Omniscience of Divine Being.

Rather bad analogy. A ball falling is not the same as a complex organic analog computer reacting to information.

I think it is exactly the same thing. The "complexity" has nothing to do with it. It can be as complex as you like--still it's an automatic response.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ramesh also likes to offer the image of an individual life as a long mural say 50 miles long. You can't see it all at once although it exists. We walk along the mural of our life and so it appears it unfolds in time but the end already exists, just as the end of Hamlet was written before the play was performed.lfen

You can think so all you want. Design an experiment to prove it.I propose that you create an algorathim to show how someone reacts to choices, and be able to predict their choice on non-life threatening things 100% of the time. (Chocolate or strawberry ice cream??)

I know of no such algorithm. But it seems reasonable that anything that is produced by automata can only yield more sophisticated automata.Will you please construct an algorithm by which the automata yielded a free agent?This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-24-2005 20:35 AM

---

The dragon is by the side of the road, watching those who pass. Beware lest he devour you. We go to the Father of Souls but it is necessary to pass by the dragon.--Cyril of Jerusalem

quote:

---

What this means is that time is an illusion. To us it seems real. But God knows no time. For Him all is present. Our past is his present. Our future is his present.

​

Therefore, he does not "foresee" someone doing something. He just sees them doing it. And to watch someone doing something is not the same thing as making them do it.

---

No, but it does mean that the future is set; so the set future would be making him do it.

quote:

---

Some seem to disdain the distinction that we make between natural and moral necessity, as though it were altogether impertinent in this controversy: "that which is necessary (say they) is necessary; it is that which must be, and cannot be prevented. And that which is impossible,is impossible, and cannot be done: and therefore none can be to blame for not doing it," And such comparisons are made use of, as the commanding of a man to walk who has lost his legs, and
condemning and punishing him for not obeying; inviting and calling upon a man who is shut up in a strong prison, to come forth, &c. But, in these things, Arminians are very unreasonable. Let common sense determine whether there be not a great difference between these two cases; the one, that of a man who has offended his prince, and is cast into prison; and after he has laid there a while, the king comes to him, calls him to come forth to him; and tells him, that if he will do so, and will fall down before him, and humbly beg his pardon, he shall be forgiven and set at liberty, and also be greatly enriched, and advanced to honour; the prisoner heartily repents of the
folly and wickedness of his offence against his prince, is thoroughly disposed to abase himself, and accept of the king's offer; but is confined by strong walls, with gates of brass, and bars of
iron. The other case is, that of a man who is of a very unreasonable spirit, of a haughty, ungrateful, wilful disposition; and, moreover, has been brought up in traitorous principles, and has his heart possessed with an extreme and inveterate enmity to his lawful sovereign; and for his rebellion is cast into prison, and lies long there, loaded with heavy chains, and in miserable circumstances. At length the compassionate prince comes to the prison, orders his chains to be knocked off, and his prison-doors to be set wide open; calls to him, and tells him, if he will come forth to him, and fall down before him, acknowledge that he has treated him unworthily, and ask his forgiveness, he shall be forgiven, set at liberty, and set in a place of great dignity and profit in his court. But he is stout and stomachful, and full of haughty malignity, that he cannot be willing
to accept the offer: his rooted strong pride and malice have perfect power over him, and as it were bind him, by binding his heart: the opposition of his heart has the mastery over him, having
an influence on his mind far superior to the king's grace and condescension, and to all his kind offers and promises. Now, is it agreeable to common sense to assert, and stand to it, that there is
no difference between these two cases, as to any worthiness of blame in the prisoners; because,forsooth, there is a necessity in both, and the required act in each case is impossible? It is true, a man's evil dispositions may be as strong and immoveable as the bars of a castle. But who cannot see, that when a man, in the latter case, is said to be unable to obey the command, the expression is used improperly, and not in the sense it has originally, and in common speech; and that it may properly be said to be in the rebel's power to come out of prison, seeing he can easily do it if he pleases; though by reason of his vile temper of heart, which is fixed and rooted, it is impossible
that it should please him?

---

Well, this presupposes that we do have freedom of will. The example also seems to support, "might makes right;" and inextricably links sycophancy to morality.IMO, respect must be earned. I ain't gonna get on my knees and fellate someone just 'cause they happen to have power.

The concept of God being "ouside of time" means there is no future, and no past, only the present. The human concept of time is an illusion. Edward's discussion was meant to show that even though one might be mentally bound in a way that is just as imprisoning as being physically bound, nonetheless one is responsible for one's actions. The second prisoner, though not physically bound, was mentally bound by his own character traits.As regards "might makes right," the Prince in the analogy is assumed to be a lawful, rightful, and moral sovereign (like God).

quote:

---

The concept of God being "ouside of time" means there is no future, and no past, only the present. The human concept of time is an illusion.

---

I know, and that's irrelevant.If everything is in the present, then everything is also in the future and in the past -- it's all just a matter of perspective. However, the future perspective (where everything is in the past), shows us that there's no free will, as the past is set. This means that everything is set -- no matter what perspective you're using. The past and (possibly) present perspectives allow for only the illusion of free will to remain intact.

quote:

---

Edward's discussion was meant to show that even though one might be mentally bound in a way that is just as imprisoning as being physically bound, nonetheless one is responsible for one's actions.

---

We hold people responsible because it's practical. Holding the person's programmers -- parents/teachers/society -- responsible doesn't address the issue at hand. So, instead we work to reprogram the individual -- and you cannot do this unless you hold the person's program responsible for causing his behavior.
As reprogramming is iffy at best, we don't chance it for some individuals. Instead, we imprison them for life, or just kill them.
Works quite nicely.
Doesn't address the root of the problem, but that root is hard to address. I mean, how do you go about reprogramming a society, and just what changes are needed? You need to know how to properly program an individual before it's practical to try to alter how society programs individuals.

quote:

---

As regards "might makes right," the Prince in the analogy is assumed to be a lawful, rightful, and moral sovereign (like God).

---

If you made the laws that made you lawful, used that to support 'rightful', and then decreed that you were moral, then that says nothing but, "I am what I am."Using that method; I, too, am the lawful, rightful, and moral sovereign.

God knows what is gonna happen this i believe. we choose the path but he knew where we were gonna end up anyway.

As long as you realize this negates the concept of "free will".Welcome to EvC by the way.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

about a month ago I started a similar thread relating to prayer changing the outcome of events, prayer changing outcomes and free will were pretty much interchangeable.One of the following must be true.1. Freewill does not effect the outcome of events, because god is omniscient, all powerful, and infallible and has an all inclusive plan.2. God does not have an all inclusive plan, is omniscient, all powerful, and infallible but allows people to change the future based on free will.or3. God has an all inclusive plan and can effect outcomes, but he is not omniscient, all powerful, and infallible because he cannot effect free will so his plan may be altered by the actions of mortals.you can choose whichever one you like and there are other alternatives in which god plays a lesser role, the point is all 3 premises can not coexist, at most only 2 premises are true. If god created everything, and knew how everything he created was going to behave, but still did it anyways, then freewill is only an illusion.

I think our concept of 'freewill' has been skewed so as to create a paradox where none actually exists.Freewill means to do something voluntarily of one's own accord. It does not mean power to create or alter reality. I believe this reality is what it is and cannot be anything else. The future is just as real and determined as the past. Even if we are determined to make a certain decision we are still responsible for that decision and still have freewill if we are fully conscious of our voluntary decision.So... in short, there might be freewill in a determined universe where there is consciousness and opportunity to choose.

Hangdawg13 this is only possible if there are multiple choices which can be made in a given situation. If the future is determined then it can only work in one way.Thus the choices you could have had can only have occured in this way.You cannot therefore have multiple choices by which you would have the freewill to choose between.

Thanks for your reply.I understand that what I said sounded dumb, but it made sense in my head at the time. I've just had another thought which now makes sense, but will probably sound dumb later:I said that consciousness was necessary for freewill. Maybe this is because if we are conscious we are able to "see" a little of the future and a little of the past. If we can say that God has determined everything because he "knew" what would happen, can't we also say that we can determine things because we know what will happen? If two beings share the same knowledge are they both exercising their freewill together?

Hangdawg,Are you saying that? I wouldn't say that. How does "knowing" equate to "determining"??? Say I see two cars on a collison course but that doesn't mean I can prevent the collison nor that I determined it.This is a major question. I hope that in time you will give it serious thought. What is "will"? And can it be "free" or not? I'm mean this question in a scientific sense not a question about religious dogma.Another question, do you think God is more complex or less complex than a human being?lfen