It goes back to what I had just said about using an axiom unilaterally. A qualifier like "if" or "assuming" would have solved it.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
" And I think the Invisible Pink Unicorn (May Her Hooves Never Be Shod) would want me to subject believers to electroshock therapy, so they can realise Her Greatness better."
The Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHHH) tramples people who believe in her though. The only way to worship her is to NOT believe in her.
"I don't think that God would want anyone to be an Atheist."
Well, assuming God exists, then he created us right? Must be a reason, according to ecclesiastes, there's a purpose for everything.
I think he created us to keep theists honest.
(damn, I blew my own irony meter!)
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does the lack of homogeneity have to do with it? If even a single Christian believes in a god that is simultaneously three and one, then his beliefs contain a contradiction.
Free will is contradicted by omniscience thusly : Since god knows what you are going to choose in any given situation, the universe is perfectly predictable, at least by god. How are your choices free if they are known millennia in advance?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Glenn, in the first place you are a heretic who uses PBUHHH instead of MHHNBS as praise, so why should I listen to your interpretation? But in the second place, I was using 'to realise Her Greatness' as a synonym for 'become an atheist'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Drag, I misunderstood your initial point about the actual factuality of Moses' experiences, but I answered your actual query nonetheless. I said
"if fire starts falling and seas start parting, then I might start to believe you about god (unless there was another more sensible reason for this happening), but until then, the only evidence you present is personal experiences with god, which have no physical manifestation."
So I guess the "arbitrary" line is something that is experienced my not just you alone, and something that is physically manifested. That's all I can think of at the moment, but I'm sure I could add some criteria if I put some thought into it. Suffice it to say, it would take some quite substancial and concrete experience to make me discount all other factors, and believe in god.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Drag, i misunderstood your initial point about the actual factuality of Moses' experiences, but i answered your actual query nonetheless. i said
"if fire starts falling and seas start parting, then i might start to believe you about god (unless there was another more sensible reason for this happening), but until then, the only evidence you present is personal experiences with god, which have no physical manifestation."
so i guess the "arbitrary" line is something that is experienced my not just you alone, and something that is physically manifested. thats all i can think of at the moment, but im sure i could add some criteria if i put some thought into it. suffice it to say, it would take some quite substancial and concrete experience to make me discount all other factors, and believe in god
EDIT: this is the last message without caps and 's. I understand that reading an entire text writen in scrambled letters would be difficult, and unecessary, but I think that one or two spelling mistakes (which I normally don't have, or catch and edit out) aren't so bad, and un-capped I's aren't really necessary for comprehension are they? This being said, I will oblige, and try my very best to cap-it-up.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, a heretic would say that, wouldn't he? A pathetic last-ditch attempt to save yourself from your just punishment. Get out - the Comfy Chair!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Free will is contradicted by omniscience thusly : Since god knows what you are going to choose in any given situation, the universe is perfectly predictable, at least by god. How are your choices free if they are known millennia in advance?
That idea really made me think about the idea of omniscience and free will. So I'm not trying to argue, I'm just relating some of the thoughts that came to my mind and some of the questions they raised. I'm not trying to refute KofM's point, just trying to understand its implications. Anyway, here's what I thought, and I'm sure that my logic is missing some crucial factors, but that's why I'm posting it for all to see.
I think it entirely relies on how omniscient you believe God is. For example, He could be infinitely wise, all knowing, or just capable of knowing all things. All three examples can be defined as omniscience, but have very different meanings. Let's just consider the last two examples.
1. capable of knowing all things. If a person has a specific ability, it's hardly expected that he would be doing that specific thing all the time. Let's say I happen to be a good runner, that doesn't meant that I'm always running. Likewise, God may have the ability to fortell the future or know what choices are going to make, but that doesn't mean He exercises that power all the time. I can't see a contradiction here, but maybe I'm missing something.
2. God does know all things. That does seem to support the idea that free will can't exist if God already knows the decisions that you're going to make, but what exactly is free will? Is a choice anything more than chemical reactions and electrical impulses between neurons based on connections that are subconsciously formed? If we were to somehow completely replicate a person's brain and place them in identical settings, would they produce the same results? If yes, then that means that unless there is a certain degree of randomness programmed into our brains, we are predictable. If we are predictable, then do we really have free will?
Alternatively, some theories suggest that time is like any other dimension, except that we can only perceive it in one direction. The idea is that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously, it's just that we are limited in our perception of it and create for ourselves the notion that time passes. If that is the case, then that kind of makes the idea of free will a moot point.
Anyway, like I said earlier, I'm not trying to make any specific claim here, I'm just trying to sort through some ideas.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: What does the lack of homogeneity have to do with it? If even a single Christian believes in a god that is simultaneously three and one, then his beliefs contain a contradiction.
Free will is contradicted by omniscience thusly : Since god knows what you are going to choose in any given situation, the universe is perfectly predictable, at least by god. How are your choices free if they are known millennia in advance?
God knowing what we are going to decide has nothing to do with interfering with our free will. A man may watch his son become an alcoholic. He may forsee drunk driving offences, money lacking, and possibly an early grave, but does that mean the father is making those choices for his son? Likewise though God can see everything in advance the doing is still up to the human race.
So Omniscience does not interefere with man's freewill.
Again just because 1 christian believes that there are 3 in 1 does not mean thats what christianity really says. Unless the christian happens to be Christ. Just as different scientists interpret data different sometimes correctly sometimes incorrectly, still there remains the true interpretation.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Soooooo, if you are not using Occam's Razor, and you are asserting right off the bat that because of your spiritual experience, God exists, i think that the belief you are affirming in this case is irrational.
Totally agree.
Only that in the discussion about Moses, I argue that if I ever see the sea splitting I would take it as a rational experience, not as a spiritual one. Of course, I could have the illusion of the sea splitting. For example, he mirage of the desert may be shared by a lot of people simultaneously and this has been proved by science as simple deflection of light because of the variation of the index of refraction of the air with temperature. However, if the sea suddenly froze in that shape that leaves a tunnel so that people could go through, I would have a strong chance to believe that it truly happened, as I can not think of an explanation of why it would be an illusion. If I am alone, maybe I was drugged, I agree. But if many many people see the same sea splitting, then I tend to believe it did happen. Thus, I have a choice for explaining this: either I admit there is a very complex natural law and look for its details, or I choose to forget the details of this law and claim the law as "God".
I conclude that the splitting of the see would truly be a miracle (of God), especially if someone (a prophet) claims beforehand that this would happen.
However, I believe we do not know if it happened or not, so we have to believe it did not happen.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the context of this thread, the "burden of proof" argument (Antony Flew's version) goes something like this:
Theist: There is a God.
Atheist: I don't believe that.
Theist: Then prove there is no God.
Atheist: I don't have to, you said there's a God, I just said I don't believe that's true. If you want me to believe, you have to provide evidence (or proof), so the burden of proof is on you.
Totally agree with the line of reasoning. Only that I do not agree with your conclusion out of this. I state that the atheist (and for that matter the agnostic) has the last point of view and the theist has the burden of proof.
Well, you continue stating that there are no axioms generally accepted, as an explanation that actually the theist does not have to prove anything.
Though, you give the example of the bible and of the personal (spiritual) experience that are not accepted as axioms by the scientist. Totally agree. However, you give no example of an axiom not believed by the religious. Until you give one, I state that all scientific axioms that are generally accepted by the scientists should be accepted by all humans. The religious simply choose to ignore them.
Conclusion: What are the axioms of the rational/scientists, which of them are not accepted by the religious (and why, if you may expand on that).
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Free will is contradicted by omniscience thusly : Since god knows what you are going to choose in any given situation, the universe is perfectly predictable, at least by god. How are your choices free if they are known millennia in advance?
Free will is by no means contradicted by omniscience. If I know an individual well-enough to say with near or even utter certainty what that person will do when faced with such a situation, is that person's free-will eroded in any way by my having had that foreknowledge?
Why aren't one's choices free just because someone else might know what choices that person will make in advance? You haven't contradicted anything at all.
------
It's threads like this that make me less uncomfortable with the stance taken by moderators regarding deity as profanity. With sneering patronizers like King of Men and Angiomorphism around, surely the religious aren't too powerful around here Anyway, back to patting yourselves on the backs, you two, and congratulating each other on how much smarter you are than most everybody.
(Studied the Book of Genesis extensively *snicker*)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Free will is contradicted by omniscience thusly : Since god knows what you are going to choose in any given situation, the universe is perfectly predictable, at least by god. How are your choices free if they are known millennia in advance?
Continuing Camus' questioning of definitions of "free will" and "omniscient", I have a feel that:
1. "free will" definition is OK. I want to turn left at the crossroad, I do it. I want to turn right, I do it. There are electric impulses and chemical reactions that order my muscles to move in that way as for me to make a choice or another. I agree that in a deterministic (scientific) universe it is already determined what impulses you have, thus what decision you make, thus there is no free will. However, quantum mechanics has introduced a non deterministic universe and has introduced quantum fluctuations. How exactly these lead to free will is not known (yet). However it only matters here that I am able to choose A or B and God (if She exists) can not do anything about it.
2. "omniscient". a) God knows everything. b) God may know anything (like an oracle) but only when She wishes. She does not exercise this ability all the time. -Suggested by Camus.
c) (I propose:) God knows everything indeed. But what means everything here? I propose: everything that may be known. (one of the 4 questions of Kant was: What can I know?). Future may not be known, as future does not exist. Past events are clear and the data base / God will know everything that happened. It is not clear if present events are known by God or by "my" data base (model), as it takes a small amount of time, but not zero, for information to propagate. I am here, I may know what happens on the other side of the Earth very quickly, but it takes some time. Actually, even the presence of ALL past events in the data base or in God's mind is questionable, as only the events in the sphere of causality are known to some observer.
Of course, this is science and the hypothesis is that God is not a regular observer. Rather the most special one, the one that knows everything and breaks these barriers of causality for past and present events. Even in this case, She is limited by the fact that the future is created step by step. If future does not exist, how can she know it?
Conclusion. God is omniscient=God knows all that is possible to be known. (Same: God is omnipotent = God may do anything that is possibility for a human and a god to do. Neither of them can see the future, as the future does not exist. Neither of them is able to create the future, because the future comes along even if God does not exist).
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Free will is by no means contradicted by omniscience. If I know an individual well-enough to say with near or even utter certainty what that person will do when faced with such a situation, is that person's free-will eroded in any way by my having had that foreknowledge?
You say: I have a friend I know so well, I can guess everything she does. For ex, I know that when she goes to a bar, she chooses a drink A.
I say. One day, out of the blue, she will say: "I want to make a surprise to my friend and I will ask for a B".
Now, God is even stronger than me. Are you telling us that God may not be surprised?
Ability to surprise is caused by free will.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: My posts aren't made in any particular hurry though, and I have to disagree with you in regards to the whole capitalization and spelling thing. I'm sure you saw that email floating around a while ago that was writen entirely with the letters in words mixed around (except for the first and last one) "taht was erinetly raedalbe". Spelling isn't as important as you make it out to be when it comes to conveying your message, and shouldn't that be what posting is about? I feel that if someone wrote a really interesting idea, then it wouldn't matter how said idea was gramatically structured.
If they're made in no particular hurry, you won't mind using a spell-checker for those of us who are peculiar enough to prefer easy legibility, neh?
As far as that infamous email, Snopes debunked it ages ago. The only people I know who still cite it are lazy people who can't be bothered to spell properly. And Pop, but I'm pretty sure he does that just because he knows it bugs me.
Oh, and there is NO "r" in Dagonee's nick.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is not that God would or wouldn't be surprised. My point is that the question of whether or not foreknowledge negates free will hasn't been answered or explained. All that has been said is that it just does.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Angiomorphism, you've got a bad habit: telling other people what is and isn't important, is and isn't worthwhile, is and isn't meangingful-even if it's about their OWN opinions!
If it makes you less easily understood, of course spelling has importance to conveying message. I also think it's laughable that instead of you simply taking a teensy bit of effort and using a spell-checker and decent grammar, you think your ideas are so momentous that everyone else should have to parse your own unique English.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: As far as that infamous email, Snopes debunked it ages ago. The only people I know who still cite it are lazy people who can't be bothered to spell properly. And Pop, but I'm pretty sure he does that just because he knows it bugs me.
I'm not sure what you mean by "debunked". As far as I can tell, Snopes lists the claim as undetermined. I'm not sure I'd equate "undetermined" with "debunked". However, I agree with the point of the rest of your post. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I guess the "arbitrary" line is something that is experienced my not just you alone, and something that is physically manifested.
Why does it have to be experienced by someone else for belief in God after this experience to be rational to the person who had the experience?
quote:What are the axioms of the rational/scientists, which of them are not accepted by the religious (and why, if you may expand on that).
I'd be interested in hearing some axioms accepted by scientists/rationalists that are not accepted by the religious, too. And don't cite evolution - many of the religious accept evolution.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think that God would want anyone to be an Atheist. I think that God would want a person to search harder for their own answer, and even moreso, I think that God would want a believer to feel obligated to try and help a nonbeliever understand.
And if I search "harder" for my own answer and conclude that as far as I can tell god does not exist? Do I still need to be "helped" to belief by a theist such as yourself?
You're saying that if a person hasn't found god, he or she simply hasn't looked hard enough. Do you see how your attitude can alienate nonbelievers?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I don't follow the arguement that "if God is omniscient man has no free will". I don't see how foreknowledge equates with foreordination.
Can anyone actually explain this view rather than simply state it as fact?
I'm not sure I really follow the line of reasoning that ominiscience means no free will either, but here's my idea based on the assumption that God can and does know the future with absolute certainty.
Let's say that God tells me that I'm going to go left. I was going to go left anyway, but would I be able to go right if the idea pleases me? It would be impossible for me to go right because it's already been determined that I'm going to go left. So it's my choice to go left, but that's because I can't make another choice. It's like saying any choice I make is alright as long as it's what God says. It seems like a choice because it's what you wanted to do anyway, but that just makes choice an illusion.
I really shouldn't be trying to explain an idea that I didn't propose or even believe in, but that's my take on what it may possibly mean, but like I said, I don't believe it to be true.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Occam's Razor can only be invoked in the discussion at hand on a personal level. In other words, I have no problem with an atheist stating that given the evidence on hand, it's more likely that there is no God, but that same arguement can't be applied to the believer because he or she feels that they are privvy to additional evidence, namely, personal revelation.
Since rationality and reasoning are things that take place in our minds anyway, it seems irrational to automatically discount the personal experience of others simply because you didn't experience it.
I know I sound like a fence sitter here, but if there ever was a pointless and flawed arguement it's the one that goes "I didn't see what happened in your head, so because of Occam's Razor it must not be what you think it was." That seems to be what is being said here.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, right at the moment I haven't time to go more deeply into the free will issue, but I want to take issue with something BlackBlade said :
quote:Again just because 1 christian believes that there are 3 in 1 does not mean thats what christianity really says.
Ridiculous. Christianity, by definition, is what Christians believe. Besides, I don't have to show that some ideal fantasy version of Christianity has contradictions; I just need to show that some particular version of some religion, not necessarily Christianity, actually held by real people does. And really, I don't care whether you call them Christians or not; certainly they are religious, and they call themselves Christian, that's good enough for me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You're saying that if a person hasn't found god, he or she simply hasn't looked hard enough. Do you see how your attitude can alienate nonbelievers?
Well, I do, of course, but there is also the opposite view that if a person hasn't come to realize that God is a myth he just hasn't followed all of his religious beliefs to their logical (or rational ) conclusion.
Assuming there is an objective reality, doesn't there either have to be or have to not be a God or Gods? If this is true, then wouldn't one of the above attitudes have to be correct?
Are you taking exception because the blatantness of the claim isn't very conducive to civil discussion between the two groups, or because the claim itself is flawed?
See, I approach the situation assuming that a believer believes that if a person hasn't found God, he hasn't looked hard enough. Sure, it's an alienating assertion, but do you think it is one that a believer can not hold and still be a firm believer. I guess I find it hard to be offended by the assertion because I accept at the outset that somebody's gotta be wrong and it's natural that each side thinks it's the other.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assuming there is an objective reality, doesn't there either have to be or have to not be a God or Gods?
Yes, but for any given believer to assume that his particular god must be the one that exists in the former case is just plain arrogant. Maybe he just hasn't looked hard enough to realise that the real creator is actually a tribal fetish in the upper Congo.
quote:If this is true, then wouldn't one of the above attitudes have to be correct?
No, because true, as someone (Dag?) pointed out, is a weaker concept than provable. Just because it's true doesn't mean it can be shown from universally acceptable first principles.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"My God is the right God" is inherently more arrogant than "There is no God despite personal experience you claim to have to the contrary"?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Either a god exists, or it doesn't. And if it exists, it has to be this particular one." Non sequitur, that-does-not-follow. More arrogant than "Either a god exists or it doesn't, and I believe the latter." Assertion of belief, sometimes supported.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You're saying that if a person hasn't found god, he or she simply hasn't looked hard enough. Do you see how your attitude can alienate nonbelievers?
Well, I do, of course, but there is also the opposite view that if a person hasn't come to realize that God is a myth he just hasn't followed all of his religious beliefs to their logical (or rational ) conclusion.
Sure, but I don't hold that view. I might joke about it with my atheist buddies, and I might have a relatively dim view of organized religion, but if someone says to me that they've had a personal spiritual experience and believe in god for that reason I accept what they say at face value. I'm not exactly in a position to tell him he's wrong; it's his head, not mine.
quote:Assuming there is an objective reality, doesn't there either have to be or have to not be a God or Gods? If this is true, then wouldn't one of the above attitudes have to be correct?
Are you taking exception because the blatantness of the claim isn't very conducive to civil discussion between the two groups, or because the claim itself is flawed?
The claim is flawed. I believe that if you could put the same person in an identical situation more than once they would not always respond in the same way. I also believe that two equally intelligent, logical, and rational people can examine the same set of evidence and come to entirely different conclusions.
The theist is allowed to believe that I'm wrong, but the suggestion that I'm wrong merely for lack of trying to find an answer is both flawed and rude, particularly given that the theist knows nothing about how hard (or in what manner) I looked for answers unless I tell him.
quote:See, I approach the situation assuming that a believer believes that if a person hasn't found God, he hasn't looked hard enough. Sure, it's an alienating assertion, but do you think it is one that a believer can not hold and still be a firm believer. I guess I find it hard to be offended by the assertion because I accept at the outset that somebody's gotta be wrong and it's natural that each side thinks it's the other.
I approach the situation expecting that no one is going to try to convert me and that they trust me to be intelligent enough to explore questions for myself (including asking for additional information if I want it). Given that I've already said I am no longer looking for answers (and explained myself at some length in this very thread), there must be another reason I'm participating in this discussion, right? I'm certainly not trying to convert any theists to atheism. I am not an evangelical atheist. I simply wish they'd accept that my beliefs are perfectly justified.
Added: And the fact that in my experience a lot of them won't accept that -- or they might claim to accept it but then unintentionally make statements like odouls', which I've commented on here before -- is one of the things that pushed me away from both organized religion and theism.
Added 2: Finally, OSC once wrote "If I honestly believe someone is going to hell, isn't it my responsibility to at least warn them?" I disagree. Show me some respect and trust that I can make my own intelligent decisions.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I don't follow the arguement that "if God is omniscient man has no free will". I don't see how foreknowledge equates with foreordination.
Can anyone actually explain this view rather than simply state it as fact?
I'm not sure I really follow the line of reasoning that ominiscience means no free will either, but here's my idea based on the assumption that God can and does know the future with absolute certainty.
Let's say that God tells me that I'm going to go left. I was going to go left anyway, but would I be able to go right if the idea pleases me? It would be impossible for me to go right because it's already been determined that I'm going to go left. So it's my choice to go left, but that's because I can't make another choice. It's like saying any choice I make is alright as long as it's what God says. It seems like a choice because it's what you wanted to do anyway, but that just makes choice an illusion.
I really shouldn't be trying to explain an idea that I didn't propose or even believe in, but that's my take on what it may possibly mean, but like I said, I don't believe it to be true.
"It would be impossible for me to go right because it's already been determined that I'm going to go left." Right there you are attempting to explain omniscience precluding free will again by simply stating it as fact. I don't think that works.
Were I a believer, I'd argue that free will exists in time, but omniscience exists only outside of time. That is, from a Godly perspective outside of our time, it is possible to know all that is, was, and will be (for our timestream), however, from within the stream we are all free to still swim right or left. If God enters the time stream to tell you that you are going to go left, what he has destroyed is his own omniscience, not your free will. This is because in order for him to regain omniscience, he will have to exit the time stream to see what change his meddling has wrought. That would also neatly explain why God probably doesn't waste his time telling people that they are going to do this or that in the future. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
If God is omniscient, all our actions and consequences are known to Him.
If God is omnipotent, He has the ability to control all our actions and resulting consequences.
If God is omnibenevolent, He chooses to do Right -- depending on your definition of Right -- and produces situations most likely to bring the most Right into the universe.
-------
If God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, He is limited by His attention but can otherwise be depended upon to produce the most "Right" consequences when appropriate. History cannot be trusted, as God may well have changed our past to produce better history.
If God is both omniscient and omnibenevolent, God may well wish the universe were better, but can at best nudge it in that direction.
If God is both omniscient and omnipotent, nothing happens or ever has happened without His tacit approval. Bad things can still happen, however, and this universe may well be on the way downhill.
If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, this is the best of all possible universes. Nothing happens without God's approval or knowledge, and nothing happens if it does not increase the amount of Right in the universe; there is, in this situation, truly providence in the fall of a sparrow.
Note that Free Will -- the ability to choose to do something other than "Right" -- may well be the highest form of Right; evil, in other words, may well be accepted as a necessary cost of Rightness. This is still irreconcilable with true omnipotence, but semi-potence -- as in Mormon theology -- is compatible with this approach.
(The reason true omniscience and omnipotence is irreconcilable with omnibenevolence and Free Will is that, by being both omniscient and omnipotent, God also has the ability to create the preconditions for every decision required of every human being, AND the awareness of the consequences of those decisions. That He has adjusted matters to produce those consequences is only reconcilable with benevolence if indeed we assume that this is the best of all worlds.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The claim is flawed. I believe that if you could put the same person in an identical situation more than once they would not always respond in the same way. I also believe that two equally intelligent, logical, and rational people can examine the same set of evidence and come to entirely different conclusions.
The theist is allowed to believe that I'm wrong, but the suggestion that I'm wrong merely for lack of trying to find an answer is both flawed and rude, particularly given that the theist knows nothing about how hard (or in what manner) I looked for answers unless I tell him.
Thanks for that. I understand and agree.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is still irreconcilable with true omnipotence, but semi-potence -- as in Mormon theology -- is compatible with this approach.
Not really - God's ability to do something does not preclude him from doing it. Therefore, God could retain the ability to stop people from doing bad things but refrain from doing so in order to increase the amount of "right" in the Universe.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Therefore, God could retain the ability to stop people from doing bad things but refrain from doing so in order to increase the amount of "right" in the Universe.
That would only be true if you accepted, as I said earlier, one of two precepts:
1) That the performance of those specific bad things somehow, in the long run, increases the amount of "Right" in the universe (i.e. allowing the Jews to suffer for millennia makes everyone, in some small way, a better person)
2) That there is no Right more important than the ability to freely choose to do wrong. In the latter case, a truly omnipotent God has chosen to not only refrain from preventing that choice, but also from preventing the preconditions that led to that choice and ameliorating and/or eliminating the consequences of that choice. This implies that every time something incredibly bad happens, God has chosen to permit it in full because He thinks meddling is inherently Wrong. Unfortunately, we also hear repeatedly from believers and from scriptures that God occasionally meddles, which means He believes that meddling is not universally wrong -- that there are, in other words, circumstances in which it is better to meddle than to preserve free will. Saul had no free will; certainly, those kids eaten by bears didn't have any. When someone prays to be delivered from an attacker and IS, are they -- when they later thank God -- implying that God didn't think their attacker's free will was important enough to preserve, while the free will of a young mother who booked an airplane that later crashed into the ocean was so valuable?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:certainly, those kids eaten by bears didn't have any.
I'm right with you except for that phrase, where you lost me. How did being eaten by bears mean they had no free will?
The "attacker" example was much better, since the free will that was preserved was the attackers. In the bear example it seems that free will was preserved as well. Either the free will of the children to make a mistake that led to their deaths, or the free will of those who should have been protecting them from harm, but weren't.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Oh yeah, Karl, I meant to add that I actually think atheism sort of sells itself. It ties into my thoughts on transcendental experiences from earlier in the thread.
(Added: "Sells itself" in the sense that I don't think it's at all bleak and empty; rather, I think it implies some pretty neat things about human beings.)
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That there is no Right more important than the ability to freely choose to do wrong. In the latter case, a truly omnipotent God has chosen to not only refrain from preventing that choice, but also from preventing the preconditions that led to that choice and ameliorating and/or eliminating the consequences of that choice.
There's also the possibility that God meddles only when it will increase the amount of Right, and He knows when that is, not us.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: This implies that every time something incredibly bad happens, God has chosen to permit it in full because He thinks meddling is inherently Wrong. Unfortunately, we also hear repeatedly from believers and from scriptures that God occasionally meddles, which means He believes that meddling is not universally wrong -- that there are, in other words, circumstances in which it is better to meddle than to preserve free will. Saul had no free will; certainly, those kids eaten by bears didn't have any. When someone prays to be delivered from an attacker and IS, are they -- when they later thank God -- implying that God didn't think their attacker's free will was important enough to preserve, while the free will of a young mother who booked an airplane that later crashed into the ocean was so valuable?
hmmm... what if God only meddles only when it's necessary to accomplish his will (which is to preserve Rightness in the universe) while not interfering with other matters so as to preserve the notion of free will? Perhaps the person delivered from the attacker was crucial to God's overall will, while the victims of an airplane crash were merely victims of chance. His omnibenevolence would still be preserved if the victims were resurrected to an after life. [edit] basically what you already said: "1) That the performance of those specific bad things somehow, in the long run, increases the amount of "Right" in the universe "
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Totally agree with the line of reasoning. Only that I do not agree with your conclusion out of this. I state that the atheist (and for that matter the agnostic) has the last point of view and the theist has the burden of proof.
If you reread the dialog, the atheist is stating that since the theist made the assertion and wants the atheist to believe, then the burden of proof is on the theist. So we agree.
quote:However, you give no example of an axiom not believed by the religious. Until you give one, I state that all scientific axioms that are generally accepted by the scientists should be accepted by all humans.
quote:I'd be interested in hearing some axioms accepted by scientists/rationalists that are not accepted by the religious, too. And don't cite evolution - many of the religious accept evolution.
It really doesn't matter whether there exist axioms accepted by some people and not others. The point is merely that if you are arguing a point, the two sides must agree on axioms first, or there's no point in going forward. More importantly, one side cannot demand the other accept an axiom.
As I said earlier, you can sort of corner an opponent into accepting an axiom by stating it as a tautology, as in: (There is a god or gods) or (there is no god). Assuming then you can break the argument into cases and move forward, even if your opponent won't accept your favored case as an axiom.
BTW, a scientist wouldn't accept evolution as an axiom anyway. But if he insisted on acceptance of evolution axiomatically, it would be an example of a bad argument.
(Note: there's a difference between stating something as an axiom, and stating the conclusion you intend to reach at the beginning of your argument.)
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: what if God only meddles only when it's necessary to accomplish his will (which is to preserve Rightness in the universe) while not interfering with other matters so as to preserve the notion of free will?
Then one might ask why He has not arranged the universe -- knowing as He does all the consequences in advance -- to produce a situation that maximizes Right without requiring further meddling.
But, then, this will ultimately boil down to "what if God is doing what He's doing for reasons that not only seem unlikely but insanely illogical to us humans, because we can't see the entirety of His ineffable plan?"
And I submit that no sane person would ever willingly worship such a mad, random, unknowable God. The faith that God is working in the best interest of the universe when He arranges for you to watch as your three-year-old child is raped by an intruder is, I submit, a cold comfort; so, for that matter, is the knowledge that you were living here in the United States instead of losing your lives in a terrible tsunami a few months back.
If God is indeed so unpredictable and undependable, what's the point?
quote: And I submit that no sane person would ever willingly worship such a mad, random, unknowable God. The faith that God is working in the best interest of the universe when He arranges for you to watch as your three-year-old child is raped by an intruder is, I submit, a cold comfort; so, for that matter, is the knowledge that you were living here in the United States instead of losing your lives in a terrible tsunami a few months back.
If God is indeed so unpredictable and undependable, what's the point?
Can we assume that it is possible for God to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent while preserving free will? Let's say that there's some balance point, some threshhold, where God uses his powers and abilities but only to a limit so as to preserve free will.
Now let's say that a significant portion of God's creation questioned God's use of His power and in effect rebelled against God saying that no one should listen to Him. God knows that not listening to Him will cause pain and suffering to humanity, so He wants people to recognize His good intentions and His ability to know what is best.
So how does one go about proving that? He can't force people to listen to Him because that would contradict free will. He can't just destroy all the rebels, because that would just support the idea that maybe they were right. So what if he decides to let them govern themselves to prove once and for all whether people are better off without God?
God's allowing the resulting suffering to occur does not contradict his benevolence because He, by means of his omnipotence, will undo the problems caused by man's independence from God. (such as resurrection)
After God restores the earth and all His creation to what he originally intended, then people can decide for themselves with a complete understanding whether they want to listen to God or not. Those that choose not to listen to God will not be allowed to inflict harm or disturb the peace of those that do listen to God. As a result, some degree of meddling will be necessary but only because free will allows people to make bad decisions. God's meddling will just prevent those bad decisions from having disastrous consequences.
These statements are pure speculation, and I'm not trying to convince you of any type of doctrine, but I think this might illustrate how it's possible that the idea of an all-powerful God can exist in the world in which we see around us.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can we assume that it is possible for God to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent while preserving free will?
This has been discussed ad nauseum. I believe that the answer is, "No." There is a logical contradiction at the heart of that statement that can only be resolved by invoking the "God is capable of anything He wants to do, regardless of it's logic" clause.
quote:As a result, some degree of meddling will be necessary but only because free will allows people to make bad decisions. God's meddling will just prevent those bad decisions from having disastrous consequences.
I guess you weren't living in New York City a few years ago, eh? I also guess that He doesn't meddle when natural forces (which He established and can control supernaturally) have disastrous consequiences, correct?
What you appear to have proposed is a God that doesn't really do anything anymore ("He doesn't really do anything; that's the beauty of Him!") The world just runs as it does, and people just do what they do. Reparations are made after we're dead, and can (how convenient!) no longer report back our findings to the living (as if such a condition could ever, really, exist).
So you either have a capricious God (see Tom Davidsin's earlier remarks) or you have an absentee God. Or you're still digging around in the burnt entrails, looking for next week's answers.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Anyway, back to patting yourselves on the backs, you two, and congratulating each other on how much smarter you are than most everybody.![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
) conclusion. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
