Why God stopping the sun in the sky is utterly stupid.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
12 Oct 2012, 12:00 pm
TM wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
TM wrote:
Lord_Gareth wrote:
That and a lot of the traits attributed to God - including, but not limited to, omnipotence - create simplicity issues by managing to contradict themselves.
Yeah but the 3-O argument has failed to convince the religious for centuries. IF I remember correctly it was Epicurus that came up with that in ancient Greece. It's a very simple argument, but for some reason believers always manage to ad hoc themselves out of it.
That's because theodicy blows the Epicurean trilemma argument out of the water. All a believer has to do is show that the presence of evil is compatible with the existence of God. A just God, for example, wouldn't create a being in His own likeness without giving that being the choice between good an evil. That is a step for man to take, not God. Thus the world as we know it is a creation of man, not the world as God originally intended it.
Your argument doesn't work. A god that is omnipotent and omniscient, would have known the result of the world he created before he did so. I.E. he would have seen which steps man would take before creating man, thus the world he created is the world as he intended. Being omnipotent and omniscient he would also have been able to alter the world and avoid man taking such steps.
It does work. It is possible that God could allow man to reshape the world in a way in which God didn't intend. Only a just God can allow those choices to be made.
Also, just because God is ABLE to do something, i.e. alter the world, why is there a demand that God actually do it? Apparently that alteration would have been unjust since it would negatively impact man's ability to choose. Whether there is such a thing as free will or not, we are not automatons. Nor can making wrong choice let us abjure our responsibilities. The ability to do everything is never a guarantee that everything will be done, especially those things that would violate God's nature of fairness. Nor it is contradictory to God's nature that He chooses to do only those things that are consistent with His character. It's like asking whether God can make a stone too heavy for Him to lift. Why not just ask liquid water to not be wet?
On the other hand, the nature of omnipotence is such that, if you care to be silly about it, God IS powerful enough to make a stone too heavy for Him to lift--and then LIFT IT.
12 Oct 2012, 12:49 pm
AngelRho wrote:
TM wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
TM wrote:
Lord_Gareth wrote:
That and a lot of the traits attributed to God - including, but not limited to, omnipotence - create simplicity issues by managing to contradict themselves.
Yeah but the 3-O argument has failed to convince the religious for centuries. IF I remember correctly it was Epicurus that came up with that in ancient Greece. It's a very simple argument, but for some reason believers always manage to ad hoc themselves out of it.
That's because theodicy blows the Epicurean trilemma argument out of the water. All a believer has to do is show that the presence of evil is compatible with the existence of God. A just God, for example, wouldn't create a being in His own likeness without giving that being the choice between good an evil. That is a step for man to take, not God. Thus the world as we know it is a creation of man, not the world as God originally intended it.
Your argument doesn't work. A god that is omnipotent and omniscient, would have known the result of the world he created before he did so. I.E. he would have seen which steps man would take before creating man, thus the world he created is the world as he intended. Being omnipotent and omniscient he would also have been able to alter the world and avoid man taking such steps.
It does work. It is possible that God could allow man to reshape the world in a way in which God didn't intend. Only a just God can allow those choices to be made.
No, you're failing to understand. A god that knows everything, would know every single result of his actions before taking them, I.E. he would know that one day you and I would be having this conversation on this board. Therefore, any action and choice he makes would be intended.
God could allow man to reshape the world, but he would also know exactly what the result would be. So if he permitted man to reshape the world, the consequences of it would be the ones he intended.
Quote:
Also, just because God is ABLE to do something, i.e. alter the world, why is there a demand that God actually do it? Apparently that alteration would have been unjust since it would negatively impact man's ability to choose. Whether there is such a thing as free will or not, we are not automatons. Nor can making wrong choice let us abjure our responsibilities. The ability to do everything is never a guarantee that everything will be done, especially those things that would violate God's nature of fairness. Nor it is contradictory to God's nature that He chooses to do only those things that are consistent with His character. It's like asking whether God can make a stone too heavy for Him to lift. Why not just ask liquid water to not be wet?
On the other hand, the nature of omnipotence is such that, if you care to be silly about it, God IS powerful enough to make a stone too heavy for Him to lift--and then LIFT IT.
On the other hand, the nature of omnipotence is such that, if you care to be silly about it, God IS powerful enough to make a stone too heavy for Him to lift--and then LIFT IT.
There is no demand that he has to do it, just that if he's consistent with his believers description of him, then he should do it. If we do not really have free will, then the entire racket falls on itself, because you cannot condemn someone to eternal suffering for making a wrong choice if it wasn't a choice to begin with.
In essence, this entire part of your post is argument from ignorance.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
12 Oct 2012, 2:43 pm
TM wrote:
No, you're failing to understand. A god that knows everything, would know every single result of his actions before taking them, I.E. he would know that one day you and I would be having this conversation on this board. Therefore, any action and choice he makes would be intended.
God could allow man to reshape the world, but he would also know exactly what the result would be. So if he permitted man to reshape the world, the consequences of it would be the ones he intended.
God could allow man to reshape the world, but he would also know exactly what the result would be. So if he permitted man to reshape the world, the consequences of it would be the ones he intended.
Non-sequitur. It doesn't necessarily follow that man WOULD choose evil over good. Adam and Eve could have refused the tree of death. Just because God knew what they would do, it doesn't indicate that He forced them into it. Nor does it follow that the world as-is is really the world God intended. Perhaps it is the best possible world under the circumstances, but God nevertheless allowed man to make that choice. And it isn't necessary that an omniscient God allow a world other than His initial intention.
Besides, true omniscience includes all possibilities, not just presently-known result. Unless God directly intervenes, our decisions continue to shape the world in ways known only to God, even if we change our minds. If the world is headed in one particular direction, God already knows the outcome. If we work to change that direction, God already knows that outcome as well.
TM wrote:
In essence, this entire part of your post is argument from ignorance.
No, it isn't. That would have required me to argue pro/con something based on absence of evidence, i.e you have no evidence, therefore it doesn't exist. It's more often the opposite view that is guilty of appeals to ignorance.
I think you're probably right on free will, that is, it would be unjust to condemn someone for a wrong choice that really isn't a choice. I don't believe that there is such a thing as total freedom, but the limited freedom we're allowed is enough that we are held accountable for the decisions we make. Either way, it's an un-winnable argument because despite a dedicated determinist's attempts to show free will is only an illusion, the free will person can still point to the fact that there remain choices to be made, no matter how you slice it. A hard determinist's argument that free will is only illusory is pretty much solipsism. I tend to go with a softer determinism to avoid the silliness of a never-ending free vs. determinist debate, which isn't really helpful here.
But, honestly, God can do whatever He wants. I mean, who determines what God should do and what being consistent means? Personally, I think the Bible is a good source for what is consistent behavior for God--not in outlining specific behaviors that are consistent across-the-board, but in establishing the principles by which God acts in accordance with His nature and character. God has every right to wipe humanity off the face of the earth. So why not do it? Because some things are more important than one's rights, even if that One happens to be God. Suppose we take the creation account literally. It should be immediately remarkable that the initial act of creation only took 7 days and yet mankind himself has been a work in progress for thousands of years.
Basically, at worst all the Epicurean trilemma proves is that man thinks God is a jerk. Well, that's based off a standard, shaky at best, established on mere human opinion. If evil exists, it follows we live in a fallen world and are imperfect ourselves. The trilemma ignores that if evil exists, it is entirely of man's own doing. Most likely a negative estimation of God comes from our own proclivity to think especially highly of ourselves and subjectively place our desires higher than the desires of the One who created us. To me, this is really the first sin in the Garden of Eden, not the actual taking of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. It doesn't mean God doesn't exist or has nothing to do with us. It means we just don't like Him.
12 Oct 2012, 3:12 pm
AngelRho wrote:
TM wrote:
No, you're failing to understand. A god that knows everything, would know every single result of his actions before taking them, I.E. he would know that one day you and I would be having this conversation on this board. Therefore, any action and choice he makes would be intended.
God could allow man to reshape the world, but he would also know exactly what the result would be. So if he permitted man to reshape the world, the consequences of it would be the ones he intended.
God could allow man to reshape the world, but he would also know exactly what the result would be. So if he permitted man to reshape the world, the consequences of it would be the ones he intended.
Non-sequitur. It doesn't necessarily follow that man WOULD choose evil over good. Adam and Eve could have refused the tree of death. Just because God knew what they would do, it doesn't indicate that He forced them into it. Nor does it follow that the world as-is is really the world God intended. Perhaps it is the best possible world under the circumstances, but God nevertheless allowed man to make that choice. And it isn't necessary that an omniscient God allow a world other than His initial intention.
Actually, it's not a non-sequitur to state that an all knowing being would know exactly what would happen, if it knew exactly what would happen, and did it, then it follows that the consequences were intentional.
AngelRho wrote:
Besides, true omniscience includes all possibilities, not just presently-known result. Unless God directly intervenes, our decisions continue to shape the world in ways known only to God, even if we change our minds. If the world is headed in one particular direction, God already knows the outcome. If we work to change that direction, God already knows that outcome as well.
And he already knew exactly how the world would head, what we would do to change it and the effects of what we did, when he created the world. Hence, our actions were his intent to begin with.
AngelRho wrote:
TM wrote:
In essence, this entire part of your post is argument from ignorance.
No, it isn't. That would have required me to argue pro/con something based on absence of evidence, i.e you have no evidence, therefore it doesn't exist. It's more often the opposite view that is guilty of appeals to ignorance.
I think you're probably right on free will, that is, it would be unjust to condemn someone for a wrong choice that really isn't a choice. I don't believe that there is such a thing as total freedom, but the limited freedom we're allowed is enough that we are held accountable for the decisions we make. Either way, it's an un-winnable argument because despite a dedicated determinist's attempts to show free will is only an illusion, the free will person can still point to the fact that there remain choices to be made, no matter how you slice it. A hard determinist's argument that free will is only illusory is pretty much solipsism. I tend to go with a softer determinism to avoid the silliness of a never-ending free vs. determinist debate, which isn't really helpful here.
But, honestly, God can do whatever He wants. I mean, who determines what God should do and what being consistent means? Personally, I think the Bible is a good source for what is consistent behavior for God--not in outlining specific behaviors that are consistent across-the-board, but in establishing the principles by which God acts in accordance with His nature and character. God has every right to wipe humanity off the face of the earth. So why not do it? Because some things are more important than one's rights, even if that One happens to be God. Suppose we take the creation account literally. It should be immediately remarkable that the initial act of creation only took 7 days and yet mankind himself has been a work in progress for thousands of years.
Basically, at worst all the Epicurean trilemma proves is that man thinks God is a jerk. Well, that's based off a standard, shaky at best, established on mere human opinion. If evil exists, it follows we live in a fallen world and are imperfect ourselves. The trilemma ignores that if evil exists, it is entirely of man's own doing. Most likely a negative estimation of God comes from our own proclivity to think especially highly of ourselves and subjectively place our desires higher than the desires of the One who created us. To me, this is really the first sin in the Garden of Eden, not the actual taking of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. It doesn't mean God doesn't exist or has nothing to do with us. It means we just don't like Him.
The Epicurean trilemma proves that the god described in the Bible cannot possibly exist in the format which his followers describe him, which either means that he doesn't exist or his followers are describing him wrong.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
12 Oct 2012, 4:17 pm
TM wrote:
Actually, it's not a non-sequitur to state that an all knowing being would know exactly what would happen, if it knew exactly what would happen, and did it, then it follows that the consequences were intentional.
It IS a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that the world as it is truly IS or WAS God's intention in the first place. It's a compromise given the choices man made. If God's nature is only righteousness, it can't be allowed to exist. If God's nature is righteousness together with justice and mercy, then and only then is it intended by God.
Suppose a bird is flying between my house and my neighbor's house and I shoot at it with a shotgun. I know good and well that if my neighbor walks out within a certain amount of time of firing, he will get injured when the shot falls to the ground. Moreover, I have to accept whichever scenario happens, since I have no control over my neighbor's choice to walk outside at that exact moment. I'm already aware of two possibilities. I know what will happen if he steps outside. I know what will happen if he doesn't. I know what will happen in the aftermath, either way. But my intention is not to harm my neighbor. That follows from his choice to walk outside at that moment in time. In fact, he takes an enormous risk if I give him advance warning to prevent an accident and he chooses to walk right in front of my line of fire.
Omniscience works the same way. Knowing what could or what will happen doesn't prevent someone from making choices either way. Adam and Eve could just as easily called out for help or resolved to resist temptation. That they chose a path outside God's will for them by no means implies that it was God's intention that they do so. It only implies that God has a plan should man make the wrong choice.
Incidentally, but I wonder what the "right" choice or the "wrong" choice really was. Sin is a consequence of a fallen creation. It would only be "wrong" from God's perspective and "right" from man's perspective. I've always felt that people, believers or not, get what they want if they're persistent enough. I've often observed that in "problem of evil" arguments, there is a tendency to "blame God" for all the ills of the world rather than accept personal responsibility for those that result from one's own actions.
TM wrote:
And he already knew exactly how the world would head, what we would do to change it and the effects of what we did, when he created the world. Hence, our actions were his intent to begin with.
No, because our actions are a departure from how God created the world in the first place.
TM wrote:
The Epicurean trilemma proves that the god described in the Bible cannot possibly exist in the format which his followers describe him, which either means that he doesn't exist or his followers are describing him wrong.
Well, not really. The trilemma predates the Bible and fails to sufficiently address theodicy, especially theodicy according to a Christian worldview. Sure, YHWH seems vengeful enough, and sure His wrath is impressive. But the view of a good God being incompatible with a wrathful God underestimates God's patience with mankind. God only goes to wrathful extremes when wickedness is so ingrained into the human collective consciousness that there is barely anything left that's redeemable. In other words, despite having the choice to good over evil, God knows that mankind will choose evil over good. This is a recurring theme throughout the OT, and the length to which God holds out for His creation and His chosen people is evidenced by the run Israel had as a nation through the kingdom period. Judah lived off the benefit of a promise made to King David, so the disinheritance of Judah came at a point a few generations beyond when it was actually warranted.
So if you take the "blame God" approach, then the pattern becomes that of God accepting the blame even when He doesn't have to. God can humble Himself even when mankind refuses to, and this is an important point missing from Epicurean tradition. If we are sinful and deserving of God's wrath, could it be the reason why God appears to be uninvolved in His creation is that He is withholding what is deserved in an effort to first reconcile with man before handing man over to destruction? I wonder if we asked God enough to really show Himself by directly intervening in our world if we'd be truly happy with the result. Bear in mind the ancient Israelites believed that just hearing the voice of God meant that death and destruction were imminent. For those who believe, I don't think this will be so much of a problem. I think if God showed up, the most fearful would be the "God-blamers" who always believed that God existed but were too scared to admit it.
At any rate, no, we probably don't do a good job of describing God. But I suspect we do a better job than some are willing to admit!
12 Oct 2012, 4:33 pm
AngelRho wrote:
TM wrote:
Actually, it's not a non-sequitur to state that an all knowing being would know exactly what would happen, if it knew exactly what would happen, and did it, then it follows that the consequences were intentional.
It IS a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that the world as it is truly IS or WAS God's intention in the first place. It's a compromise given the choices man made. If God's nature is only righteousness, it can't be allowed to exist. If God's nature is righteousness together with justice and mercy, then and only then is it intended by God.
IF I know the consequence of everything that will ever happen (omniscience) then elect to let it happen, then it can only be labeled as intent.
IF God knows everything.
If God has the power to do anything.
Then it follows that everything that can ever happen as a result of his actions, he would know.
AngelRho wrote:
TM wrote:
And he already knew exactly how the world would head, what we would do to change it and the effects of what we did, when he created the world. Hence, our actions were his intent to begin with.
No, because our actions are a departure from how God created the world in the first place.
Not if he's all powerful and all knowing, if he was then he would know everything that would ever happen period. No excuses, no ad hoc arguments, no straw man arguments, he would know everything that would ever happen.
You've tried this line of argumentation with me before and I'll tell you this again, you're utterly failing at theodecy, and disproving this line of argumentation. I'm not sure if it is because you do not comprehend "all powerful" and "all knowing" or realize that your "soft determinism" contradicts all knowing. That any form of soft determinism is incompatible with total free will.
An omnipotent, omniscient god that wanted to give us free will could technically do so, but at the same time he would know the result of every choice we'd ever make thus creating a contradiction.
Since I destroyed your line of argumentation in that other thread, I recommend that you go read it there and save me the time and effort of writing the same things again.
12 Oct 2012, 4:36 pm
AngelRho wrote:
Exactly what is there to prove? Attributing everything to divine origin is always the most parsimonious explanation. It isn't ad hoc because the only assumption required is that there even is a God to attribute anything to.
.
.
Goddidit is not an explanation of anything.
No testable predictions can be made on this basis.
ruveyn
13 Oct 2012, 6:29 am
ruveyn wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Exactly what is there to prove? Attributing everything to divine origin is always the most parsimonious explanation. It isn't ad hoc because the only assumption required is that there even is a God to attribute anything to.
.
.
Goddidit is not an explanation of anything.
No testable predictions can be made on this basis.
ruveyn
Just because we are yet to understand something, it does not follow that Goddidit. That is called the God-of-the-gaps reasoning.
13 Oct 2012, 10:45 am
Jono wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Exactly what is there to prove? Attributing everything to divine origin is always the most parsimonious explanation. It isn't ad hoc because the only assumption required is that there even is a God to attribute anything to.
.
.
Goddidit is not an explanation of anything.
No testable predictions can be made on this basis.
ruveyn
Just because we are yet to understand something, it does not follow that Goddidit. That is called the God-of-the-gaps reasoning.
And thanks to the advance of the physical sciences, the gaps are getting narrower and narrower. Pretty soon there will be no room for God anywhere. So even if God exists It will be ignored or denied. Which serves God right for not revealing Itself clearly.
ruveyn
13 Oct 2012, 1:11 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Jono wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Exactly what is there to prove? Attributing everything to divine origin is always the most parsimonious explanation. It isn't ad hoc because the only assumption required is that there even is a God to attribute anything to.
.
.
Goddidit is not an explanation of anything.
No testable predictions can be made on this basis.
ruveyn
Just because we are yet to understand something, it does not follow that Goddidit. That is called the God-of-the-gaps reasoning.
And thanks to the advance of the physical sciences, the gaps are getting narrower and narrower. Pretty soon there will be no room for God anywhere. So even if God exists It will be ignored or denied. Which serves God right for not revealing Itself clearly.
ruveyn
How so?
I think it is a good thing that God doesn't treat us like mindless drones or slaves. We have free will for a reason, we make our own decisions, and there are consequences for those decisions.
One could argue if God didn't love us, he would be interfering in our lives all the time.
13 Oct 2012, 1:20 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
One could argue if God didn't love us, he would be interfering in our lives all the time.
One in the grip of superstition and fear might argue that way.
ruveyn
Actually this is more of understanding the concept of parenting. Children grow up, part of being a responsible parent is learning that children grow up some and have to make their own choices in life.
14 Oct 2012, 10:02 am
Inuyasha wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
One could argue if God didn't love us, he would be interfering in our lives all the time.
One in the grip of superstition and fear might argue that way.
ruveyn
Actually this is more of understanding the concept of parenting. Children grow up, part of being a responsible parent is learning that children grow up some and have to make their own choices in life.
Is God our Heavenly Father? If so, He should be tried for child abuse.
ruveyn
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
15 Oct 2012, 3:56 pm
TM wrote:
IF I know the consequence of everything that will ever happen (omniscience) then elect to let it happen, then it can only be labeled as intent.
The intention is to create a being that has the power to make a choice. The intention is NOT to unduly influence that being's choice to be inline with the Creator's will. God can allow things to happen without wanting or desiring those things to happen.
TM wrote:
IF God knows everything.
If God has the power to do anything.
Then it follows that everything that can ever happen as a result of his actions, he would know.
If God has the power to do anything.
Then it follows that everything that can ever happen as a result of his actions, he would know.
But it does NOT follow that everything that can ever happen is what God WANTS to happen. Also, I question whether everything that can ever happen really is the result of God's actions. If God places the accountability for the condition of the world in the hands of a steward or stewards, the world becomes a place shaped by the creation. It doesn't follow that the world remains in its initial condition. It's illogical to "blame God" for the decisions made by mankind.
TM wrote:
Not if he's all powerful and all knowing, if he was then he would know everything that would ever happen period. No excuses, no ad hoc arguments, no straw man arguments, he would know everything that would ever happen.
It doesn't matter if God knows everything that would ever happen. Just because He knows the choices we're going to make doesn't mean that He chooses for us.
TM wrote:
An omnipotent, omniscient god that wanted to give us free will could technically do so, but at the same time he would know the result of every choice we'd ever make thus creating a contradiction.
Knowing what's going to happen is NOT THE SAME as directly influencing those choices. Knowing something and acting on knowledge are two completely different things. God doesn't make up our minds for us. Even if He knows the results already, God makes the choice to let us come to those decisions on our own. It doesn't follow that an omniscient God is contradictory with free will.
Now, if human beings were ALSO omniscient and already knew all the decisions we'd ever make, I'd say you have a good case against free will. But the truth is our own destiny is hidden from us. God knows what's going to happen, but we don't. Therefore we cannot blame God for our own actions for as long as we have choices to make.
But I don't see soft determinism as being contradictory, really for the same reason. I think God sets reasonable boundaries for the preservation of creation. No matter how hard we try, we can't completely eradicate ourselves from the planet. So there are some obvious deterministic parameters. But within those bounds, we do have a seemingly infinite array of choices that we are free to make. There is a degree of free will and a degree of determinism. I'd have to conclude that the idea of being either free or not free is a false dichotomy and that a middle ground is certainly not contradictory.
It might be contradictory if we were anything other than what we are. If we knew completely everything that God knows, then we could say for certain one way or the other. That certainly doesn't seem to be within our nature, so it would actually seem that for human beings there really is a moderate condition that better explains the reality of human will as opposed to God's will.
15 Oct 2012, 5:19 pm
AngelRho wrote:
TM wrote:
IF I know the consequence of everything that will ever happen (omniscience) then elect to let it happen, then it can only be labeled as intent.
The intention is to create a being that has the power to make a choice. The intention is NOT to unduly influence that being's choice to be inline with the Creator's will. God can allow things to happen without wanting or desiring those things to happen.
TM wrote:
IF God knows everything.
If God has the power to do anything.
Then it follows that everything that can ever happen as a result of his actions, he would know.
If God has the power to do anything.
Then it follows that everything that can ever happen as a result of his actions, he would know.
But it does NOT follow that everything that can ever happen is what God WANTS to happen. Also, I question whether everything that can ever happen really is the result of God's actions. If God places the accountability for the condition of the world in the hands of a steward or stewards, the world becomes a place shaped by the creation. It doesn't follow that the world remains in its initial condition. It's illogical to "blame God" for the decisions made by mankind.
TM wrote:
Not if he's all powerful and all knowing, if he was then he would know everything that would ever happen period. No excuses, no ad hoc arguments, no straw man arguments, he would know everything that would ever happen.
It doesn't matter if God knows everything that would ever happen. Just because He knows the choices we're going to make doesn't mean that He chooses for us.
TM wrote:
An omnipotent, omniscient god that wanted to give us free will could technically do so, but at the same time he would know the result of every choice we'd ever make thus creating a contradiction.
Knowing what's going to happen is NOT THE SAME as directly influencing those choices. Knowing something and acting on knowledge are two completely different things. God doesn't make up our minds for us. Even if He knows the results already, God makes the choice to let us come to those decisions on our own. It doesn't follow that an omniscient God is contradictory with free will.
Now, if human beings were ALSO omniscient and already knew all the decisions we'd ever make, I'd say you have a good case against free will. But the truth is our own destiny is hidden from us. God knows what's going to happen, but we don't. Therefore we cannot blame God for our own actions for as long as we have choices to make.
But I don't see soft determinism as being contradictory, really for the same reason. I think God sets reasonable boundaries for the preservation of creation. No matter how hard we try, we can't completely eradicate ourselves from the planet. So there are some obvious deterministic parameters. But within those bounds, we do have a seemingly infinite array of choices that we are free to make. There is a degree of free will and a degree of determinism. I'd have to conclude that the idea of being either free or not free is a false dichotomy and that a middle ground is certainly not contradictory.
It might be contradictory if we were anything other than what we are. If we knew completely everything that God knows, then we could say for certain one way or the other. That certainly doesn't seem to be within our nature, so it would actually seem that for human beings there really is a moderate condition that better explains the reality of human will as opposed to God's will.
To sum up and end this once and for all, god in this discussion is the bully who grabs your hand by the wrist, smacks you in the face with it and goes "why are you hitting yourself".
If you're out walking and a ball bounces in front of you and you kick it. God knew that you would kick that ball before he created the Universe. As he knew that, it follows that you did actually have a choice in kicking the ball or not.
If god knows your choice, the second he created the Universe, you have the capability of making a choice, but could never have made a different choice than the one he knew you would make the second the Universe was created.
You cannot "have a degree of free will in your creations" if you know exactly what they will end up doing. At that point, there is no free will, just the appearance of it. Your argument is pure nonsense.
Either:
God knows everything - At which point free will cannot exist.
Or he doesn't know everything - At which point free will can exist.
You cannot have it both ways.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
15 Oct 2012, 9:38 pm
TM wrote:
To sum up and end this once and for all, god in this discussion is the bully who grabs your hand by the wrist, smacks you in the face with it and goes "why are you hitting yourself".
Then we're talking about completely different things. I'm talking about a God who punishes the wicked and rewards the faithful.
TM wrote:
If you're out walking and a ball bounces in front of you and you kick it. God knew that you would kick that ball before he created the Universe. As he knew that, it follows that you did actually have a choice in kicking the ball or not.
But God didn't MAKE ME KICK THE BALL. My life was laid out with a number of possible decisions to be made. I'm the one who made the choices. God just happened to know what I'd do and how it would all ultimately turn out.
TM wrote:
If god knows your choice, the second he created the Universe, you have the capability of making a choice, but could never have made a different choice than the one he knew you would make the second the Universe was created.
I disagree. I COULD have made any number of choices. Suppose I chose NOT to kick the ball. Then I COULD have chosen to kick the ball. I don't ordinarily know what I'm going to do until I'm in that situation. I don't know the future. But whether I make choices "in the moment" or if I make choices in a predetermined way according to an established personal moral or ethical code, at some point I have to decide a course of action, and nobody makes me decide or decides those things for me (unless I make the choice for someone to make decisions on my behalf, of course--but even that is something that is ultimately the result of another decision I made). God doesn't make the choice FOR me. Allowing me to make decisions for myself, even if He already knows the decisions I'm going to make, by no means compromises free will nor God's omniscience.
TM wrote:
You cannot "have a degree of free will in your creations" if you know exactly what they will end up doing.
Yes, you can. Knowing what a creation will do is not the same as making the choice for them.
TM wrote:
At that point, there is no free will, just the appearance of it.
Well, that's solipsism and you're just wasting your time arguing about it.
TM wrote:
Either:
God knows everything - At which point free will cannot exist.
Or he doesn't know everything - At which point free will can exist.
You cannot have it both ways.
God knows everything - At which point free will cannot exist.
Or he doesn't know everything - At which point free will can exist.
You cannot have it both ways.
False dichotomy. It's possible to know the decisions a person or people will make without acting to influence those decisions.
