God is outside time and space. It isn't a solution to a problem, but a direct consequence of discussing God as Creator.

nope

its like knowing that your kid will put his hand into that cookie jar. your knowing it doesnt mean it wasnt his choice.

god is not limited by human paradox.

No. There is always the chance that the child may not.
We are not talking about 'knowing things' in the everyday sense of the term; we are talking about mathematical certainties, not mere probabilities. If you know something with a mathematical certainty then the individual or object involved in the event does not have free will, at least not at the time of the event. And thus if the entire future of something is known then that something will have free will at no point in its existence.

And a human paradox is a paradox nonetheless.
By definition a true paradox cannot exist; if God has made us in His (dropping the Her since it gets annoying) image then why should He limit our understanding of such a wondrous creation as the Universe, the thing which He has made us stewards of?

Ilaer

He's right, however. By making that request, you narrowed the discussion to the point that there really can be no discussion. God, in the classical sense, is the Creator of the Universe. As such, God is outside time and space. It isn't a solution to a problem, but a direct consequence of discussing God as Creator.

As people can choose whether or not to adhere to it it is hardly narrowing the discussion.

Ilaer

Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are, in and of themselves, impossible.

For omnipotence: Can God create a boulder so big even He/She/It/They/Those/Pasta can't lift it/ a taco so hot even He/She/It/They/Those/Pasta can't eat it? Either answer constrains his ability to either create or manipulate, so this obviously is false.

And if God were everywhere, how could anything else be? According to physics, no two objects can be in the same place at the same time. Unless everything is God (which we know is false, obviously), then that is incorrect.

And omniscience... I forgot the proof but it's also impossible.

So God (as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent He/She/It/They/Those/Pasta) does not exist by virtue that none of those three things can exist.

For omnipotence: No, that is a logical fallacy. You are purposely setting up an unanswerable premise. Can God create a heavy rock? Surely. Can he do anything? Yes. Can he create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? Logical fallacy; it is an impossibility, which results in nothing. God can do anything; this does not mean he can do that which doesn't, can't exist (except in semantics, of course).

For omnipresence: Is God everywhere? He is. I would suspect that God does not adhere to the laws of physics. God permeates everything, transcending the boundaries and limitations of the laws that bind us.

For omniscience: I would argue that it is not impossible. :)

And since all of these things exist and, in fact, are plausibilities, then God may indeed exist.

No. There is always the chance that the child may not.
We are not talking about 'knowing things' in the everyday sense of the term; we are talking about mathematical certainties, not mere probabilities. If you know something with a mathematical certainty then the individual or object involved in the event does not have free will, at least not at the time of the event. And thus if the entire future of something is known then that something will have free will at no point in its existence.

And a human paradox is a paradox nonetheless.
By definition a true paradox cannot exist; if God has made us in His (dropping the Her since it gets annoying) image then why should He limit our understanding of such a wondrous creation as the Universe, the thing which He has made us stewards of?

Ilaer

If one makes a decision, it is not constrained by someone's knowledge that it will happen.

I decided to respond to your post. God knew I was going to, but I still made the decision. I may have decided not to do it. Just like the kid and the cookie jar. Yes, he/she may have decided not to stick their hand and retrieve a delicious snack...but that is not what happened, is it?

And if you such little interest in it then why did you post?


Probably for the same reason people respond with "No Opinion" on polls. :)

"God is outside time and space and is therefore unaffected and unrestrained by anything in the known universe."

"So why worship him? He's not part of this universe. He's so far away from us that we can't affect him, he can't affect us, and we can't be sure he even exists."



"God has always been and will always be."

"So what created god?"

"Nothing, he just always was."

"How do you know? In the bible, it states there is 'a beginning' in which god created light - surely something caused that beginning - and if god was there always, how long did he wait to create the universe, and why?"




This thread, while well-done, is very similar to the many that have come before it.



Maybe clarify what the objective of the thread is - are you attempting to debate the existence of god (pretty general subject, which would inevitably branch out), disprove the existence of god, prove the existence of god, or disprove that (while there may be a god) the religions we have on Earth are incorrect?

No. There is always the chance that the child may not.
We are not talking about 'knowing things' in the everyday sense of the term; we are talking about mathematical certainties, not mere probabilities. If you know something with a mathematical certainty then the individual or object involved in the event does not have free will, at least not at the time of the event. And thus if the entire future of something is known then that something will have free will at no point in its existence.

And a human paradox is a paradox nonetheless.
By definition a true paradox cannot exist; if God has made us in His (dropping the Her since it gets annoying) image then why should He limit our understanding of such a wondrous creation as the Universe, the thing which He has made us stewards of?

Ilaer

youll have to ask him when you see him.

besides he isnt necessarily limiting our understanding of the universe (although the vast majority of people are incapable of understanding quantum physics on anything by a metaphorical level). he has made us with a certain kind of intellegence that is not equal to his own. we had to "eat the apple" before we could even understand good and evil.

"God is outside time and space and is therefore unaffected and unrestrained by anything in the known universe."

"So why worship him? He's not part of this universe. He's so far away from us that we can't affect him, he can't affect us, and we can't be sure he even exists."



"God has always been and will always be."

"So what created god?"

"Nothing, he just always was."

"How do you know? In the bible, it states there is 'a beginning' in which god created light - surely something caused that beginning - and if god was there always, how long did he wait to create the universe, and why?"




This thread, while well-done, is very similar to the many that have come before it.



Maybe clarify what the objective of the thread is - are you attempting to debate the existence of god (pretty general subject, which would inevitably branch out), disprove the existence of god, prove the existence of god, or disprove that (while there may be a god) the religions we have on Earth are incorrect?

I'm not actually sure. It started out as a rather badly hidden attempt to get opinions on my argument, but I genuinely do want to discuss the existence of a god as well.
Thank you for saying that the thread is well done, by the way. It is always good to be courteous in debates, especially in such dangerous territory as theology.

Ilaer

youll have to ask him when you see him.

besides he isnt necessarily limiting our understanding of the universe (although the vast majority of people are incapable of understanding quantum physics on anything by a metaphorical level). he has made us with a certain kind of intellegence that is not equal to his own. we had to "eat the apple" before we could even understand good and evil.

Which, apparently, was a bad thing?

Why even put the apple there. Why allow us to gain something he didn't want us to have. Why create a being without knowledge of good and evil, and then seek to prevent it from discovering such knowledge. Why, why, why.

I'm not actually sure. It started out as a rather badly hidden attempt to get opinions on my argument, but I genuinely do want to discuss the existence of a god as well.
Thank you for saying that the thread is well done, by the way. It is always good to be courteous in debates, especially in such dangerous territory as theology.

Ilaer

Mhm. You only have a bit more than 500 posts, but I've still come to respect you because of how you explain yourself so well.

If one makes a decision, it is not constrained by someone's knowledge that it will happen.

I decided to respond to your post. God knew I was going to, but I still made the decision. I may have decided not to do it. Just like the kid and the cookie jar. Yes, he/she may have decided not to stick their hand and retrieve a delicious snack...but that is not what happened, is it?

Unless free will in the event does not exist then one cannot know that something will occur; one can predict with ridiculously high certainty but, as long as free will exists, there is no such thing as a certainty. I could have chosen not to respond to your post; you could predict with reasonable certainty that I would, but nevertheless you would not know with a mathematical certainty.

Ilaer

Mhm. You only have a bit more than 500 posts, but I've still come to respect you because of how you explain yourself so well.

I thank you, unless that was sarcasm. If not, then I thank you still, simply for contributing to the thread's longevity. :D
Hopefully I shall prove that not all people with less than one thousand posts are trolls. It's a difficult task at times, though. :)

Ilaer

Unless free will in the event does not exist then one cannot know that something will occur; one can predict with ridiculously high certainty but, as long as free will exists, there is no such thing as a certainty. I could have chosen not to respond to your post; you could predict with reasonable certainty that I would, but nevertheless you would not know with a mathematical certainty.

Ilaer

But, if I knew you would, how would that have affected your decision, knowing that you don't know I know what that would respond? (you don't know that I know what you're going to do...neener neener...)

Consider that I requested it quite politely and stated that I didn't really mind if you didn't adhere to it.
And if you such little interest in it then why did you post?
I am an agnostic and a philosopher. As such, I dislike such simple solutions as that of removing a being from time and space.
Such a simple argument denies any attempt at philosophical debate, a thing which I hold to be possibly the greatest, most entertaining and most intellectually stimulating activity on Earth.

Ilaer
I am also an agnostic and philosopher, which is why I know how incredibly simple the God debate really is.

simple, god is neither evil or good. Think back to Saddam and Gomorrah. he killed people just because they would not fallow his ways. therefor, he is not good. as for the not being evil part.... well... i just don't like christians telling me that they are the good guys and i must be evil because i do not believe that.... and also for pointing out that no one i know of has been killed for my philosophy where as i can think of a LOT of people killed in the name of god... (I'm a Nihilist BTW)

Which, apparently, was a bad thing?

Why even put the apple there. Why allow us to gain something he didn't want us to have. Why create a being without knowledge of good and evil, and then seek to prevent it from discovering such knowledge. Why, why, why.

Why worry? Asking "why," and receiving either no answer or an answer that will not satisfy but an endless thirst for unknowns, is less important than the knowledge that it happened.

God can know what will happen despite there being free will.

simple, god is neither evil or good. Think back to Saddam and Gomorrah. he killed people just because they would not fallow his ways. therefor, he is not good. as for the not being evil part.... well... i just don't like christians telling me that they are the good guys and i must be evil because i do not believe that.... and also for pointing out that no one i know of has been killed for my philosophy where as i can think of a LOT of people killed in the name of god... (I'm a Nihilist BTW)

Damnit, it had nothing to do with homose- oh. Sorry. People tend to invoke Sodom and Gomorrah when doing the "gays are 3b1l" dance.

Yeah. It's pretty well established that the God of the Bible is genocidal and to a great extent, capricious (Job).

God can know what will happen despite there being free will.

How? If I already know ahead of time what your response is going to be, and that you are definitely going to respond, do you really have free will in regards to responding?

How? If I already know ahead of time what your response is going to be, and that you are definitely going to respond, do you really have free will in regards to responding?

Yes. Just because you know what you will choose does not mean you don't have the abillity to choose.

Im an atheist but am open to the possibility that there is a god, to me that chance is SMAAAAL and if he exists, he isn't much more then a sharehodler of this universe. He defined the laws of physics and plunged some atoms into a spot and sayed: "Have fun."

But Im not going to debate his existance because quit simply no argument has yet come to light that disproves or proves his/here/its existance. I am going to "attack" the religious here. If there is a god there is no religion that has interpreted him correctly. All religions have always interpreted their gods words (bible etc.) selectively and ignored other parts for their own gain. (even Amish and stuff). I will only talk about Christianity but it applies to most religions (islam hinduism) so it doesn't really matter.

Gods word is always sayed to be true and it has been sayed to be all knowning. If he really exists then that's understandably true. But I don't believe one single word of what was written in the bible. For one, the Human race has existed pretty long, why has his son joined us only 2000 years ago. Also the bible was written by men (Proven) claiming to be gods "secratery" and writing the book for him, I have absolutely NO assurance that this wasn't written by someone who was good at scamming (it happens all the time and millions people believe those folks). And why was gods word adjusted? Did he change his mind? Also the bible and gods embassador on earth (pope among others) have for many years claimed the universe was Earth centered, we know for a fact that we are far from the center of the universe, far from the center of our galaxy or solar system even. Thats mistake #1. Mistake #2 was that the earth is round. Mistake #3 is that the Earth is older then howmuch do christians believe? 10.000 years. Mistake #4, we are seeing evolution take place within a human lifespan.

Damn this god of theirs must have a crappy line with his embassadors on earth.

Also the bible says: Thou shall not kill, suprise suprise, more people have died from religious warfare then anything but major diseases. Also why is it that Atheist countries (more or less) donot carrie the deathpenalty and religious nations like the USA, Iraq, Iran etc. do?

Also: Thou shall not judge? Why are religious the most judgemental over different lifestyles.

Also: God says you shall not play god. Good plan, but why in gods name a religious people freaking out when lifesupport is taken away from a comatoas patient? Wasn't keeping him alive playing god? Or am I confused? Is keeping someone alive threw machines not playing god, and letting someone die because of natural causes is?

You shall love thei neighbour, does that need any explenation at all?

Gaybashing, also lovely. If god really doesn't want them and he really is the almighty being you people claim him to be then why does he even create gay people? Sothat we can kill and discriminate them, doesn't that conflict with a few dozen commandements?

God does not exist, god is nothing more then a political tool to keep new things from changing society out of fear for degeneration. Religion has brought more pain then relief to this planet. If anything is killing it, it's not CO2 its not AIDS its religious people.

Which, apparently, was a bad thing?

Why even put the apple there. Why allow us to gain something he didn't want us to have. Why create a being without knowledge of good and evil, and then seek to prevent it from discovering such knowledge. Why, why, why.

the story of the garden of eden isnt meant to be taken literally. its answers certain basic questions about life in a metaphorical way.

where did the world come from? this god guy made it back a long time ago. it went in phases. we were given dominion over it, so its OK to do as we please with the natural world

why does life suck so much? well, its our own fault because of the apple thing. our disobedient nature causes us a world of trouble

but deeper than that, until we are MORAL creatures, until we know right from wrong, good from evil, and have an idea of how the would SHOULD be, we dont know that it sucks. does your dog know that the world sucks? does a cow in the field waiting for the day it goes to slaughter know that life sucks? no only people know that they are getting a raw deal. without eating that apple we would be no better than animals.

Yes. Just because you know what you will choose does not mean you don't have the abillity to choose.

No. If your choice is known ahead of time, then you have no option to choose otherwise. If you have no option to choose otherwise, you have no ability to choose. No free will.

No. If your choice is known ahead of time, then you have no option to choose otherwise.

Yes you do, you just didn't choose it.

Also, theoretically for every decision different alternative universes are created. God must know every future in every universe, but since there are multiple universes there must be freewill in order to cause such a thing.

Yes you do, you just didn't choose it.

Also, theoretically for every decision different alternative universes are created. God must know every future in every universe, but since there are multiple universes there must be freewill in order to cause such a thing.universes are created by human thought?

universes are created by human thought?

No not at all, according to the theorie there already are infinite number of universes out there, one for every single decission, ranging from walking .1mm to the right to igniting wwIII in 1962.

universes are created by human thought?

It's more complicated then that, search for it on wiki if you need a brush up on that theory.

No. If your choice is known ahead of time, then you have no option to choose otherwise. If you have no option to choose otherwise, you have no ability to choose. No free will.
Hydes is right. That doesn't follow at all.

Just because you've read the history doesn't mean the battle of Midway couldn't have turned out differently.

You're presupposing God's knowledge is constrained by linear time.

Im an atheist but am open to the possibility that there is a god, to me that chance is SMAAAAL and if he exists, he isn't much more then a sharehodler of this universe. He defined the laws of physics and plunged some atoms into a spot and sayed: "Have fun."

But Im not going to debate his existance because quit simply no argument has yet come to light that disproves or proves his/here/its existance. I am going to "attack" the religious here. If there is a god there is no religion that has interpreted him correctly. All religions have always interpreted their gods words (bible etc.) selectively and ignored other parts for their own gain. (even Amish and stuff). I will only talk about Christianity but it applies to most religions (islam hinduism) so it doesn't really matter.

Gods word is always sayed to be true and it has been sayed to be all knowning. If he really exists then that's understandably true. But I don't believe one single word of what was written in the bible. For one, the Human race has existed pretty long, why has his son joined us only 2000 years ago. Also the bible was written by men (Proven) claiming to be gods "secratery" and writing the book for him, I have absolutely NO assurance that this wasn't written by someone who was good at scamming (it happens all the time and millions people believe those folks). And why was gods word adjusted? Did he change his mind? Also the bible and gods embassador on earth (pope among others) have for many years claimed the universe was Earth centered, we know for a fact that we are far from the center of the universe, far from the center of our galaxy or solar system even. Thats mistake #1. Mistake #2 was that the earth is round. Mistake #3 is that the Earth is older then howmuch do christians believe? 10.000 years. Mistake #4, we are seeing evolution take place within a human lifespan.

Damn this god of theirs must have a crappy line with his embassadors on earth.

Also the bible says: Thou shall not kill, suprise suprise, more people have died from religious warfare then anything but major diseases. Also why is it that Atheist countries (more or less) donot carrie the deathpenalty and religious nations like the USA, Iraq, Iran etc. do?

Also: Thou shall not judge? Why are religious the most judgemental over different lifestyles.

Also: God says you shall not play god. Good plan, but why in gods name a religious people freaking out when lifesupport is taken away from a comatoas patient? Wasn't keeping him alive playing god? Or am I confused? Is keeping someone alive threw machines not playing god, and letting someone die because of natural causes is?

You shall love thei neighbour, does that need any explenation at all?

Gaybashing, also lovely. If god really doesn't want them and he really is the almighty being you people claim him to be then why does he even create gay people? Sothat we can kill and discriminate them, doesn't that conflict with a few dozen commandements?

God does not exist, god is nothing more then a political tool to keep new things from changing society out of fear for degeneration. Religion has brought more pain then relief to this planet. If anything is killing it, it's not CO2 its not AIDS its religious people.

to pull away from the truth about what you posted for a moment...

IF there is a "god" and IF our agnostic friends are right in that we are constitutionally unable to truly understand the mind of god....

perhaps the various religions of the world are the result of getting a brief glimpse of the eternal and literalizing it. that they contain a germ of truth in a metaphorical way. perhaps our error is in believing in the literal truth of them instead of the greater truth behing them.

maybe the problem isnt in god but in religion.

Yes you do, you just didn't choose it.

But that's the point. If you haven't chosen it, but the decision is already known, you have no choice in the matter.

Allow me to try to explain it this way:

I already know, with 100% certainty that you will walk into the room next door, find a big red button that says, "Don't push me." and push it.

You go into the room next door, see a big red button that says, "Don't push me." and push it. Do you have free will?

No. If your choice is known ahead of time, then you have no option to choose otherwise. If you have no option to choose otherwise, you have no ability to choose. No free will.

if you know what i did yesterday, does that mean i had no free will in doing what i did?

god sees eternity. that doesnt mean we have no choice. it means that god knows what our choice will be.

And if God were everywhere, how could anything else be? According to physics, no two objects can be in the same place at the same time.
The point of gods is their being not bound to physical laws. Well, one of their points.

Unless everything is God (which we know is false, obviously)
Ah, but that is exactly what is believed by some people.

If you haven't chosen it, but the decision is already known, you have no choice in the matter.


That doesn't follow


I already know, with 100% certainty that you will walk into the room next door, find a big red button that says, "Don't push me." and push it.
You go into the room next door, see a big red button that says, "Don't push me." and push it. Do you have free will?

Yes. I still have the option to not push the button.

Hydes is right. That doesn't follow at all.

Just because you've read the history doesn't mean the battle of Midway couldn't have turned out differently.

You're presupposing God's knowledge is constrained by linear time.

Not at all. But if you know the history with total accuracy, then how is it possible for the details to be different than what you've read?

But that's the point. If you haven't chosen it, but the decision is already known, you have no choice in the matter.

Allow me to try to explain it this way:

I already know, with 100% certainty that you will walk into the room next door, find a big red button that says, "Don't push me." and push it.

You go into the room next door, see a big red button that says, "Don't push me." and push it. Do you have free will?

This is my point. A mathematical certainty is different from something that is merely extremely likely indeed.
If one knows with absolute certainty that someone will do something then that person does not have free will at that point.
Free will allows the chance of other things happening, denying a mathematical certainty and thus denying the idea that one can know in advance that someone will do something if that person has free will.

Ilaer

if you know what i did yesterday, does that mean i had no free will in doing what i did?

god sees eternity. that doesnt mean we have no choice. it means that god knows what our choice will be.

From the point of view of eternity, this is true. But we don't have the point of view of eternity. Events in the past have already happened. We can't go back in time (with present technology) and change them. Events in the future we have no knowledge of, but if we did have knowledge of them, of what would happen, and knew with 100% certainty that they would happen, how do we still, then, have free will?

That doesn't follow



Yes. I still have the option to not push the button.

But you don't. Not if there is 100% certainty that will push the button.

I thank you, unless that was sarcasm. If not, then I thank you still, simply for contributing to the thread's longevity. :D
Hopefully I shall prove that not all people with less than one thousand posts are trolls. It's a difficult task at times, though. :)

Ilaer

No sarcasm there.

It's not so much that everyone with under 1000 posts is a troll, it's just that normally it takes at least a thousand posts to tell if they really are or not.

simple, god is neither evil or good. Think back to Saddam and Gomorrah. he killed people just because they would not fallow his ways. therefor, he is not good. as for the not being evil part.... well... i just don't like christians telling me that they are the good guys and i must be evil because i do not believe that.... and also for pointing out that no one i know of has been killed for my philosophy where as i can think of a LOT of people killed in the name of god... (I'm a Nihilist BTW)

It's been argued that god is good because god defines what good is, and our definition of good is irrelevant.

Of course this argument is bogus, but they still find a way to worship such a god and call him good. Whatever works for them.

Why worry? Asking "why," and receiving either no answer or an answer that will not satisfy but an endless thirst for unknowns, is less important than the knowledge that it happened.

Alright. You say you have knowledge that it happened - I say I have knowledge that it didn't. We are now at an impasse, and the only way to get anywhere is by asking why.

Damnit, it had nothing to do with homose- oh. Sorry. People tend to invoke Sodom and Gomorrah when doing the "gays are 3b1l" dance.

Yeah. It's pretty well established that the God of the Bible is genocidal and to a great extent, capricious (Job).

In the OT, at least. For some reason he lightens up quite a bit for the NT.

the story of the garden of eden isnt meant to be taken literally. its answers certain basic questions about life in a metaphorical way.

where did the world come from? this god guy made it back a long time ago. it went in phases. we were given dominion over it, so its OK to do as we please with the natural world

why does life suck so much? well, its our own fault because of the apple thing. our disobedient nature causes us a world of trouble

but deeper than that, until we are MORAL creatures, until we know right from wrong, good from evil, and have an idea of how the would SHOULD be, we dont know that it sucks. does your dog know that the world sucks? does a cow in the field waiting for the day it goes to slaughter know that life sucks? no only people know that they are getting a raw deal. without eating that apple we would be no better than animals.

Okay, fine - it's a metaphor. But it's a terrible metaphor. The conclusions drawn from said metaphor are not the conclusions that we're lead to believe what we would've gotten from the actual story.

If it's a true metaphor, the actions are still there, and they represent actual events, which is just as bad, if not worse, than what happens in the story.

"where did the world come from? this god guy made it back a long time ago. it went in phases. we were given dominion over it, so its OK to do as we please with the natural world"

If only the story were that simple. We can do what we please with the natural world - except for everything this book says not to do. And everything the church says this book says not to do.

"why does life suck so much? well, its our own fault because of the apple thing. our disobedient nature causes us a world of trouble"

I hate this argument with a passion. It's our fault because we're naturally disobedient! It's certainly not god's fault for making us that way. That'd make it his fault. He's never at fault, right?

"but deeper than that, until we are MORAL creatures, until we know right from wrong, good from evil, and have an idea of how the would SHOULD be, we dont know that it sucks. does your dog know that the world sucks? does a cow in the field waiting for the day it goes to slaughter know that life sucks? no only people know that they are getting a raw deal. without eating that apple we would be no better than animals"

So again, metaphorically speaking this time, why would god want to prevent us from eating the apple, and then metaphorically speaking, punish us for gaining such a perspective?

Im an atheist but am open to the possibility that there is a god, to me that chance is SMAAAAL and if he exists, he isn't much more then a sharehodler of this universe. He defined the laws of physics and plunged some atoms into a spot and sayed: "Have fun."

But Im not going to debate his existance because quit simply no argument has yet come to light that disproves or proves his/here/its existance. I am going to "attack" the religious here. If there is a god there is no religion that has interpreted him correctly. All religions have always interpreted their gods words (bible etc.) selectively and ignored other parts for their own gain. (even Amish and stuff). I will only talk about Christianity but it applies to most religions (islam hinduism) so it doesn't really matter.

Gods word is always sayed to be true and it has been sayed to be all knowning. If he really exists then that's understandably true. But I don't believe one single word of what was written in the bible. For one, the Human race has existed pretty long, why has his son joined us only 2000 years ago. Also the bible was written by men (Proven) claiming to be gods "secratery" and writing the book for him, I have absolutely NO assurance that this wasn't written by someone who was good at scamming (it happens all the time and millions people believe those folks). And why was gods word adjusted? Did he change his mind? Also the bible and gods embassador on earth (pope among others) have for many years claimed the universe was Earth centered, we know for a fact that we are far from the center of the universe, far from the center of our galaxy or solar system even. Thats mistake #1. Mistake #2 was that the earth is round. Mistake #3 is that the Earth is older then howmuch do christians believe? 10.000 years. Mistake #4, we are seeing evolution take place within a human lifespan.

Damn this god of theirs must have a crappy line with his embassadors on earth.

Also the bible says: Thou shall not kill, suprise suprise, more people have died from religious warfare then anything but major diseases. Also why is it that Atheist countries (more or less) donot carrie the deathpenalty and religious nations like the USA, Iraq, Iran etc. do?

Also: Thou shall not judge? Why are religious the most judgemental over different lifestyles.

Also: God says you shall not play god. Good plan, but why in gods name a religious people freaking out when lifesupport is taken away from a comatoas patient? Wasn't keeping him alive playing god? Or am I confused? Is keeping someone alive threw machines not playing god, and letting someone die because of natural causes is?

You shall love thei neighbour, does that need any explenation at all?

Gaybashing, also lovely. If god really doesn't want them and he really is the almighty being you people claim him to be then why does he even create gay people? Sothat we can kill and discriminate them, doesn't that conflict with a few dozen commandements?

God does not exist, god is nothing more then a political tool to keep new things from changing society out of fear for degeneration. Religion has brought more pain then relief to this planet. If anything is killing it, it's not CO2 its not AIDS its religious people.

At last! A rather intolerant atheist to argue against!
My response to that last statement: prove that religion has done no good for society.

Ilaer

But you don't. Not if there is 100% certainty that will push the button.

You seem to be mixing up doing something, with the abillity to do something or not. Just because I will do something, doesn't mean I wont have the choice not too.

Not at all. But if you know the history with total accuracy, then how is it possible for the details to be different than what you've read?
If you presuppose that I'm right, then there's no chance I'm wrong. Congratulations.

Just because I know the history perfectly doesn't mean I couldn't have known a different history were the history different.

If you presuppose that I'm right, then there's no chance I'm wrong. Congratulations.

Just because I know the history perfectly doesn't mean I couldn't have known a different history were the history different.

This isn't about supposition. It's about knowledge. If an omnipotent and omniscient deity knows something, then it is impossible for the opposite to be true, right?

This isn't about supposition. It's about knowledge. If an omnipotent and omniscient deity knows something, then it is impossible for the opposite to be true, right?

It's not impossible, it just wont happen. Theres a difference.

to pull away from the truth about what you posted for a moment...

IF there is a "god" and IF our agnostic friends are right in that we are constitutionally unable to truly understand the mind of god....

perhaps the various religions of the world are the result of getting a brief glimpse of the eternal and literalizing it. that they contain a germ of truth in a metaphorical way. perhaps our error is in believing in the literal truth of them instead of the greater truth behing them.

maybe the problem isnt in god but in religion.

I'd still say it's god's fault for only giving us a glimpse and not the whole story.

if you know what i did yesterday, does that mean i had no free will in doing what i did?

god sees eternity. that doesnt mean we have no choice. it means that god knows what our choice will be.

And he knows what our choices will be when he creates us - when he created the universe. He knows who's going to hell, he knows what parts of their environment or their experiences or their mind will cause them to do certain things, yet he still sets such events in motion and does nothing to prevent them, and instead, punishes them for being involved in the events that god himself had set to start.

That doesn't follow



Yes. I still have the option to not push the button.

No you don't. If you know with a certainty that you will push the button before doing it, you have no choice - otherwise, you aren't 100% certain like god is.

No you don't. If you know with a certainty that you will push the button before doing it, you have no choice - otherwise, you aren't 100% certain like god is.

I do have a choice and I chose to push the button. Just because it was 100% certain that I was going to choose to push the button doesn't mean I didn't have the choice not to.

You seem to be mixing up doing something, with the abillity to do something or not. Just because I will do something, doesn't mean I wont have the choice not too.

That's exactly what it means. If you will, without a doubt do something, then you have no choice whether or not you're going to do it. You'll still want to do it, because you were going to do it anyway, but the fact remains you have no ability to not do it, even if you didn't want to.

That's exactly what it means. If you will, without a doubt do something, then you have no choice whether or not you're going to do it.


I do still have a choice. That does not follow.


You'll still want to do it, because you were going to do it anyway, but the fact remains you have no ability to not do it


Yes I do, I just don't want to.


, even if you didn't want to.

Thats a different circumstance, not the same as the 100% certain one.

I do have a choice and I chose to push the button. Just because it was 100% certain that I was going to choose to push the button doesn't mean I didn't have the choice not to.

Yes. Yes it does. If you know with 100% certainty that a ball launched from a certain height at a certain speed (and numerous other parameters) is going to land at the exact same spot every time, does it mean that it is possible for that ball to land somewhere else? No. Not it does not.

Edit: I'll respond to the responses to this post probably sometime late tonight. I don't mean to ditch, but I have a wedding-related ceremony to go to (thankfully not my own.)

Yes. Yes it does. If you know with 100% certainty that a ball launched from a certain height at a certain speed (and numerous other parameters) is going to land at the exact same spot every time, does it mean that it is possible for that ball to land somewhere else? No. Not it does not.


The ball does not have the abillity to choose where it goes. If it was able to decide where it lands then it is possible for it to land anywhere it wants to despite it not going to.

I do still have a choice. That does not follow.



Yes I do, I just don't want to.



Thats a different circumstance, not the same as the 100% certain one.

Alright, let's take it to the second stage.

It's known for certain that you will press that button. God comes and tells you this before you do it.

You say "Yeah, I was going to push it. So what?"

He replies "Nothing, really. Just wanted to tell you that you were going do it no matter what."

Confused, you respond "You mean I don't have a choice?"

"You do, but inevitably that choice will be to press the button regardless of circumstance."

"Well what if I were to say I don't want to press it anymore, if for nothing but to spite your certainty?"

"Wouldn't matter, you're still going to do it."

Frustrated, you demand to know how he believes he can tell you what you will and will not do.

"Simple, really. I'm god. I created you. I made you to exist in this point in time, along with other points in time, and one of those points in time involves you pressing that button. You've been created, from the start, to press that button on this day. You've been given the option, but I've taken that option into my own hands and forced your mind to say yes, you will press that button, by creating you the way you are."

Saddened, you go and press the button.


You technically had a choice, but it wasn't you who chose, it was god who chose for you.

Good analogy but you seem to be talking about a very specific type of God


"You do, but inevitably that choice will be to press the button regardless of circumstance."


That was my point, you still have a choice.


but I've taken that option into my own hands and forced your mind to say yes, you will press that button, by creating you the way you are."


Why would this be the case? Are you saying that God has to choose for humanity rather then let them choose to know the future? God doesn't have to be that way in order to know the future.


You technically had a choice, but it wasn't you who chose, it was god who chose for you.

Same as above.

Good analogy but you seem to be talking about a very specific type of God



That was my point, you still have a choice.



Why would this be the case? Are you saying that God has to choose for humanity rather then let them choose to know the future? God doesn't have to be that way in order to know the future.



Same as above.

I'm saying since he created everything, he allows for everything, and knows beforehand what is going to happen - he created you with knowledge of what you would do, and didn't act against it, thereby allowing it to happen, and by creating you a certain way, he has allowed you to do what he has created you to do.

he created you with knowledge of what you would do, and didn't act against it, thereby allowing it to happen, and by creating you a certain way, he has allowed you to do what he has created you to do.

But he still created you with the abillity to choose not to, he just knew that you would choose what you chose.

But he still created you with the abillity to choose not to, he just knew that you would choose what you chose.

Heading out.


So you're saying he basically tied your arm behind you back and superglued it, but you still have your arm?

So you're saying he basically tied your arm behind you back and superglued it, but you still have your arm?

No because that would mean you don't have the abillity to use your arm, but you do have the abillity to choose.

No. If your choice is known ahead of time, then you have no option to choose otherwise. If you have no option to choose otherwise, you have no ability to choose. No free will.

If that is how you describe free will, you won't find many rational people who actually believe in free will. Most people believe in a deterministic universe of some sort. In fact, the assumption of such a universe is at the very core of the scientific method. We assume that the universe runs by certain set mechanisms, and that, given those mechanisms and the starting conditions, one can predict the future. There may be an emotional need to somehow extract human beings from this and say that we are somehow special and above these rules, but is such an extraction rational?

It's not impossible, it just wont happen. Theres a difference.

I am sorry if this sounds rude, but you do not seem to understand the concept of a mathematical certainty.
If an event is a mathematical certainty then it is impossible for something else to happen.
It won't happen because it is simply not possible.

Ilaer

But that's the point. If you haven't chosen it, but the decision is already known, you have no choice in the matter.

Allow me to try to explain it this way:

I already know, with 100% certainty that you will walk into the room next door, find a big red button that says, "Don't push me." and push it.

You go into the room next door, see a big red button that says, "Don't push me." and push it. Do you have free will?

Yes, in as much as free will can exist at all. It isn't whether or not someone knows what you will do that determines the mathematical certainties. It is whether or not you will do something. "Randomness" is really a matter of a lack of information. If I knew all of the mechanisms in the universe and the exact starting conditions, I could tell, with 100% certainty, whether or not you would push the button. But human beings never have access to that sort of knowledge. We don't know all the mechanisms and we don't know all the initial conditions, so we describe things as "random." True randomness would turn our entire universe upside down.

I am sorry if this sounds rude, but you do not seem to understand the concept of a mathematical certainty.
If an event is a mathematical certainty then it is impossible for something else to happen.
It won't happen because it is simply not possible.

Ilaer

*cough?* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely)

Yes, in as much as free will can exist at all. It isn't whether or not someone knows what you will do that determines the mathematical certainties. It is whether or not you will do something. "Randomness" is really a matter of a lack of information. If I knew all of the mechanisms in the universe and the exact starting conditions, I could tell, with 100% certainty, whether or not you would push the button. But human beings never have access to that sort of knowledge. We don't know all the mechanisms and we don't know all the initial conditions, so we describe things as "random." True randomness would turn our entire universe upside down.

Right. And once something is certain, free will breaks down.

I'm sorry if I sound rude, but I don't think you understand that I'm on the "no free will" side.

I am sorry if this sounds rude, but you do not seem to understand the concept of a mathematical certainty.


I understand it perfectly well.


If an event is a mathematical certainty then it is impossible for something else to happen.


It is impossible for it not to happen yes, but it isn't impossibe for the person to choose differently if he wanted to. But he didn't want to, therefore it is certain he will push the button or whatever.

...it isn't impossibe for the person to choose differently if he wanted to. But he didn't want to, therefore it is certain...

Is it possible for them to not want to?

Right. And once something is certain, free will breaks down.

I'm sorry if I sound rude, but I don't think you understand that I'm on the "no free will" side.

No, I got that. I just don't see the point of defining free will in such a way that it is essentially a useless word. Free will can really only make sense in the context of our perception, so I see no reason to use it outside of that perception.

I also don't see the point in some (not necessarily you) ranting and raving about how God knowing what they will do takes away free will when, if you really look at their worldview, the situation would be exactly the same whether some being knew it or not. It seems that the problem people have is not with a deterministic universe, but that someone or something might actually know the results of that determinism.

Is it possible for them to not want to?

Only if you want to change the analogy, but the analogy states that he did want to, therefore he will press the button. He still had the abillity to choose otherwise but he didn't want to.

Only if you want to change the analogy, but the analogy states that he did want to, therefore he will press the button. He still had the abillity to choose otherwise but he didn't want to.

I mean in general, not just the analogy. I believe you said people could choose differently if they wanted to. Can they want to?

God is supposedly infallible and omniscient

if god was 100% sure that you would push the button, but you with your free will decided not to, then god can be wrong. that, or god could force you to press the button which makes him infallible, but removes your free will

this is one of the reasons why I am an atheist. Almost everything involving god is contradictory of itself.

I mean in general, not just the analogy. I believe you said people could choose differently if they wanted to. Can they want to?

Yes, people can change their minds of course, but they wont if it is 100% certain that they will do something.

Yes, people can change their minds of course, but they wont if it is 100% certain that they will do something.so the movement of every atom in your brain is predestined?
by which mechanism?

so the movement of every atom in your brain is predestined?


I don't know that for sure, and I don't think anyone does.

Yes, people can change their minds of course, but they wont if it is 100% certain that they will do something.

So if it's known they will do something, they can choose not to do it, but only if they want to not do it, which they can do, but they won't.

I don't know that for sure, and I don't think anyone does.how would this predestination work? how does the predestination information arrive at the matter it is to predestine? or is the information inherent? and if so, how is it stored?

and when exactly does a universe split upon a decision? if for every possibility at every given time a new universe is created then the number of universes would be infinite to infinite power.

so the movement of every atom in your brain is predestined?
by which mechanism?

If we knew all the mechanisms that govern this universe (and initial conditions), we'd be the omniscient ones, now wouldn't we?

If we knew all the mechanisms that govern this universe (and initial conditions), we'd be the omniscient ones, now wouldn't we?alibi excuse that has nothing to do with the question.

Sounds a little like you don't actually think God's benevolent, but just appreciative that God's not as malign as it can be.

Because your belief is basically that we're being collectively punished for the shortcomings of some long dead people God itself created and tutored (or neglected to tutor). I don't see how that isn't malign.

Well, we could be stuck in a shithole worse than this Earth. God, being benevolent, gave us plenty of water, animals to feed on, plenty of land to settle on.

Which coincides with the Adam and Eve thing. God knows that humans will fall prey to temptation and that a certain test is needed (Earth) to get to heaven and stay there. It's human nature mostly. Although there are a few people who may not need that, what happens on Earth really shapes who we are and why.

I mean, us, being humans, have destroyed the beauty in Earth. We have polluted, ravaged, and desecrated that which has been given to us by God. Unless we pass the test, what's to stop us from doing that in Heaven?

*cough?* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely)

I would argue that the article is mathematically incorrect.
Taking the coin example, it assumes that as the number of throws x approaches infinity, so too does P(chance of all being heads) = 0.
This is incorrect; as x tends to infinity so too does P(chance of all being heads) tend towards 0; the key word is tends. The probability is never actually 0, even when x equals infinity.
Anything with probability 0 will never actually happen; it is impossible. It is still possible whilst the probability approaches 0, as long as it never actually is 0; an infinitesimally small chance is still possible, yes, but a probability 0 will never happen.

Ilaer

Well, we could be stuck in a shithole worse than this Earth. God, being benevolent, gave us plenty of water, animals to feed on, plenty of land to settle on.

Which coincides with the Adam and Eve thing. God knows that humans will fall prey to temptation and that a certain test is needed (Earth) to get to heaven and stay there. It's human nature mostly. Although there are a few people who may not need that, what happens on Earth really shapes who we are and why.

I mean, us, being humans, have destroyed the beauty in Earth. We have polluted, ravaged, and desecrated that which has been given to us by God. Unless we pass the test, what's to stop us from doing that in Heaven?Why would he care? If he is god, he can fix it in the blink of an eye...

so the movement of every atom in your brain is predestined?
by which mechanism?

Gravity, perhaps?
Although at such small scales the electromagnetic force is going to be much stronger than the gravitational.

Ilaer

an infinitesimally small chance

Infinitesimally small is zero. :P I mean, unless we're leaving the real number system, there is no infintesimal. The probablity must be somwhere between 1 and zero, inclusive. It's not any positive number, so it's zero.

Gravity, perhaps?
Although at such small scales the electromagnetic force is going to be much stronger than the gravitational.

Ilaerso "god" or who-/whatever uses gravity to predestine your thoughts and decisions?

wtf?

Infinitesimally small is zero. :P I mean, unless we're leaving the real number system, there is no infintesimal. The probablity must be somwhere between 1 and zero, inclusive. It's not any positive number, so it's zero.

No, it isn't.
I always like to define an infinitesimally small number by something like this: take 1. Divide it by 10. Divide the answer by 10. Keep doing this for eternity.
That's how I like to define it.
And why on Earth would we leave the real number system? What use could imaginary and complex numbers be in this situation?

so "god" or who-/whatever uses gravity to predestine your thoughts and decisions?

wtf?

I didn't state that; I merely stated that gravity and other forces would affect the movement of atoms in your brain.

Ilaer

Assuming God exists this argument is flawed. God gave us free will so he LETS us do what we want even though he controls it. God giveth and God [can] taketh away.

I didn't state that; I merely stated that gravity and other forces would affect the movement of atoms in your brain.but the context was, how the function of the brain, and thus the movement of the atoms forming it, would be influenced.

I always like to define an infinitesimally small number by something like this: take 1. Divide it by 10. Divide the answer by 10. Keep doing this for eternity.
That's how I like to define it.
And why on Earth would we leave the real number system? What use could imaginary and complex numbers be in this situation?

Because the real number system has no infintesimals, infinite division by ten or otherwise. There is no "smallest positive number". If you've got one number that is distinct from another, you can find a third number between the two.

And, really, the point was the distinction between almost sure and sure.

From the point of view of eternity, this is true. But we don't have the point of view of eternity. Events in the past have already happened. We can't go back in time (with present technology) and change them. Events in the future we have no knowledge of, but if we did have knowledge of them, of what would happen, and knew with 100% certainty that they would happen, how do we still, then, have free will?

because its not the knowing that is important, its the choosing. knowing what the choice will be is no different than knowing what the choice WAS. the knowing does not cause the choice.

if you are OK with the idea that knowing what i did yesterday does not negate the freewill i had in doing it, then its not that big a leap to understand that god seeing the whole of eternity (perhaps as if it were yesterday) does not change that we are constantly choosing. his knowledge need not determine our choice. (although it could if it turns out thats the way he organized the universe. which makes him a right bastard but what to do?)

Okay, fine - it's a metaphor. But it's a terrible metaphor. The conclusions drawn from said metaphor are not the conclusions that we're lead to believe what we would've gotten from the actual story.

If it's a true metaphor, the actions are still there, and they represent actual events, which is just as bad, if not worse, than what happens in the story.

"where did the world come from? this god guy made it back a long time ago. it went in phases. we were given dominion over it, so its OK to do as we please with the natural world"

If only the story were that simple. We can do what we please with the natural world - except for everything this book says not to do. And everything the church says this book says not to do.

"why does life suck so much? well, its our own fault because of the apple thing. our disobedient nature causes us a world of trouble"

I hate this argument with a passion. It's our fault because we're naturally disobedient! It's certainly not god's fault for making us that way. That'd make it his fault. He's never at fault, right?

"but deeper than that, until we are MORAL creatures, until we know right from wrong, good from evil, and have an idea of how the would SHOULD be, we dont know that it sucks. does your dog know that the world sucks? does a cow in the field waiting for the day it goes to slaughter know that life sucks? no only people know that they are getting a raw deal. without eating that apple we would be no better than animals"

So again, metaphorically speaking this time, why would god want to prevent us from eating the apple, and then metaphorically speaking, punish us for gaining such a perspective?

its a terrible metaphor FOR US. the jews have a great emphasis on obedience to the law so making the first breaking of the law be a disaster is a useful tool.

i hate the "its all our fault" metaphor too. but many people like it. *shrug*

in the last metaphor LIFE ALWAYS SUCKED. we just never knew it. before we became moral creatures we lived in an innocent paradise of delusion. our "eating of the apple" tears the delusion from us, we are tossed out of our pretend paradise and into the cruel light of reality. developing a conscience is what makes life "suffering". it makes us human. it is a cruel enlightenment that lifts us up from the level of animal toward the mind of god.

I'd still say it's god's fault for only giving us a glimpse and not the whole story.


i wouldnt use the word fault since it implies having done something wrong but god is certainly responsible for it.


And he knows what our choices will be when he creates us - when he created the universe. He knows who's going to hell, he knows what parts of their environment or their experiences or their mind will cause them to do certain things, yet he still sets such events in motion and does nothing to prevent them, and instead, punishes them for being involved in the events that god himself had set to start.


yeah. its quite the rub isnt it?

the only way he doesnt end up being a cruel puppetmaster is if we are not given a choice between heaven and hell but between heaven and death. the wages of sin are death--not an eternal life of torment. if you dont make the grade to get into heaven, you die and are not reborn to eternal life with god. if i were to be a believer i might go for this answer.

my real (religious) answer is that god rested on the 7th day but he was not DONE with creation. as evidenced by all the things he did after that. we are in the middle of god's great creation and its not done yet. when it IS done. it will be perfect and everyone will be saved. he will fix the mess he has made and there will be no more blame to go around.

when god is done with creation, even the grass will be saved.

This isn't about supposition. It's about knowledge. If an omnipotent and omniscient deity knows something, then it is impossible for the opposite to be true, right?
It's not possible for the two to differ, yes, but that doesn't mean that you can just choose one and claim it causes the other.

alibi excuse that has nothing to do with the question.

Of course it has to do with the question. You asked a question that can only be answered by a being with more knowledge than that possessed by human beings. If no such entity exists, then the question cannot be answered - at least not yet. If such an entity exists, you'll have to ask it.

We can guess at the mechanisms that run the Universe. We have many theories that are backed up by evidence. Of course, the minute (and even a lot of the larger scope) details of neurobiology are not at all well understood, even by experts in that area.


I would argue that the article is mathematically incorrect.
Taking the coin example, it assumes that as the number of throws x approaches infinity, so too does P(chance of all being heads) = 0.
This is incorrect; as x tends to infinity so too does P(chance of all being heads) tend towards 0; the key word is tends. The probability is never actually 0, even when x equals infinity.
Anything with probability 0 will never actually happen; it is impossible. It is still possible whilst the probability approaches 0, as long as it never actually is 0; an infinitesimally small chance is still possible, yes, but a probability 0 will never happen.

Ah, probability. Our way of describing events for which we don't have enough information and then calling them "random." If we were to actually have a full understanding of the physical mechanisms involved here, we could predict, with 100% certainty, exactly how the coin would fall every single time. We would need to take into account the position of the coin, muscles in the hand, friction in the air, timing, mass distribution, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum, but we could do it, as long as the universe truly is an ordered place and no supernatural forces intervened.

No, I got that. I just don't see the point of defining free will in such a way that it is essentially a useless word. Free will can really only make sense in the context of our perception, so I see no reason to use it outside of that perception.

I also don't see the point in some (not necessarily you) ranting and raving about how God knowing what they will do takes away free will when, if you really look at their worldview, the situation would be exactly the same whether some being knew it or not. It seems that the problem people have is not with a deterministic universe, but that someone or something might actually know the results of that determinism.

I don't generally rant and rave about it, but I do feel it to be true. No matter what the defining force and factor in the universe is, free will does not truly exist, as once you get down to the nitty gritty, you can map the future out.

Now that may not necessarily be entirely true, given that many things in the universe do seem to have truly random aspects (quantum mechanics, for one, where an electron is defined by a probability distribution. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle also.) and so 100% certainty may very well be impossible no matter how well we ever understand the universe.

But I don't see this as a problem unless for some reason one feels that they have to have free will.


Edit: Ok, I lied. I just got back home, and EVERY SINGLE bone, muscle, ligament, etc. in my body is a world of pain. I'm going to reply to anything else tomorrow.

@Ilaer
Your argument sounds like a variation on Epicurus' riddle, namely:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Interesting, but not necessarily proof of anything. God doesn't follow logic, nor can God be proven or disproven.

And as for the article from wikipedia with the bad math speak......I'll attempt to translate.

In simplistic terms, 1/infinity is actually 0 by means of a familiar proof.

1/3 = .33r 3*(1/3) = .99r except that 3/3 = 1.
There is no leftover in the second part because .99r is actually equal to 1.

Questions?

Of course it has to do with the question. You asked a question that can only be answered by a being with more knowledge than that possessed by human beings. If no such entity exists, then the question cannot be answered - at least not yet. If such an entity exists, you'll have to ask it.

We can guess at the mechanisms that run the Universe. We have many theories that are backed up by evidence. Of course, the minute (and even a lot of the larger scope) details of neurobiology are not at all well understood, even by experts in that area.Then tell me which part of the mechanism at issue did you understand so you can defend your position at all. What indication is there for said mechanism? I rather think you make stuff up.

I think that the problem with trying to find logical contradictions in the traditional monotheistic conceptions of God, is the 'fact' of his omnipotence - it's an 'illogical' idea.

Omnipotence implies being able to do ANYTHING - including acting in ways which would simply not make sense to humans. Certain logical paradoxes can thus be reasoned away by virtue of this 'catch-all'.

An example of this, is an arguement that I find works against Descartes' method of doubt. The general idea is this; if Descartes' 'evil demon' can do ANYTHING (he is not 'limited' by omni-benevolence, like God), by virtue of his omnipotence, he would be able to make us BELIEVE that we exist, when we in fact do not - thus providing us with the ammunition required to doubt away the self. Omnipotence here transcends the realm of human understanding - just because for us, it appears paradoxical, by no means implies that it cannot be performed in the context of the existence of an 'omnipotent' being.

The conception of God's omnipotence (in Descartes' case, the evil demon's) implies limitless ability to... 'do things'... even if these things really don't make sense.

I'm not a religious person myself, but I always find theological reasoning interesting ;p.

@Ilaer
Your argument sounds like a variation on Epicurus' riddle, namely:


Interesting, but not necessarily proof of anything. God doesn't follow logic, nor can God be proven or disproven.

And as for the article from wikipedia with the bad math speak......I'll attempt to translate.

In simplistic terms, 1/infinity is actually 0 by means of a familiar proof.

1/3 = .33r 3*(1/3) = .99r except that 3/3 = 1.
There is no leftover in the second part because .99r is actually equal to 1.

Questions?

No; as I am a mathematician I am already familiar this proof.
However, there is a distinction between an infinitesimally small value and 0.0 recurring.
I like defining an infinitesimally small value in the way that I did, although it makes it the same as 0.0 recurring; however, my definition is merely intended as a way of visualising it; it is not the actual value, as there is not a value.

However, your proof is lacking, for you have not proved that 1/3 does equal 0.3 recurring.
An algebraic proof is better.

x = 0.9 recurring.
10x = 9.9 recurring.
10x - 9x = x.
9.9 recurring - 0.9 recurring = 9.
Therefore 9x = 9.
Therefore 1x, or x, equals 1.

Ilaer

Assuming God exists this argument is flawed. God gave us free will so he LETS us do what we want even though he controls it. God giveth and God [can] taketh away.

Did you even read it?
God is held to be omniscient; if he allows free will then he does not know which future will occur and thus is not omniscient.
If, however, he doesn't allow free will, then he is responsible for human sin and is thus not omnibenevolent.
Your argument seems to me to state that God allows us free will but controls us; this is a contradiction in terms. Free would allow us to operate completely independently of God.

Free will and omniscience are mutually exclusive.

However, back to the almost surely thing: are you saying that even though God is omniscient and He knows things with a probability of one that He will be
occasionally be wrong due to that 'almost surely' thing?
That's certainly what it sounds like to me.

Ilaer

the "classical sense" is senseless.
the unknowable is unknowable.
the question is moot.

whatever nontangable forces and beings see fit to exist are whatever they are.
whatever any system of belief claims to KNOW about it, is, to put in kindly,
at the very least, improbable of verification.

i'm not claiming to KNOW that the're wrong either.
just that out of an infinity of possibilities,
any finite number of them,
is well, rather a small fraction,
as ought to be
rather self evidently obvious.

=^^=
.../\...

x = 0.9 recurring.
10x = 9.9 recurring.
10x - 9x = x.
9.9 recurring - 0.9 recurring = 9.
Therefore 9x = 9.
Therefore 1x, or x, equals 1.what? doesn't your proof contains parts of what you want to prove?

shouldn't you rather be proving that http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7408/onethirdug3.gif

If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.
If, however, He/She allows only the illusion of free will, then this would imply that either there is a power greater than God which has determined the course of the Universe (thus showing that God is not the greatest power) or that God Him/Herself controls life and action; this would mean, however, that God was the cause of sin and thus sinful Himself/Herself.Ilaer
I believe that assuming that god must know exactly what will happen in the future to be "allknowing" and "allmighty" is a logical error and to not understand what it really means.
I believe that god created us with a free will, that he know what could happen, but that he don't really care. He only cares about what we do right now and about what's in our minds.

the "classical sense" is senseless.
the unknowable is unknowable.
the question is moot.

whatever nontangable forces and beings see fit to exist are whatever they are.
whatever any system of belief claims to KNOW about it, is, to put in kindly,
at the very least, improbable of verification.

i'm not claiming to KNOW that the're wrong either.
just that out of an infinity of possibilities,
any finite number of them,
is well, rather a small fraction,
as ought to be
rather self evidently obvious.The overall problem is that there is no definition of god. There are many different claims about who, what, and how god or gods are, but there is no universally accepted definition of the characteristics of such an entity.
However, I do not agree that the existence of gods is unknowable. All it would take would be one of them to come forward.

From the point of view of eternity, this is true. But we don't have the point of view of eternity. Events in the past have already happened. We can't go back in time (with present technology) and change them. Events in the future we have no knowledge of, but if we did have knowledge of them, of what would happen, and knew with 100% certainty that they would happen, how do we still, then, have free will?
Assuming that we have free will, the future can't be predicted.
You can only say what you think might happen or what you wish will happen and try to make it happen. And that is what I think god does.

If you would travel into the future you will jump forwords and "force" everything to "speed up" which means that when you go back in time everything will be "undone" and. So when you go "back" to the future you will enter a different future than the last time.

If time traveling would be possible.

Free will and omniscience are mutually exclusive.



Not so. Foreknowledge does not affect the decision being made, as long as the decision maker is not privy to said foreknowledge.

All it would take would be one of them to come forward.

For the vast majority of the world, they have. You must have been sleeping. ;)

I came up with this the other day whilst in France on a school trip; it's an argument against God in the classical sense of Him/Her being both free from sin and omniscient.
If you can see any flaws then be brutal and tell me; I'm an agnostic so it won't make much difference.
I just enjoy philosophy.

Straight from my notepad:
If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.
If, however, He/She allows only the illusion of free will, then this would imply that either there is a power greater than God which has determined the course of the Universe (thus showing that God is not the greatest power) or that God Him/Herself controls life and action; this would mean, however, that God was the cause of sin and thus sinful Himself/Herself.

What do you think?
I don't want a religious fight/war; just a philosophical/theological discussion.

Ilaer

On Ominiscience,
You are basing this on the linear concept of time. Quantum physics and the work right now being done by people on the theories of retrocasuality flies in the face of linear time as we currently understand it. Or rather, one could suggest God is aware of all futures at once as a whole.

However we will move on to the lack of free will.
Lack of free will does not imply a power greater then God, it implies God did not impart free will.

The concept og God being Sin free does not come from God not commiting what we perceive as sins, it comes from God being incapable of sinning. I always took that myself to mean, that nothing God did was a sin. Not an actual lack ability to perform a task. A state of being above the Law if you will.

Its all a good try though...and I am sure some one will find something wrong with my logic.

I don't think it's such a strict dichotomy. For example, I know how to multiply. If I take the time to work it out, I might discover that 7 x 73 x 137 x 191 = 13371337. However, at any given moment, I am not certain of the result of such simple calculations, although I am quite capable of obtaining the answer. Similarly, God may be able to see in the future, thus negating free will; however, he opts not to do this, although he retains the capacity to do so. Thus, he may both be omniscient and allow free will.

This is actually makes a little sense.

Troll/puppetmaster, you're losing your touch.

This is actually makes a little sense.

Troll/puppetmaster, you're losing your touch.

One thing I've never really grasped. How is it that a new poster with coherent thought-out views is automatically labeled a troll? What purpose does it serve to identify someone as such?

The concept of 'time cannot apply to God. He created it as well as everything else, which are subject to it, but He is not.

God can be omniscient and allow for free will. This depends on what you mean by "free." I f by it you mean making a decision free of any entity's prior knowledge, then free will is indeed just an illusion. But if you mean, and this is also what I think God means, that you can make a choice without feeling like something is compelling you to do otherwise, then God can know your choice but not force you into it. Have you ever woken up, and barring any medical issues, not opeed your eyes, or gotten up when your own brain told your body to? Have you ever said to yourself, "Wow, I really want to get up right now, but God told my body not to move"?

I rest my case.

I think that the problem with trying to find logical contradictions in the traditional monotheistic conceptions of God, is the 'fact' of his omnipotence - it's an 'illogical' idea.

Omnipotence implies being able to do ANYTHING - including acting in ways which would simply not make sense to humans. Certain logical paradoxes can thus be reasoned away by virtue of this 'catch-all'.

An example of this, is an arguement that I find works against Descartes' method of doubt. The general idea is this; if Descartes' 'evil demon' can do ANYTHING (he is not 'limited' by omni-benevolence, like God), by virtue of his omnipotence, he would be able to make us BELIEVE that we exist, when we in fact do not - thus providing us with the ammunition required to doubt away the self. Omnipotence here transcends the realm of human understanding - just because for us, it appears paradoxical, by no means implies that it cannot be performed in the context of the existence of an 'omnipotent' being.

The conception of God's omnipotence (in Descartes' case, the evil demon's) implies limitless ability to... 'do things'... even if these things really don't make sense.

I'm not a religious person myself, but I always find theological reasoning interesting ;p.


you can make something that doesnt exist think that it exists? how does something that doesnt exist think?

One thing I've never really grasped. How is it that a new poster with coherent thought-out views is automatically labeled a troll? What purpose does it serve to identify someone as such?

by paying attention to what they say in other threads.

FaG is almost certainly the reincarnation of a former troll. if you see what he says in other threads its pretty obvious.

whether or not he meant to be serious in THIS thread is up for debate. ill take fart's word for it. im not interested in math posts.

For the vast majority of the world, they have. You must have been sleeping.If there was no camera, then it's not real ;)

If there was no camera, then it's not real ;)

In these days of Photoshop, I am forced to reconsider "What is Truth?"

In these days of Photoshop, I am forced to reconsider "What is Truth?"Funny. So you don't trust images? ;) Why should I trust a fictional book, then?

No; as I am a mathematician I am already familiar this proof.
However, there is a distinction between an infinitesimally small value and 0.0 recurring.
I like defining an infinitesimally small value in the way that I did, although it makes it the same as 0.0 recurring; however, my definition is merely intended as a way of visualising it; it is not the actual value, as there is not a value.

However, your proof is lacking, for you have not proved that 1/3 does equal 0.3 recurring.
An algebraic proof is better.

x = 0.9 recurring.
10x = 9.9 recurring.
10x - 9x = x.
9.9 recurring - 0.9 recurring = 9.
Therefore 9x = 9.
Therefore 1x, or x, equals 1.

Ilaer

Sorry, I didn't feel like showing that 1 divided by 3 is equal to 1/3 or .33r, and I still don't feel like it. My proof was simple, and that's why I posted it.

My real intent for posting at all was to bring up Epicurus, who wrote a riddle surprisingly like yours, or that your riddle sounds surprisingly like his, and the only substantial difference in the language is derived from different arguments against god.

Sorry, I didn't feel like showing that 1 divided by 3 is equal to 1/3 or .33r, and I still don't feel like it. My proof was simple, and that's why I posted it.

My real intent for posting at all was to bring up Epicurus, who wrote a riddle surprisingly like yours, or that your riddle sounds surprisingly like his, and the only substantial difference in the language is derived from different arguments against god.

Ah.
I've actually seen that argument before, but I can assure you that it wasn't going through my mind at the time that I wrote my argument. As I think you understand, though, there is a slightly different concept at the heart of mine and at the heart of his; mine is of omniscience and freedom from sin against free will.

I always hated the fact that 0.9 recurring equals one, although I defend its truth against those not acquainted in mathematics.

Ilaer

The concept of 'time cannot apply to God. He created it as well as everything else, which are subject to it, but He is not.

God can be omniscient and allow for free will. This depends on what you mean by "free." I f by it you mean making a decision free of any entity's prior knowledge, then free will is indeed just an illusion. But if you mean, and this is also what I think God means, that you can make a choice without feeling like something is compelling you to do otherwise, then God can know your choice but not force you into it. Have you ever woken up, and barring any medical issues, not opeed your eyes, or gotten up when your own brain told your body to? Have you ever said to yourself, "Wow, I really want to get up right now, but God told my body not to move"?

I rest my case.

Consider the difference between 'an entity's prior knowledge' and 'an entity's prior prediction'.
If God does not exist or at least is not omniscient then it is quite possible to have free will.
Only if He exists and is omniscient is free will an illusion.
Or else if the known physical laws are correct and it is the physical brain as opposed to the ethereal mind that controls our actions.

Ilaer

You're applying causation the wrong direction. I don't behave as I do because God knew I would. God knew I would because I behave as I do.

Viewed from within linear time, the effect precedes the cause.

Now that may not necessarily be entirely true, given that many things in the universe do seem to have truly random aspects (quantum mechanics, for one, where an electron is defined by a probability distribution. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle also.) and so 100% certainty may very well be impossible no matter how well we ever understand the universe.

Neither of these things are truly random. The fact that an electron can be defined by a probability distribution tells you that it is not truly random. And, if we could accurately measure and define the movement of an electron, we could figure out precisely where it would be.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has nothing at all to do with true randomness. It is simply a statement of the uncertainty introduced by our lack of knowledge (and, to a certain point, our lack in ability and skill).


Then tell me which part of the mechanism at issue did you understand so you can defend your position at all. What indication is there for said mechanism? I rather think you make stuff up.

The indication is in the way the universe works. Thus far, we have no evidence at all for a non-deterministic universe, while we have quite a bit for a deterministic universe. In fact, our most commonly used form of study in defining these things - the scientific method - relies upon the existence of a deterministic universe.

The indication is in the way the universe works. Thus far, we have no evidence at all for a non-deterministic universe, while we have quite a bit for a deterministic universe. In fact, our most commonly used form of study in defining these things - the scientific method - relies upon the existence of a deterministic universe.we have what?

you can make something that doesnt exist think that it exists? how does something that doesnt exist think?

Harry Potter thinks all the time. Does he exist?

Harry Potter thinks all the time. Does he exist?In 1900 years some, um, people will believe he does. ;) :rolleyes:

Harry Potter thinks all the time. Does he exist?

Or is that J.K. Rowling or her writing doing the thinking for him?

Ilaer

Or is that J.K. Rowling or her writing doing the thinking for him?

From her point of view, it is her. From his, it is him.

If we are being written by someone else, for instance, then we are thinking - from our point of view. But from the point of view of the writer, we are not.

It ends up being a moot question, really. We're going to act as if we exist whether we truly do or not. But, in the end, we have no way to prove that we exist in any reality outside of our own perception.

From her point of view, it is her. From his, it is him.

If we are being written by someone else, for instance, then we are thinking - from our point of view. But from the point of view of the writer, we are not.

It ends up being a moot question, really. We're going to act as if we exist whether we truly do or not. But, in the end, we have no way to prove that we exist in any reality outside of our own perception.How can a fictional character have a point of view?

From her point of view, it is her. From his, it is him.

If we are being written by someone else, for instance, then we are thinking - from our point of view. But from the point of view of the writer, we are not.

It ends up being a moot question, really. We're going to act as if we exist whether we truly do or not. But, in the end, we have no way to prove that we exist in any reality outside of our own perception.

That's circular reasoning. If he has a point of view, then he must think; however, you're saying that from his point of view he's already thinking.

Ilaer

Funny. So you don't trust images? ;) Why should I trust a fictional book, then?

Why not? You're dead anyway, so you've got nothing to lose :).

Harry Potter thinks all the time. Does he exist?

harry potter neither thinks nor exists. describing thinking doesnt create thinking.

Why not? You're dead anyway, so you've got nothing to lose.In that case, I'll trust the Silmarillion. :cool:

In that case, I'll trust the Silmarillion. :cool:

Well, it's much better developed than many religious books, although the Bible's not exactly under-developed itself...

Ilaer

Well, it's much better developed than many religious booksOh yes it is

although the Bible's not exactly under-developed itself...Oh yes it is

Oh yes it is

Oh yes it is

Hey, as an agnostic, I'm allowed to state anything I want about the Bible.
:D

Everyone knows agnostics are soppy, indecisive pansies who can't insult things.

Ilaer

How can a fictional character have a point of view?

Good question.

How can anything have a point of view? How do we know if it does or not?


That's circular reasoning. If he has a point of view, then he must think; however, you're saying that from his point of view he's already thinking.

In his realm, he would have a point of view.


harry potter neither thinks nor exists. describing thinking doesnt create thinking.

From what perspective?

Hey, as an agnostic, I'm allowed to state anything I want about the Bible.
:D

Everyone knows agnostics are soppy, indecisive pansies who can't insult things.

Ilaer

I must admit, I am partial to the depiction of agnosticism in Life of Pi: "Choosing agnosticism as a way of life is like choosing immobility as a means of transportation." But that's a topic for a different discussion, I suppose. ;)

we have what?

Penises? I know, it shocked me too.

However, back to the almost surely thing: are you saying that even though God is omniscient and He knows things with a probability of one that He will be
occasionally be wrong due to that 'almost surely' thing?
That's certainly what it sounds like to me.


It isn't 'almost' in the layman's sense. It's the sorta the difference between being the only option, and being one option with probability 1.

I always hated the fact that 0.9 recurring equals one, although I defend its truth against those not acquainted in mathematics.
Hate? What's to hate? I hate cyclinders, but that's because teachers always ask us to find their 'effciency', which involves a tedious unrewarding formula. Why hate on .999...?

How I see it, is that God is present at all times at once. The future is known to (any of the major monotheistic religion's) God, because he is already there, he is here, and he is in the past.

God does not live moment-to-moment like we do, the future is not something that is yet to occur, much as the past is not something that occurred previously. Combined, past, future, and present all occur at once for God, the entire spectrum of time, from the point in time where the universe was just a tiny, infinitely dense, infinitely hot point, to beyond the far edges of universal entropy and cold.

It isn't 'almost' in the layman's sense. It's the sorta the difference between being the only option, and being one option with probability 1.


A good example I heard is that a person can pick any colour ball on the table, but he has already decided to pick the red ball. So because of this, the probability of him picking the red ball is 1, despite the fact that there were other options and thus had a choice to pick another ball.

How I see it, is that God is present at all times at once. The future is known to (any of the major monotheistic religion's) God, because he is already there, he is here, and he is in the past.

God does not live moment-to-moment like we do, the future is not something that is yet to occur, much as the past is not something that occurred previously. Combined, past, future, and present all occur at once for God, the entire spectrum of time, from the point in time where the universe was just a tiny, infinitely dense, infinitely hot point, to beyond the far edges of universal entropy and cold.How do you know all these things? From what source?

From what perspective?

mine? reality? life? you dont mean to suggest that jkrowling created a living being when she wrote about harry potter do you?

How do you know all these things? From what source?

It's just the way I figure it.

Hell, that's the only manner that's worth a damn with this. Think about it on your own and draw your own conclusions. Use outside sources to provide yourself with material and possible ideas if you'd like, but, in the end, judgment on such must be up to yourself, and yourself alone.

How I see it, is that God is present at all times at once. The future is known to (any of the major monotheistic religion's) God, because he is already there, he is here, and he is in the past.

God does not live moment-to-moment like we do, the future is not something that is yet to occur, much as the past is not something that occurred previously. Combined, past, future, and present all occur at once for God, the entire spectrum of time, from the point in time where the universe was just a tiny, infinitely dense, infinitely hot point, to beyond the far edges of universal entropy and cold.

I find it highly irrelevant what god's perspective is, because he never told us. There's so much relevant crap that we need to know in order to truly understand who and what we're worshipping, and yet he felt it necessary to leave all of it out in his message and his books.

My opinion is a general 'fuckit' and ask for an apology from him for doing so when you die.

It's just the way I figure it. That's what I figured...

Hell, that's the only manner that's worth a damn with this. Think about it on your own and draw your own conclusions. Use outside sources to provide yourself with material and possible ideas if you'd like, but, in the end, judgment on such must be up to yourself, and yourself alone.What outside sources have you used?

I must admit, I am partial to the depiction of agnosticism in Life of Pi: "Choosing agnosticism as a way of life is like choosing immobility as a means of transportation." But that's a topic for a different discussion, I suppose. ;)

I suppose it depends on what exactly one means by "agnosticism". In its simplest form, one might say that agnosticism is the way of life that most encourages questioning and skepticism. Of course, in that form, one can be a theist or an atheist while also being an agnostic.

It's just the way I figure it.

Hell, that's the only manner that's worth a damn with this. Think about it on your own and draw your own conclusions. Use outside sources to provide yourself with material and possible ideas if you'd like, but, in the end, judgment on such must be up to yourself, and yourself alone.

But if you were religious, it wouldn't matter because:

whats 70 years of not knowing all the answers to an eternity of knowing everything you need to know? etc...

mine?

This is the only one you can be at all sure of.

reality?

You can only perceive "reality". It does not have a perception in and of itself, nor could you be sure of what it was if it did.

life?

You can only perceive "life". It does not have a perception in and of itself, nor could you be sure of what it was if it did.

you dont mean to suggest that jkrowling created a living being when she wrote about harry potter do you?

Not at all. I'm merely suggesting that we have no way of knowing for certain that we are not characters in a book, much as Harry Potter is. The "I think therefore I am" conception is nice, but really proves nothing other than that, from our own perception, we exist. It says nothing about any objective reality.

((Although I've always been fond of the idea of alternate realities in which the "fictional" is true, I don't really believe it.))

I came up with this the other day whilst in France on a school trip; it's an argument against God in the classical sense of Him/Her being both free from sin and omniscient.
If you can see any flaws then be brutal and tell me; I'm an agnostic so it won't make much difference.
I just enjoy philosophy.

Straight from my notepad:
If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.
If, however, He/She allows only the illusion of free will, then this would imply that either there is a power greater than God which has determined the course of the Universe (thus showing that God is not the greatest power) or that God Him/Herself controls life and action; this would mean, however, that God was the cause of sin and thus sinful Himself/Herself.

What do you think?
I don't want a religious fight/war; just a philosophical/theological discussion.

Ilaer

God does know everything that will happen in the future, just because there is more than one multiple outcome doesn't mean he doesn't know. I mean if I rob a bank one of two things can happen I will either get away, or I will be caught. It doesn't matter if there are more possible outcomes because only one will happen right? One or the other will happen, and God knows which one will happen to us and of course he will not interfer because God doesn't interfer with the Agency of Man. God doesn't cause sin, we do. Satan sort of does but he is more of a temptor he tempts you to sin. You sin on your own free will but the beauty of that, you can repent and be forgiven.

What outside sources have you used?

I was pick pocketed random bits from Judeo-Christian tradition, but I mainly just cooked it up on my own.

*snip*

God: You murdered ten people, and as such, are going to Hell.
Murderer: Did you know I was going to murder them?
God: Yes.
Murderer: Then clearly I had no choice!
God: Why not?
Murderer: Because you knew what I would choose beforehand!
God: So I knew what your choice was going to be. What of it? You still chose it.
Murderer: But I couldn't have chosen otherwise.
God: Sure you could have.
Murderer: But if I had, your knowledge would have been false!
God: No. If you had, my knowledge would have been different - I would have predicted that you would not murder the people instead.
Murderer: But once you had already made the prediction, I had no choice.
God: No. My prediction only stated that you actually would choose to murder them - not that you had to.

And so on.

There's a version of this argument that compatibilist arguments couldn't contest, however: can God act upon His prescient knowledge to change the future?

I was pick pocketed random bits from Judeo-Christian tradition, but I mainly just cooked it up on my own.And you rely on that?
And how do you make the connexion from that to the world around?
And why have you only pick pocketed random bits from Judeo-Christian tradition and other traditions?

There's a version of this argument that compatibilist arguments couldn't contest, however: can God act upon His prescient knowledge to change the future?

Wait, wait, I know. Only if he knew he was going to act on it and change the future, unless he didn't want to act on it, which he could not want, but won't, because he knows he won't.

A polite request which I don't really mind if you follow, then: please, no placing God outside of time in a manner as has just been done.
I don't particularly mind, but it does strike me as a very cheap and easy argument.

Ilaer

But that is the argument... God created the Universe and time, He is not part of it- just as if you paint a picture, you are not part of the picture. Omniscience and freewill cannot coexist within time. C.S. Lewis tried to describe that everything is the present to God... He doesnt foresee you sinning, he sees you do it.
It's hard (if not impossible) to understand something outside time, I can't picture it...but that doesn't mean it's not true. Note: this concept is supported not only by monotheism- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam- but also by Thich Naht Hanh, a renowned Buddhist monk, 'theologian', and peace activist.

But that is the argument... God created the Universe and time, He is not part of it- just as if you paint a picture, you are not part of the picture. Omniscience and freewill cannot coexist within time. C.S. Lewis tried to describe that everything is the present to God... He doesnt foresee you sinning, he sees you do it.
It's hard (if not impossible) to understand something outside time, I can't picture it...but that doesn't mean it's not true. Note: this concept is supported not only by monotheism- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam- but also by Thich Naht Hanh, a renowned Buddhist monk, 'theologian', and peace activist.

The story of Genesis implies that God is part of the Universe, judging by the fact that it is said He walked around the Garden of Eden.

Ilaer

The story of Genesis implies that God is part of the Universe, judging by the fact that it is said He walked around the Garden of Eden.

Ilaer

Interacting with something does not mean you are part of it.

The story of Genesis is actually quite clear that God created the heavens and the earth. As such, God cannot be a part of these things, but must have existence outside of them.

Wait, wait, I know. Only if he knew he was going to act on it and change the future, unless he didn't want to act on it, which he could not want, but won't, because he knows he won't.

I'm not sure I understood that.

The problem is that God's prescient knowledge might affect His actions. His actions, of course, affect the future - and thus His prescient knowledge.

In order to know the future, He must know what He will do. But in order to know what He will do, He must first know the future (because His knowledge, like everyone's, affects His actions.)

Interacting with something does not mean you are part of it.

The story of Genesis is actually quite clear that God created the heavens and the earth. As such, God cannot be a part of these things, but must have existence outside of them.

And so he cannot have incorporated himself in them afterwards?
If I build a house can I not enter?
The Universe is not like a house, but it serves as an analogy.

Ilaer

And so he cannot have incorporated himself in them afterwards?
If I build a house can I not enter?
The Universe is not like a house, but it serves as an analogy.

Ilaer

Of course you can enter, but you are not part of the house. You are interacting with the house. You can leave. If the house ceases to exist, you can still exist.

We discussed earlier in the thread a deity that might essentially become the universe. But even then, it would have existence outside the universe - outside space and time.

Any God which is seen as being the Creator of the Universe, by definition, has existence outside the universe - outside space and time. Otherwise, it cannot be the Creator.

A polite request which I don't really mind if you follow, then: please, no placing God outside of time in a manner as has just been done.
I don't particularly mind, but it does strike me as a very cheap and easy argument.

Ilaer

Well, Ilaer, that's like saying "don't describe God the way He is." God exists outside time. If He existed within the realm of the universe, well, then, He wouldn't be much of a God, then, would He?

As for free will:

As God exists outside the space-time continuum, He would see everything -- past, present, and future -- in an instant. Everything would be now to Him. He is perfectly capable of allowing free will while still maintaining omniscence.

Granted, I'm a Calvinist, so I don't believe there is a completely free will in the first place. ;)

Any God which is seen as being the Creator of the Universe, by definition, has existence outside the universe - outside space and time. Otherwise, it cannot be the Creator.

Exactly.

I'm not sure I understood that.

The problem is that God's prescient knowledge might affect His actions. His actions, of course, affect the future - and thus His prescient knowledge.

In order to know the future, He must know what He will do. But in order to know what He will do, He must first know the future (because His knowledge, like everyone's, affects His actions.)

You continue to assume that God resides within the bounds of Time -- which He doesn't.

In a deterministic universe (which, when you get right down to it, most people believe we exist in), free will in the sense of "I can make choices and there's no way anyone could ever have foreknowledge of them because they're actually random," doesn't exist.

Then what's your solution to the argument from evil?

The story of Genesis implies that God is part of the Universe, judging by the fact that it is said He walked around the Garden of Eden.

Ilaer

God is both part and not part of the Universe, He resides both within and without. Because of His Divine Nature, He is perfectly capable of being within the Garden, and outside the universe.

I hate to bring this cliche up, but frankly, a human mind simply cannot comprehend God.

Then what's your solution to the argument from evil?

The who'sia'what?

Then what's your solution to the argument from evil?

God gave us perfectly free will upon Creation. However, with the Fall of Man, we lost our ability to do good, we lost our perfection, and fall short of the Glory of God.

Because of this, we are no longer capable of doing actual good. We are simply incapable of choosing to do good. All good comes from God, and our 'good works' are simply Him working through us.

All evil comes from Man and demon, but never God.

(Again, I'm coming from a Calvinistic point of view)

You continue to assume that God resides within the bounds of Time

That is no solution - it is merely a transference of the problem.

God still knows everything. God can still act to change it. God still can't have both of those traits at the same time, because they're circular.

Unless you want to claim that God doesn't really "act" at all.

The who'sia'what?

Sorry.

If determinism is true (and this conclusion shouldn't be any profound loss on our parts), then it follows that for God to have created the world in such a way that we all would act like saints would not constitute any loss, either.

Thanks for understanding. As I said, I don't want a religious argument; just one of philosophy.
I feel really sad now. I liked Smunkee; she was ace. :(

Yeah. Smunk was an ace indeed.

I have a few arguments, completely off-topic, but fun anyways.

ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION
See my fist?
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY (aka THE MOST COMMON ATHEIST ARGUMENT)
B---s---!
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ARGUMENT FROM KITCHEN APPLIANCES
My toaster isn’t God.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

This is the only one you can be at all sure of.



You can only perceive "reality". It does not have a perception in and of itself, nor could you be sure of what it was if it did.



You can only perceive "life". It does not have a perception in and of itself, nor could you be sure of what it was if it did.



Not at all. I'm merely suggesting that we have no way of knowing for certain that we are not characters in a book, much as Harry Potter is. The "I think therefore I am" conception is nice, but really proves nothing other than that, from our own perception, we exist. It says nothing about any objective reality.

((Although I've always been fond of the idea of alternate realities in which the "fictional" is true, I don't really believe it.))

while we may be "characters in a book" or "batteries in the matrix", we do have self awareness (or at least i do, you may be totally fiction), you would have to go along way to convince me that harry potter has any of the markers of life.

That is no solution - it is merely a transference of the problem.

God still knows everything. God can still act to change it. God still can't have both of those traits at the same time, because they're circular.

Unless you want to claim that God doesn't really "act" at all.

Yes, He can have both of those traits. If He should choose to change something, He would know its effect.

It's difficult to use analogies to explain God -- as the nature of God cannot be comprehended fully by man -- but I'll try.

It's akin to playing Chess against yourself, but plotting all of your moves in advance. Should you choose to change your plan mid-way through, you would plot that out and recalculate all moves, and since you're playing against yourself, you know what the opponent is going to do as well. However, God would know all of this AT ONCE, and would not need time to think it out.

Should you choose to change your plan mid-way through, you would plot that out and recalculate all moves

Clearly, you didn't really know all your moves in advance, then. False analogy.

Let's say that God exists within time. Let's just say.

God, being omniscient, will know what you do in the future. To some, this means that technically, there is no free will since what you do has been predetermined.

But, predetermined by who? God doesn't choose what you do - he only knows of it. He is aware that you will do this and this in the future, or that so and so will happen in the future.

So, who else is there to blame on this "predestiny" that is placed upon us? Who else, except ourselves and the things around us?

Clearly, you didn't really know all your moves in advance, then. False analogy.

Point. I never said it was a good one. :p

I have a few arguments, completely off-topic, but fun anyways.

ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION
See my fist?
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.


I don't see your fist.

Therefore, God exists.

:rolleyes:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
I posted this earlier.....I would have thought that it would have been picked up.....

You continue to assume that God resides within the bounds of Time -- which He doesn't.Any proof? Or indication at least?

Any proof? Or indication at least?Wouldn't it be much easier to ask the guy, instead of this perpetual goalpost shifting?

Wouldn't it be much easier to ask the guy, instead of this perpetual goalpost shifting?The guy does not answer. Yet some folks are hearing voices...

I posted this earlier.....I would have thought that it would have been picked up.....

We're waiting for the giraffes singing Bohemian Rhapsody whilst swinging on chandeliers.
As soon as that's over we'll get to discussing the more trivial things. :D

Ilaer

Divine Providence is not in a position to know or not know the future, since the Divine is the future.

This statement is on a level with 'Colourless green ideas dream furiously' The words are in the right order and they're all english but they don't mean anything.

This statement is on a level with 'Colourless green ideas dream furiously' The words are in the right order and they're all english but they don't mean anything.

I don't really understand it either, but it sounds cool.

Ilaer

Edit: 600th post. Yay. *waves flag dispiritedly*

God gave us perfectly free will upon Creation. However, with the Fall of Man, we lost our ability to do good, we lost our perfection, and fall short of the Glory of God.

Because of this, we are no longer capable of doing actual good. We are simply incapable of choosing to do good. All good comes from God, and our 'good works' are simply Him working through us.

All evil comes from Man and demon, but never God.

(Again, I'm coming from a Calvinistic point of view)

If we were given free will upon creation, and were created to be perfect, we would not have fallen. Perfect creatures cannot fall, otherwise they simply aren't perfect or they are and they were meant to fall.

Let's say that God exists within time. Let's just say.

God, being omniscient, will know what you do in the future. To some, this means that technically, there is no free will since what you do has been predetermined.

But, predetermined by who? God doesn't choose what you do - he only knows of it. He is aware that you will do this and this in the future, or that so and so will happen in the future.

So, who else is there to blame on this "predestiny" that is placed upon us? Who else, except ourselves and the things around us?

God, being omniscient, will know what you do in the future. God, being your creator, has created you with the knowledge of what his creation will do, and has created you still. He knows you will sin, because he has created a sinner. He knows you will murder, because he has created a killer. He knows I will hate him, because he has created an indignant christian.

He's created us in these roles he knew we would play.

Every time you sin, it's his fault, because he knew you would do it, but did nothing to stop it in the process of creation.

The guy does not answer. Yet some folks are hearing voices...

Another reason I dislike god - he was so chatty and personal in the OT and even sometimes in the NT, but for 2000 years he's been quiet, not answering, not talking, not announcing anything, not doing anything.

And don't start with "you have to listen, he'll speak to you through prayer" because that's outright lies.


I realize I'm being a bit aggressive in this post - I'm getting the point across that I have a strong hatred for god.

Straight from my notepad:
If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.

This is where religious people would tell you you went wrong. I believe it is the opinion of most Christians that God does know what will happen, but does not neccesarily influence it.

This is where religious people would tell you you went wrong. I believe it is the opinion of most Christians that God does know what will happen, but does not neccesarily influence it.

Which is false, because he creates human beings. That's possibly the most influencial thing he could do.

Come on, the thread was just getting good - post, post, post...

Sorry.

If determinism is true (and this conclusion shouldn't be any profound loss on our parts), then it follows that for God to have created the world in such a way that we all would act like saints would not constitute any loss, either.

God could have. God also could have created us all with complete knowledge. But then what would there be to figure out and learn?

Note, before you ask, that I don't think of Hell as a punishment per se. Hell is separation from God. Evil is that which moves away from God.


while we may be "characters in a book" or "batteries in the matrix", we do have self awareness (or at least i do, you may be totally fiction), you would have to go along way to convince me that harry potter has any of the markers of life.

How could you convince me that you have self-awareness? How would I know? How could I possibly perceive your self-awareness?

Another reason I dislike god - he was so chatty and personal in the OT and even sometimes in the NT, but for 2000 years he's been quiet, not answering, not talking, not announcing anything, not doing anything.

And don't start with "you have to listen, he'll speak to you through prayer" because that's outright lies.

So you think everyone who believes they have received guidance from God is simply lying?

So you think everyone who believes they have received guidance from God is simply lying?

That's a lot of lies over the past 4,000 years....