Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   All Knowing God proves problematic
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 82 (491480)
12-16-2008 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chessmaster
12-07-2008 6:24 PM


a simple hand-wave
An omnipotent god could create a universe in which determinism and free will coexist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chessmaster, posted 12-07-2008 6:24 PM Chessmaster has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-16-2008 6:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 48 by straightree, posted 12-17-2008 2:25 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 53 by caldron68, posted 12-17-2008 7:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3181 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 47 of 82 (491495)
12-16-2008 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2008 3:59 PM


Re: a simple hand-wave
CS writes:
An omnipotent god could create a universe in which determinism and free will coexist.
Sure. In the same manner in which God can create a rock bigger than he can lift.
Are not true or pure determinism and free will mutually exclusive concepts.
Determinism is "a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws".
If this is true then where does free will fit in if every choice we have is dependent on past events. Let me illustrate if determinism is true than we are really not making a free choice because our choices are hard wired into our physical and psychological makeup. In other words we should be able to predict the choices all of us make based on our genetic makeup and our background. Thus free choice is really an illusion.
I am not saying I agree with this philosophy, I am just saying that according to their definitions free will and determinism can not coexist.
Just my thoughts.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2008 3:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
straightree
Member (Idle past 4831 days)
Posts: 57
From: Near Olot, Spain
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 48 of 82 (491524)
12-17-2008 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2008 3:59 PM


Re: a simple hand-wave
I think we are striding into omnipotence, but maybe it is not so avoidable.
In someplace of this thread, I said that the object of omniscience could only be things that can be known. The parallel for omnipotence is things that can be done. God can not make a world in which it rains and not rains at the same time, or the wind is blowing and still. Equally, determinism and free will are excluding.
I will quote C. S. Lewis "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2008 3:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3031 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 49 of 82 (491545)
12-17-2008 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Agobot
12-15-2008 3:44 PM


Re: Fair Enough
Hi Abogot,
This has only one inherent problem - you have to define what to "exist" means and you can't use science for that. Your only hope is philosophy but no matter how much stuff you read, there is no clear cut answer at all.
The only reason existance is an issue that goes beyond science, is because we humans feel that it goes beyond science. It does not. Philosophical musings about existance, while fun and challenging to the mind, are supported by nothing more than subjective intuitions. That is not anything we can base a good theory, or even hypothesis, around.
But even if imagine there were such an explanation, you still have not provided information where god does not exist -
The first question should be, Are humans right in thinking there is a God?
We are the only species, out of billions that have existed, that display a need to search for this 'God". Now it is either a made up, imaginative being that exist only in our minds(those minds which choose to accept it), or, God really does exist and we as humans have been endowed with the ability to search for him/her/it/charlie the unicorn.
Using all of our current ability*, God is non-existant by objective standards.
*I meant 'current ability' because I've never been able to rule out evoluton as the mechanism for higher consciousness and thus, PERHAPS, a new level of awareness that may begin to reveal God in our surroundings. I am an atheist, because of our current knowledge, but I can't seem to be able to rule this one out.
If being light sensitive lead to sight, and consciousness has lead to theories about the science and nature of our universe and our origins, perhaps if our consciousness continues to evolve as our brain evolves, then deeper meanings about existance, God, etc, may be found. But with our current ability we can only determine that God does not exist objectively.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Agobot, posted 12-15-2008 3:44 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5610 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 50 of 82 (491557)
12-17-2008 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Stile
12-16-2008 7:28 AM


Re: No evidence in reality
Stile writes:
Exist
-to have real being whether material or spiritual
The part about the material existence if fundamentally wrong. There is no material existence, in the way the western world thinks. The whole universe is only wavefunctions, these are vectors in a linear space. The "substance" of these vectors is the same substance that thoughts are made of. There is only consciousness that we can describe with the word "exist". At this moment, there are at least 6 billion people living in delusion, believing in the physical reality. The only thing that you can consider real, is what i've just told you, that nothing is real. That's the real part, and of course consciousness. Just watch when this hits the textbooks all over the world in 20 or 30 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Stile, posted 12-16-2008 7:28 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 1:06 PM Agobot has replied
 Message 60 by Taz, posted 12-21-2008 2:17 AM Agobot has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 123 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 51 of 82 (491564)
12-17-2008 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Agobot
12-17-2008 12:31 PM


Ugh.
Okay, there's a lot wrong with this so I'm going to take it slow and one line at a time. But this will be my last post on the matter since I don't really find such things very interesting. If I did, I would have become a physicist.
Agobot writes:
The part about the material existence if fundamentally wrong.
No. It may be semantically wrong, but it is not fundamentally wrong.
There is no material existence, in the way the western world thinks.
Correct. There is a material existence (semantics aside), however it may not be "in the way" the average western world Joe thinks about it (...with 100% solid objects).
The whole universe is only wavefunctions, these are vectors in a linear space. The "substance" of these vectors is the same substance that thoughts are made of. ... The only thing that you can consider real, is what i've just told you, that nothing is real.
As I am not a phycisist, I cannot confirm that what you're specifically saying here is true. I can, however, confirm that what you're getting at is true. That is, the whole universe my very well be just the interaction of different fields at various strengths.
The problem with your statement is that FIELDS ARE REAL.
Fields are not 100% solid objects. But we already talked about how "material" existence is not 100% solid objects. We know this already. The fact that Fields are not 100% solid objects (and perhaps even 0% "solid") does not remove their ability to be REAL or to ACT LIKE 100% solid objects at our general level of scope.
What it is that makes you think that only 100% solid objects are "real" when you understand that objects are not 100% solid to begin with will forever mystify me.
Just watch when this hits the textbooks all over the world in 20 or 30 years.
Already happened. That's how I know about it, I learned about it in school from textbooks. It likely happened 50 or so years ago (I would like to point out that I'm guessing, since I am not a physicist).
If you would like to carry on with a physical discussion of the universe, I suggest you start a thread in the Big Bang & Cosmology forum. I likely won't be joining as I am not a physicist since I do not find such things particularly interesting. Cool to know? Yes. And I admire those filled with the curious desire to figure such things out. However, I am not one of those people. I am more selfish and am more concerned with things that affect me directly.
My hand stops when I hit my desk.
Maybe it's because of fields, maybe it's because of strings, maybe it's because of the will-power of a God.
I don't care.
My hand stops when I hit my desk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Agobot, posted 12-17-2008 12:31 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Agobot, posted 12-17-2008 1:16 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5610 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 52 of 82 (491565)
12-17-2008 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Stile
12-17-2008 1:06 PM


Re: Ugh.
Maybe it's better that you aren't interested. if you ever want to find out more, you know where to start. wish you a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Stile, posted 12-17-2008 1:06 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
caldron68
Member (Idle past 3921 days)
Posts: 79
From: USA
Joined: 08-26-2007


Message 53 of 82 (491588)
12-17-2008 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2008 3:59 PM


Re: a simple hand-wave
An omnipotent god could create a universe in which determinism and free will coexist.
Could, but then what kind of God do we end up with? If God is truly omniscient and has a personal plan just for you, then what does that say about the personal plan created for a man who dies in an automobile accident? Did God see a need for this man to die in a horrible accident? How about the infant that dies of SIDS? Does God meddle in the lives of some and then allow all others to just make their own choices or have the course of our lives changed by pure chance?
After reading all of the posts in this thread it is clear to me that if there is a God, then that God simply set the clock in motion and has no control over what is actually going to happen. i.e., a truly compassionate, loving, personal God cannot be omniscient and allow man to die in truly awful ways unless he has no control over how things are going to work out.
Cheers,
--Caldron68

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2008 3:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Agobot, posted 12-18-2008 4:14 AM caldron68 has not replied
 Message 57 by Blue Jay, posted 12-18-2008 11:47 AM caldron68 has not replied
 Message 68 by Phat, posted 07-21-2014 1:47 PM caldron68 has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5610 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 54 of 82 (491597)
12-18-2008 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by caldron68
12-17-2008 7:46 PM


Re: a simple hand-wave
caldron68 writes:
Could, but then what kind of God do we end up with? If God is truly omniscient and has a personal plan just for you, then what does that say about the personal plan created for a man who dies in an automobile accident? Did God see a need for this man to die in a horrible accident? How about the infant that dies of SIDS? Does God meddle in the lives of some and then allow all others to just make their own choices or have the course of our lives changed by pure chance?
Since we are all one whole oneness, I believe if you are doing wrong and evil, it will come back to you(you are basically doing it to yourself). It may be even true that karma can spread to your offspring(I don't like this but i can't rule that one out). If you spread Love, give love to relatives and people, you'll be safe and you'll enjoy this experience we call life in a whole new way. You won't find this in a science (text)book, that's my belief, so take it for what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by caldron68, posted 12-17-2008 7:46 PM caldron68 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by rueh, posted 12-18-2008 8:34 AM Agobot has replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3741 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 55 of 82 (491603)
12-18-2008 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Agobot
12-18-2008 4:14 AM


Re: a simple hand-wave
Hello Agobot,
While I do agree with the majority of this post. That if you do good and associate with good people, good things happen. When you do bad and associate with bad people, bad things happen. I do disagree that it is any guarantee against bad things happening to good people or vice versa.
agobot writes:
If you spread Love, give love to relatives and people, you'll be safe and you'll enjoy this experience we call life in a whole new way
There are many examples that have happened to my family, friends and myself where it is clear that random acts of goodness and badness can occur to anyone at any time. Leading a altruistic lifestyle, may shield you from influences of evil people but it is no guarantee against them.

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Agobot, posted 12-18-2008 4:14 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Agobot, posted 12-18-2008 10:52 AM rueh has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5610 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 56 of 82 (491610)
12-18-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by rueh
12-18-2008 8:34 AM


Re: a simple hand-wave
rueh writes:
There are many examples that have happened to my family, friends and myself where it is clear that random acts of goodness and badness can occur to anyone at any time. Leading a altruistic lifestyle, may shield you from influences of evil people but it is no guarantee against them.
Hi rueh,
This was pure speculation on my part, it showed my belief and it's based on my subjective thinking. I am not even sure human logic is fully applicable to the intrinsic nature of this experience we collective call life. Michio Kaku says Max Planck said:
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And it is because in the last analysis we ourselves are part of the mystery we are trying to solve."
To say that i am confused is an underestimation and i really have no idea to what extent bad karma can be handed down to generations and spread to other loved ones(if at all). My subjective and possibly flawed human logic tells me that since we are all one wholeness, children can be scapegoats of misdeeds of parents, but this can be wrong. Without at least a sketchy understanding of what consciousness really is(loosely referred to as "observer" in physics), there can be only guesses. Einstein seems to think that
"Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening the circle of understanding and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
... but what good is his logic or any other scientist's logic on describing consciousness? Maybe we have to be good, love and respect each other, maybe this is what causes bad things to innocent people. If quantum physics could describe mathematically what an "observer" is, QM and the future theory of everything would move forward very quickly. But I think this is illusory, i don't think we can ever pin down mathematically consciousness, at least for as long as it remains an abstract concept, like dreams and thoughts.
But ultimately you are right, i don't know and no one does. It maybe that god(if there is - likely IMO) is evil, although this is unlikely, or we just don't understand what we are supposed to do. But if you strive for good, piece, love and compassion you can't go wrong, even if there is god and you didn't believe in him. I don't think we are here to pray to god, and this seems to be somewhat inline with Einstein's beliefs, although i don't agree with at least 1 aspect of his beliefs - I have no idea how consciousness can die(maybe it's old belief of his, that changed as he got older). My gut feeling tells me that if you do good deeds and spread love and unity, you'll be fine. Thats all i can help you with.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by rueh, posted 12-18-2008 8:34 AM rueh has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 57 of 82 (491617)
12-18-2008 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by caldron68
12-17-2008 7:46 PM


Re: a simple hand-wave
Hi, Caldron.
caldron68 writes:
After reading all of the posts in this thread it is clear to me that if there is a God, then that God simply set the clock in motion and has no control over what is actually going to happen. i.e., a truly compassionate, loving, personal God cannot be omniscient and allow man to die in truly awful ways unless he has no control over how things are going to work out.
Does this mean that you agree that omniscience and free will can coexist? In principle, I mean.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by caldron68, posted 12-17-2008 7:46 PM caldron68 has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 123 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 58 of 82 (491624)
12-18-2008 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
12-15-2008 8:40 AM


Another thought
Percy writes:
Bluejay writes:
I think I understand what you’re saying. Omniscience can only exist in a universe that is completely deterministic, and free will is antithesis to determinism. Is this correct?
Gee, I wish I had said it that way, that's much more clear.
You see, I do not understand why anyone thinks Free Will is the antithesis of Determinism.
In thinking about it in reverse, I would say that the antithesis of Determinism is "totally random occurance with no guidance".
But I certainly do not feel comfortable thinking that my Free Will is "totally random occurance with no guidance".
That is, I like to think I have a certain amount of "guidance" included in my Free Will. I don't like thinking that my decisions are totally random choices of which I have no input.
That's why I define Free Will to be "the ability to choose what I want" as opposed to "the opposite of Determinism". I think there is a certain amount of Determinism included in choosing what I want.
So, if Free Will is not the antithesis of Determinism, where does that leave your argument that Omniscience and Free Will cannot co-exist?
Thoughts?
(I'd like to hear from Bluejay on this as well, along with anyone else)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 12-15-2008 8:40 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Blue Jay, posted 12-19-2008 1:39 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 59 of 82 (491687)
12-19-2008 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Stile
12-18-2008 1:15 PM


Re: Another thought
Hi, Stile.
Stile writes:
In thinking about it in reverse, I would say that the antithesis of Determinism is "totally random occurance with no guidance".
But I certainly do not feel comfortable thinking that my Free Will is "totally random occurance with no guidance".
I think, in some ways, I'm with you on that. I have always seen determinism and chaos as opposites, where chaos is unpredictability.
It seems, from what I’ve seen other people write, that the determinism concept is really an issue of centralization. Under a purely deterministic system, all “decisions” are dictated by a common source (typically thought of as a single, causative event of which all subsequent events are just inevitable consequences). Under this system, Initial Cause becomes an issue (i.e. how did it all get started if all events are just consequences of prior events?).
On the other hand, under a purely free-willed system, each event would be instigated by a separate causative agent. In this system, the future could not be known with certainty because there is no inevitable sequence of events. Any step along the way, having its own, independent impetus, could result in a number of potential outcomes, whereas, in the deterministic system, there is only one possible outcome of each event.
-----
In our universe, I’m sure neither extreme is completely true. Former EvC member Syamsu liked to argue for a purely free-willed universe, wherein every course adjustment of a planet’s motion along its orbital path was a “decision” that the planet made, and not an inevitable consequence of the interaction between the gravity of the primary and the pre-existing motion of the planet. To me, such a phenomenon is better explained as deterministic. But, when I decide to wear the red tie instead of the blue tie, I am completely unable to comprehend how that could possibly be deterministic.
Obviously, the fact that we are born with elements of a natural personality is a good indication that all the decisions we make are not purely randomized. I am not extroverted, charismatic nor self-confident enough to want to be a salesman, so that is one decision that it clearly was not hard for God to foresee. Likewise, I have an incessant desire to be different from everybody else, which likely made it easy for God to foresee the name that I picked for my son, as well as my choice to pursue a career studying spiders.
So, clearly, there is a possibility that we could be making independent, free-willed choices, and still drawing towards a future that was, for all intents and purposes, inevitable.
-----
When speaking of this, I still feel like something is missing from the explanation, though. Both deterministic and free-willed systems rely heavily on a concept of sequential chronology. Where a God is proposed to exist “outside” the requirement for sequentiality, what sorts of interactions or observations are possible between the two modes?
I'm not so sure that anybody can really answer that.
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Stile, posted 12-18-2008 1:15 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3371 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 60 of 82 (491783)
12-21-2008 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Agobot
12-17-2008 12:31 PM


Re: No evidence in reality
Agobot writes:
The whole universe is only wavefunctions, these are vectors in a linear space.
Composition fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Agobot, posted 12-17-2008 12:31 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Agobot, posted 12-21-2008 4:47 AM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024