|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
 Posted - 06/06/2011 : 04:32:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote]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. |
Again, no: your lack of free will is a logical conclusion when given the premises "god is omniscient" and "god is honest," and god happens to tell you what you're about to do. |
But you're assuming that I have no choice but to do what God tells me, that my actions will be the RESULT of His prediction.
| So in your hypothetical, are you assuming that no matter what happens, I will get the water? |
No, the hypothetical is that god tells you that you're going to get the water. What follows is a logical consequence of that utterance coupled with the assumptions that god is both omniscient and honest. |
And the "logical consequence" is that I will get the water, correct? So you're assuming that no matter what happens, I will get the water, right?
| 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. |
No, the consequence of you not getting the water is either proving that god is wrong or a liar. |
So are you agreeing that, in your hypothetical, there is a result in which I don't get the water, right? The result being that God's proven not to be omniscient. Are you with me so far? But if there is a result in which I don't get the water, then God can still be omniscient by NOT predicting that I would get it. Which is exactly what I'm trying to say.
| But in the hypothetical, god does "predict" you'll get the water. If your argument is nothing more than to argue in favor of a completely different hypothetical (one in which god doesn't tell you what you're about to do), then it's no counter-argument to mine. It's simply smoke and mirrors. |
The problem is that your hypothetical is making the assumption that God's prediction is a "cause" and my getting the water is the "effect". Neither one is a cause or an effect. If I have free will, I can choose to get the water or not. If God is omniscient, He will know which result will come to pass, and how His prediction will affect my choice, if it does at all.
| 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. |
No, I'm arguing that things that don't exist at the beginning of god's existence cannot impose their non-existent will on god's perceptions. |
And neither am I. God's foreknowledge of our choices isn't an imposition on His perceptions.
| And god has told you what you're about to choose. He knows you'll choose "A," and has told you so. Can you then choose "B?" |
Yes, in which case God would predict I would choose "B" instead. Only if I happen to choose "A" would He predict that I would. Foreknowledge is just knowledge. It doesn't cause us to choose what we will.
| In the hypothetical, he told you that you will. Stop trying to change the hypothetical to squirm your way back to having free will. |
By responding to a hypothetical which assumes I have no choice?
| 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. |
No, I'm saying that God's omniscience means that He will only make predictions that are accurate, and thus based on what we will end up doing in the end.
|
| Edited by - KingDavid8 on 06/06/2011 09:21:18 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2011 : 05:13:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
But you're assuming that I have no choice but to do what God tells me, that my actions will be the RESULT of His prediction. |
Appparently, you cannot distinguish between a logical proposition and cause-and-effect.
My assumptions are this: god is honest, god is omniscient, and god tells you you're going to do something. From those assumptions, I can make the logical conclusion that you don't have any choice but to do whatever god says you'll do, because logically, if you could do otherwise, it would mean that god isn't honest, or god isn't omniscient. Either one contradicts the assumptions with which the hypothetical began, and so would be illogical.| And the "logical consequence" is that I will get the water, correct? So you're assuming that no matter what happens, I will get the water, right? |
If god is both honest and omniscient, then that's the logical conclusion, not an assumption.| So are you agreeing that, in your hypothetical, there is a result in which I don't get the water, right? |
No, because we're assuming that god neither lies nor is mistaken.| The result being that God's proven not to be omniscient. Are you with me so far? But if there is a result in which I don't get the water, then God can still be omniscient by NOT predicting that I would get it. |
But within the hypothetical, he did say you'd get the water. If you want to disagree with the third assumption, then (as you agreed) we have nothing to discuss.| Which is exactly what I'm trying to say. |
Yes, you're trying to weasel your way out of a logical conclusion by changing the conditions of the hypothetical.| The problem is that your hypothetical is making the assumption that God's prediction is a "cause" and my getting the water is the "effect". |
No, it's not. It's a logical proposition.| Neither one is a cause or an effect. If I have free will, I can choose to get the water or not. If God is omniscient, He will know which result will come to pass, and how His prediction will affect my choice, if it does at all. |
Indeed. And within the hypothetical, he predicted you'd get water. If the hypothetical were different, we'd have nothing to discuss, as you already agreed.| And neither am I. God's foreknowledge of our choices isn't an imposition on His perceptions. |
That makes no sense at all.| And god has told you what you're about to choose. He knows you'll choose "A," and has told you so. Can you then choose "B?" |
Yes, in which case God would predict I would choose "B" instead. |
That wasn't the hypothetical situation.| By responding to a hypothetical which assumes I have no choice? |
Again, quit trying to redefine the word "assumes."| No, I'm saying that God's omniscience means that He will only make predictions that are accurate... |
So since he predicted you getting the water, then that must be accurate.| ...and thus based on what we will end up doing in the end. |
But the question is, once the prediction is made, could you choose to do otherwise? The answer is "not without making god wrong or a liar." And because he made every possible prediction at the beginning of his existence (to himself, at least), you can't do other than what he foresaw. |
- 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 - 06/06/2011 : 05:16:27 [Permalink]
|
I feel like we're just spinning our wheels here, so I'd like to try a different tactic and see if we can't move forward a bit. You're all saying that I can have free will, or God can be omniscient, but not both, right?
So assuming that I have free will, explain to me how it's impossible for God to be omniscient. How, if I do make my own choices, would it be impossible for God to know what choices I will end up making? |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2011 : 05:39:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
In that case, why did that feckless thug make Pol Pot? Remember, He knew that Pol Pot would do what he did. |
Why? I can't say for sure, but I would be willing to discuss it at another time rather than go off-track now. But, yes, Pol Pot made his own choices, as bad as they were, and, yes, God knew what they would be, as bad as they were. But God's knowledge didn't control Pol Pot's decisions.
| With free will, the deity must be surprised once in a while. |
Not if He is omniscient.
| Otherwise, the diety has fated every existance to an individualized set of parameters. |
Not fated, no. Just known. Again, knowing doesn't equal controlling. The fact that they aren't one and the same is fatal to the argument that God's omniscience is incompatible with our free will.
|
What is fatal to your argument is that the act of knowing in the context of an all powerful being must negate the existance of free will. Any time a diety can forsee from the time they create a creature every decision they will make, there is no free will. Only fate. That fate is controlling the creature. A fate designed by the creator.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/06/2011 : 05:50:40 [Permalink]
|
On a matter possibly relative to this thread (sorta hard to say) and of considerably more interest than most of it, there's this:
PARIS — Scientists said Sunday they had trapped and stored antihydrogen atoms for a record 16 minutes, a stunning technical feat that promises deeper insights into the mysteries of antimatter.
Particles and anti-particles annihilate each other in a small flash of energy when they collide.
At the moment of the big bang, nearly 14 billion years ago, matter and antimatter are thought to have existed in equal quantities. If that balance had persisted, the observable Universe we inhabit would never have come into being.
|
16 minutes; that's astounding! I'm looking forward to finding out more.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2011 : 05:57:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
I feel like we're just spinning our wheels here, so I'd like to try a different tactic and see if we can't move forward a bit. You're all saying that I can have free will, or God can be omniscient, but not both, right?
So assuming that I have free will, explain to me how it's impossible for God to be omniscient. How, if I do make my own choices, would it be impossible for God to know what choices I will end up making?
|
The only way that the construct works is that God doesn't know until the time the decision is made what the decision is. Not omnipotence. Clairaudience and Clairvoyance, maybe. Perhaps a little mind reading there, but not omnipotence.
The fatal flaw in the reasoning is that omnipotence requires the being possessing the omnipotence know in advance of any decision made by the creature. This negates the possibility of free will because there is a zero percent chance of the forsight being wrong.
Clairaudience and clairvoyance have no predictive portions to them.
Sort of like watching Jersey Shore where the audience doesn't know what god-awful stupid thing is about to happen next but they still watch out of a morbid sense of curiosity. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2011 : 08:20:24 [Permalink]
|
kingdavid8 said:
| They aren't mutually exclusive, though, as long as we're acknowledging that omnipotence only refers to knowledge, not intention or control. |
That only works if you were not created by this omnipotent entity. So sure, if there is no creator deity, then you could have one that sits passsively by with knowledge, but it can't have created anything.
You can't go down that path though, not and stick with your religion.
|
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 - 06/06/2011 : 09:27:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by KingDavid8
I feel like we're just spinning our wheels here, so I'd like to try a different tactic and see if we can't move forward a bit. You're all saying that I can have free will, or God can be omniscient, but not both, right?
So assuming that I have free will, explain to me how it's impossible for God to be omniscient. How, if I do make my own choices, would it be impossible for God to know what choices I will end up making?
|
The only way that the construct works is that God doesn't know until the time the decision is made what the decision is. Not omnipotence. Clairaudience and Clairvoyance, maybe. Perhaps a little mind reading there, but not omnipotence. |
Do you mean "omniscience"? Because we can all sometimes predict what a person will do, and we're frequently right about it. But that doesn't mean that the person doesn't have the free will to make their choices. Obviously, it's imperfect when it comes to use because none of us know anyone else perfectly. But if God does know us perfectly, then He could predict anything that we are going to do perfectly, even if we have free will.
| This negates the possibility of free will because there is a zero percent chance of the forsight being wrong. |
Again, we're assuming (for the sake of argument) that free will exists, and just questioning whether it's possible for God to predict our free-will decisions. Since we can do so now and then, I don't see any reason to suppose that it would be impossible for God to do it each and every time. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2011 : 09:31:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
That only works if you were not created by this omnipotent entity. So sure, if there is no creator deity, then you could have one that sits passsively by with knowledge, but it can't have created anything. |
So are you saying that free will and omniscience aren't incompatible? But that they only become incompatible if we're assuming that the one who is omniscient also created the beings?
In other words, if, hypothetically, I were to become suddenly omniscient for some reason, I could predict everything everyone on Earth will do without it proving that they don't have free will?
I'll take this further if the answer is "yes", but I want to clarify this first. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2011 : 09:42:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
So assuming that I have free will... |
Why would you assume that?| ...explain to me how it's impossible for God to be omniscient. How, if I do make my own choices, would it be impossible for God to know what choices I will end up making? |
It doesn't matter which one you assume first, because logically, the two things are mutually exclusive. If god is omniscient, then you must not have free will. So if you insist that you do have free will, then god must not be omniscient. In a logically consistent universe, both conditions cannot co-exist.
Of course, there is a third option, embraced by many: god isn't omniscient and free will is an illusion. In other words, that neither condition holds in this universe. |
- 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 - 06/06/2011 : 10:08:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Do you mean "omniscience"? Because we can all sometimes predict what a person will do, and we're frequently right about it. But that doesn't mean that the person doesn't have the free will to make their choices. Obviously, it's imperfect when it comes to use because none of us know anyone else perfectly. But if God does know us perfectly, then He could predict anything that we are going to do perfectly, even if we have free will. |
"Omniscience" doesn't mean the ability to look at a person's past actions and "predict" what they'll do next with perfect accuracy (which is what humans do, inaccurately). An omniscient being would know every decision that every person will make, period. It's a whole different kettle of fish. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2011 : 11:23:32 [Permalink]
|
I haven't danced on this pinhead yet, so here's my 2cents (and worth every penny):
It seems entirely obvious to me that "omniscience," with respect to events in time, implies an extra-dimensional perspective from which past, present, and future are visible -- in the same way that the three-dimensional visitor to Abbott's Flatland is able to view everything within that world's two-dimensional plane, while Flatland's inhabitants are limited to a one-dimensional, "edge-on" view.
Even if "God" can clearly see all the events of my life, I can't.
Moreover, omniscience would seem to imply an utterly comprehensive grasp of every material interaction in the universe. As with time, I am limited in my ability to comprehend every material factor which may lead me to make a particular decision. Unlike my dimensional handicap, however, I can, to a degree, improve my grasp of the material universe. In retrospect, at least, I might be able to somewhat improve my understanding of the factors that led me to make a past decision.
So, should there be an omniscient being capable of influencing me in some way, it can do little more than a) manipulate the material factors that motivate my decisions, or b) "suggest" a course of action to me not otherwise indicated by the material circumstances of which I'm aware. Either way, I have no way to distinguish such active intervention from its absence. Given these insurmountable limitations to my vision, I have, ironically, no "choice" but to go through life as if I have free will, whether I actually do, or not. And since I can't know one way or the other, the question is moot.
I realize many people place great importance on this matter, but for myself, I'm quite comfortable with the fact that this omniscient perspective is utterly inaccessible to me. Even if I'm not the direct cause of my decisions, I absolutely own the consequences, within this mortal realm. I can't imagine why I'd want to complicate things any further.
|
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2011 : 13:11:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The hypothetical assumes that you would end up getting the water because God foresaw you doing it. Foreseeing you drinking the water is the foundational premise of the entire hypothetical. |
Which would also mean that me having no choice but to get the water is also assumed. |
No, it is the logical conclusion deduced from God's omniscience.
In other words, it assumes I don't have free will, at least in this matter. |
The assumption is that God is omniscient, and the negation of free will is universal, not only in the particular of this hypothetical.
So you agree that the hypothetical assumes that I don't have free will, right? If I don't have free will, then I would have no choice but to do what God foresaw. But if I do have free will, then what God foresees will depend on what I ultimately decide to do, not the other way around. Which is exactly what I'm saying is the case. God's foreknowledge doesn't cause us to choose what we do. It's just knowledge. If I ultimately choose to drink the water, then God knows I will choose to drink the water. If I ultimately choose not to, then God knows I will choose not to. |
Have you heard of Schrödinger's Cat?
The very instant God foresees you drinking the glass of water is when your choice is realised. Which is in the beginning of time, long before you're ever born. That's when your decision is locked into the time-line of your life. This is when things become interesting: If you were created by God, then he created you knowing that you would drink the water. Since he had already forseen you drinking the water, he couldn't possible create you any other way.
The purpose of the hypothetical was to see what would happen if God specifically told me what I would do. If God isn't telling me, then there's no possibility of a visible conflict.
|
Which one of them are we talking about?
The one I was referring to didn't include God telling you he foresaw you drinking water, because him telling you wasn't necessary to to show that omniscience negates free will.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2011 : 13:25:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
You missed the whole "Thy (God's) will be done on earth as it is in heaven" which is asking for God's intervention. If God intervenes then free will is taken away, which he did intervened in the bible several times. |
Only if He intervenes 100% of the time in 100% of the matters, which He obviously does not. As long as we make some choices in our lives, we have free will. |
If God uses me as his puppet, forcing me to go where ever he decides, making me preach his gospel, I would still have free will becuase he lets me decide the colour on my T-shirt?
That's just a load of crap.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 06/06/2011 : 14:03:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
16 minutes; that's astounding! I'm looking forward to finding out more.
|
The important part now is to make sure no one can steal it and secretly smuggle it into the Vatican...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Mythicist position
