pts wrote: » I'm delighted we're revisiting this subject as I felt we didn't reach closure last time. This problem becomes interesting if we model our choices as a decision making mechanism which takes inputs and produces a decision (it doesn't matter if the mechanism is our brain, our soul etc.) God designed that mechanism and he knows all the inputs the mechanism will receive. His choice of how the inputs map to a decision effectively sets us on a path we can not deviate from.
PDN wrote: » You are still thinking as if God is stuck in your limited space/time straight line of past-present-future. You have an undetermined choice of points, but in the end you will only choose one of those points. God sees your choice Thus you do have free will.
CerebralCortex wrote: » I'm saying ultimately he decided what we do/did/will or else he loses omnipotence and omniscience. He created the snake He either knows what the snake was going to do or He's not omniscient and if the snake acts out of His control then He's not omnipotent.
Wicknight wrote: » Without an undetermined future we cannot have free will, since we cannot have the opportunity to choose which future will come into existence for ourselves. This seems a pretty standard definition of free will, our choices are open and determine our future.
As you correctly state if God exists then space time is an already baked Einstein loaf, ie all points of space time are set and their is one loaf, not a loaf being formed as time's arrow moves through it.
So at any point in time there is only one point ahead of it in the future, not an undetermined choice of points. We do not determine which point this is through our actions in the present. Thus we don't have free will.
You will notice in Greene's book the loaf does not change as time (the present) moves through it. And in fact you could play the whole thing backwards and it would operate the same way just in reverse.
Morbert wrote: » Where is the inconsistency in God being aware of what we do in the past, present, and futurue, and us determining what we do in the past, present, and future?
PDN wrote: » Great! Now, my point is this. God, or at least God by Christian definitions, is Eternal. As such there is no past, present, or future tense for God. However, unless we ever learn to travel at the speed of light or perfect a time machine, we live in a steady space/time straight line running from the past, through the present, into the future. So, it makes no difference to God whether an event (from our perspective) is past, present or future. To Him it is always present. When I cried as a baby - God sees me. As I type this post - God sees me. And whatever I choose to eat for lunch next Tuesday - God sees me. So we exercise our free will, and God sees us. He doesn't see it before we do it (from His perspective) because 'before' does not exist for Him. He is the God who revealed Himself to Moses as "I AM" (not I was, or I will be). There only appears to be a paradox concerning free will because we find it so hard to imagine Eternity. Therefore we think of God as being trapped into a Newtonian timeline like us, instead of grasping that He experiences time as something more akin to an Einsteinian space/time loaf. (Brian Greene, in "The Fabric of the Cosmos" had a great diagram of this, demonstrating how, according to one's position in space and speed of travel, it is theoretically possible to see into the past or the future, effectively cutting through the loaf at different angles. I tried google image search, but couldn't find it. Of course this is theoretical because we humans can't travel fast enough - but that would hardly be a problem for a God who has, in your words, "all omni qualities".)
ISAW wrote: » The point you made was that biology determines morality; that biological evolution not only relates to but is a causal factor in culture. And you conbtradict this in saying that you never mentioned any relationship between culture and society
ISAW wrote: » so you are not a moral objective/absolutist and are a subjective/relativist.
ISAW wrote: » Hand waving arguments about what you think I said aren't really supporting anything. As far as i remember You denied being a moral relativist in the past and I took ytou at your word on that. But here you claim that you believe in subjective standards.
ISAW wrote: » the problem seems to be that you think one can be subjective and absolute at the same time.
ISAW wrote: » One cant believe in moral absolutes and also believe in subjective morals at the same time. It is a logical contradiction.
ISAW wrote: » we haven't got that far yet (despite yopur suggestion that you move fast). we have not got past you explaining how you can claim to be morally subjective and also claim to believe in moral absolutes?
ISAW wrote: » entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity
ISAW wrote: » You did! You added two turtles remember? Where you used the number "3" but you said this number could be as large as anyone wanted? I only pointed out Occams Razor suggests it should be "1".
ISAW wrote: » the infinite regression of God that created god ...that created the universe are unnecessary additional turtles.
ISAW wrote: » And uncaused cause does not require additional uncaused causes to add to them (which when added become the uncaused cause) Only ONE is required.
ISAW wrote: » Why is it an unreasonable explanation?
ISAW wrote: » They have a lot of relecvance whn you equate biological evolution with social "evolution " It is a mis use of the word!
ISAW wrote: » Not at all! You claim to be morally subjective and also to believe in objective morals.
ISAW wrote: » No you introduced a point about PDN motivation and manner and I have no recollection of any mod posting that it was off topic.
ISAW wrote: » No I am saying that the BEGINNING of that link makes a non absolute definition but lower down it does make an absolute statement.
ISAW wrote: » Absolutism is not a subjective philosophy it is objective. Subjective is not universal. It is relative to the person.
ISAW wrote: » Something can't be universally wrong and that only be your opinion.
ISAW wrote: » You can't believe something is always wrong and also believe other people have different valid opinions.
ISAW wrote: » If you are a moral relative there is no absolute right or wrong it all depends on the persons opinion. There is no person who has truth. But you claim to be an absolutist and say that only you have the true position and anyone disagreeing with you is wrong.
ISAW wrote: » In effect all you are doing is elevating your subjective opinion to that of God. teh contradiction is that you cant claim all opinions are subjective and also claim that there are also claim there are absolute opinions always right no matter who thinks otherwise.
ISAW wrote: » Also by saying your opinions are always right you are claiming that you are the standard by which moral opinion of all the other people in the world should be judged.
ISAW wrote: » that is an entirely subjective position and has no support as an absolute/objective moral standard.
PDN wrote: » (Brian Greene, in "The Fabric of the Cosmos" had a great diagram of this, demonstrating how, according to one's position in space and speed of travel, it is theoretically possible to see into the past or the future, effectively cutting through the loaf at different angles. I tried google image search, but couldn't find it. Of course this is theoretical because we humans can't travel fast enough - but that would hardly be a problem for a God who has, in your words, "all omni qualities".)
CerebralCortex wrote: » @Morbert my position is either God is omniscient or he is not a good. That is he's all knowing and also omnipotent, for us to be able to do things that he couldn't anticipate means he's neither omniscient or omnipotent. Essentially I think it's a fallacy to attribute omniscience and omnipotence to a being and then say we're responsible for anything which Christianity certainly does. It's a paradox to me.
CerebralCortex wrote: » Fair enough.
PDN wrote: » Dear me, we're not making a very good start, are we? Nobody said you had done any such thing. Maybe this discussion would proceed better if you actually read what others post and try not to be overly defensive? You commented on a previous discussion being closed before you could respond, therefore it's pretty unlikely that anyone is accusing you of anything, is it? Unless, of course, you think that I am omniscient and can see into the future. Anyway, rather than conduct a backseat modding post-mortem of why a previous thread was locked, perhaps we could proceed with this thread by giving rational reasoning for our positions and examining each other's points in a calm and reasoned manner ..... Hmm, I suspect you haven't quite grasped the concept of having a reasoned discussion where we examine each other's points. Can we raise the tone of the debate a notch or two perhaps?
CerebralCortex wrote: » I wasn't abiding by the charter and I attacked the person? News to me and I'm very disappointed I did. Sincerely I apologise for that.
Nonsense.
ISAW wrote: » No . since you claim Christianity is illogical and unreasonable could you perhaps supply something to back up this claim?
CerebralCortex wrote: » Are kidding me? Seriously are actually joking? Have you read any of my posts?
CerebralCortex wrote: » But a theist can't be believe either, moral codes are at the whim of the their creator. He can change them as he wishes.
ISAW wrote: » How so? In what way is Christianity illogical?
CerebralCortex wrote: » Yes and for that reason I find ignosticism interesting. However the Christian does claim to be on the side of logic and this is what I'm contesting. They're not.
Wicknight wrote: » And I repeatI have not mentioned evolution applied to society or culture. I in fact made the exact opposite point you think I was making, I said it applies across all cultures, ie isn't culturally determined.
That might be what you are talking about, but since I don't believe in objective morals it certainly isn't what I'm talking about.
It seems to be a feature of our discussions, I've lost track of the amount of times I've had to correct a statement of yours that presented me saying something that is the exact opposite of what I actually stated.
God's existence is an objective fact though, isn't it? It is either correct or it is not correct?
Since my morality isn't, it is subjective I can only give the reasons for my different moral opinions.
I'm very familiar with what Occam's razor states.
No one is adding extra turtles. There is no reason to believe this creator isn't the infinite first cause. But equally there is no reason to believe it isn't.
The simplest explanation is the one that makes no comment on the finite or infinite aspect of this entity at all since it has no bearing on the universe.
We aren't talking about the universe, we are talking about the creator of the universe. There is no more reason to suppose such a creator must have been the infinite first cause than to suppose it wasn't. It is an unknown as neither proposition is required to explain the universe (hence Occam's razor)
You don't seem to be following. I know Christians believe that. The question is why is it more likely an explanation. Again read the first page of the thread.
Well that is very foolish of you since it was perfectly clear that the point I was making is that it is not cultural dependent
and this theories of cultural or social evolution, such as memetics, have little relevance.
The contradictions only exist because you are not following properly what is being said. Its like me saying "this has nothing to do with God" to have you say something like "Ah you mention God, so clearly you think it has something to do with God". :rolleyes:
Not unless I get permission from the mods to drag this thread off topic. Like I said take it up with the mods.
So you are disagreeing with the definition in the link you gave me to demonstrate that I was wrong. Brilliant ISAW.
Since objective doesn't mean absolute I can most certainly claim I believe in absolute morals without claiming I believe in objective morals.
Explain to me the problem with me saying "In my opinion rape is universally wrong no matter what context it is carried out in". That statement accepts subjectivity ("in my opinion") and absolutism ("universally wrong") Can you point out the contradiction there
If I was morally relative I would have to view other moral opinions as equally valid as my own.
As you point out, I don't, I view my opinion as more valid than anyone else.
PDN wrote: » Well so long as people abide by the Charter and try to discuss the issues rather than attacking personalities then there's no need for that to happen.
PDN wrote: » Then it should be possible to demonstrate the logic instead of just making an assertion. You were created to worship God and enjoy Him forever. So you are already doing something other than what you were created to do. God created you with free will, and, although He is watching you as you use that free will, He is not interfering with your freedom.
Malty_T wrote: » Well you're discussing the supposed creator of all things. If Christians believe He follows a logical framework then your arguments could be valid, but from a more pragmatic approach the reality that we know of thus far is hardly logical and if there is a creator it's quite possible logic isn't a reliable tool into reasoning for or against his existence. (Am I taking an ignostic position here?)
CerebralCortex wrote: » Good point. How does it impact my argument? I'm curious.
CerebralCortex wrote: » Yes I remember the dicusssion being hastily closed before I could respond too.
Omniscience and all omni qualities of a deity imply predestination logically or else you get a paradox.
How can I do something other than what I was created to do if God knew everything and created everything!
Malty_T wrote: » But relying on the rules of logic itself has constraints. "This sentence is a lie." What's to say it can't be both true and false at the same time?
CerebralCortex wrote: » Yes I remember the dicusssion being hastily closed before I could respond too. Omniscience and all omni qualities of a deity imply predestination logically or else you get a paradox. How can I do something other than what I was created to do if God knew everything and created everything! That's not even getting to these problems. FWIW I have only logic to go by.
PDN wrote: » Not at all. We've had discussions on this forum about this in the past and no-one has been able to demonstrate any more convincing reason why they should be incompatible other than "Well, because I can't understand it and therefore I say they are incompatible." If we remember that omniscience is different from predestination, then there is no incompatibility. If I view you making a choice then my observation of you does not impinge upon your freedom to choose. That remains true no matter where in time I observe your choice from, be it past present or future.
ISAW wrote: » Your belief that Christianity is irrational is not supported.
ISAW wrote: » How is it a gaping wound? Please read the references i supplied.
ISAW wrote: » You realise you are claiming tantamount neuroscience proves free will is dependent on the brain and proves souls can't exist? Given that science falsifies rather than validates claims it seems a bit extraordinary to me.
ISAW wrote: » I stated some tyhings like values or ethics are outside of or maybe above science. One can not scientifically pre determine what is mnorally right and which people are superiour to others . That is what the Nazis tried to do and it is why genetics was embargoed - not because of scientific proof but because scientists themselves beliieved their science was not sufficient to make moral decisions about their science.
ISAW wrote: » Im saying several things. One is that ther are several philosophies of science. another is science is not sufficient for society . It needs guidance and judgement from outside science. Otherwise scientism is the result.
ISAW wrote: » so what. scientists arand philosophers of science are confident memetics is pseudo science.
ISAW wrote: » Apparently Dawkings last his faith in it too.
ISAW wrote: » http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Mind
CerebralCortex wrote: » Come on omniscience and free will as incompatible properties is a gaping wound in the theists arguments and molinism does not suffice.
CerebralCortex wrote: » Well I have to admit I find the concept absolutely abhorrent, secondly I'm bored and I enjoy argument and sharpening my arguments. Also I think it's important to spread rationality wherever possible(impossible as that seems in here). You still haven't answered my question, do you prefer the one view or the other?
Come on omniscience and free will as incompatible properties is a gaping wound in the theists arguments
Also if free will existed seperate from the physical interaction of the brain, why does neuroscience show evidence to the contrary etc.
How does this preclude scientific study?
Can you clarify this? Is this just you saying that there are scientists that think that scientific inquiry has it's limitations? I'd say must scientists would agree but that is limitation of ability not the method.
I'm confident that cognitive science is not a pseudo-science.
I'm not a proponent of memetics.
I am a reductionist however, the brain is the mind the mind is the brain. All the evidence points in this direction and so does the philosophical consensus. Do you reject the consensus?
These approaches have been particularly influential in the sciences, especially in the fields of sociobiology, computer science, evolutionary psychology and the various neurosciences.[12][13][14][15] Other philosophers, however, adopt a non-physicalist position which challenges the notion that the mind is a purely physical construct. Reductive physicalists assert that all mental states and properties will eventually be explained by scientific accounts of physiological processes and states.[16][17][18] Non-reductive physicalists argue that although the brain is all there is to the mind, the predicates and vocabulary used in mental descriptions and explanations are indispensable, and cannot be reduced to the language and lower-level explanations of physical science.[19][20] Continued neuroscientific progress has helped to clarify some of these issues. However, they are far from having been resolved, and modern philosophers of mind continue to ask how the subjective qualities and the intentionality (aboutness) of mental states and properties can be explained in naturalistic terms.[21][22]
ISAW wrote: » I suggest you look two lines above that comment where you stated:
ISAW wrote: » But we are talking about you supporting your belief in objective morals.
ISAW wrote: » fair enough if it doesn't really matter what you believe but how about supporting that belief?
ISAW wrote: » You don't no more than someone requites evidence to believe in God.
ISAW wrote: » Absolutism is objectivism just as subjectivism is relativism.
ISAW wrote: » Remember in this thread i referred to "turtles all the Way down" and "Occam's Razor"? Go look them up please.
ISAW wrote: » Occam's razor would state adding unnecessary turtles is not necessary!
ISAW wrote: » Mainstream science accepts that the Universe is finite and had a beginning in time.
ISAW wrote: » The argument that a belief in God as the first cause is reasonable, is valid.
ISAW wrote: » I can only go by what you actually type. If you state I view this a contradictory to
ISAW wrote: » Accusing me of not keeping up with you isn't changing contradictions.
ISAW wrote: » Whether or not I think it was unfair is a different issue. You made a claim about what PDN believed and how he acted. How about supporting that claim?
ISAW wrote: » "Sometimes" and "usually" isn't an absolute definition is it?
ISAW wrote: » They can be sometimes equally valid. RElativity is subjective . Absolutism is objective.
ISAW wrote: » Then you care a moral relative and can't claim you also believe in objective/absolute morals.
ISAW wrote: » That is a straw man! You cant believe in "subjective morality" and also believe in "moral absolutes" since absolutes are objective.
ISAW wrote: » The fact that you claim to be morally and intellectually superior to people who don't agree with you is also beside the point that you can't believe in "subjective morality" and also believe in "moral absolutes" since absolutes are objective.
