NationStates Jolt Archive

No. You are still reading it wrong. Choice is also irrelevant, as we can replace T with an action done by a non-sentient actor, e.g. an earthquake or a leaf falling from a tree, and the argument would still be equally valid.

I know, and that's exactly the flaw. It pretends to adequately explain why there is no choice while being specifically structured to eliminate it from the equation. I know that's supposed to be the point, the idea that the very fact that it's possible to eliminate choice is proof that it isn't a factor. I get that. But it has a gaping hole as a result.

I know, and that's exactly the flaw. It pretends to adequately explain why there is no choice while being specifically structured to eliminate it from the equation. I know that's supposed to be the point, the idea that the very fact that it's possible to eliminate choice is proof that it isn't a factor. I get that. But it has a gaping hole as a result.

Let me get this straight. The argument has a gaping hole because it proves what it claims to prove? That choice is impossible once we assume an omniscient and infallible god?

Let me get this straight. The argument has a gaping hole because it proves what it claims to prove? That choice is impossible once we assume an omniscient and infallible god?

No, it has a gaping hole because it doesn't address a major factor that MUST be considered, the nature of the choice itself. It's not even like it was included but subsequently factored out.

No, it has a gaping hole because it doesn't address a major factor that MUST be considered, the nature of the choice itself. It's not even like it was included but subsequently factored out.

Tell you what, why don't you pretend that I'm really stupid and explain in careful detail how the nature of the choice is important and how it was factored out.

It sounds like you believe in an interpretation of Heisenberg's Principle which was popular for a while in the 1920's but was found not to be consistent with the experimental results: the "hidden values interpretation" in which the particles really do have exact positions and momenta at all times, which determine their subsequent behavior; it's just that we can't find out what they are. It's "a beautiful theory, foully slain by ugly facts": the double-slit experiment could not work as it does if that interpretation were true.

The quantum-indeterminate events are resolved "randomly" in the technical sense in which mathematicians use the term "random": whatever determines which way they go, it is INDEPENDENT of the spatio-temporal distribution of the particles (that is, perfect information about the spatio-temporal distribution would tell you nothing more about the outcome). This does not mean, as people tend to think when they hear "random", that there is some kind of Celestial Casino Royale where God and all His angels roll trillions of dice every nanosecond to resolve the "random" outcomes. I prefer to say the quantum-indeterminate events are resolved "freely": that is what an act of "will" consists of, making things go one way rather than another out of the space of possible outcomes which the laws of physics leave open.

Fair points, and I guess I stand corrected.

Tell you what, why don't you pretend that I'm really stupid and explain in careful detail how the nature of the choice is important and how it was factored out.

Ok but real quick: Did you see this post earlier?

Earlier Post to NA (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13943340&postcount=931)

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]

Here. There's an assumption here that T occurred (or will). It's a given that's unstated. (Implied by the presence of the word 'infallibly.')

WHY did it occur? (Since someone, maybe you, insisted earlier that God's knowledge of it was not the cause.)

(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]

(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]

Why? The link between T and E is unclear.

(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]

(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]

(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]

(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]

Step 2 indicates a conditional that E occurred in the past. How do we go from a possible past event to a certainty about a conditional future?

(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]

This leaves out the fact that the only reason for the act to have come about in the first place is the choice of T

(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

If you're so myopic to your own point of view that you can't see that people don't always mean the same thing with such terms then there's little else to talk about here.


It's nothing to do with being myopic. If you're going to start quibbling over terms like 'universe' and 'reality', then we're going to end up in a Clinton-esque pissing contest over what the definition of 'is' is. That's pointless, and doesn't interest me in the slightest, so I'm refusing to indulge you.


Frankly, I wasn't even talking about just you and me. That's why I said 'people' as opposed to you and I.


I also wasn't specifically referring to just you and I.


Some people say 'universe' and they mean all that is observable.


I don't, because that's not what it means. And I see no reason to accomodate that. I'm pretty sure even you wouldn't make that argument, so I really don't see what the point of the quibble was in the first place.


Some say 'universe' and they include in that other dimensions or planes of existence.


Again, I don't - because it's not what it means. Again - I don't think you believe that either. Which leaves me thinking your quibble was an attempt to semantically prevaricate.


Still others have a definition that fits somewhere in between.


You mean, the ACTUAL definition?


I'd have expected you to realize that, but maybe I was giving you a little too much credit.


Perhaps too little. I'm not interested in nonsense definitions.


Seems like you're getting a little frustrated.


Not at all, I think you overestimate your capacity to frustrate.

I'm just stating firmly that I'm not going to go out of my way to spoonfeed you definitions.


No, you think I don't 'get' your argument because I have the audacity to disagree with it.


No, I think you don't 'get' the argument, because you've yet to show that you comprehend it.


Frankly, you're not trying to see any point of view but your own, and now that it's obvious that I'm not just swallowing your argument wholesale you're starting to get pissy


Again, I think you overestimate your own value in irritation. Consider it a compliment.

You keep arguing about the 'before' and 'after' options, and how they are different.

If your 'god' is infallible and omniscient, he's already seen everything. There IS no 'before' or 'after', because linear time is irrelevent. It is ALL 'before'... and thus, by your OWN argument, unchangable.


...like you so often have before.


I once told Fass to fuck off. That's probably the closest I've ever got to 'pissy' on this forum... and he had to work pretty hard to get that.

I'm calling 'ad hominem' on you.


Diapering me? Please. If my efforts to clarify the terms used in the discussion seem unreasonable to you, then I submit that your little dig there is a fine example of irony.


To clarify terms that need no clarification, and that don't change the parameters of the discussion? That IS unreasonable. And irrelevent.

'Diapering you' is appropriate, if you need me to baby you in the debate.


(This is the part where you say something to get in the last dig. Don't worry you can say what you want, I won't be bothering to read it ;) )

That would be you getting a 'dig' in, yes? And then choosing not to read my posts so you can score the last word? You're adorable.

If a pointless semantic quibble, followed by ad hominem accusations and a cute little barb at the end is your idea of debate, I'm not losing much by you choosing to leave me out of it.

You've singularly failed to meet the central tenet of my observation, anyway. It's no big loss.

Ok but real quick: Did you see this post earlier?

Earlier Post to NA (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13943340&postcount=931)

Yes. But god would necessarily have to always limit his omniscience, which makes him realistically not omniscient.

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]

Here. There's an assumption here that T occurred (or will). It's a given that's unstated. (Implied by the presence of the word 'infallibly.')

WHY did it occur? (Since someone, maybe you, insisted earlier that God's knowledge of it was not the cause.)

No. There is no assumption that T occured, or will. The only assumption is that god knows about T and is right about T. It is the same one you make when you assert that god is omniscient and infallible.

Informally, the argument is saying that yesterday god in his omniscience saw an event in the future, and he is correct in that knowledge because god is right about everything.

(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]

(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]

Why? The link between T and E is unclear.

E is T. Stament 2 is basically saying that if something happened in the past, it has to be true now and we can't change it. Statement 3 just apllies this to god's observation from Statement 1.

(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]

(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]

(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]

(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]

Step 2 indicates a conditional that E occurred in the past. How do we go from a possible past event to a certainty about a conditional future?

(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]

This leaves out the fact that the only reason for the act to have come about in the first place is the choice of T

No. It leaves out your belief that the only reason for the act to have come about in the first place is choice.

Pardon me if this has been mentioned earlier, this thread is rather long.


If 'god' is omniscient and infallible, everything has already taken place. Everything.
.

How does "infallibly certain" equate to "already happened"?

If you take a definition of the future as 'the possible' and the past as 'actualized possibilities that cannot be changed', then I agree that what is past can be known. But it doesn't necessarily follow that all that is known must be past. Why would certainty place something arbitrarily in time? If god knew only 50% of things infallibly, would those 50% necessarily be in the past?

It's difficult not to be circular in defining these terms because they are so endemic in language, we hardly think about it. I'm trying, but not succeeding particularly well!

How does "infallibly certain" equate to "already happened"?

If you take a definition of the future as 'the possible' and the past as 'actualized possibilities that cannot be changed', then I agree that what is past can be known. But it doesn't necessarily follow that all that is known must be past. Why would certainty place something arbitrarily in time? If god knew only 50% of things infallibly, would those 50% necessarily be in the past?

It's difficult not to be circular in defining these terms because they are so endemic in language, we hardly think about it. I'm trying, but not succeeding particularly well!

It;s not just the 'infallible' bit - the 'infallible' modifier just emans that, whatever is seen/said/imagined... can't be WRONG.

So - if God says he saw x, y, or z - he did. If he sees x, y, or z - there's no possibility he was wrong.

See? Infallible is just the modifier, it assures that the 'evidence' is beyond reproach.


The important part, is the (christian) conception of god as omniscient - by which, we are rpesented a god that knows everything, everywhere... and everywhen.

If someone has 'seen' all of time, from top to bottom, and is infallible - there is no difference in 'past' and 'future' to that entity. If it can look at the whole time line stretched out like a sheet of paper before it - then everything is already written. You can no more change a 'future' (to us) event than a 'past' one, because they are all equally concrete in the eyes of god.

Trying to trump heisenberg's uncertainty principle is like hiring a fire elemental to find your pile of firecrackers by touch only.

Trying to trump heisenberg's uncertainty principle is like hiring a fire elemental to find your pile of firecrackers by touch only.

Are you sure?

It;s not just the 'infallible' bit - the 'infallible' modifier just emans that, whatever is seen/said/imagined... can't be WRONG.

So - if God says he saw x, y, or z - he did. If he sees x, y, or z - there's no possibility he was wrong.

See? Infallible is just the modifier, it assures that the 'evidence' is beyond reproach.


The important part, is the (christian) conception of god as omniscient - by which, we are rpesented a god that knows everything, everywhere... and everywhen.

If someone has 'seen' all of time, from top to bottom, and is infallible - there is no difference in 'past' and 'future' to that entity. If it can look at the whole time line stretched out like a sheet of paper before it - then everything is already written. You can no more change a 'future' (to us) event than a 'past' one, because they are all equally concrete in the eyes of god.
Okay, let's play with the Way-Back machine again for a moment:

Let's say you do X. Infallible Omnisicent God (IOG) knows you do X, and before you did X, he knew you were going to, and since you've done X, he knows that you did do it. Present, future and past, all accounted for. And he's right, because you did it. So all well and good.

Now let's turn back the clock and let you take another crack at things, and this time you do Q instead of X. And this time, IOG knows you do Q, and before you did Q, he knew you were going to, and since you've done Q, he knows that you did do it. And he's right, because you did do Q.

See, you are right in saying that being infallible means IOG can't be wrong. But, you're wrong in thinking that it limits what is possible in the universe -- i.e. that it locks us into any given future. Rather it just means that IOG is always right. No matter what he says. No matter how many different things he says. No matter what he knows. No matter how many times what he knows changes. He's always right. That's all infallible means.

If someone has 'seen' all of time, from top to bottom, and is infallible - there is no difference in 'past' and 'future' to that entity. If it can look at the whole time line stretched out like a sheet of paper before it - then everything is already written. You can no more change a 'future' (to us) event than a 'past' one, because they are all equally concrete in the eyes of god.

Although if God is outside of time, how is it meaningful to say he knows it 'before it happens'? He could equally know it afterwards, it wouldn't make any less sense.

Could this god create a universe, not knowing how it will turn out in his hyper-time (so to speak), where the finished article is a non-changing record of that creation for him, but that non-changing record (as in the tenseless view of time) is something we participate in linearly and perceive time to pass in. This implies no foreknowledge for God in the creation, but full knowledge afterwards - but from our point of view we cannot distinguish the difference.

Although if God is outside of time, how is it meaningful to say he knows it 'before it happens'? He could equally know it afterwards, it wouldn't make any less sense.


Exactly.

If the infallible, omniscient thing is true, he knows everything, will always know everything and HAS always known everything.

Thus, he 'knows it before it happens' IN TERMS OF linear time.

If god is outside of time, and has perfect knowledge of all time, he must have had the exact same knowledge at 'the start of what we call time' that he will have at 'the end of what we call time'.

Neo is arguing that the future is mutable because it 'hasn't happened yet' - but, of course, it has - to 'god'.


Could this god create a universe, not knowing how it will turn out in his hyper-time (so to speak), where the finished article is a non-changing record of that creation for him, but that non-changing record (as in the tenseless view of time) is something we participate in linearly and perceive time to pass in. This implies no foreknowledge for God in the creation, but full knowledge afterwards - but from our point of view we cannot distinguish the difference.

From his point of view there'd BE no difference - the total knowledge of all time would be constant throughout EVERYTHING we might experience... from the 'start' to the 'end'.

We perceive it linearly... but he doesn't need to. We think we're about to make a choice, but he's ALREADY seen what we choose. Future and past are irrelevent.

And that's where Neo's argument falls down - he acknowledges that past events can't be changed. By the same token, if 'god' really CAN see all time perfectly, future events are just as concrete.

"No matter how many times what he knows changes."

If He is outside of time, then how could it change at all?

And why would an omnipotent, omniscient, infallible being create something by which to limit itself? It would be illogical! I support the idea that all time was already foreknown to God from the beginning, and that it all works toward His end result.

Although if God is outside of time, how is it meaningful to say he knows it 'before it happens'? He could equally know it afterwards, it wouldn't make any less sense.

Could this god create a universe, not knowing how it will turn out in his hyper-time (so to speak), where the finished article is a non-changing record of that creation for him, but that non-changing record (as in the tenseless view of time) is something we participate in linearly and perceive time to pass in. This implies no foreknowledge for God in the creation, but full knowledge afterwards - but from our point of view we cannot distinguish the difference.
I'm fairly certain I completely agree with you.

The problem with discussions like these is that points make sense when you first state them, but the detailed explanations are always gibberish. Then the ending makes sense relative to the beginning again. :)

So... if a god, being transcendant, exists outside of time and can view it all from that outside perspective, then such a god can just as easily know what has not happened yet and doesn't exist yet, as he can know what has happened and does exist. I hinted at this a couple of times when I suggested that it could be possible to know a future that doesn't exist yet.

Okay, let's play with the Way-Back machine again for a moment:

Let's say you do X. Infallible Omnisicent God (IOG) knows you do X, and before you did X, he knew you were going to, and since you've done X, he knows that you did do it. Present, future and past, all accounted for. And he's right, because you did it. So all well and good.

Now let's turn back the clock and let you take another crack at things, and this time you do Q instead of X. And this time, IOG knows you do Q, and before you did Q, he knew you were going to, and since you've done Q, he knows that you did do it. And he's right, because you did do Q.

See, you are right in saying that being infallible means IOG can't be wrong. But, you're wrong in thinking that it limits what is possible in the universe -- i.e. that it locks us into any given future. Rather it just means that IOG is always right. No matter what he says. No matter how many different things he says. No matter what he knows. No matter how many times what he knows changes. He's always right. That's all infallible means.

But this claimed 'god' we're talking about has made claims. That's the problem - he's presented a model for his omniscience that claims certain key events WILL happen, certain decisions WILL be made. There isn't any x OR q, right either way. X has been chosen. Q can't happen. Because he's infallible.

Or it's hokum.

I'm fairly certain I completely agree with you.

The problem with discussions like these is that points make sense when you first state them, but the detailed explanations are always gibberish. Then the ending makes sense relative to the beginning again. :)

So... if a god, being transcendant, exists outside of time and can view it all from that outside perspective, then such a god can just as easily know what has not happened yet and doesn't exist yet, as he can know what has happened and does exist. I hinted at this a couple of times when I suggested that it could be possible to know a future that doesn't exist yet.

If he's 'seen it all', there's no such thing as a 'future that doesn't exist yet'.

"No matter how many times what he knows changes."

If He is outside of time, then how could it change at all?

And why would an omnipotent, omniscient, infallible being create something by which to limit itself? It would be illogical! I support the idea that all time was already foreknown to God from the beginning, and that it all works toward His end result.
DO NOT CONFLATE THE ARGUMENTS, PLEASE! This conversation is confusing enough as it is.

"No matter how many times what he knows changes" assumes multiple potential realities, not necessarily that the god exists outside of time.

If he's 'seen it all', there's no such thing as a 'future that doesn't exist yet'.
Yes, there is (can be). Holy Cheese and Shoes explained how.

"No matter how many times what he knows changes."

If He is outside of time, then how could it change at all?


Exactly.
'Change' would imply that the knowledge followed a chronology.

Yes, there is (can be). Holy Cheese and Shoes explained how.

Not at all. Holy Cheese didn't say what you think (he?) said.

But this claimed 'god' we're talking about has made claims. That's the problem - he's presented a model for his omniscience that claims certain key events WILL happen, certain decisions WILL be made. There isn't any x OR q, right either way. X has been chosen. Q can't happen. Because he's infallible.

Or it's hokum.
Who cares what he claims? (Or what is claimed for him by his representatives?) There is nothing in "omniscient," "omnipresent," "omnipotent" or "infallible" that implies honesty. He can claim anything he likes. It makes no difference to me.

I've been discussing whether the quality of omniscience has any affect or influence on human free will. That's what I've been on about. I have no idea what you've been talking about, if it's not the same as my topic. I don't give a rat's ass what claims are made by any god or any religion. I only care about the logic of the arguments concerning omniscience and free will.

And arguing logically, no one has been able to persuade me that omniscience has anything at all to do with free will.

Not at all. Holy Cheese didn't say what you think (he?) said.
Well, I think he/she did.

Who cares what he claims? (Or what is claimed for him by his representatives?) There is nothing in "omniscient," "omnipresent," "omnipotent" or "infallible" that implies honesty. He can claim anything he likes. It makes no difference to me.

I've been discussing whether the quality of omniscience has any affect or influence on human free will. That's what I've been on about. I have no idea what you've been talking about, if it's not the same as my topic. I don't give a rat's ass what claims are made by any god or any religion. I only care about the logic of the arguments concerning omniscience and free will.

And arguing logically, no one has been able to persuade me that omniscience has anything at all to do with free will.

Omniscience doesn't have anything to do with free will - so long as time is not linear. So long as you allow for a view of time that allows it to branch infinitely from every point, omniscience is irrelevent.

On the other hand, if cause and effect hold true, there's no good reason to suspect that x doesn't tend towards y. Sure - you can SUGGEST an infinitely divergent existence, but, if that's what it takes to over come the omniscience v's freewill conflict, it sounds like a desparate attempt to patch something that wasn't broken, just to try to make it fit a certain desired outcome.

Not at all. Holy Cheese didn't say what you think (he?) said.

Well, I think he/she did.

What did I say again? In fact, what gender am I?! It's getting rather late. Responses will be forthcoming tomorrow as I need some sleep!

By the way, I recommend this (http://www.amazon.ca/Labyrinth-Time-Introducing-Universe/dp/0199249954) book, it's excellent (if a little heavy going at times)

Omniscience doesn't have anything to do with free will - so long as time is not linear. So long as you allow for a view of time that allows it to branch infinitely from every point, omniscience is irrelevent.

On the other hand, if cause and effect hold true, there's no good reason to suspect that x doesn't tend towards y. Sure - you can SUGGEST an infinitely divergent existence, but, if that's what it takes to over come the omniscience v's freewill conflict, it sounds like a desparate attempt to patch something that wasn't broken, just to try to make it fit a certain desired outcome.
Nonsense. "[T]here's no good reason to suspect" that GnI isn't infallibly right about god is not a persuasive argument. I have explained at length why the attempts to show a conflict between omniscience and free will are not sound arguments. You have not countered me in any way other than to repeat yourself (when you have bothered to address my points at all; you've ignored at least as many as you've addressed). You do not convince me. I stand by my assertion that there is no conflict between free will and omniscience, regardless of whether time is linear or not.

Now, if you want to posit an inherent conflict between free will and omnipotence, that would be a different story. But omniscience conflicting with free will? Piffle.

What did I say again? In fact, what gender am I?! It's getting rather late. Responses will be forthcoming tomorrow as I need some sleep!

By the way, I recommend this (http://www.amazon.ca/Labyrinth-Time-Introducing-Universe/dp/0199249954) book, it's excellent (if a little heavy going at times)
Interesting. I'll buy it and a case of vodka at the same time. ;)

look there is only one god u can call it what you want but there is only one

look there is only one god u can call it what you want but there is only one

*blushes*

You silver tongued devil, you. You still need to at least by me a babycham.

Nonsense. "[T]here's no good reason to suspect" that GnI isn't infallibly right about god is not a persuasive argument. I have explained at length why the attempts to show a conflict between omniscience and free will are not sound arguments. You have not countered me in any way other than to repeat yourself (when you have bothered to address my points at all; you've ignored at least as many as you've addressed). You do not convince me. I stand by my assertion that there is no conflict between free will and omniscience, regardless of whether time is linear or not.

Now, if you want to posit an inherent conflict between free will and omnipotence, that would be a different story. But omniscience conflicting with free will? Piffle.

You talk about me ignoring your points..

I've put forth a model here by which omniscience and free will DON'T conflict - and you've completely failed to address it.

If that model isn't how YOU think it works, well - I don't know, do I? Are you arguing an infinitely divergent timeline? If you're arguing a linear timeline, how do you get round the problem that from OUR perspective, the passage of time is a stream, but 'god' (being omniscient) isn't limited to 'waiting' for things to happen? From 'god's' point of view, past and future are identical -aand so everything is effectively 'past' to 'god'?

(Admitted, it is also just as much 'future', but we're working here on the assertion that past events are 'concrete'. By which token, future events MUST be concrete).

You haven't 'explained at length'. You've basically said 'nuh uh'.

You posit some kind of infinite divergence, but won't acknowledge an infinite divergence.

I still don't even know if you're actually arguing linear time.

I think, in other words, Mv is trying to say your argument is illogical. ;)

I think you could have a more meaningful conversation with each other if you defined your assumptions one by one, then used them to support your conclusions. Your disagreements seem to be a result of differing assumptions.

I think, in other words, Mv is trying to say your argument is illogical. ;)


But my argument isn't illogical. It is absolutely logical. And that is (seems to be) being portrayed as it's fatal flaw...

You talk about me ignoring your points..

I've put forth a model here by which omniscience and free will DON'T conflict - and you've completely failed to address it.
I did not fail to address it. I dismissed it. Possibly I ignored it the second or third time you posted it. I dismissed it because it is based on circular reasoning.

If that model isn't how YOU think it works, well - I don't know, do I? Are you arguing an infinitely divergent timeline?
I have said several times that I am arguing (and have been and will do) any kind of timeline you or anyone else cares to posit. Since this is all merely a thought exercise, I am interested in the structures of the arguments, and whether they are viable or not, only.

If you're arguing a linear timeline, how do you get round the problem that from OUR perspective, the passage of time is a stream, but 'god' (being omniscient) isn't limited to 'waiting' for things to happen?
I don't see a problem there. What about that difference?

From 'god's' point of view, past and future are identical -aand so everything is effectively 'past' to 'god'?
No, in such a scenario, everything would effectively be "present" to "god."

(Admitted, it is also just as much 'future', but we're working here on the assertion that past events are 'concrete'. By which token, future events MUST be concrete).
You have yet to persuade me of the "MUST" part of that.

You haven't 'explained at length'. You've basically said 'nuh uh'.
You should try reading the whole thread.

You posit some kind of infinite divergence, but won't acknowledge an infinite divergence.
That's because I am not positing that. I merely suggested it in response to an earlier argument.

I still don't even know if you're actually arguing linear time.
See above. You pick the timeline, I'll argue it with you.

Exactly.

If the infallible, omniscient thing is true, he knows everything, will always know everything and HAS always known everything.

Thus, he 'knows it before it happens' IN TERMS OF linear time.

If god is outside of time, and has perfect knowledge of all time, he must have had the exact same knowledge at 'the start of what we call time' that he will have at 'the end of what we call time'.

Neo is arguing that the future is mutable because it 'hasn't happened yet' - but, of course, it has - to 'god'.


I understand the argument that once 'once beheld it must be real', but I am arguing that there could be a different ontological status of the universe at creation, if creation is unwitnessed in god's 'hypertime', and this might allow for free will.


From his point of view there'd BE no difference - the total knowledge of all time would be constant throughout EVERYTHING we might experience... from the 'start' to the 'end'.

We perceive it linearly... but he doesn't need to. We think we're about to make a choice, but he's ALREADY seen what we choose. Future and past are irrelevent.

No, I'm saying there would be a difference for HIM, not for us, and therefore this may ameliorate the free will problem.

Imagine, if you will, that the solid-state style tenseless time universe, was created in the manner of having a poo.

God decides that he needs to do some creating, goes into the metaphysical bathroom, and squeezes out a universe into the toilet bowl of creation.

In god's view, he is creating, unwitnessed, the universe (although taking an active part to be sure). But the universe 'evolved' in a sense that it was created linearly in 'hypertime', and if our lives were lived/created linearly on the edge of what was being created, we might say we have free will.

When god inspects his handiwork, he sees all of creation laid out statically, from beginning to end, and has knowledge of all of it. But during the creative exercise, the knowledge was absent.

I'm saying this ignorance during creation in god's context of time is sufficient, even though for us it would seem god has known 'for all of time'

I think a flush is long overdue!;)

^^^ THAT'S what I've been on about!! If this is how the universe works, then free will (as we have been discussing it here) is an illusion whether anyone, including a god, knows it or not. This is so whether we're talking about particle physics or a linear timeline that is like a fully written script not subject to editing.

And everyone has already said this a bazzillion times, right from the start of this argument about free will. I've probably specifically used the word indicated instead of causal several hundred times in this thread.

And everyone has already said this a bazzillion times, right from the start of this argument about free will. I've probably specifically used the word indicated instead of causal several hundred times in this thread.
Yes, I know that. The only difference that makes to the argument is that it renders it pointless (as in why bother arguing it at all) as well as logically flawed.

But my argument isn't illogical. It is absolutely logical. And that is (seems to be) being portrayed as it's fatal flaw...
I understand that you think your brainchild is perfect, but it isn't. Sorry.

Yes, I know that. The only difference that makes to the argument is that it renders it pointless (as in why bother arguing it at all) as well as logically flawed.

Of course it isn't pointless. We're not actually arguing whether we have free will, we are arguing if it is possible for God to have omniscience if we have free will (a very important issue), I don't understand why you insist on equating that to arguing that God's knowledge is causal, since I haven't seen a single person on this thread argue that.

I understand that you think your brainchild is perfect, but it isn't. Sorry.

I'm sorry. maybe it's my bias, but I don't see how the argument that I linked to is not logical and valid.

Could you either describe why you think the logic of the argument is flawed, or provide a link to where you've already pointed them out.

I realise that the IOG's omniscience does not directly impact free will. It's more like the existence of the IOG demands that this universe be a predetermined one and therefore there is no free will..

Off the top of my head I can think of Pelor, Raziel, Lathandar, Corellian Lorethian, Sune, Sharess, Kord, Mystral, Wakeem, Paladine...

Of course it isn't pointless. We're not actually arguing whether we have free will, we are arguing if it is possible for God to have omniscience if we have free will (a very important issue), I don't understand why you insist on equating that to arguing that God's knowledge is causal, since I haven't seen a single person on this thread argue that.
1) How is any of this important? How is this possibly an important issue? You know, in real life?

2) I know that you have not interpreted any of the arguments to suggest that god's knowledge is causal. You already explained that. I have already explained that I read SOME of the posted arguments (not all of them) as suggesting that it is causal and that I countered those. As to the arguments that have not suggested that god's knowledge is causal, I have been arguing with those that suggest that god's knowledge matters in any way to human free will -- causal or otherwise. I believe that it does not matter. Ever. Under any circumstances. Regardless of how time or the universe works.

So you are incorrect in claiming (again) that I am insisting on equating everything with a causality argument. I address causality arguments and non-causality arguments separately. I hope this clears this up for you and that you'll now stop complaining that I'm saying something that I'm not.

I'm sorry. maybe it's my bias, but I don't see how the argument that I linked to is not logical and valid.

Could you either describe why you think the logic of the argument is flawed, or provide a link to where you've already pointed them out.

I realise that the IOG's omniscience does not directly impact free will. It's more like the existence of the IOG demands that this universe be a predetermined one and therefore there is no free will..
I'll be happy to answer you, just as soon as you explain how, when I criticize GnI's argument, that means I'm criticizing yours.

1) How is any of this important? How is this possibly an important issue? You know, in real life?


Because it fundamentally reflects on the nature of God, especially in relation to the problem of evil, and his punishment of sin. If there is no free will, it's seen by many to be irrational for God to punish those who have sinned for an eternity, or even at all, for instance. If there is no free will, then it also makes the argument that God doesn't intervene to stop evil in order to protect free will nonsensical.


2) I know that you have not interpreted any of the arguments to suggest that god's knowledge is causal. You already explained that. I have already explained that I read SOME of the posted arguments (not all of them) as suggesting that it is causal and that I countered those. As to the arguments that have not suggested that god's knowledge is causal, I have been arguing with those that suggest that god's knowledge matters in any way to human free will -- causal or otherwise. I believe that it does not matter. Ever. Under any circumstances. Regardless of how time or the universe works.


What matters is what I've posted above.

Because it fundamentally reflects on the nature of God, especially in relation to the problem of evil, and his punishment of sin. If there is no free will, it's seen by many to be irrational for God to punish those who have sinned for an eternity, or even at all, for instance. If there is no free will, then it also makes the argument that God doesn't intervene to stop evil in order to protect free will nonsensical.



What matters is what I've posted above.
So, it matters because it's about something that cannot be shown to actually exist and does not in any way affect the lives of people who don't already believe it? It matters because it is entirely theoretical and of limited relevance?

EDIT: And as to whether what you posted makes omniscience matter to free will, what you are really arguing about is god, not free will. Your focus is off -- you're targeting the wrong part of the problem.

I'll say this again just one more time: If you are going to argue that god's omniscience matters to human free will and the universe, then you must show a universe construct that does not work without an omniscient god. All of the constructs posited so far would work exactly the same, producing the same no-free-will results, if god were not omnisicent or even if he was deleted from the picture entirely. Therefore, they do not show that god's omniscience matters to free will.

Like I've said, omnipotence is a different story.

So, it matters because it's about something that cannot be shown to actually exist and does not in any way affect the lives of people who don't already believe it? It matters because it is entirely theoretical and of limited relevance?

If the fundamental beliefs of the Abrahamic and many other religions (of which the majority of people on earth are apart of) are of limited relevance, then sure. But having said that, why on earth are you even posting on this thread? Nothing in this thread, under your definition of relevance, is not of limited relevance.

If the fundamental beliefs of the Abrahamic and many other religions (of which the majority of people on earth are apart of) are of limited relevance, then sure. But having said that, why on earth are you even posting on this thread? Nothing in this thread, under your definition of relevance, is not of limited relevance.
As I said to GnI, it's a thought exercise.

EDIT: I'm also posting in the "Kissing Aliens" thread. It doesn't mean I think it's important.

I'll say this again just one more time: If you are going to argue that god's omniscience matters to human free will and the universe, then you must show a universe construct that does not work without god. All of the constructs posited so far would work exactly the same, producing the same no-free-will results, if god were deleted from the picture entirely. Therefore, they do not show that god matters to free will.

Many people have used constructs that involve souls which are not subject to the natural and physical determination of matter in the universe. This is what a lot of Christians argue, so you can't prove that there's no freewill merely by looking at the nature of the universe, since they have that qualifier. Only by looking at the religious beliefs of the people you are arguing against, and seeing where these beliefs conflict, can you again construct an argument showing that there is no free will.

As I said to GnI, it's a thought exercise.


Then don't complain about it being irrelevant, you don't have to debate if you don't want to.

Many people have used constructs that involve souls which are not subject to the natural and physical determination of matter in the universe.
Many people? Or many people in this thread? Because I have not seen such constructs presented in this thread in support of the arguments I have been specifically addressing. I am not in the habit of addressing facts not in evidence.

This is what a lot of Christians argue, so you can't prove that there's no freewill merely by looking at the nature of the universe, since they have that qualifier.
I have not been trying to prove that there is no free will, so this comment has nothing to do with my arguments.

I have been countering arguments that claim that, if god is omniscient, that must mean there is no free will because of the conditions they claim must exist in the universe in order for omniscience to happen. I am objecting to the inclusion of god in such equations at all because, the way they set it up, they make god superfluous to the question of whether there is free will or not.

Only by looking at the religious beliefs of the people you are arguing against, and seeing where these beliefs conflict, can you again construct an argument showing that there is no free will.
Then people should try to do that, rather than posit a universe construct that does not require a god in order to limit free will.

Then don't complain about it being irrelevant, you don't have to debate if you don't want to.
I am merely questioning why you would describe it as an "important issue."

God is made of Dark Matter and therefore can not currently be observed but we can measure some of its effects on the observable universe.

God is made of Dark Matter and therefore can not currently be observed but we can measure some of its effects on the observable universe.

When I first heard about dark matter, I wondered how many people might think that it was God.

Many people? Or many people in this thread? Because I have not seen such constructs presented in this thread in support of the arguments I have been specifically addressing. I am not in the habit of addressing facts not in evidence.


Well both Neo and Peep have presented constructs like that, but many Christians in general also argue that.


I have been countering arguments that claim that, if god is omniscient, that must mean there is no free will because of the conditions they claim must exist in the universe in order for omniscience to happen. I am objecting to the inclusion of god in such equations at all because, the way they set it up, they make god superfluous to the question of whether there is free will or not.


If you take God out of the equation then there is no assumption to extrapolate from, so you can't objectively say there's no free will. If you take God out of the equation you're left with merely saying that the universe is determined. All these arguments that don't seem to need God are relying on the assumption that it's at all possible to go back in time and change things, or to be able to travel to the future. There is no reason to make this assumption unless you have something to indicate such a thing is possible, an assumption like the idea of God's omniscience.


Then people should try to do that, rather than posit a universe construct that does not require a god in order to limit free will.

That's what we are doing. Christians believe that we have free will, they also believe in a God who can see into the future, people are constructing an argument showing that if God has this omniscience, then you must assume that the universe is determined and that we don't have free will. People arguing against are saying that it's still possible to observe a set future and have free will. Then arguing against this we are showing how that cannot be, this is where we cease to talk about God because we already assume it's possible to observe future or past events. However God is still involved in this basic assumption.

I am merely questioning why you would describe it as an "important issue."

Because I consider fundamental beliefs that most people on earth hold important.

Well both Neo and Peep have presented constructs like that, but many Christians in general also argue that.
I have been in agreement with both Neo (both of them) and Peep in this thread. Have you actually read my posts? Why are you trying to invalidate my arguments by citing people I have agreed with?

If you take God out of the equation then there is no assumption to extrapolate from, so you can't objectively say there's no free will. If you take God out of the equation you're left with merely saying that the universe is determined. All these arguments that don't seem to need God are relying on the assumption that it's at all possible to go back in time and change things, or to be able to travel to the future. There is no reason to make this assumption unless you have something to indicate such a thing is possible, an assumption like the idea of God's omniscience.
According to GnI, a determined universe = no free will, because your choices are already made for you. Now, I have no objection to that. What I object to is what he attempts to do with that observation.

The way I have been reading GnI's argument basically goes like this: In order for god to be omniscient, the future must already be determined so that god can know it. If the future is determined, then there is no free will because you cannot do anything other than what already exists in your pre-determined future. Since god's omniscience depends on a determined future, then we can use the presumed fact of god's omniscience to conclude that there is no free will, since, according to this line of argument, free will and omniscience cannot co-exist.

Note that I do not think he is saying that god's omniscience is the causative factor in humans not having free will, only that he is claiming that we can't have free will and an omniscient god at the same time because of the way the universe works.

Now, his logic is sound as far as it goes, but it does not go very far. It falls short because there is no reason for us to assume that the universe/future is determined or that omniscience works the way he says it does. GnI has gone to great lengths to try to show that omniscience works a certain way and therefore cannot happen without a determined future, but in my opinion he has failed. All he has done is insist upon the point; he has not proven it. Alternative views of how the universe and god might work have been presented that are just as logically constructed as his argument (and are also in keeping with some cosmological theories and theological viewpoints) and that do allow for free will and omniscience to co-exist. GnI and others arguing along his lines have failed to show that their theory is more sound than those others, and have failed to show that their assumptions about how the universe and omniscience work are more sound -- or even less arbitrary -- than the alternative concepts. Because of this, they fail to convince me of their conclusion that omniscience and free will are fundamentally incompatible.

That's what we are doing. Christians believe that we have free will, they also believe in a God who can see into the future, people are constructing an argument showing that if God has this omniscience, then you must assume that the universe is determined and that we don't have free will. People arguing against are saying that it's still possible to observe a set future and have free will.
I know. I've been reading the thread.

Then arguing against this we are showing how that cannot be, this is where we cease to talk about God because we already assume it's possible to observe future or past events. However God is still involved in this basic assumption.
Yes, I know that's what you've been trying to do. I am of the opinion that you have not succeeded.

Because I consider fundamental beliefs that most people on earth hold important.
Why? More particularly, why THIS belief?

I understand that you think your brainchild is perfect, but it isn't. Sorry.

I didn't say it was perfect, I said it was logical.

The best argument that seems to be made against it is that it doesn't allow for bad (invented) data. That's not a mark against it's logic.

The way I have been reading GnI's argument basically goes like this: In order for god to be omniscient, the future must already be determined so that god can know it.


No, not exactly.

1) 'Future' is a etrm that has meaning to us, but has no significance to any entity that can view time in toto.

2) The future has to be determined if it can be viewed in toto.

3) If it is viewed in toto, it is meaningless if it is not also linear.


If the future is determined, then there is no free will because you cannot do anything other than what already exists in your pre-determined future. Since god's omniscience depends on a determined future,


Not exactly.

'Pre-determined' and 'future' are only relevent from our point of view. If time is viewed in toto, such words are irrelevence.


...then we can use the presumed fact of god's omniscience to conclude that there is no free will, since, according to this line of argument, free will and omniscience cannot co-exist.

Note that I do not think he is saying that god's omniscience is the causative factor in humans not having free will, only that he is claiming that we can't have free will and an omniscient god at the same time because of the way the universe works.

Now, his logic is sound as far as it goes, but it does not go very far. It falls short because there is no reason for us to assume that the universe/future is determined


On the contrary - those are the logical assumptions based on observation.

We watch time go from future to past, every day. We watch a linear translation, in which we take it as certain that the 'past' data (at least) cannot be altered.

There is absolutely 'reason' to assume that the universe and future are determined - they APPEAR to be so, and experience tells us so.

(Of course, intuitive responses can be wrong, but that doesn't mean that things being assumed to be as they seem, is unreasonable.


...or that omniscience works the way he says it does. GnI has gone to great lengths to try to show that omniscience works a certain way


No - it's definitive. Omni-science. If it doesn't include being able to see everything, it's nonsensical.


...and therefore cannot happen without a determined future, but in my opinion he has failed. All he has done is insist upon the point; he has not proven it. Alternative views of how the universe and god might work have been presented that are just as logically constructed as his argument (and are also in keeping with some cosmological theories and theological viewpoints) and that do allow for free will and omniscience to co-exist.


No such model ahs been presented, and none that are as rooted in what can be observed, and what is definitive in the question.

Being 'in keeping with some cosmological theories' could end up with us debating how some Japanese god shitting the world into existence affected the flow of time.


GnI and others arguing along his lines have failed to show that their theory is more sound than those others, and have failed to show that their assumptions about how the universe and omniscience work are more sound -- or even less arbitrary -- than the alternative concepts.


Not at all. Observation suggests linear time. Observation suggests cause-and-effect. The statement of 'omniscience' is definitive, and observation tells us that what has eben seen, is passed, and cannot be changed.

If there's one thing my approach hasn't been, it's arbitrary.


Because of this, they fail to convince me of their conclusion that omniscience and free will are fundamentally incompatible.


I think that's a problem with faith, not reason.

I didn't say it was perfect, I said it was logical.

The best argument that seems to be made against it is that it doesn't allow for bad (invented) data. That's not a mark against it's logic.
Haha, good one. "bad (invented) data." :D As if your "data" isn't entirely made up, too. Hell, as if there is any real data in play in this discussion.

No, not exactly.

1) 'Future' is a etrm that has meaning to us, but has no significance to any entity that can view time in toto.

2) The future has to be determined if it can be viewed in toto.

3) If it is viewed in toto, it is meaningless if it is not also linear.
The bolded part is arbitrary and unsupported.


Not exactly.

'Pre-determined' and 'future' are only relevent from our point of view. If time is viewed in toto, such words are irrelevence.
As I and others have been saying.

On the contrary - those are the logical assumptions based on observation.

We watch time go from future to past, every day. We watch a linear translation, in which we take it as certain that the 'past' data (at least) cannot be altered.

There is absolutely 'reason' to assume that the universe and future are determined - they APPEAR to be so, and experience tells us so.
Appearance = fact? And that assertion is logical? Wow, the judicial system will be glad to hear it; it will make trials so much easier. Scientific research just got a shitload easier, too. More bang for our R&D buck. Woohoo!

Also our experience of time is entirely subjective. It tells us nothing objective that can be relied upon as fact.

You built your castle-in-the-sky on a pretty big cloud there, sport.

Of course, intuitive responses can be wrong, but that doesn't mean that things being assumed to be as they seem, is unreasonable.
They can indeed, and actually, it does. Remember what happens when you assume.

No - it's definitive. Omni-science. If it doesn't include being able to see everything, it's nonsensical.
The bolded part is arbitrary and unsupported.

No such model ahs been presented, and none that are as rooted in what can be observed, and what is definitive in the question.

Being 'in keeping with some cosmological theories' could end up with us debating how some Japanese god shitting the world into existence affected the flow of time.
Excuse me, but they most certainly have been presented. You may not like them. You may reject them. But that doesn't mean they do not exist. They are in this thread, and people who have read the thread will be aware of them. As for my assertion that they are just as logical as your arguments, well, that's not placing the bar very high, considering my opinion of your argument.

Also, I was using "cosmology" in the scientific sense. See Merriam Webster:
1 a: a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe b: a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters
You evidently thought I meant definition #1, but I was actually using definition #2. That is why I mentioned it separately from theology.

And why shouldn't we talk about "some Japanese god shitting the world into existence"? (It's nice to know that you cop an equally obnoxious tone towards all religions, by the way.) Hydesland commented that one cannot properly understand religious concepts without looking at the religious beliefs associated with them, so it would be perfectly appropriate to discuss the #1 definition of cosmology in this context, if we wanted to.

Not at all. Observation suggests linear time. Observation suggests cause-and-effect. The statement of 'omniscience' is definitive, and observation tells us that what has eben seen, is passed, and cannot be changed.
Observation suggests these things to you, maybe. Especially if you make your observations through the prism of bias and presupposition.

If there's one thing my approach hasn't been, it's arbitrary.
I think it should be pretty clear by now that I disagree.

I think that's a problem with faith, not reason.
Faith in what, do you suppose?

The bolded part is arbitrary and unsupported.


You claim so.

If time is viewed in it's entirety, and we're dealing with an omniscient observer, AND we don't assume that time is linear - then omniscience becomes a nonsense - NOT because it's arbitrary or unsupported - but because 'omniscience' where there is an infinite divergence is the same as not being omniscient, at all.

If my prediction is that you will be standing on one leg, at 6am... and you ARE standing on one leg at 6am, that's pretty good.

If my prediction is that you will be standing on one leg, or on two.. or sitting, kneeling, maybe laying down.. or any other possible scenarion... and maybe some 'impossible' ones too... then my vision isn't worth the paper it is written on.

If God is omniscient, and ANYTHING is possible, and he is claimed to be seeing ALL eventualities... then there's no difference between that and knowing nothing.


As I and others have been saying.


Yes. But then you keep making weird conclusions from that. Like: "a future that doesn't exist yet".


Appearance = fact? And that assertion is logical? Wow, the judicial system will be glad to hear it; it will make trials so much easier. Scientific research just got a shitload easier, too. More bang for our R&D buck. Woohoo!


The judicial system relies on the fact that appearance = fact, as does scientific research. It's called objectivity. You have to have a pretty good justification (in either case) to really call it into question.


Also our experience of time is entirely subjective. It tells us nothing objective that can be relied upon as fact.


Not true. Even if we all observe time subjectively, we 'measure' it objectively, and we can attribute objectivity to it by corroborating our collective subjective data.


They can indeed, and actually, it does. Remember what happens when you assume.


It really doesn't. I'm not sure how you think it's otherwise. Occam's Razor is a classic example.


The bolded part is arbitrary and unsupported.


What you mean is, perhaps, you don't agree?

How would you define omniscient, that is less 'arbitrary and unsupported' than 'seeing everything'?


Excuse me, but they most certainly have been presented.


"Being presented" isn't the part I'd contest.


Also, I was using "cosmology" in the scientific sense. See Merriam Webster:

You evidently thought I meant definition #1, but I was actually using definition #2. That is why I mentioned it separately from theology.


I must have misunderstood your meaning of 'god', then.


And why shouldn't we talk about "some Japanese god shitting the world into existence"?


I'm not saying we necessarily shouldn't. I'm saying that "Alternative views ... in keeping with some cosmological theories and theological viewpoints" hardly narrows the field.


(It's nice to know that you cop an equally obnoxious tone towards all religions, by the way.)


How is that obnoxious? That's almost the exact description I heard. It might have said 'defecating' rather than 'shitting', maybe...


Observation suggests these things to you, maybe. Especially if you make your observations through the prism of bias and presupposition.


Yeah, that'll be it. Cause only seems to lead to effect, because of my baggage.

You're seriously saying observation doesn't suggest those things to you? Casual interaction with daily reality hasn't left you thinking a dropped book will fall, and isn't just going to 'undrop' itself and try again?


Faith in what, do you suppose?

You say you don't find the arguments convincing. Maybe it's more about just not wanting to be convinced.

You claim so.

<snip>
I do. I claim it with such confidence, based on the weakness of your arguments, that I'm not even going to bother with the related paragraphs, which are mere repetitions of same arbitrary and unsupported assertions with nothing new added to them.

Come up with a proof or an explanation I haven't already countered, if you want more from me.

Yes. But then you keep making weird conclusions from that. Like: "a future that doesn't exist yet".
Are you aware that you just said that asserting that the future doesn't exist yet is a weird conclusion? And you're the one insisting that your arguments are based on observable reality? I would have spit coffee up on my keyboard again, if I'd been drinking coffee. :D


The judicial system relies on the fact that appearance = fact, as does scientific research. It's called objectivity. You have to have a pretty good justification (in either case) to really call it into question.
Oh, really? Are you sure you want to make that argument? Because you do realize that you're talking about something that cannot be subjected to experiment or presented as evidence in a court of law, right?

So, do you really want to assert that "appearance = fact" about the nature of time, the nature of god, the pre-existence of the universe, and the existence of free will is the same as "appearace = fact" on the order of "if one thing is heavier than another, it is because it has greater mass" or "if the defendant's DNA is mixed up with the victim's blood, it is mostly likely because the defendant killed the victim"?

I remind you that the scientific "appearance = fact" is subject not only to an establishing round of tests but to subsequent tests to make sure it's still true. What tests have you run to support your assertions in this discussion?

I also remind you that the legal "appearance = fact" often turns out not to be true at all. That's why we have trials and appeals. What higher court will you appeal to if you cannot carry the argment in this thread?

Not true. Even if we all observe time subjectively, we 'measure' it objectively, and we can attribute objectivity to it by corroborating our collective subjective data.
Measure what, precisely, objectively?

It really doesn't. I'm not sure how you think it's otherwise. Occam's Razor is a classic example.
If you think Occam gives you permission to go forward on nothing but assumption, then you seriously do not understand Occam.

What you mean is, perhaps, you don't agree?
I meant what I said.

How would you define omniscient, that is less 'arbitrary and unsupported' than 'seeing everything'?
"Knowing and understanding everything," which is what the word actually means. I refer you again to Merriam:
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge
It says nothing about seeing things.

"Being presented" isn't the part I'd contest.
Then why did you say it?

I must have misunderstood your meaning of 'god', then.
It's possible, since you apparently don't know what "omniscient" means, either. But actually, I think you just misunderstood how I was using "cosmology."

I'm not saying we necessarily shouldn't. I'm saying that "Alternative views ... in keeping with some cosmological theories and theological viewpoints" hardly narrows the field.
So?

How is that obnoxious? That's almost the exact description I heard. It might have said 'defecating' rather than 'shitting', maybe...
I mostly took offense to the "some Japanese god" part, but whatever.

Yeah, that'll be it. Cause only seems to lead to effect, because of my baggage.
When you posit turnips as the cause of rain, yeah, I kind of think so. Or when you suggest that because jumping into water is the cause of getting wet, that somehow explains why the sun appears to rise in the east, yeah I think so then, too. Cause and effect have to relate to each other to be a valid argument, and cause and effect have to relate to the topic to be relevant.

You're seriously saying observation doesn't suggest those things to you? Casual interaction with daily reality hasn't left you thinking a dropped book will fall, and isn't just going to 'undrop' itself and try again?
I'm saying that your argument is simplistic and founded on assumptions so broad that I cannot imagine why an intelligent person would make them except to construct an argument that will support a pre-existing conclusion.

You say you don't find the arguments convincing. Maybe it's more about just not wanting to be convinced.
No, it's because your argument is crap.

And considering the alacrity with which you tore into the rest of this argy, why are you being so coy now? If you have something to say, then say it.

Dear oh dear, it's a bad sign when people have to start pointing at dictionaries! As if that really proves anything....

I wonder if Grave_n_idle and Muravyets would care to quickly summarise in one line what they were originally disagreeing/theorising about? I've been looking through the thread and I'm finding it a little difficult to track down.

I have been in agreement with both Neo (both of them) and Peep in this thread. Have you actually read my posts? Why are you trying to invalidate my arguments by citing people I have agreed with?


Woah woah waoh, you've got me all wrong. I didn't say they disagreed with you, all you asked me for is a construct of a universe where arguments for determinism do not hold logically consistent if you factor out Gods omniscience. Peep's and Neo's constructs, where the souls are not subject to physical determination (thus them arguing for free will), are a type of universe where its impossible to show that the universe is determined by looking at the nature of the physical universe itself. So you have to look at metaphysical determination as well, and show that God must have determined the path the souls would take. If there is no God then it is the souls that determine their own universe, and thus have free will.


Now, his logic is sound as far as it goes, but it does not go very far. It falls short because there is no reason for us to assume that the universe/future is determined or that omniscience works the way he says it does. GnI has gone to great lengths to try to show that omniscience works a certain way and therefore cannot happen without a determined future, but in my opinion he has failed.

Can you show me some other ways that omniscience can work, which do allow for free will?

Woah woah waoh, you've got me all wrong. I didn't say they disagreed with you, all you asked me for is a construct of a universe where arguments for determinism do not hold logically consistent if you factor out Gods omniscience. Peep's and Neo's constructs, where the souls are not subject to physical determination (thus them arguing for free will), are a type of universe where its impossible to show that the universe is determined by looking at the nature of the physical universe itself. So you have to look at metaphysical determination as well, and show that God must have determined the path the souls would take. If there is no God then it is the souls that determine their own universe, and thus have free will.

So, you're not misrepresenting my argument, you're just wasting my time? You cited such constructs as counters to my argument. I asked you to point out instances of me not agreeing with such constructs, or me missing the posting of such constructs. Instead, you referred to posters of such constructs with whom I had already agreed. Exactly what further comment do you expect me to make about them now?


Can you show me some other ways that omniscience can work, which do allow for free will?
*throws shoe at Hydesland* I have posted some in this thread already. And so has HC&S. And a couple of others. Do you want me to come to your house and read the thread back to you?

So, you're not misrepresenting my argument, you're just wasting my time? You cited such constructs as counters to my argument. I asked you to point out instances of me not agreeing with such constructs, or me missing the posting of such constructs. Instead, you referred to posters of such constructs with whom I had already agreed. Exactly what further comment do you expect me to make about them now?


No, you're misunderstanding further. I'm not citing those constructs as counter arguments, I'm citing the counter arguments to those constructs as ones which cannot work if you factor out God.


*throws shoe at Hydesland* I have posted some in this thread already. And so has HC&S. And a couple of others. Do you want me to come to your house and read the thread back to you?

I can't be bothered to read through the thread. Can you at least link to one of the posts you're talking about?

Dear oh dear, it's a bad sign when people have to start pointing at dictionaries! As if that really proves anything....
It proves what the standard accepted spellings and definitions of words are, but it was not cited for proof in this case. It was cited to show which definitions I was using.

I wonder if Grave_n_idle and Muravyets would care to quickly summarise in one line what they were originally disagreeing/theorising about? I've been looking through the thread and I'm finding it a little difficult to track down.
That is because it arose out of responses to posts that were originally addressed to other people. I will try to sum it up, but I can't do it in only one line, and I make no promises about clarity:

GnI argued that omniscience and free will cannot exist at the same time because, in order for omniscience to work, the universe has to be structured in a way that obviates free will. I argued that his criteria for the necessary conditions were chosen arbitrarily and that there were other ways for the universe to be constructed and/or for omniscience to work. He disagreed. And we've been on that track ever since.

He says his argument explains why the omniscience and free will can't co-exist. I say his argument explains nothing but itself because its arbitrary foundation makes it refer only to itself.

No, you're misunderstanding further. I'm not citing those constructs as counter arguments, I'm citing the counter arguments to those constructs as ones which cannot work if you factor out God.
No, you are the one misunderstanding. I am not the one factoring out god. Nobody is factoring out god here. I am pointing out to other people that their arguments would work just as well if they factored out god, and therefore, those arguments do not prove anything about god's impact on humans. Because if they delete god from the picture, the human experience remains the same in their posited scenarios.

Is it really so hard to understand this?

I can't be bothered to read through the thread. Can you at least link to one of the posts you're talking about?
No.

It's not my job to serve your laziness. I read the damned thing, so can you.

No, you are the one misunderstanding. I am not the one factoring out god.

I have absolutely no idea how you could possibly conclude from that post that I said anything like that about you. I didn't say in anyway that you factor out god.


I am pointing out to other people that their arguments would work just as well if they factored out god, and therefore, those arguments do not prove anything about god's impact on humans. Because if they delete god from the picture, the human experience remains the same in their posited scenarios.

Is it really so hard to understand this?


Again, did you actually read a single sentence? Even a word of my post? Seriously? I just spent my whole time showing you an example where factoring out God makes arguments for determinism crumble. You either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or found it so nonsensical that you just immediately dismissed it and didn't even bother talking about it. If it's the latter, can you at least tell me how it's so flawed that it's no worth any further debate? But I'm hoping that its just you misunderstanding what I'm saying, it's possible that you got confused as to what I was referring to with the word constructs or something. By counter arguments, I meant mine, GnI and GoG's arguments, not yours, peeps, or Neos.


No.

It's not my job to serve your laziness. I read the damned thing, so can you.

But apparently you're to lazy to reiterate anything you're saying, I've done so dozens of times (and you're still not understanding apparently). It really can't be that complicated and long winded that it takes too much time to say it again. I've read most of your posts, and nothing I saw even came close to resolving the conflict between God's omniscience and free will.

The concept that is most plausible to me is the one developed by Heraclitus, but I support that only in the manner that Pyrrho might.

I have a question what about all the people that lived before all your so called gods were even around. Before thay knew of heaven and hell. Thay did not belive in any gods only in nature are thay in hell now?

I have absolutely no idea how you could possibly conclude from that post that I said anything like that about you. I didn't say in anyway that you factor out god.
Then why are you talking to me at all? Why don't you address your comments to the people who make arguments to which they are relevant?

Again, did you actually read a single sentence? Even a word of my post? Seriously? I just spent my whole time showing you an example where factoring out God makes arguments for determinism crumble.
Yes, I did read it. Every word of it. That was my response. Don't like it? Feel free to ignore it.

You either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or [b]found it so nonsensical that you just immediately dismissed it and didn't even bother talking about it. If it's the latter, can you at least tell me how it's so flawed that it's no worth any further debate? But I'm hoping that its just you misunderstanding what I'm saying, it's possible that you got confused as to what I was referring to with the word constructs or something. By counter arguments, I meant mine, GnI and GoG's arguments, not yours, peeps, or Neos.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I did address it. Several times already. And I have also already addressed -- and have been addressing -- your arguments and GnI's and GoG's arguments for several days. Kindly deal with what I have said, or leave me alone, please.

But apparently you're to lazy to reiterate anything you're saying,
Too lazy to keep typing the same words over and over just to save you the trouble of keeping track of the argument? Yeah, I guess I am. How bad of me.

I've done so dozens of times (and you're still not understanding apparently).
I understand every word you say that makes sense. When you address comments to the wrong person, or do not tell me which arguments you are referring to, or otherwise leave yourself unclear, then, yes, I suppose I will be prone to mistakes.

It really can't be that complicated and long winded that it takes too much time to say it again. I've read most of your posts, and nothing I saw even came close to resolving the conflict between God's omniscience and free will.
Guess why.

HINT: It's because I have not been trying to resolve the conflict between omniscience and free will.

Now that I've told you that yet again, are you starting to get it?

I DENY that such a conflict exists at all, therefore there is NOTHING FOR ME TO RESOLVE.

Can you get that now that I've typed it in caps?

(Oh, and "most" is not all, but thanks for admitting that you have not read my full arguments. It was obvious, but still, thanks.)

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-popcorn.gif

This is an excellent debate to read through. Please continue.

Then why are you talking to me at all? Why don't you address your comments to the people who make arguments to which they are relevant?


Ok I think there has been some major disconnect here, because you seem not to be following my trail of thought at all. I'm going to quickly summarise the argument, if I have totally misinterpreted what you are saying, please show me where I have in this summary (but please do not dissect the post one by one).

You asked for a universal construct that does not allow for free will that would not work if God was deleted from the picture

I responded with the example of Neo's and Peeps constructs (I can see where confusion can arise here). I didn't actually mean Neo's and Peeps arguments for free will, I meant their idea about a universe where God is omniscient and the human soul not being subject to material determination. This is the construct, now if you were to argue for determinism using this construct (which I have been doing a lot), you would have to argue that God also determines the souls actions. Regardless of what the argument actually is, if you delete God from the universe, then there is nothing to determine the souls since there is no metaphysical determinism. That means the souls can only determine themselves, and thus there is free will. This is an answer to your request, this is a construct that by deleting God allows for free will.

You then wrongly asserted that I was saying that you were disagreeing with Neo and Peep and that I was trying to invalidate your argument with people you were agreeing with.

I explained how you misunderstood what I was saying due to the reason above.
I also asked to show me an argument that allows omniscience and free will to work together, you have refused thus far.

You responded to my explanation that I was wasting your time, still believing that I was citing Peeps and Neos constructs themselves as counters to you arguments (something which is wrong).

I further explained that I was using the arguments for determinism that use those constructs (rather than merely the constructs themselves) as ones where if you factor out God it doesn't work. Again, what you were asking for.

You then responded by claiming (wrongly) that I was talking about your arguments. You then reiterated what you were saying earlier about how the arguments for determinism so far in this thread would work the same even if you factored out God (going back to the beginning again).

I responded by asserting that I was in fact not using your own arguments as an example. I also asked if you even read my arguments.

You then responded by asking why I'm even talking to you, and why I don't address my comments to the people who make arguments to which they are relevant. I find this question completely nonsensical. Firstly, the arguments I'm talking about I agree with (most of them are my own even), so I don't need to address them. You specifically asked me for arguments which don't work if you factor out God, I provided you with them. It's what you wanted, so why aren't you in fact you addressing them? Why are you claiming that they are now not relevant to you?

You have claimed that I have left myself unclear. So please show where I have been unclear or misinterpreted what you have been saying.


Too lazy to keep typing the same words over and over just to save you the trouble of keeping track of the argument? Yeah, I guess I am. How bad of me.


But I simply don't believe it. You're typing a lot of stuff, many of which is superfluous. You surely have time to reiterate one of your examples of a universal construct that both allows for omniscience and free will.

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-popcorn.gif

This is an excellent debate to read through. Please continue.
*wants that smilie!!*

*steals that smilie!!*

So cute! :D

Ok I think there has been some major disconnect here, because you seem not to be following my trail of thought at all.
Yeah, there is a major disconnect, and it's about to happen now, because calling me a liar (see below) is a good way to end a debate with me.

I'm going to quickly summarise the argument, if I have totally misinterpreted what you are saying, please show me where I have in this summary (but please do not dissect the post one by one).
I will address it in whatever way best suits me.

You asked for a universal construct that does not allow for free will that would not work if God was deleted from the picture
Wrong.

I did not ask for one.

I stated that I was not arguing against such constructs and asked you to point out any instances of the people I actually was arguing against positing such a construct, because I said that I had not seen any from them.

Since you were off the mark from the beginning, I am not going to address the rest of your lengthy summation, as it is based entirely on an error.

But I simply don't believe it. You're typing a lot of stuff, many of which is superfluous. You surely have time to reiterate one of your examples of a universal construct that both allows for omniscience and free will.
No, I don't have time, and I'm not going to make time for you, now that you have called me a liar.

*refrains from adding the appropriate ending sentence, the one that starts with "go" and ends with "hell" and has a "to" in the middle*

Yeah, there is a major disconnect, and it's about to happen now, because calling me a liar (see below) is a good way to end a debate with me.


Oh.. chillax.


Wrong.

I did not ask for one.

I stated that I was not arguing against such constructs and asked you to point out any instances of the people I actually was arguing against positing such a construct

Ok, so you weren't asking for constructs themselves, but asking for ones you've actually been arguing against. Well here's the thing, almost all of them are. In these arguments, they all start off with the basic assumption that it's possible to observe a future event, there is no reason for this assumption on it's own. Only if you assume God exists and that he is omniscient and capable of observing future events, is this assumption valid. Delete God, the argument has an arbitrary and unsupported premise. And before you say God's existence is arbitrary and unsupported, yes but that's not the point since the theists I am arguing against are the ones positing this assumption with their beliefs, you are merely showing where this assumption conflicts.


Since you were off the mark from the beginning, I am not going to address the rest of your lengthy summation, as it is based entirely on an error.


It's a very small nitpick, with not much of a meaningful distinction. That whole time I was providing examples of arguments you had encountered, I just didn't specifically state that they were ones you had encountered and who they were by (they were by all of us). That was just pedantic.


No, I don't have time, and I'm not going to make time for you, now that you have called me a liar.

*refrains from adding the appropriate ending sentence, the one that starts with "go" and ends with "hell" and has a "to" in the middle*

How unbelievably annoying.

This is what peeves me about some good debate threads......

People lose track of what's going on, and end up arguing about some tiny point that's more than likely a misunderstanding, and adds nothing to the debate as a whole.

Why can't we all just, *sniff*, get along?

Oh.. chillax.



Ok, so you weren't asking for constructs themselves, but asking for ones you've actually been arguing against.
No, no, no, no, and NO.

I am going to explain this just one more time, and then this argument is over.

1) I was arguing against one kind of construct presented by some people.

2) You mentioned a different kind of construct presented by different people.

3) I ask you to show me if the people I was arguing against had posted the kind of construct you mentioned -- in case I had missed it from those people (not the other people).

4) You did not do that, but you did spend two days bothering me about it.

5) I stopped talking to you as of this post.


How unbelievably annoying.
You would be the expert on annoying. If you ever come up with something clear, interesting and relevant to say, please say it to someone else. Thanks.

This is what peeves me about some good debate threads......

People lose track of what's going on, and end up arguing about some tiny point that's more than likely a misunderstanding, and adds nothing to the debate as a whole.

Why can't we all just, *sniff*, get along?
I haven't lost track. What's going on is that people have run out of things to say, have not yet formulated new or additional arguments, and have either taken a break or gotten involved in pointless bickering over nonsense. Since Hydesland seems to be really, really into the bickering, I'm going to take a break from him/her now and wait for something new of substance to be posted by anyone else.

3) I ask you to show me if the people I was arguing against had posted the kind of construct you mentioned -- in case I had missed it from those people (not the other people).


Are you blind? I just said that WE ARE ALL using these constructs, me, GoG, GnI. Everyone is using this same construct. You are arguing against these people, these are not different people. There are no other people in this thread who have even argued for determinism as far as I remember.

Dear oh dear, it's a bad sign when people have to start pointing at dictionaries! As if that really proves anything....

I wonder if Grave_n_idle and Muravyets would care to quickly summarise in one line what they were originally disagreeing/theorising about? I've been looking through the thread and I'm finding it a little difficult to track down.

One line summation:

My contention has been that 'free-will' is nonsensical in the presence of a truly omniscient creator.


My reasoning has been simply that:

A truly omniscient entity is not temporally limited, and thus - has always had the same knowledge of eternity - from 'creation' to 'destruction', as 'he' has now, and as 'he' will have at the end of time.

Given that, there can be no surprises, no changes. Because 'god' has already seen it all. So free-will is an illusion. You can THINK you're making a choice, but your 'choice' has already been seen, and (thus) you were really never going to do anything else.

My perception of weaknesses in the arguments moved against me are that they require either: an extrapolation of a theory of time that is unscientific (being based on something other than observation); or - an infinite future scenario (where 'omniscience' becomes a nonsense... no better than guessing... and thus seems to be breaking the limitations of the debate); or - they talk about things that are illogical in the paradigm (an omniscient god can't have 'unseen-as-yet future events').

From my perspective, it appears to be an argument between two factions - those who are being realistic about the question, and those who are looking for ways to patch the perceived conflict. But - that's my perception.

One line summation:

My contention has been that 'free-will' is nonsensical in the presence of a truly omniscient creator. <snip>

My problem with this is the assumption that God's knowing what choice you will make means that you have no choice.

Finding an anology that explains this point is virtualy impossible, as all such must lack the POV of God's 'infalliblity', but I shall try this one.

My child wakes up and asks me if it is okay to put some of his music on the stero. Because I an his dad, and I know his habits from brining him up, and living with him, I know that he is most likely to choose 'My Chemical Romance', further I know that he has just purchesd the new CD by said band and can be reasonably sure that he will choose to play this CD.

I am not wrong on both accounts.

Has my knowledge of my son influenced, or guided his choice, or do I just know his habits?

Does my knowledge of his habits mean that he didn't have a choice?

My problem with this is the assumption that God's knowing what choice you will make means that you have no choice.

Finding an anology that explains this point is virtualy impossible, as all such must lack the POV of God's 'infalliblity', but I shall try this one.

My child wakes up and asks me if it is okay to put some of his music on the stero...
Your assumption above was correct, the analogy is rather poor.

A father's imperfect knowledge of his son's habits is not the same as an omniscient deity's perfect, infallible knowledge of its creations' future 'choices'.

Though you raise an interesting point; compatibilists would say that that determinism and free will can happily co-exist. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Compatibilism) for a brief introduction.

Your assumption above was correct, the analogy is rather poor.

A father's imperfect knowledge of his son's habits is not the same as an omniscient deity's perfect, infallible knowledge of its creations' future 'choices'.

Though you raise an interesting point; compatibilists would say that that determinism and free will can happily co-exist. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Compatibilism) for a brief introduction.

I've never really seen a strong argument for Compatibilism, it always seems a bit ambiguous and arbitrary. I've seen much better arguments for general libertarianism in fact. However in a sense I agree with them, but only because they tend to have a different definition of free will, and if I was to use theirs, I would probably conclude what they conclude.

Yes. But god would necessarily have to always limit his omniscience, which makes him realistically not omniscient.


I dunno about that. I think He can certainly limit His omniscience in this particular area for the sake of preserving freewill without limiting it in other areas.

For example, He could choose not to realize what I'm going to have today for lunch, yet still be able to tell you exactly how many molecules make up my right eye.


No. There is no assumption that T occured, or will. The only assumption is that god knows about T and is right about T. It is the same one you make when you assert that god is omniscient and infallible.

Informally, the argument is saying that yesterday god in his omniscience saw an event in the future, and he is correct in that knowledge because god is right about everything.


Yar, but (and this phase of the debate is a few days old now so if this particular facet has gone stale let me know.) there MUST be the assumption that T occurs otherwise there's nothing for God to know or be right about.


E is T. Stament 2 is basically saying that if something happened in the past, it has to be true now and we can't change it. Statement 3 just apllies this to god's observation from Statement 1.


ok


No. It leaves out your belief that the only reason for the act to have come about in the first place is choice.

I believe it with good reason ;)

Off the top of my head I can think of Pelor, Raziel, Lathandar, Corellian Lorethian, Sune, Sharess, Kord, Mystral, Wakeem, Paladine...

A pox on you for mixing Forgotten Realms deities with those fetid nonsensical wastes of time from 3rd-4th Edition.

For example, He could choose not to realize what I'm going to have today for lunch, yet still be able to tell you exactly how many molecules make up my right eye.
'Choose not to realise'?

So God is sitting upstairs, fingers in his ears, saying, "lalalalala... I can't hear you making those choices I know you're going to make!!'

I've never really seen a strong argument for Compatibilism, it always seems a bit ambiguous and arbitrary. I've seen much better arguments for general libertarianism in fact. However in a sense I agree with them, but only because they tend to have a different definition of free will, and if I was to use theirs, I would probably conclude what they conclude.
That's kind of the problem with this entire discussion. You sort of have to start out agreeing with a person to end up agreeing with them. For instance, I would not have argued with GnI at all if I had accepted his initial premise of what conditions have to exist in order for omnisicience to happen. In other words, if I thought the same way he does, then I'd probably reach the same conclusions he did. Agreement breeds agreement -- I understand that much.

What I don't understand is why people are so unwilling to agree to disagree. I do not understand why some people seem to insist that their way of thinking is the only possible reasonable way to think -- especially on a topic such as this. To me, the friendly form of this discussion would be something like a list of all the possible scenarios of god/universe/humanity that we can think of and whether and how ominiscience and free will can exist in them, and the debate would only be about how well constructed those scenarios are. Not whether the people who posted them are unreasonable or motivated by self-serving needs to believe something or other. And when we had hashed out all the logic issues and every scenario had been honed to as-good-as-it-will-get, we'd be pretty much done.

What I don't understand is why people are so unwilling to agree to disagree.

Well I did agree to disagree with Neo, I could have debated his definition of free will, but decided to concede that I would agree with Neo if that is the definition of free will.

For example, He could choose not to realize what I'm going to have today for lunch, yet still be able to tell you exactly how many molecules make up my right eye.


But that's not the point. We're arguing that it's not the fact that he does know, but the fact that he even could know if he wanted to, that indicates that the universe must be determined to even allow this 'could'.

But that's not the point. We're arguing that it's not the fact that he does know, but the fact that he even could know if he wanted to, that indicates that the universe must be determined to even allow this 'could'.
And my issue is that, IF this god is omni-everything, then the notion of non-omni-anything human beings dictating what conditions have to exist in order for this god to be able to do or know stuff is a stumbling block.

It can be reasonably argued that, since we are not omniscient and do not have infinite knowledge, understanding and insight, then we are not in a position to say how the universe works or doesn't nor what this god needs or doesn't need. If that is the case, then it can be further argued that any of the several differing scenarios we have imagined could work just as well as any other, so long as they are constructed logically. Thus, the only debateable issue is the construction of our scenarios -- i.e. are premise and conclusion reasonable or overly biased/self-serving, and does the scenario connect premise to conclusion successfully and in the right order?

It can be reasonably argued that, since we are not omniscient and do not have infinite knowledge, understanding and insight, then we are not in a position to say how the universe works or doesn't nor what this god needs or doesn't need.

I don't see this as necessarily true, I also argue that it's the theists positing what the nature of the universe is, we're just using tautology to show them what they are positing.

I don't see this as necessarily true, I also argue that it's the theists positing what the nature of the universe is, we're just using tautology to show them what they are positing.
Yes, I can understand why you would want to argue that.

Of course, you ignore the fact that it is not the (mono)theists who have dictated how time must flow in order for their god to be able to "see" it. So, perhaps they are not the only ones positing what the nature of the universe is?

Also, I would point out that there are two meanings to the word "tautology." One refers to logic and describes a particular kind of argument construction. The other refers to rhetoric and means "use of redundant language." I have to say, I see more of the latter than the former in this thread, in general.

Yes, I can understand why you would want to argue that.

Of course, you ignore the fact that it is not the (mono)theists who have dictated how time must flow in order for their god to be able to "see" it. So, perhaps they are not the only ones positing what the nature of the universe is?


I'm arguing they have, by the very fact that they are dictating that God is omniscient (to an extent that he can tell us our future), they are inherently dictating the nature of the universe by positing that a future exists to know.

I'm arguing they have, by the very fact that they are dictating that God is omniscient (to an extent that he can tell us our future), they are inherently dictating the nature of the universe by positing that a future exists to know.
Yes, I know that you are arguing that. Why, when I post a conflicting or dissenting opinion from yours, do you always come back and tell me what it was that you said and I just responded to?

Maybe you don't understand what's going on here. I'll try to clear it up: I do understand what you are saying. I disagree with or otherwise reject what you are saying.

For instance, in this case, I understand perfectly well that you are claiming that the monotheists are the ones dictating how the universe works. I disagree with that claim. I think it is you and GnI and GoG who have dictated rules that you guys made up, not the monotheists.

Now you are free to disagree with me on that, but kindly stop repeating the same arguments at me over and over. You're starting to remind me of the kind of person who shouts at people as if that will make their arguments more persuasive.

I dunno about that. I think He can certainly limit His omniscience in this particular area for the sake of preserving freewill without limiting it in other areas.

For example, He could choose not to realize what I'm going to have today for lunch, yet still be able to tell you exactly how many molecules make up my right eye.

He would always have to limit his knowledge of the future. If he stopped for an instant, we would all immediately lose our free will. Therefore, his limit on his omniscience would be a permanent one. Therefore, not really omniscient.

Yar, but (and this phase of the debate is a few days old now so if this particular facet has gone stale let me know.) there MUST be the assumption that T occurs otherwise there's nothing for God to know or be right about.

Yes. There is the assumption that T, an event, happens. Are you saying that this argument is wrong because it assumes events happen? Such an assumption seems to be completely rational and consistent with reality. Events do happen. The argument then goes on to prove that T is the only possible event that could happen.

I believe it with good reason ;)

As long as we are clear that this is simply your belief and can be excluded from the argument.

I have yet to read a religious text with any God I would consider a "Good God".

My problem with this is the assumption that God's knowing what choice you will make means that you have no choice.

Finding an anology that explains this point is virtualy impossible, as all such must lack the POV of God's 'infalliblity', but I shall try this one.

My child wakes up and asks me if it is okay to put some of his music on the stero. Because I an his dad, and I know his habits from brining him up, and living with him, I know that he is most likely to choose 'My Chemical Romance', further I know that he has just purchesd the new CD by said band and can be reasonably sure that he will choose to play this CD.

I am not wrong on both accounts.

Has my knowledge of my son influenced, or guided his choice, or do I just know his habits?

Does my knowledge of his habits mean that he didn't have a choice?

It's a good job you skipped over the rest of my post, where I explained in pretty simple terms why your example here is absolutely NOTHING like what I'm talking about.

Because otherwise, you'd have wasted a whole load of words on a post that is meaningless as a response to mine.

You are not omniscient. You haven't already 'seen' what he will play. In your case, what he might do is different from what you already know, because your limited perspective means you only know the unchangable past, and all your comments about future events must be educated guesses, at best.


It amuses me that your response to 'omniscience versus freewill' ignores omniscience.

Of course, you ignore the fact that it is not the (mono)theists who have dictated how time must flow in order for their god to be able to "see" it.


I don't think that argument has been made, has it?

I know it's not been mine - my argument was that, if time is NOT linear, the idea of 'prediction' becomes nonsensical. But, it's within the confines of the posts on the topic that we're talking about a 'predictive' god.


So, perhaps they are not the only ones positing what the nature of the universe is?


I'm not saying how the universe is. I'm saying how it LOOKS. The opposing arguments diverge from a straightforward 'how it looks' explanation, but lack any data to show why that model isn't sufficient.

Except: it doesn't accomodate omnsicience and freewill. Which, as I said, looks like trying to wedge the shape of the universe into an already decided form, purely to accomodate a belief structure.

I think that's bad form anywhere... it's bad form in the evolution v's creation debate... I think it's bad form here. My opinion.

I don't think that argument has been made, has it?

I know it's not been mine - my argument was that, if time is NOT linear, the idea of 'prediction' becomes nonsensical. But, it's within the confines of the posts on the topic that we're talking about a 'predictive' god.
A) I think it has, in that my comment is a characterization of an aspect of several arguments that have been presented.

B) I am aware also of the aspect of your arguments that you reiterated above. As I said earlier, I have said everything I have to say about that. Come up with something new or additional if you want any further comment from me because I have nothing more to add as things stand now.

I'm not saying how the universe is. I'm saying how it LOOKS. The opposing arguments diverge from a straightforward 'how it looks' explanation, but lack any data to show why that model isn't sufficient.

Except: it doesn't accomodate omnsicience and freewill. Which, as I said, looks like trying to wedge the shape of the universe into an already decided form, purely to accomodate a belief structure.

I think that's bad form anywhere... it's bad form in the evolution v's creation debate... I think it's bad form here. My opinion.
See item (B) above, thanks.

-snip-

Ok I'll start again, you say:

Of course, you ignore the fact that it is not the (mono)theists who have dictated how time must flow in order for their god to be able to "see" it. So, perhaps they are not the only ones positing what the nature of the universe is?

Now there is no way I can show you how this is wrong, without repeating what I've apparently already said, so you're just going to dismiss it. So I'm a bit stuck here. I mean, if you understood what I was saying, you would have never made this comment in the first place. Or, you would have made an argument justifying this comment.

A) I think it has, in that my comment is a characterization of an aspect of several arguments that have been presented.


I don't suppose you could point to one...


B) I am aware also of the aspect of your arguments that you reiterated above. As I said earlier, I have said everything I have to say about that. Come up with something new or additional if you want any further comment from me because I have nothing more to add as things stand now.

See item (B) above, thanks.

Why would I come up with something new?

Science, being observational, tends to deal with wht is observed - and frowns upon trying to force the facts to fit the theory, or the model to fit the belief. As a scientist, my initial reaction is to assume that the world functions somewhat akin to how it looks like it functions - although I'll accomodate any new data by changing my model.

There has been nothing presented that actually calls for the model to be changed. You haven't shown any data that says the model is wrong, you haven't shown any reason why we need another model, or should choose another model.

If you don't want to address it, by all means, don't.

But that does mean you are just choosing to dismiss a model that doesn't suit you... so you can't really claim to have addressed it.

In some ways, I wish we were all in a room together, this would make discussion so much easier.

In other ways, I'm glad we're not!

GnI, I'm not sure there's enough 'how it looks' evidence for time or omniscience to make your theory any more reliable than any other logically-sound theory. Also, in a trivial sense, there's no reason to believe logic, time or causality have any place in the mysterious realm God inhabits which 'contains' our reality (these are all arbitrary constructs).

But as both Hyesland and Muravyets have said, in different ways, we are all just constructing the universe by the axioms we consider best, and therefore disagreeing with the end result of each others' arguments. There are Lies, Damned Lies, and Arbitrary Axioms.

My poo universe was perfectly logical imho, and therefore one possible explanation.

Feel free to flame me for paraphrasing :p

GnI, I'm not sure there's enough 'how it looks' evidence for time or omniscience to make your theory any more reliable than any other logically-sound theory. Also, in a trivial sense, there's no reason to believe logic, time or causality have any place in the mysterious realm God inhabits which 'contains' our reality (these are all arbitrary constructs).

But as both Hyesland and Muravyets have said, in different ways, we are all just constructing the universe by the axioms we consider best, and therefore disagreeing with the end result of each others' arguments. There are Lies, Damned Lies, and Arbitrary Axioms.

Feel free to flame me for paraphrasing :p

No desire to flame, but there are a couple of points to address.

Every instant of your day, you do things. Some are huge, maybe.. some are tiny... like breathing. Each thing you do, causes effects.

It is fairly evident, then - from the data - that we live in a reality where cause and effect are relatively integral.

Not only that, but cause never follows effect. We live in a reality where cause and effect are, not only relatively integral, but also linearly integral.

This presents our timeline theory - time is linear, progressing from future to past, through the focus of 'now' (in our experience).

And the difference between the 'future' and the 'past' in our model, is that we can know what the past holds, but not the future. Furthermore - we are unable to change the past.


So - central model - a linear time line, where the future is unknown, and the past is unchangable.

There's no data that contradicts that basic construction, so why challenge it? The simplest answer is usually the best.


Now - the nature of god, we could debate for days... but, luckily, we don't have to. All we need to agree on, for the sake of this discussion, is omniscience (although the argument for a fallible god might make the omniscience argument more interesting).

If we take a god into our model that is truly omniscient, the defining characteristic of the 'future' (that it cannot be known) becomes an irrelevence. To a truly omniscient viewer, the past and the future are identical. So - what does that say about OUR activities in the future? It says that - to this observer - they are as concrete and unchangable as the past appears to us.


To be honest - it's the only model that seems (to me) to be entirely logical. It's the only one that applies what we know to the question. It's the only one that doesn't require us to add extra complications to what can be observed, or is stated in the question (omniscient god), in order to make it work.

(To address your other comment... these rules don't have to apply 'where god is', we're effectively claiming he's outside of time, but that is actually kind of irrelevent. What matters is, what he 'sees' in our reality is 'true'. It's what that knowledge says about the nature of OUR reality that's important... not what it says about... wherever 'he' is).

No desire to flame, but there are a couple of points to address.

Every instant of your day, you do things. Some are huge, maybe.. some are tiny... like breathing. Each thing you do, causes effects.

It is fairly evident, then - from the data - that we live in a reality where cause and effect are relatively integral.

Not only that, but cause never follows effect. We live in a reality where cause and effect are, not only relatively integral, but also linearly integral.

Constant conjunction =/= necessary connection. That is the only inference you can logically take.

This presents our timeline theory - time is linear, progressing from future to past, through the focus of 'now' (in our experience).

That's our perception, not necessarily the case though. Indeed it could be construed as fallacy given the tenseless view of time, which is consistent with special relativity. Perception =/= truth.

And the difference between the 'future' and the 'past' in our model, is that we can know what the past holds, but not the future. Furthermore - we are unable to change the past.

Again, without evidence for or against paradox being possible, we only have logic to fall back on, not evidence.


So - central model - a linear time line, where the future is unknown, and the past is unchangable.

There's no data that contradicts that basic construction, so why challenge it? The simplest answer is usually the best.


I don't believe there is sufficient evidence (based on my previous comments) for this basic construction about metaphysical concepts to be any better than any other. 'Simplicity being the best' is an historic trait in our knowledge paradigm, and not necessarily the case.


Now - the nature of god, we could debate for days... but, luckily, we don't have to. All we need to agree on, for the sake of this discussion, is omniscience (although the argument for a fallible god might make the omniscience argument more interesting).

If we take a god into our model that is truly omniscient, the defining characteristic of the 'future' (that it cannot be known) becomes an irrelevence. To a truly omniscient viewer, the past and the future are identical. So - what does that say about OUR activities in the future? It says that - to this observer - they are as concrete and unchangable as the past appears to us.

Your positing about the rigidity of the future is based on our knowledge of the past, we have no way to generalize that knowledge applies in the same way to the future, as we have never experienced that knowledge. There is no evidence we can point to.


To be honest - it's the only model that seems (to me) to be entirely logical. It's the only one that applies what we know to the question. It's the only one that doesn't require us to add extra complications to what can be observed, or is stated in the question (omniscient god), in order to make it work.

Fair enough, it is a matter of opinion (as said numerous times), but I still don't think we have sufficient evidence to claim one theory over another, especially as we are talking of things for which we have no direct evidence, only inference from our experience (which I do not think is any more reliable, therefore, than an arbitrary but consistent logical construct)


(To address your other comment... these rules don't have to apply 'where god is', we're effectively claiming he's outside of time, but that is actually kind of irrelevent. What matters is, what he 'sees' in our reality is 'true'. It's what that knowledge says about the nature of OUR reality that's important... not what it says about... wherever 'he' is).

I disagree, because god 'sees' in the context of HIS reality, not ours. Our universe exists in a particular way in that universe. That's why I don't think you can generalize from the nature of our universe to a metaphysical realm. It doesn't follow for any necessary reason they are at all similar.

Fair points, and I guess I stand corrected.
Wow! I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've seen an argument on a message-board end like that.:hail:

Constant conjunction =/= necessary connection. That is the only inference you can logically take.


I said 'relatively integral'. I didn't say it was an absolute. The fact that the conjunction IS constant, however - DOES imply connection.

All it takes is one example of causeless effects, to break the model.


That's our perception, not necessarily the case though. Indeed it could be construed as fallacy given the tenseless view of time, which is consistent with special relativity. Perception =/= truth.


You have a specific argument against it? Sometimes past events morph into future events? I'm not talking about other 'theories' - you can't 'prove' anything about a theory, with another theory. I'm saying can you SHOW how it's not the case?


Again, without evidence for or against paradox being possible, we only have logic to fall back on, not evidence.


That's not how it works. You don't get to shoot holes in a theory by saying it doesn't account for x kind of thing that has not been proved NOT to exist.

Gravity doesn't make allowances for goblins eating bananas. It's not actually a hole in the theory, until goblins turn up eating bananas, and it affects the data.

On the other hand - we have TONS of evidence of paradoxes not being possible - it's called history, and it's strangely devoid of paradoxes. Does that mean they can't happen? No, not for sure. But, it's evidence against them.


I don't believe there is sufficient evidence (based on my previous comments) for this basic construction about metaphysical concepts to be any better than any other. 'Simplicity being the best' is an historic trait in our knowledge paradigm, and not necessarily the case.


It's a basic tool of logic, though - in some form or another. You don't multiply your entities beyond necessity. It's also the ground-rule (arguably) if scientific endeavour. That makes this construct better than anything that requires further complications to reach a balanced model based on the same apparent data.


Your positing about the rigidity of the future is based on our knowledge of the past, we have no way to generalize that knowledge applies in the same way to the future, as we have never experienced that knowledge. There is no evidence we can point to.


On the contrary, we have thousands of years of data.

In every case, what has been witnessed has never gone back on itself and become something new. (Not including redaction and revisionism - I mean the EVENTS have never changed, not their accounting).

So - in our experience, what has been SEEN to happen, cannot be changed after the fact.

We can't know if this holds for the future until we are able to check that data for ourselves, BUT - if 'god' has SEEN something happen, the logical assumption based on what we DO know, is that it cannot be changed.


Fair enough, it is a matter of opinion (as said numerous times), but I still don't think we have sufficient evidence to claim one theory over another, especially as we are talking of things for which we have no direct evidence, only inference from our experience (which I do not think is any more reliable, therefore, than an arbitrary but consistent logical construct)


In terms of what evidence is reliable, I think it's not unreasonable to apply the same quality controls we apply to historical documents.

If you can corroborate it, it's more reliable than a purely anecdotal account. That would make our collective experience of (the appearance of) time, a 'better' evidence than personal religious belief, for example.


I disagree, because god 'sees' in the context of HIS reality, not ours. Our universe exists in a particular way in that universe. That's why I don't think you can generalize from the nature of our universe to a metaphysical realm. It doesn't follow for any necessary reason they are at all similar.

They don't have to be - that's not the point.

'God' existig or not, in his own little dimension, is just HOW he can witness our entire chronology in toto. That doesn't mean the two concepts have to be similar, or even agreeable. In fact, by definition, they must differ on at least one premise - their interaction with 'time'.

But, even though 'he' watches it from some remote location, it IS our 'reality' that is being argued as having been witnessed in it's entirety. It doesn't matter how 'he' experience sthat other 'reality' or what it's properties are, all that matters is the argument that OUR 'reality' has been seen in completion.

Ok I'll start again, you say:

Of course, you ignore the fact that it is not the (mono)theists who have dictated how time must flow in order for their god to be able to "see" it. So, perhaps they are not the only ones positing what the nature of the universe is?

Now there is no way I can show you how this is wrong, without repeating what I've apparently already said, so you're just going to dismiss it. So I'm a bit stuck here. I mean, if you understood what I was saying, you would have never made this comment in the first place. Or, you would have made an argument justifying this comment.
1) I have made many comments in this thread justifying my arguments. If I don't want you to repeat yourself, what makes you think I want to keep repeating myself?

2) If you cannot show me how I am wrong except by repeating the same words I disagreed with, then perhaps you have not fully thought through your argument. Why can you not look at what I wrote, compare it to what you wrote, and show me where the disconnect is? Why do you think I should be persuaded by an argument that goes like this: You: "A." Me: "No, because of B." You: "No, because of A." Rinse, repeat.

3) It is also amusing that you are so convinced not only of your own rightness but the perfection of the structure of your own argument, that you assume the only reason I would disagree with it is that I don't understand it. Did you really think your argument was so wonderful that it would be like the dawn of enlightenment to everyone who read it? That, as soon as your words fell upon my eyes, I would instantly agree with every one of them? I have explained numerous times what my position on this question is and precisely what my objections are to the various arguments I have opposed. Either answer my objections or ignore them, but do not kid yourself that all you have to do is keep throwing the exact same stuff at me until you hit the magic spot that will get me to accept it and give you the kewpie doll.

I don't suppose you would point to one...
Fixed.

To paraphrase what I yelled at Hydesland ages ago: "Do your own damned reading!"

Also, please consider what I write below, and understand that I feel less than motivated to hold your hand and walk you through this again, as it's gotten me nowhere before now.

Why would I come up with something new?

Science, being observational, tends to deal with wht is observed - and frowns upon trying to force the facts to fit the theory, or the model to fit the belief. As a scientist, my initial reaction is to assume that the world functions somewhat akin to how it looks like it functions - although I'll accomodate any new data by changing my model.

There has been nothing presented that actually calls for the model to be changed. You haven't shown any data that says the model is wrong, you haven't shown any reason why we need another model, or should choose another model.

If you don't want to address it, by all means, don't.

But that does mean you are just choosing to dismiss a model that doesn't suit you... so you can't really claim to have addressed it.
I have addressed it. Several times. You keep pretending that I haven't. As to the rest, I refer you to this:
1) I have made many comments in this thread justifying my arguments. If I don't want you to repeat yourself, what makes you think I want to keep repeating myself?

2) If you cannot show me how I am wrong except by repeating the same words I disagreed with, then perhaps you have not fully thought through your argument. Why can you not look at what I wrote, compare it to what you wrote, and show me where the disconnect is? Why do you think I should be persuaded by an argument that goes like this: You: "A." Me: "No, because of B." You: "No, because of A." Rinse, repeat.

3) It is also amusing that you are so convinced not only of your own rightness but the perfection of the structure of your own argument, that you assume the only reason I would disagree with it is that I don't understand it. Did you really think your argument was so wonderful that it would be like the dawn of enlightenment to everyone who read it? That, as soon as your words fell upon my eyes, I would instantly agree with every one of them? I have explained numerous times what my position on this question is and precisely what my objections are to the various arguments I have opposed. Either answer my objections or ignore them, but do not kid yourself that all you have to do is keep throwing the exact same stuff at me until you hit the magic spot that will get me to accept it and give you the kewpie doll.

In some ways, I wish we were all in a room together, this would make discussion so much easier.
It would make throwing donuts at each other easier, that's for sure, at least.

In other ways, I'm glad we're not!
What? You don't like catching donuts?

GnI, I'm not sure there's enough 'how it looks' evidence for time or omniscience to make your theory any more reliable than any other logically-sound theory. Also, in a trivial sense, there's no reason to believe logic, time or causality have any place in the mysterious realm God inhabits which 'contains' our reality (these are all arbitrary constructs).

But as both Hyesland and Muravyets have said, in different ways, we are all just constructing the universe by the axioms we consider best, and therefore disagreeing with the end result of each others' arguments. There are Lies, Damned Lies, and Arbitrary Axioms.
Precisely my point. Thanks.

My poo universe was perfectly logical imho, and therefore one possible explanation.

Feel free to flame me for paraphrasing :p
It made sense to me. :D

<snip>

To be honest - it's the only model that seems (to me) to be entirely logical.

<snip>
GnI, this right here, with the bolded part, THIS is the fatal flaw in the structure of your argument. THIS is what makes me think that you are simply refusing even to consider whether other models are constructed logically or not. THIS is why I reject your arguments against the other models and insisting that yours is better as overly biased and not fully thought through.

Your argument seems to be entirely logical TO YOU. But YOU are not the only smart, reasonable, logical person in the world. If you analyze some of the other models objectively, without concern for whether you agree with them or not, you will see that they are also constructed in ways that are logically sound.

You will also see that, despite their logic, they are all based on arbitrarily selected foundational criteria. All, including yours. I know that you think you are basing yours on observation of the natural universe, but again, if you look at it objectively, forgetting for a moment that it is your idea, then I think you should see that you are actually trying to stretch very little data to cover a whole lot of area.

It is all well and good to prefer our own logic and ideas over other people's, but that does not mean we do not have to be honest about our own ideas and those other people's. We should always be willing to take as critical an eye to our own ideas as we do to other people's, and if there are flaws such as arbitrary criteria and broad assumptions in our own ideas, we should acknowledge and fix them. We should not blame others for things we, ourselves are guilty of.

This has been my entire objection to your argument. For me, it's not about the argument itself, which is fine. In my opinion, it is too limited to prove what you want it to, but it is not illogical, as far as it goes. Rather, what I object to is your insistance that you are right and others are wrong about something that you cannot possibly prove; that your criteria are not arbitrary nor based on assumptions, when you cannot possibly hope to show any hard data that gives them foundation as facts; and your refusal even to address the question of the logic of other models with anything but blanket dismissals.

For the record, I remind you that I do not agree with any of the models, yet I can see sound logic in most of them. That does not mean that I think they are right. Only that they are logically constructed. I do not understand why you cannot or will not admit the existence of logic in ideas you do not agree with.

Holy Epistemological Fracas Batman! Haven't we had a similar discussion before? :wink:

However, I still find it stimulating so I'll plough on! I won't address all your points though, concentrating on the more interesting ones (INMHO)for the sake of brevity (not because I don't have responses, believe me, I'm biting back my.... typing hand?)


You have a specific argument against it? Sometimes past events morph into future events? I'm not talking about other 'theories' - you can't 'prove' anything about a theory, with another theory. I'm saying can you SHOW how it's not the case?


But aren't you also trying to prove a theory with a theory? You are saying your theory of scientific investigation as the best method of enquiry shows your theory about time/free will etc to be the best.

I am trying to say there is a scientific theory that has been found sound through experiment and empirical evidence, that has ramifications for the nature of time, and that those ramifications are counter-intuitive. Perception =/= truth, based on your paradigm of scientific method.


That's not how it works. You don't get to shoot holes in a theory by saying it doesn't account for x kind of thing that has not been proved NOT to exist.

Gravity doesn't make allowances for goblins eating bananas.

Hilarious! I properly LOL'd when I read that!

The reason I talked about paradoxes, was because I thought that implicit in your argument for the past being unchangeable, was paradox. I was saying that we don't know how paradox would 'work' in reality, so I don't see how it can be invoked to back up your argument. We also don't know what evidence they would leave as a trace, if any.


If you can corroborate it, it's more reliable than a purely anecdotal account. That would make our collective experience of (the appearance of) time, a 'better' evidence than personal religious belief, for example.


I don't think you can apply historical evidential method to metaphysical debate because the nature of the connection between the physical and the metaphysical is not something we have any evidence of.

Also, a lot of people agreeing does not make something more right, it just means a lot of people agree on something. Science is not performed by consensus, it is performed by experts. And even then, theories and therefore 'truth', change.

Holy Epistemological Fracas Batman! Haven't we had a similar discussion before? :wink:

However, I still find it stimulating so I'll plough on! I won't address all your points though, concentrating on the more interesting ones (INMHO)for the sake of brevity (not because I don't have responses, believe me, I'm biting back my.... typing hand?)


Is all good. Eat, drink and be merry... and all that.


But aren't you also trying to prove a theory with a theory? You are saying your theory of scientific investigation as the best method of enquiry shows your theory about time/free will etc to be the best.


No. I never postulated that the scientific approach was necessarily the best. I certainly didn't present that as a theory, or use that to justify my 'theory'.

The scientific method IS 'logic', applied to solid things.

Sure, we could have this discussion without feeling the need to resort to logic, but the results would be a little inconclusive, and we'd end up in a screaming match about whether existence was 'yes' or 'blue'.


I am trying to say there is a scientific theory that has been found sound through experiment and empirical evidence, that has ramifications for the nature of time, and that those ramifications are counter-intuitive. Perception =/= truth, based on your paradigm of scientific method.


But, can it show a specific reversal of the cause-and-effect premise?

I'm not saying perception MUST equal truth, at all. I'm saying, until we find reason to suspect that the case is otherwise, the principal principle is to accept at as being (at least effectively) true.


Hilarious! I properly LOL'd when I read that!


Thankyou, I'm here till Thursday. Try the veal.


The reason I talked about paradoxes, was because I thought that implicit in your argument for the past being unchangeable, was paradox. I was saying that we don't know how paradox would 'work' in reality, so I don't see how it can be invoked to back up your argument. We also don't know what evidence they would leave as a trace, if any.


The problem is - of course - that paradox is ONLY required as a mechanism, if there's evidence that a paradox can be created in the first place - which would require a factor like evidence of functional temporal travel, that could make an effect occur before it's cause. Otherwise it's just cute fluffy philosophy, and certainly shouldn't be considered as an actual chink in the armour of a mechanism.

Hence my gobklins and bananas. Is the theory of gravity injured by the absence of fruit-bearing greenskins? No - it doesn't make allowances for them, but that's not really a flaw in the construct.


I don't think you can apply historical evidential method to metaphysical debate because the nature of the connection between the physical and the metaphysical is not something we have any evidence of.


That leads us into the rather wooly realms of subjectivity. Yes, it possible that the theory of gravity really IS about angry vegan pixies, and it's just our subjective perspective that makes it appear otherwise... but we really can't delve very deeply into that direction without all throwing up our hands and grumbling about how we can't really be sure of anything...

But then, for the sake of debate (and our sanity?) we apply Occam's shaving kit to our experiences, and we reach a kind of agreement about what the nature of 'reality' is... at least for the sake of just being able to function.

Does time trot forwards? Space monkeys...no... goblins? No... the giant pulsating brain at the centre of the omniverse... ah hell, sure. Forward, trotty.


Also, a lot of people agreeing does not make something more right, it just means a lot of people agree on something. Science is not performed by consensus, it is performed by experts.


Not strictly true.


"Woah, I like totally created cold fusion in my Thermos!"
"Really? Oooh, swirly.... that's cool, how'd you do that?"

3 hours of following the same tortuous methods later:

"Dude, you just overfrothed your Frappacino. Idiot"


Experts, yes - but consensus, also.


And even then, theories and therefore 'truth', change.

No. Theories change. If there is 'Truth' (or even just 'truth') it wisely remains unaffected by our bimbling about.

Jesus Christ is my God

You're welcome to him.

the good god is the one leaves you the F$%# alone and lets you live your life.

the good god is the one leaves you the F$%# alone and lets you live your life.

Agreed, however, I remember a Mighty Max episode that had a good concept about God(s). That being: Humans were not meant to serve the God(s), but the God(s) were meant to serve Humans. If you think about it religion is/was a means to bring order, stability, and (to an extent) peace in what is otherwise a complex and harsh universe.

Agreed, however, I remember a Mighty Max episode that had a good concept about God(s). That being: Humans were not meant to serve the God(s), but the God(s) were meant to serve Humans. If you think about it religion is/was a means to bring order, stability, and (to an extent) peace in what is otherwise a complex and harsh universe.
That's a nice idea, but, looking at history, religion doesn't seem to be very good at it. Maybe we need to find something else for religion to do.

He would always have to limit his knowledge of the future. If he stopped for an instant, we would all immediately lose our free will. Therefore, his limit on his omniscience would be a permanent one. Therefore, not really omniscient.

I'd still limit that to a frame of reference. For instance, He might only have to limit knowledge of your choices for only as long as you're alive.


Yes. There is the assumption that T, an event, happens. Are you saying that this argument is wrong because it assumes events happen? Such an assumption seems to be completely rational and consistent with reality. Events do happen. The argument then goes on to prove that T is the only possible event that could happen.


The problem is that an assumption like that necessarily brings with it certain other assumptions (or fails to acknowledge them) like the trigger or cause of event T. Since causality is necessarily a part of the discussion, it should be accounted for.


As long as we are clear that this is simply your belief and can be excluded from the argument.

If the argument is solely the merits of this particular argument form, then certainly. If we're arguing over the nature of choice itself, then naturally that belief is the point I'm looking to prove.

I'd still limit that to a frame of reference. For instance, He might only have to limit knowledge of your choices for only as long as you're alive.

God would have to limit all knowledge of the future for as long as humanity exists, in order to retain free will.

The problem is that an assumption like that necessarily brings with it certain other assumptions (or fails to acknowledge them) like the trigger or cause of event T. Since causality is necessarily a part of the discussion, it should be accounted for.

But causality doesn't have to be a part of the discussion, so why bring it in? To be honest, this whole part of the debate seems foolish. You criticise it for making the assumption that events occur, or for leaving out the cause of the event, even though it's irrelevant.

If the argument is solely the merits of this particular argument form, then certainly. If we're arguing over the nature of choice itself, then naturally that belief is the point I'm looking to prove.

Okay. Do so. I have shown how omniscience and free will are logically incompatible. You can now go ahead and try to prove that choice and an omniscient god are logically consistent.

And when we're done that, we can debate why omnipotence is simply illogical, and why transendence and being infinite is also logically inconsistent.

Jesus Christ is my God

Isn't he technically the son of God?

And if you say Jesus Christ is your God, who does that make The Father?

Glazed Jelly Donut is a good god, mainly because no one thinks the invisible jelly is real.

God would have to limit all knowledge of the future for as long as humanity exists, in order to retain free will.


I don't think that need be the case. Only knowledge that relates to individuals.


But causality doesn't have to be a part of the discussion, so why bring it in? To be honest, this whole part of the debate seems foolish. You criticise it for making the assumption that events occur, or for leaving out the cause of the event, even though it's irrelevant.


I don't agree that it's irrelevant. The whole point of the discussion is whether we have choice, wich is directly related to causality.


Okay. Do so. I have shown how omniscience and free will are logically incompatible. You can now go ahead and try to prove that choice and an omniscient god are logically consistent.


I challenge your assertion that you've shown it. ;)


And when we're done that, we can debate why omnipotence is simply illogical, and why transendence and being infinite is also logically inconsistent.

And by so doing pretend to have an understanding of concepts that are, by their nature, beyond human understanding? That's an interesting proposition.

I don't think that need be the case. Only knowledge that relates to individuals.

And anything else that interacts with individuals in any way.

I don't agree that it's irrelevant. The whole point of the discussion is whether we have choice, wich is directly related to causality.

Please show me how causality should be fit into the argument. Or how an argument with causality would explain how free will is possible in a reality with an omniscient god.

I challenge your assertion that you've shown it. ;)

I have shown it. I even linked to a site that shows it in both informal and formal logic. You have yet to propose an alternate version of events. I wait.

And by so doing pretend to have an understanding of concepts that are, by their nature, beyond human understanding? That's an interesting proposition.

It's called theology. It helps us towards an understanding of god that is consistent with our observed reality and that which we learn from other fields of human experience. I do not wish to worship a human construct (as all understandings of god are) that is not even logical and consistent.

And anything else that interacts with individuals in any way.

Maybe, although that sort of assumes there's a predictable pattern of interaction for each and every single event in the history of the Universe, ever.


Please show me how causality should be fit into the argument. Or how an argument with causality would explain how free will is possible in a reality with an omniscient god.


I can't. The argument is, by its nature inadequate to the task. It's like trying to overhaul a smallblock V8 with a pair of scissors and scotch tape.


I have shown it. I even linked to a site that shows it in both informal and formal logic. You have yet to propose an alternate version of events. I wait.


No offense, but you may have shown it to your own satisfaction and that's fine, but it's not shown to mine. That's either because we come at from different worldviews or because you're emotionally satisfied by the argument structure and I'm not. Either way, I still maintain that the argument is inadequate to describe the subject regardless of the outcome.


It's called theology. It helps us towards an understanding of god that is consistent with our observed reality and that which we learn from other fields of human experience. I do not wish to worship a human construct (as all understandings of god are) that is not even logical and consistent.

Theology helps us toward an understanding of cultural understandings of God that may or may not be consistent with our observed reality. I have no more desire to worship a human construct than you are. I think the difference is that I make no assumptions about the ability of simple human philosophy or reasoning to describe a Being who, by nature, is beyond mortal comprehension in many ways. I believe it is possible to know and understand our relationship with Him, but there will always be elements of His being that we, living a finite lifespan with a finite perspective, cannot truly fathom.

Maybe, although that sort of assumes there's a predictable pattern of interaction for each and every single event in the history of the Universe, ever.

No, it doesn't.

I can't. The argument is, by its nature inadequate to the task. It's like trying to overhaul a smallblock V8 with a pair of scissors and scotch tape.

I gave you a choice. Either show how I am wrong, which you have not done, or show how you are right, which you also have not done.

No offense, but you may have shown it to your own satisfaction and that's fine, but it's not shown to mine. That's either because we come at from different worldviews or because you're emotionally satisfied by the argument structure and I'm not. Either way, I still maintain that the argument is inadequate to describe the subject regardless of the outcome.

You keep claiming that and I keep asking you to show me how the argument is wrong. And you don't show me.

Theology helps us toward an understanding of cultural understandings of God that may or may not be consistent with our observed reality. I have no more desire to worship a human construct than you are. I think the difference is that I make no assumptions about the ability of simple human philosophy or reasoning to describe a Being who, by nature, is beyond mortal comprehension in many ways. I believe it is possible to know and understand our relationship with Him, but there will always be elements of His being that we, living a finite lifespan with a finite perspective, cannot truly fathom.

I like how you imply that I somehow make assumptions about the human ability to define god. For the purposes of this discussion, we have to assume that god is somehow subject to the rules of logic. It is possible that god can simply step outside of logic, but then we can't actually discuss these things in a logical manner. We might as well discuss how a unicorn can be both invisible and pink at the same time.

I understand that god is inherently outside human ken to a large degree, but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to believe illogical and inconsistent things about god.

No, it doesn't.

Of course it does.


I gave you a choice. Either show how I am wrong, which you have not done, or show how you are right, which you also have not done.
You keep claiming that and I keep asking you to show me how the argument is wrong. And you don't show me.


Of course. You want me to do so according to a set of rules you've chosen, in a format you want to dictate, using an argument form you like, which by their nature aren't up to the task. I've indicated that isn't possible. Essentially you're demanding that I overhaul that V-8 with the scissors and tape, and I'm telling you it's non-sequitur.


I like how you imply that I somehow make assumptions about the human ability to define god. For the purposes of this discussion, we have to assume that god is somehow subject to the rules of logic. It is possible that god can simply step outside of logic, but then we can't actually discuss these things in a logical manner. We might as well discuss how a unicorn can be both invisible and pink at the same time.

That's right, and in a way you're saying the same thing I am here. Human logic is not, IMHO adequate to the task precisely for the reasons we've been talking about so far. Your argument may be perfectly valid for what it is, but I maintain it's being applied to a scenario that's beyond it. If that makes it impossible to discuss in those terms, then that's how it must be.


I understand that god is inherently outside human ken to a large degree, but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to believe illogical and inconsistent things about god.

I absolutely agree, but that gets back to who defined illogical and inconsistent? If we accept that this logic form is inadequate to describe Him, then how do you determine what beliefs are illogical and what aren't?

(For the record, my answer is by viewing the result. AKA "By their fruits shall ye know them")

There are many ways to view the concept of diety, I personaly find much fault in the Christian concept, hence I ain't no Christian.

Which concept is the best one?

Come on now, don't be shy, leave your gloves at the door!:D
It would depend on what you want to use said deity for.

The Christian God has been wielded quite effectively by many individuals and many organizations throughout history, far more effectively than some other gods have been. So obviously the Christian God is pretty damn good for certain purposes. However, it's not as good for others.

Of course it does.

Prove it.

Of course. You want me to do so according to a set of rules you've chosen, in a format you want to dictate, using an argument form you like, which by their nature aren't up to the task. I've indicated that isn't possible. Essentially you're demanding that I overhaul that V-8 with the scissors and tape, and I'm telling you it's non-sequitur.

No. I don't want you to do it in any way except a logical way. You can use any argument form you like. Can you stop discussing how we should debate it and actually debate it?

That's right, and in a way you're saying the same thing I am here. Human logic is not, IMHO adequate to the task precisely for the reasons we've been talking about so far. Your argument may be perfectly valid for what it is, but I maintain it's being applied to a scenario that's beyond it. If that makes it impossible to discuss in those terms, then that's how it must be.

It doesn't matter if god exists outside of logic. It doesn't make our beliefs more or less logical. A belief that god is omniscient and that we have free will is less logical than a belief that god is not omniscient and that we have free will.

I absolutely agree, but that gets back to who defined illogical and inconsistent? If we accept that this logic form is inadequate to describe Him, then how do you determine what beliefs are illogical and what aren't?

Logic may be inadequate to describe god, but it is not inadequate as a tool to examine our beliefs. Logic is about consistency. Most religions and religious people tend to use logic to ensurethat their beliefs are consistent with four things:


What do the scriptures say, as interpreted by the group or person?
What have the faith group's historical policies been?
What does one's personal experience say?
What does reason and scientific knowledge say?


Most conservative believers place more importance on the first two. More liberal believers, such as myself, rely more on the last two.

An example would be Noah's flood. We could use logic to make our beliefs consistent with a literal interpretation of scripture, or we could choose to make our beliefs consistent with modern scientific theories. Both would use logic, but only the second would also be consistent with observed reality. So, the second belief would be more consistent with more things, hence more logical.

Prove it.

You want me to prove a construct that, by its nature, approaches infinity?


No. I don't want you to do it in any way except a logical way. You can use any argument form you like. Can you stop discussing how we should debate it and actually debate it?


Haven't we established that we can't debate it in a meaningful way?


It doesn't matter if god exists outside of logic. It doesn't make our beliefs more or less logical. A belief that god is omniscient and that we have free will is less logical than a belief that god is not omniscient and that we have free will.

According to a construct that is inadequate to the task of making that evaluation to begin with.

I understand you're specifically talking about the act of belief as opposed to the subject of that belief. I get that. The problem is that once a person says 'I believe God is omnipotent' then any argument either for or against that belief must necessarily evaluate the subject itself, or admit that it can't be applied to a simple matter of faith.


Logic may be inadequate to describe god, but it is not inadequate as a tool to examine our beliefs. Logic is about consistency. Most religions and religious people tend to use logic to ensurethat their beliefs are consistent with four things:


What do the scriptures say, as interpreted by the group or person?
What have the faith group's historical policies been?
What does one's personal experience say?
What does reason and scientific knowledge say?


Most conservative believers place more importance on the first two. More liberal believers, such as myself, rely more on the last two.

An example would be Noah's flood. We could use logic to make our beliefs consistent with a literal interpretation of scripture, or we could choose to make our beliefs consistent with modern scientific theories. Both would use logic, but only the second would also be consistent with observed reality. So, the second belief would be more consistent with more things, hence more logical.

I disagree on the grounds that the only thing that makes the latter two more consistent with observed reality is that fact that we haven't observed such an event. That doesn't necessarily mean the event can't be, only that we haven't seen it happen within the context of recorded history that can be evaluated objectively.

Now, I know what you're getting at. You're saying that the very fact that we haven't observed it necessarily makes a belief in it less logical, but consider that to be truly logical then we must also admit that we cannot conclusively prove that it has never happened. Therefore it must remain within the realm of possibility, whatever the odds of it being true might be.

By the same token, I could argue that it's illogical to rely on the faith group's history because refinements in understanding and perspective make such behavior obsolete in light of current views and concepts within the very same religion.

For example, if we were to use the example of Crusading armies sacking Jewish settlements on the road to Jerusalem, you can suggest that logically this allows you to evaluate the nature of this belief system, calling on that event to dismiss it as barbaric and cruel, and thus in conflict with its professed core teachings. On the other hand, I could point out that those who performed those actions still had a primitive and incomplete understanding of the truth of Christianity, and thus their actions do not factor into whether or not Christianity is a logical path today.

You want me to prove a construct that, by its nature, approaches infinity?

No, I want you to prove your claim that my claim about god would necessarily assume that there's a predictable pattern of interaction for each and every single event in the history of the Universe, ever.

Haven't we established that we can't debate it in a meaningful way?

No, we haven't. I want you to show me how the argument I presented is illogical, or you can present we with a logical explanation of how free will is consistent with omniscience.

According to a construct that is inadequate to the task of making that evaluation to begin with.

I understand you're specifically talking about the act of belief as opposed to the subject of that belief. I get that. The problem is that once a person says 'I believe God is omnipotent' then any argument either for or against that belief must necessarily evaluate the subject itself, or admit that it can't be applied to a simple matter of faith.

Logic is not inadequate to the task of comparing the internal consistency of two different beliefs. And I realise the limitations of discussing a theoretically omnipotent being using logic, as I already understand that omnipotence itself is illogical. Okay. Neo B, I concede that your beliefs about god are internally consistent if you also include omnipotence, provided you admit that this allows your god to do and be whatever you claim even if it has no bearing on reality or rationality.

Fortunately, I don't believe god is omnipotent either.

I disagree on the grounds that the only thing that makes the latter two more consistent with observed reality is that fact that we haven't observed such an event. That doesn't necessarily mean the event can't be, only that we haven't seen it happen within the context of recorded history that can be evaluated objectively.

Now, I know what you're getting at. You're saying that the very fact that we haven't observed it necessarily makes a belief in it less logical, but consider that to be truly logical then we must also admit that we cannot conclusively prove that it has never happened. Therefore it must remain within the realm of possibility, whatever the odds of it being true might be.

By the same token, I could argue that it's illogical to rely on the faith group's history because refinements in understanding and perspective make such behavior obsolete in light of current views and concepts within the very same religion.

For example, if we were to use the example of Crusading armies sacking Jewish settlements on the road to Jerusalem, you can suggest that logically this allows you to evaluate the nature of this belief system, calling on that event to dismiss it as barbaric and cruel, and thus in conflict with its professed core teachings. On the other hand, I could point out that those who performed those actions still had a primitive and incomplete understanding of the truth of Christianity, and thus their actions do not factor into whether or not Christianity is a logical path today.

I am not discussing how they should do it. I am discussing how it is done. It's not an either/or thing. One can have a belief that is consistent with all four, but not always. Let's tie it back to the argument about omniscience and free will.


The Bible is very clear that god is omniscient and that we have free will.
Historically, Christians have believed this.
Personal experience says nothing except that we have an overwhelming feeling of free will which may be illusory.
Reason says that omniscience and free will are logically inconsistent.


Now, I used my experience and reason to formulate my beliefs about god. You, on the other hand, seem to derive your definition of god from scriptural and doctrinal sources, and have decided that logic and personal experience are secondary. I may be wrong.