Hello! :)

I got this idea last night.
I was thinking about the relation between dimensions, time, free will and God's will. Here is what I've got.

We live in a Third to Fourth (space-time) Dimensional Universe. Our physical Universe is subjected by time. But God is timeless. God is beyond this Four Dimensional Universe, beyond time.

Then, we draw the conclusion that since God is timeless and omniscient, His will never changes. He never changes (in the way we know time). He lives in an eternal present, beyond the Fourth Dimension.

At the same time, we are dubjected to time. This gives us the Free Will because since time is present here, the future can't be "predicted".

Since everything is set up in another dimension beyond the fourth, as God is omniscient and we are below the fourth dimensional Universe subjected by time, Free Will and God's omniscience can co-exist.

This works in a Multi-Dimensional Universe where the dimensions are all interconnected. ;) The "paralell" Universes are other dimensions (in this case, the Fith and beyond).

..........Humans............|...........God
<---Third Dimension----|---Fith Dimension--->
.......................Fourth Dimension
........Free Will.............|.......Omniscience
...........Time...............|....Everlasting Present

This proves my other ideas in " The Chackras and the Dimensions of Spiritual Evolution (http://www.sciforums.com/t6533/s/thread.html) " and "Neutral Cosmic Emanations Theory (http://www.sciforums.com/t6529/s/thread.html) ". ;)

Any questions?
Coments? :D

Love,
Nelson

truthseeker,

I’ll give you credit for trying to tackle this issue. But the conclusion you draw from your assumptions is the opposite from what they indicate.

Omniscience isn’t about predicting the future, it is about having absolute certain knowledge of what is going to happen. Omniscience isn’t some form of clairvoyance. What you have tried to explain is how we could view God’s omniscience.

At the same time, we are subjected to time. This gives us the Free Will because since time is present here, the future can't be "predicted". What you have done is not to show that humans have free will but exactly the opposite. If God is outside of time he will be able to see every instant throughout eternity at the same time.

This means that at the instant he created the universe he would know every tiny detail of what you are going to do throughout your entire life. And if he knows what you are going to do with perfect certainty then you are powerless to do anything else. In which case you have no free will and your entire life is pre-determined.

Cris

Cris,

This means that at the instant he created the universe he would know every tiny detail of what you are going to do throughout your entire life. And if he knows what you are going to do with perfect certainty then you are powerless to do anything else. In which case you have no free will and your entire life is pre-determined.

No because He is in a paralell Universe, in another dimension. What happens in God's dimension doesn't really interferes in the other eventhough it is what is most likely to happen... ;)
It's like two different Realities happening at the same time. It's weird, but it has some logic...

What you have done is not to show that humans have free will but exactly the opposite. If God is outside of time he will be able to see every instant throughout eternity at the same time.

Yes. He see, he write the script but we do what we want. For instance, imagine God as a movie director. :D
May God forgive me for that... :bugeye:
Continuining, imagine He is a movie director and we are the actors. We follow the script but we still have free will to do whatever we want. If the girl is hot, and I can kiss her, why not? Only because the director doesn't want, it doesn't mean that we can't.

Love,
Nelson

Btw, thanks for your comments. They allways enrich my posts. They make me think further on the subject. :)

Love,
Nelson

truthseeker,

No because He is in a paralell Universe, in another dimension. What happens in God's dimension doesn't really interferes in the other eventhough it is what is most likely to happen... So God has nothing to do with us. In which case in our reality God does not exist. Yes I like that conclusion.

It's like two different Realities happening at the same time. It's weird, but it has some logic...The two realities don’t connect then, right?

Sorry, but I don’t see any logic yet. And your actor’s example didn’t work for me.

If God knows about us, wherever he is, and has omniscience, and created these parallel universes then we have no free will.

Try a better example because I don’t see your perspective yet.

Cris

Kaluza-Klein theory claims that there are either 11 or 22 dimensions....Wienberg claims that the extra dimensions might be so tiny that they don't affect us.

So, yeah, Cris, there's a lot to like with that theory. Cthulhu, I might add, is pan-dimensional. (I had to refer to Cthulhu!)

Of course, if God is in a different dimension and dosen't affect us, what is the difference between that and there not being a God at all?

And how can God be Love if love affects us, yet God does not?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TruthSeeker
What happens in God's dimension doesn't really interferes in the other eventhough it is what is most likely to happen...
It's like two different Realities happening at the same time. It's weird, but it has some logic...

I get you TS, remember ‘achintya-bheda-bheda tattva’, simultaneosly one and different.
That is the philosophy, check it out sometime. :p

Love.

Jan Ardena.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xev
Of course, if God is in a different dimension and dosen't affect us, what is the difference between that and there not being a God at all?

God is interested in the soul not the body, material nature, under His will, deals with the body accordingly.

And how can God be Love if love affects us, yet God does not?

Easy!
He is love.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

Cris,

So God has nothing to do with us. In which case in our reality God does not exist. Yes I like that conclusion.

You understood nothing, did you?...:bugeye:
He interacts with us... but not in the sense you know...

What I'm doing...? That's like try to explain Quantum Physics to a baby! :bugeye:

The two realities don’t connect then, right?

They do connect and interact with each other. But we still have our will power...

Sorry, but I don’t see any logic yet. And your actor’s example didn’t work for me.

*sights*

If God knows about us, wherever he is, and has omniscience, and created these parallel universes then we have no free will.

Why? Imagine superposed dimensions exchanging energies.
In the Fith Dimension, particles have more energy then light. They move faster than light, beyond space-time.
When it loses energy, it comes back to space-time.
It's no different than electrons in atoms' orbits.

Is this better for you?

Love,
Nelson

Ok Truthseeker I don't think I quite follow you, you say:

At the same time, we are subjected to time. This gives us the Free Will because since time is present here, the future can't be "predicted".

But assuming God "lives" in an another dimension, and is omniscient, how does us living in a "timed" reality make God's timeless reality any less absolute? If omnipotent timeless God designs the universe, wouldn't his being without time - in the way we see it - not matter? Or to be more clear, can you give me an example of an action that you are doing by free will and not by design or cause?:bugeye:

Truthseeker,

You understood nothing, did you?... Sure I did. I understood all your words, but when they were strung together they didn’t make any sense.

He interacts with us... but not in the sense you know... I don’t know that he interacts with us at all. God is just a speculative idea. No one has yet demonstrated that he exists at all let alone that he can interact.

What I'm doing...? That's like try to explain Quantum Physics to a baby! I’m sorry I only studied physics to college graduate level. Perhaps you can bring your explanations down to that level just for me.

They do connect and interact with each other. But we still have our will power... It really doesn’t matter what mechanism or arrangement of dimensions or universes you propose. Christianity defines God as being omniscient, and that means perfect knowledge of all events past present and future (effectively he is not restrained by time, or dimensions). He is further defined as the creator of everything. Under those constraints everything humans choose to do is perfectly pre-determined, and therefore humans cannot have free will.

To show that humans have free will you must show that their actions are not known before they occur, i.e. are not pre-determined. All the time that humans are constrained by a sequential chronological timeline and God isn’t then you have no case no matter how imaginative your speculations.

Imagine superposed dimensions exchanging energies. Sounds interesting. Can you point me to a credible published article that explains this?

In the Fith Dimension, particles have more energy then light. They move faster than light, beyond space-time.

When it loses energy, it comes back to space-time.
It's no different than electrons in atoms' orbits. Again please point me at some credible references that show how this might be possible.

Is this better for you? No not yet. But I look forward to some evidence to support your imaginative hypotheses.

The only effective evidence for your claim that humans have free will within a Christian universe will be to show that either God is not omniscient or isn’t the creator, or in effect show that Christianity has no credible foundation.

Cris

The only way I can see humans having free will is if the future isnt determined and God can only make educated guesses on our choices. Of course that would leave room for error if he was only estimating, but then if its only a small margin of error (Like 0.0000001%) then it would appear he is omniscient, which means God's omniscience is the illusion.

May as well throw this out here, it's from an old message board:

Suffering disproves a loving, all-powerfull God

If God is loving then he would not let there be so much suffering in the world, so therefore God is either malicious or limited.

Therefore, if God exists

He does not prevent suffering thus

He is either evil
Or indifferent
Or limited

Suffering cannot be argued to be for the better because an omnipotent God could create a better world without causing suffering and because young children can die in very painfull ways, thus garnering no benefit from thier suffering.

Interesting thread, went on for over a month after being hyjacked several times to debate whether pain was a sensation and gathered slightly over a thousand replies.

Jan:

God is interested in the soul not the body, material nature, under His will, deals with the body accordingly.

Since the case of Phineas Gage (http://www2.mc.maricopa.edu/anthro/origins/phineas.html) demonstrates that the brain is the seat of personality, how do you justify the contention that the soul is different from the body?

Easy! He is love.

Not so easy. Consider the following:

God is Love
God is in another dimension that dosen't affect us
Love affects us

How is God Love if Love affects us yet God does not?

Nelson:

All very interesting speculation which you have not one shred of evidence for. Firstoff, there is no evidence for the existance of God. Second, you assume that a fifth dimension would not be affected by the fourth (if God is timeless). This is unproven, as is the concept of dimensions higher than our four.

Besides, if God is all-loving, why does He allow suffering?

If God is loving then he would not let there be so much suffering in the world, so therefore God is either malicious or limited.

Who are you or I to say what God would do, besides repeating what He says He will do?
He like me and you, acts according to His own Supreme Will, which is infinate, all-knowing, all-pervading, whereas ours is finite and localised.

He is either evil
Or indifferent
Or limited

Instead of speculating, why don’t you find out by reading His word or enquiring from His devotees. I say this, because your understanding God is based on a material platform. You are therefore mistaken my friend.

Suffering cannot be argued to be for the better because an omnipotent God could create a better world without causing suffering and because young children can die in very painfull ways, thus garnering no benefit from thier suffering.

There you go again, saying what God should or could do.
You have no idea.

Since the case of Phineas Gage demonstrates that the brain is the seat of personality, how do you justify the contention that the soul is different from the body?

I fail to see how that demonstrates the brain being the seat of consciousness.

Not so easy. Consider the following:

God is Love
God is in another dimension that dosen't affect us
Love affects us

How is God Love if Love affects us yet God does not?

A little analogy;
The sun, 93 million miles away, is fixed in his orbit, yet he destributes heat and light all over the universe. Heat and light are different energies of the sun, but they constitute the sunshine. This heat and light are vital to existence of the earth.
God is situated in His abode, beyond this material world, and His energies like the sunshine are all-pervading, yet like the sun He is situated in His abode. His energies are of 3 kinds, spiritual, material and marginal.

ACHINTYA-BHEDA-BHEDA TATTVA

Just a rushed explanation, hope it gives you some idea.

Firstoff, there is no evidence for the existance of God.

I have evidence, but it would not be accepted by you. You constantly try to set the standard of what is regarded as knowledge, wherseas you should be more objective.
Anybody can reject, its not very hard at all.
The trick is, try to understand and then reject if it doesn’t make sense.

Besides, if God is all-loving, why does He allow suffering?

The law of nature is most stringent- ‘as a man sows, so shall he reap’.
We make the choices, so we suffer or enjoy the consequences.
As simple as that.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

Who are you or I to say what God would do, besides repeating what He says He will do?

I think. I reason.

He like me and you, acts according to His own Supreme Will, which is infinate, all-knowing, all- pervading, whereas ours is finite and localised.

*Shrugs*
Yeah, you can get out of the dilemna by positing an incomprehensible God.

Instead of speculating, why don’t you find out by reading His word or enquiring from His devotees.

I've read the Bible. A catalog of atrocity after atrocity, with exhortations to be moral thrown in hither-skither.

There you go again, saying what God should or could do.
You have no idea.

There I go again indeed.

I have evidence, but it would not be accepted by you. You constantly try to set the standard of what is regarded as knowledge, wherseas you should be more objective.

Try me. I may reject, I may not.

Anybody can reject, its not very hard at all.
The trick is, try to understand and then reject if it doesn’t make sense.

I have. And the same thing could be said for Cthulhu.

The law of nature is most stringent- ‘as a man sows, so shall he reap’.
We make the choices, so we suffer or enjoy the consequences.
As simple as that.

Somhow I don't think a child with a pontine tumor (one of the origional contributers was familiar with pediatric oncology) chooses to suffer.

No, I don't think a child with Tay-Sachs chooses to suffer either.

I think. I reason.

So.

I've read the Bible.

Well, there’s no fooling you I guess.

There I go again indeed.

I have.

Haven’t seen much evidence round here.

Somhow I don't think a child with a pontine tumor (one of the origional contributers was familiar with pediatric oncology) chooses to suffer.

But it suffers anywayz.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

I could see why God might allow suffering in *some* cases.
For instance, Artificial Intelligence programmers might create a robot mouse that has to learn how to scurry round the floor and find some "cheese". After a certain point in development, it might be necessary for the builders and programmers to step back and monitor it from a distance, and let the mouse learn by itself. Of course if you give something free will, it has to learn the consequences of its actions and take responsibility for its choices, whether they result in a reward for a right choice, or suffering for the wrong choice.

It would seem a bit hypocritical to demand free will and then refuse responsibility for mistakes and bad choices. If God exists and wants us to learn and become independant, then he/she would have to teach us the responsibility that comes with making choices, and the best way to do that would be to step back and let us learn for ourselves. Its a good idea in theory, but it quite often ends up with other people suffering for someone elses choice, which doesn't give the impression that there is a "loving" entity sitting out there keeping the universe in check. If God does exist, it wouldnt be surprising to find he's generally hated and despised, for his apparent in-action towards the human race.

Jan,

Suffering cannot be argued to be for the better because an omnipotent God could create a better world without causing suffering and because young children can die in very painfull ways, thus garnering no benefit from thier suffering.

There you go again, saying what God should or could do.Well no not really. It is Christianity that has stated what God can do by claiming he is omnipotent (can do anything). Xev is merely asking a very legitimate question.

If he can do anything why has he chosen to make people suffer?

Dracula’s_Guest’s suggestion that it is a learning experience doesn’t work either since with his power to do anything he could have chosen to give us full understanding without us having to suffer.

You are faced with a real paradox. Someone who loves will do everything to protect, and Christianity’s claim of omnipotence says that God could protect all humans from any type of suffering, if he wished. Since he has chosen suffering then he cannot be the loving God claimed by Christianity.

However, the learning experience of man and the related suffering is fully consistent with a universe where there are no gods. If we knew any better then we could avoid the suffering.

Many wonderful things are claimed for the Christian God, but when atheists point out the bad things then the only answer seems to be that God is incomprehensible. That is simply too convenient and clearly deceitful, and reeks of massive inconsistency. If you can explain the good things why can’t you explain the bad things?

But you can’t since Christianity is a paradox, an impossible fantasy.

Cris

Jan:
Somhow I don't think a child with a pontine tumor (one of the origional contributers was familiar with pediatric oncology) chooses to suffer.

But it suffers anywayz.

So you admit that you were wrong on that one?

Dracula's Guest:
It would seem a bit hypocritical to demand free will and then refuse responsibility for mistakes and bad choices. If God exists and wants us to learn and become independant, then he/she would have to teach us the responsibility that comes with making choices, and the best way to do that would be to step back and let us learn for ourselves. Its a good idea in theory, but it quite often ends up with other people suffering for someone elses choice, which doesn't give the impression that there is a "loving" entity sitting out there keeping the universe in check. If God does exist, it wouldnt be surprising to find he's generally hated and despised, for his apparent in-action towards the human race.

I'm not talking about choices. The child with a pontine tumor does not choose to suffer, being incabable of choice.

And, you note that we suffer for the choices of others, which is correct. Think of how many people are suffering and suffered for the choices Bin Ladin made.

There is a way out of this paradox, as Jan noted. However, many find 'God is bigger and more powerfull than us' or 'God is incomprehensible' unsatisfying.

After all, if God is incomprehensible, does not religion lose purpose? One may as well be honest about it and make propitatory sacrifices to Vesuvius.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cris
Well no not really. It is Christianity that has stated what God can do by claiming he is omnipotent

Well actually no;

I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me….

This claim is made by God.

If he can do anything why has he chosen to make people suffer?

He doesn’t choose to make people suffer, we make the choices and then suffer or enjoy the consequences.
You don’t find rich people, in general, seriously attributing their wealth to God, because it wasn’t directly given by God, they will say they worked hard for that money. So why should we attribute our suffering to God, when it is not directly from God, the same can be said, we worked hard for that suffering, it works both ways.

Dracula’s_Guest’s suggestion that it is a learning experience doesn’t work either since with his power to do anything he could have chosen to give us full understanding without us having to suffer.

You have children whom you say you love, could/do you impose your will on them. Do you want your children to suffer? I imagine you don’t, but you cannot live their lives for them.
God will give us every bit of help we need, to get us back to Him. But if He were to force us, it could not be classed as love. Only through unconditional love, can we enter into the Kingdom of God.

Someone who loves will do everything to protect,

But will not force.

However, the learning experience of man and the related suffering is fully consistent with a universe where there are no gods. If we knew any better then we could avoid the suffering.

But we don’t, we increase suffering.

Many wonderful things are claimed for the Christian God, but when atheists point out the bad things then the only answer seems to be that God is incomprehensible.

Your fight seems to be with Christians in general.
To understand God from a fuller perspective, you have to hear from God Himself or His devotees.
God cannot be percieved, merley by mundane scientific experiment, or through intellect.

That is simply too convenient and clearly deceitful, and reeks of massive inconsistency. If you can explain the good things why can’t you explain the bad things?

Good things and bad things is a material conception, in order to experience one you have to experience the other, so some times you experience good and sometimes bad. In the our natural state there are no dualities eveything is one.

But you can’t since Christianity is a paradox, an impossible fantasy.

There’s another material conception, what seems an impossible fantasy to you, is a sublime truth to someone else. It all depends on your consciousness in relation to the three modes of material nature, goodness, passion and ignorance.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

Sorry, but I have to go after the premise that God is love, or that God loves us.

Let's see: Slaughter of men, women, infants, and animals; More killing of women and children; slavery of children; disaster for an entire city; children dashed into pieces; killing your brother, wife, your own child, friends for enticing you to worship other gods; Plague.

And these are just a few samples.

Sounds very loving to me (sarcasm implied here).
I'm not sure what your definition of Love is but this certainly isn't mine.

~Raithere


ref:

I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."

Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."

Joel 3:8 "And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it."

Amos 3:6 "When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?

(Hosea 13:16 NRSV) Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

(Deu 13:6-10 NRSV) If anyone secretly entices you--even if it is your brother, your father's son or your mother's son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend-- saying, "Let us go worship other gods," whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

Numbers 11: 33 But while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed, the anger of the Lord burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague.

Jan,

It is Christianity that has stated what God can do by claiming he is omnipotent

Well actually no;

I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me….

This claim is made by God. If that is written in some religious literature then it is that religion that is making the claim. No one has yet shown that any gods can either speak or write, unless of course you can show otherwise. In the meantime it is people who make claims for what gods can and can’t do.

If he can do anything why has he chosen to make people suffer?

He doesn’t choose to make people suffer, we make the choices and then suffer or enjoy the consequences. Yes he does since it is alleged he created man and the universe and hence all the conditions and personalities that comprise our entire environment. With his alleged omnipotence he could have created conditions that didn’t require suffering. Since he didn’t then the only conclusion is that he wanted us to suffer. All suffering is entirely of his choosing. And neither can we have any free will in the matter since all our actions will be pre-determined if this creator is also omniscient, as claimed.

You don’t find rich people, in general, seriously attributing their wealth to God, because it wasn’t directly given by God, they will say they worked hard for that money. So why should we attribute our suffering to God, when it is not directly from God, the same can be said, we worked hard for that suffering, it works both ways.The wealthy Christians I know certainly thank god for their good fortune and contented lifestyle. And the many poor people I have met tend not to believe in a god since their life is so miserable and a truly just god would not have allowed such a state.

If an omnipotent and omniscient God exists then evil and suffering are present in the universe because he wants it that way. And that is both unjust and evil.

Cris

Jan,

Part 2.

You have children whom you say you love, could/do you impose your will on them. Do you want your children to suffer? I imagine you don’t, but you cannot live their lives for them. Yes but they have to live in the same harsh environment as myself. My way to help them is to teach them the dangers and hope they learn fast. If I were omnipotent I would create an environment where they could not be harmed. Why couldn’t an omnipotent god do the same for us?

God will give us every bit of help we need, to get us back to Him. But if He were to force us, it could not be classed as love. Only through unconditional love, can we enter into the Kingdom of God. But if God is perfect and can do no wrong then he would not have made us so that he would lose us in the first place. If he has not made any errors then our suffering is part of his plan. It isn’t a matter of force it is a matter of original design. And my children do not commit evil acts because I have given them adequate education. Why didn’t God provide adequate education for us? If he is so perfect then the education could have been perfect as well.

Someone who loves will do everything to protect,

But will not force. But someone who loves also won’t purposely put their children in danger, as it seems that God has done.

However, the learning experience of man and the related suffering is fully consistent with a universe where there are no gods. If we knew any better then we could avoid the suffering.

But we don’t, we increase suffering.The introduction of antibiotics has reduced the suffering and prevented the deaths of millions of people in just the last 50 years. Average lifespan of people 2000 years ago was less than 25. Most died of terrible diseases where knowledge of basic hygiene was non-existent. Science and man’s curiosity and experimentation has dramatically reduced the suffering of the human race over the past few millennia and continues to do so. Suffering still exists and we as humans still have work to do. God certainly doesn’t seem to help. Fortunately most scientists are atheists so you are in safe hands.

Your fight seems to be with Christians in general.
To understand God from a fuller perspective, you have to hear from God Himself or His devotees. Yes I agree, Christianity is the world’s largest religion and does affect me the most. But I feel that my perspective of religions is currently more than adequate and I can’t see a need to look any further until I am convinced there is something worthwhile. For example those selling religion so far have done a poor job. People generally do not ‘go’ for something unless they see a need. And I simply do not see any need for gods.

God cannot be perceived, merely by mundane scientific experiment, or through intellect. Then construct sophisticated scientific experiments instead. But Ok I know what you mean. But the alternative to intellect is emotion and that has repeatedly shown itself as one of the most unreliable methods for determining truth. Why would I want to sacrifice my intellect in favor of a far less reliable mechanism?

Good things and bad things is a material conception, in order to experience one you have to experience the other, so some times you experience good and sometimes bad. In the our natural state there are no dualities eveything is one. Hmmm there seems to be a crossing over of our philosophies here although I doubt we are talking about the same thing. I have been training myself over the past few decades to see no difference between good and bad, everything I see is an experience from which I can learn. Both disasters and pleasures are one and the same. But to achieve that state of equilibrium requires one to look down at the environment as if one is a dispassionate observer. All activities are merely transient and temporary. But that process is almost purely intellect. When emotions are allowed to participate then one becomes part of the event and cannot appreciate or observe the event accurately. However, I do experience emotions that cause real physiological changes. These are the times I find the most fascinating since I am able to experience my emotions through my intellect and observe how my physiology behaves and still not be outwardly affected by the changes. I only allow my emotions to affect me when I choose.

I doubt that is what you were talking about, and I have drifted off topic.

But you can’t since Christianity is a paradox, an impossible fantasy.

There’s another material conception, what seems an impossible fantasy to you, is a sublime truth to someone else. It all depends on your consciousness in relation to the three modes of material nature, goodness, passion and ignorance.A logical paradox exists whether you believe it or not. Without using the intellect then the paradox cannot be detected and your alleged truth is nothing more than a delusion, which I agree will seem perfectly real to the person that depends on emotions for truth.

Until people make the effort to place intellect and reason above unreliable emotion then we will continue to exist in a confused world.

Cris

Maybe you guys need to define how god knows everything. Is it detailed into every partical position in every picosecond? Or just some major event? Like A is going to kill B, but how to kill is a example of free will?

If it's the first one, then there really no such thing is free will.

If it's the second one, then it implies that god has limits.

dak,

If it's the second one, then it implies that god has limits.
And hence another paradox. Christianity might make sense if God is limited, but Christianity claims that god is unlimited.

Cris

Cris,

I’m sorry I only studied physics to college graduate level. Perhaps you can bring your explanations down to that level just for me.

It's just a way to speak...

Sounds interesting. Can you point me to a credible published article that explains this?

Again please point me at some credible references that show how this might be possible.

Do you know that there is something called "new ideas"...?:bugeye:



I will give a question to everyone...

God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
God is everything.
God is everywhere.
God knows everything.
God can do anything He wants.
Who is God?

Love,
Nelson

Xev,

Suffering cannot be argued to be for the better because an omnipotent God could create a better world without causing suffering and because young children can die in very painfull ways, thus garnering no benefit from thier suffering.

Suffering is caused by desires and ignorance, the two things Buddhism combat... ;)

Love,
Nelson

If we are moved to voluntary action, knowledge of the end result of our voluntary action does not cause our voluntary action to become involuntary. The end result is known, not caused, by knowledge.

truthseeker,

Suffering is caused by desires and ignorance, the two things Buddhism combat... I'll agree with that. But then Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

But if there were a creator god then he would be the cause of suffering. Fortunately no such evil monster exists and humans must take full responsibility for their actions.

Cris

blonde_cupid,

If we are moved to voluntary action, knowledge of the end result of our voluntary action does not cause our voluntary action to become involuntary. The end result is known, not caused, by knowledge.True but only if our initial actions are indeed voluntary and not engineered (pre-determined) by a creator god in order to produce his own desired end result. If such a creature existed we would not have any way to detect whether our actions were voluntary or not.

And if such a creature did exist and was the creator of everything and had perfect knowledge of the final end result, then everything in between would have to have been perfectly engineered, i.e. all alleged human voluntary actions would have to be entirely involuntary.

Cris

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cris
Yes but they have to live in the same harsh environment as myself.

Maybe so, but you can teach them knowledge of the self, that way they may not have to be reborn into this harsh environment in their next life. Try and understand that, although the birth of your children is sparked of by sexual intercourse of some kind, they themselves are more than a biological union.

My way to help them is to teach them the dangers and hope they learn fast.

That’s good.

If I were omnipotent I would create an environment where they could not be harmed. Why couldn’t an omnipotent god do the same for us?

If you were omnipotent, you wouldn’t think the way you do.
If you create that kind of environment, how would they learn.
We learn through experience. This would be hampered if you wrapped them up in cotton wool.

But if God is perfect and can do no wrong then he would not have made us so that he would lose us in the first place.

He didn’t, we became lost.

And my children do not commit evil acts because I have given them adequate education.

Everything in this world is relative, therefore evil boils down to transgression of law. In this way we all transgress laws. If your statement is true, then your children are perfect and therefore you must be perfect, otherwise your children would not be attracted to you.


Why didn’t God provide adequate education for us? If he is so perfect then the education could have been perfect as well.

He has, but you are not interested in it.

But someone who loves also won’t purposely put their children in danger, as it seems that God has done.

The real danger in life is forgetfulness of ones spiritual identity.

Fortunately most scientists are atheists so you are in safe hands.

All of a sudden its gone cold in here.

People generally do not ‘go’ for something unless they see a need. And I simply do not see any need for gods.

My car is a lovely dark green colour, are you saying I needed a car of that colour.

But the alternative to intellect is emotion and that has repeatedly shown itself as one of the most unreliable methods for determining truth.

Nonsense, they are two different aspects of the human pysche. When both are used effectively you get a powerful personality.

Why would I want to sacrifice my intellect in favor of a far less reliable mechanism?

Don’t sacrifice it, integrate them.

But to achieve that state of equilibrium requires one to look down at the environment as if one is a dispassionate observer.

Or trancendental to the cause and effect, seeing them as different aspects of nature., and not being affected either way.

All activities are merely transient and temporary. But that process is almost purely intellect.

Then why is it that people who are not what you would call intellectual can understand this truth.

When emotions are allowed to participate then one becomes part of the event and cannot appreciate or observe the event accurately.

But it is an advantage, because the intellect can thrive off experience and arrive at real conclusions, instead of speculation, if the intellect and emotions are working together that is.

However, I do experience emotions that cause real physiological changes. These are the times I find the most fascinating since I am able to experience my emotions through my intellect and observe how my physiology behaves and still not be outwardly affected by the changes. I only allow my emotions to affect me when I choose.

There aint nothing wrong with that dude. :)

Without using the intellect then the paradox cannot be detected and your alleged truth is nothing more than a delusion, which I agree will seem perfectly real to the person that depends on emotions for truth.

Purley using the intellect, you will not understand what is truth, because you would not trust your subjective self, unless it could provide proof of existence. Eventually, because it is natrual for you to ‘know’ you will make up a theory and then mould it into a sort of truth to satisfy your natural but suppressed instinct.

Hey!
Wait a minute.
That’s what you do. :D

Until people make the effort to place intellect and reason above unreliable emotion then we will continue to exist in a confused

That will only create a phantasmagora.

Hey!
That’s whats happening man.
Spooky. :eek:


Love.

Jan Ardena.

Cris wrote:

And hence another paradox. Christianity might make sense if God is limited, but Christianity claims that god is unlimited.

And who in their (right?) worshipful mind would want a god who wasn't worth his own metaphysical salt? A limited god?

Oh well. In some parts of the world people also believe that telling a lie with sincerity somehow lessens the 'sin' of being deceitful. After all, for them to believe anything else would possibly force them to look at things as they really are, and they're afraid to do that. They've been led to believe that life isn't worth living without the intervention or control of a supernatural entity.

I think it's all about fear, or a lack of it.

~~~

Carry on,

Counterbalance

Cris,

I'll agree with that. But then Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

Atheistic religion?? :confused:

You've just made a paradox Cris! :)

I think we need holidays... :bugeye:

But if there were a creator god then he would be the cause of suffering. Fortunately no such evil monster exists and humans must take full responsibility for their actions.

God is not good nor evil. God is neutral. If God is the source of everything, He Himself have to had "created" evil too. It wasn't really God that created good and evil. Good and evil are created by our minds, which is the simbol of Satan, or illusion. For instance, the whole thing of Tree of Conscience and Tree of Life is based on those things. The same as Taoism. The Tao is neutral. The illusion is created when you are "outside" it, when you can't perceive it. Once you have your mind full of things, you are illuded and you have a "distorted" sense of Truth that Taoism call the Dualist World. ;)
God is not the cause of suffering. Illusion is.

Love,
Nelson

"Predestination" is what your trying to sort out here.

It's much simpler than it seems.

A simple way to say it is that "God knows what choices we are going to make." He didn't set them, but he knows what they are, and you might even go so far as to say he knew, "from the foundation of the world."

And we, on the other hand, do NOT know what choices we will make until we make them. Which creates what we refer to as "free-will".

Free will can be seen as an illusion in some senarios that Ive read on the subject. However, it is a reality.:cool:

Richie,

***Are we having fun yet?***

Oh, yeah! :)

truthseeker,

Atheistic religion??

You've just made a paradox Cris! Buddhists have no belief in a god. That is atheism. Hence Buddhists are atheists.

Where is the paradox?

Cris

Hi Richie,

Welcome to sciforums.

If perfect knowledge exists of all your future actions then all your choices must have been pre-determined. I.e. you do not have any ability to make any choices other than those pre-determined? IOW your perceived choices are involuntary.

If a god has perfect knowledge of the future then you are powerless to change it. And if this god knows every action from the beginning of time then the entire future is pre-determined. Free will cannot exist under such conditions. The existence of an omniscient creator precludes any possibility of human free will.

If the future is pre-determined then someone or something must have set the pre-determined choices. This is clearly the result of an omniscient creator.

Free-will will be an illusion within a religion such as Christianity.

Cris

Richie,

A simple way to say it is that "God knows what choices we are going to make." He didn't set them, but he knows what they are, and you might even go so far as to say he knew, "from the foundation of the world."

May I complement... :)

God knows everyone's Heart. He knows the choices we will do. He knows what we think, He knows what we feel. That's omniscience too. Then, if He knows it, we still have free will. We can change our mind right now about something, but He already knew it because it was already in our Hearts. :)

Cris,

Buddhists have no belief in a god. That is atheism. Hence Buddhists are atheists.

Not necessarily...
Zen is like a God... not in the Christian sense, of course, but it's still a "God"...

Where is the paradox?

...atheistic religion...

atheism [ezm]
n. rejection of belief in God or gods.
[from French atheisme, from Greek atheos godless, from {a-1} + theos god]

religion [rldn]
n.
1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny.
2. any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion.
3. the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers.

They are opposites...

A religion without a God?? :bugeye:

Love,
Nelson

Trying to explain omniscience and freewill to a christian is akin to bashing your head against a brick wall.

An example: If god knows I am going to die an atheist, then what choice do i have to die a believer? How can I somehow foil god's "plan"? Why did god create me, if i am going to be consigned to eternal hell?

The christian will say: but you have the choice, god leaves it up to you, or...how do you know you are going to die a non believer? Let jesus into your heart..crap..crap.......

The same story with adam and eve.

Me: Did god know that adam and eve would eat the fruit?
christian: Yes he did
Me: Why didn't god "plan" for them not to eat it?
christian: adam and eve freely chose to eat the fruit, it
was their fault, not god's.....why blame god?

Free will is only an illusion if you believe in an omniscient god. I of course do believe in free will because i have no belief in god or gods.

Or maybe I am getting something wrong...if so can someone that can logically think please help me out? (this will exclude 99.9% of christians).

Master of Illusion,

God gives you two ways: Heaven and Hell.
You choose it.

What God plans to you is very good. He allways has good plans for everybody. But most people don't follow His plans (including Christians). That's because we have free will. We can choose if we will go through the narrow gate to Heavens or through the wide one to Hell...

More logically? I (and I think anyone) has a language proper to talk about this...

I wish you good luck with your choice.

Love,
Nelson

Is Truthseeker in the 0.1% of christians who can logically think?

um.....NO

You still don't get it......Trying desperately to work out ways that your god is omniscient AND still allowing you to have freewill.

You can't have your cake and eat it....choose 1, but not both.

Buddihm has no concept of "gods" in it. A "god" is a type of entity, a powerful spirit. That's what the word means. Not a force, not a factor of nature like gravity, but a powerful type of spirit. If you wish to find another meaning, perhaps you should find another word. The only reason people often say "the wqord god simply represents the ultimate power of whatever type you believe in" is that chritianity tried to enforce the idea that their own little particular god was the only one in existence. And lately, with more and more rational thought going on (or so I like to believe :p ), and fewer people believing in gods and such, people have shifted their explanation to encompass things like quantum theories just so their religions are not left behind in the dust. But, again, the word "god" is a type of spirit and only that. It does not refer to any single entity or force, no matter how people would like to twist the language. (Yes, I prefer older meanings to many words, I don't like modern twists.)

truthseeker,

God gives you two ways: Heaven and Hell.
You choose it. But an omniscient god will know before you are born what choice you are going to make, but it can't be your choice. He will have already decided who is going to heaven and hell from the moment he created the universe. And if he knows at the time of creation then what makes you think you have any choice in the matter?

Cris

Cris,

But an omniscient god will know before you are born what choice you are going to make, but it can't be your choice. He will have already decided who is going to heaven and hell from the moment he created the universe. And if he knows at the time of creation then what makes you think you have any choice in the matter?

The Bible says that His knowledge is based in our Hearts. We choose it, but God plans to send EVERYONE to the Heavens. It's a hard path though... and not everyone make it. He wants it, but it's us that have to do it...

PS: I'm trying to use the Bible as much as possible... than, I don't lose the focus on the Religion... ;)

Love,
Nelson

Truthseeker,

I’ll keep this simple so we can take this in stages.

The Bible says that His knowledge is based in our Hearts.How does he obtain this knowledge before we are born?

Cris

Master of Illusion,

Welcome to sciforums.

Cris

Jan,

Yes but they have to live in the same harsh environment as myself.

Maybe so, but you can teach them knowledge of the self, that way they may not have to be reborn into this harsh environment in their next life. Try and understand that, although the birth of your children is sparked of by sexual intercourse of some kind, they themselves are more than a biological union. What you suggest is religious doctrine, and I see no evidence for what you suggest is either true or has any value. Neither do I see anything other than a materialist reality. Consequently I would never teach anything that I am convinced is false.

If you create that kind of environment, how would they learn.
We learn through experience. This would be hampered if you wrapped them up in cotton wool. I completely agree and that is the best approach in a materialist universe, but we have the issue of omnipotence here. Why would an omnipotent being who can create the universe and create life not also add all necessary knowledge to the beings he creates? With his perfection he could bypass the entire chronological set of experiences and give us full knowledge with equal if not better quality than if we had the experiences directly?

But if God is perfect and can do no wrong then he would not have made us so that he would lose us in the first place.

He didn’t, we became lost.So either God is incompetent for letting this happen or he planned it. In which case he also wanted us to suffer and experience agony and pain, and that is not consistent with the concept of a loving god.

Why didn’t God provide adequate education for us? If he is so perfect then the education could have been perfect as well.

He has, but you are not interested in it.If he had done a good job then he would not have lost my attention. I teach and lecture quite frequently and I know the issues of maintaining an interested audience. What you are saying here is that God was also an incompetent teacher.

The real danger in life is forgetfulness of ones spiritual identity. You can’t forget something you never had.

Fortunately most scientists are atheists so you are in safe hands.

All of a sudden its gone cold in here. Understandable since reality is often harsh and cold, and facing up to reality will seem far worse for those who live in a permanent state of emotional delusional fantasies.

Reality is tough, and the human race face many real dangers that can cause our extinction. If we are to survive we need to work hard at it. Hoping and wishing that a fantasy super father figure is looking after us is probably the greatest evil facing humanity, i.e. the fatalist attitudes sponsored by the irrationality of religions.

People generally do not ‘go’ for something unless they see a need. And I simply do not see any need for gods.

My car is a lovely dark green colour, are you saying I needed a car of that colour. Yes if that satisfies an emotional need for pleasure.

But the alternative to intellect is emotion and that has repeatedly shown itself as one of the most unreliable methods for determining truth.

Nonsense, they are two different aspects of the human pysche. When both are used effectively you get a powerful personality. Emotions guide you in the direction of personal pleasure and satisfaction. Independent truth may not result in accomplishing that desire. The intellect is capable of detecting independent truth; emotions cannot do that. The intellect and emotions can be and often are in conflict. If you allow emotions to dominate your decisions then you will fail to comprehend truth. Intellect must first be used to understand truth and then the emotions can be allowed to operate within those constraints. When emotions dominate then delusions are the result, and religions rest their survival on almost pure emotion.

A simple example: Some people are addicted to gambling. They could use their intellect to tell them that they cannot win, or rather the odds are heavily stacked against them. Their emotions tell them the perceived pleasure of immense wealth.

Why would I want to sacrifice my intellect in favor of a far less reliable mechanism?

Don’t sacrifice it, integrate them. Explained above.

All activities are merely transient and temporary. But that process is almost purely intellect.

Then why is it that people who are not what you would call intellectual can understand this truth. I guess this depends on what type of people you perceive that I perceive are intellectual. I suspect you have a stereotype in mind that I may well not share. Perhaps that is worth exploring further. If we overlap here then that would be worth understanding, since in most aspects of our debating we are opposites, potentially bitter opposites.

Cris

Here are somewhat lengthy definitions quoted from A Dictionary of Philosophy, (Anthony Flew) and are offered as “food for thought” --and for the benefit of any reader who might appreciate some clarification on how some modern thinkers understand and apply these terms.


Freewill and Determinism


“Two apparently opposed philosophical concepts: the former postulating that man is able to choose and act according to the dictates of his own will, the latter that all events including human actions, are predetermined. Perplexities arise for both the secularist and still more the theist. We cannot but assume in most everyday life that on many occasions we are free agents, able to do or to abstain from doing this or that at will. Yet it may also seem to be both a presupposition and an implication of the achievements of the sciences, and most importantly of the aspiring sciences of man, that there are in truth no such alternatives; and that everything, human conduct not excluded, really happens with absolute inevitability.

The philosophical problem is to discover what the presuppositions and implications of the two areas are, and whether they can or cannot be reconciled. Adherents of the one view are compatibilists, of the other incompatibilists. The special theist problem substitute the existence of God for the achievements of the sciences; if the doctrine of creation is true, then can this leave any room for human responsibility and choice? In the theistic context it is usual to speak of predestination, implying that everything, including particularly every choice, has been fixed in advance by divine decree.

The philosophical issues are indeed philosophical, and hence concerned with logical presuppositions and logical implications, logical compatibilities and logical incompatibilities. To often they are prejudicially misrepresented to take incompatibility answers for granted, leaving open only the factual and not philosophical questions of which of the two incompatibles is true. In particular the terms “freewill” and “determinism” are frequently so defined that one explicitly excludes the other. No philosophical dispute is settled, of course, by appeal to authority. Yet it is worthwhile, precisely and only in order to dissolve such prejudice, to notice that many--perhaps most--of those classical philosophers who published in this area were compatibilists: Hobbes, Leibniz, Locke, and Hume.

Ordinarily we contrast acting of our own freewill with acting under compulsion. But even the person who acts under compulsion is an agent, whereas the person who is simply picked up by main force and thrown as a missile victim is not. The crux here is what is essentially involved in action, not freewill in the everyday sense. Determinism too may be considered only in terms of physical causes necessitating their effects. But it is also possible to speak of conduct determined by the agent’s motives; and to say this is not so is clearly to imply that there was no alternative.

Modern problems in this area have centred round the claim that human actions are, or are capable of being (had we the knowledge), causally explained; that is they either (a)fall under (causal) physical laws, or (b) are physically determined (in the sense that the movements of inanimate objects are held to be physically determined). This might mean, of a given event c(falling under a law), that its effect e (a) could have been predicted, or (b) could not but have happened. When e is a human action, the tension is between describing it as voluntary--if this means ‘within our power to do or not to do, as we choose’ --and claiming that it could have been predicted, or (given circumstance c) e could not but have happened. But to deny that human actions fall into the realm of causality as ordinarily understood creates problems. In what sense then can we be said to cause our own actions (and hence be responsible for them, as the concept of freewill is said to imply) --rather than have them accidentally happen to us? Compatibilists believe that the concept of freewill must involve causality.



omnipotence, paradox of. The difficulty arising when, for example, it is claimed that God, having given man freedom, cannot prevent, and is therefore not responsible for, its misuse. Can God then create what he cannot thereafter control? Either answer seems inconsistent with God’s omnipotence, and hence an apparent need for some modification of our simple concept of omnipotence as capacity to do anything logically possible.

omniscience, paradoxes of. Problems arising over how God’s omniscience can be consistent with his timelessness or his granting freewill to Mankind, given that omniscience included fore-knowledge of future events (including human actions). It has been variously argued that foreknowledge cannot meaningfully be ascribed to the timeless, hence our concept of omniscience must be modified; that foreknowledge of actions is consistent with their freedom; or that even God cannot foreknow genuinely free actions, but has thus limited his own omniscience as a condition of granting human freedom.

~~~

And much of what is stated here is in line with what Cris and others have already pointed out on these threads. Their statements, arguments, or explanations are a good reflection of what these terms are generally understood to mean. As humans communicate with “language” (in this case written) it may be helpful for those who truly do wish to understand --or to be understood--to have a bit of reference. Helpful when trying to stick to the point, and helpful for any who wish to be taken seriously.

~~~

Counterbalance

Cris,

How does he obtain this knowledge before we are born?

He created us and He is within us...

Love,
Nelson

Originally posted by TruthSeeker

The Bible says that His knowledge is based in our Hearts. We choose it, but God plans to send EVERYONE to the Heavens. It's a hard path though... and not everyone make it. He wants it, but it's us that have to do it...

Love,
Nelson [/B]

Nelson,

why not everyone will make it? :confused: isn't everyone the same?? the way one thinks, his/her experience... they're pre-destined and so their way of thinking is pre-destined too right? doesn't that mean it's not that person's fault if he/she does evil since it's pre-determined????? otherwise, why creates a person who Loves and another who does not???
sorry if it's confusing.

Originally posted by Cris
What you suggest is religious doctrine, and I see no evidence for what you suggest is either true or has any value.

I could say the same thing regarding atheism, but that wouldn’t make for a good debate.

Why would an omnipotent being who can create the universe and create life not also add all necessary knowledge to the beings he creates?

He did, read Bhagavad Gita As it is.

With his perfection he could bypass the entire chronological set of experiences and give us full knowledge with equal if not better quality than if we had the experiences directly?

We are not clones.
I explained this, I’m sure, in my last post, you can’t force someone to love you, that’s not how love works.

So either God is incompetent for letting this happen or he planned

Or negative to the above.
Best thing to do is read BG as it is, and see if He’s incompetant or if He planned it.

In which case he also wanted us to suffer and experience agony and pain, and that is not consistent with the concept of a loving god.

That’s if He planned it.

If he had done a good job then he would not have lost my attention.

Chris you post on sciforums, the majority of your posts are in the religious section, you post most everyday on the non existence of God, believe me, He’s done an excellent job, in keeping your attention.
You must constantly be thinking about Him, even though it is fair to say you are a tad inimical towards Him.
But what is to your benefit, whether you think so or not, is that you constantly think about Him, you are IMO very fortunate. You are perhaps better than someone who claims to love God but doesn't think about Him.

I teach and lecture quite frequently and I know the issues of maintaining an interested audience. What you are saying here is that God was also an incompetent teacher.

On the contrary, we are discussing Him, He is a part of our lives therefore.
Do you think that your students constantly discuss you, or your lessons outside of your lectures?

You can’t forget something you never had.

That is a point of debate.

Hoping and wishing that a fantasy super father figure is looking after us is probably the greatest evil facing humanity,

I don’t agree, this particular period in the Earth history has already been foretold, events don’t just pop up out of the blue, this is how nature acts, and she uses her by-products (humans) to carry it out.
When we see someone infected with cancer, it would be foolish to think that it only started the moment it was diagnosed.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

Cris,

Thanks for the welcome.

"If perfect knowledge exists of all your future actions then all your choices must have been pre-determined. I.e. you do not have any ability to make any choices other than those pre-determined? IOW your perceived choices are involuntary."

Yes but is not perception reality? If we can only perceive that we have choice A and choice B before us and it is our choice to make, then that IS our reality.

Just because God knows that were going to opt for choice A, does not lessen our real dilemma of which choice would be best. He doesn't always reveal to us which is the best. He leaves that to us.

You see, in this senario, our lives are given to us freely to do with as we please. And God is not lessened in scope or power, but actually given an even greater role.

"If a god has perfect knowledge of the future then you are powerless to change it."

Yes, but our knowledge of the future is limited to NOW. Therefore our future reality is uncertain no matter what God may or may not know about it.

"And if this god knows every action from the beginning of time then the entire future is pre-determined. Free will cannot exist under such conditions."

Free will, in truth IS an illusion from the following perspective; We can make a choice that seems right based on current knowledge. But the reality is that our current knowledge can be incomplete, even flawed. And therefore our freewill choice becomes something that, upon reflection, we might not have chosen. So we can choose, but we have no control over the outcome of that choice. And therefore our freewill is a moot question, we get what we get.

"If the future is pre-determined then someone or something must have set the pre-determined choices. This is clearly the result of an omniscient creator."

No, because pre-knowledge of a choice, does not lessen the reality OF that choice.

"Free-will will be an illusion within a religion such as Christianity."

Within any "religion" freewill becomes impossible. Because religion is a set of rules that one MUST live by to achieve ones goals. (whatever those might be). However, when discussing "predestination" from a biblical perspective, it is only the "destination" that is determined, and that ONLY by the one who has perfect knowledge of the choices that lead to that destination. Our perception is that we made the best choices we could with the knowledge we had at the time. And that IS the reality we live in.

Originally posted by Cris
Emotions guide you in the direction of personal pleasure and satisfaction.

I’m not saying that you are wrong, but surely that is only part of emotion. Being sad when someone, especially someone close to you dies, is not pleasurable.

Independent truth may not result in accomplishing that desire.

What is the difference between truth and independent truth.

The intellect and emotions can be and often are in conflict. If you allow emotions to dominate your decisions then you will fail to comprehend truth. Intellect must first be used to understand truth and then the emotions can be allowed to operate within those constraints.

Then we agree. When one obtains a balance, then everything is kushdy.

When emotions dominate then delusions are the result, and religions rest their survival on almost pure emotion.

Again I urge you to read BG.

When intellect dominates, then a cold-cold world is the result, where people are nothing more than units, the stronger units feel it is their right to enslave or kill the weaker units.
The idea of love is reduced to chemicals interacting in the brain, so that eventually, the whole concept of love is removed and replaced with conformity, sub-serviance and obedience, all activated by a friendly little chip.
The music becomes a drone, designed to brainwash the inocent/ignorant people, people lose their individuality and become slaves to their heirachy slave masters.
Failure to conform means death, either terminate the units (neural functions) life, or cut him out of an electronic societal equation.

Nope, neither world sounds good to me.

A simple example: Some people are addicted to gambling.

To give any substance to your point, you should not have used the term ‘addicted’, as this has nothing to do with emotion.

Their emotions tell them the perceived pleasure of immense wealth.

I see where you are coming from, but it is not emotion that tells them, they are attracted to making money for doing nothing, just, as I’m sure you have become addicted to your level of income in accordance with your work.
The emotion comes into play when they lose, get mad, go home and give the wife a kicking.

I guess this depends on what type of people you perceive that I perceive are intellectual. I suspect you have a stereotype in mind that I may well not share.

No.
I am basing it on the dictionary meaning.

If we overlap here then that would be worth understanding, since in most aspects of our debating we are opposites, potentially bitter opposites.

Having had a life where God did not play a role for me, where I didn’t care to think about nevermind believ in a god, I understand where you are coming from, so even though in the past I may have been opposed to your points, I am learning to see it, again, from your point of veiw.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Master of Illusion

"You still don't get it......Trying desperately to work out ways that your god is omniscient AND still allowing you to have freewill."

"You can't have your cake and eat it....choose 1, but not both."

I just saw this, had to reply....;)

Well, I choose niether, there is Gods perspective and there is ours. His is perfect knowledge of all things, mine, on the other hand, obviously is not. This is not an "and-or" scenario, this is, as the original post suggests, two different perspectives on one reality. Or the same reality seen from two different "dimensions"?

Originally posted by Master of Illusion
Free will is only an illusion if you believe in an omniscient god. I of course do believe in free will because i have no belief in god or gods.

Or maybe I am getting something wrong...if so can someone that can logically think please help me out? (this will exclude 99.9% of christians).

This quandary is usually brought up, as is the case this time, in discussion about God and his/her/it's omniscience. However, we don't need God, or religion, to cause this dilemma. We can cause it ourselves.

From any point in time all the events of the past have already been determined. Yesterday cannot be changed, but yesterday can be known. If I know something about yesterday does that then mean that yesterdays events weren't shaped by choice or chance?

For example:

Since I now know that I had spaghetti for dinner last night does it mean that I had no choice in the matter?

Columbus can no longer bend to the fears of his crew, turn around and go back to Spain. His time is over, literally. Does this mean that Columbus had no free will? That his choice was predetermined?

These facts about the past cannot be changed. At the point of decision (the present) they moved from possibility/probability to fact. Now immutable their probability is 100%. This does not change their probability prior to their occurrence, however.

The problem lies in the assumption that the proposition (the future or the past is known) determines/causes the event. Rather it is the other way around. The event causes the proposition to be true.

Going back to the first example, it is the event (my actually having spaghetti for dinner last night) that makes the statement after the fact "I had spaghetti for dinner last night." or from before the fact "I will have spaghetti for dinner." true. The truth or fallacy of the proposition can only be determined by the event itself. If the event were different ( I had pizza for dinner) then the statements would be false.

Some references:

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/modal_fallacy.htm
http://radicalacademy.com/adlernaturalisticfallacy.htm

~Raithere

If a man doesn't make a decision, does that mean god will never knows what will be the choice until the decision is made? If god knows what a man is going to choose, then how does the man change his mind to reflect free will? If the man can change his mind successfully, then does that mean god didn't made the right prediction at the first time?

If god can see more than one future result for a person, such as hell or heaven, does that mean even god can't tell which future will be come the reality? If both futures are realities, then why bother what choice a man made now?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by daktaklakpak
"If a man doesn't make a decision, does that mean god will never knows what will be the choice until the decision is made?"

Not at all.

"If god knows what a man is going to choose, then how does the man change his mind to reflect free will?"

Gods knowledge of his choice does not effect his freedom to choose either way.

"If the man can change his mind successfully, then does that mean god didn't made the right prediction at the first time?"

Thats just silly..........if God knew of the first choice he also knew of the change of mind.........

"If god can see more than one future result for a person, such as hell or heaven, does that mean even god can't tell which future will be come the reality? If both futures are realities, then why bother what choice a man made now?"

Well, heaven or hell comes after death, no more choices left to make after that.

There is a good quote from a prominent rock band that I like alot;

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."

Every moment is a choice, and if God exsists in eternity, he is always "right now". Not the next moment of time or the last, but now, eternally.

quote from Richie:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--I just saw this, had to reply....

Well, I choose niether, there is Gods perspective and there is ours. His is perfect knowledge of all things, mine, on the other hand, obviously is not. This is not an "and-or" scenario, this is, as the original post suggests, two different perspectives on one reality. Or the same reality seen from two different "dimensions"?------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richie, the original post was nonsense as you can tell from the first few words.....

"Hello! I got this idea last night."

You just stuffed yourself up anyway, you said that god has perfect knowledge of all things. Therefore you chosen that he is omniscient.

BTW if god has perfect knowledge of all things and assuming you are a christian, why was jesus ignorant of the cause of disease? He thought it was caused by demons, as opposed to germs, viruses etc as shown by science.

To Raithere:

I'm not sure where you are coming from. Omniscience has nothing to do about knowing the past, anyone can know what happened in the past.

Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre
Gods knowledge of his choice does not effect his freedom to choose either way.

Thats just silly..........if God knew of the first choice he also knew of the change of mind.........Unless you believe freewill is an illusion.

Well, heaven or hell comes after death, no more choices left to make after that.Heaven and hell is a bad example. Now try this one:

If god can see more than one future result for a person, such as turns left and gets hit by a car or turns right and walks home safely, does that mean even god can't tell which future will be come the reality? If both futures are realities, then why bother what choice a man made now?

Originally posted by Master of Illusion
To Raithere:

I'm not sure where you are coming from. Omniscience has nothing to do about knowing the past, anyone can know what happened in the past.

To clarify: My point is that knowledge of an event does not determine the event.

That a "God" may have knowledge of a future event does not predetermine the event. The truth of the knowlege cannot be known until the event occurs.

In the same way that our knowledge of a past event does not determine the event or eliminate the factors of choice or chance had in the outcome of the event prior to its occurance.

In no way do I mean this as an argument that God exists, only that the paradox of Omniscience vs Free Will is not a paradox.

The links I provided above have a rather detailed analysis of the Logic involved.

~Raithere

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Raithere:

To clarify: My point is that knowledge of an event does not determine the event.

That a "God" may have knowledge of a future event does not predetermine the event. The truth of the knowlege cannot be known until the event occurs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We seem to be going round in circles.....

We aren't just talking about you having knowledge of what you are going to have for dinner etc.

Consider this:

God knows that I am going to stub my toe tomorrow morning at 8.47 AM.

It therefore is going to happen..lo and behold at 8.47 I stub my toe. Now who or what determined that event?

Was it me? Did I think to myself..ok, I've got to stub my toe now......

Or was it determined by the god who knew it was going to happen?

With omniscience, the event is determined and free will is only an illusion.

Why is this so difficult for some people to grasp????

Jan,

Please don't stop posting! Your posts are very valuable for me. :)

Love,
Nelson

Originally posted by Master of Illusion
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Raithere:

To clarify: My point is that knowledge of an event does not determine the event.

That a "God" may have knowledge of a future event does not predetermine the event. The truth of the knowlege cannot be known until the event occurs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We seem to be going round in circles.....

We aren't just talking about you having knowledge of what you are going to have for dinner etc.

Consider this:

God knows that I am going to stub my toe tomorrow morning at 8.47 AM.

It therefore is going to happen..lo and behold at 8.47 I stub my toe. Now who or what determined that event?

Was it me? Did I think to myself..ok, I've got to stub my toe now......

Or was it determined by the god who knew it was going to happen?

With omniscience, the event is determined and free will is only an illusion.

Why is this so difficult for some people to grasp???? "

This is certainly circular thinking.

Stubbing your toe has nothing whatsoever to do with "freewill". This is one of those unavoidable things that we bitch about for days. And have you ever noticed that, if there is someone there with you, they invariably laugh at your reaction? I have done it to others and had it happen to me. It is kinda funny. But back to the subject.......you have freewill in those things you can control. you could perhaps, in the future, remember to move the obstacle which caused you such discomfort......that would be a freewill act on your part. But if you forget......this is also a freewill act.

Although God knew about it, he did not prevent it. So in that sense, stubbing your toe could be seen as a certain freedom. Although I think I prefer intervention.

Then again, it is rather entertaining isn't it?

Originally posted by Master of Illusion
quote:
With omniscience, the event is determined and free will is only an illusion.
Why is this so difficult for some people to grasp????


First of all, I don't have trouble grasping the paradox. In fact, during my initial consideration of the dilemma I came up with the same conclusion (i.e. omniscience and free will are exclusive).

Other than that toe stubbing is not usually a deliberate act, how is your example different than my own?

om·nis·cient adj. 1. Having total knowledge; knowing everything.
de·ter·mine v. 4. To be the cause of; regulate.

So what you are saying is that knowledge of an event causes the event. Do you not have knowledge of the things you did yesterday? Does that mean that you did not have free will yesterday?

Let me try to describe this in a different manner:

One cannot have knowledge of something that hasn't happened. Prior to the event actually occurring one can only predict the probability of an event occurring. The prediction (I hope you will agree), no matter its accuracy, has no bearing on the outcome of the event.

An omniscient being has actual knowledge of an event. Therefore, the event must have already occurred from that being's frame of reference (i.e. the event is in the being's past). For a being to be omniscient it would then have to exist:
1. Outside of time, 2. Throughout all time simultaneously, or 3. at the end of time and able to see into the past.

In each of these cases the event has already occurred from the temporal perspective of that being. This, other than in scope, is the same as our knowledge of the past from our own temporal perspective. It's knowledge of an event no more changes the causation or outcome of that even than does ours.

You are running into an apparent paradox because you are trying to combine two temporal frames of reference.

~Raithere

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere



"First of all, I don't have trouble grasping the paradox. In fact, during my initial consideration of the dilemma I came up with the same conclusion (i.e. omniscience and free will are exclusive).

Other than that toe stubbing is not usually a deliberate act, how is your example different than my own?"

It doesn't, I was speaking from my own frame of reference in regards to the subject at hand.

"om·nis·cient adj. 1. Having total knowledge; knowing everything.
de·ter·mine v. 4. To be the cause of; regulate.

So what you are saying is that knowledge of an event causes the event."

No, I am saying that there are two perspectives on the event, ours and Gods. As I believe you go on to agree.

"Do you not have knowledge of the things you did yesterday? Does that mean that you did not have free will yesterday?"

Not at all, it is just that free will is a perspective which we have as mortal humans confined within "space time".

"Let me try to describe this in a different manner:

One cannot have knowledge of something that hasn't happened. Prior to the event actually occurring one can only predict the probability of an event occurring. The prediction (I hope you will agree), no matter its accuracy, has no bearing on the outcome of the event."

Well, hehe, (not to argue your point, I do agree), unless the prediction is made known to the person who is the object of that prediction. Could we say that this knowledge could change the end result and suddenly make this prediction accurate? And if this does occur, would that "changed result" not have been known to an omniscient being?

"An omniscient being has actual knowledge of an event. Therefore, the event must have already occurred from that being's frame of reference (i.e. the event is in the being's past). For a being to be omniscient it would then have to exist:
1. Outside of time, 2. Throughout all time simultaneously, or 3. at the end of time and able to see into the past.

Absolutly, this is the case in biblical predestination. All three examples would be true.

"In each of these cases the event has already occurred from the temporal perspective of that being. This, other than in scope, is the same as our knowledge of the past from our own temporal perspective. It's knowledge of an event no more changes the causation or outcome of that even than does ours."

Yes I see your point. But this is not really the same as a being who looks at the entire scope of time from a past perspective. It is one thing to see what has already occurred within time. It is another to have that knowledge prior to its occurrance. Or in fact to have full knowledge of all events.

"You are running into an apparent paradox because you are trying to combine two temporal frames of reference."

You may be right, however the two frames of reference do intersect. Otherwise we could not be having this discussion. It is a concept that just happens to be a reality. Or at least theortically likely.

I think were actually agreeing in a totally unique way. HA!

Even though the point is a couple of days old ... Can God then create what he cannot thereafter control? Well, despite all else, Christians often insist on believing in the Devil, as well. While it's not a uniform conclusion among Christians, the general trend seems to be that the Devil is responsible for what we find evil, and God has nothing to do with it. It would seem, then, that God is unable to control the Devil.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Well, despite all else, Christians often insist on believing in the Devil, as well. While it's not a uniform conclusion among Christians, the general trend seems to be that the Devil is responsible for what we find evil, and God has nothing to do with it. It would seem, then, that God is unable to control the Devil.


But according to the Bible, God can control Satan to a certain extent. In the story of Job, he allows Satan to kill off Jobs family and friends and infect him with skin diseases to prove a point. God quite clearly gave Satan limits on what he was allowed and not allowed to do. If thats true, then any evil that Satan carries out must have been authorised by God first, and if God allows Satan to perform certain evils in the world then they must serve some purpose in Gods plan, which means that Satan is some kind of agent working for God, not against him. Perhaps thats a bit off topic but its been bugging me for the past week or so.

Yeah, it's a conundrum that no phase of Christianity has resolved until the modern one. It seems that, at least among American Christians, there is no need to understand faith. The resolution of this conundrum came when American Christians at least decided to skip the whole debate and just blame the Devil anyway.

Remember that motto: If at first you can't figure it out, just assume and go from there. It seems to have worked for the Christians. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre

Yes I see your point. But this is not really the same as a being who looks at the entire scope of time from a past perspective. It is one thing to see what has already occurred within time. It is another to have that knowledge prior to its occurrance. Or in fact to have full knowledge of all events.

But it is. Time is relative. Therefore, it is simply a matter of perspective. Our observation of the past is only different in perspective than a future being's observation of our future (it's past). It is a difference of perspective (frame of refence) not of function.

That two things are related (e.g. event and knowledge of that event) does not imply causation. Causation in one direction does not imply causation in the other direction. In this case, causation only goes one way: choice --> event --> knowledge not the other way around: choice <-- event <-- knowledge. At least in our timeline/reality.


Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre

You may be right, however the two frames of reference do intersect. Otherwise we could not be having this discussion. It is a concept that just happens to be a reality. Or at least theortically likely.

I think were actually agreeing in a totally unique way. HA!

Yes, there is an intersection. Omniscience would necessarily encapsulate all of time. I don't know if I would say that omniscience is theoretically likely but we can probably count on some of us being here for the forseeable future.

I concur. Finding common ground and understanding is one of the joys of discussion and debate. Of course, the other is thoroughly crushing your opponent. ;)

~Raithere