Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's a difference between exact certainty and basic certainty, but I think you're getting overly technical and literal-minded here.
Nonsense. Omniscience is not a fuzzy or "basic" concept. An entity without perfect foreknowledge is simply not omniscient, end of story. In a discussion such as this, precision is not just not merely required... it is the subject of the discussion itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
It's a matter of perspective. In any event how do you have more than "the illusion of free-will" in your system? In a materialist system aren't our actions determined by genetics and conditioning? Even if some chaotic force has a role, that's outside of us and irrelevant to our choices.
In the first place, I'm sure you recognize that I do not myself believe that we have only an illusion of free will. I have cut the Gordian Knot by rejecting the existence of an omniscient being, and so an acceptance of free-will does not require me to accept a self refuting internal contradiction. I wrote that you can have one or the other, but not both. I've picked my one.
But in terms of free will vs. determinism, in "my system" (as you put it) "free will" is not a particularly important concept. If I were worried about eternal damnation in a lake of fire, then "free will" would be a really big issue for me. Since I am not, it is not.
In a materialist system our actions are "determined" by a vast interplay of genetics, conditioning, learning, biology, physics, chemistry... the list of inputs is a long one. But the key feature of the output is that it is fundamentally unpredictable. All things being equal, we would act the identical way every time. But all things are never equal, and so we respond and react to those different inputs in different ways.
Further, as individuals we respond to the same inputs different ways based upon (as you pointed out) nature and nurture... but also the immediate environment. Part of what we learn through nurture is how to adjust specific behavioral triggers and filters. For example, one of our triggers is what I call "the urgency threshold." Faced with a situation where we must react, a circumstance of low urgency will generally permit us the leisure of gathering all the facts and thinking about them before acting (Example: Deciding which way to turn at an intersection). In a situation of higher urgency, we will make the same sort of decision with far fewer facts, fewer inputs, and less thought and deliberation (Example: Deciding which way to turn at an intersection when the person behind you is honking and the light has just turned yellow). In many cases the same individual is likely to make different decisions in those circumstances. As I said; unpredictable.
The decisions we make are informed by all these different inputs, and then we make them. We can call it whatever we want, but our first person experience is that we have volition. That's what we experience, and we had to call its something, and that is what we label it, so that is what it is.
Is it ultimately deterministic? Of course. Is knowing that of any significant utility to anybody? Nope. So who cares?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Although clever I suspect this is something of a word game. If God created the Universe than it seems plausible God exists outside of space and time. To discuss choice, etc for a being living outside of time is maybe irrelevant or beside the point. Or other possibilities.
A God existing "outside time and space" does nothing more than propose a mechanism for his omniscience. But it does not decouple the contradiction between omniscience and free will. Such a God is still omniscient in all contexts, to include within the context of time and space where "free will" must obtain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Yes you can find logical contradictions in omnipotence in the exact terminology, but not everyone is by nature so literal-minded.
Ah... but that is hardly the point. Objective reality is far more "literal-minded" than any human being. And that is where the contradiction lays. Certainly you do not pretend that what is or is not true is merely a function of differential literal-mindedness between people?
The falling piano will crush you regardless of how literal-minded you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Likewise God is often seen as beyond the Universe or Nature so possibly analogies to nature are flawed or perhaps its omnipotence is more a matter of "God can do anything within the Universe" or some other explanation. I seem to recall St. Augustine believed God could not change the value of pi.
Omnipotence has always been understood to mean "capable of doing everything that is possible." This is why the discussion of "Can god create a rock he cannot lift" is not just a rhetorical stalking horse, it was at one time a serious theological debate. It is part of the recognition that, no, God cannot do that and yet could still be omnipotent.
The contradiction between omniscience and free will is, like the value of pi, another example of the impossible thing over which God cannot have control... but with one larger implication.
Omniscience does not limit God's power to do some things... it eliminates his volition in any things. From an operational perspective such a God can continue to move the clouds, destroy stars, and tot up the fall of every sparrow. But what that God can no longer do is have a "plan" or "make a decision" or choose to grant or withhold his benefits.
Omniscience turns God into the same sort of non-sentient, impersonal, automatic entity that the universe already bears all evidence of being. So why not just simplify things and reject the idea?
We have the universe already. An omniscient god adds nothing to the equation.
A God existing "outside time and space" does nothing more than propose a mechanism for his omniscience. But it does not decouple the contradiction between omniscience and free will. Such a God is still omniscient in all contexts, to include within the context of time and space where "free will" must obtain.
I was referring to will concerning God itself.
Also if God sees all our choices simultaneously it doesn't mean our choices don't exist. Perhaps he sees it analogous to a two, three, or four dimensional map but it doesn't mean we do or that he forces actions. Our actions are still our own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Ah... but that is hardly the point. Objective reality is far more "literal-minded" than any human being.
And you know this how? There are some physicists who don't even believe in objective reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Omnipotence has always been understood to mean "capable of doing everything that is possible." This is why the discussion of "Can god create a rock he cannot lift" is not just a rhetorical stalking horse, it was at one time a serious theological debate. It is part of the recognition that, no, God cannot do that and yet could still be omnipotent.
The contradiction between omniscience and free will is, like the value of pi, another example of the impossible thing over which God cannot have control... but with one larger implication.
Your statement seems to lead to a possible, if maybe slightly disturbing, possibility. That being omniscience is "knowing everything that is possible to know." This could mean God does not know the future because it is not possible to know it. I don't really believe that, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
We have the universe already. An omniscient god adds nothing to the equation.
God isn't intended to merely be a widget or something to add to an equation.
It is fun to think about, but it probably isn't bothering me like you hope it would.
That God as I understand Him to be, creator of everything which has a beginning, exists, I know from reason.
Now as regards the drama God wants to play with mankind: creation, fall, redemption, and union with Him after death, and the whole salvation script in Jesus Christ, that is all founded on faith, which faith however is not necessarily against reason.
However, I will say that there is a lot of anthropomorphic concepts in the whole drama, metaphors if you will.
Now with atheists, there is no such drama, if I undersand them correctly.
No such drama that goes into transcendental dimensions.
For atheists they just happen to have come about from pure chance with particles or waves or strings, metaphorical things in physics; wherefore they atheists are not supposed to be intelligent, conscious, and free things -- that is the logical conclusion [on the assumption that they indeed have any genuine sense of logic since everything is pure chance for them].
How do they explain the nose that stays put in their face?
From pure chance, of course.
Now, just ask them what they mean by chance, and they will say that it is in effect what is called a lucky break.
I want to ask them why they are always having lucky breaks for just being alive and operating; as for example, with just the nose in their face it is a very extensive longstanding lucky break.
Okay, addressing HistorianDude and any atheists around, what is your drama if any, and if none what is the ultimate explanation for your presence in the totality of existence?
When people talk about "God", there are all sorts of ideas: can save, can do wrath, can annihilate, can love, can create, ... yet no evidence.
Atheists simply say there is no such God -- that's just brainwashed followers being fooled by religions into war actions and pay religions.
Or it's possible that God is only one part of the equation and there is an adversary whose goal is to keep as many people as possible in the dark. Maybe something to think about.
When people talk about "God", there are all sorts of ideas: can save, can do wrath, can annihilate, can love, can create, ... yet no evidence.
Atheists simply say there is no such God -- that's just brainwashed followers being fooled by religions into war actions and pay religions.
That is not my question, here is my question(s) [lines in bold]:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
That God as I understand Him to be, creator of everything which has a beginning, exists, I know from reason.
Now as regards the drama God wants to play with mankind: creation, fall, redemption, and union with Him after death, and the whole salvation script in Jesus Christ, that is all founded on faith, which faith however is not necessarily against reason.
However, I will say that there is a lot of anthropomorphic concepts in the whole drama, metaphors if you will.
Now with atheists, there is no such drama, if I understand them correctly.
No such drama that goes into transcendental dimensions.
For atheists they just happen to have come about from pure chance with particles or waves or strings, metaphorical things in physics; wherefore they atheists are not supposed to be intelligent, conscious, and free things -- that is the logical conclusion [on the assumption that they indeed have any genuine sense of logic since everything is pure chance for them].
How do they explain the nose that stays put in their face?
From pure chance, of course.
Now, just ask them what they mean by chance, and they will say that it is in effect what is called a lucky break.
I want to ask them why they are always having lucky breaks for just being alive and operating; as for example, with just the nose in their face it is a very extensive longstanding lucky break.
Okay, addressing HistorianDude and any atheists around, what is your drama if any, and if none what is the ultimate explanation for your presence in the totality of existence?
See if they will answer that question.
They will say they don't know?
Let us hear from them.
Ryrge
Okay, atheists here and everywhere, answer those questions simple ones above, and don be evasive, that is what I always see you guys doing.
Yes, you don't believe in gods, but I am asking you questions that do not have to do with your believing in gods or not.
Readers here, see if they will be facing my questions above, or they will seek to evade, run away, that is what they always do.
Here, let me repeat them:
How do they (atheists) explain the nose that stays put in their face?
From pure chance, of course.
Now, just ask them what they mean by chance, and they will say that it is in effect what is called a lucky break.
I want to ask them why they are always having lucky breaks for just being alive and operating; as for example, with just the nose in their face it is a very extensive longstanding lucky break.
Okay, addressing HistorianDude and any atheists around, what is your drama if any, and if none what is the ultimate explanation for your presence in the totality of existence?
Anyway, just start with this question:
What is your drama if any, and if none what is the ultimate explanation for your presence in the totality of existence?
And then we will go into the other questions, and don't run way, and yes I know your mantra already: you just don't have any belief in gods, but be intelligent as curiosity is a sign of intelligence (as scored in IQ tests), and think and answer the question I am asking you, otherwise you are seeking refuge in unintelligence.
Everything in the universe works in its own way -- just as "nose on face". That does not prove your God.
God is a human made up figure. European white man made up a European-look God; Asian Indians made up an Asian Indian-look God ... Aliens from outer space made up a God without a nose because there is no air in the universe other than on Earth.
And, Christians think God used a rib made the first woman ...
Everything in the universe works in its own way -- just as "nose on face". That does not prove your God.
God is a human made up figure. European white man made up a European-look God; Asian Indians made up an Asian Indian-look God ... Aliens from outer space made up a God without a nose because there is no air in the universe other than on Earth.
And, Christians think God used a rib made the first woman ...
You say:
Everything in the universe works in its own way -- just as "nose on face". That does not prove your God.
That proves your God, the universe, or some factor in the universe to be specific.
Everything in the universe works in its own way -- just as "nose on face". That does not prove your God.
That proves your God, the universe, or some factor in the universe to be specific.
Now, tell me, does the universe have a beginning?
Ryrge
Universe does not need anyone to bend over pray and repent to it ... it's quite different from a religious God.
How the universe came about is a matter of research and study -- a scientific matter, not a religious matter -- in other words, if one day we find a good answer, there is no requirement to start a religion around the explanations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
