Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Omniscience, Omnipotence, the Fall & Logical Contradictions.
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 256 of 354 (510659)
06-02-2009 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by mike the wiz
06-02-2009 5:49 AM


determinism
Babylon Engish Dictionary writes:
determinism
n. 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by mike the wiz, posted 06-02-2009 5:49 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Perdition, posted 06-02-2009 11:31 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 257 of 354 (510671)
06-02-2009 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by bluescat48
06-02-2009 7:50 AM


Re: determinism
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by bluescat48, posted 06-02-2009 7:50 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Stile, posted 06-03-2009 12:35 PM Perdition has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 258 of 354 (510701)
06-02-2009 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by mike the wiz
06-02-2009 5:49 AM


I like chocolate
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by mike the wiz, posted 06-02-2009 5:49 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2009 6:34 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 259 of 354 (510775)
06-03-2009 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Perdition
06-02-2009 11:31 AM


Re: determinism
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Perdition, posted 06-02-2009 11:31 AM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Perdition, posted 06-03-2009 12:38 PM Stile has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 260 of 354 (510776)
06-03-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Stile
06-03-2009 12:35 PM


Re: determinism
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Stile, posted 06-03-2009 12:35 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Stile, posted 06-03-2009 12:53 PM Perdition has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 261 of 354 (510780)
06-03-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Perdition
06-03-2009 12:38 PM


Re: determinism
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Perdition, posted 06-03-2009 12:38 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Perdition, posted 06-03-2009 1:58 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 262 of 354 (510797)
06-03-2009 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Stile
06-03-2009 12:53 PM


Re: determinism
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Stile, posted 06-03-2009 12:53 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 263 of 354 (512375)
06-17-2009 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Blue Jay
06-02-2009 6:44 PM


Re: I like chocolate
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Blue Jay, posted 06-02-2009 6:44 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Blue Jay, posted 06-17-2009 8:17 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 264 of 354 (512388)
06-17-2009 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by mike the wiz
06-17-2009 6:34 AM


Re: I like chocolate
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2009 6:34 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
AdeyemiBanjo
Junior Member (Idle past 4068 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 02-04-2013


Message 265 of 354 (689871)
02-05-2013 12:34 PM


The "omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive" argument is weak!
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Straggler, posted 02-05-2013 12:49 PM AdeyemiBanjo has not replied
 Message 268 by AZPaul3, posted 02-05-2013 6:39 PM AdeyemiBanjo has not replied
 Message 269 by Theodoric, posted 02-05-2013 7:07 PM AdeyemiBanjo has not replied
 Message 270 by ringo, posted 02-07-2013 12:30 PM AdeyemiBanjo has not replied
 Message 277 by Coragyps, posted 02-07-2013 5:18 PM AdeyemiBanjo has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 266 of 354 (689873)
02-05-2013 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by AdeyemiBanjo
02-05-2013 12:34 PM


Re: The "omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive" argument is weak!
So God could lie if he wanted to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by AdeyemiBanjo, posted 02-05-2013 12:34 PM AdeyemiBanjo has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 267 of 354 (689874)
02-05-2013 12:56 PM


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.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

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: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 268 of 354 (689893)
02-05-2013 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by AdeyemiBanjo
02-05-2013 12:34 PM


Re: The "omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive" argument is weak!
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by AdeyemiBanjo, posted 02-05-2013 12:34 PM AdeyemiBanjo has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 269 of 354 (689894)
02-05-2013 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by AdeyemiBanjo
02-05-2013 12:34 PM


Re: 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
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by AdeyemiBanjo, posted 02-05-2013 12:34 PM AdeyemiBanjo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 270 of 354 (689999)
02-07-2013 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by AdeyemiBanjo
02-05-2013 12:34 PM


Re: The "omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive" argument is weak!
AdeyemiBanjo writes:
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
You seem to be saying that God CAN lie but chooses not to.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by AdeyemiBanjo, posted 02-05-2013 12:34 PM AdeyemiBanjo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Theodoric, posted 02-07-2013 12:34 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024