quote:Not if the meaning is intrinsic to effort and evitability.
The notion that a truly omnipotent god is limited by things like certain qualities being intrinsic to certain other qualities strikes me as rather paradoxical. Granted, I am FINE with a religion that says "God is omnipotent within certain contraints." Lots of my issues with Christianity would be eliminated if they'd just be content for God to be "very very very powerful" without being genuinely omnipotent.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LDS believe in a constrained God- He must act within the rules of the universe. Omnipotent is defined to have all power that can be had, not all powerful. Or so is my understanding of LDS doctrine. Posting it occurs to me I don't actually have a citation on that.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: And regardless, by making the argument that nothing unpredictable exists at all, you're undermining your original point, which was that the observation of an outcome eliminated the possibility of alternate outcomes. Not that alternate outcomes were impossible to begin with.
No, this was not my original point. My original point actually had nothing to do with free will. Yay for thread migration. However, I don't believe that observation eliminates options, I believe that observation means there were no options to begin with. Schroedinger was wrong (IMO). The cat is alive or the cat is dead, our knowledge has NO effect. Free will is a statement of ignorance. Since we can't know ALL the conditions which go into a decision, we can't predict the outcome. So we observe a person making a choice. IF we knew ALL the conditions, we would see that there was no choice. God would be an observer who knows all the conditions, so, I believe, the existence of God would imply no free will. If there is no observer, that doesn't imply there is free will, that's a logical fallacy.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
By "original point" I meant "original point since the beginning of the free will sub-discussion." Your first statement I can find to that effect is "Free will implies the choice to do either A or B. If it is known what I will choose, then there is no choice." And it is this statement that I disagree with.
Say you have a small 4 dimensional universe spring into being. For whatever reason, the universe pops into existence with a ball on a hill, and with a bizarre weather phenomenon that causes a slight breeze to change according to a truly random chance. Every 20 seconds, the wind abruptly becomes either left-facing or right-facing, no matter which way it was originally blowing. It also comes with some rudimentary Newtonian physics which includes gravity.
The universe also begins with two observers, a 3 dimensional one (who sees events in the universe progress chronologically), and a 4 dimensional one (who sees the entire history of the universe at once). Both observers for some reason are also created with full understanding of their universe's laws of physics.
As soon as the universe is created, it follows its own rules and the observers see the results. The three dimensional one sees the ball begin rolling down the hill as soon as the universe is created. He knows that the ball has to roll down the hill because of gravity. He knows about the weird weather phenomenon that shifts the breeze every 20 seconds in a random direction, so he knows that in twenty seconds the ball's trajectory HAS to shift slightly either to the left or the right.
The four dimensional observer sees the entire journey of the ball at once - she sees the ball begin rolling downward because the rules of the universe said it had to. She also sees the ball turn left twenty seconds after the universe's creation. This is not because the laws of the universe said the ball had to turn left, but because the laws of the universe said the ball had to turn either left or right, and it just so happens that it turned left.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true, certainly, but also meaningless; ANY of the attributes we've been assigning to our hypothetical gods are only valid if you're creating a specific type of hypothetical God. Believe me, the Mormon version of God doesn't make all that much more sense just because He isn't as Godly as the Greek Orthodox one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:God would be an observer who knows all the conditions, so, I believe, the existence of God would imply no free will. If there is no observer, that doesn't imply there is free will, that's a logical fallacy.
Actually, I think this might be true but not quite for the same reasons you think it's true.
A 3 dimensional God who is able to perfectly predict the future might invalidate free will (since being able to perfectly predict it implies that it's predictable, i.e. you can't make choices that surprise him). A four dimensional God who doesn't predict but merely knows the future (because to him the past, future and present all occur at the same time) doesn't say anything about predictability.
However, because that 4 dimensional God also CREATED the universe (in the same singular eternal moment in which he did everything), and automatically knew how everything was going to play out because he sees the future, the fact remains that that God would have created a universe knowing that Adam was going to eat the apple and that Hitler was going to kill 6 million jews, and that some random child in Africa was going to end up getting shot no matter what choices they made, and this God chose to create the universe he created anyway.
I can see the viewpoint that that particular execution of Creation/Free Will was fairly meaningless.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's true, certainly, but also meaningless; ANY of the attributes we've been assigning to our hypothetical gods are only valid if you're creating a specific type of hypothetical God. Believe me, the Mormon version of God doesn't make all that much more sense just because He isn't as Godly as the Greek Orthodox one.
Well obviously I disagree, but without any arguments from you I'm not sure on what level our disagreement is happening...
posted
Tom- I can see your point, but I personally don't believe worshiping God is the logical thing or should be the logical thing. Religion isn't about evidence and reasoning for me, so the lack doesn't matter. But, I figured it was worht putting out there that all Christian's don't view omnipotent the same way (of course, then we can get into the are LDS Christians debate). Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: By "original point" I meant "original point since the beginning of the free will sub-discussion." Your first statement I can find to that effect is "Free will implies the choice to do either A or B. If it is known what I will choose, then there is no choice." And it is this statement that I disagree with.
Say you have a small 4 dimensional universe spring into being. For whatever reason, the universe pops into existence with a ball on a hill, and with a bizarre weather phenomenon that causes a slight breeze to change according to a truly random chance. Every 20 seconds, the wind abruptly becomes either left-facing or right-facing, no matter which way it was originally blowing. It also comes with some rudimentary Newtonian physics which includes gravity.
The universe also begins with two observers, a 3 dimensional one (who sees events in the universe progress chronologically), and a 4 dimensional one (who sees the entire history of the universe at once). Both observers for some reason are also created with full understanding of their universe's laws of physics.
As soon as the universe is created, it follows its own rules and the observers see the results. The three dimensional one sees the ball begin rolling down the hill as soon as the universe is created. He knows that the ball has to roll down the hill because of gravity. He knows about the weird weather phenomenon that shifts the breeze every 20 seconds in a random direction, so he knows that in twenty seconds the ball's trajectory HAS to shift slightly either to the left or the right.
The four dimensional observer sees the entire journey of the ball at once - she sees the ball begin rolling downward because the rules of the universe said it had to. She also sees the ball turn left twenty seconds after the universe's creation. This is not because the laws of the universe said the ball had to turn left, but because the laws of the universe said the ball had to turn either left or right, and it just so happens that it turned left.
Fair enough, I was really just joking with the thread migration bit.
In the scenario you set up, I agree, the 4D observer has no effect. However, your scenario doesn't involve choice or free will. An event defined as random is, of course, random. But choice is not defined that way. Free will may be defined as free, but there's no proof that it exists. If it can be known (completely, no possibility of failure) what the "choice" will be, then it was not a choice.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Free will may be defined as free, but there's no proof that it exists. If it can be known (completely, no possibility of failure) what the "choice" will be, then it was not a choice.
I happen to think that the idea of Free Will is nonsensical, so in a sense I agree with you. However, if somehow Free Will DID exist, with all the attriutes and significance that people ascribe to it, I think it would follow similar causality rules that randomness does. If Free Will exists then the universe contains a mechanism by which outcomes can be unknown until they occur.
If that's the case, then the existence of a 4-dimensional observer does not change that fact. Free Will might be logically impossible, but if that's the case, it's impossibility has nothing to do with the existence or lack thereof of omniscient 4D observers.
[ February 16, 2010, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Free will doesn't exist in a vaccum. Each individual free will is altered/constrained by the free will of everyone else. The random child in Africa is shot because the shooter used free will (and a gun) to shoot him. The shooter's free will is impacted by the conditions determined by the various decisions made by lot of other people present and past using their free will.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Free will doesn't exist in a vaccum. Each individual free will is altered/constrained by the free will of everyone else. The random child in Africa is shot because the shooter used free will (and a gun) to shoot him. The shooter's free will is impacted by the conditions determined by the various decisions made by lot of other people present and past using their free will.
This is obviously true in the world as it exists now. However, a truly omnipotent God could have set up the world in such a way there is a limit to how our actions can affect each other.
(Again, that doesn't apply to any religion that puts some actual constraints on God's power)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: However, a truly omnipotent God could have set up the world in such a way there is a limit to how our actions can affect each other.
Assuming that He believes that to be a beneficial thing.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: However, a truly omnipotent God could have set up the world in such a way there is a limit to how our actions can affect each other. ower)
But there is such a limit. No matter what I do, I can't consign you to eternal suffering.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer as to why that would be a bad thing.
I have no qualms about suffering existing in the world to some degree. What I have extreme qualms about is the massive and unfair distribution of suffering throughout the world, much of which has nothing to do with free will in the first place. (Disease, quakes, etc). A God who could have set up the rules in the first place so that we couldn't slaughter and torture each other and decimate entire civilizations such that the children in those civilizations have no ability to make good decisions at all... and then chooses not to create such a world, is not a God who I'd consider good in the slightest.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally believe in an eternity that isn't solely defined by our existence on Earth. It seems to me that if only this life mattered, then definitely a lot of the natural disasters that plague humankind seem unfair/mean when looking at an omnipotent God.
However, I believe that this is merely one act in a multiple-act play (and not just three acts as some believe). We might be in act 2 or act 7 right now and varying stages of free will are involved in each and every act.
I also believe that God is a 4th dimension (or greater) being who is considering all acts, therefore earthquakes and diseases are just one part of the puzzle, as opposed to calamities that unfairly snuff out life that had to be snuffed.
I do believe that our actions on Earth are important, definitely, but this isn't the ONLY stage that matters. I choose to worship God because some time in act 27 (1 Corinthians 2:9) the wisdom and knowledge I gained here (and during other acts) will be very relevant.
I hope this makes sense. I don't post a lot, as you can see.
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My issue with that is, regardless of how small a percentage of existence our mortal life makes up, why the disparity in levels of suffering, period? If we're going to go on to have a happy, eternal existence, why do some of us need to suffer through years of agony first? Why do some of people get to spend their lives sitting like a bump on a log without ever even realizing we SHOULD be getting up and doing stuff?
When you're talking about suffering on the order that suffering takes place on planet earth, it's not enough to just say "trust us, every piece of suffering here somehow ends up being necessary to our well-being."
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems to me that if only this life mattered, then definitely a lot of the natural disasters that plague humankind seem unfair/mean when looking at an omnipotent God.
I would really like to know why the suffering of, say, completely innocent children is part of some plan involving multiple universes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any entity responsible for the suffering that God would presumably be responsible for is on a daily basis (I'm just talking Earthquakes, disease, etc, not even getting into free will) is not in a position to expect people to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't let my child get run over by a car to teach him a lesson, or teach some other person a lesson, or learn the meaning of loss or any such nonsense.
Why am I more moral, loving, forgiving, and kind than God?
posted
I don't agree with several of the premises y'all are starting with. So it's not surprising I disagree with where you end up.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no interest in a debate. Past evidence tells me that MC -- and you, to a lesser degree -- tend more towards debating theists than conversing. *shrug* I pass.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. To be honest I'm surprised this thread stayed (relatively) civil for as long as it did.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to be disappointed in religious "conversations" because they require me to allow the other participants to hand-wave any illogical, inconsistent, or unsupported premises they like.
That's all well and good, if all we're interested in is both feeling happy about our beliefs, but it doesn't really lead to greater understanding, or allow us to get anywhere.
In my belief, we're all unicorn-robots and the sky is made of invisible clam sauce. But this is a conversation, so no pointing out any failings in that position.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I wouldn't let my child get run over by a car to teach him a lesson, or teach some other person a lesson, or learn the meaning of loss or any such nonsense.
Why am I more moral, loving, forgiving, and kind than God?
You aren't. I would let my daughter miss a meal to teach her a lesson. If our lives in this world are only a small fraction of our whole existence, getting run over by a car might be the equivalent.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
No, see, it does. God could very easily set it up so that we are free to choose things within the parameters He establishes. But since He knows the consequences of our choices and has complete control over those parameters, free will is meaningless; assuming He has ever intervened to establish those parameters, nothing happens without his intention.
A completely non-interventionary God preserves the value of free will, of course, but that rules out the possibility of miracles. Or answered prayers.
quote:If our lives in this world are only a small fraction of our whole existence, getting run over by a car might be the equivalent.
"Honey, let me hit you with this hammer. I swear, in the life that might be waiting for you on the other side, of which this one is only a pale shadow, you'll benefit enormously."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I tend to be disappointed in religious "conversations" because they require me to allow the other participants to hand-wave any illogical, inconsistent, or unsupported premises they like.
That's all well and good, if all we're interested in is both feeling happy about our beliefs, but it doesn't really lead to greater understanding, or allow us to get anywhere.
In my belief, we're all unicorn-robots and the sky is made of invisible clam sauce. But this is a conversation, so no pointing out any failings in that position.
It might be helpful for you to look into the concepts of transcendent/immanent God. Another idea is that our being able to understand something is not a condition of existance. You might also consider the idea that "creation" is not something that happened but something that continues to happen. Also, you seem to think that God and people are more separate than I do. We are part of God as God is part of us. If we don't like the way "he" has arranged something, we have the responsibility to fix it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we don't like the way "he" has arranged something, we have the responsibility to fix it.
Well, only one member of this partnership can raise people from the dead and stop the sun in the sky. Why doesn't he do his part to fix it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, Tom. You know you are being a tad literal for me. And maybe we just can't do those things yet.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The argument in question was "are we actually free to make our own choices or does God make our choices for us?" In this context, it was generally agreed upon that making our own choices is more meaningful than having them made for us. (i.e. if we're going to go out of our way to say "free will" exists, it is only meaningful if our will is actually free).
God, being all powerful and omniscient, is able to see exactly what the results will be of any initial circumstances he creates. Because he can create any given set of initial circumstances, and yet he chose to create THIS particular set of circumstances, he effectively HAS made all of our choices for us.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
But God indirectly making my choice for me doesn't necessarily mean I wasn't also free to make my own choice. Tom seemed to recognize this in that quote - but then he says free will is meaningless if it works that way.
I would think the important free will question is: "Am I free to make my own choice?" If I am free to make my own choice, I don't see why it matters that much whether my choice was predetermined by God or anyone else. The most meaningful part of free will is my ability to choose, not my ability to choose indeterminately.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom seemed to recognize this in that quote - but then he says free will is meaningless if it works that way.
Because it is meaningless. Your choice has no effect on the outcome, because you are not capable of choosing differently. The outcome is known. That you "chose" it is absolutely irrelevant; you could not have chosen anything else.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Tom, you don't believe we have free will, do you? It's the only logical conclusion if you believe in a deterministic universe and that our minds are no exception to this. The existence of an omniscient entity doesn't really change that. But you wouldn't say your own daily "choices" are meaningless, right?
Meaning is subjective importance. The most you can say is it has no meaning for you, but that doesn't seem like it would make a whole lot of sense either.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Not if we're going to pretend that free will is possible, which is the constraint under which this conversation is happening.
If "meaning" is indeed purely subjective, then sure, making a "choice" has personal meaning. But if that's how youre going to define "meaning," then free will doesn't exist anyway.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if that's how youre going to define "meaning," then free will doesn't exist anyway.
That is how I define "meaning", and I don't think free will exists (or, for that matter, that that really means anything), but I'm not getting why the former determines the latter. The nonexistence of free will and the meaningfulness placed on its supposed existence don't seem necessarily related to me. Consider the meaning you give to "choice".
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You aren't. I would let my daughter miss a meal to teach her a lesson. If our lives in this world are only a small fraction of our whole existence, getting run over by a car might be the equivalent.
In order for your analogy to be correct, you'd have to make her never eat again, because once you get killed by a car, you don't get to learn any more lessons in this life.
I also wouldn't condemn anyone to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their whole existence, but most Christians believe that God does just that.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You aren't. I would let my daughter miss a meal to teach her a lesson. If our lives in this world are only a small fraction of our whole existence, getting run over by a car might be the equivalent.
In order for your analogy to be correct, you'd have to make her never eat again, because once you get killed by a car, you don't get to learn any more lessons in this life.
I also wouldn't condemn anyone to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their whole existence, but most Christians believe that God does just that.
That's a classic strawman argument. I don't know any Christians who believe God will condemn people to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their existence.
We have quite a few Christian on this forum. Do any of you believe that is a fair representation of your beliefs?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know any Christians who believe God will condemn people to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their existence.
Really? Because I know a bunch. It's actually Baptist doctrine, in fact.
Let's try wording it differently: how many Christians believe you go to Hell if you don't accept Christ in this lifetime?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not me. Unless they want to. Also, "Christ" needs more explaining and "hell" is not a place one goes to. It is the rejection of a relationship with God and people can choose that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yes. There are in fact many varieties of "Christian." I suspect that certain demographics are more likely to post on an OSC fansite than others. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know any Christians who believe God will condemn people to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their existence.
Really? Because I know a bunch. It's actually Baptist doctrine, in fact.
Let's try wording it differently: how many Christians believe you go to Hell if you don't accept Christ in this lifetime?
I have no idea. I know only that I've never met one who actually believes that. It's a strawman argument.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
And maybe we just can't do those things yet.
