9 Reasons Not to Believe the Gospels - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14910840
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then god’s omniscience is not perfect and the classical model of the Christian god is wrong.



No, i just have to assume that god is perfect and omniscient.

Or doesn't exist. That would answer all the contradictions.
#14910844
Pants-of-dog wrote:You think that it is time’s determinism that decides whether or not the future is determined.


What the hell does that even mean?


I am pointing out that time becomes deterministic if god is perfectly omniscient.


This is also incoherent, block time is tenseless. There is no past or future in a block universe, there are just coordinates in a 4D block. The causal connections between coordinates can be deterministic, stochastic, agential, whatever, it doesn't matter. An omniscient being's knowledge of the block isn't going to change the nature of the connections.
#14910874
Pants-of-dog wrote:The first four Dune novels are a good example of how omniscience force a deterministic future on people, if you wish to understand my argument.


That's providence not omniscience. Omniscience alone can't force anything on anyone. Divine providence is perfectly compatible with libertarian freedom.
#14910882
Sivad wrote:Omniscience alone can't force anything on anyone. Divine providence is perfectly compatible with libertarian freedom.


Not a question of forcing.
If god exists and transcends all time he/she/it would have always known what choices you would make before you even existed. Before even mankind existed. So when did it become YOUR choice, you exercising your free will?

You can't have it both ways. Either free will or no omni-everything supernatural entity.
#14910902
You can't have it both ways. Either free will or no omni-everything supernatural entity.

It rather depends how one defines "free will". As Schopenhauer pointed out, there are actually two different kinds of 'free will' - there is the idea that we are free to act as we choose to act (the common-sense definition), and there is the idea that our will itself is free from causality; that we can choose to act in any way we please, and that our willing itself is not part of the causal nexus (this is metaphysical free will). Metaphysical free will is a huge claim - since our free will, to be meaningful, must be an expression of our own inner nature, it is a claim that our own inner nature itself, our personality and our set of habits, values, &c are not determined by our environment and by our brain activity, but are acausal and spontaneously generate themselves. Needless to say, I don't believe in metaphysical free will for one second - it's just as much a flight of metaphysical fancy as believing in a transcendent, omniscient deity. We need therefore consider only the first definition of free will - the idea that we are free to act in accordance with our own inner nature; which is to say, in accordance with our personality, our values and our habits of thought. The point is that our own inner nature is itself part of the causal nexus, and is determined by our genetics, our environment, the books we have read, and so on and so forth. Our will is therefore itself determined by the causal nexus, and is not metaphysically free. And our actions are determined by our will. At no point, therefore, is the chain of causality broken. This means that an omniscient deity (assuming that one exists) could indeed predict ahead of time exactly what choices we will make in any given situation, and this is clearly not incompatible with the existence of human free will, since that 'free' will is itself determined by our own inner nature (otherwise it would not be our free will, but merely random actions chosen by, say, flipping a coin), which itself is determined by our genetics, our upbringing, our environment, our situation and our brain activity at that moment. But even though our choices and actions would be predictable to an omniscient being, we still have 'free will', since our choices and actions are still an expression of own inner nature as it responds to a particular situation.
#14910908
Besoeker wrote:If god exists and transcends all time he/she/it would have always known what choices you would make before you even existed.


That's not a problem on some conceptions of time like B-theory/block time/four-dimensionalism. Also, how does transcending time entail omniscience? Timelessness just means doesn't exist in time and doesn't experience temporal succession.

You can't have it both ways. Either free will or no omni-everything supernatural entity.


Omniscience obviously doesn't extend to logical contradictions and infallible foreknowledge of future contingents is just as logically absurd as a square circle or a married bachelor. Another way to look at it is that propositions regarding future choices decided by free will are not truth apt so there is nothing to know and therefore no lack of knowledge regarding these types of propositions.
#14910912
Sivad wrote:Another way to look at it is that propositions regarding future choices decided by free will are not truth apt so there is nothing to know and therefore no lack of knowledge regarding these types of propositions.

Does god know?
That's just yes or no.
#14910914
Besoeker wrote:Does god know?
That's just yes or no.

What do you have against God anyway, Besoeker? Did he run over your pet cat or something? :eh:
#14910916
Besoeker wrote:Does god know?
That's just yes or no.


God knows that it depends on what free will decides but beyond that there is nothing to know.

Is not knowing what a square circle looks a problem for omniscience? Absolutely not because there is no such thing, the same goes for infallible foreknowledge of the contingent future.
#14910925
Sivad wrote:That's providence not omniscience. Omniscience alone can't force anything on anyone. Divine providence is perfectly compatible with libertarian freedom.


No, I am specifically discussing omniscience, not providence.

Like I said, we are having two separate conservations. Have a good one, Sivad.
#14911015
Besoeker wrote:How can I have anything against an entity that doesn't exist?

Precisely my thought.... :eh:
#14911022
Besoeker wrote:How can I have anything against an entity that doesn't exist?


You should really ask yourself that. Why would anyone be flogging such a bogus argument against a mere fiction?


There are only two good arguments against theism. The first is that none of the arguments for theism really prove anything, they're not rationally compelling, they're only useful for gaining a better understanding of what faith entails(faith seeking understanding). The second is the argument from evil, which is a question that even most people of faith struggle with.
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17

The chimp question: https://www.newsweek.com/coul[…]

Again, this is not some sort of weird therapy w[…]

Indictments have occured in Arizona over the fake […]

Ukraine already has cruise missiles (Storm Shadow)[…]