|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Omniscience, Omnipotence, the Fall & Logical Contradictions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Babylon Engish Dictionary writes: determinismn. doctrine which states that there is a reason for everything and all is predestined Somehow I can't see that Atheists feel that things are predestined, I know I don't. As far as I can see, there is nothing predestined. We forge our own destiny. A reason for everything, maybe, not enough info to draw a logical conclusion. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I'm an atheist, and I do have Deterministic tendencies. At the bottom, all decisions are electrical currents and chemicals in the mind. As such, they are subject to the laws of chemistry and physics. I do accept that quantum effects could become involved, but that still doesn't really admit free will, it just admits the possibility of a range of possible outcomes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Mikey.
mike the wiz writes: The argument wasn't in the least flawed but is logically sound. It is absolutely true, that whether God does or does not exist, this will never affect what you choose to eat. "Logically sound" isn't just a quality that some statement has: it's a description of the methods used to obtain a result. When you say something is "logically sound," you are not simply saying that it makes sense, but that you defined a number of premises, and drew a conclusion from those premises using systematic formulae. So, what premises are there to your argument that God's existence does not affect a person's decision? Well, the only premise you have is that God's existence does not affect a person's decision. Unfortunately, you chose this as your conclusion, also. Whenever your premise and your conclusion are the same thing, your argument is referred to as "circular." Thus, your argument is not logically sound. ----- If you wanted to make it logical, you'd have to do more than just make a statement. For instance, let's add a couple premises:
Premise A: God has a health code that forbids the consumption of chocolate. Premise B: I know that God will strike me down if I defy His health code. Premise C: I like chocolate Now, I can do some logic. Given these premises, will my decision to eat chocolate or fruit change, depending on whether or not God exists? Of course it will: I like chocolate, but, if God exists, He will kill me for eating chocolate. So, I will only eat the chocolate if God does not exist. That is what a logically sound argument looks like. Yours is just a statement that "makes sense" to you. "Makes sense" and "logically sound" are two very different things. Edited by Bluejay, : Re-formatted list of premises -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Perdition writes: At the bottom, all decisions are electrical currents and chemicals in the mind. As such, they are subject to the laws of chemistry and physics. I do accept that quantum effects could become involved, but that still doesn't really admit free will, it just admits the possibility of a range of possible outcomes. Quantum effects are not required to get around determinism. One way or the other, more information on how the brain and mind work is required before anything can be concluded. However, in the mean time, think of this: Yes, all decisions are electrical currents and chemicals of the mind.However, the mind has the ability to change those very electrical currents and chemical reactions due to our conscious thoughts and decisions. Therefore, the fact that all decisions are electrical currents and chemicals of the mind is not enough to show that they are, indeed, deterministic. Since the mind can alter these very same electrical currents and chemicals at will, in some fashion of a feed-back loop, more information on exactly how this "feed-back loop" works is required. A quick, basic, simple example: Let's say that if chemical A is used and electrical currents 1 and 2 fire, I will put my left sock on before my right one.However, if chemical B is used and electrical currents 3 and 4 fire, I will put my right sock on before my left one. Now, since the conscious brain has some control over which chemicals are used and which electrical currents are fired... I can manipulate my mind in such a way as to force chemical A and electrical currents 1 and 2 to be used, or force chemical B and electrical currents 3 and 4 to be used. Therefore, I can choose to put on whichever sock first I'd like. This may or may not be the way things are, but we don't know yet, more information on how the brain and mind work are required. However, this little scenario is enough to show that strict-determinism is not a must-be-true answer... yet, regardless of the effects of the quantum world. We'll see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Now, since the conscious brain has some control over which chemicals are used and which electrical currents are fired... I can manipulate my mind in such a way as to force chemical A and electrical currents 1 and 2 to be used, or force chemical B and electrical currents 3 and 4 to be used. Therefore, I can choose to put on whichever sock first I'd like But this just pushes things back again, why do you force chemical B over chemical A? That's a choice there as well, which comes from something else. I'm not a neurologist, so if there is some cutting edge discovery that will show a "conscious choice" that isn't predicated by previous causes, I'll actually be very relieved. I haven't heard of anything, and to be honest, haven't looked very hard of late. Do you know of any papers or things I can look at?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Perdition writes: But this just pushes things back again, why do you force chemical B over chemical A? That's the question, isn't it? I didn't say I could show determinism is patently false. I just said I can show you that determinism isn't patently true, either. This is exactly what I mean. Why (and how) do we force chemical B over chemical A? More information on this sort of question is required before we can conclude anything about determinism.
I'm not a neurologist, so if there is some cutting edge discovery that will show a "conscious choice" that isn't predicated by previous causes, I'll actually be very relieved. I haven't heard of anything, and to be honest, haven't looked very hard of late. Do you know of any papers or things I can look at? Papers are unnecessary. Only common knowledge of the most basic of brain-scans are required. The ones where the brain has a stable state, and then the patient can say they are thinking of something and certain areas of the brain light up. Then they can say they're thinking of something else, and different areas of the brain light up again. And at any time the patient says they aren't thinking of anything imparticular, the brain's lights return to the original stable state. This shows that (somehow, someway) we are capable of consciously controlling when distinct areas of our brains activate and deactivate with our will alone. That's all that's required to show that full determinism isn't shown to be true (yet) even though the chemicals and electrical currents that make up our brain are in-and-of-themselves deterministic. It very well may be that our decisions to turn those areas on and off are deterministic in and of themselves.. but for now, there is nothing to suggest such. It certainly seems like the deterministic nature of the variables themselves (when taken independently) should force the end result to be deterministic as well. But we can't argue with experimental data. The experimental data currently shows that we have an ability to turn on and off distinct areas of our brain simply by willing it to be so. As I said before, more information is required before a conclusion can be validated. I, as well, am no neuro-scientist. And my background in the area is strictly layman. If you (or anyone else) do have additional information that further illuminates this experimental data, that would be very interesting to hear about. However, as far as I've ever heard, we've yet to fully understand these aspects of our brain and mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
That's the question, isn't it? I didn't say I could show determinism is patently false. I just said I can show you that determinism isn't patently true, either. This is exactly what I mean. Why (and how) do we force chemical B over chemical A? More information on this sort of question is required before we can conclude anything about determinism. True, we can't conclude anything with 100% certainty, but my own logic points me to consider determinism as my default until something comes along and evidences something else.
Only common knowledge of the most basic of brain-scans are required. The ones where the brain has a stable state, and then the patient can say they are thinking of something and certain areas of the brain light up. Then they can say they're thinking of something else, and different areas of the brain light up again. And at any time the patient says they aren't thinking of anything imparticular, the brain's lights return to the original stable state. This shows that (somehow, someway) we are capable of consciously controlling when distinct areas of our brains activate and deactivate with our will alone. This shows correlation. When we think of one thing, one area lights up and when we think of something else, some other place lights up. This doesn't, in and of itself, point to one side or the other because we don't know what is the cause behind those area lighting up. The very fact that we expect a cause, though, seems to indicate that our brains are wired to think in deterministic ways. We don't ever believe things happen without a cause, until we get down to quantum mechanics, and the very fact that QM seems so counterintuitive is another indicator that we're wired to see things deterministically. When we're talking about our brains themselves, it seems a small leap to consider it's possible that our brains see things deterministically because our brain itslef is deterministic, but I concede this is by no means a slam-dunk argument.
As I said before, more information is required before a conclusion can be validated. Agreed. And even if things are determinisitic, I consider free will to be, at least, an necessary illusion, so for the most part, I act as though I have it and don't worry too much about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Hi
You're stating a lot of things but proving very little. The burden of proof was never on me because choices/freewill, exists. That we have genuine choices in our mind, every day, which don't involve another entity, is a truism. You didn't specifically answer my post. It's easy to put me under fire and never respond to my content. But now you need to prove that God's existence affects choice. For example - if judgement day does happen, can I claim that murdering you is God's fault? How can I when logically judgement day only exists if my God exists, and my God says, "Do no murder". Philosophically, the hypothetical problems of freewill and determinism might be genuine problems for Theism, but they are not problems for a Christian whom believes in an inerrant bible. Why would it follow that God would say, "do no murder" if I didn't have a choice to? If the biblical God exists, then it's not a problem. My evidence is Exodus 20. Go and read it, as it is my premise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Mikey.
mike the wiz writes: You're stating a lot of things but proving very little. I find it ironic that you followed the previous statement with this:
mike the wiz writes: The burden of proof was never on me because choices/freewill, exists. That we have genuine choices in our mind, every day, which don't involve another entity, is a truism. Mikey, it was never my intent to prove anything. I am a proponent of free will, myself, and I think you're right. But, being right doesn't make your argument a truism, and it certainly doesn't give you the right to use bad arguments. You put forth a scenario wherein a choice was tested in the presence of God and in the absence of God. You concluded that God's presence has no impact on your choice. But, you did not actually do the experiment, so you cannot actually say what the results would be. You simply assumed that the results you expected would happen. There is no reason to believe that your argument is valid, because either God exists or He doesn't: there is no opportunity to compare the two options, so you cannot say that you know what would happen when the two are juxtaposed. The plight of free will is not so desperate that we have to resort to bad arguments in order to support it. If free will really exists, the concept will eventually be upheld by logic and scientific inquiry. In the meantime, be patient and remain neutral. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdeyemiBanjo Junior Member (Idle past 4097 days) Posts: 1 Joined: |
If a father knows that because his son has behaved badly the father will give the boy a good hiding, is the father capable of not giving the boy a good hiding? Obviously! The father just knows that the boy needs a hiding and he, the father, means to give the boy one. The "omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive" argument is weak! God is omnipotent, but this does not mean that He will act at variance with His nature; for example, God CANNOT lie (because it is against His nature - i.e. a self-imposed limit - Titus 1:2) but this does not mean He is not omnipotent
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
So God could lie if he wanted to?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Welcome to EvC. Kick your shoes off ... set a spell.
God is omnipotent, but this does not mean that He will act at variance with His nature. You are saying that your god thing is constrained in its actions by its nature. You are saying your god is limited. That is not omnipotence. But, fist things first. Says who that your god guy is omnipotent? And why should we believe a self-serving source?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
God is omnipotent, but this does not mean that He will act at variance with His nature; for example, God CANNOT lie (because it is against His nature - i.e. a self-imposed limit - Titus 1:2) but this does not mean He is not omnipotent Yes it does.Unless you have a different definition for the word than what it actually means. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AdeyemiBanjo writes:
You seem to be saying that God CAN lie but chooses not to. God is omnipotent, but this does not mean that He will act at variance with His nature; for example, God CANNOT lie (because it is against His nature - i.e. a self-imposed limit - Titus 1:2) but this does not mean He is not omnipotent A God that chooses not to use certain powers isn't really omnipotent. Only the actual use of omni powers counts, not just the potential to use them.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024