Religion Of Christianity - General

[QUOTE=Geikkamir;43877027]Of course the glaring hole in this argument is that it requires 1 to be true which there is no evidence to support. Throughout this thread you haven't provided any reason as to why objective morals exist, you've simply asserted that they do. I like how you keep trying to paint it to look like believing in God is the only rational decision and that anything else is purely based on emotion completely ignoring the fact that the belief of God is irrational to begin with. There is absolutely 0 evidence to support such a claim, to believe in God requires pure faith which is completely emotional. Your entire argument stems from an emotional response, so by your own definition it is irrational.[/QUOTE] I thought it was obvious that the entire thread has been based on the assumption that God is real and what rationally follows from that assumption. Yes, my argument hinges on facts that I have given zero effort to prove. Not out of lack of will, but because it's not the topic of the thread.

[QUOTE=Geikkamir;43877488]Predestination seems like it's pretty much a requirement for omniscience to be possible.[/QUOTE] Actualy no, since predestination would be in direct conflict with free will.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;43881199]Actualy no, since predestination would be in direct conflict with free will.[/QUOTE] That's a different matter entirely, predestination would still be a requirement of omniscience. It seems like you can choose between a totally omniscient god or free will (or neither).

[QUOTE=Ziks;43881283]That's a different matter entirely, predestination would still be a requirement of omniscience. It seems like you can choose between a totally omniscient god or free will (or neither).[/QUOTE] There's free will, but your choices are limited to what is possible. And there's predestination because our choices are limited by the laws that compose our universe. They are not mutually exclusives.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;43881497]There's free will, but your choices are limited to what is possible. And there's predestination because our choices are limited by the laws that compose our universe. They are not mutually exclusives.[/QUOTE] Both of those statements appear to have the exact same meaning to me, could you elaborate on the distinction? [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] Also there's the problem of if an omniscient god is free to explore the future then the future is a pre-defined immutable structure. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] A solution to that being that there are countlessly many possible futures (by perhaps exploiting quantum indeterminacy) that god is aware of, but then you get the issue of there being many indistinguishable realities that I mentioned earlier. The issue is then which version of "you" has a soul and goes to heaven, or do all versions of you go to distinct afterlives, shouldn't we all experience subjective immortality as with the Everett interpretation of QM, and so on.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43881586]Both of those statements appear to have the exact same meaning to me, could you elaborate on the distinction?[/QUOTE] There's predestination in the sense that you future has already been determined by the laws of our universe. You can only have so many futures. And there's free will in the sense that you can choose between one of your possible futures(albiet unknowing to you of course), however you're not free to choose what your possible states are. You have to remember that our way of experiencing time is linear, but an eternal(no beggining, no end) God would exist outside of time and would be able to see all the possible final states for you at the same, and from his point of view they would all exist too. [QUOTE=Ziks;43881586] A solution to that being that there are countlessly many possible futures (by perhaps exploiting quantum indeterminacy) that god is aware of, but then you get the issue of there being many indistinguishable realities that I mentioned earlier. The issue is then which version of "you" has a soul and goes to heaven, or do all versions of you go to distinct afterlives, shouldn't we all experience subjective immortality as with the Everett interpretation of QM, and so on.[/QUOTE] You have to remember that you have no way of knowing in which future you're stuck in and it's not relevant. If Heaven exists inside time, each possible future would have a possible heaven. If Heaven exists outside time, it would possible that any number of yourself would end up in Heaven. But that is a matter of belief, and I tend to steer clear from those, there are too many definitions of heaven to consider and discuss before we pick one for this possible model. For example, wether heaven exists or not inside time.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;43881636]There's predestination in the sense that you future has already been determined by the laws of our universe. You can only have so many futures. And there's free will in the sense that you can choose between one of your possible futures(albiet unknowing to you of course), however you're not free to choose what your possible states are.[/QUOTE] So if all possible futures exist as an immutable structure where does choice come into play? Is one particular path that traverses this branching tree of timelines more "special" somehow?

[QUOTE=Ziks;43881758]So if all possible futures exist as an immutable structure where does choice come into play?[/QUOTE] Choices come into play to determine your possible set of states. Every choice you make end some states and start new ones to the "you" that experiencing them. Now when the realities separate, that's something that only someone that is able to observe time from outside can tell. To the rest of us, reality is perception.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;43881817]Choices come into play to determine your possible set of states. Every choice you make end some states and start new ones to the "you" that experiencing them. Now when the realities separate, that's something that only someone that is able to observe time from outside can tell. To the rest of us, reality is perception.[/QUOTE] But every observer moment involving an instance of me in every single branch of this immutable tree structure of branching timelines already exists. Additionally, given the immutable structure of the tree, whenever a decision event occurs "I" don't make a single choice but instead make all possible choices in separate independent branches. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] The particular branch I am currently experiencing is then essentially the result of a completely arbitrary sequence of outcomes from all prior decision events.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43881885]But every observer moment involving an instance of me in every single branch of this immutable tree structure of branching timelines already exists. Additionally, given the immutable structure of the tree, whenever a decision event occurs "I" don't make a single choice but instead make all possible choices in separate independent branches. The particular branch I am currently experiencing is then essentially the result of a completely arbitrary sequence of outcomes from all prior decision events.[/QUOTE] While all the other choices are made, you cannot perceive them, so they are outside of your reality. Your own reality is made from that choice, as well as the choices made by other people. Free will is part of your reality, because it can affect it. But from a grand scale you would see that free will is only possible because all possible choices are being made at the same time.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;43881953]While all the other choices are made, you cannot perceive them, so they are outside of your reality. Your own reality is made from that choice, as well as the choices made by other people. Free will is part of your reality, because it can affect it. But from a grand scale you would see that free will is only possible because all possible choices are being made at the same time.[/QUOTE] That seems to make sense. So which entities possess free will? Any entity from which branching decision events can originate?

[QUOTE=Ziks;43881999]That seems to make sense. So which entities possess free will? Any entity from which branching decision events can originate?[/QUOTE] All of them affect their own realities.

I'm going to be completely honest here and say that the way in which God's sovereignty and free will come together mystifies me. I simply don't understand it, but I don't throw out the entire thing because of not being able to understand a single part of it just like scientists didn't throw out all of science when they found quantum particles that contradicted the physical laws that we knew to be true. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=LuaChobo;43883280]"Murder" through inaction is known as Manslaughter[/QUOTE] No, killing by ignorance is manslaughter. You must still take action. "The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and [B]intentional killing[/B] of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the [B]commission of a lawful act[/B] without due caution and circumspection." ([URL]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter[/URL]) Inaction is neither of those things.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43883516]I'm going to be completely honest here and say that the way in which God's sovereignty and free will come together mystifies me. I simply don't understand it, but I don't throw out the entire thing because of not being able to understand a single part of it just like scientists didn't throw out all of science when they found quantum particles that contradicted the physical laws that we knew to be true.[/QUOTE] I think that's a pretty respectable attitude to have. However, the branching immutable decision tree model Ragekipz and I have been discussing will allow both an omniscient god and free will, although it leads to some potentially disturbing conclusions. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] The structure itself is also isomorphic with the one generated by the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, so entails the same mathematical elegance and explanatory power. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] It also conveniently gives you a (potentially) eternal afterlife via quantum immortality.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43883564]I think that's a pretty respectable attitude to have. However, the branching immutable decision tree model Ragekipz and I have been discussing will allow both an omniscient god and free will, although it leads to some potentially disturbing conclusions. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] The structure itself is also isomorphic with the one generated by the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, so entails the same mathematical elegance and explanatory power. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] It also conveniently gives you a (potentially) eternal afterlife via quantum immortality.[/QUOTE] I see two problems with the idea that you guys are working with: 1) If every choice is made alongside every other choice then there would be exactly one perfect version of every person. This clearly goes against basic Christian theology. 2) I see no place for the individual, unique soul within that framework. Under your framework I'm not ME, I"m simply a version of ME.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43883848]I see two problems with the idea that you guys are working with: 1) If every choice is made alongside every other choice then there would be exactly one perfect version of every person. This clearly goes against basic Christian theology.[/QUOTE] One would simply have to look on his own life and imagine how it would be if all your mistakes were undone. [QUOTE=sgman91;43883848] 2) I see no place for the individual, unique soul within that framework. Under your framework I'm not ME, I"m simply a version of ME.[/QUOTE] There's individuality between realities, since they don't interact with one another. We are the result of our experiences. Any other version of you might have such a wild variety of different experiences, that you might as well not even recognize yourself.

[QUOTE]Also, why or why not is god real and what is your take on the finding of some scientists which made them believe Jesus existed.[/QUOTE] Ah, the Josephus account, that dead old horse. Simple enough, the damn thing is pretty well regarded to be a hoax, produced after the fact. As to the existence of gods... science hasn't found evidence of such a thing, nor has reason to assume one. Simply put, the world just doesn't appear to work like that. Not much else to say. If there's no good reason to think it's real, I'm gonna go on with my life as if it didn't.

[QUOTE=J-Dude;43884156]Ah, the Josephus account, that dead old horse. Simple enough, the damn thing is pretty well regarded to be a hoax, produced after the fact. As to the existence of gods... science hasn't found evidence of such a thing, nor has reason to assume one. Simply put, the world just doesn't appear to work like that. Not much else to say. If there's no good reason to think it's real, I'm gonna go on with my life as if it didn't.[/QUOTE] Even if there's a God I see no reason for you to change how you live.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43883848]I see two problems with the idea that you guys are working with: 1) If every choice is made alongside every other choice then there would be exactly one perfect version of every person. This clearly goes against basic Christian theology.[/QUOTE] There would also be a single reality where absolutely everyone was perfect and immortal. I suppose you could call that reality heaven. [QUOTE]2) I see no place for the individual, unique soul within that framework. Under your framework I'm not ME, I"m simply a version of ME.[/QUOTE] But you are unique among all other parallel versions of you as you have a unique sequence of decisions leading to now. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] Feel free to propose any other structure that supports free will and an omniscient god if you find this one uncomfortable.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43884571]There would also be a single reality where absolutely everyone was perfect and immortal. I suppose you could call that reality heaven. But you are unique among all other parallel versions of you as you have a unique sequence of decisions leading to now. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] Feel free to propose any other structure that supports free will and an omniscient god if you find this one uncomfortable.[/QUOTE] That's thing... you either have Christianity or perfect people, you can't have both. The death of Christ is predicated on the fact that it is impossible for one to save themselves. If this were not the case and one could live a perfect life then Christ died needlessly. Let me also state that it would be illogical for us to be able to understand the entirety of existence and/or God. We were created and are therefore lesser than the creator. The logical conclusion is that we also have lesser understanding and lesser knowledge. I would very much doubt any so called creator who was fully understood. If man can fully understand God, then God might as well be a creation of man. I'm not saying it applies to this, but the answer, "It's impossible to know" can be legitimate when discussing God.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;43884127]One would simply have to look on his own life and imagine how it would be if all your mistakes were undone. There's individuality between realities, since they don't interact with one another. We are the result of our experiences. Any other version of you might have such a wild variety of different experiences, that you might as well not even recognize yourself.[/QUOTE] What if; The individual collapses the wave function and from those multiple branches is born only one individual who receives 'life'. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] I mean, we seem to have that effect with everything else. Observers are weird.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;43884127]There's individuality between realities, since they don't interact with one another. We are the result of our experiences. Any other version of you might have such a wild variety of different experiences, that you might as well not even recognize yourself.[/QUOTE] According to Christianity our souls are individually created. We are more than the sum of our experiences. So while these 'alternates' would have different experiences, they would still have our soul and be us unless God created a new soul, and a new person, at every intersection.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43886241]What if; The individual collapses the wave function and from those multiple branches is born only one individual who receives 'life'.[/QUOTE] But that's the problem with having all possible futures explorable by god, they already exist in an immutable tree structure. Wave function collapse wouldn't stop the people in the (now somehow orphaned) possible futures experiencing existence if their particular branch was ever known by god, which it must have been to maintain his omniscience. Wave function collapse would have practically no consequence, so a decoherence-based interpretation would make more sense. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;43886174]That's thing... you either have Christianity or perfect people, you can't have both. The death of Christ is predicated on the fact that it is impossible for one to save themselves. If this were not the case and one could live a perfect life then Christ died needlessly.[/QUOTE] I'm doing my best here at trying to play devil's advocate and eliminate the cognitive dissonance implicated by taking Christianity literally, but it's not at all easy. I suppose that's where faith comes in. For this omniscience / free will conflict to be resolved you'll probably need to adapt some of the other core components of Christianity to accommodate for it, which would probably just be correcting for a mistranslation or misinterpretation of earlier doctrine.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43886314]I'm doing my best here at trying to play devil's advocate and eliminate the cognitive dissonance implicated by taking Christianity literally, but it's not at all easy. I suppose that's where faith comes in. For this omniscience / free will conflict to be resolved you'll probably need to adapt some of the other core components of Christianity to accommodate for it, which would probably just be correcting for a mistranslation or misinterpretation of earlier doctrine.[/QUOTE] Interestingly, the only questions that I know of for which the Bible answers, "He's God and you're not. So don't worry about" are questions relating to God's sovereignty and free will. "14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? " - Romans 9:14-20 [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] I know it seems like a cop out, but it's only a cop out if it isn't true.

I suppose you shouldn't have much problem with considering those passages as being falsely represented or fabricated given the understanding that the original author existed over a thousand years after the time of Moses (assuming it was Paul or someone later), and so the dialogue was invented by the author. I'm not saying that the author had malicious intent in writing such possible misrepresentations of history, just that he was expressing his free will and probably honestly believed in what he was writing.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43886797]I suppose you shouldn't have much problem with considering those passages as being falsely represented or fabricated given the understanding that the original author existed over a thousand years after the time of Moses (assuming it was Paul or someone later), and so the dialogue was invented by the author. I'm not saying that the author had malicious intent in writing such possible misrepresentations of history, just that he was expressing his free will and probably honestly believed in what he was writing.[/QUOTE] I see no reason to think that it has been fabricated or falsely represented, especially since this message is clear and consistent in multiple places, including the Old Testament. This passage is simply the most cut and dry. I also doubt it's fabrication because this difficulty arises from the basic characteristics of God, not some specific theology like the death of the Christ. Also, the Bible, especially the new testament, has more manuscript evidence than any ancient book ever written. Interestingly enough, a paper is currently being written on a codex of Romans 9:18-21 (some of the same verses that I just quoted) that's thought to be from the early 3rd century. From what I've read it contains no meaningful differences (beyond syntax, spelling, etc.) from what we currently have today. We also have very early proof of Paul's letters like the Clementine Epistle, (1st or early 2nd century) which talks about the letter written to the Corinthians from Paul and mentions various other letters to different churches.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43887018]I see no reason to think that it has been fabricated or falsely represented, especially since this message is clear and consistent in multiple places, including the Old Testament. This passage is simply the most cut and dry. I also doubt it's fabrication because this difficulty arises from the basic characteristics of God, not some specific theology like the death of the Christ. Also, the Bible, especially the new testament, has more manuscript evidence than any ancient book ever written. Interestingly enough, a paper is currently being written on a codex of Romans 9:18-21 (some of the same verses that I just quoted) that's thought to be from the early 3rd century. From what I've read it contains no meaningful differences (beyond syntax, spelling, etc.) from what we currently have today.[/QUOTE] Surely the dialogue is still fabricated though? It was not written by anyone that observed the actual conversation, and in the best case is an interpretation of a story passed through many generations by word of mouth before being nailed down. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] You really don't want to be constraining yourself to the doctrine from which these logical issues arise. Isn't it easier to believe some elements of the doctrine have been misinterpreted than to live with the cognitive dissonance implicated?

[QUOTE=Ziks;43887057]Surely the dialogue is still fabricated though? It was not written by anyone that observed the actual conversation, and in the best case is an interpretation of a story passed through many generations by word of mouth before being nailed down. [editline]12th February 2014[/editline] You really don't want to be constraining yourself to the doctrine from which these logical issues arise. Isn't it easier to believe some elements of the doctrine have been misinterpreted than to live with the cognitive dissonance implicated?[/QUOTE] To say that some of the doctrine is incorrectly given is to say that it might as well all be incorrectly given. It really isn't a choice to pick and choose what seems right and what doesn't.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43887111]To say that some of the doctrine is incorrectly given is to say that it might as well all be incorrectly given. It really isn't a choice to pick and choose what seems right and what doesn't.[/QUOTE] The church has done exactly that before, so why not do it again?

[QUOTE=Ziks;43887123]The church has done exactly that before, so why not do it again?[/QUOTE] Care to give an example? It's all but impossible to address that type of claim without knowing exactly what you mean by it.