View Full Version : Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
SnakeLord
07-21-07, 07:56 PM
Also, Jesus was saying that looking upon a woman lustfully is a sin because it shows *only* sexual desire, something that Yahweh does not approve of.
So what you are now telling me is that god is angry that lust comes before love? I'm sorry, how exactly does 'love' come into play when you're staring at a sexy woman across the room? At this moment in time 'love' is non-existant, lust is the only issue.
So tell me again: why does one burn for looking at a woman lustfully as jesus stated?
but I wouldn't trust that book at term of accurate explination as to the origion of man.
I always get enjoyment in seeing a theist tell me in his own words that the very book he believes in is actually all nonsense, not to be trusted, just a story. Tell me because I am curious.. how exactly do you choose which parts to trust and which not to?
Perhaps Earth was meant to be God's garden and when humans started to sin it pissed Yahweh off?
Ah, humans ruined god's master plan. Is he incompetent?
Um, aside from looking at women, those aren't sins, Jesus dispelled that when He stated that nothing from the outside can make you unholy, only that from the inside, from a man's heart can make him unholy.
If that's the case we have several choices:
1) god was joking when he said they were sins
2) god that doesn't change his mind, changed his mind
3) god was lying
4) jesus - who stated that all the laws were to be obeyed and anyone that didn't or taught others not to would suffer - was lying.
5) jesus - who stated that all the laws were to be obeyed and anyone that didn't or taught others not to would suffer - was joking.
6) The pair of them were just plain incompetent.
Take your pick.
Leading a happy life and living in the light of God.
What "light" is that then? You mean the sun?
This would include being kind to others who do not deserve it
The problem with such a thing is that it inevitably leads them to deserve it even less. god is well aware of this apparently which is why he invented hell.
Lust is an intense sexual desire, and taken with the quote, Jesus is saying it is wrong to look upon a woman with only sex in mind.
Why? It is essential to the continuation of the species and that is apparently of utmost importance to god. It is also not a choice, one can't help it.
Wait, why would the majority of the people burn in hell? And you do realise its not forever right?
I have yet to meet one person in existence that hasn't looked at another in lust, hasn't sinned, hasn't sinned in his heart. As a result they are all destined to burn.
Furthermore, where does it say burning isn't forever?
Again, I don't really take Genesis as the true story of creation.
So we can pick and choose which of god's words we're going to believe and which we're not? That's the recommendation from a theist?
No, worship is not pay.
But he only protects us if we worship him right, and if we dont worship him he no longer protects us..
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 08:06 PM
So what you are now telling me is that god is angry that lust comes before love? I'm sorry, how exactly does 'love' come into play when you're staring at a sexy woman across the room? At this moment in time 'love' is non-existant, lust is the only issue.
So tell me again: why does one burn for looking at a woman lustfully as jesus stated?
Because you are looking upon her with only sexual desire in mind.
I always get enjoyment in seeing a theist tell me in his own words that the very book he believes in is actually all nonsense, not to be trusted, just a story. Tell me because I am curious.. how exactly do you choose which parts to trust and which not to?
The ones that makes sense.
Ah, humans ruined god's master plan. Is he incompetent?
No, man is.
If that's the case we have several choices:
1) god was joking when he said they were sins
2) god that doesn't change his mind, changed his mind
3) god was lying
4) jesus - who stated that all the laws were to be obeyed and anyone that didn't or taught others not to would suffer - was lying.
5) jesus - who stated that all the laws were to be obeyed and anyone that didn't or taught others not to would suffer - was joking.
6) The pair of them were just plain incompetent.
Take your pick.
Yahweh changed his mind, since when couldn't He change his mind?:bugeye:
What "light" is that then? You mean the sun?
No.
Why? It is essential to the continuation of the species and that is apparently of utmost importance to god. It is also not a choice, one can't help it.
One can resist lust. Lust is an extreme sexual desire for sex. To look upon a woman with that in mind is to only want her for sex and has nothing to do with what God commanded in raising a family. And again, sexual desire, or finding a woman attractive is not lust.
I have yet to meet one person in existence that hasn't looked at another in lust, hasn't sinned, hasn't sinned in his heart. As a result they are all destined to burn.
Per say.
Furthermore, where does it say burning isn't forever?
Who said it is? If I recall, only seperation from Yahweh is forever.
So we can pick and choose which of god's words we're going to believe and which we're not? That's the recommendation from a theist?
Reason and logic. The bible is not perfect, why would you think it is?
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 08:07 PM
But he only protects us if we worship him right, and if we dont worship him he no longer protects us..
Incorrect.
Unless you wish to share about how horrible and tortured your life is the moment you stopped worshiping Yahweh.
Incorrect.
Unless you wish to share about how horrible and tortured your life is the moment you stopped worshiping Yahweh.
Ok, i was under the impression you stated that somewhere.
Would you please have a look at this post of mine im quoting for the second time now ?
This is the post i made, and you and S.A.M. somehow mistook them for commandments !?
“ Originally Posted by Enmos
I am however bothered by something Snakelord came up with.
Why did he even create mankind with free will, if he knew beforehand that at the very least some are going to burn in hell for their sins.
Why not make a happy world with no sins, does he like us doing sins and then throwing us into the fires of hell ?
The way i see it there are three possibilities:
1.) He likes to see humans burn in hell
2.) He doesnt care if humans burn in hell
3.) God was unable to make humankind without sin.
Actually there is a forth; God didnt create us at all. ”
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 08:13 PM
Ok, i was under the impression you stated that somewhere.
Would you please have a look at this post of mine im quoting for the second time now ?
No, I was talking about how having humans populate the earth was not one of the ten commandments.
And?
Oh, nothing really, just thought it somewhat rather large range of killings, between good and evil, good doing all the killing, of course. :shrug:
I disagree. Satan isn't some theif and Yahweh a guard. Yahweh offers protection from Satan while upholding everything that exists, one might think that you should be thankful for such protections and again, has Job ever paid Yahweh?
What protections? Bad things happen to good people.
Really, how do you expect to pay a god anything? Yahweh offers His protections for free to every man and woman. How about you?
If at any moment, Yahweh were to make me his object of cruelty with his next 'argument,' what protection can I be assured if he suddenly decides to let Satan have his way with me?
Its a story of how God doesn't just smite people here and there for doing something wrong. It means that just because someone is having a hard life, God does not hate you. If someone cheats on you, it's not God's fault.
Didn't he create the hard life in the first place? Why should some have a hard life while others have a good life - both might worship god equally?
It also serves as a way for God to inform Job that He owes the world nothing for He has given them everything and He has every right to take it away, since He owns it.
And there is lesson ill advised.
The actual lesson presented is that you may give something away, but you can take it back at any time, because you own it.
Hence, if you own it and you can take it back at anytime, then you didn't really give it away, did you?
When you give something away, you don't own it anymore. Simple, really.
No, I was talking about how having humans populate the earth was not one of the ten commandments.
Are you ignoring the rest of the post ?
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 08:16 PM
Ok, i was under the impression you stated that somewhere.
My apologies. Fact is, you will not get struck by lightning the moment you reject Yahweh, He saves any punishment you recieve until the after life save for a few cases in which it is warrented. However, this is an exception to the rule of thumb. Your car breaking down is not a sign that God isn't happy.
Now if your problem is say ironic, then perhaps it is.:p
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 08:21 PM
Oh, nothing really, just thought it somewhat rather large range of killings, between good and evil, good doing all the killing, of course. :shrug:
Ignoring that most of those people where smitten for their evil doings...
What protections? Bad things happen to good people.
So what? did you miss the point of the story? Just because something bad happens to you, it does not mean Yahweh did it.
If at any moment, Yahweh were to make me his object of cruelty with his next 'argument,' what protection can I be assured if he suddenly decides to let Satan have his way with me?
I hardly see where you have any worry about that. And so far He won't let Satan take your life if that's any comfort.
Didn't he create the hard life in the first place? Why should some have a hard life while others have a good life - both might worship god equally?
Those who are last shall be first and those who are first shall be last.
And their is lesson ill advised.
The actual lesson presented is that you may give something away, but you can take it back at any time, because you own it.
Hence, if you own it and you can take it back at anytime, then you didn't really give it away, did you?
When you give something away, you don't own it anymore. Simple, really.
Uhm, no it isn't. While part of the story was about Yahweh explaining that He doesn't have to do jack for humanity, He does it anyway. Not to mention upholding all of existence. Another point of His; His wisdom is greater. And no, you are wrong on the point of the story. You fail to understand it completely.
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 08:26 PM
Are you ignoring the rest of the post ?
These?
1.) He likes to see humans burn in hell
Then why create a heaven?
2.) He doesnt care if humans burn in hell
Again, why would He create a heaven and then why would He lie and say He actually cares when he does not?
3.) God was unable to make humankind without sin.
No, He gave free will. True free will means we can sin and not sin. If He stops us, He is stopping free will. If people do bad things, they deserved to be punished for their crimes do they not?
Actually there is a forth; God didnt create us at all.
If you think this is true, why bother with this board? If Yahweh is just some imaginary person you don't care about, why do you act as if you care so much about the subject? Why not just roll your eyes and get on with the more important things in your life than to debate something as silly as this?:confused:
Of course I guess it could be that you enjoy religous debates, but your manner seems to suggest that you picture Yahweh as an evil bastard.
These?
Then why create a heaven?
Again, why would He create a heaven and then why would He lie and say He actually cares when he does not?
No, He gave free will. True free will means we can sin and not sin. If He stops us, He is stopping free will. If people do bad things, they deserved to be punished for their crimes do they not?
If you think this is true, why bother with this board? If Yahweh is just some imaginary person you don't care about, why do you act as if you care so much about the subject? Why not just roll your eyes and get on with the more important things in your life than to debate something as silly as this?:confused:
Of course I guess it could be that you enjoy religous debates, but your manner seems to suggest that you picture Yahweh as an evil bastard.
Thanks for answering that, the true questions however were:
"Why did he even create mankind with free will, if he knew beforehand that at the very least some are going to burn in hell for their sins.
Why not make a happy world with no sins, does he like us doing sins and then throwing us into the fires of hell ?"
I do not belief in God, but does that have to mean i cannot be interested in the subject ?
I do not think God is an evil bastard, i was merely going on claims made by you and the Job story.
Furthermore, it might shock you but the only ones debating your are atheists.
Afterall you are posting in a thread called: "Proof that the Christian god cannot exist". Maybe you forgot about that ?
SnakeLord
07-21-07, 08:38 PM
Because you are looking upon her with only sexual desire in mind.
As opposed to what, children and mortgages?
The ones that makes sense.
So kindly tell me which bible parts are nonsensical and thus can be discarded. I shall then inform the entire jewish and christian community to dispose of their biblical junk.
No, man is.
Sorry, who created man?
Yahweh changed his mind, since when couldn't He change his mind?
Numbers: God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
So, what's your next choice?
No.
What light then?
One can resist lust. Lust is an extreme sexual desire for sex. To look upon a woman with that in mind is to only want her for sex and has nothing to do with what God commanded in raising a family. And again, sexual desire, or finding a woman attractive is not lust.
You're seemingly making a confusing borderline between the two. How many people when they have a sexual desire, extreme or otherwise, are thinking about raising a family or anything other than sex? So what exactly is the distinction between lust and extreme lust.. the way you phrase it they're both the same thing.
Who said it is? If I recall, only seperation from Yahweh is forever.
Who said? Uhh..... jesus did.
Matthew: "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Matthew: "If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire."
Matthew: "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Oh well, what now?
Reason and logic.
I wonder... have you ever done a test to see your level concerning reason and logic? Does such a test exist? If not, I want to ask under what basis you determine your ideas as being reasonable and logical. To what are you comparing them?
The bible is not perfect, why would you think it is?
So what is it then?
But how is knowing something denying you from choosin?
Because if the answer/ choice is already known then how does "choosing" mean anything?
We think we've taken a free choice, but if it's already known before hand then we haven't actually made a choice - we just think we have.
When you say infallibly correct, do you mean if He where to say one thing it must happen no matter what?
That's what infallibly correct means - never, ever being wrong.
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 08:56 PM
As opposed to what, children and mortgages?
Impart.
So kindly tell me which bible parts are nonsensical and thus can be discarded. I shall then inform the entire jewish and christian community to dispose of their biblical junk.
I can't, you must decided what is right or wrong for yourself.
Sorry, who created man?
Yahweh, what's your point?
Numbers: God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
God is not a man: Eh? When did I say this?
that he should lie: I did not say this.
nor a son of a man: confusing.
He should change His mind: Sure, why not? He's done it before. Read up on OT, He changed His mind before.
So, what's your next choice?
Um...Hello Kitty Adventure?
What light then?
That's plain to anyone with wisdom.
You're seemingly making a confusing borderline between the two. How many people when they have a sexual desire, extreme or otherwise, are thinking about raising a family or anything other than sex? So what exactly is the distinction between lust and extreme lust.. the way you phrase it they're both the same thing.
No.
Lust:
1. intense sexual desire or appetite.
2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving
Sexual desire:
1. a desire for sexual intimacy
Who said? Uhh..... Jesus did.
Well, lets see then.
Matthew: "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Yes, for the devil and his angels. It said the fire itself is eternal and was made for the devil and his angels. While the wicked are cast into hell, it was never stated how long they would stay.
Matthew: "If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire."
Again, the fire is eternal.
Matthew: "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Seperation from God is eternal punishment in and of itself. It does not mean that you shall burn for all of eternity in flames of hell.
I wonder... have you ever done a test to see your level concerning reason and logic? Does such a test exist? If not, I want to ask under what basis you determine your ideas as being reasonable and logical. To what are you comparing them?
Its case by case. Determining on what makes sense and what does not. If it does not make sense, I place it aside until it either makes sense or I just eventually discard it out of hand.
So what is it then?
It's a book.
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 08:58 PM
Because if the answer/ choice is already known then how does "choosing" mean anything?
We think we've taken a free choice, but if it's already known before hand then we haven't actually made a choice - we just think we have.
Again, this does not take away from free will.
You are saying that because I know what one will do, they have lost the ability to decide, this is not true. In no way is free will affected by knowing what will happen, for the person who made the choice still chose to do it, even if another knows that they will.
Again, this does not take away from free will.
Of course it does.
If the choice is infallibly KNOWN before hand then any "choice" is merely an illusion.
You may convince yourself that you chose freely but if I know without error what you are going to pick on each and every occasion then you really don't have a choice at all - you must pick what I know you're going to choose.
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 09:12 PM
Of course it does.
If the choice is infallibly KNOWN before hand then any "choice" is merely an illusion.
You may convince yourself that you chose freely but if I know without error what you are going to pick on each and every occasion then you really don't have a choice at all - you must pick what I know you're going to choose.
No, it isn't about you choosing and then me having to do so, its about you always knowing what I choose. I hold the power to choose, and you just know what I choose. Nothing more.
No, it isn't about you choosing and then me having to do so, its about you always knowing what I choose. I hold the power to choose, and you just know what I choose. Nothing more.
Then you're still missing the point: if I KNOW before you make the choice what you're going to pick then (if I am always correct) you cannot choose anything other than what I KNOW you're going to choose - therefore your choice is an illusion since you were always going to pick what I knew you'd pick.
You have no option but to choose what I know you're going to choose - therefore you have no "choice" - you MUST pick what I know you're going to, otherwise I wouldn't be infallible.
Hellblade8
07-21-07, 09:26 PM
Then you're still missing the point: if I KNOW before you make the choice what you're going to pick then (if I am always correct) you cannot choose anything other than what I KNOW you're going to choose - therefore your choice is an illusion since you were always going to pick what I knew you'd pick.
You have no option but to choose what I know you're going to choose - therefore you have no "choice" - you MUST pick what I know you're going to, otherwise I wouldn't be infallible.
Again, wrong. Knowing what I will choose does not mean I do not have a choice. Where are you getting this? This is utterly incorrect. Just because you have someone who knows what you are going to do, it does not mean that you have now choice. Infalibility does not mean that if you say something, its right. It means that you have never been wrong before because you do not think or say something that is not right.
Again, wrong. Knowing what I will choose does not mean I do not have a choice. Where are you getting this? This is utterly incorrect. Just because you have someone who knows what you are going to do, it does not mean that you have now choice.
See below.
If I am infallibly correct then I cannot EVER be wrong. Therefore whatever I know you are going to pick, you MUST pick.
Any "choice" on your part is an illusion because I am always right - therefore your choice is not really a choice since I know beforehand what you are going to pick: therefore you do not have any choice.
Infalibility does not mean that if you say something, its right.
Actually it does.
It means that you have never been wrong before because you do not think or say something that is not right.
Actually it doesn't.
Infallible:
# incapable of failure or error;
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# Infallibility is the ability to be free from error (obtain certainty).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallible
Incapable of error: always correct.
Not just in the past, but forever.
SnakeLord
07-21-07, 09:35 PM
I can't, you must decided what is right or wrong for yourself.
It is quite apparent that you would happily admit that man is not perfect and, given the statements on your last post, that they're not competent either.
In saying, what is the outcome if a person - through their incompetence and imperfection - decides for instance that the whole of the NT is wrong/fiction or that indeed the whole book is? Is he then eternally punished for that incompetence/imperfection?
Yahweh, what's your point?
The point is quite simple. Let's say you go about creating a robot. You end up with a final product that is incompetent. What does that ultimately say about your ability as a designer?
God is not a man: Eh? When did I say this?
that he should lie: I did not say this.
nor a son of a man: confusing.
Avoidance tactic. Kindly desist from doing that, it's annoying.
He should change His mind: Sure, why not?
Uhh.. because the biblical passage I quoted states that he does not.
That's plain to anyone with wisdom.
Is that what you call it? You know, I've never had much respect for those that are so quick and eager to metaphorically suck their own penis. Your statement is akin to saying you're better than me, and that I'm an idiot. I resent such arrogance.
No.
No what? Where is the difference in wanting sex really badly and just wanting sex? At the end of the day, you're just thinking about sex in either case. Someone with a desire for sexual intimacy is not thinking about kids and mortgages, he's thinking about sex. Where's the difference?
Seperation from God is eternal punishment in and of itself. It does not mean that you shall burn for all of eternity in flames of hell.
Almost as bad as your display of arrogance, is your inability to just own up when caught out. The first statement is made to humans who are cast into eternal fire. The latter statement shows that the punishment is eternal as is the fire and that the fire is where the punishment takes place.
Why are you even arguing? You do accept that it's our choice, so what does it matter to you if people are burning for eternity?
Its case by case. Determining on what makes sense and what does not. If it does not make sense, I place it aside until it either makes sense or I just eventually discard it out of hand.
Is that because you have ultimate understanding or some things don't make sense to you personally but might make perfect sense if you had better understanding? As a result wouldn't it be best not to discard it? Just incase your imperfection and incompetence causes you to get it wrong? Oh wait, yes... you're full of that "wisdom". I get it.
It's a book.
Like Harry Potter?
Benauld
07-22-07, 06:41 AM
If God is not obliged to grant me my choice of non-existence, I do not have true free will. Simple really.
Ignoring that most of those people where smitten for their evil doings...
And, many of them were merely innocent bystanders. How are small children considered evil?
So what? did you miss the point of the story? Just because something bad happens to you, it does not mean Yahweh did it.
That's not the point of the story, because Yahweh was a participant. He did it.
I hardly see where you have any worry about that. And so far He won't let Satan take your life if that's any comfort.
It's no comfort at all. And if the bible were any indication of his so-called "just" behavior, no one is safe. The body count in the bible is in the millions, with god at the helm. Satan killed less than a dozen, who is the safer bet?
Those who are last shall be first and those who are first shall be last.
That makes no sense at all and doesn't answer the question.
Uhm, no it isn't. While part of the story was about Yahweh explaining that He doesn't have to do jack for humanity, He does it anyway. Not to mention upholding all of existence. Another point of His; His wisdom is greater. And no, you are wrong on the point of the story. You fail to understand it completely.
You failed to understand the simple logic in giving something away. He may not have to do 'jack for humanity' but he certainly has no right to take it away, IF he actually gave it away.
Obviously, that was a lie on his part. He never gave anything away, he simply allows people to live until he gets bored with them, and wipes them off the planet whenever he wants, and for whatever reasons he wants. Those reasons rarely add up to anything ethical or moral, and instead demonstrate his cruel and petty nature.
If his wisdom were greater, why does he take back what he gives away?
Is that what you do, take back anything you give away whenever you want?
How are small children considered evil?You have obviously never been to some of the council estates in the UK! :D
When do we remember god?either in times of grave difficulties or in extreme happiness(occasionally) well god is nothing but a psychological balm created by man himself it soothes the pain in ur difficulty and shows u the way out when an indecisive criteria the same applies to happiness throw evrything on god thinking vaccum will look after it and get lazy life gives u an ass boiling kick and the cycle continues.everyday a different brain is born on earth talents,creationists,great phenomena topplers in this rate it not surprising that some nutty illusionist created an excellent illusion called god to create fear,order,uprising,and better living which inturn lead to the imbalance in the human and animal ratio making humans powerful and succumb to his very power adding to this the onslauht of nature to balance this equation or else we would be a low populated cro magnons travelling from place to place on a perfectly green earth.
Hapsburg
07-26-07, 08:23 AM
I have something that would be of interest to the Opening Poster and his initial statement.
While his proof is a logical proof, I have here a mathematical one. It's interesting, IMO:
Infinity x zero = undefined.
Where infinity = time and location everywhere, and zero = time and location now. Since "god" is theoretically omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, "god" is everywhere, everywhen, and everywhat at the same time, both in the infinite past and infinite future and in the present. Multiply zero and infinity and you get undefined, thus "god" cannot be defined, and is thus impossible to quantify and prove. When you cannot quantify something, there's two logical roads to take: 1. agnosticism, and 2. assumption of non-existence.
And this second one:
The number of gods possible is infinite; infinitely positive and infinitely negative. The most reasonable and rational number that will exist from any given number line in the mean, or average, of the line. The mean of all numbers positive and negative is 0. Thus, the most reasonable number of gods in existence is 0.
Infinity x zero = undefined.
Where infinity = time and location everywhere, and zero = time and location now. Since "god" is theoretically omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, "god" is everywhere, everywhen, and everywhat at the same time, both in the infinite past and infinite future and in the present. Multiply zero and infinity and you get undefined, thus "god" cannot be defined, and is thus impossible to quantify and prove. When you cannot quantify something, there's two logical roads to take: 1. agnosticism, and 2. assumption of non-existence.I'd call into question your assumptions of what "zero" and "infinity" are - i.e. can you really classify a position and time as a number and expect it to follow mathematical rules?
I could define "zero = a chair", "infinity = a table".
Infinity + zero = infinity, but if you add a chair to a table... you get a bench :)
And this second one:
The number of gods possible is infinite; infinitely positive and infinitely negative. The most reasonable and rational number that will exist from any given number line in the mean, or average, of the line. The mean of all numbers positive and negative is 0. Thus, the most reasonable number of gods in existence is 0.This one is easy to dismiss...
How can you have a negative number of gods?
You either have a positive number... or none.
You can't have a negative number of something, except in maths.
So your analysis fails.
Furthermore - your (flawed) analysis that "the most reasonable number of gods in existence is 0" is purely probabilistic... and will be unlikely to reflect reality.
Your analysis would assume that people not of average height can't reasonably exist. :eek: :D
Hapsburg
07-26-07, 09:13 AM
Sure, you can have negative gods, theoretically. Call it "chaos". Call it "evil". Call it whatever, but it's still a vague concept.
Hmmm - vague indeed :D.
Anyhoo - you haven't responded to the last "criticism" - in that you're not offering a proof - just a probabilistic outcome analysis.
"Your analysis would assume that people not of average height can't reasonably exist."
Care to respond? :)
I'd call into question your assumptions of what "zero" and "infinity" are - i.e. can you really classify a position and time as a number and expect it to follow mathematical rules?
I could define "zero = a chair", "infinity = a table".
Infinity + zero = infinity, but if you add a chair to a table... you get a bench :)
This one is easy to dismiss...
How can you have a negative number of gods?
You either have a positive number... or none.
You can't have a negative number of something, except in maths.
So your analysis fails.
Furthermore - your (flawed) analysis that "the most reasonable number of gods in existence is 0" is purely probabilistic... and will be unlikely to reflect reality.
Your analysis would assume that people not of average height can't reasonably exist. :eek: :D
The analysis obviously fails lol
But when you say "and will be unlikely to reflect reality" you mean following from the formula i presume ?
But when you say "and will be unlikely to reflect reality" you mean following from the formula i presume ?Yes - in that he assumes because the probabilistic outcome is zero that this equates to a proof that God does not exist.
But if you follow that logic then people of non-average height would not exist.
The mean / average / medium of probabilities rarely reflects reality.
Or am I over analysing this :eek: :D
Hapsburg
07-26-07, 11:56 AM
You're probably over-analyzing it.
Height can't be negative. But there can be negative deities, theoretically.
So, what I said doesn't apply to height. Just to things that can go both positive and negative.
I think.
I dunno. My friend, Trevor, was the guy who thought of it.
He's, like, a fucking math genius, so I assumed he knew what the fuck he was talking about. :D
You're probably over-analyzing it.
Height can't be negative. But there can be negative deities, theoretically.
So, what I said doesn't apply to height. Just to things that can go both positive and negative.
I think.
I dunno. My friend, Trevor, was the guy who thought of it.
He's, like, a fucking math genius, so I assumed he knew what the fuck he was talking about. :D
What about depth ? ;)
Hapsburg
07-26-07, 12:00 PM
Hmmm. If you consider depth an aspect of heighth, maybe.
I dunno. I always that one was kinda loopy.
But the first one was at least somewhat reasonable.
Hmmm. If you consider depth an aspect of heighth, maybe.
I dunno. I always that one was kinda loopy.
But the first one was at least somewhat reasonable.
I get the idea youre trying to get across, but the analysis actually has to hold up for it to mean anything. Otherwise, whats the point ?
Maybe you should refine it.
cole grey
07-27-07, 06:16 PM
Infinity x zero = undefined.
no. anything times zero = zero. Unless you are talking about some uncommon theoretized version of "zero" and not the normal one.
All your mathematical mapping is arbitrary.
Anyway, any pixies fan knows that man is 5, and the devil is 6. So we can't be at zero.
The number of gods possible is infinite; infinitely positive and infinitely negative. The most reasonable and rational number that will exist from any given number line in the mean, or average, of the line. The mean of all numbers positive and negative is 0. Thus, the most reasonable number of gods in existence is 0.
Then the following makes sense too - the number of people possible is infinite, and the mean of all possible numbers of people is zero - therefore the most reasonable # of people in existence is zero. Uh, no.
The equations your friend came up with are like tv - it is a fun something to occupy your mind with that is devoid of content.
Journey0820
07-31-07, 08:48 PM
This thread has me convinced. As I understand the argument of fulfilled infinities, no deity could have existed for an infinite length of time before it eventually created the universe.
Good enough for me. The Abrahamic god is disproved.
cole grey
07-31-07, 10:15 PM
Good enough for me. The Abrahamic god is disproved.
Yes, not being able to comprehend something obviously means it CANNOT exist.
I am confused as to why people use a mathematical analysis to "disprove" something like this, although any mathematician can tell you that proving something requires completeness - in other words, you can't just say there are no square roots of numbers over eight hundred billion just because you dont have the time to write out all the answers, and you haven't found any over a hundred and forty four - that is not a proof.
Let's just leave it at this - there is no proof that God exists, and there is no proof God doesn't exist. Fact.
There is no compelling reason beyond personal experience either of the universe, or of God itself, to believe in God. There is also no compelling reason not to believe in a God of some kind, even if there are acceptable reasons to disbelieve certain fantastic renditions which people have put forward.
The abrahamic God may have been misunderstood and misrepresented, or perhaps He is right and we are wrong as certain people believe, or perhaps it doesn't exist - but there is no proof. Period.
Medicine*Woman
08-01-07, 12:28 AM
This thread has me convinced. As I understand the argument of fulfilled infinities, no deity could have existed for an infinite length of time before it eventually created the universe.
Good enough for me. The Abrahamic god is disproved.
*************
M*W: Why is it that some people think that Abraham was a monotheist? Abraham was a pantheist who believed in the many gods of Egypt and Canaan which included moon worship. Abraham's father was also a pantheist. The god that told Abraham to sacrifice his own son was not the same god of monotheism but a pagan god that was worshipped even before sun worship came about. Monotheism started with Egyptian sun worship, or the worship of Aten Ra, and that was a couple of thousand years after Abraham's time. But in any event, all the gods people have worshipped through the ages didn't really exist.
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.
Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.
Question:
If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.
Conclusions:
If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.
If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.
If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.
Cris
Its called a test theory. When you go for a test, the examiners don't give you the answers before the test has been concluded.
SEE THIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOJ3FKXmrVY
That didn't seem to address the issue.
Mattpaul
10-05-07, 12:09 AM
Hi All,
very intersting debate. Is it possible that "predeterminism" and "omniscience" are not mutually exclusive. I.e could God "know" what is going to happen, without "making" it happen?
Matt
LovesHumanity
02-28-08, 12:09 AM
Thank "God" you provided the proof else "Godmen" would have continued with their perpetualization of ignorance of the masses. Now, people have an option and a way to disseminate fact from fiction.
However, the article is not limited in application to Christian God alone.. the God of any and every faith cannot stands up to rationality.
God stuff is quite handy when it comes to keeping minds of the masses off the real issues! For example, one may rule, justify murders, rapes and atrocities on "infidels" and yet make the best of life for himself/herself -- all in the name of GOD!
answers
03-05-08, 11:29 PM
This really isn't some new revelation, Christians have been saying since the beginning that God is in control. You just uncovered a few implications of that teaching.
These points of 'how much' God controls is up for debate hugely in Christian circles. This debate centers around the doctrine of God's providence.
But I do think its plain to see through the bible that God chooses who will be saved, giving rise to the teaching that salvation is all of God and none of us. Doctrine of regeneration.
We have all done things which separate us from God, in doing that we become slaves to sin. So a non-Christian by biblical teaching would not have free will at all (Calvinistic view point ). A saved person has a change of nature, desiring the things of God when before the old nature didn't desire God (Depravity of man). In this the Christian becomes truly free, free to choose Godly things when before their nature inhibited such choices.
I'm not saying that a person with a sinful nature cannot do good, because there is such thing as common grace. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. But you've got to realize that good things are Godly things, if God is good. And any choice to follow God or do good must first be initiated either by His common grace or His saving work on the cross.
So a few questions arise out of all this:
How are people still held accountable when God is responsible for someones salvation?
If God is in total control then he must control evil and therefore be evil?
I'll leave those questions to you, can't give you all the answers or else things wouldn't be interesting, and besides you may come to totally different conclusions to me. But just remember in seeking answers about God you have to realize that you can't answer these questions fully because, let's face it when it comes to God human logic fails miserably. Which can be put in a negative way, that belief in God is illogical. But even so...it all makes sense to God.
SkywalkerJedi
03-21-08, 06:47 PM
it is logical god is real
SkyWalkerJedi,
it is logical god is realAn assertion bereft of meaningful support and hence worthless.
wesmorris
03-22-08, 03:53 AM
I think god is as real as pi.
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.
Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.
Question:
If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.
Conclusions:
If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.
If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.
If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.
Cris
I will assume you base your beliefs of the universe in science, correct? Ok, science tells that a table 1" thick made from an Oak tree 100 yrs old today is actually mostly comprised of empty space. When I set my whiskey glass down on it, it does not fall through- and it is mostly comprised of empty space as well.
Through the works of others and lessons I have been taught I understand that Atoms are mostly comprised of empty space and are held together by a "strong" and "weak" force, nuclear if I remember correctly. Scientists have no idea what causes these forces to exists, and state their observed existence as "fundamental laws". Gravity, the most basic force known to us and what holds the universe together at a larger level is a complete mystery as well. So the forces that hold the universe together at an atomic level and planetary level are completely unknown, just observed and measured. Correct?
So with this understanding you state your understanding of God's knowledge as a falsehood?? Maybe everything that is ever going to happen has already happened. And maybe free will is unaffected by this. Maybe future events affect past events. Why is that harder for your mind to grasp or accept? Let us just call Gods knowledge a "Fundamental Omniscientifical Paradoxial Law" and we will go from there.
Scientific endeavors should be explored unexhaustively by those so inclined. The beauty of scientific exploration is that it reveals the nature of the universe, and those that use it for their own ends to shirk their responsibilities are adding to the confusion.
Rjr6,
I will assume you base your beliefs of the universe in science, correct? Ok, science tells that a table 1" thick made from an Oak tree 100 yrs old today is actually mostly comprised of empty space. When I set my whiskey glass down on it, it does not fall through- and it is mostly comprised of empty space as well.
Through the works of others and lessons I have been taught I understand that Atoms are mostly comprised of empty space and are held together by a "strong" and "weak" force, nuclear if I remember correctly. Scientists have no idea what causes these forces to exists, and state their observed existence as "fundamental laws". Gravity, the most basic force known to us and what holds the universe together at a larger level is a complete mystery as well. So the forces that hold the universe together at an atomic level and planetary level are completely unknown, just observed and measured. Correct?
So with this understanding you state your understanding of God's knowledge as a falsehood?? No. The nature of science and what I might believe is irrelevant to the topic. The issue is entirely one of logical reasoning.
Maybe everything that is ever going to happen has already happened. And maybe free will is unaffected by this.All you have done is re-state the paradox. If everything has already happened then what you might claim is free will is an illusion since you would now be powerless to alter anything that has already happened. If everything is pre-destined or has already happened then free will cannot exist.
Maybe future events affect past events.If that were possible then the entire foundation of everything we observe in terms of cause and effect would be nonsense. What does it mean to have an effect occur before its cause? What would it mean if you were born before your parents conceived you?
Why is that harder for your mind to grasp or accept? Why imply that I am not equally capable of grasping nonsense fantasies as well as you are capable of suggesting them?
Let us just call Gods knowledge a "Fundamental Omniscientifical Paradoxial Law" and we will go from there.You mean a law that proves such a god cannot exist? There is nowhere to go with that.
Scientific endeavors should be explored unexhaustively by those so inclined.I think you mean exhaustively.
The beauty of scientific exploration is that it reveals the nature of the universe,OK.
and those that use it for their own ends to shirk their responsibilities are adding to the confusion.Huh? Don’t really know what you are on about here and I don’t see what relevance it is to the topic?
Rjr6,
All you have done is re-state the paradox. If everything has already happened then what you might claim is free will is an illusion since you would now be powerless to alter anything that has already happened. If everything is pre-destined or has already happened then free will cannot exist.
If that were possible then the entire foundation of everything we observe in terms of cause and effect would be nonsense. What does it mean to have an effect occur before its cause? What would it mean if you were born before your parents conceived you?
I do not believe having an effect bring about a cause would render the foundation of our understanding of the universe "nonsense". Though it would open up new avenues of research. If an effect brought about a cause would that eliminate the paradox of someone understanding the end destiny and still allow for free will? What if time only existed for humans? What would that do for free will? Do you think this should have been included in the Bible? Maybe this text does exists, but how would you explain to a mostly illiterate world that time does not exists? Maybe you would use words like "eternity" instead. Please don't ask for proof, I don't have any that you would accept.
It is just a thought. Being confined to only using a narrow view of logic to understand the universe baffles me when this view (ie: our scientific observations and measurements to date) fundamentally has absolutely no understanding at the most basic levels of what is happening and cannot explain even the most rudimentary aspects of our existence.
You act as if "paradox" is a bad thing, or that somehow that means it is absolutely impossible to be that way if there is a "paradox". Of course this (no problem with perceived paradox from a divine point of view) cannot be "proved" to you, just as you cannot "prove" to me that if I drop a rock it will not fall up as opposed to down. All you can say is that the rock normally falls down when you drop it, so it probably will again. You can not "prove" it to me (that it will fall down). Gravity is yet unexplained-it is a mystery.
What if I ran around saying "gravitarians believe in a falsehood!" You would, and most would, think I am crazy. And I would be crazy to do that, just as a believer in Christ would think you were being a hypocrite to say that that belief was a "falsehood".
Rjr6,
You are trying to argue from the perspective that there are things we don’t know, even basic things, and I’m not denying that but that isn’t the issue here. Those are largely concerns of inductive reasoning. My point is entirely deductive and is created by the very “divine point of view” that you reference. I.e. the very definitions and concepts Christianity has defined create an impossible scenario.
Put simply – if something exists that has perfect knowledge of all that will happen then it is impossible for anyone to change those events, i.e. the events are pre-determined. If they could, e.g. through the exercise of free-will then that something could not know what will happen before the exercise of free-will.
Either the knowledge exists and hence free-will is impossible, or free-will exists and hence the knowledge cannot exist. They cannot both coexist which is what Christianity claims.
Note that there is no implication that actions are dependent on the existence of knowledge which is the essence of the modality refutation; in fact there cannot be a connection. And I make no attempt to explain how future events can be known before they occur. I strongly suspect that such a scenario is not possible since time does not appear to be a medium that can be manipulated in such a way. My only point is the paradoxical implications if such a thing were possible.
TW Scott
03-29-08, 05:20 AM
Rjr6,
You are trying to argue from the perspective that there are things we don’t know, even basic things, and I’m not denying that but that isn’t the issue here. Those are largely concerns of inductive reasoning. My point is entirely deductive and is created by the very “divine point of view” that you reference. I.e. the very definitions and concepts Christianity has defined create an impossible scenario.
Put simply – if something exists that has perfect knowledge of all that will happen then it is impossible for anyone to change those events, i.e. the events are pre-determined. If they could, e.g. through the exercise of free-will then that something could not know what will happen before the exercise of free-will.
Either the knowledge exists and hence free-will is impossible, or free-will exists and hence the knowledge cannot exist. They cannot both coexist which is what Christianity claims.
Note that there is no implication that actions are dependent on the existence of knowledge which is the essence of the modality refutation; in fact there cannot be a connection. And I make no attempt to explain how future events can be known before they occur. I strongly suspect that such a scenario is not possible since time does not appear to be a medium that can be manipulated in such a way. My only point is the paradoxical implications if such a thing were possible.
Okay you are looking at this completely wrong. Take a step back, clear your mind. Now imagine a being that can see all the myraid of possibilities in the universe. this being knows them in advance of the oppurtunity for them to happen. Now this being knows all the possible futures. it knows what you will do if you are presented with certain stimuli. You are assuming that it is becuase it is preordained to happen. You're not factoring thagt this being just has perfect knowledge of you.
It would be like if you knew your sister is not ready for marriage. In fact she absolutely wants to wait another two years and she does not think her current boyfriend is the one. Would you be taking away her freewill if you knew her answer would be no when her boyfriend proposes to her tomorrow.
Rjr6,
You are trying to argue from the perspective that there are things we don’t know, even basic things, and I’m not denying that but that isn’t the issue here. Those are largely concerns of inductive reasoning. My point is entirely deductive and is created by the very “divine point of view” that you reference. I.e. the very definitions and concepts Christianity has defined create an impossible scenario.
Put simply – if something exists that has perfect knowledge of all that will happen then it is impossible for anyone to change those events, i.e. the events are pre-determined. If they could, e.g. through the exercise of free-will then that something could not know what will happen before the exercise of free-will.
Either the knowledge exists and hence free-will is impossible, or free-will exists and hence the knowledge cannot exist. They cannot both coexist which is what Christianity claims.
Note that there is no implication that actions are dependent on the existence of knowledge which is the essence of the modality refutation; in fact there cannot be a connection. And I make no attempt to explain how future events can be known before they occur. I strongly suspect that such a scenario is not possible since time does not appear to be a medium that can be manipulated in such a way. My only point is the paradoxical implications if such a thing were possible.
Exactly my point, we don't understand even basic aspects of our reality. I completely understand your logical refutation of a paradox as explained in the Bible. But what makes your science beyond reproach to a point where you call christianity a falsehood? The almighty knowledge that you can observe natural laws and deduce aspects of our physical reality?
Maybe time cannot be manipulated in a way that makes sense to our level of understanding. But if time exists such as a landscape, and we are traveling through that landscape, why is it impossible to get off of the train and wander in the landscape, so to speak. This does not alter free will and destiny to my understanding. Free will, which is basically what the bible addresses, may be more important and complex than we can imagine. The Christian God choose to sacrifice his Son over it.
rjr6,
Maybe time cannot be manipulated in a way that makes sense to our level of understanding. But if time exists such as a landscape, and we are traveling through that landscape, why is it impossible to get off of the train and wander in the landscape, so to speak. This does not alter free will and destiny to my understanding. Free will, which is basically what the bible addresses, may be more important and complex than we can imagine. The Christian God choose to sacrifice his Son over it.The proof assumes that such a god does have that "independence if time" ability, but from our perspective we remain tightly coupled with time. The result remains the same that for us there is a before and an after. And, if by whatever mechanism is imagined, our future actions are known long before we make them then we cannot have free will, our actions are somehow pre-determined.
That such a god might have such abilities that we cannot comprehend is appreciated but that does not remove the logical conclusion of resultant pre-determination and hence the resultant absence of free-will.
Jan Ardena
03-30-08, 03:40 PM
rjr6,
The proof assumes that such a god does have that "independence if time" ability, but from our perspective we remain tightly coupled with time. The result remains the same that for us there is a before and an after. And, if by whatever mechanism is imagined, our future actions are known long before we make them then we cannot have free will, our actions are somehow pre-determined.
That such a god might have such abilities that we cannot comprehend is appreciated but that does not remove the logical conclusion of resultant pre-determination and hence the resultant absence of free-will.
You are labouring under the notion that this life is all there is, and there is no transmigration of the soul, or even that there is a soul.
This appears to be a comfort zone, where you have to be correct.
But even in the Bible, we can understand that the soul (animator) is separate from the body. We can understand that the soul is part and parcel of God, and as such cannot die in the same way the body does. If you wish to use the current institution of christianity, as your reference, then this discussion can never be resolved.
But what would your analysis be, if the soul was part and parcel of God?
Jan.
I'm way late on this one...
It would be like if you knew your sister is not ready for marriage. In fact she absolutely wants to wait another two years and she does not think her current boyfriend is the one. Would you be taking away her freewill if you knew her answer would be no when her boyfriend proposes to her tomorrow.
It would be nothing like that, actually. The only way you would know your sister did not want to get married would be if she gave you some indication of her desire. It's not as if you had access to some over-knowledge.
Here's my opinion on the whole "proving there is no God" argument...
The problem with using logic to disprove the existence of a god is that you must assume at the outset that this god is bound by that logic. That's simply not something anyone can prove. I don't know if there is or isn't a god, but I would imagine any god would have to reside beyond the borders of our universe, and thus not held to the laws that regulate it. Perhaps an inherent trait of god-hood is the ability to know all without having to influence--or program--the events beforehand. And it sounds absolutely outrageous, but consider what the notion of abstract thought would sound to a frog, or a wolf...it would be incomprehensible.
Really, this thing has been beaten to death so many times, by so many individuals in this thread, you would think the proponents would have conceded by now.
But! Still holding out...
Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
Omiscient = Adjective (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omniscient)
Coercing = Verb (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercing)
Verbs refer to action. Adjectives refer to description. Thus Omniscience is a feature, not an action. Coercion is an action.
Now which idiot is going to conclude that Omniscience is equivalent to coercion? Clearly it isn't, which means then... Well... That if there is any cause-effect relationship to consider, the choices made in the future, as with the past, must affect the timeless knowledge, not vice versa.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.Yes.
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.No. Said differently, actions of the past, and actions of the future determine the Omniscience of God. Saying an action is predetermined by God's Omniscience is like saying our actions are predetermined by our actions. So silly.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.No. As noted above, knowledge is not equivalent to coercion, be it all encompassing or not.
Question:
If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.But the integrity of Free Will in parallel with Omniscience still stands 1000+ posts after the faulty proposal on the first page, so this question is clearly irrelevant.
Conclusions:
If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.LOL... Wrong. See arguments above, and on other pages (blonde_cupid, tony1)
If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.No. It has been shown that Omniscience and Free Will go quite well together. Omnipotence (= Adjective) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotent) is not equivalent to total action. Think... Omni, Potential... See my leaning? Omnipotence is the capacity for "total action" as it is put in the errant argument.
If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.So I guess Christianity still makes a lot of sense after this one - even more sense, now. :D
CrisSomeone needs to brush up on their grammar.
SnakeLord
04-01-08, 05:44 AM
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Marcac:
What would the above say about a god itself? Does a god that is omniscient have any free will? It would know long before doing any action that it was going to do that action and, because it knew it was going to do it, had no choice not to. It would certainly seem that this god lacks any free will.
But for now let's pretend such a being does.. It would stand that this entity chose to create two certain individuals knowing everything they would ever do. So then the question is why not create Bob and Jane instead of Adam and Eve? You see, Bob and Jane would never eat the fruit or disobey this god. They would still have the free will you claim they have because this god would not make their choices for them it would simply know what choices they were going to make. By choosing to create Bob and Jane instead of Adam and Eve this god would prevent billions of people from being tortured needlessly while not impacting this free will you claim they have.
This is typically where the theist backtracks and claims they don't have free will because they can't do anything other than what this god knows they are going to do. You do not have that luxury given your own statements, (it is exactly the same position Adam and Eve were in).
So, either this god has free will and chose for many billions to burn needlessly or this god itself has no free will and thus isn't much of a god.
What would the above say about a god itself? Does a god that is omniscient have any free will? It would know long before doing any action that it was going to do that action and, because it knew it was going to do it, had no choice not to. It would certainly seem that this god lacks any free will. [...] So, either this god has free will and chose for many billions to burn needlessly or this god itself has no free will and thus isn't much of a god.Does "a god" require free will (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary)? You seem to think it would? I'm not so sure. But just make sure you're not hopping onto that dimwit bandwagon confusing knowledge (of a decision) with action (decision).
Whether "a god" does or doesn't have free will the same things happen to individuals by their choices, providing "a god" allows individuals free will.
Pretty smart way for "a god" to get out of that little atheist-blame-game-mess if you ask me. Don't blame God, blame yourself. You choose to burn, you burn. Man He must've seen it coming! :eek:
SnakeLord
04-01-08, 09:05 AM
Does "a god" require free will? You seem to think it would? I'm not so sure.
I didn't imply that a god would require free will, merely that it would have about the same ultimate value as a fart in the wind, unable to decide its own actions or course. As it is nothing but a fart in the wind, it's not really worth much attention.
Pretty smart way for "a god" to get out of that little atheist-blame-game-mess if you ask me. Don't blame God, blame yourself. You choose to burn, you burn.
You use the term 'dimwit' and then use one of the most pathetic, idiotic arguments ever seen in these kinds of debates. Curious behaviour.
Even if we allow for the notion of 'free will', there are certain things that people have absolutely no choice over. One such thing is the ability to choose to just believe in something, (without external coercion). If you want to contest this issue we can do a little experiment:
Sit down, (squeeze real hard pal), and make yourself believe in leprechauns. The fact of the matter is you wont be able to do it, you have absolutely no personal control over what you do or do not believe in. The only way to reach a belief in something is via external 'evidence' (and I use the term loosely in this context). Humans, being different, require different forms of 'evidence' to come to belief in something. To some finding small footprints in the mud will convince them that leprechauns exist, to some it takes much much more. None of this is a choice, please make note of that.
So, the unbeliever - the person that has no belief in gods is apparently going to burn forever and chose to do so. The notion is simple idiocy. They had no choice in the matter whatsoever. You know that, that's why with all that squeezing you'll never manage to choose to believe in leprechauns. That means you chose to go to the leprechaun underworld where you'll be prodded and poked with all manner of sharp instruments. Was your own choosing apparently :bugeye: What foolishness.
I didn't imply that a god would require free will, merely that it would have about the same ultimate value as a fart in the wind, unable to decide its own actions or course. As it is nothing but a fart in the wind, it's not really worth much attention.O.k. As I said I'm not so sure. So one knows their route from Google Maps, then they take that route. Here, apparently, God would know - for example - other drivers decisions, light changing, and weather conditions which will affect the journey. Of course, even that is largely predictable now with SatNavs and GIS.Even if we allow for the notion of 'free will', there are certain things that people have absolutely no choice over. One such thing is the ability to choose to just believe in something, (without external coercion). If you want to contest this issue we can do a little experiment:
Sit down, (squeeze real hard pal), and make yourself believe in leprechauns. The fact of the matter is you wont be able to do it, you have absolutely no personal control over what you do or do not believe in. The only way to reach a belief in something is via external 'evidence' (and I use the term loosely in this context). Humans, being different, require different forms of 'evidence' to come to belief in something. To some finding small footprints in the mud will convince them that leprechauns exist, to some it takes much much more. None of this is a choice, please make note of that.So now we move on to whether or not belief or disbelief/"lack-of-belief" has its basis in free will. I think that for the more rational among us, choice plays a large part in belief - i.e. acceptance by evidence after considering alternatives (= or not). For those overwhelmed by emotive response... Well, they feel more than they think. Question remains of which are more beneficial in the end: think more, or feel more? Thought or instinct/intuition? I'm still thinking about the one...So, the unbeliever - the person that has no belief in gods is apparently going to burn forever and chose to do so. The notion is simple idiocy. They had no choice in the matter whatsoever. You know that, that's why with all that squeezing you'll never manage to choose to believe in leprechauns. That means you chose to go to the leprechaun underworld where you'll be prodded and poked with all manner of sharp instruments. Was your own choosing apparently :bugeye: What foolishness.Maybe its the human contribution to a higher form of natural selection. :shrug:
SnakeLord
04-01-08, 10:56 AM
I think that for the more rational among us, choice plays a large part in belief - i.e. acceptance by evidence after considering alternatives (= or not).
Seemingly you'd now like to drag this down to a "I'm more rational" contest, which is fine by me given by what can be gathered from your posts. However, let me ask you what you typically compare what you think is rational to. Who and what are you making a comparison to?
Anyway, as far as the subject goes, accepting or not accepting that 'evidence' is also not a "choice" as much as what happens to convince you, (which is beyond your control). One does not choose to be convinced by an argument, one merely is or isn't convinced by it.
Either way you would need to recognise that 'evidence' is an external factor that you would or wouldn't be coerced by. In saying, it goes against the earlier given definition of 'free will': Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion. If you would like to provide a definition of 'free will' then please do.
Maybe its the human contribution to a higher form of natural selection.
Apologies, I don't see what this is a debate to. Would you assert that because you cannot just choose to believe in leprechauns that you have in fact chosen to go to the leprechaun underworld and get prodded with sharp instruments? Yes or no. Btw, do note the distinct problem your earlier argument will suffer from if you say no.
[???]...let me ask you what you typically compare what you think is rational to. Who and what are you making a comparison to?That which I think isn't rational. Deep, I know... But you asked the question after getting the answer.Anyway, as far as the subject goes, accepting or not accepting that 'evidence' is also not a "choice" as much as what happens to convince you, (which is beyond your control). One does not choose to be convinced by an argument, one merely is or isn't convinced by it.One can be convinced by the choice of evidence to accept or reject, particularly when these pieces of evidence approach equivalence from one's perspective.Either way you would need to recognise that 'evidence' is an external factor that you would or wouldn't be coerced by. In saying, it goes against the earlier given definition of 'free will': Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion. If you would like to provide a definition of 'free will' then please do.This is been taken a bit too far. There must be a framework within which one has alternatives to facilitate choice. You've taken it past choice, into what makes you choose. Choice constitutes free will. Taking it further launches into some nature vs. nurture debate, which may as well be conducted off the religious forum.Apologies, I don't see what this is a debate to. Would you assert that because you cannot just choose to believe in leprechauns that you have in fact chosen to go to the leprechaun underworld and get prodded with sharp instruments? Yes or no. Btw, do note the distinct problem your earlier argument will suffer from if you say no.I have asserted that you have a choice through thought. You seem to assert you don't. I've done my job here. Have a good one.
SnakeLord
04-01-08, 01:29 PM
One can be convinced by the choice of evidence to accept or reject
'Convinced' certainly - and judging from the mammoth differences between theists and atheists it seems the levels of what is found convincing or not differs incredibly. Where does choice fit into any of that, (especially given the context of discussion)?
This is been taken a bit too far.
Not at all and, needless to add, I even gave you the 'choice' to give your own definition. Of course it's always worth looking at where 'choices' stem from - which is entirely relevant given the earlier definition of 'free will'.
I have asserted that you have a choice through thought. You seem to assert you don't.
Unsurprisingly enough this is not an answer to my question. Should I try again or is that attitude of yours just gonna get in the way again? Sod it, I'll try:
"Would you assert that because you cannot just choose to believe in leprechauns that you have in fact chosen to go to the leprechaun underworld and get prodded with sharp instruments? Yes or no."
ang2223
04-01-08, 01:56 PM
'
"Would you assert that because you cannot just choose to believe in leprechauns that you have in fact chosen to go to the leprechaun underworld and get prodded with sharp instruments? Yes or no."
I am going to have to use this one!! I never think to bring "other" personal beliefs into the "Christ" debates.
Jan,
You are labouring under the notion that this life is all there is, and there is no transmigration of the soul, or even that there is a soul.
This appears to be a comfort zone, where you have to be correct.
But even in the Bible, we can understand that the soul (animator) is separate from the body. We can understand that the soul is part and parcel of God, and as such cannot die in the same way the body does. If you wish to use the current institution of christianity, as your reference, then this discussion can never be resolved.
But what would your analysis be, if the soul was part and parcel of God?Appears to have no relevance to the topic.
MarcAC,
Now which idiot is going to conclude that Omniscience is equivalent to coercion? Clearly it isn't, which means then... Well... That if there is any cause-effect relationship to consider, the choices made in the future, as with the past, must affect the timeless knowledge, not vice versa.As has been discussed in the thread. What is not said is how Omniscience results in coercion; in fact I have stated that they cannot be related, re the modality issue. However, the issue remains that if something is known long before its occurrence then that event must occur. That is a predetermined event. I make no conclusion about how such a thing is possible and neither do I make a claim that Omniscience is the cause.
The issue remains very simple – if omniscience exists then events are necessarily predetermined and that precludes free-will.
But the integrity of Free Will in parallel with Omniscience still stands 1000+ posts after the faulty proposal on the first page, so this question is clearly irrelevant.How so? I see no one has solved the paradox yet.
No. It has been shown that Omniscience and Free Will go quite well together. Where?
So I guess Christianity still makes a lot of sense after this one - even more sense, now. Dream on kiddo. You have barely begun.
JDAWG,
The problem with using logic to disprove the existence of a god is that you must assume at the outset that this god is bound by that logic. That's simply not something anyone can prove. I don't know if there is or isn't a god, but I would imagine any god would have to reside beyond the borders of our universe, and thus not held to the laws that regulate it. Perhaps an inherent trait of god-hood is the ability to know all without having to influence--or program--the events beforehand. And it sounds absolutely outrageous, but consider what the notion of abstract thought would sound to a frog, or a wolf...it would be incomprehensible.Logic is not something that is eligible to be bound or not. It makes no more sense for a god to call a circle a square than it does for a human. If an effect has a cause then the cause will occur first and that will be true for gods as well as people.
If a god is to take any type of action then there would be a transition from a before and an after, i.e. time would elapse. I.e. a god could not exist outside of time.
Logic is not something that is optional. Logic is simply a disciplined method of determining a truth. The alternative to logic is illogic. And if you want to say a that a god is not bound by logic then that simply leads to the conclusion that such a god is illogical, i.e. paradoxial and could not exist.
lightgigantic
04-07-08, 11:51 PM
JDAWG,
Logic is not something that is eligible to be bound or not. It makes no more sense for a god to call a circle a square than it does for a human. If an effect has a cause then the cause will occur first and that will be true for gods as well as people.
If a god is to take any type of action then there would be a transition from a before and an after, i.e. time would elapse. I.e. a god could not exist outside of time.
the difference between your two analogies (that of the circle and that of cause and effect) is that a "circle" is defined as something quite distinct from say a square (ie circle and square are mutually exclusive terms). It is not logically tenable to say that a square is a circle.
The notion of something existing outside of cause and effect is slightly different however, especially when the nature of cause and effect is said to be contingent on that something. Actually what you are arguing is that there is nothing beyond cause and effect except the nature of cause and effect. This is not an issue of logic but of your experience, knowledge and, most obviously, your values .... much like everything from a frog to albert einstein has experience, knowledge and values
Logic is not something that is optional. Logic is simply a disciplined method of determining a truth. The alternative to logic is illogic. And if you want to say a that a god is not bound by logic then that simply leads to the conclusion that such a god is illogical, i.e. paradoxial and could not exist.
To put it quite simply, god is not bound by our experience, knowledge or values, and especially not the illogic of god must conform to the extent of anyone else's experience, knowledge or values.
francois
04-08-08, 08:23 AM
This proof just shows that there's no Christian god as Christians describe him.
Jan Ardena
04-08-08, 08:47 AM
Jan,
Appears to have no relevance to the topic.
In one way you are right, but i'm curious. As the subject of your proof is God, from the biblical perspective, how is it you have failed to add to the claim of omniscience, spirit, as in pure. And his command over material nature.
Surely this aspect play a part in his being omniscient?
If you deny these aspects, then, is your enquiry really an honest one?
Jan.
Sorry Jan, but your your comments seem to be too cryptic. I really don't know what you are asking or where it would be relevant to the topic.
LG,
So are you arguing that an effect can come before a cause?
And are you agreeing that a god would have to be logically consistent?
lightgigantic
04-08-08, 07:01 PM
LG,
So are you arguing that an effect can come before a cause?
And are you agreeing that a god would have to be logically consistent?
I am saying that eternal relationships of contingency can over-ride the mechanism of cause and effect. IOW if the time factor (ie "cause and effect" factor) is accepted as an eternal potency that is contingent on god, there is no problems in logically understanding how god can be beyond issues of cause and effect (and is in fact controlling them).
God is logically consistent, but it often requires the proper foundation of knowledge to see that consistency. For instance if your foundational premise is that the laws of physics are the ultimate authority for determining reality, the logic that follows will be deeply dyed by this value-based claim.
wesmorris
04-09-08, 04:55 AM
God is not real if you don't think ideas are part of reality.
God is real if you think ideas are part of reality.
God is a powerful idea. 'believing it' offers intellectual or emotional utility in most minds. The idea is also a very verstatile personal and/or social tool. This may help to explain its persistence and virtual ubiquity.
I think assigning it the properties of an entity is simply the reflection of self into the idea. It's the normal manner in which humans have the capacity to relate to something, and as such - is completely rational. The 'truth' of any assertion cannot be physically evaluated and is as such IMO - irrelevant to all but the holder of the belief.
Invisible pink unicorns are not real if you don't think ideas are part of reality.
Invisible pink unicorns are real if you think ideas are part of reality.
:shrug:
wesmorris
04-09-08, 05:47 AM
true dat, do they provide emotionl or intellectual utility to most minds? if so, bring em on!
true dat, do they provide emotionl or intellectual utility to most minds? if so, bring em on!
I don't think that's the issue. The issue is that you say that, if ideas are part of reality, God exists. I think this is rather moot though.
The idea of God can exist, but that doesn't say anything about existence of the object God.
If I picture my car in my head, that idea exists separate from the actual car.
wesmorris
04-09-08, 05:57 AM
The existence of the object god is moot unless you believe in the object god, in which case it is moot unless you believe that those who don't believe should believe or else, which I should have said for the unbelievers too but was too slow witted.
I mean the non believer doesn't accept so then no problem, doesn't accept - game over unless you change status to 'considering acceptance' or 'you can't accept because it's stupid'.
If 'considering acceptance' or whatever, then what are the specific criteria for transition? If a physical test can be devised and passed, then ok - transition. Well the idea is I believe - necessarily untestable in that fashion. So a non-believer either really doesn't believe and therefore doesn't have to bother pondering the question or is stuck in a pergatory awaiting that which I personally construe is impossible, but hey knock yourselves out.
I mean the believer accepts so then no problem, accepts unless maybe crisis of faith, changing status to "considering non-belief' or 'you can't not believe you heathen'. A believer test the idea through faith, an intellectual and emotional grappliing with the idea I'd guess. Seems in some ways like a form of self-discipline. Blah blah blah.
So a believer believes, and a non-believer doesn't. Weird.
The in-betweens wait it out in purgatory for the impossible eh? Expecting physical proof of something I see as clearly untestable, but of course maybe I'm retarded.
wesmorris
04-09-08, 06:02 AM
I don't think that's the issue.
Well you're wrong then, well played. Hehe. Think about it man, for chrissake. Intellectual and emotional utility is everything about the issue.
The issue is that you say that, if ideas are part of reality, God exists. I think this is rather moot though.
God is an idea. If ideas are part of reality, then god is part of reality. God is real, game over.
The idea of God can exist, but that doesn't say anything about existence of the object God.
The existence of the object god cannot really be tested except through faith. Which renders the scenario I described in the preceding post regarding moot stuff.
If I picture my car in my head, that idea exists separate from the actual car.
Sure, but you can go wreck a car. You can't put your hands on god. It's an idea that has a basis in ideas. It's the meta-daddy.
The existence of the object god is moot unless you believe in the object god,
The existence of God is still moot if he doesn't objectively exist, whether you believe in him or not.
in which case it is moot unless you believe that those who don't believe should believe or else, which I should have said for the unbelievers too but was too slow witted.
I don't know what you mean with that.
Well you're wrong then, well played. Hehe. Think about it man, for chrissake. Intellectual and emotional utility is everything about the issue.
God is an idea. If ideas are part of reality, then god is part of reality. God is real, game over.
As an idea, not as an actual entity. Anything you can imagine can be real as an idea. Making up an object in your head doesn't mean the object exists.
The existence of the object god cannot really be tested except through faith. Which renders the scenario I described in the preceding post regarding moot stuff.
It cannot be tested period. Faith is no evidence.
Sure, but you can go wreck a car. You can't put your hands on god. It's an idea that has a basis in ideas. It's the meta-daddy.
Maybe I'm not getting what you mean, but that was exactly my point. Unless you mean to say that God doesn't objectively exist.
lightgigantic
04-09-08, 06:27 AM
God is not real if you don't think ideas are part of reality.
God is real if you think ideas are part of reality.God is a powerful idea. 'believing it' offers intellectual or emotional utility in most minds. The idea is also a very verstatile personal and/or social tool. This may help to explain its persistence and virtual ubiquity.
I think assigning it the properties of an entity is simply the reflection of self into the idea. It's the normal manner in which humans have the capacity to relate to something, and as such - is completely rational. The 'truth' of any assertion cannot be physically evaluated and is as such IMO - irrelevant to all but the holder of the belief.
for one who thinks that god is ultimately just an idea ("the idea that god is an idea"), I guess this makes sense
azizbey
04-09-08, 11:46 AM
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.
Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.
Question:
If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.
Conclusions:
If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.
If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.
If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.
Cris
my response looks too late after thousands of responses, but anyway...
yes God has knowledge of everything, past or future events. and just for that you think we should not have free will. i see no relation between two, whatsoever.
if you are interested in cosmology and possible 10 or 11 dimensions we know of (at least therotically) we can suggest that there may be more.
and what is future, by definition, anyway. it only applies to us, humans. you live in 4 dimensional life, and you draw your conclusion disregarding the rest of the dimensions?
for the sake of the argument, lets say you watch a football ame live, and you taped it. and watched it again. obviously you know the score, and every move of each player.
so does it mean players dont have free will?
just because God knows whats gonna happen at the end, doesnt mean you dont have free will, you know that well, my friend
you can argue that why God creates us when he knows that we will go to hell, but you cant argue that we dont have free will.
do you feel compelled for doing what you do?
there are many dimensions and, without looking at the issue from that perspective, you cant find the answer
Azizbey,
yes God has knowledge of everything, past or future events. That is what we mean by omniscience, yes.
and just for that you think we should not have free will. i see no relation between two, whatsoever.Then you don’t understand the issue yet.
if you are interested in cosmology and possible 10 or 11 dimensions we know of (at least therotically) we can suggest that there may be more.Dimensions are a mathematical concept with no limits. Don’t be fooled into thinking that such concepts could map to a reality. But it is irrelevant here.
just because God knows whats gonna happen at the end, doesnt mean you dont have free will, If God knows exactly every action you will take for your entire life a billion years before you are born then exactly what free will do you have in the matter? In such a scenario all your life will have been pre-determined long before you were born and you will be powerless to do anything different.
I.e. free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive conditions.
Lg,
I am saying that eternal relationships of contingency can over-ride the mechanism of cause and effect. IOW if the time factor (ie "cause and effect" factor) is accepted as an eternal potency that is contingent on god, there is no problems in logically understanding how god can be beyond issues of cause and effect (and is in fact controlling them).I was hoping for an explanation that would clarify your point rather than a re-statement in increased ambiguity and further confusing phraseology.
After numerous re-reads I think that you have not answered the question. Can an effect precede a cause? Whether a god can control time or not does not overcome the necessary fixed relationship that a cause must precede its effect. Would you agree?
God is logically consistent, but it often requires the proper foundation of knowledge to see that consistency. For instance if your foundational premise is that the laws of physics are the ultimate authority for determining reality, the logic that follows will be deeply dyed by this value-based claim. That is a diversion from the context and the topic. The issue is that a god cannot create a paradox. For example either a light is on or off, it cannot be both on and off concurrently; and the countless similar binary mutually exclusive scenarios.
I agree that for many fact-based logical deductions or inductions special knowledge would be needed, but my point was for the generic deductive case and to refute the notion that a god can be “outside” of logic.
lightgigantic
04-09-08, 08:18 PM
Cris
“
I am saying that eternal relationships of contingency can over-ride the mechanism of cause and effect. IOW if the time factor (ie "cause and effect" factor) is accepted as an eternal potency that is contingent on god, there is no problems in logically understanding how god can be beyond issues of cause and effect (and is in fact controlling them).
”
I was hoping for an explanation that would clarify your point rather than a re-statement in increased ambiguity and further confusing phraseology.
After numerous re-reads I think that you have not answered the question. Can an effect precede a cause? Whether a god can control time or not does not overcome the necessary fixed relationship that a cause must precede its effect. Would you agree?
No I don't agree
Let me ask you - is there any logical reason why there cannot be a an issue that the nature of cause and effect is contingent on (it would have to obviously be an eternal one)? ..... sure you can say, "I have no experience of it", but that is an issue of experiential knowledge and not logic
“
God is logically consistent, but it often requires the proper foundation of knowledge to see that consistency. For instance if your foundational premise is that the laws of physics are the ultimate authority for determining reality, the logic that follows will be deeply dyed by this value-based claim.
”
That is a diversion from the context and the topic. The issue is that a god cannot create a paradox. For example either a light is on or off, it cannot be both on and off concurrently; and the countless similar binary mutually exclusive scenarios.
I agree that for many fact-based logical deductions or inductions special knowledge would be needed, but my point was for the generic deductive case and to refute the notion that a god can be “outside” of logic.
there is this statement discerning the position of god - highlighted the bits that are most relevant
SB 1.1.1 - ... ... He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmaji, the original living being. By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal. I therefore meditate upon Him, Lord Sri Krishna, who is eternally existent in the transcendental abode, which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world. I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth.
The basic gist is that a major distinction between us and god is that all of our (experiential) knowledge is re-presented to us. That is why we are apt to make mistakes (IOW our senses can easily deceive us, despite the most meticulous empirical precautions). God has scope not only for direct knowledge (meaning knowledge not subject to the fallibilities of empiricism) but also controlling how that knowledge is directed to others (hence the bit about even the greatest personalities in the universe being bewildered).
So to get back to your issue of logic, no god is not beyond the scope of logic, but he is way beyond your (or anyone elses) scope for knowledge. This means your standards of god's illogic (like existing outside of the medium of cause and effect because you don't know how anything can exist beyond it) are not valid.
wesmorris
04-10-08, 03:17 AM
for one who thinks that god is ultimately just an idea ("the idea that god is an idea"), I guess this makes sense
well, to say "just an idea" doesn't really do the notion of god justice, as in many ways it's a very special idea, mostly because of its power. i don't think that god is ultimately just an idea, but I feel I have authority to discuss the idea, whereas the object, if it is part of physical reality... seems far beyond my scope. So much so that I wouldn't venture to speak of it, as I could only fall far short of the mark. I personally - can't even detect it and readily conceed it far beyond the possibilities of my own comprehension. as such to me the object is irrelevant, but the idea is quite real and relevant to a lot of stuff.
azizbey
04-10-08, 07:54 AM
Azizbey,
That is what we mean by omniscience, yes.
Then you don’t understand the issue yet.
Dimensions are a mathematical concept with no limits. Don’t be fooled into thinking that such concepts could map to a reality. But it is irrelevant here.
If God knows exactly every action you will take for your entire life a billion years before you are born then exactly what free will do you have in the matter? In such a scenario all your life will have been pre-determined long before you were born and you will be powerless to do anything different.
I.e. free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive conditions.
i completely understand the issue, much to your surprise
mathematical concepts can be well adapted here as well
your answer exists in another dimension , not in this miserable life
i ask again, did you feel like some force forced you to respond to my post?
you did it willingly
what a contradiction you have.
first you claim you dont have a free will because time concept (as we know it) dont apply to God, and then you write me an answer with your free will.
how pathetic does it get?
azizbey
04-10-08, 07:58 AM
Azizbey,
That is what we mean by omniscience, yes.
Then you don’t understand the issue yet.
Dimensions are a mathematical concept with no limits. Don’t be fooled into thinking that such concepts could map to a reality. But it is irrelevant here.
If God knows exactly every action you will take for your entire life a billion years before you are born then exactly what free will do you have in the matter? In such a scenario all your life will have been pre-determined long before you were born and you will be powerless to do anything different.
I.e. free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive conditions.
Cris, i dont mean to disrespect you, but if I slap you in the face, you should not get mad at me, because I dont have free will, It is God's mistake, right?
azizbey
04-10-08, 08:11 AM
[QUOTE=Cris;1814029 If God knows exactly every action you will take for your entire life a billion years before you are born then exactly what free will do you have in the matter? In such a scenario all your life will have been pre-determined long before you were born and you will be powerless to do anything different.
I.e. free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive conditions.[/QUOTE]
Cris, as I gave you the example, you tape the football game and watch it again, just becasue i know the score and moves of the players, do I have control over them? future is just a point in fabric of time, and to know future events and being in control of them are two different things.
best regards
Lg,
The issue is not about experiential knowledge, nor is it anything to do with empiricsm.
Can you present a meaningful scenrio where an effect can precede its cause?
Azizbey,
i completely understand the issue, much to your surprise
mathematical concepts can be well adapted here as well
your answer exists in another dimension , not in this miserable life
i ask again, did you feel like some force forced you to respond to my post?
you did it willingly
what a contradiction you have.
first you claim you dont have a free will because time concept (as we know it) dont apply to God, and then you write me an answer with your free will.
how pathetic does it get?You don’t appear close to understanding the issue yet. It has nothing to do with whether I believe free will exists or not. Neither would we be able to tell the difference whether it did or not. If our actions are predetermined then what we perceive as free will is simply our illusion – we would be just pre-programmed puppets.
Cris, i dont mean to disrespect you, but if I slap you in the face, you should not get mad at me, because I dont have free will, It is God's mistake, right?You’ve missed the point.
Cris, as I gave you the example, you tape the football game and watch it again, just becasue i know the score and moves of the players, do I have control over them? future is just a point in fabric of time, and to know future events and being in control of them are two different things.
best regardsYou are not there yet. Knowledge of the events is not the cause of the events, as I have said before they are not connected. But perfect knowledge of future events does mean those events must occur, otherwise the claimed knowledge would be false. I.e. the events are necessarily pre-determined. I make no attempt to explain the cause of how such events would be pre-determined.
Your tape analogy doesn’t work but try this one. Suppose you are given a tape of a game that will take place 1000 years from now. And now wait 1000 years, those players will do exactly as depicted on the tape since they will have no choice in the matter, their actions will have been predetermined. The very existence of the foreknowledge confirms that pre-determination has occurred not that the knowledge is a cause.
lightgigantic
04-10-08, 08:39 PM
Lg,
The issue is not about experiential knowledge, nor is it anything to do with empiricsm.
Can you present a meaningful scenrio where an effect can precede its cause?
Actually it is about experiential knowledge, since logical deductions firmly rest upon them (in the form of premises).
For instance this is a logical statement
P1 - all horses can fly
P2 - all pigs are horses
C - Therefore all pigs can fly
You can't contend the logic of that statement but you can contend the truth of it by inquiring who are the persons who have experience of horses flying or pigs being horses.
Similarly when you talk of god being illogical, you are simply talking about your limits of experiential knowledge. Or perhaps it is more polite to say that you work with differing premises (namely, your premise that nothing can exist beyond the medium of cause and effect) than a theist when you are forming logic.
Your request to indicate a scenario where effect can precede the cause kind of misses the point. The idea is that an eternal object would have eternal qualities. For instance suppose we were talking of an eternal fire. That means it would also have eternal heat, eternal light and eternal smoke. Even though the heat, smoke and light would be (eternally) contingent on the fire, it would not be entirely appropriate to say that they exist within the medium of cause and effect. The idea is that effect and cause are both eternal, even though the effect remains (eternally) contingent on the cause.
So practically speaking there are 5 issues of comprehension in our phenomenal world
god
the living entity
material nature (the "stuff" that is not conscious)
time factor
karma (results of action - determining issues of cause and effect)
the first four are eternal
The second, third and fourth are eternal contingent properties of the first (much like smoke, heat and light are eternal properties of fire)
The fifth is not eternal, mainly because it is a quality that is sometimes displayed by number 2.
Asking for a scenario where effect can precede the cause is kind of like asking for a karma that is not a karma. And furthermore, to request that god be established in the language of karma is also an impossible ask since its a temporary designation for one of his potencies (karma is pertinent for the living entity who has fallen under conditioned existence, not god).
azizbey
04-11-08, 06:41 AM
Azizbey,
You don’t appear close to understanding the issue yet. It has nothing to do with whether I believe free will exists or not. Neither would we be able to tell the difference whether it did or not. If our actions are predetermined then what we perceive as free will is simply our illusion – we would be just pre-programmed puppets.
You’ve missed the point.
You are not there yet. Knowledge of the events is not the cause of the events, as I have said before they are not connected. But perfect knowledge of future events does mean those events must occur, otherwise the claimed knowledge would be false. I.e. the events are necessarily pre-determined. I make no attempt to explain the cause of how such events would be pre-determined.
Your tape analogy doesn’t work but try this one. Suppose you are given a tape of a game that will take place 1000 years from now. And now wait 1000 years, those players will do exactly as depicted on the tape since they will have no choice in the matter, their actions will have been predetermined. The very existence of the foreknowledge confirms that pre-determination has occurred not that the knowledge is a cause.
Cris
I think you lost in translation. your tape example is good, i like that. but you still have the control of your actions, there is no illusion. you are not acting like a pre-programmed puppet, at least I dont.
if you are right,then there should not be crime,thus punishment, and therefore justice. i dont think judge Judy will buy it.
well, at this point my final words are, when you die you will find out the ultimate truth, just like the rest of us. i wish everyone good luck
best regards
azizbey
04-11-08, 06:45 AM
additionally Cris
by definiton, God has to know the future events, since time phenomenon does not apply to him. just becasue He knows what will I do, he does not control my actions, just like we are having this conversation, He has no control over us.
well i come to a point that I repeat myself.
cole grey
04-11-08, 07:35 AM
cris,
I have probably said this before, or someone else has, but there is one possibility which i feel you cannot refute.
Perhaps God just has perfectly adjusted predictive machinery, and the idea of timelessness and omnipresence is not the MECHANISM by which GOd knows everything.
E.G. - I can effectively predict, based on my dog's apparent mood whether he will eat a dog biscuit i give to him. It is possible I could be wrong, because i may not be in possession of enough CURRENT knowledge - it is possible a meteor is hurtling through the atmosphere and will kill us both before he can bite into it, I can't say.
Perhaps our intuition of God's perfect foreknowledge is only a recognition of an "intellect" capable of reducing matters we find complex into something God considers useful for incredibly basic inductive reasoning.
Even if everything God predicts, based on God's developed knowledge of causes and current situations of the universe on every level, comes true, that implies nothing about God's participation in the events.
Cole,
I made the argument earlier that with perfect knowledge of every event in the universe all subsequent events could be perfectly predicted based on precisely understood cause/effect chains. Even to a god Heisenberg's uncertainty would not be a challenge. This led to discussion on the philosophy of determinism.
But this supports the original topic proposal. If at the alleged point of creation a god with such perfect ability to see all cause-effect chains and to see the final end result - then allowed it to proceed. Presumably that would be his plan. I.e. he planned for specific individuals to die and others to be saved.
The argument then becomes that with such perfect ability why didn't he engineer a universe where none would die? But that's another paradox.
azizbey,
by definiton, God has to know the future events, since time phenomenon does not apply to him. just becasue He knows what will I do, he does not control my actions, just like we are having this conversation, He has no control over us.The problem still remains. Even though it appears he is not controlling what you do, you nevertheless have no choice but to do what he knows will occur.
Now expand that vision to the whole of time, from creation to the end of time. Since he can see everything with perfect detail and every action that will occur and since he established the initial conditions and can see the end result, then hasn't he in effect determined exactly what you will do?
azizbey,
if you are right,then there should not be crime,thus punishment, and therefore justice. i dont think judge Judy will buy it.Hehe. Interestingly those who support the philosophy of determinism, closely related to this topic, make that exact same point. They argue that a criminal has no choice in the matter of what he does but that his actions are the result of a prior potentially infinite chain of causes and effects. He should not be punished over something he has no control.
In this sense everything you do down to to the minutest detail is determined by all preceding actions.
well, at this point my final words are, when you die you will find out the ultimate truth, just like the rest of us.Unfortunately there is nothing to indicate that death brings any reward other than non-existence.
Lg,
So here is a different approach.
Existence - is an axiom. Without this truth nothing else makes sense.
Existence is dependent on time – is an axiom. I.e. if time were absent then existence would have zero duration, and consequently existence would not be possible.
Events occur - is an axiom. If this were not true then the entire universe would be totally motionless, including any gods that might be around.
An event necessarily involves the passage of time – is an axiom; I.e. for an event to occur there must be a “before” condition and an “after” condition.
Every event has a cause – is an axiom. If this were not true then no events would occur.
Every event generates an effect – is an axiom. I.e. there is an after condition as defined above.
Conclusion – anything that exists is dependent on time and cause and effect of anything that exists has the necessary property of cause preceding the effect.
We also experience these things but those axioms are not dependent on our knowledge or experience.
The idea is that an eternal object would have eternal qualities. For instance suppose we were talking of an eternal fire. That means it would also have eternal heat, eternal light and eternal smoke. Even though the heat, smoke and light would be (eternally) contingent on the fire, it would not be entirely appropriate to say that they exist within the medium of cause and effect. The idea is that effect and cause are both eternal, even though the effect remains (eternally) contingent on the cause.Unless the fire is totally motionless then the dynamics within the motion of fire would be the results of continuous causes and effects, whether eternal or not.
The remainder of your post appears to depend on what I see as a false conclusion, unless I have missed a subtlety in your argument, but naming something eternal doesn’t appear to materially affect my argument.
cole grey
04-11-08, 04:39 PM
Cole,
But this supports the original topic proposal. If at the alleged point of creation a god with such perfect ability to see all cause-effect chains and to see the final end result - then allowed it to proceed. Presumably that would be his plan. I.e. he planned for specific individuals to die and others to be saved.
I think that is a slightly different discussion than you trying to prove that God's knowledge of all events CAUSES the events. I thought you have been saying that God must either be totally active in every molecular movement due to precognition, or not exist. I think that that proposition is untrue under a couple of possible scenarios.
The idea that God is implicit in evil by NOT ACTING , or acting in a way which we might deem less than good is a different point entirely.
The argument then becomes that with such perfect ability why didn't he engineer a universe where none would die? But that's another paradox.
Perhaps God did engineer a universe where none die, and maybe universal grace exists, or reincarnation is allowed for, to save the lost. The information on the subject seems largely based on people's religious "impressions" and not scientifically testable so it is hard to say.
But if you are a just a mechanism of nature, a form created by totally impersonal forces, as the objectivist believes, what does your dying matter to a greater scheme of anything anyway? None at all.
lightgigantic
04-12-08, 08:19 AM
Cris
Lg,
So here is a different approach.
Existence - is an axiom. Without this truth nothing else makes sense.
ok
Existence is dependent on time – is an axiom. I.e. if time were absent then existence would have zero duration, and consequently existence would not be possible.
it breaks down here
I think all I can say is that there are paradigms of thought that hold time as an aspect of existence and not as an absolute controlling force of it.
“
The idea is that an eternal object would have eternal qualities. For instance suppose we were talking of an eternal fire. That means it would also have eternal heat, eternal light and eternal smoke. Even though the heat, smoke and light would be (eternally) contingent on the fire, it would not be entirely appropriate to say that they exist within the medium of cause and effect. The idea is that effect and cause are both eternal, even though the effect remains (eternally) contingent on the cause.
”
Unless the fire is totally motionless then the dynamics within the motion of fire would be the results of continuous causes and effects, whether eternal or not.
the analogy illustrates how the effect would exist beyond issues of time and cause and effect (as we commonly experience and rationalize them)
The remainder of your post appears to depend on what I see as a false conclusion, unless I have missed a subtlety in your argument, but naming something eternal doesn’t appear to materially affect my argument.
similarly, your post appears to depend on a false conclusion - namely naming existence dependent on time
Lg,
In our previous discussion I was leaning towards time being an axiomatic property of existence as opposed to something seperate, as I think you agree. But apart from semantics I sense my suggestions here are close.
We may be stumped here again with trying to work without that ellusive clear definition of time.
lightgigantic
04-12-08, 11:25 PM
Lg,
In our previous discussion I was leaning towards time being an axiomatic property of existence as opposed to something seperate, as I think you agree. But apart from semantics I sense my suggestions here are close.
We may be stumped here again with trying to work without that ellusive clear definition of time.
Basically I am working with the idea of time being an axiomatic property of a certain type of existence (namely the one we commonly agree to be existing in at the moment).
To run with this type of existence as absolute (and sufficient for establishing the parameters for discussion of god) is not valid, at least according to the body of work that surrounds the topic in question, god.
JoebeWaan
06-17-08, 07:46 PM
I haven't read through this entire thread so if I'm covering old ground then please ignore me:
On the subject of free will Vs Gods omniscience (and the paradox thereof)
If free will exists then this implies that the universe can follow an infinite number of paths through time based on which actions people take during their lifetimes (a butterfly effect). We cannot possibly comprehend infinity, but if God exists in the infinite then he will know of every conceivable effect of every desicion people make, therefore retaining his omniscience, even though free will still exists.
To put it a different way, If the universe was to come to an end in the future, say in a billion years time, between now and then there are (almost) an infinite number of events could happen based on the actions people take, but if God knows every outcome to all your possible actions then he is still omniscient, even though free will still exists.
Not sure if that makes a lot of sense as it does in my head but I just wanted to write it down while it was there.
Joeb,
Hi and welcome to sciforums.
If free will exists then this implies that the universe can follow an infinite number of paths through time based on which actions people take during their lifetimes (a butterfly effect). We cannot possibly comprehend infinity, but if God exists in the infinite then he will know of every conceivable effect of every desicion people make, therefore retaining his omniscience, even though free will still exists.
To put it a different way, If the universe was to come to an end in the future, say in a billion years time, between now and then there are (almost) an infinite number of events could happen based on the actions people take, but if God knows every outcome to all your possible actions then he is still omniscient, even though free will still exists.
Not sure if that makes a lot of sense as it does in my head but I just wanted to write it down while it was there.Yes it makes perfect sense and I have been waiting a long time for someone to say that.
The fallacy is that knowing every possibility is not the same as knowing which actual path will occur. For free will to be true he must wait for a free will decision before he knows which path that will take, until the next decision, etc. IOW he still DOESN'T know what will hapen next even if he knows all possibilities, and if he doesn't know then he can't be omnisicent.
JoebeWaan
06-18-08, 06:20 AM
Suppose as some people do that we exist in an infinite number of universes and have lived our own lives over and over (universes keep collapsing and reforming). If God is pan-dimensional then he will already know what we are about to do in the particular universe he is observing...:eek: (even though our free will has been executed in every possible way in other universes).
p.s. I'm aware that this argument falls at the same hurdle if you apply it only to this particular reality (universe), its just another way of looking at it. I'm sure you will agree that if there is a God, he would probably think quite laterally :)
JoebeWaan
06-18-08, 06:21 AM
Joeb,
Hi and welcome to sciforums.
thanks :)
Leo Volont
07-06-08, 05:27 AM
Your "Christian" God is entirely out of Greek Philosophy.
Shouldn't the Christian God be defined by Revelation? Take the Bible and then examine the last couple of thousand years of Catholic History. After that you might have some idea about a "Christian" God.
But the Greeks. The Greeks defined God for the sake of argument. They wanted a God they could laugh at... at drunken parties while they buggered each other. No Greek ever claimed to see God or experience God. God to them was only conceptual fodder for the sake of argument. The first thing any thinking person, or Society, does is to quickly get beyond Greek Philosophy. Except Atheists who simply adore Greek Philosophy because it gives them a stunted little vulnerable God they can attack from any angle and with practically any argument. But that was the intent of Greek Philosophy.. to have a god that could be laughed at at drunken bugger parties.
Is that what you Atheists are doing? Drunken bugger parties. Probably. That is what your Philosophy is suited for.
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.
Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.
Question:
If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.
Conclusions:
If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.
If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.
If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.
Cris
Your "Christian" God is entirely out of Greek Philosophy.
Shouldn't the Christian God be defined by Revelation? Take the Bible and then examine the last couple of thousand years of Catholic History. After that you might have some idea about a "Christian" God.
But the Greeks. The Greeks defined God for the sake of argument. They wanted a God they could laugh at... at drunken parties while they buggered each other. No Greek ever claimed to see God or experience God. God to them was only conceptual fodder for the sake of argument. The first thing any thinking person, or Society, does is to quickly get beyond Greek Philosophy. Except Atheists who simply adore Greek Philosophy because it gives them a stunted little vulnerable God they can attack from any angle and with practically any argument. But that was the intent of Greek Philosophy.. to have a god that could be laughed at at drunken bugger parties.
Is that what you Atheists are doing? Drunken bugger parties. Probably. That is what your Philosophy is suited for.
How arrogant and ill-informed you are. The Greeks held cermonies to celebrate their gods and one of the reasons Socrates was put to death was for denying the gods. There were political motivations involved but it would have made no sense to accuse him of denying something which nobody believed in.
As far as looking at the history of the Catholic church is concerned, it's best not to go there; it won't do your argument much good.
Why do you think atheists need Greek gods to support bad behaviour. You have it the wrong way round. Christians need god so they can be forgiven for whatever vile acts they perform. That's a real cop out and one that is not available to an atheist, who has no choice but to live with the consequences of his actions.
Leo,
Is that what you Atheists are doing? Drunken bugger parties. Probably. That is what your Philosophy is suited for. A curious perspective to take in the light of recent revelations concerning widespread catholic priest sex abuse of children.
Alighieri
07-25-08, 08:19 PM
Cris,
I understand your argument but I think you need to consider that not all people hold such a strict definition of "omnicient".
The bible, although it is obviously not empiracally validated, can be viewed as acceptable evidence when inquiring about the abilities of the christian God. That being said, the bible suggests that God knows all of our present desires, beleif's, etc. This means that he is omniscient in a given plane of time but perhaps not through all.
Also, the bible states that God is aware of the future of everyone and thing. All this suggests is that he is aware of a certain end state, but perhaps not intermediates. Thus Humans can go about asserting free will all they want, but the idea is that they will all end up in the some ending position regardless of decisions made on the way. In this case, a person can have the ability to make free decisions without altering a pre-determined finality.
It seems that your paradox is only true in the strictest of parameters. Also, you should learn when to use a word as heavy as 'proof'. By stating your simple paradox you did not disprove anything, you simply found a paradox. They exist everywhere. An obvious example being the time paradox, if I invent a machine and go back in time and kill my mother before I am born, what will happen? Did I just disprove that time cannot be linear? No. I simply found a theoretical paradox in a complex system which we do not yet understand.
You cannot apply simple logic to such vast and complex subjects such as religion. If scientists accepted paradoxes as proof against a given subject, we would never have dived into such complex ideologies such as string theory among others
Medicine*Woman
07-25-08, 11:41 PM
Cris,
I understand your argument but I think you need to consider that not all people hold such a strict definition of "omnicient".
The bible, although it is obviously not empiracally validated, can be viewed as acceptable evidence when inquiring about the abilities of the christian God. That being said, the bible suggests that God knows all of our present desires, beleif's, etc. This means that he is omniscient in a given plane of time but perhaps not through all.
Also, the bible states that God is aware of the future of everyone and thing. All this suggests is that he is aware of a certain end state, but perhaps not intermediates. Thus Humans can go about asserting free will all they want, but the idea is that they will all end up in the some ending position regardless of decisions made on the way. In this case, a person can have the ability to make free decisions without altering a pre-determined finality.
It seems that your paradox is only true in the strictest of parameters. Also, you should learn when to use a word as heavy as 'proof'. By stating your simple paradox you did not disprove anything, you simply found a paradox. They exist everywhere. An obvious example being the time paradox, if I invent a machine and go back in time and kill my mother before I am born, what will happen? Did I just disprove that time cannot be linear? No. I simply found a theoretical paradox in a complex system which we do not yet understand.
You cannot apply simple logic to such vast and complex subjects such as religion. If scientists accepted paradoxes as proof against a given subject, we would never have dived into such complex ideologies such as string theory among others
*************
M*W: What a grave embarassment you are to Dante! A dust mite is more omniscient than any f*cking god!
Alighieri
07-26-08, 01:07 PM
Medicine Woman,
You're not a very bright girl are you? Dante was a religious man. Also, if you're going to disagree with me you should argue with evidense, not assertive statements. You are no different than a creationsist relying on emotion rather than evidense to argue against evolution.
Also note that I did not say an omniscient God necessarily exists, just that a simple paradox is not proof against it.
Educate yourself, then talk to me.
wesmorris
07-27-08, 02:08 AM
"Is that what you Atheists are doing? Drunken bugger parties. Probably. That is what your Philosophy is suited for."
My how disgusting and disturbing. What christ-like wisdom you exude.
Your comments make baby jesus cry.
Repent, bitch.
evolution
Proof evolution is an evil lie from satan (the devil): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZxoU6Y0LRs&feature=related
Proof that the Darwinian god (evolution) cannot exist
Alighieri
07-27-08, 11:30 PM
Wow, you are a joke.
Diode-Man
07-27-08, 11:45 PM
Umm... I think people should be more open about the cosmos and not keep a limited "Big Bang: Everything has a Beginning and End" sort of idea about reality.
To be sure, the Universe has existed as long as it WILL exist: Forever long past and a non ending future. Now go sip your tea on that idea.
I think that Proverbs 16:9 is a good answer to this thread. It says, "In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps." I think that pretty much explains the whole arguement.
Foxer,
I think that Proverbs 16:9 is a good answer to this thread. It says, "In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps." I think that pretty much explains the whole arguement.Yes very good, indeed just like a puppet on a string.
Aliqheiri,
I understand your argument but I think you need to consider that not all people hold such a strict definition of "omnicient".To be less than all-knowing implies a limited god and that is contrary to the Christian position.
The bible, although it is obviously not empiracally validated, can be viewed as acceptable evidence when inquiring about the abilities of the christian God.The bible offers no evidence. It makes assertions about the perfection of God and we can examine those assertions along with other related assertions which I have done here. We can then see they are logically inconsistent.
That being said, the bible suggests that God knows all of our present desires, beleif's, etc. This means that he is omniscient in a given plane of time but perhaps not through all.You are arguing then for a limited god. That is inconsistent with Christian thought.
Also, the bible states that God is aware of the future of everyone and thing. All this suggests is that he is aware of a certain end state, but perhaps not intermediates.That makes no sense. Intermediate states are things. Either he knows everything or he is fallible, imperfect, and limited.
Thus Humans can go about asserting free will all they want, but the idea is that they will all end up in the some ending position regardless of decisions made on the way. In this case, a person can have the ability to make free decisions without altering a pre-determined finality.This is also nonsense. E.g. if I choose to commit suicide but I am destined to become president then my earlier action prevents the latter.
It seems that your paradox is only true in the strictest of parameters. Also, you should learn when to use a word as heavy as 'proof'. By stating your simple paradox you did not disprove anything, you simply found a paradox.A paradox is something that cannot occur. If the paradox is confirmed then that is proof that the events asserted cannot occur. E.g. in a binary decision only 1 path can be the result, it is not possible for both to occur concurrently, to state otherwise is an example of a paradox. The essence of this entire thread is based on this simple binary concept of paradox.
They exist everywhere. An obvious example being the time paradox, if I invent a machine and go back in time and kill my mother before I am born, what will happen? Did I just disprove that time cannot be linear? No. I simply found a theoretical paradox in a complex system which we do not yet understand.This then reverts back to the entire discussion of what is meant by time. The error is to consider time as something that has independent properties. What we observe is that time is a property of existence. In this context, time travel, while a popular sci-fi concept is nonsense. Your example is not a good one to demonstrate a paradox.
You cannot apply simple logic to such vast and complex subjects such as religion.Religions are not complex. They can all be categorized as human imaginative fantasies. When reduced to what is factual they all fail without exception. The illusion of complexity arises when attempting to consider the fantasies as truth which then lead to ambiguities and contradictions that in turn require more fantasy to be developed to explain the contradictions, ad infinitum.
If scientists accepted paradoxes as proof against a given subject, we would never have dived into such complex ideologies such as string theory among othersI don’t see the connection between reductionism and paradoxes.
Veritas et Libertas
07-29-08, 01:25 PM
How long as this discussion for going on? Looks like for several years at least. This is a great forum to discuss such a long-debated issue.
Let's get a few things out of the way first:
1) Unless we come here with an open mind, we are not going to learn anything new. Most people seem good about not making inappropriate and certainly unhelpful insults so let's keep it that way.
2) I am an orthodox monotheist . However, I do not claim to have all the answers nor am I going to start quoting Bible verses. Doing so would not add credibility to my argument. So please do not call me a Bible thumper, conservative evangelical, etc... I hate being labeled.
3) We are truly honest with ourselves, whether we are atheists, agnostics, or theists, wee must at least allow room to admit that there are limitations to our logic and reasoning. I say that not because I doubt the human ability to reason, but because our knowledge-base is finite. Knowledge is cumulative so we know more (at least about certain things though not necessarily "smarter" in terms of brain power) than did our previous generations. Since that is the case, our successive generations will have more knowledge than we do (again, not necessarily smarter in terms of raw brain power). Therefore, our power to reason, logic, think, etc will improve (hopefully) over time. Our great-great grandchildren can build on what we have discussed and perhaps arrive at a clearer conclusion.
Whew.. that was long.
4) I will post more of my own thoughts over time, but wanted to quickly mention a couple of new books. I am sure many of you are familiar or have already read, "The Reason for God" by Tim Keller or "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Keller's book came out less than a year ago. I haven't read the entire book, but have read excerpts of it here and there. There are youtube videos of Keller talking about his book. Go to video.google.com and search "The Reason for God Google". He gave a talk at Google. I think he provides a new approach to the "problem of evil and suffering." Again, I am not saying he provides THE answer, but it's an interesting take on a century-old debate.
So that's it for now, but I will most definitely visit periodically to provide my perspective on things. I am a "closet" philosopher/theologian and would definitely enjoy a healthy dialog within the context of mutual respect. By the way, when I say respect, I am referring to the respect for the person and not for the beliefs. After all, if you disagree with my beliefs, you shouldn't respect it. From your perspective, it's wrong. If our lives are governed by our beliefs, then you should pity (maybe that's a bit strong word) me for operating under my wrong beliefs. :)
Alighieri
08-05-08, 05:53 PM
Cris,
Something you are missing here is that the concept of God is by the Christian point of view believed to exist within yet exceed the physical universe. The concept is meant to govern as well as encompass all that exists, including the fundamental science of mathematics. Because the idea exists outside the limits of math, it is deemed undefinable.
Your argument exists within the realm of mathematics which requires certain parameters of the concept in question. A big one which is missing in your case is the need of a definition of the concept. You cannot disprove that which has no definition and thus your argument is flawed, any claims or proofs you make past that point are irrelevant because the idea in question does not adhere to necessary parameters.
Also, according to the Christian point of view, free will is relative, and although man may seemingly make his own decisions, his entire existence is predetermined as the post above by foxer demonstates. Thus your you condition that christians belive in free will is false and your argument is further flawed.
On a side note, it is ignorant to call religion deviod of complexity. Although not necessarily verifiable, monotheistic religions serve as a tool to instill values and preach a humble life where the primary concern of one's life is the betterment of society and not just one's self. It gives people a purpose and allows them to identify themselves as more than meaningless projections of complex mathematical equations as our current understanding of science tells us. It is a concept which is necessarry for the development of civilization, without it biological influence would take over and man would be reduced top small groups of competetive, selfish factions driven by pure genetics.
Religion can no longer defend itself as it is losing ground all over the world .
Religion also is the only topic where people can say literarily anything with no proof or evidence whatsoever . Religion did not . does not and will not define a god or gods .
Although not necessarily verifiable, monotheistic religions serve as a tool to instill values and preach a humble life where the primary concern of one's life is the betterment of society and not just one's self. It gives people a purpose and allows them to identify themselves as more than meaningless projections of complex mathematical equations as our current understanding of science tells us. It is a concept which is necessarry for the development of civilization, without it biological influence would take over and man would be reduced top small groups of competetive, selfish factions driven by pure genetics.
Complete utter bullocks!
Scores of passages from a variety of scriptures will demonstrate the Abrahamic god to be one of the most vile, murderous entities ever described, certainly far from anything moral or ethical.
Alighieri
08-06-08, 04:04 PM
The underlying message is the same in the Torah, Bible, and Qu'ran; lead a humble life devoted to the betterment of man. Violence is occasionally mentioned as a punishment for those who deviate from from this path and thus serves as a means to an end, much like the threat of imprinsonment or death for a crime. Controversial violent preachings derived from scriptures to promote actions such as genocide and terrorist attacks are highly manipulated lies far removed from the actual message presented in the holy books.
Alighieri
08-06-08, 04:07 PM
Religion can no longer defend itself as it is losing ground all over the world .
Religion also is the only topic where people can say literarily anything with no proof or evidence whatsoever . Religion did not . does not and will not define a god or gods .
Thus making proof or disproof of any God or Gods logically impossible, which is why these things are best left up to faith. To each their own.
Norsefire
08-06-08, 04:14 PM
God can know what you will do in the future without affecting it.
Norsefire,
God can know what you will do in the future without affecting it.That's fine, but that means you are predetermined to take that action since he knows it will certainly occur. Or as the thread points out you will have no free will to do anything other than what has been predetermined.
davewhite04
08-06-08, 06:06 PM
Norsefire,
That's fine, but that means you are predetermined to take that action since he knows it will certainly occur. Or as the thread points out you will have no free will to do anything other than what has been predetermined.
My mother put a diaper on me because she knew I would fill it, I didn't.
Aliq,
Something you are missing here is that the concept of God is by the Christian point of view believed to exist within yet exceed the physical universe. The concept is meant to govern as well as encompass all that exists, including the fundamental science of mathematics. Because the idea exists outside the limits of math, it is deemed undefinable.That’s simply a dishonest call to agnosticism; God is unknowable.
Your argument exists within the realm of mathematics which requires certain parameters of the concept in question. A big one which is missing in your case is the need of a definition of the concept. You cannot disprove that which has no definition and thus your argument is flawed, any claims or proofs you make past that point are irrelevant because the idea in question does not adhere to necessary parameters.No. Christianity makes very clear claims. (1) Man has free will. (2) God knows everything (omniscient). The issue is not concerned with undefinable concepts but those which Christianity specifically asserts and as such the claims form the paradox that this thread is exploring.
I would offer that if a god were to exist it might well beyond our ability to understand it, but that isn’t the context of this thread.
Also, according to the Christian point of view, free will is relative, and although man may seemingly make his own decisions, his entire existence is predetermined as the post above by foxer demonstates. Thus your you condition that christians belive in free will is false and your argument is further flawed.What, really does that mean? Free will simply means the freedom to make a choice without any coercion or to have such choices made for you, i.e. predetermined. Attempts to twist that to mean something else because the definition is inconvenient is simple dishonesty again.
On a side note, it is ignorant to call religion deviod of complexity. Although not necessarily verifiable, monotheistic religions serve as a tool to instill values and preach a humble life where the primary concern of one's life is the betterment of society and not just one's self. It gives people a purpose and allows them to identify themselves as more than meaningless projections of complex mathematical equations as our current understanding of science tells us. It is a concept which is necessarry for the development of civilization, without it biological influence would take over and man would be reduced top small groups of competetive, selfish factions driven by pure genetics.And philosophy explores a multitude of variations of those themes some of which tie into religious beliefs and many do not. If you remove those aspects and focus on purely the religious basics then religion is entirely simplistic in its underlying nature. It primarily exists because death exists
dave,
My mother put a diaper on me because she knew I would fill it, I didn't.That is not a call to knowledge but an expectation. If she had been omniscient she would have known the diaper wasnt needed.
dave,
That is not a call to knowledge but an expectation. If she had been omniscient she would have known the diaper wasnt needed.
I hope he meant that he himself didn't know that he would fill it.
davewhite04
08-06-08, 06:31 PM
dave,
That is not a call to knowledge but an expectation. If she had been omniscient she would have known the diaper wasnt needed.
In this context she was omniscient, and I'm here to prove it.
But obviously she only reflects Godlike behaviour, maybe because she was made in God's image.
The underlying message is the same in the Torah, Bible, and Qu'ran; lead a humble life devoted to the betterment of man.
No, the message is to pay submission and worship god, first and foremost, before anything else, including your family.
Violence is occasionally mentioned as a punishment for those who deviate from from this path and thus serves as a means to an end, much like the threat of imprinsonment or death for a crime.
Yes, we stand in horror and amazement at the story of Noah as god takes a very dim view of mankind and drowns them all, save one family. Further wonderment of the blameless animals of the world drowning too is equally baffling, and sordid.
To contrived ends, Islam promotes lying, killing and going to war to meet it's objectives of intolerance and bigotry.
Violence is well established and promoted in these ancient myths.
Controversial violent preachings derived from scriptures to promote actions such as genocide and terrorist attacks are highly manipulated lies far removed from the actual message presented in the holy books.
"Christian, dost thou see them
On the holy ground?
How the troops of Midian
Prowl and prowl around?
Christian, up and smite them,
Counting gain but loss;
smite them by the merit
Of the holy cross."
A Christian tune glorifying the genocide of the Midianites by the hand of Moses, incited by his god.
Or, perhaps when god drove out the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites from their homes so that the 'children of god' could have a new home. Sound familiar?
"...ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. For thou shalt worship no other go: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Exodus 34:13-17)
Alighieri
08-07-08, 11:09 AM
Q,
Touche, I just argue for arguments sake.
Alighieri
08-07-08, 11:14 AM
Cris,
The bible affirms predetermination and denies free will. Such evidense is present in nearly twenty passages, including but not limited to Exodus, Ecclesiastes 7, Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, Acts 13, Romans 8, Romans 9, 2 Timothy, 2 Thessalonians and Revelations.
Alighieri
08-07-08, 11:18 AM
Perhaps rather than say free will is relative in the Christian opinion, I should say illusionary, like centrifugal force.
Ali,
The bible affirms predetermination and denies free will. Such evidense is present in nearly twenty passages, including but not limited to Exodus, Ecclesiastes 7, Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, Acts 13, Romans 8, Romans 9, 2 Timothy, 2 Thessalonians and Revelations.So you agree then that the Christian God cannot exist? We must be as the OP states, merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster if such a being were to exist.
Alighieri
08-07-08, 06:36 PM
Your argument is based on the assumption that christians claim man has free will. The bible says he does not. Thus your paradox does not exist in the bible.
Perhaps your argument should be modified to the god of christian sects that do not strictly adhere to the bible as ulmtimate truth cannot exist. However your paradox and thus your argument does not exist for those that do, such as Catholisicm.
Aliq,
Your argument is based on the assumption that christians claim man has free will. The bible says he does not. Thus your paradox does not exist in the bible.
Perhaps your argument should be modified to the god of christian sects that do not strictly adhere to the bible as ulmtimate truth cannot exist. However your paradox and thus your argument does not exist for those that do, such as Catholisicm.Somewhat irrelevant I think. The essence of Christianity is that Jesus is needed to save us and that we are free to choose to be saved or not. "Jesus said - Believe in me and ye shall have everlasting life". If as you say there is no such free choice and whether we burn in hell forever or are sent to heaven is beyond our control, then that apparent offer for us to choose life or death is a total farce.
Now I can quite believe that you have found quotes in the bible that assert everything is predetermined and that man has no free will, but then those seem to conflict with everything else where the bible says the opposite.
What really would it mean if the alleged Jesus actually made that offer for us to choose to live or die knowing all along he had already chosen for us?
Q,
Touche, I just argue for arguments sake.
Gotcha. ;)
Your argument is based on the assumption that christians claim man has free will. The bible says he does not.
Agreed. And there ain't much we can do about it, either.
"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. .... For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." -- Romans 9:11-22
Is there an answer to that? I'm wary that biblical quotes can be taken out of context and can be shown to mean the opposite of what they at first appear.
I'd agree that that quote does seem to condemn God as an uncaring monster who is going to do whatever he wants to regardless of whether any individual deserves it or not. But I suspect Christians will be able to rationalize that quote somehow.
U-wanderer
08-09-08, 06:23 AM
If I am Christian I‘ll answer as below ….
\***God has Omniscience, Omnipotent and Detachment.***\
Var:
Omniscience: =Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Omnipotent: =The absolutely power(as God).
Detachment: =The mind without any bias any whether good or bad.
General program: = The program its run only one’s programmed line by line.
AI program:= The program its can generate new or delete the old line(s) with there
experienced in individual way of life through the sensors(eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and heart where the program self generate)
Main
Begin.
Proposal :
Your logic haven’t been proved one thing yet.
“If God has Omniscience then he must use his own Omnipotent.”
God can know everything via Omniscience but sometime he unwish to use
Omnipotent .And god has absolutely Detachment.
If apply this proposal human free will can available.
Whenever you can proof that “If God has Omniscience then he must use his own Omnipotent .” then I accept the “human free will is absolutely an illusion”.
God just created you as AI(Artificial Intelligent) like the program can run by itself.
Question is how the God programmed you, the program run converge to make
output actions to go to the heaven or hell .The person who God programmed be converged as Hell destined. It is quit unjust. However I think God never coerce
someone to do good or bad thing. He will give the good supplementary thing to
balance them with his Omnipotent &Detachment mind.
So every action occur from human free will.
End.
Your Program :
Main
Begin
If anyone ague my thinking then I will reject it with my thinking.
End.
You are quit high IQ of logic thinking in my opinion but the most important thing
is should you ask yourself that this method of thinking make you feel real happy
,liberty from the suffer(at least from your this kind of thinking for .)
this thinking can apply to your life to make the abundant happy.
It is the true important thing in every life.
Your thinking like cage which crib you.
Open your mind every things can be occur with severalty…..please reconsider
Ah! If you searching for immortality just try Buddha religion ….
Buddha’s quote “This religion I invite all to proof by yourself then you will see”
Alighieri
08-09-08, 10:54 AM
U-wanderer,
Although I dont agree with Cris's proof either, your argument does not adress anything. The proof has nothing to do with omnipotence, only omniscience. Man cannot have free will if God already knows the path of every individual. That is the paradox, omnipotence does not apply. Fortunately for the christian faith, the bible says that man does not have free will and therefore the argument cannot exist.
Despite, not leaving his position, he has also been quite lenient with arguments that actually do adress the paradox, so your statements after that are nonsense.
I really enjoy the irony of the irrelevant comments you make after your useless argument where you clearly attempt to present your line of thinking as symbolic and inspired, when in reality you just make yourself look like an idiot.
Congrats.
U-wanderer
08-09-08, 11:55 AM
Sorry to everyone who might though that my comment look like to be bad.
If neclegt just only my kidding message or symbolic
(though it sound irony or something like that I'm so sorry)
perhaps sometimes I idiot.
My wish just if someone can get some useful from my comment.
If forgive me, I'll appreciate.
Thank you.
Alighieri
08-09-08, 01:08 PM
Consider yourself forgiven.
You really need to improve your english my friend that last message was nearly completely illegible. All I got out of it is that your sorry.
Cyperium
08-12-08, 07:06 AM
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.
Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.
Question:
If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.
Conclusions:
If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.
If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.
If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.
CrisThat God is omniscient doesn't rule out free will in our view. Also since He is omnipotent He can easily make us choose our own path for ourselves, or making the free will a part of His omnipotence.
Why do you say that He is a evil monster? You can't possibly comprehend his plan, little man.
Cyperium,
That God is omniscient doesn't rule out free will in our view.And as several years of debate in this thread shows your view is faulty. The two conditions cannot coexist. The existence of omniscience necessarily means that everything has been predetermined, that in turn eliminates the possibility of free choice.
Also since He is omnipotent He can easily make us choose our own path for ourselves,Then it isn’t our free will then is it, it would be his will.
or making the free will a part of His omnipotence.Providing he isn’t omniscient, since the two conditions cannot coexist. But then if he isn’t omniscient then he couldn’t be omnipotent (he would be lacking something so could not be all powerful).
The problem for a religion heaping every super-superlative on their imaginary deity is that they end up defining something impossibly paradoxical, e.g. the Christian god.
Why do you say that He is a evil monster? You can't possibly comprehend his plan, little man.Well, little man, if he has created a group of people (who have no alternative options) specifically so they could burn, suffer and be tortured for eternity then how would you describe such a being that creates such a monstrous condition?
Cyperium
08-13-08, 08:15 PM
Cyperium,
And as several years of debate in this thread shows your view is faulty. The two conditions cannot coexist. The existence of omniscience necessarily means that everything has been predetermined, that in turn eliminates the possibility of free choice.What if He left some choices up to us? Or perhaps all choices we could do in a given freedom.
Then it isn’t our free will then is it, it would be his will.We can share it, which we are supposed to do. If you give someone a thought, do you loose that thought?
Providing he isn’t omniscient, since the two conditions cannot coexist. But then if he isn’t omniscient then he couldn’t be omnipotent (he would be lacking something so could not be all powerful).He wouldn't be lacking anything, we are to a certain degree a part of Him, so in all situations nothing can be added or taken away. He could know every possible choice we can make, but decide not to see the choice we make in order for us to have free will, that doesn't mean that He doesn't have the potential to see it.
Everything have a way of being.
The problem for a religion heaping every super-superlative on their imaginary deity is that they end up defining something impossibly paradoxical, e.g. the Christian god.Paradoxes are common to people who doesn't understand enough. And perhaps no one understands enough to see why it isn't a paradox.
Well, little man, if he has created a group of people (who have no alternative options) specifically so they could burn, suffer and be tortured for eternity then how would you describe such a being that creates such a monstrous condition?If that entity by the same rule is completely just, then anyone would get what they truly deserve, if that means that no one deserve hell, then that is what it means. But it is not up to us judge what one person deserves over another. That the ultimate punishment is the worst fate conceived is also only logical.
If there are truly evil people, that do deserve hell, then that is what they deserve. By the way, I don't think that hell is a fire in the worldly sense, but rather something consuming and causing suffering.
Also, I might add that the number of years that this thread has been up only shows how hard it is to get a definite answer to these kind of questions, it doesn't mean that it is settled in any way.
Cyperium,
What if He left some choices up to us? Or perhaps all choices we could do in a given freedom.It wouldn’t be possible if he is omniscient. This means that long before you even exist he would know everything you will do, and since you would not have been able to make those choices at that time then it simply means you are committed to do what he knows you will do, i.e. your actions have been predetermined long before you have any notion of a choice in the matter.
We can share it, which we are supposed to do. If you give someone a thought, do you loose that thought?But it would not have been your idea. Many regimes in the world spread specific ideas to control their people.
He wouldn't be lacking anything, we are to a certain degree a part of Him, so in all situations nothing can be added or taken away. He could know every possible choice we can make, but decide not to see the choice we make in order for us to have free will, that doesn't mean that He doesn't have the potential to see it.I agree that being able to see all possibilities is not the same as knowing which one will occur. Given a six sided dice I know with perfection all the possibilities of a given throw, but I don’t know the result in advance of any specific throw. However, with omniscience a god would know with certainty all possibilities and also precisely which one will occur; he has no choice in the matter. Either he is omniscient (knows everything) or he is not.
Paradoxes are common to people who doesn't understand enough. And perhaps no one understands enough to see why it isn't a paradox.Perhaps, but then no one has successfully explained why this isn’t a paradox yet.
If that entity by the same rule is completely just, then anyone would get what they truly deserve, if that means that no one deserve hell, then that is what it means. But it is not up to us judge what one person deserves over another. That the ultimate punishment is the worst fate conceived is also only logical.
If there are truly evil people, that do deserve hell, then that is what they deserve. By the way, I don't think that hell is a fire in the worldly sense, but rather something consuming and causing suffering.That’s fine but that is not what will occur if he is omniscient and the creator of everything.
For example he decides to create the universe and with people in it. At that instant of creation he will have designed all the conditions of everything that is about to occur and he can see perfectly which people are going to survive and those who will be condemned. And all of this before any of it happens or before any of us exist or have any say in the matter. Remember he is also meant to be omnipotent so he has total control and choice over exactly what can and will happen. If he wanted everyone to survive and be perfect then that could be his choice. The choice of who will die and live is totally his choice and not ours. With something that has total control and total knowledge then what occurs has had no choice in the matter. Human free will has no meaning in such a paradigm.
Mr. Hamtastic
08-16-08, 09:11 AM
ah yes. the old "God can't exist because he cannot be omniscient and allow for free will, too" argument.
Let's imagine some situations for a moment. You are omiscient, and you roll some perfect dice. Does the fact you are omniscient and thus know what the dice will land on preclude the random nature of the dice? If you simply flip them without attempting to manipulate them, does your knowledge negate this randomness?
Another mind twister for you: As a 3 dimensional being we can perceive/experience the passage of time, but cannot perceive it in fullness or otherwise manipulate it directly. Now, imagine a 4th or 5th dimensional being, one which can perceive time in it's fullness. Because we are limited to 3 dimensional measurement and 4th dimensional awareness, could we perceive a 4th dimensional or 5th dimensional being. No more than a 2 dimensional being would be able to perceive us. As a 3 dimensional being, we are able to perceive everything about this 2-dimensional universe. Our effect on that universe could be viewed as "acts of god" by the residents. One would probably argue that god could not exist because they could not witness all events within that 2 dimensional world and allow the residents free will.
Let me give you some personal information. I am a christian, no particular flavor, just christian. I accept the fact that the Bible is attempting to make "blue" understandable to the blind, but is not a treatise on biology or physics. I know that my capacity for understanding is limited, and don't worry myself about things like,"If God exists why did X?". My question would be this, what is the definition of an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect being? Considering that God gets to decide what perfection is, without knowing what God's definition is how can I then question his "perfect" motives? I would think that such a being wouldn't need to create anything from minions(angels) to opposition(God created Satan, right?) to a further imperfect subspecies(us) to quantify his worthiness.
But I digress. The problem is there is no good answer to a question we can't fully fathom. If I don't believe you exist, there is no way you can prove your existence to me, because I have to make an assumption of the accuracy of my senses at some point to decide if you exist or not.
By my understanding, God created us, a sub-species, and has simply asked us to forego the fact we can't perceive God but to believe he exists.
In summary, God is bigger than a breadbox, God, as creator of lesser dimensions of reality can perceive their fullness without interfering with the sub-dimensional beings decisions by choice. Thus allowing them free will while maintaining God's omniscience and existence, but only by God choosing to do so.
Oh, and pigs have one of the highest levels of intelligence among land animals.:)
One last thought. I like this one. Who are we to say that there aren't an infinite number of parallel universes reflecting every possible choice, even subatomic motion. God as Omniscient gets to see and comprehend ALL of them. Like I said, God is bigger than a breadbox, and the crumbs inside the breadbox are not competent to decide if God exists.
:P
SnakeLord
08-16-08, 09:25 AM
You are omiscient, and you roll some perfect dice. Does the fact you are omniscient and thus know what the dice will land on preclude the random nature of the dice? If you simply flip them without attempting to manipulate them, does your knowledge negate this randomness?
While I would personally grant this to you it's amazing how quickly theists backtrack when I mention my Bob and Jane principle. Let me explain it as simply as possible:
1) God has the ability to make anything, anyone, anyhow, anywho, (omnipotent).
2) God knows everything his creation will do from the loudest most public acts to the tiniest squeak of a fart, (Omniscient).
The theist will contend that even though this god knows every action man will do they still have free will. I know many atheists that contend otherwise but I might as well state for the sake of discussion that I tend to agree with the theist. Knowledge of a future action does not mean you decided it for them.
Having said that however, I will submit that every theist that reads the next few lines will instantly give up on that notion. They will indeed scream 'no free will' even though they contended otherwise 2.7 seconds ago.
3) God chose to create a certain specific being. I ask you now, why not create Bob and Jane instead of Adam and Eve?
You see, unlike Adam and Eve, Bob and Jane will never eat the fruit. He knows this, just like he knows what Adam and Eve will do. By choosing B instead of A he has saved so many billions from burning without impacting their free will.
That's where the theist backtracks on his own views even though there is no difference.
He chose to create Adam and Eve.
He could choose to create Bob and Jane.
He knows everything Adam and Eve will do.
He knows everything Bob and Jane will do.
One leads to wholesale slaughter, the other leads to wholesale happiness. He didn't make their decisions for them, he simply knew what they would or would not do. He specifically chose to create A when he could have just as easily specifically chosen to create B.
In picture format
http://www.snakeystew.com/aorb.gif
* Kindly forgive me if my visual depiction of a god is inaccurate, I am not privy to the latest intel *
You see, the choice of this god was to create A - knowing full well exactly what they would do, exactly what the outcome would be. The same would apply equally for B, but the outcome would be entirely different.
Regards,
Mr. Hamtastic
08-16-08, 11:09 AM
I love it.
I personally have an alternate, somewhat scientific view of the biblical creation, not to say it 'didn't' occur, just that the Bible was meant to explain ideas to a pre-tech culture, thus God creates the world and humans, God gives them a deliberate design flaw as well as an antagonist who is constantly trying to entice them away from God. I'm all for Big Bang to evolution, I just put God as the cause.:)
Maybe it's a grand experiment on God's part. Maybe he's lonely and wants to feel loved by something that wasn't,"designed" to love God. What you propose is a good point, but I say it begs more of the question what does a perfect God need with creation at all? In christianity, because God is perfect, he decides what the meaning of perfection is. Thus we are not asexual immortal beings because God is perfect, though I'd suggest that if we were we'd be a more functional creation.
But, all of this is beside the point. If we throw out science and go purely to Adam and Eve, then what follows is simply that God chose to create these beings with the foreknowledge they were flawed and unworthy and would fail to follow simple instructions. He also knew that over time they would produce beings that would try to be as he has suggested. I hate throwing out the science, though.
Adam and Eve reminds me of Hansel and Gretel to be honest... "and then do you know what that naughty girl did? she broke the one rule they had to follow and convinced the man to join her, all in hopes of gaining knowledge of good and evil and being like God."
It's ok pre-tech, worried about survival, but not so much for the industrialized scientific minded human of today. Thus the bible is excellent social/semi-historical commentary, but not perfect.
Thus the bible is excellent social/semi-historical commentary, but not perfect.
"And Gideon said, Therefore when the Lord hath delivered Zebah and Zalmunna into mine hand, then I will tear your flesh with the thorns of the wilderness and with briers" (Judges 8:7)
"Now Zebah and Zalmunna were Karkor, and their hosts with them, about fifteen thousand men, all that were left of all the hosts of the children of the east: for there fell an hundred and twenty thousand men that drew sword." (Judges 8:10)
"And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up also. And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense." (Numbers 16:32-35)
"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30)
"Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel..." (I Chronicles 21:12)
"So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men." (I Chronicles 21:14)
"And there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand, and three hundred chariots..." (II Chronicles 14:9)
So the LORD smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. (II Chronicles 14:12)
And, the "excellent social/semi-historical commentary" continues in this fashion.
While I would personally grant this to you it's amazing how quickly theists backtrack when I mention my Bob and Jane principle.
Regards,
Suffering is a subjective view. For instance, do you care that 20,000 children die everyday so you can maintain your lifestyle? If yes, what is your reaction? If no, what is your reaction? Perhaps happiness is not all its cut out to be. If you could live forever, would that change how you lived your life? Your hypothetical alternate scenario is based on your viewpoint that it would work. Would it though?
Suffering is a subjective view. For instance, do you care that 20,000 children die everyday so you can maintain your lifestyle?
Do you care that Allah causes this suffering and is killing those children to maintain YOUR lifestyle?
Do you care that Allah causes this suffering and is killing those children to maintain YOUR lifestyle?
Allah does? How does he do that?
Something that i cannot square away:
Why would GOD\Allah have a need\desire to be worshiped? Well, ia sak, why would it mattre.
Mod note: Perhaps, i should have made this into a seprate thread. Otoh, this casn get very hairy.
SnakeLord
08-16-08, 03:04 PM
Suffering is a subjective view. For instance, do you care that 20,000 children die everyday so you can maintain your lifestyle? If yes, what is your reaction? If no, what is your reaction? Perhaps happiness is not all its cut out to be. If you could live forever, would that change how you lived your life? Your hypothetical alternate scenario is based on your viewpoint that it would work. Would it though?
I don't really see any relevance in the first half of your quote. Bob and Jane is there to show that a god could just as easily have made beings that don't "fall" into suffering while retaining their 'free will' and how - if one argues that it isn't free will - it equally affects the claim from a biblical perspective regarding A&E and ultimately the rest of us.
Your question to kids suffering - sure, it bothers me but it wouldn't if the Bob and Jane principle was put into effect because there wouldn't be any kids dying every day. As to whether there is any value in eternal life, no death etc etc that's something that the theist must answer and that answer I would have thought must be "yes" if he is the kind of theist that believes in eternal afterlives.
If one is to argue that "happiness is not all it's cut out to be", I would be under the impression that they are about to argue that such god put it all into motion that people would fall so that they could experience sorrow and grief etc. I have no personal issue with this - indeed I recognise it as so from a biblical perspective unless one contends that this god was blissfully unaware of the universes only talking snake sneaking into the garden to corrupt his ignorant kiddies. What this does do is completely remove any value in trying to point the finger of blame at mankind who were, from the above, forced into a position that they had no ability to avoid.
This, in my estimation, reduces god to cosmic imbecile or cosmic butthead.
I would lastly contend that if "happiness is not all its cut out to be" then heaven will be a bit hellish.
Regards,
Mr. Hamtastic
08-16-08, 07:25 PM
Hmm. I would suggest that God would allow challenges to be before us that we might benefit from overcoming them or learn of our need for his assistance in doing so.
As far as happiness goes... I don't recall eternal happiness being a part of one's salvation, even from a biblical perspective. Heaven, like God is way bigger than the breadbox, so I look at it as an unknown. Hell was not designed for "sinners" but for rebellious angels, rebellious humans just wind up there.
As for current suffering on Earth, it can be argued that it is all due to humanity creating a bad situation for itself and its children. From a cosmic point of view, aren't these children getting a merciful end to a brutal life? It has been suggested by some that the "age of innocence" is a time during childhood that is a free pass to Heaven.
God being a cosmic imbecile or butthead. Every imbecile or butthead I've ever met was quite sure that everyone else had the problem. God is bigger than a breadbox. He is NOT human, or humanlike. His concerns are far bigger than what we can comprehend.
Let's take Bob and Jane for a moment, and suppose the biblical creation story is exactly how it went, and is not meant to be a story we can learn about human nature from. God creates Bob. God decides that Bob is lonely or incompetent(in need of a helpmate) so he creates Jane from one of Bob's ribs. Jane, being the one created from a piece of a previous creation is now inherently weaker(sorry ladies, no offense meant) and so it is Jane that Satan in the form of a "serpent"(and let's remember that God made Satan to be his main choir director, But Satan decided to lead the choir in a revolt) attempts to bring down.(I'm assuming the red-costume was out for dry-cleaning) Still with me?
Jane (more competent than Eve) says,"No way, God said that was naughty" and runs away. I guess we should expect the story to end there, right? Why? Now Satan bakes a fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil pie and brings it to Bob. He tells Bob,"It's hot, It's tasty, and it will make you just like God"(why Eve liked the idea). Bob says,"OK!" runs off, convinces Jane to have a tasty slice. Hilarity ensues.
Like I said before, creation is easy to poke holes in, but as a christian I don't preclude it from possibility. I wasn't there to see creation, yet I don't think God intended the Bible to be God's big book of astrophysics and bioengineering. It's a story that tells us it is our nature to fail to do God's will, and that embracing God's will from the beginning will simplify our lives. Ignorance of good and evil (or innocence) is good enough to be allowed into the presence of God.
Now that we are nice and far off-topic, I'd like to reiterate that Omniscience does not preclude Free Will, that God did not pop out of existence at this suggestion, and perhaps we should undertake further discussion in a new thread.
Laser Eyes
08-16-08, 08:33 PM
Holy crap! 71 pages!! None of which have I read! And the OP is here on the last page still debating the issue. There is of course a simple answer but I doubt giving it would achieve anything. But the OP can take a bow for starting such a long thread!
Mr. Hamtastic,
Ignorance of good and evil (or innocence) is good enough to be allowed into the presence of God.Why then were Adam and Eve punished, and the entire human race that followed, for eating the fruit that gave them the knowledge of good and evil? Remember that before they ate they could not have been aware that eating the fruit or disobeying God was a bad thing to do; they would not have possessed that ability until after they ate. Punishment is only just when the offender knowingly and intentionally does something wrong knowing it is wrong. That cannot be the case here.
I'd like to reiterate that Omniscience does not preclude Free Will, that God did not pop out of existence at this suggestion, and perhaps we should undertake further discussion in a new thread.There is no concern that he would pop out of existence, the paradox indicates he could never have existed.
The issue you must answer is if every event in your life is entirely known before you exist then what actual free will can you have to do anything different? If omniscience exists then your entire life is pre-determined and free will cannot exist.
Simply asserting this is not so does not explain away the apparent paradox. And this is entirely the correct thread to discus this.
Laser Eyes
08-23-08, 11:01 AM
Can I this? Why is it said that omniscience equals perfect knowledge of past and future events? Where does that definition of omniscience come from?
Erm, maybe because the prefix "omni" means "all": omniscience therefore meaning "total knowledge".
Past and future, of course, tend to be subsumed in the totality.
Cyperium
08-24-08, 07:02 AM
Cyperium,
It wouldn’t be possible if he is omniscient. This means that long before you even exist he would know everything you will do, and since you would not have been able to make those choices at that time then it simply means you are committed to do what he knows you will do, i.e. your actions have been predetermined long before you have any notion of a choice in the matter.
But it would not have been your idea. Many regimes in the world spread specific ideas to control their people.
I agree that being able to see all possibilities is not the same as knowing which one will occur. Given a six sided dice I know with perfection all the possibilities of a given throw, but I don’t know the result in advance of any specific throw. However, with omniscience a god would know with certainty all possibilities and also precisely which one will occur; he has no choice in the matter. Either he is omniscient (knows everything) or he is not.
Perhaps, but then no one has successfully explained why this isn’t a paradox yet.
That’s fine but that is not what will occur if he is omniscient and the creator of everything.
For example he decides to create the universe and with people in it. At that instant of creation he will have designed all the conditions of everything that is about to occur and he can see perfectly which people are going to survive and those who will be condemned. And all of this before any of it happens or before any of us exist or have any say in the matter. Remember he is also meant to be omnipotent so he has total control and choice over exactly what can and will happen. If he wanted everyone to survive and be perfect then that could be his choice. The choice of who will die and live is totally his choice and not ours. With something that has total control and total knowledge then what occurs has had no choice in the matter. Human free will has no meaning in such a paradigm.Well, you might be right (what you say about the view you have), but knowledge itself doesn't rule out the free will itself. God is beyond space and time, perhaps everything changes, not in any future or past but in a stationary reality of some kind where there is no future or past, but a fluid "now".
The Bible does mention some kind of eternal timelessness as the region that God is in. If there is no past or future then there is no reason to know about it.
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.
Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.
Question:
If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.
Conclusions:
If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.
If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.
If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.
Cris
This is such a very old atheist notion, no more typical than saying "How can God create an unbreakable shield, and then also a sword that can shatter anything."
It's not a paradox at all. First of all, I can understand how you think, being an atheist myself for many years. But one thing atheists always want to do is put God in abox. It's like a disease they carry, they feel they must understand EVERYTHING, and if understanding can't be made, then that which cannot be understood must be illogical and wrong.
We are free creatures because of evolution, in fact, if God exists, I feel evolution is the only way we could ever be truly free were He to want us for companionship. A species that evolved freely by chance, from a process He began, and once we formed to His likened, He gave us eternal souls. Want to understand more of what I'm talking about? Read "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller.
Your paradox is nothing of the sort, and ages old. Why do you think many theologians thought up election and predestination? Or election vs. free will? These are ago old problems, but not really problems at all, until one dives into philosophical thought. Yes God knows everything, how things will turn out, who will choose Him, who will not. Yet that in no way erradicates freedom, it simply means what it says, God knows everything. But instead of forcefully applying His will, He steps back and allows us to make our own choices, knowing that whoever seeks the Truth (Him) will eventually find it FREELY, rather than being forced or molded into it like a robot, or controled as a puppet.
I see no contradiction in this.
There are some things about God that we cannot understand (I said those horrible words, 'cannot understand') but that in no way proves He doesn't exist. Hey, maybe He doesn't, but I tend to believe He does, for many reasons and that is why I believe. And though trials come, my life is so much better and beautiful since.
Yes God knows everything, how things will turn out, who will choose Him, who will not. Yet that in no way erradicates freedom, it simply means what it says, God knows everything. But instead of forcefully applying His will, He steps back and allows us to make our own choices, knowing that whoever seeks the Truth (Him) will eventually find it FREELY, rather than being forced or molded into it like a robot, or controled as a puppet
It's not a question of force, or robots.
If the future is known then any "choice" is predestined (since choosing anything else would make the infallible predictor wrong).
The knowledge (should it exist) itself makes free will a myth.
I see no contradiction in this.
Nevertheless there is one.
Mr. Hamtastic
08-31-08, 02:51 AM
I thought this thread was dead, yet here it is agin. I may have said this before, but this thread is poo. If an Omniscient being rolls a set of dice and in no way acts to affect their landing does the fact of his knowing detract from the randomness of the dice?
Main Entry: free will
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
Main Entry: om·ni·scient
Pronunciation: \-shənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin omniscient-, omnisciens, back-formation from Medieval Latin omniscientia
Date: circa 1604
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge
These two things do not cancel out. Get real.
If an Omniscient being rolls a set of dice and in no way acts to affect their landing does the fact of his knowing detract from the randomness of the dice?
Yes.
If the result could be anything other than predicted then the knowledge isn't complete, therefore no omniscience.
If omniscience is real then any "free will" is pure illusion, since no other outcome is possible, otherwise the prediction would be wrong.
Mr. Hamtastic
08-31-08, 03:16 AM
Let me make sure I understand this, squirrel. Knowing the outcome of something is tampering with what happens? Very well. I know that you will at some point evacuate your bowels. Have I tampered with you?
Let me make sure I understand this, squirrel. Knowing the outcome of something is tampering with what happens? Very well. I know that you will at some point evacuate your bowels. Have I tampered with you?
Not tampering: the knowledge negates the choice.
And emptying my bowels doesn't count :)
Say you're given a choice between red and blue.
If an infallible predictor states which colour you WILL pick (whether he tells you or not) then you cannot pick anything other than what he has declared.
If he predicts blue then no matter what processes go through your mind, given that he's infallible, you must choose blue.
Mr. Hamtastic
08-31-08, 06:39 PM
oh I see. knowledge negates choice. Can we play a game? Nevermind. You will consider saying no if you consider playing a game. So don't bother considering it, because I don't want to play a game if you are going to consider saying no. What you were going to say doesn't matter. I also know that you will consider not considering to not play a game. Please. Don't waste your time. I know, thus your will is negated.
So you are claiming absolute knowledge?
The knowledge (i.e. infallible foreknowledge), not just knowledge.
So tell me, in my above example where is the free will?
Mr. Hamtastic
08-31-08, 06:52 PM
once again:
Main Entry: free will
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
If God knows I will choose blue then I will choose blue. He did not interfere with my choice. He just knew about it. I think this may require further definition.
Main Entry: 1choice
Pronunciation: \ˈchȯis\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English chois, from Anglo-French, from choisir to choose, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German kiosan to choose — more at choose
Date: 13th century
1: the act of choosing : selection <finding it hard to make a choice>
2: power of choosing : option <you have no choice>
3 a: the best part : cream b: a person or thing chosen <she was their first choice>
4: a number and variety to choose among <a plan with a wide choice of options>
5: care in selecting
6: a grade of meat between prime and good
The free will was my act of choosing. The foreknowledge neither adds nor subtracts from the choice. The choice is still made.
If God knows I will choose blue then I will choose blue. He did not interfere with my choice. He just knew about it. I think this may require further definition.
I believe I actually stated that there was no interfence - other than the knowledge itself rendering the concept invalid.
Not tampering:Post #1425.
The free will was my act of choosing. The foreknowledge neither adds nor subtracts from the choice. The choice is still made.
So we tell ourselves.
But the fact is that if the choice was infallibly known beforehand then we could not have made any other "choice".
To do so would render the forecaster fallible.
There is no possible way that we could pick red if the prediction was blue.
We wouldn't feel any coercion, there's no need for there to be any.
It would just mean that we are effectively characters in a book or film: they may believe they have free will but are subject to the plot - the story and events will turn out as given every time the story is read.
Mr. Hamtastic
08-31-08, 09:04 PM
Oli-I can accept that actually. I believe in M-theory, too. In this universe God knows that we are discussing this point and the sides we are representing. He is also aware of another universe where our roles are reversed. Predestination is one of those big discussions even among Theists.
Oli-I can accept that actually.
Ah, but which bit do you consider to be true?
Free will or god's foreknowledge?
I have to go for free will.
Personally I find the foreknowledge (therefore we're just following a script that is unknown to us) to be eminently depressing.
And that's not just my current state of mind talking...
Mr. Hamtastic
09-01-08, 06:55 AM
foreknowledge and the illusion of free will
glen5150
10-12-08, 03:54 AM
My name is Glen, I have been I Christain all my life, And you make some great points another way to see things. For The past couple of years From What I have been seeing is that I can propably hop into my car shoot down 75 the wrong way durning the busiest time of day over a 100 miles an hr. right a eightwheeler every attention on commiting to kill my self. But here is the catch, If it is not my time to die, no matter if I did it or not if there is a God and He says it is not my time to die I simply wont die, If I did the act or not. It is not my choice. This does hurt Christian believe, But does not rule not that Jesus have lived or not. Remember all religion is created by man through so called gods. We are immortals until God say it is time for us to go, not a minute sooner. Relax, so do whatever and maybe we should start living life that way. As if everything already planned out for us. Wouldn't we be much happier anyway? Trying to plan things out for my self is not really working out anyway!! Do we really even make our own choices?
if something is predestined its not going to be like a fortune cookie "your not gonna die today"!!! its going to be every little detail from if you lose an eyelash to how many times you scratch your ass this morning. a predetermined fate would have to be unbiased to every atom for every moment.
which makes the original post of this thread have meaning. but i would like to add that knowing someones intended response is different than responding for them. just because someone already knows what youll do doesnt take away that you chose to do.
also there is better proof that god either doesnt exist and that most religous faiths are completely full of it
the concept behind god: theres an invisible man way up in the clouds that controls everything. hes all knowing and all powerful. and hes got a list of ten things youre never supposed to do, and if you do any of these things you will be sent to a place of burning and fire and brimstone where you will be tortured for all eternity. but he loves you
and he even had sex with another mans girl which im pretty sure violates one of his commandments. shouldnt he lead by example? why not find somebody who was single?
or better yet why would he let his own son be stabbed by a bunch of guys and hung up on a cross to die. why would he make him walk on water how is he supposed to get wet let alone bathe? and what kind of father is he letting his own son hang out with such a bad crowd (the prostitutes and the thieves and lepers) also, hed turn a guy into a pillar of salt for not believing in him but he doesnt do anything about the profiteering telemarketer priests on tv
glen5150 My name is Glen, I have been I Christain all my life
Hi Glen!
Don't worry you are on the path to recovery. Just take it one day at a time and you'll be off the bible and rational in no time.
glen5150 If it is not my time to die, no matter if I did it or not if there is a God and He says it is not my time to die I simply wont die, If I did the act or not.
Funny how if I put a loaded .44 to you head and pull the trigger, god decides it is your time to die 100% of the time.
Oddly enough, you jump out an airplane w/o a parachute and god decides it is your time to die 100% of the time.
Sit in the closet with a lit charcoal grill and god will cack you 100% of the time.
Face it, god's a push over on the deciding its your time, just prove you are a dumbass and bang, you are out of there.
Medicine*Woman
10-12-08, 05:50 AM
I have been I Christain all my life.
*************
M*W: That would explain the basis of your warped thinking.
mynameisDan
10-12-08, 10:14 AM
"Don't worry you are on the path to recovery. Just take it one day at a time and you'll be off the bible and rational in no time."
what is to recover to? Atheism is completely irrational.
"Funny how if I put a loaded .44 to you head and pull the trigger, god decides it is your time to die 100% of the time."
Not true. History records numerous exceptions to your 100% rule. Sometimes guns do not go off as expected. Being a military man you should be aware of this....
"Oddly enough, you jump out an airplane w/o a parachute and god decides it is your time to die 100% of the time."
Again, history records many exceptions to this 100% rule. Many people have inexplicably survived falls from aircraft, sometimes with little to no major injury's.
"Sit in the closet with a lit charcoal grill and god will cack you 100% of the time."
Again, no 100% can be offered here as exceptions do exist.
"Face it, god's a push over on the deciding its your time, just prove you are a dumbass and bang, you are out of there."
suicide is foolish, but God can and we believe, has, protected folks from "certain" death on many ocasions. Thousands of examples of this are out there, sadly, none of which would convince a man who has axiomatically determined that no God exists.
mynameisDan Sometimes guns do not go off as expected.
If at first god isn't convinced, pull the trigger again.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-12-08, 10:35 AM
Yes, it's completely irrational to think rationally & need rational evidence for believing things. WHY did I never realize that before???
BTW, do you preach to animals, Dan?
mynameisDan
10-12-08, 03:01 PM
"If at first god isn't convinced, pull the trigger again."
Don't test God
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
This statement 100% correct. The bible doesn't teach free will. But most Christians don't read the bible. So they adopt a secular humanist belief that man has free will. They're called Arminians and they're heretics as you already know.;)
mynameisDan
10-12-08, 03:30 PM
I knew that Carrico would offer up something I would have to disagree with sooner or later. The bible does teach free will and it does teach Gods omniscience. You are both wrong.
I knew that Carrico would offer up something I would have to disagree with sooner or later. The bible does teach free will and it does teach Gods omniscience. You are both wrong.
Wrong. I noticed you didn't quote the bible, but I will:
Jeremiah 10:23, "Oh Lord, I know that a man's life is not his own. It is not for a man to direct his steps."
Proverbs 16:9, "In his heart, a man plans his course. But the Lord determines his steps."
Romans 9:18, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy and hardens whom he wants to harden."
Then there's
2 Corinthians 4:4
1 Corinthians 2:14
John 6:64
Romans 9:11
Romans 11:32
Matthew 11:25-27
Matthew 22:14
John 15:16
Psalms 33:12
John 15:19
1 Peter 2:9
Eph. 1:4
1 Cprinthians 1:28-29
And so many more verses I'd practically have to quote the whole bible! So sorry but you are in error. ;)
EmptyForceOfChi
10-12-08, 03:51 PM
Carico, do you believe we have no free will or taht we should not act on our own free will?. For instance we should follow the biblical rules and act the way it says we should under gods preferences?, or that we actualy do not posess free will regardless?.
peace.
Carico, do you believe we have no free will or taht we should not act on our own free will?. For instance we should follow the biblical rules and act the way it says we should under gods preferences?, or that we actualy do not posess free will regardless?.
peace.
"A man is a slave to whatever has mastered him." That means that we all respond to our least stressful option. For example, most people don't choose to grow up as drug addicts. they only become addicted to drugs because the pain of living off drugs is stronger than their pain on drugs. So it's not a choice; they are simply seeking their least stressful option. Therefore:
If one is ruled by greed, he will pursue wealth even if it costs him everything else.
If one is ruled by lust he will become a sexual addict no matter how much he may want to stop.
If one is ruled by pride, he will not be able to admit he's wrong even if it's obvious to himself that he is wrong.
If one is ruled by gluttony, he cannot control his eating no matter how much he may want to.
So being slaves to sin is what causes all the problems in the world and the only solution is Christ's forgiveness on the cross. Knowing that he paid for all the sins of humanity breed incredible thankfulness and joy that can't be surpassed by any earthly pleasure because all earthly pleasures are gone once we die. But no one can ever take the love from God out of our hearts so we carry it into eternity. And that, my friend, is heaven. :)
EmptyForceOfChi
10-12-08, 04:07 PM
"A man is a slave to whatever has mastered him." That means that we all respond to our least stressful option. For example, most people don't choose to grow up as drug addicts. they only become addicted to drugs because the pain of living off drugs is stronger than their pain on drugs. So it's not a choice; they are simply seeking their least stressful option. Therefore:
If one is ruled by greed, he will pursue wealth even if it costs him everything else.
If one is ruled by lust he will become a sexual addict no matter how much he may want to stop.
If one is ruled by pride, he will not be able to admit he's wrong even if it's obvious to himself that he is wrong.
If one is ruled by gluttony, he cannot control his eating no matter how much he may want to.
So being slaves to sin is what causes all the problems in the world and the only solution is Christ's forgiveness on the cross. Knowing that he paid for all the sins of humanity breed incredible thankfulness and joy that can't be surpassed by any earthly pleasure because all earthly pleasures are gone once we die. But no one can ever take the love from God out of our hearts so we carry it into eternity. And that, my friend, is heaven. :)
But why should I choose that over all the other beliefs on offer to me?, I was not raised religious so how can I jus make myself believe in the bible?. I see how god could exist and I think a god type thing probably does exist, but all the surrounding bible scriptures why should I take it as truth above all other religions?.
How did you just start believing in all of it?.
peace.
But why should I choose that over all the other beliefs on offer to me?, I was not raised religious so how can I jus make myself believe in the bible?. I see how god could evist and I think a god type thing probably does exist, but all the surrounding bible scriptures why should I take it as truth above all other religions?.
How did you just start believing in all of it?.
peace.
Actually I wasn't raised in a religious home either and boy am I glad I wasn't! I was raised in a secular humanist home where my parents wanted us to find our own path. We never went to church and I mean, never.
But you're right, you cannot make yourself believe. I tried to make myself believe the bible for years but could not until one day out of desperation i asked God to help me. I felt as if someone had touched my back, I felt heat rush from my head to my toes and when I opened my eyes, the sun streamed into the window. it was so bright that the colors on the bedspread were bright and clear where as before they seemed dull.
Then I opened the bible and every word was crystal clear. it made perfect sense. i then found out that th words in the bible are simple enough for a child to understand. Words like "But, "You", "the, "Cannot", etc. that we all learned in elementary school. So my belief didn't come from myself since I tried for so many years to believe but couldn't believe it. I just needed the faith to believe them and faith can only come from God. Ephesians 2:8-9, "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith-and this- not from yourself-Faith is a gift from God, not by works, so that no one can boast." So you need to ask God for faith because only he can give it to you. And once you receive that faith, then you'll know that God exists because you'll suddenly be able to believe. It's a wonderful thing. :)
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-12-08, 04:30 PM
Out of desperation every word was crystal clear & made perfect sense.
Out of desperation every word was crystal clear & made perfect sense.
No, actually after the room became lighter and my eyes were opened. That light is still with me today.;) But Jesus said about the Holy Spirit, "The world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him because he will be with you and in you." And that's exactly what happened. Quite a coincidence that i could believe the bible after that experience. A little too coincidental since my life has changed dramatically since that day. ;)
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-12-08, 04:42 PM
My life changed dramaticly after I found IPU.
mynameisDan
10-12-08, 04:48 PM
"I noticed you didn't quote the bible, but I will:"
I am not really that interested in engaging you in your pet hypercalvinistic doctrine. I didn't say that God doesn't elect people or deny any doctrine of the bible. But the bible does teach free will and anyone who can read knows this.
1. "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve" (Josh. 24:15)
2. "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Mt. 11:28)
3. "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God." (Jn. 7:17)
4. "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink." (Jn. 7:37)
5. "Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized" (Acts 2:38)
6. "Repent therefore and be converted" (Acts 3:19)
7. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31)
8. "but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30)
9. "Whoever wills, let him take the water of life freely." (Rev. 22:17)
All of these verses imply free will and must be reinterpreted by calvinists to mean what they do not say in plane english. If you wish to play, "lets distort the bible", go play the game by yourself. I will have none of it and will call you on it when I see it.
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-12-08, 04:56 PM
Evidently, you're both right.
"I noticed you didn't quote the bible, but I will:"
I am not really that interested in engaging you in your pet hypercalvinistic doctrine. I didn't say that God doesn't elect people or deny any doctrine of the bible. But the bible does teach free will and anyone who can read knows this.
1. "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve" (Josh. 24:15)
2. "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Mt. 11:28)
3. "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God." (Jn. 7:17)
4. "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink." (Jn. 7:37)
5. "Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized" (Acts 2:38)
6. "Repent therefore and be converted" (Acts 3:19)
7. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31)
8. "but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30)
9. "Whoever wills, let him take the water of life freely." (Rev. 22:17)
All of these verses imply free will and must be reinterpreted by calvinists to mean what they do not say in plane english. If you wish to play, "lets distort the bible", go play the game by yourself. I will have none of it and will call you on it when I see it.
Yeah, and put those together with the verses I quoted and you get, our ability to choose comes only from the Spirit of God. Then all scripture is reconciled. ;)
So since you don't believe the bible to begin with, then you can't use it to prove anything since you think it's all a lie. that then defeats your point. Sorry. ;)
StrangerInAStrangeLa
10-12-08, 05:11 PM
You should've been in vaudeville.
You should've been in vaudeville.
NWR. No wonder I've by-passed your posts. :rolleyes: If you want a response, then form an intelligent post that has to do with the discussion. :rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.