|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Free will vs Omniscience | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
You have stated before that you believe GOD to be "complete" rather than simply "good". I might point out that God and His fallen angel together are in a sense "complete" but that God is eternally good.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.- Francis A. Schaeffer The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.- Criss Jami, Killosophy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: You have stated before that you believe GOD to be "complete" rather than simply "good". I might point out that God and His fallen angel together are in a sense "complete" but that God is eternally good. Yet you provide neither evidence OR any reasoned argument to support your assertion or to respond to the points I raised in the post to which you are replying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Phat writes: I know that Tangle is simply dismissing all of this religious hoopla, What? Devils and plots in heaven and god being outfoxed and sending a god that was only a man to make up for something a snake did thousands of years earlier? Phat, this is not just un-fucking-believable, it's really embarrassing .
but I might point out that he would follow the hypothetical maths which "prove" that the universe sprang from nothing. He is thus responsible for the belief that he chooses regarding origins, meaning, and destiny. You're never going to stop making stuff up not only about what you want to believe but also what everyone else does too are you? I don't choose anything about origins, I haven't a clue and never will. I just point out errors you people make when you attempt to recruit bits of science you don't understand for your neurotic god. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Way back in this topic, Message 127, ringo and I were arguing about the idea of God knowing whether or not a person would end up on His side or not. Looking back on the arguments which I made, I have kept one of them: Message 119... and stand by it as an intrinsic part of my belief in Gods foreknowledge, omnipotance, and allowing for evil (for a time) as part of the overall plan. jar brought up one of his standard arguments regarding Gods responsibility regarding ultimate foreknowledge. Message 118. I understand that in the Scripture, God does indicate that He knows the outcome of someone's faith. It is true. Ultimately, God is omniscient. God is able to know one's faith outcome, does not mean GOD knows everyone's faith outcome. In majority of cases, I believe God just let the person make this critical choice on himself. If you do know God says that He knows everyone's future on faith, please let me know the verses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Lets assume for a moment that my basic belief is correct in that God had foreknowledge of what Lucifer would decide to do and therefore so loved the world that He sent His Son (even before Lucifer chose to rebel) and essentially made an endrun around the devils plot to ensnare humanity through tricking them into willfully accepting the knowledge of good and evil which made them responsible for every good thing and every evil thing which they knowingly chose to do. In this case, God is not responsible for our free will nor on whether we accept Jesus or not(and assuming that to be the antidote for being tricked by Satan) I know that Tangle is simply dismissing all of this religious hoopla, but I might point out that he would follow the hypothetical maths which "prove" that the universe sprang from nothing. He is thus responsible for the belief that he chooses regarding origins, meaning, and destiny. God has a plan to deal with sin right from the beginning. God may not know when and through whom will sin appear. But He knows it will appear. that is why Jesus is there with God. God gives angels and humans free will because He wants to fix the problem of sin from the very very beginning. Without sin, what is wrong to have a full free will in God's Kingdom? Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 625 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
The perhaps your god lacks the knowledge about each individual to determine whether or not they deserve to go to heaven upon their deaths?
Perhaps your god lacks the power to send people to heaven or hell?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Sarah Bellum responding to Juvenissun writes: I would argue several beliefs:
Then perhaps your god lacks the knowledge about each individual to determine whether or not they deserve to go to heaven upon their deaths?Perhaps your god lacks the power to send people to heaven or hell? "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.- Francis A. Schaeffer The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.- Criss Jami, Killosophy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1337 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
The perhaps your god lacks the knowledge about each individual to determine whether or not they deserve to go to heaven upon their deaths? Perhaps your god lacks the power to send people to heaven or hell? What you said illustrates you lack the basic understanding to Christianity. God set up Heaven and Hell. People use free will to choose which one to go. God does not have to send any human to anywhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 625 days) Posts: 826 Joined:
|
But still the idea that the deity is merely very powerful rather than all-powerful is an interesting distinction. It fits in with the polytheistic view of a god as merely a very powerful being.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 625 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
But still the idea that the deity is merely very powerful rather than all-powerful is an interesting distinction. It fits in with the polytheistic view of a god as merely a very powerful being.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Whatever happened to "God is everywhere"? Hell is a place where Gods Spirit is absent."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That's not what I said. That's what you keep saying and I keep telling you that's not what I said. If satan were an intrinsic representation of the whole idea of autonomy from the Holy Spirit... It has nothing to do with "autonomy from the Holy Spirit". There is no "Holy Spirit" so autonomy from it is irrelevant. You might as well be talking about autonomy from the Easter Bunny. The "Satan" character plays several roles in the Bible but mostly he represents an alternative viewpoint. Everything isn't black and white. God's viewpoint isn't always "right" - note how He changes His mind from time to time. Reality is more subtle than the simple-minded "spiritual warfare" that you try to push.
Phat writes:
Why did I have to wade through all of that rubbish when the answer is obvious: Yes. If God foreknew that Lucifer would choose to rebel and set up a dualistic good/evil paradigm that would impact human decisions and human events during the entire history of humanity on planet earth, would He be responsible for allowing even the possibility for one of his angelic beings to break free from the monistic authority of a loving Oneness God? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. If God is omnipotent and/or omniscient, yes, He is responsible for everything. That has been answered for you time and time again in this thread. Just look at the hoops you have to jump through just to express your idiotic theology."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Sarah Bellum writes: "Looking at everything in this universe, I can see the trajectories of all the matter and energy in it and all the changes that will happen. To me, this young universe is as deterministic as a cuckoo clock. Eventually intelligent beings will develop in this universe. Those beings will say they have free will, but I can see, from the initial conditions, what will happen every time one is faced with a choice." Why do you need to invoke another "sufficiently powerful intellect" for this example? Isn't this the exact same thing as watching a recording of something that happened yesterday? If, yesterday, you decided out of your own free will to choose pink lemonade over white lemonade... and I record it.And I view that recording a few times. And I play it a few times. And every time I play it - I can (accurately) predict what you will choose in the recording... Does this mean that your initial decision was made without having free will? That seems to be what you're implying.But I don't see any reason to accept it. Why does recording the occurrence of something, and looking back on that recording imply that free will is removed from the decision that was recorded?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Tangle writes: Dinking or not drinking lemonade either pink or white does not involve moral choices; you do not feel morally constrained. Exercising trivial neutral preference is not normally considered a freewill issue. You mentioned killing a baby isn't like taking out the trash - implying that one is easy and one is not - and further implying that a "not-easy one" is also impossible. I bring up lemonade vs trash to show that even when a choice is difficult (taking out the trash is more difficult than drinking a cool glass of lemonade...) - it's still possible to do. Killing a baby is not impossible because it's "morally difficult" to choose.It's simply that - morally difficult to choose. Such difficult adds in a consequence of extreme bad feelings and regret. Some will be capable of handling these, some will not. For some, like psychopaths, it's very easy to "handle these" because they don't have to handle them - they do not feel the bad feelings or regret. But, again, this doesn't make it impossible for a non-psychopath to choose the morally difficult decision - and then deal with the very bad feelings and regret.
Tangle writes: Stile writes:
Nope, a psychopath is someone who lacks empathy. A psychopath is someone who does not have feelings. That's the same thing - in the context of how we've been discussing "feelings" here, anyway.
It's the existence of empathy that proves that we lack free will. Ha ha - you may as well say that the Bible being the most popular best selling book proves that God exists. If you really believe this - feel free to back it up. If you can actually do so, there's a Nobel Prize in it for you.Scientists have been studying free will for a very, very long time. They are recently making some progress. But such a conclusion is still (currently) out of our reach as of today. Empathy can affect fee will in the same way that age can affect athletic performance. If you have infinite age - you may very well have 0 athletic performance, as you'll be so old that you cannot move without breaking your bones.If you have infinite empathy - you may very well have 0 free will, as you will not be able to "deal with" the feelings. But, we don't have infinite age. We have finite age. And there are ways to deal with aging to allow for greater/longer athletic performance.Some are capable of great athletic performance while also being very old. Some are capable of greater athletic performance in their later years than they were in their younger years - depending on when they do their training. We also don't have infinite empathy. We have finite empathy. Different for different people. And there are ways to deal with the feelings of empathy that allow for greater/longer decision making.Some are capable of great decision making while also having lots of empathy. To try and boil down empathy to a binary subject is just plain ignorant of what empathy is in humans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Phat writes: ...but it is an attempt by humans to eloquently argue for belief over materialistic rationality. I only think materialistic rationality should be used over belief in certain circumstances.And I only think belief should be used over materialistic rationality in certain circumstances. I think anyone who thinks either should be used all the time as "over the other" is out to lunch. Trying to understand reality?-our best known methods for this focus much more on materialistic rationality over belief Trying to understand how to fully describe "love?"-our best known methods for this focus much more on belief over materialistic rationality They are two different methods.They are both valid when used for applicable situations. They are both invalid when used inappropriately. Saying that a materialistic approach should be used over belief while attempting to understand the nature/truth about reality over and over doesn't imply that "belief" is a bad method. It simply implies that "belief" is a bad method for determining the nature/truth about reality. Which history has proven (many, many times...) that it certainly is.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024