Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The story of original sin doesn't make sense.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Foreknowledge does mean predestination when it comes to god, because he would have absolute foreknowledge, being outside of time, he knows the past the present and the future all at the same time. Any exercise of free will that god didn't already know about and plan for, along the way would scupper the causal chain.

    Nail on the head

    All the examples given here of Christians "knowing" what their children are going to do, or "knowing" that someone is going to do something, don't apply because they actually don't know, they are making educated guesses about what the person will decide to do in the future, which is not the same thing.

    God (being omniscient) knows to the point where he cannot be wrong. The decision cannot be made by the person in the moment based on their free will in that moment, because such a concept is nonsensical. If in the moment a person cannot go either way, if they can only ever choose one path, then they do not have free will. They are fixed to a path not of their making.


  • Options
    #33
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The stoics had the right idea. No matter what happens, it is a part of gods plan, so it must be good. (that includes genocide)

    I can see why you want to believe that so much. Constructing such a big straw man must be very satisfying emotionally.

    If god knows what is going to happen, then everything is determined, and we have no free will. It's as simple as that.

    No it isn't.

    Firstly, many philosophers, and many Christians, believe that God's omniscience means that He knows all the possible outcomes to every possible choice that can be made. Think of it like a giant game of chess where a player can figure out all the possible permutations and contingencies but with an (almost) infinite number of possibilities. This, BTW, is not my own view, but I thought it was worth mentioning since atheists often falsely assume that the idea of God knowing our choices beforehand is somehow essential to the beliefs of all Christians.

    Secondly, foreknowledge of our choices does not equate to predestination or to an abrogation of free will. God's foreknowledge is contingent upon the choices that we make, not vice versa.

    We have had this discussion before and no evidence has been offered that in any convincing way explains why foreknowledge logically entails predestination. It just ends up with the usual suspects saying, "But I can't see it" as if their inability to comprehend a philosophical principle should somehow convince the rest of us to share their mental limitations.

    BTW, neither do I subscribe to the view that atheism necessarily involves the abrogation of free will. I think that is as big, and as silly, a straw man as your own.


  • Options
    #34
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    We have had this discussion before and no evidence has been offered that in any convincing way explains why foreknowledge logically entails predestination. It just ends up with the usual suspects saying, "But I can't see it" as if their inability to comprehend a philosophical principle should somehow convince the rest of us to share their mental limitations.

    Oh please PDN :mad:

    The only people who ever bother putting forward an actual argument are those like myself who claim that an omniscient God means free will is an illusion. Those on this forum who disagree simply say they disagree, as if that demonstrates something, or that we can't fully understand God or make a claim that we have "no evidence" (wtf? what evidence?)

    Its like saying 2+2=4 to have you guys go "I disagree"

    You have never put forward an argument that actually counters the logic originally put forward. You simply say you don't believe it. Which is fair enough. But it is rather silly to some how paint the other side as the ones having the weak argument.


  • Options
    #35
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,235 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    PDN wrote: »
    I can see why you want to believe that so much. Constructing such a big straw man must be very satisfying emotionally.




    No it isn't.

    Firstly, many philosophers, and many Christians, believe that God's omniscience means that He knows all the possible outcomes to every possible choice that can be made. Think of it like a giant game of chess where a player can figure out all the possible permutations and contingencies but with an (almost) infinite number of possibilities. This, BTW, is not my own view, but I thought it was worth mentioning since atheists often falsely assume that the idea of God knowing our choices beforehand is somehow essential to the beliefs of all Christians.
    Omniscience is essential for christianity, and the atemporal nature of god is also an essential property of god. Those two things combined mean that god must necessarily know everything that happens and every decision that is made in the past present and future.
    Secondly, foreknowledge of our choices does not equate to predestination
    Yes it does
    or to an abrogation of free will.
    that too
    God's foreknowledge is contingent upon the choices that we make, not vice versa.
    It still means that all our choices are already made, and we have no possibility of changing anything that wasn't already going to happen.

    When god created the garden of eden, he knew that adam and eve would eventually eat that apple. He could have easily removed that temptation and allowed them to live in paradise forever. God wanted them to sin because he created the conditions in which he knew they succumb to temptation.
    We have had this discussion before and no evidence has been offered that in any convincing way explains why foreknowledge logically entails predestination. It just ends up with the usual suspects saying, "But I can't see it" as if their inability to comprehend a philosophical principle should somehow convince the rest of us to share their mental limitations.
    you haven't proposed a philosophical principle. You have said that a square is circular and then complained when I said that doesn't make sense. (perhaps you believe that god is capable of inventing a circular square.)


  • Options
    #36
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    I'm hearing no arguments, just a bunch of assertions that don't become more convincing when they are repeated ad nauseam.

    Viewing an event means that the viewer's knowledge is contingent on the event itself, not vice versa. If you allow for a theoretical observer to travel in time and to view a future event, his perspective is still contingent on what he observes. I have heard no argument that disproves this principle.

    God sees our freely made choices and so his knowledge is contingent on our choices.
    Akrasia wrote:
    Omniscience is essential for christianity, and the atemporal nature of god is also an essential property of god.
    Says who?

    So are you asserting that those Christians who see God's omniscience as being merely knowledge of a near-infinite set of possibilities are not really Christian at all?

    If they did something nasty then I'm quite sure you would quickly count them as Christians so as to point out how terrible Christianity is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    I'm hearing no arguments, just a bunch of assertions that don't become more convincing when they are repeated ad nauseam.

    Viewing an event means that the viewer's knowledge is contingent on the event itself, not vice versa. If you allow for a theoretical observer to travel in time and to view a future event, his perspective is still contingent on what he observes. I have heard no argument that disproves this principle.

    God sees our freely made choices and so his knowledge is contingent on our choices.

    Groan ... ok lets go over this again.

    There is a time line, with the present at A, and some point in the future at B.

    At point B in the future you will have the choice to steal a chocolate bar or to not steal a chocolate bar.

    Right now, at point A you have not stolen the chocolate bar.

    God knows the outcome of point B. It is that you steal the chocolate bar, a sin.

    So the present moves on and reaches point B.

    You now have a choice, do you or do you not steal that chocolate bar.

    You think about it, you consider it, and you decide not to steal it.

    But wait. You can't decide not to steal it, because God has already seen you steal it. The time line is fixed, you stole the chocolate bar a week ago, you stole it 10 years ago, you stole it before you were born. The outcome of the choice you make will and can only be that you steal the chocolate bar

    But if you already stole it then what choice are you actually making at point B in the time line?


  • Options
    #38
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Groan ... ok lets go over this again.

    There is a time line, with the present at A, and some point in the future at B.

    At point B in the future you will have the choice to steal a chocolate bar or to not steal a chocolate bar.

    Right now, at point A you have not stolen the chocolate bar.

    God knows the outcome of point B. It is that you steal the chocolate bar, a sin.

    So the present moves on and reaches point B.

    You now have a choice, do you or do you not steal that chocolate bar.

    You think about it, you consider it, and you decide not to steal it.

    But wait. You can't decide not to steal it, because God has already seen you steal it. The time line is fixed, you stole the chocolate bar a week ago, you stole it 10 years ago, you stole it before you were born. The outcome of the choice you make will and can only be that you steal the chocolate bar

    But if you already stole it then what choice are you actually making at point B in the time line?


    I don't understand your logic. You seem to be stating that if there was no God, yet you travelled along the same path - stealing the bar in the process - your choice somehow becomes a matter of free will, where as God knowing what you were about to do somehow makes free will an impossibility. Why? Do you believe that if you could go back in time you would decide not to steal the bar?


  • Options
    #39
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I don't understand your logic. You seem to be stating that if there was no God, yet you travelled along the same path - stealing the bar in the process - your choice somehow becomes a matter of free will, where as God knowing what you were about to do somehow makes free will an impossibility. Why?

    Because the outcome of point B is not fixed until you (ie the present) actually gets to point B and makes the choice. And in that instant the choice can go either way. Before that point in time the outcome of point B is unknown, and could go either way.

    If on the other hand God knows the outcome already the choice can only be the choice God knows already. So where is the actual free will? Where is the actual choice?

    In that instant you can pick anything you like, so long as it is what God has already seen you pick.

    The easiest way to think about this is to consider the possibility of doing something other than what God has already seen you do.

    If God has already seen you steal the chocolate bar, can you decide not to steal the chocolate bar when the present actually gets around to the moment you make that choice?
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Do you believe that if you could go back in time you would decide not to steal the bar?

    Yes, and for that reason I think time travel is probably impossible.


  • Options
    #40
    the dee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭the dee


    But does it really matter if everything is predetermined or not? You don't know what god knows. Even if he knows who you'll do, you don't. You still think about things and make a choice. How does anything change if god knows what you'll do?

    From a subjective point of view it makes absolutely no difference. In practice, we clearly have free will.


  • Options
    #41
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,235 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    the dee wrote: »
    But does it really matter if everything is predetermined or not? You don't know what god knows. Even if he knows who you'll do, you don't. You still think about things and make a choice. How does anything change if god knows what you'll do?

    From a subjective point of view it makes absolutely no difference. In practice, we clearly have free will.

    It does matter because God knew 'Before' he even created the universe, that there would be all of this sin and suffering. He knew before he created the universe that Adam and Eve would disobey him. He could have taken very very simple steps to avoid this temptation but he chose not to.

    If I work in a car factory and I design a car that I know will burst into flames if there is a minor rear end shunt, but I allow it to be built anyway, then I am responsible for all of the people who will get killed and maimed as a result of my design flaw.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    the dee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭the dee


    Perhaps, but if you build any car, you can foresee that it might run over someone, or someone could crash it and die. If you build a road, you can foresee that there might be car accidents on it. Is that your fault?

    Foresight does not necessarily imply either control or responsibility.


  • Options
    #43
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    the dee wrote: »
    Foresight does not necessarily imply either control or responsibility.
    Foresight of possibilities doesn't imply either control or responsibility, but omniscience certainly does.


  • Options
    #44
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    the dee wrote: »
    But does it really matter if everything is predetermined or not? You don't know what god knows. Even if he knows who you'll do, you don't. You still think about things and make a choice. How does anything change if god knows what you'll do?

    From a subjective point of view it makes absolutely no difference. In practice, we clearly have free will.
    Many atheists, including myself, take this view. Free will seems to be extremely important to many Christians though.


    Also, knowledge of possible permutations means nothing, foreknowledge of what's actually going to happen does, and omniscience certainly implies the latter.


  • Options
    #45
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Free will seems to be extremely important to many Christians though.
    There was a useful thread, started by kelly1, over on A+A a couple of weeks back on alternative interpretations of the christian idea of "free will". Other christians may find it interesting (or not). It's here:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055214929


  • Options
    #46
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    I made a concious effort to ignore that thread.


  • Options
    #47
    2Scoops
    Registered Users Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    Why did God want to keep Adam and Eve ignorant? I would have eaten the apple, too, probably.


  • Options
    #48
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I made a concious effort to ignore that thread.
    Any particular reason why? Out of interest, mind...


  • Options
    #49
    JoeB-
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭JoeB-


    God really comes across as fairly stupid for an omnipotent being.

    After all, all he had to do was use his foresight and not put any appes on the tree, and not create the devil.. and simply create heaven and put robots in it.

    And then bemoan his own boring immortal cursed existence and wonder about his own creation and where he came from. And then finally taking the only logical step of attempting to commit suicide.


  • Options
    #50
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,235 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    JoeBallantine wrote: »
    God really comes across as fairly stupid for an omnipotent being.

    After all, all he had to do was use his foresight and not put any appes on the tree, and not create the devil.. and simply create heaven and put robots in it.

    And then bemoan his own boring immortal cursed existence and wonder about his own creation and where he came from. And then finally taking the only logical step of attempting to commit suicide.
    Is god omnipotent enough that he could commit suicide?

    (omnipotence is such a silly concept)


  • Options
    #51
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    the dee wrote: »
    How does anything change if god knows what you'll do?

    Because the possibility of you not doing what God already knows you will do doesn't exist. So where is the choice?

    If God knows you will murder someone tomorrow you will murder someone tomorrow, there is nothing you can do about that.

    So are you a murderer today? Can you ever not be a murderer in the future? Can you make decisions now in the present that mean you won't end up a murderer if God has already seen you murder someone?

    Have you ever seen "Minority Report"


  • Advertisement
Advertisement