Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

lmaopml

CerebralCortex wrote: »

That's an appeal to consequences. Reality exists regardless of your desires.

Could you expand on this a little more?

I don't see how one could say justice exists if free will doesn't exist in some way shape or form. I think if free will does not exist than the only obvious natural consequence of that is nihilism - and where do we draw from or give credence to anything from there? On what is this 'ought' to do or 'ought' not to do based that we call 'justice' 'ethics' etc.

I might add for clarity, that I 'personally' believe that a leap of faith is required to have faith and be a Christian. That's me just exercising that free will of mine..against the natural odds.

ISAW

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok let's just think about this for a second.
My observation was that you always seem RELUCTANT to answer the question.

If you make that observation on what other threads in this forum is it based? Name ten of them. But do it in another thread started for that purpose.

At no point did I claim that you did answer the question. Nor am I now accepting that you answered the question. I don't know, hence why I asked you the question in the first place.

What I personally believe isn't directly related to the subject of this thread. It is a side issue. One I don't wish to go into in this thread for reasons I gave. Drop it in this thread please.

Here is what I meant :
ISAW appears (note : I did not say "is" or any term that would convey I was certain) to always be reluctant to answer the question.

If you do refuse claim I have not answered and things just seem that way to you then good luck to you. I won't confirm or deny unphrased suspicions about what you might believe and what "appears" to be true but which you don't actually claim.

Here's what I think you meant.[/B]
Malty made the wild accusation that I never answered the question about my personal beliefs. I require Malty to prove this assertion. Of course he can't prove it, it's a ludicrous assertion to make!

Only, the thing is I never made such an assertion in the first place. So I replied :

either saying it appears i don't say what I believe is an assertion which is off topic and not for this thread or it isn't any assertion at all and so requires no reply. take your pick.

Here's what I meant :
I meant ISAW is reluctant to answer the question on his personal beliefs. I did not mean that he never answers the question on his personal beliefs. I do not know that. ISAW appears to think I meant the latter though. I didn't. I was merely stating my observation that he always seems reluctant to answer the question on his personal beliefs.

Maybe I'm reluctant to go into off topic discussions.

Malty accepted his assertion about ISAW never answering the question was wrong. So why did he ask question to ISAW in the first place? Weird...

either you accept I answered it in the past or you don't - not wierd.
You fail to say I didn't answer it before when I challenged you on that and you stated you are not claiming that
So , if I have answered it why ask me it.
If I haven't why do you seem reluctant to say I haven't?

The post you quoted claimed you made the wrong assertion. Yet you interpreted this as me acknowledging I falsely accused you of never answering the question. So to summarise :

I stated you always seem/appear reluctant to answer the question.
You accused me of accusing you of never answering the question.
I stated I never accused you of never answering the question and I restate my original observation.
You take that as me admitting I made the false accusation of you never answering the question.

Either you are suggesting I never answered it or not.
If not you are still asserting I don't want to answer it in this thread.
I have already told to why that is so just drop it.

Now, I know that the mods may be thinking this is all going a little off track, but there's something very subtle here. ISAW is missing the point of something so simple and it's a common characteristic in his posting : he doesn't read what others write; he just's out to prove them wrong, or catch them out on some mislabelling of some concept or another.

that is just another personal attack! i read what you wrote and replied to it. I don't think my personal beliefs are the subject of this discussion. If you don't like that then tough. take it elsewhere. But don't claim I don't read what other write. It isn't true.

How can you expect to talk about something complex, when you can't even listen to something so simple? Read my post again, read your reply, read it again, read your reply, hopefully someday you will realise that your initial assertion of me saying you never answered the beliefs questions never existed. Until you realise that, there's no point in anyone really posting to you. You frequently keep missing their respective points and proving them wrong in something they never actually claim.

You are dragging the thread off into what I do or what I say. the thread isn't about that!
Please stop!

Anyways, I'm done with this derailment, apologies for it but I had to point this out.

Glad you acknowledged your off topic tirade. thank you for that. Now please avoid posting about my style and my beliefs.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

What we can't do is believe moral principle are natural laws. We don't.

We do. I already made the distinction between natural law as in "overrching set of morals" and "laws of nature " as in "principles of physics"

What is the point of an appeal to natural law if one does not believe it to be true?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

We do. I already made the distinction between natural law as in "overrching set of morals" and "laws of nature " as in "principles of physics"

What is the point of an appeal to natural law if one does not believe it to be true?

By "we" I meant moral nihilists. I.e. We (moral nihilists) can talk about moral systems in the same manner as we talk about mathematical systems: systems with rules and values, but with no claim to any fundamental truth or natural law.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

By "we" I meant moral nihilists. I.e. We (moral nihilists) can talk about moral systems in the same manner as we talk about mathematical systems: systems with rules and values that, but with no claim to any fundamental truth or natural law.

But isn't some or other connection to fundamental truth needed in order to prevent the rules and values being considered as completely arbitrary?

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

But isn't some or other connection to fundamental truth needed in order to prevent the rules and values being considered as completely arbitrary?

Yes. We consider moral rules to be arbitrary insofar as they are "contingent solely upon one's discretion".

bnt

I've played the "moral nihilist" role in the past, but in the service of a larger point. The way I put it is that while I may have no Morals, I do have Ethics; this serves to underline the fact that what we call "morals" are man-made, just as e.g. medical or legal ethics. No authority imposed the Hippocratic oath on modern doctors, but they swear it anyway, because it serves to unite doctors behind a code of ethics to which they all agree. There was a time when it was thought necessary to get people to agree to some basic ethical principles, such as "don't murder", but it seems that the only way of doing that was to impose them with the threat of supernatural retribution, and call them "commandments".

Ethics may have the appearance of absolute value if they've been around long enough, but only if we ascribe such absolute value to them - and then we call them Morals, I guess! Appealing to an absolute moral authority is one way of doing that, but another is by learning from the history of morals and ethics, and the people behind them. If you climb a mountain, you act as if the mountain is an absolute, permanent fixture on the planet; but if you view the history of the Earth on a geologic timescale, it's not at all permanent.

I see no contradiction in treating a moral precept as absolute for the sake of society, justifying it on its history and its utility - while understanding that it's not, really. I don't always have to be absolutely right about everything - which makes sense, since I don't believe in absolutes anyway.

ISAW

bnt wrote: »

I don't believe in absolutes anyway.

Including that one?

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

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.

Yes but would you say that one causes/determines the other?

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.

It is difficult not to since eternal is the word used in the Bible to define God in the first place.

Genesis 21
33 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the LORD, the Eternal God.

But again I'm not in anyway objecting to removing time. It is in fact the issue, without an undetermined future we cannot have choice.

Morbert wrote: »

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.

Yes that was supposed to be just "cannot"

Morbert wrote: »

Indeed, God knows everything that is determined by us.

Again that is a logical paradox, because "us" comes from God in the first place, thus is a product of God's will which includes his knowledge. Whether you talk about temporal or not God creates man. You can view that in a temporal or atemporal manner, it doesn't change the problem that we are a determination of God, and thus a determination of God's knowledge.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but would you say that one causes/determines the other?

I would say determines, but not causes.

It is difficult not to since eternal is the word used in the Bible to define God in the first place.

Genesis 21
33 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the LORD, the Eternal God.

But again I'm not in anyway objecting to removing time. It is in fact the issue, without an undetermined future we cannot have choice.

I reject the idea that an undetermined future implies no free will. This would only be the case if the future was determined by the laws of physics, which would make our will entirely constrained, even defined, by those laws. If the future has been determined by our will, however, then our will would be free.

As for the Bible quote: "Eternity" is fine if we are talking about a viewpoint in the universe.

Again that is a logical paradox, because "us" comes from God in the first place, thus is a product of God's will which includes his knowledge. Whether you talk about temporal or not God creates man. You can view that in a temporal or atemporal manner, it doesn't change the problem that we are a determination of God, and thus a determination of God's knowledge.

Yes, we are a product of God's will. Our existence is determined by God. We did not freely choose to exist, so our will is constrained in this regard. But our actions along the entire reel are not determined by God. They are determined by ourselves. This simply means not all of God's knowledge is determined by God. Where is the contradiction?

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, we are a product of God's will. Our existence is determined by God. We did not freely choose to exist, so our will is constrained in this regard. But our actions along the entire reel are not determined by God. They are determined by ourselves. This simply means not all of God's knowledge is determined by God. Where is the contradiction?

The contradiction is that you cannot separate God's will from God's knowledge. God's knowledge is a factor in him determining us. And God's knowledge is absolute and infinite. Thus it is paradoxical to say that this determination is itself reliant on our determination of what we do in this universe.

Imagine God's knowledge is that x=4 and y=6.

Now imagine that because of this z = 8 (this is us, determined by god)

Now imagine that because z = 8 then i = 9 and y = 14. (this is our choices determined by us)

See, that cannot happen, because y already equals 6. I know you don't like using the term "already" but this is purely in the determination factor, not temporal fashion, already as in I've already said y = 6.

Y can only be 6. It doesn't matter what Z is because Y is already defined as 6.

In this example God's knowledge is x,y, which produces z which is us and then i and y are what are determined by us.

What we can or can't choose is already determined by God and his atemporal knowledge. It just is, y is just 6. It is not determined by anything but the existence of God's knowledge which itself is not determined by anything it just is.

i'm sure this is not a particularly good way of describing it, but can you at least see the point i'm making

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

The contradiction is that you cannot separate God's will from God's knowledge. God's knowledge is a factor in him determining us. And God's knowledge is absolute and infinite. Thus it is paradoxical to say that this determination is itself reliant on our determination of what we do in this universe.

Imagine God's knowledge is that x=4 and y=6.

Now imagine that because of this z = 8 (this is us, determined by god)

Now imagine that because z = 8 then i = 9 and y = 14. (this is our choices determined by us)

See, that cannot happen, because y already equals 6. I know you don't like using the term "already" but this is purely in the determination factor, not temporal fashion, already as in I've already said y = 6.

Y can only be 6. It doesn't matter what Z is because Y is already defined as 6.

In this example God's knowledge is x,y, which produces z which is us and then i and y are what are determined by us.

What we can or can't choose is already determined by God and his atemporal knowledge. It just is, y is just 6. It is not determined by anything but the existence of God's knowledge which itself is not determined by anything it just is.

i'm sure this is not a particularly good way of describing it, but can you at least see the point i'm making

There are some issue I have with the way you are framing the math, but I will run with it. Although it will get convoluted.

From what I understand, you are proposing the following
(1) x=4 ∧ y=6 → z (x is 4 and y is 6, which determines the existence of z)
(2) z=8 → i=9 ∧ y=14 (i=9 and y=14 is determined by z=8)
(3) ∴ z=8 → y=14 ∧ y=6 (Therefore z=8 implies a contradiction)

Here is something similar, but with a modified (2)
(1) x=4 ∧ y=6 → z=8 (x=4 and y=6, which determines the existence of z)
(2) z=8 → i=9 (i=9 is determined by z=8)
(3) ∴ z=8 → ¬(y=14 ∧ y=6) (Therefore z=8 doesn't imply a contradiction)

There is no contradiction now. I am not sure how clear this is, as it is butchered propositional calculus (There are some things above I normally wouldn't get away with, but they are unimportant for the purposes of this thread). It shows that our will can't determine anything that was responsible for our existence (x and y). But i is not responsible for our existence. Our will can be free to determine i, which can represent, say, the moral choices we have made on the reel.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

It shows that our will can't determine anything that was responsible for our existence (x and y). But i is not responsible for our existence. Our will can be free to determine i, which can represent, say, the moral choices we have made on the reel.

Ok, but then how can this determine God's knowledge, as defined by the x and y at the very start as essence of what was determining the z.

Again you seem to be trying to separate God and God's knowledge. That seems impossible given how God is defined in the first place. The determination of ourselves will be a product of God including his knowledge. As you say we cannot determine the thing that determines ourselves. Well God's intellect determines us, it determines us one way rather than another. And God's knowledge would be a fundamental aspect of that. It is impossible for God to not know how we will be determine by him and how this determination will lead to the actions we make.

Yet the actions we make are supposed to determine this. Thus it is a paradox.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, but then how can this determine God's knowledge, as defined by the x and y at the very start as essence of what was determining the z.

Again you seem to be trying to separate God and God's knowledge. That seems impossible given how God is defined in the first place. The determination of ourselves will be a product of God including his knowledge. As you say we cannot determine the thing that determines ourselves. Well God's intellect determines us, it determines us one way rather than another. And God's knowledge would be a fundamental aspect of that. It is impossible for God to not know how we will be determine by him and how this determination will lead to the actions we make.

Yet the actions we make are supposed to determine this. Thus it is a paradox.

God's knowledge in my scenario is that x=4, y=6, z=8, and i=9. x=4 and y=6, and hence the existence of z, are determined by God. z=8, and hence i=9, is determined by us. If we had instead decided, by our free will, that z=2 (and hence i=24), then God's knowledge would be x=4, y=6, z=2, and i=24. No contradiction and no paradox for any value of z or i.

Also, you keep using the phrase "determines us". This is a premise I do not accept, and have been clear that I am supposing God determined the existence of us, but not "us". By using the phrase, you are implicitly assuming the very thing you are trying to prove. I'm sure there is a name for that kind of logical fallacy. Probably circular reasoning, or begging the question. Instead, God determines our existence, and we determine God's knowledge.

You might object by saying I have misrepresented your analogy. But that doesn't detract from the fact that my analogy represents a consistent set of relationships between God, us, God's knowledge, and the universe.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

God's knowledge in my scenario is that x=4, y=6, z=8, and i=9. x=4 and y=6, and hence the existence of z, are determined by God. z=8, and hence i=9, is determined by us. If we had instead decided, by our free will, that z=2 (and hence i=24), then God's knowledge would be x=4, y=6, z=2, and i=24. No contradiction and no paradox for any value of z or i.

The problem with that though is that i is fixed at 9 through the process of God knowing it is. So how do we determine it is 24, or anything other than 9 for that matter.

Morbert wrote: »

Also, you keep using the phrase "determines us". This is a premise I do not accept, and have been clear that I am supposing God determined the existence of us, but not "us". By using the phrase, you are implicitly assuming the very thing you are trying to prove.

I'm not sure the distinction between God determined the existence of us and God determined "us". Do you accept that the Christian theology is that God made us, a God that had all the knowledge of omniscience as part of that determination of what we are?

Morbert wrote: »

Instead, God determines our existence, and we determine God's knowledge.

Again, the issue with that is God's knowledge is fully omniscient as part of the act of God determining our existence.

Morbert wrote: »

You might object by saying I have misrepresented your analogy. But that doesn't detract from the fact that my analogy represents a consistent set of relationships between God, us, God's knowledge, and the universe.

Well if I'm honest I don't quite follow the symbols used in your example, but if I'm reading correctly it is simply that you have moved the knowledge determined by us out of the initial statement. This is the problem as far as I'm concerned. God's omniscients means you can't do that.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

The contradiction is that you cannot separate God's will from God's knowledge. God's knowledge is a factor in him determining us. And God's knowledge is absolute and infinite. Thus it is paradoxical to say that this determination is itself reliant on our determination of what we do in this universe.

This is just a restatement of "people cant have free will if God knows everything they will do".

Just because I know you will say "yes that is true" does not mean you haven't the freedom to change your mind does it?

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills". - Schopenhauer

And as regards "consensus" here http://gfp.typepad.com/the_garden_of_forking_pat/2006/10/counting_heads.html
is a link suggesting compatibilists are twice the number of incompatiblilists.

CerebralCortex

ISAW wrote: »

This is just a restatement of "people cant have free will if God knows everything they will do".

Just because I know you will say "yes that is true" does not mean you haven't the freedom to change your mind does it?

Bearing in mind we're talking about a god with omnipotence and omniscience. But in this instance, it means you wouldn't have the freedom no because for me to know, you're answer is set or else I didn't know.

ISAW wrote: »

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills". - Schopenhauer

And as regards "consensus" here http://gfp.typepad.com/the_garden_of_forking_pat/2006/10/counting_heads.html
is a link suggesting compatibilists are twice the number of incompatiblilists.

Compatibilists don't believe in contra causal free will. If you're a compatibilist it's close to impossible to reconcile with any form of theism.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem with that though is that i is fixed at 9 through the process of God knowing it is. So how do we determine it is 24, or anything other than 9 for that matter.

But it isn't fixed at nine through the process of God knowing it. That is another implicit assumption you are making, that I reject. It is fixed at nine through the process of us determining it. If we had determined that it is 24, then it is fixed at 24, and God knows it is 24.

I'm not sure the distinction between God determined the existence of us and God determined "us". Do you accept that the Christian theology is that God made us, a God that had all the knowledge of omniscience as part of that determination of what we are?

"Determined us" can imply that God not only created us, but determined out actions. This is the thing you are trying to prove.

Again, the issue with that is God's knowledge is fully omniscient as part of the act of God determining our existence.

Well if I'm honest I don't quite follow the symbols used in your example, but if I'm reading correctly it is simply that you have moved the knowledge determined by us out of the initial statement. This is the problem as far as I'm concerned. God's omniscients means you can't do that.

"God's omniscience means you can't do that" is a claim you are repeatedly making, but are only backing up with implicit assumptions. I said God knows all the values. This means God knows everything, and is therefore omniscient. Yet despite this, there are no contradictions in my example. To make the issue clearer, consider the following relationships:

God determines our existence.
God determines his knowledge of our existence.
God determines the existence of the universe.
God determines his knowledge of the existence of the universe.
We determine the existence of events in the universe.
We determine God's knowledge of the existence of events in the universe.

In order for free-will to exist, the only condition that needs to be met is that this set of statements do not imply a contradiction. If you cannot show that these statements imply a contradiction, then you cannot claim free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive.

CerebralCortex

Morbert wrote: »

God determines our existence.
God determines his knowledge of our existence.
God determines the existence of the universe.
God determines his knowledge of the existence of the universe.
We determine the existence of events in the universe.
We determine God's knowledge of the existence of events in the universe.

In order for free-will to exist, the only condition that needs to be met is that this set of statements do not imply a contradiction. If you cannot show that these statements imply a contradiction, then you cannot claim free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive.

You've just defined a god I wouldn't consider a God by it's definition.

Morbert

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You've just defined a god I wouldn't consider a God by it's definition.

If I remember, your argument was that God cannot be omnipotent if free-will exists. We could ague over which definition of omnipotence is more appropriate, but if we take your definition, it means Christians do not claim God is omnipotent, as they believe he deliberately limits his interventions to allow free will.

CerebralCortex

Morbert wrote: »

If I remember, your argument was that God cannot be omnipotent if free-will exists. We could ague over which definition of omnipotence is more appropriate, but if we take your definition, it means Christians do not claim God is omnipotent, as they believe he deliberately limits his interventions to allow free will.

Which is nonsense. It leads to other logically incompatible properties and shows how "God" is what the religious need him to be. Free will does not exist if God ultimately knows everything and created everything. The idea of God not knowing something but being omniscient together is absurd. Even for Gods own free will he has a problem if he has omniscience, see argument 9.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You've just defined a god I wouldn't consider a God by it's definition.

Which is pretty irrelevant since in this forum we are discussing God as defined by Christianity.

But if you want to discuss some other concept of God other than that embraced by Christianity then boards.ie also has a Spirituality Forum.

Which is nonsense. It leads to other logically incompatible properties and shows how "God" is what the religious need him to be.

And yet, despite making repeated assertions, you haven't come anywhere close to demonstrating how the properties we are discussing are logically incompatible.

lmaopml

This is a fascinating thread..

Morberts arguement here is consistent with an omnipotent God imo. The way I think of it is that God predestines us to freewill - He knows every single 'If, then..' This knowledge for him happens (very difficult to explain without adding a timeframe ) but it happens instantaneously all at the one time. This knowledge of what we would choose doesn't negate that we make the 'choice'.

I think.....lol..

It's also consistent with various biblical verses, where we see 'if this had of happened, then that would have...'.....

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

Which is pretty irrelevant since in this forum we are discussing God as defined by Christianity.

But if you want to discuss some other concept of God other than that embraced by Christianity then boards.ie also has a Spirituality Forum.


And yet, despite making repeated assertions, you haven't come anywhere close to demonstrating how the properties we are discussing are logically incompatible.

Oh fair enough, so you don't believe in an omni-god. Cool.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Oh fair enough, so you don't believe in an omni-god. Cool.

I believe in a God who is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent - but of course I'm using those terms as they have been understood and used for centuries in philosophy and theology. If you choose to define them differently then we'll probably all be better off if we avoid playing silly semantic games.

Some of your posts so far (eg insisting that an omnipotent God is impotent to create creatures with free will) indicate that you use words differently from the rest of us.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

I believe in a God who is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent - but of course I'm using those terms as they have been understood and used for centuries in philosophy and theology. If you choose to define them differently then we'll probably all be better off if we avoid playing silly semantic games.

Some of your posts so far (eg insisting that an omnipotent God is impotent to create creatures with free will) indicate that you use words differently from the rest of us.

I'm not playing silly little semantic games thank you very much, it's quite clear from philosophy/logic what those terms mean and what they imply. What's in bold shows an absurdity, a paradox and that's what I'm insisting especially in consideration of his other(logically incompatible) qualities. If he is the ulitmate cause of everything how can we do something contra that cause without him losing omnipotence? You end up going senselessly round in circles, and thats before you even consider his other supposed qualities. Paradoxes abound. And then on top of that you have to reconcile the physical nature of minds? Which I'd love to address also as the evidence flows away from the Christian hypothesis for existence.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm not playing silly little semantic games thank you very much, it's quite clear from philosophy/logic what those terms mean and what they imply.

So, maybe you can give a straight answer to a straight question.

Do you believe that philosophy and logic make it clear that the word 'omnipotent' implies impotence to make creatures who possess free will?

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What's in bold shows an absurdity, a paradox and that's what I'm insisting especially in consideration of his other(logically incompatible) qualities. If he is the ulitmate cause of everything how can we do something contra that cause without him losing omnipotence you end up going senselessly round in circles, and thats before you consider his other qualities.

And once again you make an assertion about an 'absurdity' - yet when challenged you repeatedly fail to demonstrate why it is absurd. If it is an absurdity then it should be easy enough for you to demonstrate it. Yet you appear to be unwilling or unable to do so.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

So, maybe you can give a straight answer to a straight question.

Do you believe that philosophy and logic make it clear that the word 'omnipotent' implies impotence to make creatures who possess free will?

I believe that omnipotence means unlimited power. Free will implies the ability to act at ones on discretion in other words(in the theistic) willing things/states/thoughts actions into from nothing... ...oh wait I feel a paradox coming on.

CerebralCortex

I don't propose an agree to disagree on this tiring subject. But it would it be more acceptable to talk about human nature? Things like the mind and conciousness and how they don't fit with theism? For example you said before that you(PDN) didn't think love could be explained by scientific enquiry. Why?