|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
 Posted - 06/09/2011 : 03:52:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
It isn't a false assumption, it is a logical conclusion deduced from the premises. Even if your deity is free to act without regard to time, when it created you knowing everything you will ever do, it can't be anything other than divine intent that you should do those things. |
No, it could also simply be knowledge, not "divine intent".
| You, after all, are subject to the rules of time even if your deity is not, so cause-->effect are locked into place where you are concerned and the order of events is this- omnipotent deity knows everythign you will ever do, creates you, you do the things it knew you would do. |
Right. But the false assumption here is that I do them because it knew it would. I'm saying that I do them because I choose to, and that it knew I would because it was omniscient.
| It is clear that you are incapable of understanding this pretty simple idea. No matter how much special pleading you engage in you can't logically reconcile omnipotence and free will. |
Yes, I can. If I have free will, then I can, using my free will, choose what I will choose. If God is omniscient, then He can predict what I, using my free will, will choose. Thus God's omniscience doesn't stop me from using free will. |
 |
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 04:00:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Explain to me in some coherent fashion how it's possible to know the results of a decision that hasn't yet been decided. |
No problem. If God is outside of time as we know it, then He is not subject to time as we know it. If I am going to make a choice tomorrow, then that choice will have been finalized tomorrow. God, being outside of time, can look ahead to the choice I will make, and then know it. What is "tomorrow" to me isn't "tomorrow" to God. It's just a point on our timeline, the same way "today", "yesterday" and "August 12, 1302" is. God, being outside of time, can see the whole timeline at once. And if He decides to change something on the timeline by acting within it (by, say, talking to a person one day), He, being omniscient, would know what the ultimate results of the change will be.
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 04:06:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Before you were born, God knew whether you would choose "A" or "B" when the time came for that choice. |
Correct.
God decided at the moment of Creation that you would choose "A".[/quote]
No, He didn't "decide". He just "knew".
[quote]When the time did come for that choice, nothing had changed.
You thought you had the option (free will) to choose either "A" or "B".
In fact, God had known since the beginning of the Universe that you would choose "A" - He had decided that was to be.[/quote]
Sorry, but you're assuming there's a cause-and-effect here when there isn't. God knowing what I will choose doesn't cause me to choose what I do. It's just that God, being omniscient, knows everything, including what I will choose. It's just knowledge, not intent.
[quote]God could not be omniscient if he did not know that you would choose "A". God could not be ominpotent if you did not do what he ordained you to do - i.e. choose "A". Therefore, if you chose "B", you would completely invalidate God's all-knowing and all-powerful powers. There cannot be a God if man has free choice.[/quote]
If I choose "B", then God, being omniscient, would know I will choose "B". I choose "A" or "B" because I have free will. God knows what I will choose because He is omniscient. One doesn't cause the other.
[quote]You will not accept the truth that I have just told you. That is because you do not have freedom of choice.[/quote]
Or it's because I'm not assuming a cause-and-effect that isn't there. The fact that one thing precedes the other doesn't mean that one causes the other. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 06:59:16 [Permalink]
|
Paradox aside, assuming choosing A is "good" and B is "evil", why would a supposedly benevolent Creator create beings that he knew would sometimes choose B? Why not only create the human who will always choose A? He's all powerful, why can't he do that?
I've been involved in or watched debates like this so many times over the past 15 years, and the result it that I find Christian theology more and more absurd and barbaric every year. To the point where I can barely even stand to discuss it anymore. It's like arguing about the existence of Zeus and Odin. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
 Posted - 06/09/2011 : 07:15:30 [Permalink]
|
| Ugh! this is getting so old. Let's cut to the chase. There is only one underlying question and it's the elephant in this room. How can an imaginary, made up God know anything? Zeus was a fictitious God, so was Apollo, Poseidon too. Isis, Krishna, Bhagavan and Christ(as God) the list is very long consisting of male and female names. Every last one of them were created by man with a writing stick and clay, eventually with pen and paper. No matter how many false deities are created the simple reality is, now get this,,, they are all, every last one of them, made up . So KingDavid8 seeing how with all your illogical confabulatory replies, how can an imaginary anything know anything? SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 07:28:13 [Permalink]
|
| ...and thus spoke Zarathrustra |
"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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 09:23:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Paradox aside, assuming choosing A is "good" and B is "evil", why would a supposedly benevolent Creator create beings that he knew would sometimes choose B? Why not only create the human who will always choose A? He's all powerful, why can't he do that? |
Because we wouldn't want to be like that. If we can only choose good and never evil, then, ultimately, we're morally neutral. True "good" wouldn't exist for us. I'd rather screw up now and then, and even face the possibility of having some evil bastard kill me, rather than be nothing but a puppet for God. If I have no significant choices in my life, I'd just as soon not exist at all. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 09:28:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Ugh! this is getting so old. Let's cut to the chase. There is only one underlying question and it's the elephant in this room. How can an imaginary, made up God know anything? |
If He's imaginary and made up, then He can't. But the issue at hand is whether the idea of God being omniscient is irreconcilable with the idea of us having free will. If you want to go to another topic, then let's make another thread.
But for what it's worth, until I was twenty I also believed that God was imaginary and made up. And I'd even say it's still possible that He is. But I doubt it. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 09:34:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by KingDavid8
But the false assumption here... |
Fercryinoutloud, it's not an assumption.
|
Then you need to establish that it's a fact, which you haven't yet. I say it is an assumption on your part, and it's one I definitely disagree with.
Now, you can probably argue that me saying that God's prediction DOESN'T cause one's action is an assumption. And that may be. But if we're saying that God's foreknowledge is irreconcilable with our free will, then you would have to show conclusively that God's foreknowledge in some way causes us to choose what we do, directly or indirectly. If it may or may not, if either of our assumptions COULD be right, then there is no definite paradox. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 09:41:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by KingDavid8
But the false assumption here... |
Fercryinoutloud, it's not an assumption.
|
Then you need to establish that it's a fact, which you haven't yet. I say it is an assumption on your part, and it's one I definitely disagree with.
Now, you can probably argue that me saying that God's prediction DOESN'T cause one's action is an assumption. And that may be. But if we're saying that God's foreknowledge is irreconcilable with our free will, then you would have to show conclusively that God's foreknowledge in some way causes us to choose what we do, directly or indirectly. If it may or may not, if either of our assumptions COULD be right, then there is no definite paradox.
|
No matter how many times you say it is an assumption, it will not alter the fact that it is a deduction from the premises given. Your lack of understanding does not mean that it can be whatever you want it to be. I understand that your delusion requires you to deny the logic, but you have to face up to reality and recognize facts.
@sailingsoul- Yeah, all deities are invented by humans, that is pretty clear. We were just trying to engage in a little thought exercise here, but kingdavid8 can't follow along.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 09:44:24 [Permalink]
|
| Coincidentally, Sam Harris has been discussing the absence of free will on his blog recently (see also follow-ups one and two). His arguments are compelling. An omniscient god makes no appearance in them, though I suspect that Harris, like make of us, would simply consider such a being to be another cause of determinism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 10:01:13 [Permalink]
|
I think this conversation has run it's course.
We all have pointed out the cause-->effect issues and the inherent impossibilities in separating the "knowing" and "fated" aspects.
The core premise that KD8 has persented has been completely rejected as logically impossible by everyone present outside of KD8.
I must logically conclude that this particular aspect of KD8's faith leaves a logical blind spot for him. It is the acceptance of a concept that is a logical impossibility without completely ignoring salient basic assumptions and their logical downstream impact.
But that's just the opinion of this old Witch. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 10:44:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Then you need to establish that it's a fact, which you haven't yet. |
No, I don't. You are immensely confused about the differences between empirical reality and a purely logical argument.
In a logical argument, we state our assumptions and from them (and their necessary characteristics) derive conclusions. "Facts" need not enter the equation at all.
Premise 1: god is omniscient.
Premise 2: god is honest.
Premise 3: god says, "you will get a glass of water."
Conclusion: you will get a glass of water.
Any other conclusion is logically invalid. If you fail to get a glass of water, it means, logically, that either the first premise is false, or the second premise is false. We don't give a rats' ass about how you might be "forced" into getting a glass of water, or anything else about the real world. Logically, given the above three premises (and the characteristics of omniscience and honesty), you exercising "free will" by doing anything but getting a glass of water is simply impossible.
And if you claim that getting a glass of water after being told that you will is an exercise of free will, then you're arguing for a definition of "free will" that nobody else uses.| But if we're saying that God's foreknowledge is irreconcilable with our free will, then you would have to show conclusively that God's foreknowledge in some way causes us to choose what we do, directly or indirectly. |
No, in this logical argument we only need to show that omniscience is incompatible with free will as they are defined, which has been done.
If you really want a proposed mechanism through which such a controlling action might take place, then we would first have to demand a demonstration that you, indeed, have free will, and demand a demonstration that your god is, indeed, omniscient (or even exists). If you can't demonstrate either one, then demanding a conclusive cause for the latter eliminating the former is to put the cart before the horse.
Almost none of the rest of us believe that either one exists, so really, we're just humoring what we think of as your delusions when we grant these things as premises for a discussion of the logic around them. Asking us to offer up causal mechanisms for either imaginary thing goes far beyond "the sake of argument." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2011 : 11:20:00 [Permalink]
|
| This is getting tedious, clearly God sees both outcomes ahead of time, then makes popcorn and waits to see which one you choose. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Mythicist position
