|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
 Posted - 06/04/2011 : 21:46:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
You are wrong, Descartes was wrong (you are advocating his position on omnipotence if you were unaware), it has been explained to you why you are wrong, and you repeating this same drivel over and over will not change the fact that you are wrong. |
But you haven't shown how I am. Knowing that something is going to happen does not cause it to happen.
| If your deity knows everything you will do before it creates you then your entire life has been predestined. You can't do differently because your god specifically created you to do the things you will do. |
No, that's incorrect. Omniscience only means that God knew what I would do. It doesn't mean that He, or His foreknowledge, caused me to do so.
| It is logically impossible for an omnipotent deity to be capable of giving you free will. |
An omnipotent being would certainly be capable of creating people who have free will. If he was unable to do so, then He wouldn't be omnipotent. Omnipotence only means that God is capable of doing anything. It doesn't mean that He actually does everything.
| Your constant misuse of "control" aside, this is not the same thing as direct control no matter how many times you try to set that strawman on fire. |
I'm not saying it's direct control, but if you're saying that all of the decisions we make (or appear to make, if you'd rather) are predestined by God at the moment of our creation, then you're saying that God ultimately controls all of our decisions, even if it's indirectly. You're saying (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that if I chose "A" over "B", that I did so because God knew I would.
What I'm saying is that I'm the one who made the choice. God only knew what I would choose. If I'd chosen "B" instead, then God would have known I would choose "B". I wasn't fated or predestined to choose "A". It was my free-will decision to choose it. God's omniscience only meant that He knew I would choose it, not that He, or His foreknowledge, caused me to do so somehow. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2011 : 21:55:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Knowing that something is going to happen does not cause it to happen. |
Knowing with divine omniscience that something is going to happen means that if it doesn't happen, it's not divine omniscience. Claiming to have a "free" choice when god knows the result already is simply logically contradictory, since you cannot choose any option that god did not foresee. One of the two premises must be false. Either you don't have free will or god is not omniscient. Both cannot be true.
Your arguments about "cause" (above) and "control" have been nothing but attempts at distractions away from this central logical problem. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2011 : 22:28:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
God knew what those choices would be an infinite amount of time before you were ever any sort of realized being. You're making the incredibly hubristic claim that your brain cells today sent ripples back through gazillions of years of time to affect god's cognizance of your existence. |
Ummm...no, I'm not.
| If god were to visit your home and tell you, "I foresee that in ten minutes, you will get up off the couch and get yourself a glass of ice water," then you would do so (if you could do otherwise, god would be imperfect). |
Only if I chose to do so. But let's suppose, hypothetically, that I wanted to do the exact opposite of what God said I would do, just to see what would happen. In that case, I wouldn't get up off the couch and get a glass of water. In which case God, being omniscient, would know that His telling me that I would get the water would cause me not to. In which case, He wouldn't tell me that I would get the water, since He would know that I wouldn't do so. Only if I absolutely would end up choosing to get the water in ten minutes would He predict that I would.
| This has nothing to do with god "controlling" your actions, but only with the logical consequences of your god being omniscient. Logically speaking, if god has perfect knowledge of what you will "choose," then you simply wouldn't be able to "choose" otherwise. |
Yes, I would. In which case, God would know that I would choose otherwise. What God knows I will choose is dependent on what I will choose, not the other way around.
(The interesting question is what sort of train of thought would go through your head if god told you he foresaw you doing something repugnant, like murdering your wife and kids. At least, I hope that idea is repulsive to you. But if god tells you that he sees you doing it, then you're going to do it - period - no matter how offended you might be by the idea now.)
|
That is an interesting question. I believe that God would only do so if He knew for a fact that His telling me I would kill them wouldn't prevent it. As repulsive as the idea is, maybe I will later go insane and God's prediction/warning wouldn't affect my decision-making in that moment. Or maybe it would end up somehow being the right thing to do (for example, they have acquired a horrible communicable disease that could wipe out everyone on Earth, but killing them would prevent it from spreading to anyone else). So even though I can't comprehend it when God is telling me this, if He is telling me that I will definitely end up doing it, then I can only imagine that it will be in a situation like one of those, where His prediction won't change my mind.
But as with the water example, it's also possible that God telling me I will kill them would cause me not to kill them. In which case, God wouldn't tell me that I would definitely do so, since I won't definitely do so. If I won't kill them, then God wouldn't be telling me that I will kill them, because omniscient beings tend not to be wrong about stuff.
A good example of this kind of thing is in the Bible, when Jesus tells Peter that he (Peter) would deny Jesus three times. Peter was repulsed by the idea and swore he wouldn't do so, but ended up doing so anyways when he felt threatened by the crowd. I believe that Jesus knew that Peter would deny Him whether He told Peter so or not. That if Jesus' prediction would have stopped Peter, Jesus wouldn't have given the prediction in the first place. Peter's reaction to the realization that he fulfilled Jesus' prediction isn't "it's okay, because I had no choice in the matter", but more like "damn, He was right - I am a weakling!" |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2011 : 22:44:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Knowing with divine omniscience that something is going to happen means that if it doesn't happen, it's not divine omniscience. |
Yep, which means that if I will choose "A", God's divine omniscience will know I will choose "A". And if I will choose "B", God's divine omniscience will know I will choose "B". But it does nothing to suggest that I'm not in control of whether to choose "A" or "B".
| Claiming to have a "free" choice when god knows the result already is simply logically contradictory, since you cannot choose any option that god did not foresee. |
No, it just means that whatever option I choose, God will foresee it. It does absolutely nothing to suggest that the choice isn't mine to make.
| One of the two premises must be false. Either you don't have free will or god is not omniscient. Both cannot be true. |
They absolutely can. God's omniscience only means that He knows in advance what I will end up choosing. It doesn't suggest that I'm not the one doing the choosing.
Your arguments about "cause" (above) and "control" have been nothing but attempts at distractions away from this central logical problem.
|
No, they're attempts to show you that God's foreknowledge of our choices doesn't mean that we don't make the choices. There's nothing about God's omniscience that takes control of our choices out of our hands. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2011 : 23:16:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Ummm...no, I'm not. |
Are too. Is this really the level of argument you want to get down to?| Only if I chose to do so. But let's suppose, hypothetically, that I wanted to do the exact opposite of what God said I would do, just to see what would happen. |
Aren't there Biblical injunctions against testing god?| In that case, I wouldn't get up off the couch and get a glass of water. In which case God, being omniscient, would know that His telling me that I would get the water would cause me not to. In which case, He wouldn't tell me that I would get the water, since He would know that I wouldn't do so. |
So, hypothetically, you wouldn't have even thought to "do the exact opposite of what God said," since he wouldn't have said it, thus being completely contradictory to the hypothetical in the first place. Offering a hypothetical which is contradictory to itself does not make your argument stronger, it makes it ridiculous.| Only if I absolutely would end up choosing to get the water in ten minutes would He predict that I would. |
That's exactly what I said. How is such a choice "free?"| Yes, I would. In which case, God would know that I would choose otherwise. What God knows I will choose is dependent on what I will choose, not the other way around. |
God knew what you would choose before you were even a hint of being you. You didn't exist, other than as someone foreseen by god as existing. God's knowledge cannot be dependent on something that didn't exist when god came by his knowledge.
Don't forget that philosophically, to be "knowledge," the thing "known" must be true. If god "knows" something that fails to come to pass, then he didn't actually have "knowledge" of it, by definition. But if god is omniscient, then he has true knowledge of everything, so if he knows something will happen, then we can be utterly assured that it will happen, without fail.| That is an interesting question. I believe that God would only do so if He knew for a fact that His telling me I would kill them wouldn't prevent it. |
If his telling you that you would kill your family could prevent it, then either god would be mistaken, or he would be lying to you. Take your pick.| But as with the water example, it's also possible that God telling me I will kill them would cause me not to kill them. |
Only if god is lying or mistaken. Either way, he wouldn't be god, would he?| A good example of this kind of thing is in the Bible, when Jesus tells Peter that he (Peter) would deny Jesus three times. Peter was repulsed by the idea and swore he wouldn't do so, but ended up doing so anyways when he felt threatened by the crowd. I believe that Jesus knew that Peter would deny Him whether He told Peter so or not. That if Jesus' prediction would have stopped Peter, Jesus wouldn't have given the prediction in the first place. |
In which case, the Bible wouldn't mention any such prediction as having come true, and it wouldn't be a "good example" of anything because it would have just been made up.| Peter's reaction to the realization that he fulfilled Jesus' prediction isn't "it's okay, because I had no choice in the matter", but more like "damn, He was right - I am a weakling!" |
That's because as an industry, Christianity hinges upon people engaging in a lot of self-loathing and somehow thinking it's a virtue. The Bible isn't a philosophical tome with a detailed examination of the problem of omniscience conflicting with free will, the New Testament in particular was written as a tool of emotional persuasion, including the sanctification of base human traits we'd all be better off without. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2011 : 23:26:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
But it does nothing to suggest that I'm not in control of whether to choose "A" or "B". |
You didn't exist to be in control of whether you would choose "A" or "B" when god knew what you would choose.| No, it just means that whatever option I choose, God will foresee it. It does absolutely nothing to suggest that the choice isn't mine to make. |
You didn't exist when the results of the choice were known.| They absolutely can. God's omniscience only means that He knows in advance what I will end up choosing. It doesn't suggest that I'm not the one doing the choosing. |
You didn't exist to do the choosing when the decision was known.| Your arguments about "cause" (above) and "control" have been nothing but attempts at distractions away from this central logical problem. |
No, they're attempts to show you that God's foreknowledge of our choices doesn't mean that we don't make the choices. There's nothing about God's omniscience that takes control of our choices out of our hands. |
How could you be in control of it when the result was known before you existed at all?
The question isn't "does god control our choices," but instead "how can you control your choices?" Offer us a mechanism (other than "can too!") through which you can make a free choice, when what you will choose had been known by god for an eternity before you were born. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 04:27:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by KingDavid8
So is the threat of sending a person to jail if they break the law. But that doesn't mean that the person doesn't have free will. It certainly may limit what a given person will do in a given situation, but it doesn't remove free will entirely from that person in all matters. People still have free will.
|
Yes it does actually mean that the person does not have free will, because the police cannot use entrapment to catch criminals because if they do, then they are breaking the law. Entrapment is the equivalent to hardening peoples hearts, tormenting and sending out evil spirits. |
But it still doesn't remove free will entirely. All it does is limit what a person will do in a given situation.
| If there are limits to freewill then freewill is no longer free; it is limited. |
All free will is limited to some degree. Try as I might, I can't flap my arms and fly around the city. But I certainly am able to make choices.
| Does a caged zoo animal have freewill? |
I believe so. If not, it's more to do with the "animal" part than the "caged" part.
|
If freewill is limited, it is not freewill, it is limited will.
A caged animal does not have freewill any more than a man that is caged has freewill, freewill has nothing to do with it being an animal because it was an animal before it was caged.
The fact that you cannot sprout wings and fly around the city is actually proof that you do not have freewill and the freewill that you think that you have is an illusion.
If the OT god was acting on his own behalf at any time to make things go along with his plans, he took the freewill away from the people that he affected.
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 07:40:17 [Permalink]
|
This is rapidly becoming pointless. Kingdavid8 can't admit that he is wrong because his whole worldview hinges upon his god being omniscient. He has to fail at logic to preserve his absurd beliefs. He isn't ever going to own up to his error.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 08:58:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Ummm...no, I'm not. |
Are too. Is this really the level of argument you want to get down to? |
Where someone is telling me that I'm arguing something that I'm not, and I have to correct it? No, I don't want get to that level of argument. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm arguing here.
| Only if I chose to do so. But let's suppose, hypothetically, that I wanted to do the exact opposite of what God said I would do, just to see what would happen. |
Aren't there Biblical injunctions against testing god? |
Yep, but let's say I'm doing it anyways, for the sake of argument.
| In that case, I wouldn't get up off the couch and get a glass of water. In which case God, being omniscient, would know that His telling me that I would get the water would cause me not to. In which case, He wouldn't tell me that I would get the water, since He would know that I wouldn't do so. |
So, hypothetically, you wouldn't have even thought to "do the exact opposite of what God said," since he wouldn't have said it, thus being completely contradictory to the hypothetical in the first place. |
The problem is that your hypothetical assumes that I'm going to end up getting the water. In other words, it assumes that I don't have free will and can't choose not to do so.
| Only if I absolutely would end up choosing to get the water in ten minutes would He predict that I would. |
That's exactly what I said. How is such a choice "free?" |
So in your hypothetical, are you assuming that no matter what happens, I will get the water? If so, then, yes, God would predict that I would get the water and would be right. But it's not God's omniscience that's removing the possibility of me not getting the water, it's your hypothetical that is doing so.
As long as I have free will, I might not end up getting the water, and if I don't, God, being omniscient, wouldn't predict that I absolutely will (unless you're also assuming in your hypothetical that God isn't omniscient).
| Yes, I would. In which case, God would know that I would choose otherwise. What God knows I will choose is dependent on what I will choose, not the other way around. |
God knew what you would choose before you were even a hint of being you. You didn't exist, other than as someone foreseen by god as existing. God's knowledge cannot be dependent on something that didn't exist when god came by his knowledge. |
Sure it can, if He's omniscient. Or are you assuming that God can only know about things that physically exist at the time He sees what they will do? If so, then you're assuming God isn't omniscient.
| Don't forget that philosophically, to be "knowledge," the thing "known" must be true. If god "knows" something that fails to come to pass, then he didn't actually have "knowledge" of it, by definition. But if god is omniscient, then he has true knowledge of everything, so if he knows something will happen, then we can be utterly assured that it will happen, without fail. |
That's true. But that still doesn't mean I don't have the choice. It only means that God knows what I will choose. If I will choose "A", then God knows I will choose "A". If I will choose "B", then God knows I will choose "B". But the choice between "A" and "B" is still my choice. That God simply knows what it will be doesn't change this.
| That is an interesting question. I believe that God would only do so if He knew for a fact that His telling me I would kill them wouldn't prevent it. |
If his telling you that you would kill your family could prevent it, then either god would be mistaken, or he would be lying to you. Take your pick. |
So is your hypothetical assuming that me killing my family is inevitable, that I can't choose otherwise? If so, then it's your hypothetical that is removing my free will, not God's omniscience.
| But as with the water example, it's also possible that God telling me I will kill them would cause me not to kill them. |
Only if god is lying or mistaken. Either way, he wouldn't be god, would he? |
As long as your hypothetical allows me the free will to kill my family or not, then all God knows is whether I will or not. If I will, God knows that I will. If I won't, God knows that I won't. If what God tells me will change the outcome, then God knows that what He tells me will change the outcome.
Being omniscient, he wouldn't predict that I will, and tell me so, if the end result is that I won't. If you're saying that God's prediction might end up being wrong in the end, then you're assuming that God is not omniscient.
Basically, your hypotheticals seem to be assuming that I don't have free will, or assuming that God isn't omniscient. As long as you drop those assumptions, I can show you an outcome in which my free will and God's omniscience are both intact at the end. As long as I can do so, God's omniscience is not incompatible with my having free will.
| A good example of this kind of thing is in the Bible, when Jesus tells Peter that he (Peter) would deny Jesus three times. Peter was repulsed by the idea and swore he wouldn't do so, but ended up doing so anyways when he felt threatened by the crowd. I believe that Jesus knew that Peter would deny Him whether He told Peter so or not. That if Jesus' prediction would have stopped Peter, Jesus wouldn't have given the prediction in the first place. |
In which case, the Bible wouldn't mention any such prediction as having come true, and it wouldn't be a "good example" of anything because it would have just been made up. |
Right. If it wasn't written down, we wouldn't be discussing it.
| Peter's reaction to the realization that he fulfilled Jesus' prediction isn't "it's okay, because I had no choice in the matter", but more like "damn, He was right - I am a weakling!" |
That's because as an industry, Christianity hinges upon people engaging in a lot of self-loathing and somehow thinking it's a virtue. The Bible isn't a philosophical tome with a detailed examination of the problem of omniscience conflicting with free will, |
Because it isn't a problem, since omniscience is only about knowing. It doesn't cause us to choose what we do.
the New Testament in particular was written as a tool of emotional persuasion, including the sanctification of base human traits we'd all be better off without.
|
You're welcome to your opinion, but I'd rather not get off-topic right now. |
| Edited by - KingDavid8 on 06/05/2011 09:28:18 |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 09:14:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Offer us a mechanism (other than "can too!") through which you can make a free choice, when what you will choose had been known by god for an eternity before you were born.
|
God's omniscience is that mechanism. Only if we are assuming that God isn't omniscient would it be impossible for Him to know what choices we will make.
Think of it this way - you're arguing that God's omniscience is incompatible with my free will, right? So one or the other can, hypothetically, be true, but not both simultaneously. So let's say, hypothetically, that I do have free will, and that God's omniscience is what is questionable. So God might be omniscient and might not, okay?
So, assuming (for the sake of argument) that I have free will, explain to me how it's impossible for God to be omniscient. Assuming that I can choose between "A" and "B" tomorrow, explain to me how it's impossible for a God who, hypothetically, knows everything to know what I will choose in advance. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 09:26:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
If freewill is limited, it is not freewill, it is limited will. |
I disagree. As long as we are capable of making some choices, we have free will. I can't choose to flap my arms and fly. The laws against bank robbery pretty much mean that I won't choose to rob a bank. My belief that murder is abhorrent pretty much means that I won't murder someone. My allergies to fish and poultry pretty much mean that I won't eat fish or poultry (unless I do so accidentally).
But I can still choose to post as the SFN forum or not. I can still choose what to have for lunch (though limited by what's available to me at the time, and my allergies, of course). I can still choose what TV shows to watch (though limited by what's on TV at the time). The fact that I can still choose many things means that I have free will.
| A caged animal does not have freewill any more than a man that is caged has freewill |
Men who are caged still have free will, since they can choose whether to stand or sit, whether to speak or not, whether to open their eyes or close them. Their free will is certainly more limited than a person who isn't in a cage, but they can still make choices.
| The fact that you cannot sprout wings and fly around the city is actually proof that you do not have freewill and the freewill that you think that you have is an illusion. |
So your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is simply that free will doesn't exist at all, not that God's omniscience prevents it from existing, right? If so, I disagree. I believe that free will is limited to some degree, but we can still choose many things.
| If the OT god was acting on his own behalf at any time to make things go along with his plans, he took the freewill away from the people that he affected. |
At worst, He only limited it to a greater degree than it was already limited, and then only to certain people at certain times. If you're arguing that we don't have free will at all, then there's nothing God can do to remove free will from anyone. You can't remove what doesn't exist in the first place. |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 09:57:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
If freewill is limited, it is not freewill, it is limited will. |
I disagree. As long as we are capable of making some choices, we have free will. I can't choose to flap my arms and fly. The laws against bank robbery pretty much mean that I won't choose to rob a bank. My belief that murder is abhorrent pretty much means that I won't murder someone. My allergies to fish and poultry pretty much mean that I won't eat fish or poultry (unless I do so accidentally).
But I can still choose to post as the SFN forum or not. I can still choose what to have for lunch (though limited by what's available to me at the time, and my allergies, of course). I can still choose what TV shows to watch (though limited by what's on TV at the time). The fact that I can still choose many things means that I have free will.
| A caged animal does not have freewill any more than a man that is caged has freewill |
Men who are caged still have free will, since they can choose whether to stand or sit, whether to speak or not, whether to open their eyes or close them. Their free will is certainly more limited than a person who isn't in a cage, but they can still make choices.
| The fact that you cannot sprout wings and fly around the city is actually proof that you do not have freewill and the freewill that you think that you have is an illusion. |
So your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is simply that free will doesn't exist at all, not that God's omniscience prevents it from existing, right? If so, I disagree. I believe that free will is limited to some degree, but we can still choose many things.
| If the OT god was acting on his own behalf at any time to make things go along with his plans, he took the freewill away from the people that he affected. |
At worst, He only limited it to a greater degree than it was already limited, and then only to certain people at certain times. If you're arguing that we don't have free will at all, then there's nothing God can do to remove free will from anyone. You can't remove what doesn't exist in the first place.
|
You need to look up what freewill means, because free means without limits in my dictionary and freewill in my dictionary means without limits also. Can you tell me what dictionary you are using to get your definition of freewill? |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 10:10:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
You need to look up what freewill means, because free means without limits in my dictionary and freewill in my dictionary means without limits also. Can you tell me what dictionary you are using to get your definition of freewill?
|
Definition of "Free Will":
Per Merriam-Webster
1: voluntary choice or decision
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
Per Cambridge:
the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence
Per Oxford:
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Per MacMillan:
the idea that people can choose what to do and are responsible for their own actions, especially compared to the theory that everything people do is already decided by God or fate
Per Encarta:
the ability to act or make choices as a free and autonomous being and not solely as a result of compulsion or predestination
Which dictionary are you using that defines "free will" as being "without limits"? |
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 10:24:35 [Permalink]
|
| So one or the other can, hypothetically, be true, but not both simultaneously. So let's say, hypothetically, that I do have free will, and that God's omniscience is what is questionable. So God might be omniscient and might not, okay? |
If you have freewill then god's omniscience is not questionable -- there is no "might or might not" -- it's illogical. Omniscience implies that the future is *fixed*. Once we go from a 99.99999...% probability to a full 100% (If omniscience exists it's a full 100%)...once we make that leap in percentage we will no longer be dealing with *chance*(a non-fixed future) or mere knowledge; we've entered realms of causality however epiphenomenally.
If you've ever watched the movie, Anchorman, recall the scene where one of the guys states that 60% of the time his cologne works everytime, to which Will Ferrel responds: "That makes no sense". If there's a 60% chance that someone would make the "wrong choices", god would only be able to speculate based on that 60% chance. What you're arguing is that, god can speculate beyond the 60% chance, that someone with a 60% percent chance of making the wrong choices will make so and so choice. But to speculate beyond that 60% percent chance (in god's case 100%) there would have to be other factors that would increase the 60% chance to whatever percentage, in which case, it wouldn't be a 60% chance.
Perhaps the god believers have been glorifying and anthropomorphosizing this figure too much; akin to children who glorify thier favorite super heroes e.g "superman can do anything, he can even move entire planets" "jesus can do anything, he can even walk on water and feed hundreds with a couple of fish and loaves of bread" |
"For all things have been baptized in the well of eternity and are beyond good
and evil; and good and evil themselves are but intervening shadows and damp
depressions and drifting clouds.Verily, it is a blessing and not a blasphemy
when I teach: ‘Over all things stand the heaven Accident, the heaven
Innocence, the heaven Chance, the heaven Prankishness." -Nietzsche |
| Edited by - teched246 on 06/05/2011 10:35:10 |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 11:36:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
| So one or the other can, hypothetically, be true, but not both simultaneously. So let's say, hypothetically, that I do have free will, and that God's omniscience is what is questionable. So God might be omniscient and might not, okay? |
If you have freewill then god's omniscience is not questionable -- there is no "might or might not" -- it's illogical. Omniscience implies that the future is *fixed*. |
All it means is that I will make the choices that I will make, which is true whether or not God is omniscient. God simply knowing what I will choose (which is all omniscience implies) does not mean that I will not be making the choices myself. It does not take the choice of "A" or "B" out of my hands. It just means that God will know which one I will pick. If I pick "A", He'll foreknow "A". If I pick "B", He'll foreknow "B". But it's still my choice.
| If there's a 60% chance that someone would make the "wrong choices", god would only be able to speculate based on that 60% chance. What you're arguing is that, god can speculate beyond the 60% chance, that someone with a 60% percent chance of making the wrong choices will make so and so choice. |
I'm not sure what you mean by "making the wrong choices". Could you clarify, please?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Mythicist position
