Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Zombrex · 26-05-2011 4:15pm

Morbert wrote: »

I see no problem in asserting it is by our will that x=1 if we are allowed to assume our spirit is supernatural.

We would have to assert we are above God (in the transcendent sense) for that to be the case, as the determination of God's knowledge would be then dependent on us. Since God is defined as omniscient this is not possible.

Or to put it another way, we would determine x is 1 and through this action God would know that x is 1. This places us above God in the pecking order, which contradicts Christian theology.

Morbert wrote: »

The existence of both x and our will is determined by god, but the fact that x=1 is determined by us.

That is a paradox because as you say we are determined by God. Thus his knowledge cannot be determined by us since we are in turn determined by God (with all his knowledge).

As his knowledge is omniscient, ie is is ultimate supreme eternal or what ever term we want to use, his knowledge cannot be determined through an action of his (ie production of us).

You end up with a self referencing system, where God's knowledge is increased through his actions and our actions in turn. But God's knowledge cannot be increased, he is all knowing and eternal. By definition God's knowledge is at an infinite value already.

Or to put it another way, if x was determined by us that would mean that if God did not produce us his knowledge would be what it is minus x, ie x would be an unknown because we do not exist to determine it. This is an impossibility. God's knowledge is maximum, it cannot increase or decrease depending on the existence of other things.

Morbert · 26-05-2011 4:30pm

Wicknight wrote: »

We would have to assert we are above God (in the transcendent sense) for that to be the case, as the determination of God's knowledge would be then dependent on us. Since God is defined as omniscient this is not possible.

Or to put it another way, we would determine x is 1 and through this action God would know that x is 1. This places us above God in the pecking order, which contradicts Christian theology.

How does it place us above God in the pecking order if we determine some of God's knowledge? Remember that God chose to give us this freedom and power.

That is a paradox because as you say we are determined by God. Thus his knowledge cannot be determined by us since we are in turn determined by God (with all his knowledge).

As his knowledge is omniscient, ie is is ultimate supreme eternal or what ever term we want to use, his knowledge cannot be determined through an action of his (ie production of us).

You end up with a self referencing system, where God's knowledge is increased through his actions and our actions in turn. But God's knowledge cannot be increased, he is all knowing and eternal. By definition God's knowledge is at an infinite value already.

Or to put it another way, if x was determined by us that would mean that if God did not produce us his knowledge would be what it is minus x, ie x would be an unknown because we do not exist to determine it. This is an impossibility. God's knowledge is maximum, it cannot increase or decrease depending on the existence of other things.

But I didn't say we are determined by God. I said our existence is determined by God. Our choices, and hence God's knowledge of our choices, is determined by us.

CerebralCortex · 26-05-2011 4:42pm

Morbert wrote: »

How does it place us above God in the pecking order if we determine some of God's knowledge? Remember that God chose to give us this freedom and power.

But I didn't say we are determined by God. I said our existence is determined by God. Our choices, and hence God's knowledge of our choices, is determined by us.

But the knowledge of our choices are inescapable from his omniscience. He knows what we chose as product of his omniscience no to mention he created us to make that choice as a product of his omnipotence. So either Christians don't believe he's omniscient or there's an inconsistency.

Zombrex · 26-05-2011 4:42pm

Morbert wrote: »

How does it place us above God in the pecking order if we determine some of God's knowledge? Remember that God chose to give us this freedom and power.

God is ultimate. If he does not know something unless it is determined by our choices then he is dependent on us, thus not ultimate, not omniscient. We have to be dependent on God entirely, he cannot be dependent on us.

Now I guess someone could make the argument that God chooses to limit his knowledge, but that gets messy paradoxical territory.

Morbert wrote: »

But I didn't say we are determined by God. I said our existence is determined by God. Our choices, and hence God's knowledge of our choices, is determined by us.

But that comes after our existences in the peeking order (we have to exist first before we can make choices and we cannot exist without God).

So what you are supposing is that something God does produces us which in turn produces our choice which in turn produces an element of God (his absolute knowledge which is not determined without our choice)

This is impossibly cyclical. Since God is ultimate you might as well say that God produces us which in turn produces our choice which in turn produces God, since there is little difference saying it produces a tiny bit of God (his knowledge of our choice) or the entire thing. Neither is possible.

God's ultimate knowledge, his omniscients, cannot be dependent on us it cannot be determined by us as this contradicts omniscience in the first place.

By the way I'm using some what temporal language just because your sort of have to (after, order etc), don't let this give the impression that what I'm saying requires a temporal time line, it doesn't. All this applies if we imagine an eternal state of everything.

Morbert · 26-05-2011 5:09pm

Wicknight wrote: »

God is ultimate. If he does not know something unless it is determined by our choices then he is dependent on us, thus not ultimate, not omniscient. We have to be dependent on God entirely, he cannot be dependent on us.

Now I guess someone could make the argument that God chooses to limit his knowledge, but that gets messy paradoxical territory.

But his knowledge isn't being limited by us. Instead, some of it is being determined by us. Everyone agrees that God could determine everything himself if he wanted to, but he chose not to. He chose to let us determine some things.

But that comes after our existences in the peeking order (we have to exist first before we can make choices and we cannot exist without God).

So what you are supposing is that something God does produces us which in turn produces our choice which in turn produces an element of God (his absolute knowledge which is not determined without our choice)

This is impossibly cyclical. Since God is ultimate you might as well say that God produces us which in turn produces our choice which in turn produces God, since there is little difference saying it produces a tiny bit of God (his knowledge of our choice) or the entire thing. Neither is possible.

God's ultimate knowledge, his omniscients, cannot be dependent on us it cannot be determined by us as this contradicts omniscience in the first place.

By the way I'm using some what temporal language just because your sort of have to (after, order etc), don't let this give the impression that what I'm saying requires a temporal time line, it doesn't. All this applies if we imagine an eternal state of everything.

It doesn't apply if there is no time. The relationship between God's will, our will, and the universe is like a steady-state solution, independent of time. We exist by God's will, the universe exists by God's will, and events in the universe exist by our will. There is no cycle or recursion unless you try and include some supernatural temporal order whereby God, at one point in supernatural time, knew stuff, then he made us at a later point in supernatural time, and learned new stuff.

Also, you are conflating God with God's knowledge. Our will affects his knowledge, and hence his interaction with us, but not his inherent qualities or essence.

Zombrex · 26-05-2011 6:08pm

Morbert wrote: »

It doesn't apply if there is no time. The relationship between God's will, our will, and the universe is like a steady-state solution, independent of time. We exist by God's will, the universe exists by God's will, and events in the universe exist by our will. There is no cycle or recursion unless you try and include some supernatural temporal order whereby God, at one point in supernatural time, knew stuff, then he made us at a later point in supernatural time, and learned new stuff.

There is a cycle because in what you are saying we determine some of God's knowledge. Yet we are a product of God. We are a product of the already fully realized knowledge, so we cannot determine what this knowledge is.

Morbert wrote: »

Also, you are conflating God with God's knowledge.

Because God is omniscient you have to. God cannot be separated from his knowledge because as you say he is not temporal. There is no point where God doesn't know something but will in the future.

Morbert wrote: »

Our will affects his knowledge, and hence his interaction with us, but not his inherent qualities or essence.

God's absolute knowledge of everything is an inherent quality, an inherent essence. It exits as God does in an eternal never changing state. Thus we cannot determine it as we are a product of God, thus a product of this never changing state.

ISAW · 26-05-2011 6:13pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Agreeing with Christians? What are you talking about? That is utterly irrelevant, as I'm sure you know.

No it isn't. The Main topic of discussion is the existance of god for example.

How about this "In my opinion a consensual homosexual relationship is always moral"

and you are asserting Christians believe it is not and is always immoral?

Can you prove your assertion that it is always moral is absolutely true? how is your opinion better than or superiour to any christian opinion?

Subjective and absolute. Contradiction please.

If it is only your opinion how can you assert it is absolutely true?

absolutes are objectively verifiable /falsifiable. Whether or not the ratio Pi or the exponent is believed by anyone to be whatever it is an exact objectively agreed value and not based on a subjective opinion. that is what an absolute is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism

Subjectivism
...
is a form of moral relativism in which the truth of moral claims is relative to the attitudes of individuals

moral subjectivism is that species of moral relativism that relativizes moral value to the individual subject

http://www.iep.utm.edu/relativi/

Although there are many different kinds of relativism, they all have two features in common.

1) They all assert that one thing (e.g. moral values, beauty, knowledge, taste, or meaning) is relative to some particular framework or standpoint (e.g. the individual subject, a culture, an era, a language, or a conceptual scheme).

2) They all deny that any standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

You satisfy 1 but claim not to follow 2. But you also claim your standpoint is subjective which means it is just yours and can not be shown to be privileged over any others with reference to an objective/absolute standard.

Morbert · 26-05-2011 6:19pm

Wicknight wrote: »

There is a cycle because in what you are saying we determine some of God's knowledge. Yet we are a product of God. We are a product of the already fully realized knowledge, so we cannot determine what this knowledge is.

Again, "already" implies a temporal dimension. We are talking about an atemporal relationship. There is no "already". Every time I point this out, you, perhaps unknowingly, sneak it back into the discussion to make your argument.

Because God is omniscient you have to. God cannot be separated from his knowledge because as you say he is not temporal. There is no point where God doesn't know something but will in the future.

That is a non-sequitur. The energy-momentum relation in relativity is atemporal, but energy and momentum are separate. So "God cannot be separated from knowledge" does not follow from "God exists outside of time". Also, what do you mean by "no point"? No point in what? Time?

God's absolute knowledge of everything is an inherent quality, an inherent essence. It exits as God does in an eternal never changing state. Thus we cannot determine it as we are a product of God, thus a product of this never changing state.

Again, you are conflating God with knowledge. God's omniscience is a property of God, but the the knowledge itself is not God.

Zombrex · 26-05-2011 6:22pm

ISAW wrote: »

No it isn't. The Main topic of discussion is the existance of god for example.

It is utterly irrelevant to whether I can be subjective absolutist. Are you seriously saying I can so long as I agree with Christians

ISAW wrote: »

Can you prove your assertion that it is always moral is absolutely true?

Yes. My opinion is that it is always moral. Is this my opinion? Yes. Thus it is true.

I await your inevitable appeal to objectivism

ISAW wrote: »

how is your opinion better than or superiour to any christian opinion?

Objectively or subjectively?

ISAW wrote: »

absolutes are objectively verifiable /falsifiable.

Only if they are objective. If they are subjective they aren't. They are only false if they are a lie (ie I state my opinion but it is not really my opinion)

It is my opinion that Porkies 2 is the absolute worst movie of all time. The truth part of this statement is that it is or isn't my opinion, not that Porkies 2 is objectively the worst movie of all time, since such a claim is not presented as an objective truth.

Again SUBJECTIVISM. If you don't know what that means you will not understand any of this. If you insist that subjectivism be treated as objectivism then you will not understand any of this.

ISAW wrote: »

You satisfy 1 but claim not to follow 2.

Which means I'm not .... nearly, you nearly got it ....

ISAW wrote: »

But you also claim your standpoint is subjective which means it is just yours and can not be shown to be privileged over any others with reference to an objective/absolute standard.

It doesn't have to be "shown" to be privilege. It is privilege by virtue of me privileging it. That is what privileged means. It is why it is subjective :rolleyes:

If you cannot stop appealing to objectivism when discussion subjectivism we cannot continue.

Zombrex · 26-05-2011 6:32pm

Morbert wrote: »

Again, "already" implies a temporal dimension.

In an eternal dimension everything is set and always has been set. This is what I mean by already. x is already 1 because it has always been and always will be 1. "Being 1" is a property of x that cannot separated from it.

Same with God and his knowledge. Knowing everything is a property of God that cannot be separated from him. It cannot be dependent on something else, like us.

Morbert wrote: »

That is a non-sequitur. The energy-momentum relation in relativity is atemporal, but energy and momentum are separate. So "God cannot be separated from knowledge" does not follow from "God exists outside of time".

No, it follows from God is omniscient.

You appear to be imagining an eternal being that at the same time doesn't know things until they are determined. As you keep pointing out to me there is not "until they are determined". God and his knowledge is eternal and never changing.

Morbert wrote: »

Again, you are conflating God with knowledge. God's omniscience is a property of God, but the the knowledge itself is not God.

That isn't the point. The eternal property of God applies to the knowledge as well, since since if God is omniscient the knowledge cannot be temporal or changing.

Morbert · 26-05-2011 6:48pm

Wicknight wrote: »

In an eternal dimension everything is set and always has been set. This is what I mean by already. x is already 1 because it has always been and always will be 1. "Being 1" is a property of x that cannot separated from it.

Again, there is no eternal dimension. There is no "always has been". You are implicitly supposing a time dimension again. It is, instead, atemporal. This means we must define the relationships between God, us, and the universe without reference to a time dimension. That relation is as I have said already: We exist by God's will. The universe exists by God's will. The events of the the universe exist by our will. Notice how I have not referenced any supernatural temporal time line.

Same with God and his knowledge. Knowing everything is a property of God that cannot be separated from him. It cannot be dependent on something else, like us.

You are being inconsistent here. I have already agreed that omniscience is a property of God. We were discussing whether or not the knowledge itself was God. "We determine God" does not follow from "God is omniscient, and some of the specifics of some knowledge is determined by us."

No, it follows from God is omniscient.

You appear to be imagining an eternal being that at the same time doesn't know things until they are determined. As you keep pointing out to me there is not "until they are determined". God and his knowledge is eternal and never changing.

That isn't the point. The eternal property of God applies to the knowledge as well, since since if God is omniscient the knowledge cannot be temporal or changing.

Again, eternal implies a supernatural temporal dimension. I am saying the opposite. There is no supernatural "time". And yes, the knowledge is atemporal. I have never said otherwise.

Turtwig · 26-05-2011 7:05pm

The last time we had this discussion on free will I started to edge towards the ropes and became more convinced by PDN's explanation. Having followed this thread closely, I finally reached the end of the rope. Sorry, guys but I'm with Morbert now.:)

That is all.

*Hands in badge*

CerebralCortex · 26-05-2011 7:19pm

So which of us are the protestants and the catholics in this schism? :P

lmaopml · 26-05-2011 7:28pm

lol, Cerebral Cortex you read my mind - good debate though.

Actually reading through - Morbert's arguement is akin to St. Thomas Aquinas - a philosopher and theologian a person who loved logic and reason. He's also the patron saint of education, I'm claiming Morbert for the Catholic church..:eek:....mwah haha

*Mobert runs*

ISAW · 26-05-2011 8:09pm

Wicknight wrote: »

It is utterly irrelevant to whether I can be subjective absolutist. Are you seriously saying I can so long as I agree with Christians

If you come to a christian group to argue about the existance of a christian god on the basis of God being the objective source of all morals as opposed to morals being subjective and dependant not on God but only on your opinion then that is relevant isn't it?

Yes. My opinion is that it is always moral. Is this my opinion? Yes. Thus it is true.

ther you go agaion defining what is true and right based on your subjective opinion. thinkg are only true and right relative to what you think about them.

Only if they are objective. If they are subjective they aren't. They are only false if they are a lie (ie I state my opinion but it is not really my opinion)

But if it is not really just your opinion and it is absolutely true it is true in spite of and not because of your opinion.

It is my opinion that Porkies 2 is the absolute worst movie of all time.

You are just picking a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact. Morals are not to be treated like relative entities like that where they are just a matter of relative subjective opinion. They are right or wrong. you are playing with words and definitions of "absolute" and "worse"

The truth part of this statement is that it is or isn't my opinion, not that Porkies 2 is objectively the worst movie of all time, since such a claim is not presented as an objective truth.

You can't prove it is the worst movie of all time without an objective standards - which does not apply to movies.

It doesn't have to be "shown" to be privilege. It is privilege by virtue of me privileging it. That is what privileged means. It is why it is subjective :rolleyes:

Nope. You saying it is privileged just because you say it is is just your relative opinion. It is your projection of moral egoism and a bigoted point of view. how can you prove you are not a bigot if you say your opinion is always right just because you say it is right?

ISAW · 26-05-2011 8:16pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

But the knowledge of our choices are inescapable from his omniscience. He knows what we chose as product of his omniscience no to mention he created us to make that choice as a product of his omnipotence. So either Christians don't believe he's omniscient or there's an inconsistency.

Knowing the future is not a logical contradiction of free will. . Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn't still freely choose the other option.

Turtwig · 26-05-2011 8:35pm

Something I've been meaning to ask now with ages. ISAW what are your religious views, or lack of them?

Zombrex · 26-05-2011 9:55pm

ISAW wrote: »

If you come to a christian group to argue about the existance of a christian god on the basis of God being the objective source of all morals as opposed to morals being subjective and dependant not on God but only on your opinion then that is relevant isn't it?

No. Not to the question of whether someone can be a subjective absolutist.

ISAW wrote: »

ther you go agaion defining what is true and right based on your subjective opinion. thinkg are only true and right relative to what you think about them.

You missed the point. I don't think my moral opinion is true (or false for that matter), since in subjective morality a moral opinion is not compared to an objective standard. The only truth in it is the question of whether it is or isn't my opinion.

ISAW wrote: »

But if it is not really just your opinion and it is absolutely true it is true in spite of and not because of your opinion.

It is not absolutely true. To be absolutely true requires something to compare it to, it requires objective standard. The only truth is that it is absolutely my moral opinion which I apply absolutely.

As I already said - subjective/objective where the morals come from

relativist/absolute how they are applied.

It is illogical of you to assume the morals are objective in nature when I told you they aren't and then apply objective standards (is the moral opinion "true") when applying it to whether it is relativistic or absolute. They don't apply because it is not objective in the first place.

ISAW wrote: »

You are just picking a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact.

Yes. Hence the SUBJECTIVE bit.

ISAW wrote: »

Morals are not to be treated like relative entities like that where they are just a matter of relative subjective opinion. They are right or wrong.

So you don't not accept that subjectivity exists and you do not accept someone can believe in subjective morality.

Great, if you had told me that 5 pages ago I would not have wasted my time with this some what off topic discussion.

ISAW wrote: »

You can't prove it is the worst movie of all time without an objective standards - which does not apply to movies.

Correct. That is what subjectivity means. All I can be is of the opinion that it is the worst movie of all time. That is a subjective opinion, and it is also a completely absolute opinion.

ISAW wrote: »

Nope. You saying it is privileged just because you say it is is just your relative opinion.

Subjective opinion ISAW, subjective opinion.

Zombrex · 26-05-2011 10:02pm

Morbert wrote: »

Again, there is no eternal dimension. There is no "always has been". You are implicitly supposing a time dimension again. It is, instead, atemporal. This means we must define the relationships between God, us, and the universe without reference to a time dimension. That relation is as I have said already: We exist by God's will. The universe exists by God's will. The events of the the universe exist by our will. Notice how I have not referenced any supernatural temporal time line.

Well in fairness "by our will" is exactly the same, it implies one follows the other. It is nearly impossible to discuss this concept without some references to order, and order implies temporality. I don't think the English exists to do otherwise.

Morbert wrote: »

You are being inconsistent here. I have already agreed that omniscience is a property of God. We were discussing whether or not the knowledge itself was God.

Not really, at least that wasn't the particular point i was trying to get across. The point is that the eternal nature of God applies to the knowledge as well. The knowledge cannot be dependent on us.

Morbert wrote: »

"We determine God" does not follow from "God is omniscient, and some of the specifics of some knowledge is determined by us."

It does because God's knowledge cannot be separated from God's eternal nature. God can't not know something that is determined by something else since nothing exists but God and everything that comes from God.

ISAW · 27-05-2011 10:47am

Wicknight wrote: »

No. Not to the question of whether someone can be a subjective absolutist.

Yes it is. subject or absolute in the question of morals which Christians would say come from God. god can be defined as the source of morals ,. if there are no absolute morals and they are all relative then that is an argument against the existance of God.

You missed the point. I don't think my moral opinion is true (or false for that matter), since in subjective morality a moral opinion is not compared to an objective standard.

If it cant be true or false then it is NOT absolute it is relative!

The only truth in it is the question of whether it is or isn't my opinion.

This is adverse to your statement of being "always right" but if you don't have absolute truth and it is "just an opinion" as opposed to others having their opinion then you are a relativist.

It is not absolutely true. To be absolutely true requires something to compare it to, it requires objective standard.

exactly and if you don't do that your are a relativist.

The only truth is that it is absolutely my moral opinion which I apply absolutely.

You are playing with words. You claim it cant be absolutely true but it is an absolute opinion applied absolutely. If it isn't absolutely true it isn't absolute it is relative!
applying your relative opinion in all cases doesn't make it absolute.

As I already said - subjective/objective where the morals come from

relativist/absolute how they are applied.

Playing with words again! Subjective and objective mean agreed to by a standard or just personal opinion. But you are changing the definition with respect to morals to say subjective is "I make up my own morals" and objective means "I agree there is a standard outside of myself for morals"

Relativism is about there being no absolute truth and it depending on the observer

http://www.us.oup.com/us/companion.websites/0195161424/studentresources/ch02/summary/?view=usa
Subjective relativism is the view that truth depends solely on what someone believes
But if that is true each of us is infallible. You already claimed to be infallible. that amounts to bigotry as I stated. But you are calling your subjective relativism "subjective absolutism"

Absolute and relative are not normally understood as to how morals are applied but if you are saying that you mean the mode of application then please adhere to this definition at a later point in other discussions.

It is illogical of you to assume the morals are objective in nature when I told you they aren't and then apply objective standards (is the moral opinion "true") when applying it to whether it is relativistic or absolute. They don't apply because it is not objective in the first place.

If right and wrong are purely a matter of opinion you can't have absolute morals which you claimed exist! i.e. things which are always wrong. But now it seems what you claimed were applications are NOT applications but the truth of whether things are right and wrong. Already you are departing from your definition!

So you don't not accept that subjectivity exists and you do not accept someone can believe in subjective morality.

It isn't a question of what I believe . It is what logical and objective language says. People can believe in whatever they want. when they make claims based on their belief that requires evidence. the evidence is measured to by universally agreed to objective standards.

Great, if you had told me that 5 pages ago I would not have wasted my time with this some what off topic discussion.

Sometimes it is necessary to unravel what you actually mean and that you will adhere to it in future.

Correct. That is what subjectivity means. All I can be is of the opinion that it is the worst movie of all time. That is a subjective opinion, and it is also a completely absolute opinion.

Not without an absolute standard of judging moivies it isnt. But of course by "absolute" you mean "applies only to my opinion and I apply that judgement in all cases of this movie"
Which I and the rest of philosophy would call "relative". But Im happy to tolerate your changing definition as long as you stick to it.

Subjective opinion ISAW, subjective opinion.

So you claim How do you know?

CerebralCortex · 27-05-2011 11:00am

ISAW wrote: »

Knowing the future is not a logical contradiction of free will. . Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn't still freely choose the other option.

You're not going far enough back up the chain to realise the paradox ISAW. I wonder did you ever watch this video and what you though of it?

antiskeptic · 27-05-2011 11:18am

Wicknight wrote: »

It does because God's knowledge cannot be separated from God's eternal nature. God can't not know something that is determined by something else since nothing exists but God and everything that comes from God.

Yet many times over the years I've witnessed the device of AI being introduced in order to counter the "God's ownership rights over us" argument.

The device of AI suggests it possible to have a separation between creature and created. That not everything about the AI is a product of the creator.

Haven't you yourself used that device?

CerebralCortex · 27-05-2011 11:24am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet many times over the years I've witnessed the device of AI being introduced in order to counter the "God's ownership rights over us" argument.

The device of AI suggests it possible to have a separation between creature and created. That not everything about the AI is a product of the creator.

Haven't you yourself used that device?

The creators of AI aren't omniscient. Trust me I know I'm a student of AI they behave in fairly deterministic ways even from the human perspective. Human level general intelligence doesn't exist and even it did nothing about it's behaviour would be contra causal just like humans.

27-05-2011 1:09pm

ISAW wrote:

Knowing the future is not a logical contradiction of free will. . Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn't still freely choose the other option.

It seems as if there's a paradox in there somewhere. I just can't put my finger on it.

You're given a choice between A and B. God knows that you're going to choose A. Supposedly you have free will, so you could choose either A or B. But, you can't really choose B, can you? If God knows which choice you're going to make, then free will seems nothing more than an illusion.

CerebralCortex · 27-05-2011 1:14pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It seems as if there's a paradox in there somewhere. I just can't put my finger on it.

You're given a choice between A and B. God knows that you're going to choose A. Supposedly you have free will, so you could choose either A or B. But, you can't really choose B, can you? If God knows which choice you're going to make, then free will seems nothing more than an illusion.

Well without doing the thought experiment, just looking at the nature of the brain it's evident that free will is an elaborate illusion.

Fanny Cradock · 27-05-2011 1:23pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It seems as if there's a paradox in there somewhere. I just can't put my finger on it.

You're given a choice between A and B. God knows that you're going to choose A. Supposedly you have free will, so you could choose either A or B. But, you can't really choose B, can you? If God knows which choice you're going to make, then free will seems nothing more than an illusion.

God knows you are going to choose A because you made (or will make) the choice to choose A. God's knowledge is contingent on our decision, not the other way around.

27-05-2011 1:27pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

God knows you are going to choose A because you made (or will make) the choice to choose A. God's knowledge is contingent on our decision, not the other way around.

Indeed. That then follows through to the argument which Morbert and Wicknight were having. (Which I still haven't made up my mind on, to be honest.) I was just replying directly to ISAW here.

Morbert · 27-05-2011 1:47pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Well in fairness "by our will" is exactly the same, it implies one follows the other. It is nearly impossible to discuss this concept without some references to order, and order implies temporality. I don't think the English exists to do otherwise.

It is easy to do. In quantum mechanics, a Hilbert-space is generated by the Hamiltonian operator, for example. This does not mean it is created by some physical time-evolution process. Instead it refers to a non-physical, atemporal interrelationship between the operator and its Hilbert-space. The Hilbert-space is determined by the operator.

Not really, at least that wasn't the particular point i was trying to get across. The point is that the eternal nature of God applies to the knowledge as well. The knowledge cannot be dependent on us.

Again, you are implicitly assuming a temporal dimension by saying "eternal". I will continue to correct you until you stop making that mistake.

It does because God's knowledge cannot be separated from God's eternal nature. God can't not know something that is determined by something else since nothing exists but God and everything that comes from God.

I'm assuming you misspoke here, as you are agreeing with me if you believe God can't not know something that is determined by something else. Indeed, God knows everything that is determined by us.

CerebralCortex · 27-05-2011 1:56pm

Morbert wrote: »

Again, you are implicitly assuming a temporal dimension by saying "eternal". I will continue to correct you until you stop making that mistake.

I'm assuming you misspoke here, as you are agreeing with me if you believe God can't not know something that is determined by something else. Indeed, God knows everything that is determined by us.

I'm not assuming a temporal dimension. In fact I fail to see how it has any relevance to omniscience?

Fanny Cradock · 27-05-2011 2:04pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Indeed. That then follows through to the argument which Morbert and Wicknight were having. (Which I still haven't made up my mind on, to be honest.) I was just replying directly to ISAW here.

Rationalists don't argue. They conduct emotionally detached "inter-atheist dialogue".

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments