Stephen Fry hits back at accusations of Islamophobia
344 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42071699]I've asked how God's omniscience interferes in any way with free will, the only responses that I've gotten are about how God knowing the future somehow means that he predetermines our decisions, but one does not suggest the other at all. So what I'm asking for is a logical explanation for how the existence of an omniscient being automatically removes free will.
...[/QUOTE]
If the outcome of your choice is known beforehand, you don't have the free will to chose any other outcome, otherwise that would invalidate the predetermined outcome (Which would mean god isn't omniscient)
Your view of free will seems to be choosing whatever outcome is predetermined by god, but that isn't free will (Since you don't have the ability to pick an outcome that isn't chosen by god)
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42071789]So try and do us a favour and follow logic that we've laid out for you[/QUOTE]
You haven't shown any logical reason to for how omniscience cannot exist with free will. People will ultimately make a choice and that choice is not infringed upon in anyway by God knowing what that choice will be.
[QUOTE]Hmm well then. God sure does like to kill people and sure does like his people to call him the best guy around while he slaughters millions to save us from "amorality"[/QUOTE]
He won't save us from amorality, he simply has given us a possible way out. It's only each of us who can save ourselves from our amorality(or sin), not by an actions of our own, but by accepting the gift of grace given by God to us so that we don't have to pay for our own sin. He's saving us from an eternity of being apart form him, even further than we are now.
[QUOTE]Uh, well, I've said this multiple times. An abrahamic god is omniscient, omnipotent, and benvolent. No matter how much you want to say "he's a good god!!!!" when I see that he freely allows the deaths of innocents to save us from some "amorality" that evolutionarily, doesn't exist then I have no reason to think he exists. [/QUOTE]
The god who wishes us to live perfect lives in his presence and even came down to be brutalized at the hands of those he wishes to save so that he could hold the penalty for our sin on his back if we wish him to? The fact that his respect for free will lead to some dark situations resulting from humanities sinfulness does not mean God is any less.
[QUOTE]Wow. I've waited a long time to actually meet someone who really, truly, and honestly thinks that if there isn't a god to give you a purpose, you're fully, and entirely meaningless.
This is a massive and incredible dismissal of humanity and our ability to do great, and kind things. It's not like gods perfect and hasn't killed people. Where does he get the ability to declare true morality from when he freely breaks it[/QUOTE]
If everything is naturals existence though, what significance do the acts of humanity have? If we have no free will, we're simply doing what the laws of the universe intend the chemical reactions in our brains to do. That's nothing to be proud of, just something to be mildly indifferent about.
[QUOTE]I'm not offended by you holding those beliefs. I'm offended that instead of "putting arguments against mine" you just basically find a fancy way of saying "no" and leaving it there. Every time 1legmidget or I point out something that previously in the argument made a clear logical flaw you would glaze over it and continue to say what you were already saying.[/QUOTE]
Those fancy ways of saying no were counter arguments, I was giving them then and I'm giving them now. You still haven't backed up your claim that I some how view you as a lesser human being though, I think you either stop making claims on my personal character as they really are red herrings.
[QUOTE]So you don't think you rely on the evidence that before, you had to eat, thus, today you must eat. Or following this logic down the literally million routes that it must follow in a common, ordinary day, that you absolutely, unequivocally use evidence to make your way through day to day life. And when you say you don't, it means that you are happy to turn off critical thinking and go down whatever route of thought you want because to you, their all equally valid. That is why the quote isn't misinterpreted.[/QUOTE]
I obviously don't use evidence solely to go about day to day tasks because then I wouldn't be able to provide full evidence for anything around me. I hold beliefs that the things around me exist, that other people are actually people and not just mental projections. the infinite regress ultimately has no explanation in pure evidentialism and its proposed philosophical solutions contradict the very core factors that make evidentialism what it is.
[QUOTE]Well god must have the qualities we ascribe to him for him to be the same god we worship, or else it is a worthless effort in worshiping a being that isn't defined or even fully believable because there are no rules to him. If god has such and such qualities, the discussion of god is a discussion of his qualities. if his qualities don't fit a world in which they would make sense in then is that not a valid discussion? [/QUOTE]
How do his qualities not fit in a world in which they would make sense? You're not so much posing a question as much as stating an argument phrased as a question.
See, you just call an entire line of reasoning invalid based on your dismissal of what it means to argue "god"
[QUOTE]No, I mean you can't prove a diestic god by any stretch of the imagination.[/QUOTE]
This is not reasoning, this is opinion. This is how you start a debate, not how you support it. In any case this is beside the point of the discussion and contributes absolutely nothing to any discussion regardless.
[QUOTE]That sounds like teaching a lesson in the most literal sense possible.[/QUOTE]
If you consider him giving us the best chance possible to know him and to accept grace whilst respecting our free will to be the equivalent to teaching us a lesson, then so be it.
[QUOTE]oh so prayers that aren't exactly like that aren't considered? oh is that a part of the book we'll keep when it's convenient?[/QUOTE]
No, God hears all prayer, but the Lords prayer outlines what God himself told us we should pray about and how we should do it as a general guideline. Treating God like a vending machine for when you want to win the lottery is not treating your request as a wish for his will to be done, but your own. The most vital thing about prayer is that it's approached with humility and a recognition of ones status as a servant of God so that his will is ultimately done.
[QUOTE]If you really want to argue that we're only good because of God, then that's sad and terrible to me, and to imagine people are only good because they know there is a god that will hold them to judgement, that's no true altruism there. There's nothing but a selfish desire buried beneath all of that in my eyes. Then what about biological and evolutionary evidence that shows we got to be social in the ways that we have due to the success of the trait of helpfulness? Discarded, or is that gods work to you? what makes it gods work, how do you know, how do you know you're right and there isn't just a biological answer to it?[/QUOTE]
This is a huge question and frankly I don't think you'd even be willing to hear me out on any of what I'd say as a response. Frankly I'm getting sick of your overly personal negative claims on my character, your avoidance of my questions and your petty attempts at trying to bring up our last discussion(such as commenting and bringing it up as side comments in this discussion) as if it's at all relevant to this one. If you're going to continue responding to me in these ways I feel no inclination to respond back.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42072168]You haven't shown any logical reason to for how omniscience cannot exist with free will. People will ultimately make a choice and that choice is not infringed upon in anyway by God knowing what that choice will be.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;42072011]If the outcome of your choice is known beforehand, you don't have the free will to chose any other outcome, otherwise that would invalidate the predetermined outcome (Which would mean god isn't omniscient)
Your view of free will seems to be choosing whatever outcome is predetermined by god, but that isn't free will (Since you don't have the ability to pick an outcome that isn't chosen by god)[/QUOTE]
There. Is that clear enough?
[QUOTE]He won't save us from amorality, he simply has given us a possible way out. It's only each of us who can save ourselves from our amorality(or sin), not by an actions of our own, but by accepting the gift of grace given by God to us so that we don't have to pay for our own sin. He's saving us from an eternity of being apart form him, even further than we are now.[/QUOTE]
So, what are we to god then? His children? I don't feel like that from the descriptions in the bible, in this discussion. I don't see your side of it like you don't see my side of it. The bible has specific actions you're required to follow through, or are we just going to pick and choose what parts of the bible matter in the modern day
[QUOTE]The god who wishes us to live perfect lives in his presence and even came down to be brutalized at the hands of those he wishes to save so that he could hold the penalty for our sin on his back if we wish him to? The fact that his respect for free will lead to some dark situations resulting from humanities sinfulness does not mean God is any less.[/QUOTE]
If he already knows our decisions and our choices, it's all pointless isn't it?
[QUOTE]If everything is naturals existence though, what significance do the acts of humanity have? If we have no free will, we're simply doing what the laws of the universe intend the chemical reactions in our brains to do. That's nothing to be proud of, just something to be mildly indifferent about.[/QUOTE]
Whatever we give them. What's it to be proud of when everything you have, everything you are, and everything you could EVER be is determined, not by you, not by someone you ever know or even talk to. If everything is god given, what signifigance do we have? only what another being gave us. I don't see how that's ANY better. I see that as vastly worse and a dismissal of humanities potential. Knowing functionally we're defined by the universe doesn't strip us of meaning. It allows us the most freedom. Not what god says is freedom.
[QUOTE]Those fancy ways of saying no were counter arguments, I was giving them then and I'm giving them now. You still haven't backed up your claim that I some how view you as a lesser human being though, I think you either stop making claims on my personal character as they really are red herrings.[/QUOTE]
I haven't made many claims on your character. Only conclusions from statements you've made. When you say things like evidentiary claims are worthless and they require the structure of an idea to be made into something, I find that, frankly, offensive. You act like humanity is a beastly group filled with pig men, you said it yourself, saved only by god. I find that offensive. Counter arguments usually contain logical routes of denying a claim. So far, i really do just see "no, that doesn't fit in my world view, it can't be true". Yes, mine objections to you are the same, but I feel mine have sufficient backing from evidence, science(pssh) and modern philosophy
[QUOTE]I obviously don't use evidence solely to go about day to day tasks because then I wouldn't be able to provide full evidence for anything around me. I hold beliefs that the things around me exist, that other people are actually people and not just mental projections. the infinite regress ultimately has no explanation in pure evidentialism and its proposed philosophical solutions contradict the very core factors that make evidentialism what it is.[/QUOTE]
yes yes, head in a vat. i guess modern philosophers discussing how that isn't really a relevant and useful idea in the modern time isn't worth hearing, eh? (I have said this so many times with you but you reject it everytime.)
[QUOTE]How do his qualities not fit in a world in which they would make sense? You're not so much posing a question as much as stating an argument phrased as a question.[/QUOTE]
Well, if he had those qualities in our universe, we would not have the world we have now is my assumption, yes, I know it is an assumption but it is an assumption to say he is here and that we have the qualities you have given us.
[QUOTE]See, you just call an entire line of reasoning invalid based on your dismissal of what it means to argue "god"[/QUOTE]
No. You just said it was pointless to discuss the qualities of god in a discussion of god. what is that? That's defining what we can talk about isn't it? If you're defining what we can talk about in a subject, aren't you dismissing it?
[QUOTE]This is not reasoning, this is opinion. This is how you start a debate, not how you support it. In any case this is beside the point of the discussion and contributes absolutely nothing to any discussion regardless.[/QUOTE]
So when you started this debate with "what about a god who respects free will" you didn't feel you had to back this up with anything at all?
How about you prove it like I literally asked in that post there if you say you can do so
[QUOTE]If you consider him giving us the best chance possible to know him and to accept grace whilst respecting our free will to be the equivalent to teaching us a lesson, then so be it.[/QUOTE]
This seems far too complicated and needless for a being with infinte power who knows from the beginning if we're going to accept him or not. There are no surprises to him. He's not going to create you and be surprised that you didn't end up where he thought you would because you will always end up there, he knows it. So, is that really worth it? is that really reasonable? is that really something you want to believe in let alone should? He knows from the moment you were born, created, whatever, that you were going to hell, or heaven. He never intervenes in the damning of a man by his own hand, but he knows that is his fate. he created that man specifically for that fate. Wow, what a nice guy
[QUOTE]No, God hears all prayer, but the Lords prayer outlines what God himself told us we should pray about and how we should do it as a general guideline. Treating God like a vending machine for when you want to win the lottery is not treating your request as a wish for his will to be done, but your own. The most vital thing about prayer is that it's approached with humility and a recognition of ones status as a servant of God so that his will is ultimately done.[/QUOTE]
mmk.
[QUOTE]This is a huge question and frankly I don't think you'd even be willing to hear me out on any of what I'd say as a response. Frankly I'm getting sick of your overly personal negative claims on my character, your avoidance of my questions and your petty attempts at trying to bring up our last discussion(such as commenting and bringing it up as side comments in this discussion) as if it's at all relevant to this one. If you're going to continue responding to me in these ways I feel no inclination to respond back.[/QUOTE]
yes it is a huge question. I seriously feel that if you need god to justify good, you're doing it wrong. A discussion about god is not relevant to a discussion with god? Okay then...
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42072168]You haven't shown any logical reason to for how omniscience cannot exist with free will. People will ultimately make a choice and that choice is not infringed upon in anyway by God knowing what that choice will be.[/QUOTE]
If god is omniscient does god know what everyone will decide?
If god is omniscient does god know the outcome of every decision?
If god knows what everyone will decide and the outcome of every decision is it possible for someone to decide to do something other than what god has determined?
If it is possible to do something other than what god has determined does god still know about this new decision before it happens?
If god doesn't know about what someone will decide and the results of that decision before they decide, is god omniscient?
If god does know what someone will decide before they decide even if they decide to do something other than what god originally planned, is the future determined or undetermined?
If the future is determined, please demonstrate precisely how humans can have free will. If they have no options other than that which is already determined, then humans seem to be scripted entities. If they can't decide to do something other than that which has already been determined then there are no real decisions. The process of decision making from the perspective of man might make it seem like a real decision, but if the outcome of the decision the actor is predetermined to make is also predetermined, then it is a linear progression from the eyes of god/elsewhere in the universe/outside the universe or what have you. Its like moving along frames in a movie reel, not like moving through a flow chart.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42072168]
He won't save us from amorality, he simply has given us a possible way out. It's only each of us who can save ourselves from our amorality(or sin), not by an actions of our own, but by accepting the gift of grace given by God to us so that we don't have to pay for our own sin. He's saving us from an eternity of being apart form him, even further than we are now.[/QUOTE]
So, assuming you believe in eternal afterlife, which has more value?
That which is unlimited in supply, or that which is limited?
If that which is unlimited in supply has more value, please explain your reasoning/opinion.
If that which is limited in supply has more value, then why would your god allow for the potential of eliminating that which is limited (mortal life)? If humans don't really develop a sense of ethics until the age of four or five, why would a benevolent god allow for a system where a child can be robbed of the potential to develop an ethical and moral sense of the teachings god laid out?
This issue is even more important when you consider that this specific view:
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42063567]not to mention an outright acceptance of very young children and other totally unable to understand the concept[/QUOTE]
Isn't the only view from a "christian perspective". If you're going to pass this off as if it is outright true, please tell me why the catholic view that children that die before being baptized still have the potential to end up outside of heaven.
(see: [url]http://www.catholicity.com/catechism/necessity_of_baptism.html[/url] )
Seeing as how catholicism is a pretty big player in the christian scene, I don't really see how you can just ignore this view when you try to speak for christianity in general.
Unless of course you aren't trying to speak for christianity in general. In that case, your language is pretty lazy.
Even if you aren't speaking for christianity in general I'd still like to see you justify why the catholic reasoning on this issue is wrong.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42072168]
The god who wishes us to live perfect lives in his presence and even came down to be brutalized at the hands of those he wishes to save so that he could hold the penalty for our sin on his back if we wish him to? The fact that his respect for free will lead to some dark situations resulting from humanities sinfulness does not mean God is any less.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure I get the point of this. Maybe I will after you respond and address the whole film reel vs flow chart analogy. Like I said earlier, if god is omniscient and already knows the decisions and results of everyone else, I don't really get how this is an example of god respecting the free will of human entities, let alone something to praise.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42072168]
If everything is naturals existence though, what significance do the acts of humanity have? If we have no free will, we're simply doing what the laws of the universe intend the chemical reactions in our brains to do. That's nothing to be proud of, just something to be mildly indifferent about.[/QUOTE]
Please demonstrate how this is nothing to be proud of. Simply stating that something is natural and is therefore nothing to be proud of isn't going to cut it. Demonstrate exactly why it is meaningless.
The laurel tree is a natural phenomena/entity. It existed before ancient cultures ascribed meaning to it's leaves and branches. We've gone from something without meaning, to something with meaning in certain contexts only using things that exist in nature (trees and humans) and the characteristics they have.
I guess you could make the argument that humans have some sort of aspect of that which isn't natural or bound to the universe (like the soul) but then you'd have to demonstrate that humans have a soul, that it exists outside the universe, and that it is somehow responsible for the emergent meaning in this situation.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42072168]
Those fancy ways of saying no were counter arguments, I was giving them then and I'm giving them now. You still haven't backed up your claim that I some how view you as a lesser human being though, I think you either stop making claims on my personal character as they really are red herrings.
[/QUOTE]
You haven't really given counter arguments. You've made claims, and you've made some conclusions, but you haven't really linked the two in most instances.
Also you keep using undefined terms like "christian perspective" and "free will". No one can even begin to have an honest discussion with you because you are free to change terms at will. Nearly every time someone brings up what might be an interesting point, you dismiss it outright and attempt to pass it off as impossible or incompatible by definition without there actually being a definition to discuss.
Really, if you wanted to talk about these things seriously, that should have been the first thing you did, especially since you are the one that brought up the issue in the first place.
How the hell can we have an honest discussion on "free will" if we don't have a single definition from which to work?
If you have a real elaborate definition for free will, then you might be able to avoid a lot of the flak coming your way for supporting such a notion if it seems to be logically sound.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42072168]
I obviously don't use evidence solely to go about day to day tasks because then I wouldn't be able to provide full evidence for anything around me. I hold beliefs that the things around me exist, that other people are actually people and not just mental projections. the infinite regress ultimately has no explanation in pure evidentialism and its proposed philosophical solutions contradict the very core factors that make evidentialism what it is.[/QUOTE]
Please, lets not start this garbage again.
I've yet to see a single person claim to be arguing from the position of evidentialism on this forum.
Aside from that, there exist potential solutions to the problem of infinite regress. The conditional theory of justification is a pretty good one, as is skepticism to some degree.
I'd like to see you justify the position that thinking nothing is absolutely certain, or that some things are potentially more certain or more rational than others is somehow an irrational position.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42072168]
How do his qualities not fit in a world in which they would make sense? You're not so much posing a question as much as stating an argument phrased as a question.
See, you just call an entire line of reasoning invalid based on your dismissal of what it means to argue "god"[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure they were getting at your dismissal of the whole reel of film vs flowchart thing. I wish I could think of a better way to explain this than that, but I'm not going to try to argue this bit since I don't know how you're going to respond to the initial set of questions. I for one am not omniscient.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42072168]
If you consider him giving us the best chance possible to know him and to accept grace whilst respecting our free will to be the equivalent to teaching us a lesson, then so be it.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure the whole catholic view vs your personal christian view comes into play here again. If you aren't speaking for christianity in general you can probably dismiss this argument, providing you've sufficiently demonstrated that your view is more correct than the catholic view.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42072168]
No, God hears all prayer, but the Lords prayer outlines what God himself told us we should pray about and how we should do it as a general guideline. Treating God like a vending machine for when you want to win the lottery is not treating your request as a wish for his will to be done, but your own. The most vital thing about prayer is that it's approached with humility and a recognition of ones status as a servant of God so that his will is ultimately done.[/QUOTE]
Same deal as above. Sorry to tell you that your personal view of prayer isn't the only one. From your personal perspective you can probably ignore this argument once again. It would help greatly if you put ownership on your christian perspective instead of trying to pass it off as the christian perspective. It would help even more if you didn't attempt to outright dismiss other christian perspectives, invalidate them without any supporting evidence, or declassify them as christian perspectives all together.
A lot of criticisms can be avoided entirely if you make a clear distinction between what you personally hold to be true and what others might hold to be true without simply stating that everyone else is wrong.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42072168]
This is a huge question and frankly I don't think you'd even be willing to hear me out on any of what I'd say as a response. Frankly I'm getting sick of your overly personal negative claims on my character, your avoidance of my questions and your petty attempts at trying to bring up our last discussion(such as commenting and bringing it up as side comments in this discussion) as if it's at all relevant to this one. If you're going to continue responding to me in these ways I feel no inclination to respond back.[/QUOTE]
People have been a little dickish to you. I'm going to say it is kind of difficult to resist the urge to lash out especially when you just gloss over things and disregard seemingly well formulated arguments for seemingly petty reasons.
I'm pretty sure one of the biggest issues is the loose undefined terms you keep throwing around and attempting to defend. If an argument about X is irrelevant to X by definition of X, that can only be obvious to everyone if X is clearly defined.
For all we know you could have a perfectly valid definition for something like "free will" that lets you ignore all the points people have been bringing up. People are obviously having problems with understanding your reasoning on the matter since they keep bringing up the same point over and over again every time you dismiss it and get frustrated when you dismiss it.
For what its worth, I don't think you're intentionally holding back your definitions from us. I know from teaching/mentoring making clear definitions accessible to all the parties involved is a step that is often forgotten, but it sure as hell makes a difference when you remember to do so. The problem is that you're making what probably feels like incremental steps in your reasoning to you (probably due to your personal knowledge of your definitions for these terms) but they look like huge bounds to most everyone else out here.
I really don't want to bump this thread with such a gigantic wall of words that are mostly off topic, but I think that if you start clearly defining the terms you're attempting to have a debate or discussion on, everyone can avoid the resulting six pages of off topic discussion that just leaves everyone with a bad taste in their mouths.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;42073019]If god is omniscient does god know what everyone will decide?
If god is omniscient does god know the outcome of every decision?
If god knows what everyone will decide and the outcome of every decision is it possible for someone to decide to do something other than what god has determined?
If it is possible to do something other than what god has determined does god still know about this new decision before it happens?
If god doesn't know about what someone will decide and the results of that decision before they decide, is god omniscient?
If god does know what someone will decide before they decide even if they decide to do something other than what god originally planned, is the future determined or undetermined?
If the future is determined, please demonstrate precisely how humans can have free will. If they have no options other than that which is already determined, then humans seem to be scripted entities. If they can't decide to do something other than that which has already been determined then there are no real decisions. The process of decision making from the perspective of man might make it seem like a real decision, but if the outcome of the decision the actor is predetermined to make is also predetermined, then it is a linear progression from the eyes of god/elsewhere in the universe/outside the universe or what have you. Its like moving along frames in a movie reel, not like moving through a flow chart.
[/QUOTE]
As I have continued to state, God does not predetermine our choices for us. Saying that he determines them implies that he causes them himself, which would mean that there is no free will. The thing is though, he doesn't, his omniscience allows him to see events unfold before they actually do. I've been pushing this point from the start.
[QUOTE]So, assuming you believe in eternal afterlife, which has more value?
That which is unlimited in supply, or that which is limited?
If that which is unlimited in supply has more value, please explain your reasoning/opinion.
If that which is limited in supply has more value, then why would your god allow for the potential of eliminating that which is limited (mortal life)? If humans don't really develop a sense of ethics until the age of four or five, why would a benevolent god allow for a system where a child can be robbed of the potential to develop an ethical and moral sense of the teachings god laid out?
This issue is even more important when you consider that this specific view:
Unless of course you aren't trying to speak for christianity in general. In that case, your language is pretty lazy.
Even if you aren't speaking for christianity in general I'd still like to see you justify why the catholic reasoning on this issue is wrong.[/QUOTE]
Well, in the context of the discussion it would be the eternal afterlife that is greater in value. I'll admit I was out of line stating this on the side, this is not concrete doctrine. There really isn't any concrete doctrine for those who never had the chance to hold moral values, much less understand the concept of grace. There is only the doctrine of what innocence is and how it's commonly equated to the minds of extremely young children. I can't say the Catholic reasoning is specifically wrong though as I have no way of being dogmatic about this specific concept due to it's vagueness. The Catholic doctrine makes no greater conclusions, the page that you linked is simply speaking about baptism(which ultimately is a declaration of faith, not a way to salvation).
[QUOTE]I'm not sure I get the point of this. Maybe I will after you respond and address the whole film reel vs flow chart analogy. Like I said earlier, if god is omniscient and already knows the decisions and results of everyone else, I don't really get how this is an example of god respecting the free will of human entities, let alone something to praise. [/QUOTE]
Well those decisions are made out of free will(free will being the ability to choose between thinking/acting on many different options, essentially the same free will the justice system assumes on people that don't have serious psychological problems), it's just that we ultimately make a choice. Your flow chart analogy only works before the choice has been made, once it has been made there is a set path to follow, that doesn't mean you have no free will. So, if we inevitably make some kind of choice on the matter, then that choice exists and is true. If God, being omniscient, knows all truths, then he knows that we will make that specific choice.
[QUOTE]Please demonstrate how this is nothing to be proud of. Simply stating that something is natural and is therefore nothing to be proud of isn't going to cut it. Demonstrate exactly why it is meaningless.
The laurel tree is a natural phenomena/entity. It existed before ancient cultures ascribed meaning to it's leaves and branches. We've gone from something without meaning, to something with meaning in certain contexts only using things that exist in nature (trees and humans) and the characteristics they have.
I guess you could make the argument that humans have some sort of aspect of that which isn't natural or bound to the universe (like the soul) but then you'd have to demonstrate that humans have a soul, that it exists outside the universe, and that it is somehow responsible for the emergent meaning in this situation.[/QUOTE]
Well if everything is natural process and humanity simply follows a strict determinism because of that, aren't all of our achievements just the result of a serious of chemical reactions within our minds that could not have happened any other way? In a world like that genius would be nothing to be proud of, nor achievement, it would all just be the laws of the universe dictating things in the only way that they could happen.
[QUOTE]You haven't really given counter arguments. You've made claims, and you've made some conclusions, but you haven't really linked the two in most instances.
Also you keep using undefined terms like "christian perspective" and "free will". No one can even begin to have an honest discussion with you because you are free to change terms at will. Nearly every time someone brings up what might be an interesting point, you dismiss it outright and attempt to pass it off as impossible or incompatible by definition without there actually being a definition to discuss.
Really, if you wanted to talk about these things seriously, that should have been the first thing you did, especially since you are the one that brought up the issue in the first place.
How the hell can we have an honest discussion on "free will" if we don't have a single definition from which to work?
If you have a real elaborate definition for free will, then you might be able to avoid a lot of the flak coming your way for supporting such a notion if it seems to be logically sound.[/QUOTE]
You're right, defining free will and omniscience from the start in this discussion would have made things much easier.
Free will would be a person's ability to make choices for themselves instead of having an outside entity actively make the choices for them, that does not mean external influence has no hold on which choice a person chooses, it just means that it is ultimately the person making the choice and not some other entity.
Omniscience would be the ability to know all truths, so if something exists in reality, then an omniscient entity knows about it.
[QUOTE]Please, lets not start this garbage again.
I've yet to see a single person claim to be arguing from the position of evidentialism on this forum.
Aside from that, there exist potential solutions to the problem of infinite regress. The conditional theory of justification is a pretty good one, as is skepticism to some degree.
I'd like to see you justify the position that thinking nothing is absolutely certain, or that some things are potentially more certain or more rational than others is somehow an irrational position.[/QUOTE]
Nobody has mentioned evidentialism as being their world-view, but countless people have told me that they rely only on evidence(which is what evidentialism is), I'm just showing how that isn't true. Also all solutions for the infinite regress still contradict what evidentialism actually is, you'd be better assuming the view point of the solutions instead of connecting yourself with evidentialism by claiming to rely solely on evidence. If you people don't say that they rely solely on evidence as if to back up their point of view, I will not mention it.
[QUOTE]Pretty sure the whole catholic view vs your personal christian view comes into play here again. If you aren't speaking for christianity in general you can probably dismiss this argument, providing you've sufficiently demonstrated that your view is more correct than the catholic view.[/QUOTE]
Well naturally we have the best chance possible to come to know God, it's still difficult without interfering with our free wills and considering the doctrine of original sin though.
[QUOTE]Same deal as above. Sorry to tell you that your personal view of prayer isn't the only one. From your personal perspective you can probably ignore this argument once again. It would help greatly if you put ownership on your christian perspective instead of trying to pass it off as the christian perspective. It would help even more if you didn't attempt to outright dismiss other christian perspectives, invalidate them without any supporting evidence, or declassify them as christian perspectives all together.[/QUOTE]
This is really the best source on prayer in all of the biblical text, the Lord's Prayer is is the ultimate authority when searching for who to pray as a Christian. This is mainly due to the fact that it was taught by the Christ himself. If one chooses to hold the Catholic traditions at the same significance as the words of the Christ, that would be adding to the doctrine. I can't say that confessions are totally against Christian faith as they don't necessarily interfere with any of its core teachings. I can say that it is not a necessary aspect of prayer scripturally though and that the teachings of the Lord's Prayer are still practiced even in Catholic prayers, so this would be correct under Catholic doctrine.
but if he knows what happens before it happens, then it has to be predetermined. if he just has a vague idea of what's going to happen and he can be wrong about it, then that's no better than just human reasoning and is far from omniscient.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42079400]As I have continued to state, God does not predetermine our choices for us. Saying that he determines them implies that he causes them himself, which would mean that there is no free will. The thing is though, he doesn't, his omniscience allows him to see events unfold before they actually do. I've been pushing this point from the start.[/QUOTE]
But that's the thing. You're stating it and not backing it up. you're claiming this as if it's self evident when people are trying to lay down a line of reasoning that is easy, and understandable to follow. you're just saying no and not even trying.
[QUOTE]Well, in the context of the discussion it would be the eternal afterlife that is greater in value. I'll admit I was out of line stating this on the side, this is not concrete doctrine. There really isn't any concrete doctrine for those who never had the chance to hold moral values, much less understand the concept of grace. There is only the doctrine of what innocence is and how it's commonly equated to the minds of extremely young children. I can't say the Catholic reasoning is specifically wrong though as I have no way of being dogmatic about this specific concept due to it's vagueness. The Catholic doctrine makes no greater conclusions, the page that you linked is simply speaking about baptism(which ultimately is a declaration of faith, not a way to salvation).[/QUOTE]
I disagree. I think life is more important if it's in limited supply with no concrete evidence of an afterlife, one may very easily waste the only life they have in pursuit of something that is only going to be given to them once they die, something that they're not sure of on any level but a faith level. That seems like a major waste. It's also coming down again, to you defining what matters to the whole religion.
[QUOTE]Well those decisions are made out of free will(free will being the ability to choose between thinking/acting on many different options, essentially the same free will the justice system assumes on people that don't have serious psychological problems), it's just that we ultimately make a choice. Your flow chart analogy only works before the choice has been made, once it has been made there is a set path to follow, that doesn't mean you have no free will. So, if we inevitably make some kind of choice on the matter, then that choice exists and is true. If God, being omniscient, knows all truths, then he knows that we will make that specific choice.[/QUOTE]
But if god knows you can't make a choice he can't know about, how can you have true free will? A being that creates you, also knows your fate, qualities, and aspects in everyway. He knows from the moment he creates a person their fates and their ends, and god is the creator of man, no? So for everyone, he has a plan? Or is it free will? The bible isn't clear on this.
[QUOTE]Well if everything is natural process and humanity simply follows a strict determinism because of that, aren't all of our achievements just the result of a serious of chemical reactions within our minds that could not have happened any other way? In a world like that genius would be nothing to be proud of, nor achievement, it would all just be the laws of the universe dictating things in the only way that they could happen.[/QUOTE]
No, not really. When someone brings up the problem of "head in a vat" and they respond with "infinite regress is hardly the answer I want to hear" it is very hard to argue with them over what's a reasonable amount of evidence.
[QUOTE]You're right, defining free will and omniscience from the start in this discussion would have made things much easier.
Free will would be a person's ability to make choices for themselves instead of having an outside entity actively make the choices for them, that does not mean external influence has no hold on which choice a person chooses, it just means that it is ultimately the person making the choice and not some other entity.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Omniscience would be the ability to know all truths, so if something exists in reality, then an omniscient entity knows about it.[/QUOTE]
if one is all knowing of all potentials, then they know there's only one way things will go, no? Is that free will or is that pre determined paths? You act like free will is essentially magic, an island unto itself.
[QUOTE]Nobody has mentioned evidentialism as being their world-view, but countless people have told me that they rely only on evidence(which is what evidentialism is), I'm just showing how that isn't true. Also all solutions for the infinite regress still contradict what evidentialism actually is, you'd be better assuming the view point of the solutions instead of connecting yourself with evidentialism by claiming to rely solely on evidence. If you people don't say that they rely solely on evidence as if to back up their point of view, I will not mention it.[/QUOTE]
But no one has claimed to rely solely on evidence. I'm personally sick of you using the term, and applying it to people who don't go by that to strengthen your argument. If you want to believe in a world view that requires faith to fill in for evidence never being real enough for you, then fine. But this is in impractical, and impossible in the modern day for the majority of people to live. No, people don't rely "solely" on evidence, there are assumptions made, but damn, they do not act in the way you seem to feel.
[QUOTE]Well naturally we have the best chance possible to come to know God, it's still difficult without interfering with our free wills and considering the doctrine of original sin though.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you read the part of the post you're replying to here, I really don't.
[QUOTE]This is really the best source on prayer in all of the biblical text, the Lord's Prayer is is the ultimate authority when searching for who to pray as a Christian. This is mainly due to the fact that it was taught by the Christ himself. If one chooses to hold the Catholic traditions at the same significance as the words of the Christ, that would be adding to the doctrine. I can't say that confessions are totally against Christian faith as they don't necessarily interfere with any of its core teachings. I can say that it is not a necessary aspect of prayer scripturally though and that the teachings of the Lord's Prayer are still practiced even in Catholic prayers, so this would be correct under Catholic doctrine.[/QUOTE]
So again, you're defining what's real and what's not, what's important, and what's not?
If you don't see you saying "well catholicism is it's own thing and christ is much different" well sure, they are logically and realistically different, but you seem to be claiming a validity of one over the other based on absolutely nothing.
His predetermination is not an active skill, it is a passive skill. He does not know because he predetermines, be predetermines by knowing.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42079400]
Free will would be a person's ability to make choices for themselves instead of having an outside entity actively make the choices for them, that does not mean external influence has no hold on which choice a person chooses, it just means that it is ultimately the person making the choice and not some other entity.
Omniscience would be the ability to know all truths, so if something exists in reality, then an omniscient entity knows about it.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think I'm going to touch anything other than this since you glossed over a bunch of things in my previous post.
From your definition of free will, I'd like to see your definition of "choice".
Also, from your definition of omniscience, would that which has yet to happen be included in the category of things that an omniscient entity would know? Does an omniscient entity know the future under your definition?
I don't understand how anyone could ever accuse Stephen Fry of disrespecting cultures. I can't think of many people who quite obviously have such enormous respect for that sort of thing as him.
[editline]4th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;42070078]that would be predeterminism which is in direct conflict with free will[/QUOTE]
There are a huuuuuuuuge body of papers basically arguing that this exact statement is incorrect; you can't just discredit them all by implying that it's [I]obviously[/I] correct, because it isn't.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;42080399]I don't understand how anyone could ever accuse Stephen Fry of disrespecting cultures. I can't think of many people who quite obviously have such enormous respect for that sort of thing as him.
[editline]4th September 2013[/editline]
There are a huuuuuuuuge body of papers basically arguing that this exact statement is incorrect; you can't just discredit them all by implying that it's [I]obviously[/I] correct, because it isn't.[/QUOTE]
And there's just as many arguing that it is correct so your point is?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42080468]And there's just as many arguing that it is correct so your point is?[/QUOTE]
Exactly. My point is you can't just make a flat out statement either way and expect for it to have any traction, because it ignores the whole debate. If you're engaging in a debate about free will and you state that predeterminism excludes free will, you're ignoring half of the literature.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;42080486]Exactly. My point is you can't just make a flat out statement either way and expect for it to have any traction, because it ignores the whole debate. If you're engaging in a debate about free will and you state that predeterminism excludes free will, you're ignoring half of the literature.[/QUOTE]
having read some of said literature, you can read it, understand, and disagree. a lot of people do actually.
[editline]4th September 2013[/editline]
but you are right you can't just disregard it
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42080501]having read some of said literature, you can read it, understand, and disagree. a lot of people do actually.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying you can't... I'm saying that it's bad practice to make such an enormous assumption about something that the very debate is about. To engage in debate properly you have to at least acknowledge the existence of arguments contrary to your view otherwise what's the point?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42079549]But that's the thing. You're stating it and not backing it up. you're claiming this as if it's self evident when people are trying to lay down a line of reasoning that is easy, and understandable to follow. you're just saying no and not even trying.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]if one is all knowing of all potentials, then they know there's only one way things will go, no? Is that free will or is that pre determined paths? You act like free will is essentially magic, an island unto itself.[/QUOTE]
Well knowing it is true that Columbus set sail in 1942 doesn't really affect the free will he exercised, omniscience would be the same. It is true that Columbus went out on his voyage in 1942, an omniscient being would know the future in a similar fashion. The knowledge of the truth doesn't influence it in any way.
[QUOTE]I disagree. I think life is more important if it's in limited supply with no concrete evidence of an afterlife, one may very easily waste the only life they have in pursuit of something that is only going to be given to them once they die, something that they're not sure of on any level but a faith level. That seems like a major waste. It's also coming down again, to you defining what matters to the whole religion.[/QUOTE]
Well, I was speaking in the context of the discussion, which is Christianity. In any case, putting higher value on the more abstract things of life leads to a much deeper living experience. Even humanism does this, bringing an entirely different perspective on how one views others, society and the world.
[QUOTE]But if god knows you can't make a choice he can't know about, how can you have true free will? A being that creates you, also knows your fate, qualities, and aspects in everyway. He knows from the moment he creates a person their fates and their ends, and god is the creator of man, no? So for everyone, he has a plan? Or is it free will? The bible isn't clear on this.[/QUOTE]
Well, he's known through all eternity, even before he creates the person. He's simply observing a truth in reality, just like a historian observes a truth in history, this is just in the future from our perspectives.
As for God's plan for us, that involves the use of his omniscience to form a plan that will do his will. His plan can exist in the presence of free will because it is formed through his knowing of what we will do out of our free will.
[QUOTE]No, not really. When someone brings up the problem of "head in a vat" and they respond with "infinite regress is hardly the answer I want to hear" it is very hard to argue with them over what's a reasonable amount of evidence.[/QUOTE]
Well, I wasn't talking about the philosophical brain in a vat scenario, I was asking how in a deterministic universe one could truly put any value on their thoughts if their thoughts are simply chemical reactions following exactly what the physical laws dictate to them. Essentially every thought you have could have been nothing else. So what is there to be proud of in the human intellect if we have no control over it and are just doing precisely what natural law says?
[QUOTE]But no one has claimed to rely solely on evidence. I'm personally sick of you using the term, and applying it to people who don't go by that to strengthen your argument. If you want to believe in a world view that requires faith to fill in for evidence never being real enough for you, then fine. But this is in impractical, and impossible in the modern day for the majority of people to live. No, people don't rely "solely" on evidence, there are assumptions made, but damn, they do not act in the way you seem to feel.[/QUOTE]
Of course everyone makes use of evidence to get through every day life, but they also make use of very foundational beliefs as well. I for one am the same, truth is very important to me, but I understand(just as I'm sure you and almost everyone else does) that belief is an important aspect of everyday life as well.
[QUOTE]I don't think you read the part of the post you're replying to here, I really don't.[/QUOTE]
Catholic doctrine also teaches that God wishes all of humanity could be in his presence, so naturally God would give us the best possible chance at it given the restraints that he has put on the power he has over us. Our bibles aren't that different and the differences that are there do not, at the moment, affect the core facets of Christianity.
[QUOTE]So again, you're defining what's real and what's not, what's important, and what's not?
If you don't see you saying "well catholicism is it's own thing and christ is much different" well sure, they are logically and realistically different, but you seem to be claiming a validity of one over the other based on absolutely nothing.[/QUOTE]
Within the context of Christianity, the Christ and the biblical text has a lot more validity than Catholic tradition, this was the purpose of the reformation. It's even scripturally taught to test any teachings against those in the bible.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42082125]Well knowing it is true that Columbus set sail in 1942 doesn't really affect the free will he exercised, omniscience would be the same. It is true that Columbus went out on his voyage in 1942, an omniscient being would know the future in a similar fashion. The knowledge of the truth doesn't influence it in any way.[/QUOTE]
1942? I'll let that slide as a repeated typo.
[QUOTE]Well, I was speaking in the context of the discussion, which is Christianity. In any case, putting higher value on the more abstract things of life leads to a much deeper living experience. Even humanism does this, bringing an entirely different perspective on how one views others, society and the world.[/QUOTE]
Yes. And you made it sound like viewing the world through a "naturalistic" lens makes us devalued. It doesn't. Humanism and other forms of philopsohpies about this prove that.
[QUOTE]Well, he's known through all eternity, even before he creates the person. He's simply observing a truth in reality, just like a historian observes a truth in history, this is just in the future from our perspectives.[/QUOTE]
That's oddly contradictory.
[QUOTE]As for God's plan for us, that involves the use of his omniscience to form a plan that will do his will. His plan can exist in the presence of free will because it is formed through his knowing of what we will do out of our free will.[/QUOTE]
That's ENTIRELY contradictory. If he has a plan for us that allows us to choose, I feel much like the analogy of a rat in a maze is adequate. Yes, I can choose to go left or right, but only right is correct. He has constructed a maze for us to stumble through with the most limited definition of free will applicable. This is also contradictory to your earlier statements that I hadn't outlined how his omniscience affects free will and him having an effect in our lives.
[QUOTE]Well, I wasn't talking about the philosophical brain in a vat scenario, I was asking how in a deterministic universe one could truly put any value on their thoughts if their thoughts are simply chemical reactions following exactly what the physical laws dictate to them. Essentially every thought you have could have been nothing else. So what is there to be proud of in the human intellect if we have no control over it and are just doing precisely what natural law says?[/QUOTE]
I thought you were referencing the natural doubt of all ideas besides "i think/i doubt" my bad. Christianity teaches that pride is a sin, so why would we want to be proud of something?(this isn't a serious argument, but please do think about this in context with your earlier comment of "proud of being a genius")
To me, being a mechanical operation doesn't demean a moment of my life. I get to actively apply the meaning i'd like to my life. Yes, I am after all "destined" to think that, but outside stimulus will affect me, will change me, will make me different, how I react to those, my natural reactions or my trained reactions are something I personally find a reason to be "proud" of. Pride to me isn't the right term because it's a mostly negative emotion.
[QUOTE]Of course everyone makes use of evidence to get through every day life, but they also make use of very foundational beliefs as well. I for one am the same, truth is very important to me, but I understand(just as I'm sure you and almost everyone else does) that belief is an important aspect of everyday life as well.[/QUOTE]
Belief that a car going at a certain speed will retain it's inertia, or that any physical object is subservient to gravity isn't much of a belief. It's a known fact due to the observed repeatablity of that effect. Doubting that is a critical fault in your critical thinking. Everyone makes assumptional jumps in their logic, but to cut out large swaths of logic as you have in my opinion, is wrong and lacking of critical thinking.
[QUOTE]Catholic doctrine also teaches that God wishes all of humanity could be in his presence, so naturally God would give us the best possible chance at it given the restraints that he has put on the power he has over us. Our bibles aren't that different and the differences that are there do not, at the moment, affect the core facets of Christianity. [/QUOTE]
But he could honestly just create us perfectly so we live with him in perfect harmony regardless?
the various different texts of the bible change the story enough that there should be a discussion about this beyond "well it's dependent on which one you read first"
[QUOTE]Within the context of Christianity, the Christ and the biblical text has a lot more validity than Catholic tradition, this was the purpose of the reformation. It's even scripturally taught to test any teachings against those in the bible.[/QUOTE]
Well again, this is STRICTLY your opinion and not a factual observation by any means.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42082542]1942? I'll let that slide as a repeated typo.[/QUOTE]
Heh, not sure how I let that one slip, 1492*. My point still stands though, God observes future truths just as he views past truths, his omniscience allows for this. If it is nothing but an observation of truth, the fact that it is truth does not control which choice we make, only which of the possible options will become true through our own choice.
[QUOTE]Yes. And you made it sound like viewing the world through a "naturalistic" lens makes us devalued. It doesn't. Humanism and other forms of philopsohpies about this prove that.[/QUOTE]
Humanism proposes an artificial construct of human value when combined with a naturalistic context. It assigns human value, but not intrinsic human value.
[QUOTE]That's oddly contradictory.
That's ENTIRELY contradictory. If he has a plan for us that allows us to choose, I feel much like the analogy of a rat in a maze is adequate. Yes, I can choose to go left or right, but only right is correct. He has constructed a maze for us to stumble through with the most limited definition of free will applicable. This is also contradictory to your earlier statements that I hadn't outlined how his omniscience affects free will and him having an effect in our lives.[/QUOTE]
How is it contradictory? If he knows all truth and it is true that he creates a certain person who has their own truths, he would know all of those truths through his omniscience.
As for his plan, how does it limit our choices in any way? Yes it affects our's and others' lives, but that is all external, not through direct manipulations of our will. Ultimately he wishes to see all of us come to him, but due to free will that cannot happen, so instead as many as possible must be influenced externally and through his own calling them to come to him.
[QUOTE]I thought you were referencing the natural doubt of all ideas besides "i think/i doubt" my bad. Christianity teaches that pride is a sin, so why would we want to be proud of something?(this isn't a serious argument, but please do think about this in context with your earlier comment of "proud of being a genius")
To me, being a mechanical operation doesn't demean a moment of my life. I get to actively apply the meaning i'd like to my life. Yes, I am after all "destined" to think that, but outside stimulus will affect me, will change me, will make me different, how I react to those, my natural reactions or my trained reactions are something I personally find a reason to be "proud" of. Pride to me isn't the right term because it's a mostly negative emotion.[/QUOTE]
Well, pride isn't necessarily a negative emotion, in excess when it becomes arrogance it certainly is negative though. For instance, taking pride in your actions guarantees a certain quality in your work and being satisfied with doing things with quality.
When I referred to being proud of our genius, I meant to be satisfied(or proud) of how we as humanity solve problems. Really in a deterministic universe all of humanities achievements are nothing but the mechanisms of our bodies following natural law, so do our achievements really apply much meaning at all to us in that context?
[QUOTE]But he could honestly just create us perfectly so we live with him in perfect harmony regardless?[/QUOTE]
Because he wishes for us to choose him out of our own free will, essentially to love him so that we may share a full relationship with him of our own choice. He gives us the ability to choose whether we wish to be with him or not, allowing us the chance to choose our own fate instead of him making us perfect from the start. It shows a respect as he wants our choice to be our own and it shows his love as he wishes us to love in return, not just hold affection for him because that's how he made us(and really if someone doesn't choose to love is it really love?).
[QUOTE]the various different texts of the bible change the story enough that there should be a discussion about this beyond "well it's dependent on which one you read first"
Well again, this is STRICTLY your opinion and not a factual observation by any means.[/QUOTE]
Well, scripture must be read as whole and the historical order that the books were written in is vital for interpreting them. The current predominant order is the one that has been repeatedly deemed the most accurate to the original inspired words. I believe the Catholics include an apocryphal book(a book deemed to historically disconnected from the rest of scripture to be included with it) called the Book of Wisdom, but it doesn't interfere with the doctrines of the Christ, God or Grace, all of which have been repeatedly deemed the most vital doctrines of Christianity ever since it's most early years. It is my opinion, but I draw it from pain-staking study that has occurred throughout the existence of the Christian Church in general.
[QUOTE=barrab;42047716]he's a prick with no respect for other's cultures.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Gatsby;42047707]It's 2013 guys, being an atheist is pretty over rated now.
Agnostic masterrace[/QUOTE]
Worst two posts 2013
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42087851]Heh, not sure how I let that one slip, 1492*. My point still stands though, God observes future truths just as he views past truths, his omniscience allows for this. If it is nothing but an observation of truth, the fact that it is truth does not control which choice we make, only which of the possible options will become true through our own choice.
Humanism proposes an artificial construct of human value when combined with a naturalistic context. It assigns human value, but not intrinsic human value.
How is it contradictory? If he knows all truth and it is true that he creates a certain person who has their own truths, he would know all of those truths through his omniscience.
As for his plan, how does it limit our choices in any way? Yes it affects our's and others' lives, but that is all external, not through direct manipulations of our will. Ultimately he wishes to see all of us come to him, but due to free will that cannot happen, so instead as many as possible must be influenced externally and through his own calling them to come to him.
Well, pride isn't necessarily a negative emotion, in excess when it becomes arrogance it certainly is negative though. For instance, taking pride in your actions guarantees a certain quality in your work and being satisfied with doing things with quality.
When I referred to being proud of our genius, I meant to be satisfied(or proud) of how we as humanity solve problems. Really in a deterministic universe all of humanities achievements are nothing but the mechanisms of our bodies following natural law, so do our achievements really apply much meaning at all to us in that context?
Because he wishes for us to choose him out of our own free will, essentially to love him so that we may share a full relationship with him of our own choice. He gives us the ability to choose whether we wish to be with him or not, allowing us the chance to choose our own fate instead of him making us perfect from the start. It shows a respect as he wants our choice to be our own and it shows his love as he wishes us to love in return, not just hold affection for him because that's how he made us(and really if someone doesn't choose to love is it really love?).
Well, scripture must be read as whole and the historical order that the books were written in is vital for interpreting them. The current predominant order is the one that has been repeatedly deemed the most accurate to the original inspired words. I believe the Catholics include an apocryphal book(a book deemed to historically disconnected from the rest of scripture to be included with it) called the Book of Wisdom, but it doesn't interfere with the doctrines of the Christ, God or Grace, all of which have been repeatedly deemed the most vital doctrines of Christianity ever since it's most early years. It is my opinion, but I draw it from pain-staking study that has occurred throughout the existence of the Christian Church in general.[/QUOTE]
Since you don't seem to be able to comprehend why we have no free will if an omniscient god exists, I won't comment in that and let it slide for now, so with that in mind.
Why.
How does this benefit God. "so we can choose to love him of our own free will". Seems rather silly for an all powerful being to want our love, or to allow us the free will to choose not to love him. Does he need us to love him to be as powerful as he is a la Star Gate Ori? If so, why does he allow us the free will not to love him? We wouldn't know either way, he can simply make us believe we love him out of or own free will and none but him would know.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42087851]Heh, not sure how I let that one slip, 1492*. My point still stands though, God observes future truths just as he views past truths, his omniscience allows for this. If it is nothing but an observation of truth, the fact that it is truth does not control which choice we make, only which of the possible options will become true through our own choice.[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't. You have stated it. Again. You have made a claim. You have not explained this claim at all.
[QUOTE]Humanism proposes an artificial construct of human value when combined with a naturalistic context. It assigns human value, but not intrinsic human value.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, like I said, you just made it sound like humanism lacks the ability to value life. This is categorically not true and is an assumption that "intrinsic" values exist.
[QUOTE]How is it contradictory? If he knows all truth and it is true that he creates a certain person who has their own truths, he would know all of those truths through his omniscience. [/QUOTE]
How isn't it? One idea steps on the other. That's contradicting. So his omniscience let's him know all, and as the creator of the people, like I've said before, how does this allow for any sort of free will? It doesn't if he knows you can't take a choice he won't know before it happens.
[QUOTE]As for his plan, how does it limit our choices in any way? Yes it affects our's and others' lives, but that is all external, not through direct manipulations of our will. Ultimately he wishes to see all of us come to him, but due to free will that cannot happen, so instead as many as possible must be influenced externally and through his own calling them to come to him.
[/QUOTE]
Think of it as a rat in a maze. You are dropped in the start of it and told to find the way to the end, the cheese is your motivation. You have hundreds of choices, but only reaching the end of the maze matters, so every wrong turn you make is a constructed attempt and squashing free will.
Again, why wouldn't we just exist in gods embrace, he doesn't need to make the ones who will reject him from the start. he makes the ones who he knows will reject him eternally, and yet, he lets them loose on the world so that they may ultimately end up in hell. He knows this. He doesn't care.
[QUOTE]Well, pride isn't necessarily a negative emotion, in excess when it becomes arrogance it certainly is negative though. For instance, taking pride in your actions guarantees a certain quality in your work and being satisfied with doing things with quality.[/QUOTE]
This is in contradiction with scripture. Flat out.
[QUOTE]When I referred to being proud of our genius, I meant to be satisfied(or proud) of how we as humanity solve problems. Really in a deterministic universe all of humanities achievements are nothing but the mechanisms of our bodies following natural law, so do our achievements really apply much meaning at all to us in that context?[/QUOTE]
But if we're just a product of god, what do we have to be proud of when we're intelligent? We didn't earn that. it's a weird combination of a plan and so called free will, so what about that is there to be proud of?
[QUOTE]
Because he wishes for us to choose him out of our own free will, essentially to love him so that we may share a full relationship with him of our own choice. He gives us the ability to choose whether we wish to be with him or not, allowing us the chance to choose our own fate instead of him making us perfect from the start. It shows a respect as he wants our choice to be our own and it shows his love as he wishes us to love in return, not just hold affection for him because that's how he made us(and really if someone doesn't choose to love is it really love?).[/QUOTE]
Seems like a game for an all powerful being then.
And yes, it would still be love. You don't really choose to love your parents. You almost always do though. Vice versa for parents and their kids. Biological events force love.
[QUOTE]Well, scripture must be read as whole and the historical order that the books were written in is vital for interpreting them. The current predominant order is the one that has been repeatedly deemed the most accurate to the original inspired words. I believe the Catholics include an apocryphal book(a book deemed to historically disconnected from the rest of scripture to be included with it) called the Book of Wisdom, but it doesn't interfere with the doctrines of the Christ, God or Grace, all of which have been repeatedly deemed the most vital doctrines of Christianity ever since it's most early years. It is my opinion, but I draw it from pain-staking study that has occurred throughout the existence of the Christian Church in general.[/QUOTE]
This is still how you're defining what is important to discuss about and what isn't.
1legmidget is a very respectful person and even he doesn't want to get into this argument anymore after how you glaze over the idea you don't have to back up your claims in most cases.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42087851]Heh, not sure how I let that one slip, 1492*. My point still stands though, God observes future truths just as he views past truths, his omniscience allows for this. If it is nothing but an observation of truth, the fact that it is truth does not control which choice we make, only which of the possible options will become true through our own choice.[/QUOTE]
yeah but the thing is that, if something has already happened from God's point of view, then i can't deviate from what he sees without creating a paradox. imagine that you went and made some toast ten minutes ago; you from ten minutes ago can't choose to do anything different, or else that would be contrary to what you know you chose - you can't have made toast and not made toast at the same time and currently be experiencing the consequences of both, that doesn't make any sense. you from ten minutes ago has no free will.
so if God sees everything as having already happened, then that's basically what everything, from the beginning of time till the end, would be like for him. plus, if he literally knows exactly what he's going to do in the future, [I]he[/I] wouldn't even have free will, which also completely shatters the idea of him having ultimate power at the same time.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42088266]No it doesn't. You have stated it. Again. You have made a claim. You have not explained this claim at all.[/QUOTE]
I have explained it, God knows all truths due to his omniscience. If it is true that Columbus sailed in 1492 then he knows it, unless you can prove in some way that his knowledge of that affects Columbus's choice, it had no influence on his free will. The matter is the same with the future from an omniscient view as it is just a truth that is known without influencing the free will that allowed that truth to come about.
[QUOTE=Cone]yeah but the thing is that, if something has already happened from God's point of view, then i can't deviate from what he sees without creating a paradox. imagine that you went and made some toast ten minutes ago; you from ten minutes ago can't choose to do anything different, or else that would be contrary to what you know you chose - you can't have made toast and not made toast at the same time and currently be experiencing the consequences of both, that doesn't make any sense. you from ten minutes ago has no free will.[/QUOTE]
There still remains the fact that I decided to make toast 10 minutes ago, was my will controlled at that time to make toast? No, I just decided to do it at the time and the fact that I am a finite being in a finite universe means that the time that I could have changed my mind has passed. The me from 10 minutes ago is still me, it's just that I'm limited to a finite existence and therefore can only exercise my will over the present.
[QUOTE]so if God sees everything as having already happened, then that's basically what everything, from the beginning of time till the end, would be like for him. plus, if he literally knows exactly what he's going to do in the future, he wouldn't even have free will, which also completely shatters the idea of him having ultimate power at the same time.[/QUOTE]
Well, from the perspective of God there is not future because time is a creation of his own and he transcends all creation, so without time there is no future.
[QUOTE]Yeah, like I said, you just made it sound like humanism lacks the ability to value life. This is categorically not true and is an assumption that "intrinsic" values exist. [/QUOTE]
Well there's a huge difference between assigning a value to something and something having an intrinsic value. Assigning a value may be convenient, but it's not truth. An intrinsic value on the other hand is not merely convenient, but actual truth.
[QUOTE]How isn't it? One idea steps on the other. That's contradicting. So his omniscience let's him know all, and as the creator of the people, like I've said before, how does this allow for any sort of free will? It doesn't if he knows you can't take a choice he won't know before it happens.[/QUOTE]
How does one idea step over the other? How does knowing every choice you make control that choice in any way?
[QUOTE]Think of it as a rat in a maze. You are dropped in the start of it and told to find the way to the end, the cheese is your motivation. You have hundreds of choices, but only reaching the end of the maze matters, so every wrong turn you make is a constructed attempt and squashing free will. [/QUOTE]
How is it squashing free will if the mouse is able to choose which way to turn on its own? Just because one chooses to turn away from God does not mean that he's exercising more power over their free will, besides, I'm not sure what all the aspects of your analogy parallel to. What is the exit analogous to? How does the trial and error involved in getting to the exit represent one's experience in the world?
Again, why wouldn't we just exist in gods embrace, he doesn't need to make the ones who will reject him from the start. he makes the ones who he knows will reject him eternally, and yet, he lets them loose on the world so that they may ultimately end up in hell. He knows this. He doesn't care.
[QUOTE]This is in contradiction with scripture. Flat out.[/QUOTE]
Alright, perhaps satisfaction is a better word for it, you're right. Scripture speaks against being prideful and arrogant at heart, it does not speak against taking pride in your actions though, in fact it states followers should.
[QUOTE]But if we're just a product of god, what do we have to be proud of when we're intelligent? We didn't earn that. it's a weird combination of a plan and so called free will, so what about that is there to be proud of?[/QUOTE]
Well in a Christian context we would be proud in God's blessing us with these abilities that allow us to do such things with what he's provided, that we've been given the chance out of his love.
[QUOTE]Seems like a game for an all powerful being then.
And yes, it would still be love. You don't really choose to love your parents. You almost always do though. Vice versa for parents and their kids. Biological events force love.[/QUOTE]
Well, there are cases where people do not love their parents and the only reason most of us do love them is because we have spent so much time so close to them from the beginning of our lives, so parents are kind of an exception to the idea that we choose to love(but not fully as they have to be very involved in your life from the beginning to gain it). In the case of loving everyone else, it is not as natural of a progression because we do not begin
[QUOTE]This is still how you're defining what is important to discuss about and what isn't.[/QUOTE]
I'm not defining what's important to talk about and what's not, I'm defining what is Christian doctrine based off of what has been repeatedly agreed upon by biblical scholars since Christianity's conception. I'm not saying it's not important to discuss, I'm saying that those who make use of highly deviated parts of the scripture have historically been considered apart from the church due to their radically different beliefs(and lack of historical/scriptural integrity of their additions/subtractions) in comparison to what has been the consensus of church scholars on what Christianity is since the very conception of the religion.
[QUOTE]1legmidget is a very respectful person and even he doesn't want to get into this argument anymore after how you glaze over the idea you don't have to back up your claims in most cases.[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't know what I'm glazing over and not backing up in what I'm saying, I'm answering your questions and inquiring on your statements the best that I can.
[QUOTE=mobrockers]Why.
How does this benefit God. "so we can choose to love him of our own free will". Seems rather silly for an all powerful being to want our love, or to allow us the free will to choose not to love him. Does he need us to love him to be as powerful as he is a la Star Gate Ori? If so, why does he allow us the free will not to love him? We wouldn't know either way, he can simply make us believe we love him out of or own free will and none but him would know.[/QUOTE]
It's not a case of God needing us to love him, God in his trinity doesn't get lonely or need other people to help him, it's more giving us the chance to enter a deeper relationship with him as his self chosen servants. It's a favor do us that while is not a necessity on his part, still brings him joy.
As for this life, I would say that nobody truly loves God. Based off of how scripture defines love([url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13%3A4-7&version=NIV]Source[/url]) none of us really have a consistent loving relationship with him in this life. What we are capable to do in this life is decide to accept his gift of grace that will allow us to enter a loving relationship with him in the future.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42090599]I have explained it, God knows all truths due to his omniscience. If it is true that Columbus sailed in 1492 then he knows it, unless you can prove in some way that his knowledge of that affects Columbus's choice, it had no influence on his free will. The matter is the same with the future from an omniscient view as it is just a truth that is known without influencing the free will that allowed that truth to come about.[/QUOTE]
This is illogical to me, and most people here. We simply can't understand the clear, and obvious disconnect and over laps of the two ideas existing together to understand how they would work. You clearly have a greater understanding of this idea than anyone else here, but you can't seem to explain it. You are stating that they don't have an effect. You haven't explained it. It doesn't matter whether he interferes or not, his ability to predetermine events has a clear and obvious interference with the idea of people being able to make any choice, any time they want.
[QUOTE]There still remains the fact that I decided to make toast 10 minutes ago, was my will controlled at that time to make toast? No, I just decided to do it at the time and the fact that I am a finite being in a finite universe means that the time that I could have changed my mind has passed. The me from 10 minutes ago is still me, it's just that I'm limited to a finite existence and therefore can only exercise my will over the present.[/QUOTE]
Rat. In. A. Maze.
[QUOTE]Well, from the perspective of God there is not future because time is a creation of his own and he transcends all creation, so without time there is no future.[/QUOTE]
Who can argue against this? No one, you fervently believe this, but you have no evidence for that(Please don't go into the very existence of life and the universe being "proof") so for you to have a convincing claim in anyway, you must explain how that can be
[QUOTE]Well there's a huge difference between assigning a value to something and something having an intrinsic value. Assigning a value may be convenient, but it's not truth. An intrinsic value on the other hand is not merely convenient, but actual truth.[/QUOTE]
What value does anything have? Only what we've given it through societal values and economic values. If you think anything more or less I'm afraid you'll have to back it up. What is the intrinsic value of a tree? Of a beaver? Of a cow? Of a toad? Of a person? Where do these values come from? How have you ascertained them? How can you be sure of your interpretation and understanding of them without a larger base of proofs and evidences to build them up on?
[QUOTE]How does one idea step over the other? How does knowing every choice you make control that choice in any way?[/QUOTE]
God designs a maze. The maze is the events of your life. There are many paths, and many choices, you can go in multiple directions at almost all times. God knows you will take a right here, and a left there, that you will react like that to this and this to that, and he even laid the maze, so where have I exercised my free will in anyway? He has designed me to take the turns and events that I have come upon. He has designed the maze. Where is my free will here?
[QUOTE]How is it squashing free will if the mouse is able to choose which way to turn on its own? Just because one chooses to turn away from God does not mean that he's exercising more power over their free will, besides, I'm not sure what all the aspects of your analogy parallel to. What is the exit analogous to? How does the trial and error involved in getting to the exit represent one's experience in the world?
[/QUOTE]
The exit is obvious, heaven for the cheese, hell for the mice that can't make it through the maze. How is this not an obvious analogy? I'm sorry, I just feel that it is.
Maybe the analogy falls down in that a researcher can not design that mouse from the start to the finish to be a certain way, and have certain qualities. Because that seems to fly directly in the face of "free will"
[QUOTE]Alright, perhaps satisfaction is a better word for it, you're right. Scripture speaks against being prideful and arrogant at heart, it does not speak against taking pride in your actions though, in fact it states followers should.[/QUOTE]
The bible is full of contradictions. You're actively pointing that out and not realizing it.
[QUOTE]Well in a Christian context we would be proud in God's blessing us with these abilities that allow us to do such things with what he's provided, that we've been given the chance out of his love.
[/QUOTE]
So it's not pride in oneself either way then, thank you for admitting that.
[QUOTE]Well, there are cases where people do not love their parents and the only reason most of us do love them is because we have spent so much time so close to them from the beginning of our lives, so parents are kind of an exception to the idea that we choose to love(but not fully as they have to be very involved in your life from the beginning to gain it). In the case of loving everyone else, it is not as natural of a progression because we do not begin [/QUOTE]
No, this is wrong and you will have to disprove a good amount of biological evidence that shows we're hard wired to love our caretakers from an early age. It is childhood, not infancy where that can begin to break down most frequently.
[QUOTE]I'm not defining what's important to talk about and what's not, I'm defining what is Christian doctrine based off of what has been repeatedly agreed upon by biblical scholars since Christianity's conception. I'm not saying it's not important to discuss, I'm saying that those who make use of highly deviated parts of the scripture have historically been considered apart from the church due to their radically different beliefs(and lack of historical/scriptural integrity of their additions/subtractions) in comparison to what has been the consensus of church scholars on what Christianity is since the very conception of the religion.[/QUOTE]
But you're picking and choosing what theologians and researches to agree with? You do not agree with all of them obviously.
[QUOTE]I honestly don't know what I'm glazing over and not backing up in what I'm saying, I'm answering your questions and inquiring on your statements the best that I can.[/QUOTE]
Please go and read your reply to 1legmidget then and see if you still feel that way. From our perspectives, you're responding, but you're repeating what is most closely associated with rhetoric.
[QUOTE]It's not a case of God needing us to love him, God in his trinity doesn't get lonely or need other people to help him, it's more giving us the chance to enter a deeper relationship with him as his self chosen servants. It's a favor do us that while is not a necessity on his part, still brings him joy.[/QUOTE]
So... A game.
[QUOTE]As for this life, I would say that nobody truly loves God. Based off of how scripture defines love([url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13%3A4-7&version=NIV]Source[/url]) none of us really have a consistent loving relationship with him in this life. What we are capable to do in this life is decide to accept his gift of grace that will allow us to enter a loving relationship with him in the future.[/QUOTE]
So life is a giant test by god. And this gives us value? You derive value from this?
[QUOTE]Again, why wouldn't we just exist in gods embrace, he doesn't need to make the ones who will reject him from the start. he makes the ones who he knows will reject him eternally, and yet, he lets them loose on the world so that they may ultimately end up in hell. He knows this. He doesn't care. [/QUOTE]
Please answer this.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;42090847]This is illogical to me, and most people here. We simply can't understand the clear, and obvious disconnect and over laps of the two ideas existing together to understand how they would work. You clearly have a greater understanding of this idea than anyone else here, but you can't seem to explain it. You are stating that they don't have an effect. You haven't explained it. It doesn't matter whether he interferes or not, his ability to predetermine events has a clear and obvious interference with the idea of people being able to make any choice, any time they want. [/QUOTE]
You keep using the word "predetermine" when I have stated that is not what omniscience is, the definition of omniscience is infinite knowledge(knowledge being the regard of truth or fact), not the ability to predetermine every single thing. Granted since omniscience is an attribute of God, he could predetermine every choice we make, but he chooses to respect the free will he gave us instead. Also you're claiming that his omniscience(which is one of his attributes) interferes with our free will without him interfering with it himself, but if you state one of his attributes interferes with free will does that not mean that you are claiming he himself does as well? Unless you believe a person's attributes separate from their being?
[QUOTE]Rat. In. A. Maze.[/QUOTE]
Well of course we have limitations as to the choices we make, that doesn't mean we don;t have free will though. While I suppose that could be equated to what directions a rat can turn in a maze, the analogy is a gross over simplification of it, we still have many choices that we can make.
[QUOTE]Who can argue against this? No one, you fervently believe this, but you have no evidence for that(Please don't go into the very existence of life and the universe being "proof") so for you to have a convincing claim in anyway, you must explain how that can be[/QUOTE]
I established from the beginning that I am speaking in the context of Christianity and in the context of Christianity this can be proven through scriptural analysis. Scripture says God is infinite and that he transcends all reality. So if the world we exist in is part of his creation, he exists out of time, meaning his infinity is free of contradiction in the context of his existence. Besides, a being that does not live in a finite reality would naturally be infinite.
[QUOTE]What value does anything have? Only what we've given it through societal values and economic values. If you think anything more or less I'm afraid you'll have to back it up. What is the intrinsic value of a tree? Of a beaver? Of a cow? Of a toad? Of a person? Where do these values come from? How have you ascertained them? How can you be sure of your interpretation and understanding of them without a larger base of proofs and evidences to build them up on?[/QUOTE]
Again, this whole discussion has been in the context of Christianity, if you want to take the discussion outside of that context than most of your questions in the post above are irrelevant.
Also, as God's creations they would all of intrinsic value as God himself said that they are good, it is very clearly laid out in scripture though, that humanity is of much higher value to God than the rest of creation in this natural world.
[QUOTE]God designs a maze. The maze is the events of your life. There are many paths, and many choices, you can go in multiple directions at almost all times. God knows you will take a right here, and a left there, that you will react like that to this and this to that, and he even laid the maze, so where have I exercised my free will in anyway? He has designed me to take the turns and events that I have come upon. He has designed the maze. Where is my free will here?[/QUOTE]
The exit is obvious, heaven for the cheese, hell for the mice that can't make it through the maze. How is this not an obvious analogy? I'm sorry, I just feel that it is.
Maybe the analogy falls down in that a researcher can not design that mouse from the start to the finish to be a certain way, and have certain qualities. Because that seems to fly directly in the face of "free will"
[QUOTE]The bible is full of contradictions. You're actively pointing that out and not realizing it.[/QUOTE]
I'm paraphrasing of course, the bible does not literally say "take pride(meaning a state of considering yourself of more value than others) in your actions". I use the phrase as it is commonly used today, to do the best that you can in what you do, this is hardly a contradiction.
[QUOTE]So it's not pride in oneself either way then, thank you for admitting that.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss]This is a massive and incredible dismissal of humanity and our ability to do great, and kind things.[/QUOTE]
Well you were stating that I was dismissing humanity's achievements, I was simply stating that in a deterministic world there's no way to really be proud(or satisfied/impressed) with our achievements because they are simply a result of laws outside of our control. I have no hesitation in admitting that Christianity does not put favor those that are proud of themselves or their achievements, rather it encourages we look to God with pride as he allowed us to achieve all this.
[QUOTE]No, this is wrong and you will have to disprove a good amount of biological evidence that shows we're hard wired to love our caretakers from an early age. It is childhood, not infancy where that can begin to break down most frequently. [/QUOTE]
Are you telling me a child that was taken right after birth out of their parents' zone of influence can still be empirically documented as feeling love for those biological parents? If that is the case, that argument still ignores how the vast majority of people we love in our lives had to be actively sought out by one party or both and both had to ultimately choose to have a more intimate relationship with the other.
[QUOTE]But you're picking and choosing what theologians and researches to agree with? You do not agree with all of them obviously.[/QUOTE]
Christian theology has been under attack since the conception of the Church, yet it has remained predominant throughout all of history because of the heavy scrutiny that new interpretations and doctrine are put under. The tireless study of what the inspired word meant and its transfer into the biblical text at the hands of devoted scholars over 100s of years puts a pretty good case for this predominant view.
[QUOTE]Please go and read your reply to 1legmidget then and see if you still feel that way. From our perspectives, you're responding, but you're repeating what is most closely associated with rhetoric.[/QUOTE]
I responded to him on nearly all points, I gave definitions for omniscience and free will, I stated why Catholic tradition is trumped by biblical doctrine(especially the words of the Christ), I stated why determinism implies there's really no value in anything we do and therefore no reason to be proud of it, I responded to his film reel vs. flowchart analogy and I responded to his challenge of my statement on the divine judgement of the innocent(which I admitted was not solid doctrine and nothing to get dogmatic about).
I have no intention of spreading rhetoric as that would imply I'm trying to impress someone, which is not true in the slightest.
[QUOTE]So... A game.[/QUOTE]
No, an act of kindness and love by letting his creation partake in his divine affection.
[QUOTE]So life is a giant test by god. And this gives us value? You derive value from this?[/QUOTE]
Life is a test, a test of who is willing to have a deeper relationship with God and who is not, I derive value from this because not only am I made in God's image, but through his love for me he is willing to give me the chance to be in his presence for eternity.
[QUOTE]Again, why wouldn't we just exist in gods embrace, he doesn't need to make the ones who will reject him from the start. he makes the ones who he knows will reject him eternally, and yet, he lets them loose on the world so that they may ultimately end up in hell. He knows this. He doesn't care.[/QUOTE]
Well, why not? If his omniscience allows him to have a divine plan that includes those who turn away from him, what reason does he have to not create them? It also shows his greater respect for free will as he doesn't just annihilate anyone who turns away from them and even accommodates their will by letting them live in eternity outside of his presence(that is outside of a perfect relationship with him).
why does god let disease exist?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42092423]You keep using the word "predetermine" when I have stated that is not what omniscience is, the definition of omniscience is infinite knowledge(knowledge being the regard of truth or fact), not the ability to predetermine every single thing. Granted since omniscience is an attribute of God, he could predetermine every choice we make, but he chooses to respect the free will he gave us instead. Also you're claiming that his omniscience(which is one of his attributes) interferes with our free will without him interfering with it himself, but if you state one of his attributes interferes with free will does that not mean that you are claiming he himself does as well? Unless you believe a person's attributes separate from their being?
Well of course we have limitations as to the choices we make, that doesn't mean we don;t have free will though. While I suppose that could be equated to what directions a rat can turn in a maze, the analogy is a gross over simplification of it, we still have many choices that we can make.
I established from the beginning that I am speaking in the context of Christianity and in the context of Christianity this can be proven through scriptural analysis. Scripture says God is infinite and that he transcends all reality. So if the world we exist in is part of his creation, he exists out of time, meaning his infinity is free of contradiction in the context of his existence. Besides, a being that does not live in a finite reality would naturally be infinite.
Again, this whole discussion has been in the context of Christianity, if you want to take the discussion outside of that context than most of your questions in the post above are irrelevant.
Also, as God's creations they would all of intrinsic value as God himself said that they are good, it is very clearly laid out in scripture though, that humanity is of much higher value to God than the rest of creation in this natural world.
The exit is obvious, heaven for the cheese, hell for the mice that can't make it through the maze. How is this not an obvious analogy? I'm sorry, I just feel that it is.
Maybe the analogy falls down in that a researcher can not design that mouse from the start to the finish to be a certain way, and have certain qualities. Because that seems to fly directly in the face of "free will"
I'm paraphrasing of course, the bible does not literally say "take pride(meaning a state of considering yourself of more value than others) in your actions". I use the phrase as it is commonly used today, to do the best that you can in what you do, this is hardly a contradiction.
Well you were stating that I was dismissing humanity's achievements, I was simply stating that in a deterministic world there's no way to really be proud(or satisfied/impressed) with our achievements because they are simply a result of laws outside of our control. I have no hesitation in admitting that Christianity does not put favor those that are proud of themselves or their achievements, rather it encourages we look to God with pride as he allowed us to achieve all this.
Are you telling me a child that was taken right after birth out of their parents' zone of influence can still be empirically documented as feeling love for those biological parents? If that is the case, that argument still ignores how the vast majority of people we love in our lives had to be actively sought out by one party or both and both had to ultimately choose to have a more intimate relationship with the other.
Christian theology has been under attack since the conception of the Church, yet it has remained predominant throughout all of history because of the heavy scrutiny that new interpretations and doctrine are put under. The tireless study of what the inspired word meant and its transfer into the biblical text at the hands of devoted scholars over 100s of years puts a pretty good case for this predominant view.
I responded to him on nearly all points, I gave definitions for omniscience and free will, I stated why Catholic tradition is trumped by biblical doctrine(especially the words of the Christ), I stated why determinism implies there's really no value in anything we do and therefore no reason to be proud of it, I responded to his film reel vs. flowchart analogy and I responded to his challenge of my statement on the divine judgement of the innocent(which I admitted was not solid doctrine and nothing to get dogmatic about).
I have no intention of spreading rhetoric as that would imply I'm trying to impress someone, which is not true in the slightest.
No, an act of kindness and love by letting his creation partake in his divine affection.
Life is a test, a test of who is willing to have a deeper relationship with God and who is not, I derive value from this because not only am I made in God's image, but through his love for me he is willing to give me the chance to be in his presence for eternity.
Well, why not? If his omniscience allows him to have a divine plan that includes those who turn away from him, what reason does he have to not create them? It also shows his greater respect for free will as he doesn't just annihilate anyone who turns away from them and even accommodates their will by letting them live in eternity outside of his presence(that is outside of a perfect relationship with him).[/QUOTE]
The outcome is set, as god has already witnessed it. God might not have directed you there, but he has seen it and therefore it is predetermined.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42090599]There still remains the fact that I decided to make toast 10 minutes ago, was my will controlled at that time to make toast? No, I just decided to do it at the time and the fact that I am a finite being in a finite universe means that the time that I could have changed my mind has passed. The me from 10 minutes ago is still me, it's just that I'm limited to a finite existence and therefore can only exercise my will over the present.[/QUOTE]
yeah, but if God sees everything as having already happened, then that means that you can't be living in the present at any point in time - even if you think you are, God sees it as it really is and remembers what you'll do, even if, from your point of view, you haven't done it yet. your lack of foresight gives you the illusion that the present actually exists, but there is no present to a being that recalls everything as if it's already happened.
like God, you have no more freedom than your own memories.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42092443]why does god let disease exist?[/QUOTE]
A better question is, why did he create it? I've heard some Christians say that Lucifer created all the 'bad stuff' in the world, and for one reason or another God is powerless to have prevented it or remove it in the present day.
Why create scarcity? Why create the elements that were necessary to make atomic bombs?
[editline]5th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cone;42092575]yeah, but if God sees everything as having already happened, then that means that you can't be living in the present at any point in time - even if you think you are, God sees it as it really is and remembers what you'll do, even if, from your point of view, you haven't done it yet. your lack of foresight gives you the illusion that the present actually exists, but there is no present to a being that recalls everything as if it's already happened.
like God, you have no more freedom than your own memories.[/QUOTE]
It's the illusion of both free will and the flow of time, but since God knows what has, is, and will be happening, it's meaningless.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;42092423]You keep using the word "predetermine" when I have stated that is not what omniscience is, the definition of omniscience is infinite knowledge(knowledge being the regard of truth or fact), not the ability to predetermine every single thing. Granted since omniscience is an attribute of God, he could predetermine every choice we make, but he chooses to respect the free will he gave us instead. Also you're claiming that his omniscience(which is one of his attributes) interferes with our free will without him interfering with it himself, but if you state one of his attributes interferes with free will does that not mean that you are claiming he himself does as well? Unless you believe a person's attributes separate from their being?[/QUOTE]
Because knowing every event that will ever happen is knowing that every event is predetermined. Regardless of him choosing something, he knows - there fore it is and always will be, hence predetermined.
[QUOTE]Well of course we have limitations as to the choices we make, that doesn't mean we don;t have free will though. While I suppose that could be equated to what directions a rat can turn in a maze, the analogy is a gross over simplification of it, we still have many choices that we can make.
I established from the beginning that I am speaking in the context of Christianity and in the context of Christianity this can be proven through scriptural analysis. Scripture says God is infinite and that he transcends all reality. So if the world we exist in is part of his creation, he exists out of time, meaning his infinity is free of contradiction in the context of his existence. Besides, a being that does not live in a finite reality would naturally be infinite.
Again, this whole discussion has been in the context of Christianity, if you want to take the discussion outside of that context than most of your questions in the post above are irrelevant.
Also, as God's creations they would all of intrinsic value as God himself said that they are good, it is very clearly laid out in scripture though, that humanity is of much higher value to God than the rest of creation in this natural world.[/QUOTE]
I'm more or less going to just let this whole part go.
[QUOTE]I'm paraphrasing of course, the bible does not literally say "take pride(meaning a state of considering yourself of more value than others) in your actions". I use the phrase as it is commonly used today, to do the best that you can in what you do, this is hardly a contradiction.[/QUOTE]
But as it is commonly used today is it's literal meaning...?
[QUOTE]Well you were stating that I was dismissing humanity's achievements, I was simply stating that in a deterministic world there's no way to really be proud(or satisfied/impressed) with our achievements because they are simply a result of laws outside of our control. I have no hesitation in admitting that Christianity does not put favor those that are proud of themselves or their achievements, rather it encourages we look to God with pride as he allowed us to achieve all this.[/QUOTE]
There's nothing wrong with not having pride in a deterministic universe if there's nothing wrong with not having it in a christian one.
[QUOTE]Are you telling me a child that was taken right after birth out of their parents' zone of influence can still be empirically documented as feeling love for those biological parents? If that is the case, that argument still ignores how the vast majority of people we love in our lives had to be actively sought out by one party or both and both had to ultimately choose to have a more intimate relationship with the other.
[/QUOTE]
Please read. I said "Caretaker". Not parent. Just read next time.
That has NOTHING to do with parental love which was the discussion.
[QUOTE]Christian theology has been under attack since the conception of the Church, yet it has remained predominant throughout all of history because of the heavy scrutiny that new interpretations and doctrine are put under. The tireless study of what the inspired word meant and its transfer into the biblical text at the hands of devoted scholars over 100s of years puts a pretty good case for this predominant view.[/QUOTE]
No. Not really. It has more problems than I can shake a fist at to say the least. Christianity has absorbed and taken many parts of many cultures over many years. Are you saying older civilizations that lasted for thousands of years had no relevance because christianity is here now? Do you see that any faithful believer of a religion would see their religion as the true path to god? So why is your one better than those? It isn't monumentally old, it's not monumentally concise or consistent.
The constant and tireless pursuit of interpretation of books written by men who understood the universe less than we do now as words of ultimate truth is not something I feel I can take seriously. If it's been under attack since the conception of the church, you take this as some sort of sign it's above all criticisms of it's so called "truths"?
I'm sorry but that's not intelligent.
[QUOTE]I responded to him on nearly all points, I gave definitions for omniscience and free will, I stated why Catholic tradition is trumped by biblical doctrine(especially the words of the Christ), I stated why determinism implies there's really no value in anything we do and therefore no reason to be proud of it, I responded to his film reel vs. flowchart analogy and I responded to his challenge of my statement on the divine judgement of the innocent(which I admitted was not solid doctrine and nothing to get dogmatic about).[/QUOTE]
Because you stated them from a faith based point of view, hence, unarguable. You glossed over them.
[QUOTE]I have no intention of spreading rhetoric as that would imply I'm trying to impress someone, which is not true in the slightest.[/QUOTE]
Well when you repeat things that are true because faith determines them to be so, most people call that rhetoric whether that's the correct use of it or not.
[QUOTE]No, an act of kindness and love by letting his creation partake in his divine affection.
[/QUOTE]
We're going to have to agree to disagree here because those to me really seem like the definition of a game. Who cares if he loves his game pieces, the iron and the thimble and that awesome top hat, but they're still game pieces.
[QUOTE]Life is a test, a test of who is willing to have a deeper relationship with God and who is not, I derive value from this because not only am I made in God's image, but through his love for me he is willing to give me the chance to be in his presence for eternity.
[/QUOTE]
I don't see the value here
[QUOTE]Well, why not? If his omniscience allows him to have a divine plan that includes those who turn away from him, what reason does he have to not create them? It also shows his greater respect for free will as he doesn't just annihilate anyone who turns away from them and even accommodates their will by letting them live in eternity outside of his presence(that is outside of a perfect relationship with him).[/QUOTE]
His respect by letting those that deny him turn into everlasting pain and suffering...? Why do you not see this as weird as I do.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.