If God doesn't intervene with free will, then what does it mean in Exodus when it says that God "softened" Moses's heart, but "hardened" pharaoh's heart?
It's pretty clearly implied in much of Christian literature that God is in charge of that part of your consciousness that tells you what the right thing to do is, your 'gut feelings.'
That's one of the reasons so many religious people are so confident in trusting only to their instincts on so many issues. They see it as their inner divine spark leading them down God's path.
Then why did some people in this forum think that God hardening pharaoh's heart was taking away his free will?
Your wrong. 100%. This is facts. Its not a time bar. I didn't state that time moved in any direction. Time is a measurment of an already existing universe. Either the universe exists and time measures it OR the universe is being created as we speak along the line of time.
See, the problem is those two things mean exactly the same thing.
See, the problem is those two things mean exactly opposite.
The youtube example is a good example. the video exists. The video will not change. The people/things/whatever in the video will do what they will do. They in the video might think they are choosing to do things and perhapse they did. But it already exists one way or the other and no other possible outcome can derive from it. Does that make sense? I know its hard to grasp these kinds of physics but try.
Except that's just it. Maybe they did make choices, maybe they didn't. If they did, free will. If they didn't, it's not free will. Everything else is extraneous information.
The problem is you're taking on a vantage point that is outside of time, perceiving everything that will happen at once, and then saying, "It's already happened." Except, the phrase, "will happen" is only a meaningful phrase when applied to a particular point in time. It makes no sense outside of time. Similarly, the idea, "No outcome can be derived," doesn't make any sense unless you consider its context in time. Unless you consider the flow in time, and movement through time, these concepts are meaningless. You're trying to take on a vantage point where you see all of time at once and say, "Things don't move through time," when that is not the case.
Are you understanding what I'm saying? In other words, the problem you are having is you are choosing a vantage point where you can see an entire graph at once and then saying nothing is happening, not considering what the graph is for. The whole point is that as things move along the time axis, they change. You have to follow that motion in order to observe how things go. That's what a graph with the X-Axis being time and the Y-axis charting whatever means, you have to consider the flow of time. You can't say it's a dimension and then ignore it.
Exactly. I'm taking on the vantage point of "god". Your convoluting things and intentionally trying to make them more complicated than they are.
If god made the universe. Then he has the vantage point of being "outside" time. Time has no meaning for him. We litterally as beings of this universe have no capability of understanding beyond our limited understanding of "dimentions". Time especially is a difficult one. But you miss the entier point I was making and are writing it off as irrelevant when your too blind to see its so relevant it can't be seperated from the topic.
I shall try again. This time humor me with an experiment.
Choose a number between 1 and 10. I'll continue to the next part when you respond.
What will happen....WILL HAPPEN. You don't seem to grasp this.
No, I do. The problem is you're not connecting this to "There is no choice" because you're not taking into account WHY it happens.
Take the video taken of you over the course of a day. This is a good example because we can freely play it or rewind it or do whatever we want with that time bar. However, none of that has any bearing on whether or not you had free will. The only thing that matters is whether or not you chose to do the things that we see you do. That's what determines free will. Not whether or not time is a dimension.
I think my experiment wil help you see why you are wrong. So i'll hold off on responding to this.
How in any way do we have free will in this scenario of a total control by the builder?
If the reason we do things has to do with our choice in doing them. That's what free will means. Do we have a choice? It is the only relevant factor.
Do we have a choice if there is only one destiny? If there is only one true destination and every choice you think "you" will make is actually already pre-determined? Because if god made the universe then EVERYTHING in the universe, past, present, futre, is already pre-determined. There is no free will if there is one path. We assume it is free will because we do not see the future. Again this will become clearer (hopefully) after you see the experiment.
On to the multiverse idea. The only way that "choice" or "chance" would exist in the universe is if an infinite number of universes exist.
No, that's the opposite of choice. For instance, if I'm choosing between having french toast or having pancakes for breakfast, it cannot be said to be a choice if every possible outcome (Highroller choosing pancakes, Highroller choosing french toast, Highroller choosing both, Highroller choosing nothing at all) all happen. That's the opposite of choice. I clearly have no agency in that scenario.
Your right that its not true free will
It's not free will period. That's like saying a beetle isn't a true beluga whale. No, it ISN'T a beluga whale, because not only is there no resemblance between them, they're opposite in just about every relevant category between them.
You are either confused or an idiot. Your trying to tell me I'm an idiot for something you are confused about. You've done this tactic several times already in this thread. You don't understand the topic or how its relevant because of your narrowed(incorrect) view.
Everything happens and thus an infinite number of universes are created. Why are you in this particular universe at this particular time? ITs because your current "self" chose this path. While other selves chose other paths. Its just by "choice" and 'chance" that this reality is "real". Thats what I mean by a pseudo free will. I never claimed it to be Your definition of free will.
but its the closest thing I can think of to it.
How's about just plain regular free will, like the phrase actually means?
Because I'm arunig from a point that "if god exists" it is an impossibility. IF you definition of free will is "being able to choose but always choosing what will be reguardless" then I guess you and I will never agree on true free will.
Again the experiment will hlep.
Onto causality. Its a school of thought
It's also the foundation of all sciences.
and It still doesn't run counter to them if you look at the model. Causality only works from our perspective. If were able to see time in reverse then causality also is reversed. And it only expands upon our knowledge IF the theory is correct. Right now its just a theory I was just mentioning it. However it is still an eternal truth that for the most part it is true. If you were take yourself sitting right now and re-trace your steps or peer backwards through time you would view yourself in a world in which causality is reversed. You ate a cracker because you were thirsty to quench your thirst sort of deal.
Its not up for debate as its fact. But the theory and why I was using it states that our current state is determined by both future events and past events. It doesn't in any way negate the fact that past events caused our present state, but also expanding that the reverse of our futures will bring us to the present. The idea and its function, truth and simplicity can and is understood bby children. The only reason your refuting it right now is because for "free will" to be ture it must be able to completly stand alone from the future.
but it does actually have to work out. Reguardless of weather or not it is because we are the piont where both the past and future meet or if the future that follows must exist in that way.
I have no idea what you're saying here. If you're saying the past is caused by the future, you are incorrect. This violates causality. Whatever you're going on about now, it's no longer physics, because physics hinges upon causality.
Explained above. It is physics. and it doesn't mean that the future causes the past but our current state (an infinitly small measurement of time or flashframe of the universe) is determined by both the past and the future. The theory was theorized under the understanding that if you play something in reverse it behaves as such and does not change.
The rules of the universe are subjective. The only exist this way because of our universe and nothing really holds them into place.
Are you just making crap up now?
Lol
And you seem to have gotten lost when I said we exist. That is the argument that can be made. If you say we don't exist or our existance is somehow not certain then any other argument you make becomes arbitrary.
No, you said we exist, therefore the universe does. You were being very incoherent, I'm not sure if you were trying to be Descartes or what.
No. I was rather clear. The argument is we exist, the universe exists. If we deny what we can measure, see, experience, think, ect ect ect then there is no need to argue futhrer. I didn't expect you to take that route but I cut it off in case you or anyone else would pull something like that.
Then why did some people in this forum think that God hardening pharaoh's heart was taking away his free will?
Why wouldn't they think that?
The first time I read those passages I found it very troubling how God hardened the pharoah's heart, causing him to keep the Israelites enslaved. God stripped him of free will to make him do evil. Afterward, God punished the pharoah and Egypt for what He Himself made happen. But what I found even more troubling was how easily christian apologetics would lie (typically by 'interpreting' passages in a manner that is the opposite of what they're actually saying) in order to make God's evil acts sound like acceptable behaviour.
I was curious to know how christian apologetics try to weasel out of this predicament these days and I fell across this site today. This is what they said:
to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28). In other words, God is in control. God can also move peoples' hearts (Prov. 21:1) and directs history to where He wants it to go.
Um yeah...that totally sounds like free will. Not.
They go on to say...
Does God have the right and ability to harden whom He desires in the process of accomplish His will? Absolutely for that is what it says in 9:18. Does this make God wrong in anyway? Not at all. God can do no wrong.
Because when God does one evil act after another, it isn't wrong because God can do no wrong. Puke.
You can almost cut the hypocrisy with a knife.
Hell is defined as an eternity detached from God's presence, while Heaven is defined as an eternity in God's presence.
Except defining Hell as a place in the Cosmology of Christianity where God's presence is withheld is impossible. According to the doctrine of almost every Christian Denomination (except perhaps one or two fringe groups), God is by definition Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. The last one of those, Omnipresence, means that there cannot exist a place where his presence is withheld due to the fact that he is always present, everywhere. Thus you cannot define hell as a place where he is not. Rather hell is defined quite literally by Jesus himself, as a place of Eternal Torment. Jesus does not define it as a place without God's presence, that is a later church made and contradictory definition.
Also while I am on the subject. I define Omnipotence as the ability to do anything that is logically possible, even if it is not possible for a human to do. That is why God can create universes. Because it is logically possible for him to be able to do so. I further define Omniscience as the ability to see all possible futures, presents, and pasts branching out before him, but not to control those futures unless he takes an active role in them via one of his four other abilities (Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Incarnation, or the ability to bestow Prophecy).
All I can say to that, ColonelCoo, is I can hope that true justice is not really a system in which I need to pay for the sins of my father.
That seems inherently unfair, yet you are saying it is the height of fairness?
With the resources that currently exist on the planet at the current time, it is possible to end world hunger 100%. Similarly it is likely that somewhere on the planet there is a cure to most diseases, and the ones we can't find a cure for, are diseases that we need in place in order to maintain some level of population control so that we don't overwhelm the food supply.
The problem is that there is a large segment of society who believes it is their god given right to have more wealth, food, and medical care than the vast majority of the worlds population. As such it is unlikely that we will ever see a situation where in humankind is willing to bring about a conclusion to the suffering of their fellow man.
As far as natural disasters, old age, and other causes of suffering that food, monetary, and medical resources cannot solve... those are a necessary evil. Natural Disasters serve a necessary role in our planets functions and while they may cause devastation, it would be far worse for the planet as a whole if they did not occur. Old Age is the ultimate limiting factor on the planets population cap, and without it we would eat our food supplies out of existence causing even more starvation than currently exists, not to mention what it would do to truly non-renewable resources. There are other factors as well, but ultimately some suffering is necessary for the survival of our species as well as all the other species on the planet.
Because Adam and Eve decides to eat the apple, all of a sudden, everyone else needs to suffer because of that. Why not just have Adam and Even punished...we clearly didn't do anything wrong. This way, God wouldn't have to send Jesus Christ (himself oddly) to die on the cross and suffer. So not only are we suffering for the sins of Adam and Eve, but God himself technically suffered for the sins of Adam and Even, seriously? Did this guy not think of any other better solutions?
You um... do realize that Sin is an entity itself, as well as a behavioral concept? Sin was a Mesopotamian God, and I believe that the ancient Jews (pre-Moses period) ascribed many of the same traits to Sin that modern Christians ascribe to Satan (who ironically is technically God's right hand Angel and is the one who serves as Prosecuting Attorney in the Heavenly Court, at least according to one of the earliest books of the Old Testament to be written).
So when you say we are being punished for Adam and Eve's sin, are you saying we are being punished for their behavior? Or for their worship of an ancient Mesopotamian God? In either case it would be near treachery to the Judeo-Christian God for what Adam and Eve allegedly did. They disobeyed God's one and only (at the time) commandment, that in and of itself is treachery and worthy of being cast out of paradise. Unfortunately the Ancient Jews believed in a generational punishment system for certain transgressions, and disobeying Gods most important (only) commandment would be the biggest transgression you could accumulate worthy of the biggest punishment ever.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
With the resources that currently exist on the planet at the current time, it is possible to end world hunger 100%. Similarly it is likely that somewhere on the planet there is a cure to most diseases, and the ones we can't find a cure for, are diseases that we need in place in order to maintain some level of population control so that we don't overwhelm the food supply.
To be flippent:
And painful debilitating diseases are what an all-knowing, all-good God came up with?
No diseases are "necessary." There are plenty of better ways to regulate the population that does not involve human suffering. Additionally, unless you think ancient humans had the resources to do all that, there would be still genrations and genrations that would get the short end of the stick no matter how good they were.
The problem is that there is a large segment of society who believes it is their god given right to have more wealth, food, and medical care than the vast majority of the worlds population. As such it is unlikely that we will ever see a situation where in humankind is willing to bring about a conclusion to the suffering of their fellow man.
So, why should others pay for their evil? It's inherently unjust.
As far as natural disasters, old age, and other causes of suffering that food, monetary, and medical resources cannot solve... those are a necessary evil. Natural Disasters serve a necessary role in our planets functions and while they may cause devastation, it would be far worse for the planet as a whole if they did not occur. Old Age is the ultimate limiting factor on the planets population cap, and without it we would eat our food supplies out of existence causing even more starvation than currently exists, not to mention what it would do to truly non-renewable resources. There are other factors as well, but ultimately some suffering is necessary for the survival of our species as well as all the other species on the planet.
No suffering is "necessary;" that's question begging hogwash which leads to the stifling of actual solutions.
Stop trying to get the facts to fit your beliefs and start fitting your beliefs to the facts.
To be flippent:
And painful debilitating diseases are what an all-knowing, all-good God came up with?
No diseases are "necessary." There are plenty of better ways to regulate the population that does not involve human suffering. Additionally, unless you think ancient humans had the resources to do all that, there would be still genrations and genrations that would get the short end of the stick no matter how good they were.
Are you God? Do you presume to tell God what is and is not a necessary condition of human life and the survival of the human species?
Okay, lets put it this way... scientists to the best of my knowledge currently believe the ultimate carrying capacity for humans on the planet earth is hard capped at around 12 billion people. What that means is if the planet's population ever exceeds 12 billion, that there will not be enough resources on the planet to sustain that number of people for more than a couple of years. Our planet's population is currently sitting somewhere between 6 and 7 billion. This level of population is largely maintained by the fact that deaths are usually about even with births. However if you removed all forms of death from the human species, except for dying of hunger, then the planets population cap would be reached in a manner of a few years.
So, why should others pay for their evil? It's inherently unjust.
You realize the story of Adam and Eve is largely a metaphor explaining the relationship of God and Human Sin right?
EDIT: And P.S. I do not believe the painful debilitating diseases are necessarily God's idea. Just because God is the creator and ultimately the one who implements things into creation, does not mean he is the one who comes up with every single idea. He may be all knowing, all powerful and all present, but that doesn't mean he is necessarily the one who comes up with the best torment. And by the way, torment is sometimes the best way to cultivate spiritual growth. Just ask Job.
Okay, lets put it this way... scientists to the best of my knowledge currently believe the ultimate carrying capacity for humans on the planet earth is hard capped at around 12 billion people. What that means is if the planet's population ever exceeds 12 billion, that there will not be enough resources on the planet to sustain that number of people for more than a couple of years. Our planet's population is currently sitting somewhere between 6 and 7 billion. This level of population is largely maintained by the fact that deaths are usually about even with births. However if you removed all forms of death from the human species, except for dying of hunger, then the planets population cap would be reached in a manner of a few years.
And what would happen if we reached the population cap? People would die. You're saying that death is acceptable because it averts death. Think about that for a second.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Okay, lets put it this way... scientists to the best of my knowledge currently believe the ultimate carrying capacity for humans on the planet earth is hard capped at around 12 billion people. What that means is if the planet's population ever exceeds 12 billion, that there will not be enough resources on the planet to sustain that number of people for more than a couple of years. Our planet's population is currently sitting somewhere between 6 and 7 billion. This level of population is largely maintained by the fact that deaths are usually about even with births. However if you removed all forms of death from the human species, except for dying of hunger, then the planets population cap would be reached in a manner of a few years.
And what would happen if we reached the population cap? People would die. You're saying that death is acceptable because it averts death. Think about that for a second.
No thats not what I am saying at all. I am saying that death is acceptable because it averts the extinction of the human species as a whole. Does that put things in better context for you?
If we hit the population cap its not so much that a few people would die as it is that EVERYONE would die. And quite rapidly as well.
EDIT: I mean can any of you comprehend what would happen to us as a species if Adam and Eve were real. If they were given the ability and knowledge of how to reproduce right at their creation, and if they and all their descendents were actually immortal (but not invulnerable) and they actually choose the option of obeying God instead of listening to the serpent? Eden may have been a paradise on earth, but I highly doubt it was infinite in size the way that Heaven is. In fact the dimensions of Eden are explicitly described in the Bible itself so we know that it was not infinite in size. Thus if Adam and Eve had spawned a race of immortal beings who were not violent by nature... they would overwhelm the ability of Eden to support them, despite it being a paradise.
Don't shank me if someone asked this already, but what I don't understand is Lucifer's relation to the whole "system". He punishes the wicked...and that somehow makes him evil? But then wouldn't God be evil, too? So how is God any better than Lucifer, and if it's "just because he created everything", well, that's certainly no merit. Just because (hyperbolic hypothetical) Jim breeds husky puppies doesn't mean he's in the right for skinning them alive and making them into steaks.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Don't shank me if someone asked this already, but what I don't understand is Lucifer's relation to the whole "system". He punishes the wicked...and that somehow makes him evil? But then wouldn't God be evil, too? So how is God any better than Lucifer, and if it's "just because he created everything", well, that's certainly no merit. Just because (hyperbolic hypothetical) Jim breeds husky puppies doesn't mean he's in the right for skinning them alive and making them into steaks.
Eh... its complicated. This has been happening ever since Christianity split off from Judaism, but alot of people misinterpret Satan's role (I don't call him Lucifer because Lucifer means the Morning Star and that is actually one of Jesus' titles). Anyways, Satan was at least according to the book of Job (one of the earliest books written in the Old Testament, predating Genesis by a long shot) part of the Court of God. By this I literally mean "Court" as in a Legal system, and not the meaning that is used by a Monarch.
Satan's role in the Court of God was basically the same as a Prosecuting Lawyer's role in a modern day court. It is largely because of what he does to Job that many people see him as Evil, including the Author of Revelation I imagine. However the problem with this interpretation is that Satan had the approval of God to go ahead with the tormenting of Job. The reason he had this approval was so that God could prove Job's faithfulness to him. And it turned out God was right in the long run.
Also, it should be noted that the snake in the Garden of Eden is only identified as Satan by Christians. Neither Islam nor the Jews recognize such an identification. Islam does recognize the snake as a demon or Ifrit (I think) but thats not the same as it being Satan.
No thats not what I am saying at all. I am saying that death is acceptable because it averts the extinction of the human species as a whole. Does that put things in better context for you?
If we hit the population cap its not so much that a few people would die as it is that EVERYONE would die. And quite rapidly as well.
That's not what would happen. A capacity is just that: a capacity. As in, the amount that would stay alive. If there are thirteen billion people on the planet, but the capacity is only twelve billion, one billion people will die, not the entire species. Hell, most species are at the maximum capacity for their environments most of the time. Competition for scarce resources is a major selection pressure, and any trait that would limit population growth is strongly selected against - individuals with the trait find their offspring "crowded out" by the offspring of those that don't. So if God is interested in running the human race according to the same natural order by which other species operate, he shouldn't have any problem with letting people breed like rabbits until they hit capacity, and then letting the excess starve. Nature just sucks that way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Eh... its complicated. This has been happening ever since Christianity split off from Judaism, but alot of people misinterpret Satan's role
It's not that they misinterpret Satan's role, it's that Satan as a character changed over the history of Judaism. Satan was originally an angel of the Heavenly Host, who served as an accuser for humanity but was, nevertheless, an angel.
Overtime the tradition of Satan being a fallen angel and embodiment of evil came about as apocalyptic ideas developed.
1. Implicit assumption that all human suffering is bad. Justify this?
Based on what moral backing?
DalkonCledwin claimed--without reason--that human suffering was necessary, I rebuttaled--without reason--that it was not. Now, it's up to others to decide on which unfounded axiom is more agreeable to them.
As one example: Having less babies. It's already happening; humans in first world countries seem to be naturally inclined to have less kids than those in countries where there is less chance of survival. Check the statistics. Seems like a more elegant solution than "necessary painful deaths."
Don't get me wrong, I agree that human suffering isn't necessary. I do, however, think it is inevitable, and I'm not convinced that's a bad thing.
However, it makes things like AIDS seem like "God's will," which makes it seem like we're just wasting time and money trying to fix it. The implication in the idea that some suffering is 'necessary' makes us more complicit in it. Thus, I reject the idea out-of-hand. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
Are you God? Do you presume to tell God what is and is not a necessary condition of human life and the survival of the human species?
The rebuttal to those questions is trivial:
Are YOU God? Do YOU presume to tell me what is and is not a necessary condition of human life and the survival of the human species?
Since you just did. Additionally, I did not tell God, I told you. Unless your claim is that you are God? One would guess it is the way you're handing out edicts about how some people must be killed.
Anyway, I choose to look at the facts using the logical brain I was given. You're argument is unsupported by them. You are inventing reasons for an all-knowing, all-good God when they don't exist. You should go where the facts lead you, you should not be trying to lead the facts to where you wish them to be. To do so is to pervert Truth.
EDIT: And P.S. I do not believe the painful debilitating diseases are necessarily God's idea. Just because God is the creator and ultimately the one who implements things into creation, does not mean he is the one who comes up with every single idea. He may be all knowing, all powerful and all present, but that doesn't mean he is necessarily the one who comes up with the best torment. And by the way, torment is sometimes the best way to cultivate spiritual growth. Just ask Job.
So, where did they come from? Where do flesh-eating bacteria come from? Who is responsible for them? Who is creating new life if not God?
You said that earthquakes and the like are necessary to balance Earth. Well, who is responsible for Earth being like that? Who is responsible for God's creation if not God?
Did man make viruses? Did man make the Earth's tectonic plates?
Your wrong. 100%. This is facts. Its not a time bar. I didn't state that time moved in any direction. Time is a measurment of an already existing universe. Either the universe exists and time measures it OR the universe is being created as we speak along the line of time.
See, the problem is those two things mean exactly the same thing.
See, the problem is those two things mean exactly opposite.
They do not. The universe is "moving along the line of time," as it were, because that is what time measures. These two ideas are not incompatible. In fact, that's precisely what time is.
If god made the universe. Then he has the vantage point of being "outside" time. Time has no meaning for him.
No, time would still have meaning for him just as height, width, and depth would. They simply don't measure him. That doesn't mean they wouldn't apply to anything in creation, which is what you're trying to argue.
Saying time would not be relevant to us is incorrect. God being able to see all of space at once does not mean we are not bound to a specific position in space at any given time, just as we exist in a specific point in time at any given time.
Choose a number between 1 and 10. I'll continue to the next part when you respond.
Alright. Am I supposed to tell you what it is?
Do we have a choice if there is only one destiny?
Of course. Just because only one outcome results does not mean only one outcome could have resulted. That's part-and-parcel with free will. It doesn't matter if only one thing comes about, it matters whether or not choice was involved when that one thing came about.
If there is only one true destination and every choice you think "you" will make is actually already pre-determined?
It remains irrelevant whether God sees my actions "before" I do them.
You are either confused or an idiot. Your trying to tell me I'm an idiot for something you are confused about. You've done this tactic several times already in this thread. You don't understand the topic or how its relevant because of your narrowed(incorrect) view.
Everything happens and thus an infinite number of universes are created. Why are you in this particular universe at this particular time? ITs because your current "self" chose this path.
No it's not. It cannot be said that I chose this path because there exists every other scenario somewhere else in the multiverse. A choice is as much defined by what one does not do as what one does. I cannot be said to choose not to eat french toast if I have, by virtue of the multiverse, chosen to eat french toast.
Like your number argument. I cannot be said to have chosen a number if I split into ten different Highrollers choosing ten different numbers. That's the opposite of choice. It means I am powerless to choose anything because when presented with a set of potential actions, I must do all of them. Whatever current state I'm in is not based on my input, but merely randomness. This is not free will.
Because I'm arunig from a point that "if god exists" it is an impossibility.
As Blinking said earlier, if you can argue the existence of a system in which God does not exist and there is free will, then it is possible for God to exist and that free will to remain intact.
The existence of God does not invalidate free will.
IF you definition of free will is "being able to choose but always choosing what will be reguardless"
Ok, at least read this part and hear me out. Then we can decide to walk away or keep going:
I want to scrutinize your ideas of "what will be regardless."
All events of the past have been set. From our current vantage point, we can see the past, or at least the parts we were there for.
So does that mean we have no choice in the past? At t= 2:30 PM EST, March 30, 2012 did Highroller have no free will? No, at that time Highroller did. He had was making choices at that time. He's made choices every second since then.
We are, however, occupying a different position in time, and therefore we cannot make choices in the past, but we can make choices in the now, and when we get to the future, we can make choices then. At t= 2:30 PM EST, March 30, 2014, Highroller will be able to make choices then.
Similarly, we can apply this concept to position. I am no longer in my front yard. I was making choices earlier in my front yard, but I cannot do so now, because I am indoors.
As you say, time is coordinate, just like the three spatial dimensions are coordinates.
With this in mind, the fact can perceive all points in time at once and all points in space at once doesn't influence whether or not I can make a choice.
For instance, Highroller of 2014 can see what I'm going to do today. He does not violate the idea of free will because Highroller of 2014 occupies a different point in time wherein he has already done these events. But that doesn't mean I don't have free will in my current time.
Yes, obviously God can see what choices I'm going to make today. That because God occupies a point outside of time and can see everything. But that doesn't mean that God's existence means I don't have choice.
and It still doesn't run counter to them if you look at the model. Causality only works from our perspective. If were able to see time in reverse then causality also is reversed.
No, that does not follow. The glass does not fall because it is broken. It is broken because it falls. Time is not symmetrical.
1) God has infallible foreknowledge (omniscience).
2) The Universe does not exist.
3) God foresees a Universe where I do X, but has not YET created it.
4) Because the Universe does not exist (and therefore I do not exist) in #3, my action cannot be the cause of his knowledge.
5) God creates the Universe he saw in #3.
6) Because of 1, 3, and 4, X is now necessary and I could not do otherwise.
It is possible that I don't have Free Will.
I am closer to Pike's argument. But even he doesn't really address #4 in my diagram above.
How do you solve this problem? How can my action cause his knowledge if he hasnt even created the universe yet.
It is irrelevant whether or not he exists in our spacetime. It only matters that he had the knowledge prior to the act of creation - which is what many passages in the Bible and other judeo-christian texts claim. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/ "8. Conclusion
There are a number of arguments for fatalism, and it seems that one way of countering all of them would be to adopt the Aristotelian solution, or something akin to it. It would be neat if it could be made out that this was the only solution, so that the fate of fatalism was inextricably linked to the fate of the Aristotelian solution. But it does not seem that this is so, except possibly, on the assumption that an omniscient God exists, in relation to middle knowledge. But even then, the solution is only a poor relation to the Aristotelian solution.
So it is possible that both fatalism and the Aristotelian solution are wrong. And it is, of course, always possible, for all that has been said, that fatalism is correct."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
1) God has infallible foreknowledge (omniscience).
2) The Universe does not exist.
3) God foresees a Universe where I do X, but has not YET created it.
4) Because the Universe does not exist (and therefore I do not exist) in #3, my action cannot be the cause of his knowledge.
5) God creates the Universe he saw in #3.
6) Because of 1, 3, and 4, X is now necessary and I could not do otherwise.
It is possible that I don't have Free Will.
I am closer to Pike's argument. But even he doesn't really address #4 in my diagram above.
How do you solve this problem? How can my action cause his knowledge if he hasnt even created the universe yet.
It is irrelevant whether or not he exists in our spacetime. It only matters that he had the knowledge prior to the act of creation - which is what many passages in the Bible and other judeo-christian texts claim. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/ "8. Conclusion
There are a number of arguments for fatalism, and it seems that one way of countering all of them would be to adopt the Aristotelian solution, or something akin to it. It would be neat if it could be made out that this was the only solution, so that the fate of fatalism was inextricably linked to the fate of the Aristotelian solution. But it does not seem that this is so, except possibly, on the assumption that an omniscient God exists, in relation to middle knowledge. But even then, the solution is only a poor relation to the Aristotelian solution.
So it is possible that both fatalism and the Aristotelian solution are wrong. And it is, of course, always possible, for all that has been said, that fatalism is correct."
No one cares that it is snowing in Bolivia
If this debate is going to move forward Highroller needs to define his version of freewill and his version of omniscience. Until then this is just two ships passing in the dark of night.
Edit: that was the first time i ever used a smiley
IcecreamMan80, I really like the fact that you numbered it out for ease of discussion. Now there's one particular part of this that I want to focus on:
1) God has infallible foreknowledge (omniscience).
2) The Universe does not exist.
3) God foresees a Universe where I do X,
But that's just it: why do you do X?
4) Because the Universe does not exist (and therefore I do not exist) in #3, my action cannot be the cause of his knowledge.
No, that doesn't follow. God's foreseeing the universe. Therefore he can foresee what you're going to.
How do you solve this problem? How can my action cause his knowledge if he hasnt even created the universe yet.
Something can logically precede something even if it doesn't chronologically precede something. This is demonstrated by our time traveler scenario. (Incidentally, I never knew that traveler and traveller are both acceptable spellings. This forum does teach us things! :))
IcecreamMan80, I really like the fact that you numbered it out for ease of discussion. Now there's one particular part of this that I want to focus on:
1) God has infallible foreknowledge (omniscience).
2) The Universe does not exist.
3) God foresees a Universe where I do X,
But that's just it: WHY do you do X?
Why? Because he created me to. I have already given this answer several times, it hasn't changed.
If I dream of a girl that doesn't actually exist, and in my dream she has sex with me - then, AFTER I wake up, I create my dream exactly as a reality - does she have sex with me of her own free will?
My answer is NO.
We are God's dream made real. That is all. There is no free will there.
You are ADDING something to the diagram that isn't there. Some sort of temporal causality that you have not supported. It is your argument that it is still my action (or my choice) that causes his knowledge. But I argue this is false, because I do not actually exist to do anything, or choose anything when he gains his knowledge.
Something that doesn't exist cannot do anything.
Unless you want to argue that existing in God's dream is enough of an existence to grant us agency of choice, in which case, I do not readily accept that argument, you will have to fight for it.
How do you solve this problem? How can my action cause his knowledge if he hasnt even created the universe yet.
Something can logically precede something even if it doesn't chronologically precede something. This is demonstrated by our time traveler scenario. (Incidentally, I never knew that traveler and traveller are both acceptable spellings. This forum does teach us things! :))
Right, but I'm not refuting the Time Traveler argument.
No no no no no, before that. God's about to create the universe, he's looking at the universe, he sees you do X. Why?
If I dream of a girl that doesn't actually exist, and in my dream she has sex with me - then, AFTER I wake up, I create my dream exactly as a reality - does she have sex with me of her own free will?
My answer is NO.
We are God's dream made real. That is all. There is no free will there.
That's because we're not capable of inventing things with wills independent of our own (well, maybe we are. Writers often speak of characters writing themselves. However, it's pretty clear that sex fantasy girl is not a fleshed out... is not a three-dimensional... is not a fully-developed... character. Is there a word for this that can't be made into a pun on breasts?) She's a fantasy, not a full human being.
Unless you want to argue that existing in God's dream is enough of an existence to grant us agency of choice, in which case, I do not readily accept that argument, you will have to fight for it.
Saying human beings can't create things with free will in their imaginations may or may not be true, but either way doesn't put any sort of boundaries as to what God can do. I can't turn water into wine. God can. I can't make life. God can. I can't conceive of the universe in its grand scale. God can. I can't conceive of the quantum scale of size. God can. I don't know what life was like before time and space. God does.
Right, but I'm not refuting the Time Traveler argument.
If this debate is going to move forward Highroller needs to define his version of freewill and his version of omniscience. Until then this is just two ships passing in the dark of night.
Edit: that was the first time i ever used a smiley
I am just re-posting this in the hopes that it leads to an actual debate and not just two people assuming different definitions then arguing past one another
If I dream of a girl that doesn't actually exist, and in my dream she has sex with me - then, AFTER I wake up, I create my dream exactly as a reality - does she have sex with me of her own free will?
My answer is NO.
We are God's dream made real. That is all. There is no free will there.
That's because we're not capable of inventing things with wills independent of our own (well, maybe we are. Writers often speak of characters writing themselves. However, it's pretty clear that sex fantasy girl is not a fleshed out... is not a three-dimensional... is not a fully-developed... character. Is there a word for this that can't be made into a pun on breasts?) She's a fantasy, not a full human being.
And we were God's fantasy prior to creation. You have not refuted anything.
He made reality to be exactly like a fantasy he had. he has the power I guess to do such a thing.
You completely ignored the point of the analogy to go on some tangent about how I don't have God powers as a human. Nice deflection but it won't work on me.
Assuming the same powers of God. If I dream of a nonexistant girl who has sex with me, and after I wake up I create a reality that is exactly like my dream, does she have sex with me of her own free will?
My answer is no, now you answer without twisting **** up.
Unless you want to argue that existing in God's dream is enough of an existence to grant us agency of choice, in which case, I do not readily accept that argument, you will have to fight for it.
Saying human beings can't create things with free will in their imaginations may or may not be true, but either way doesn't put any sort of boundaries as to what God can do. I can't turn water into wine. God can. I can't make life. God can. I can't conceive of the universe in its grand scale. God can. I can't conceive of the quantum scale of size. God can. I don't know what life was like before time and space. God does.
If this debate is going to move forward Highroller needs to define his version of freewill and his version of omniscience. Until then this is just two ships passing in the dark of night.
Edit: that was the first time i ever used a smiley
I am just re-posting this in the hopes that it leads to an actual debate and not just two people assuming different definitions then arguing past one another
I'm trying to have a philosophical debate. But it's...futile?
first thank you for providing a definition of free will. The reason why i think the onus is on highroller is because he has been the chief opponent in this debate. Since we are both atheists, i assume, we are trying to disprove his version free will and omniscience.
If he accepts your definition that would be very helpful
Then why did some people in this forum think that God hardening pharaoh's heart was taking away his free will?
See, the problem is those two things mean exactly opposite.
Exactly. I'm taking on the vantage point of "god". Your convoluting things and intentionally trying to make them more complicated than they are.
If god made the universe. Then he has the vantage point of being "outside" time. Time has no meaning for him. We litterally as beings of this universe have no capability of understanding beyond our limited understanding of "dimentions". Time especially is a difficult one. But you miss the entier point I was making and are writing it off as irrelevant when your too blind to see its so relevant it can't be seperated from the topic.
I shall try again. This time humor me with an experiment.
Choose a number between 1 and 10. I'll continue to the next part when you respond.
I think my experiment wil help you see why you are wrong. So i'll hold off on responding to this.
Do we have a choice if there is only one destiny? If there is only one true destination and every choice you think "you" will make is actually already pre-determined? Because if god made the universe then EVERYTHING in the universe, past, present, futre, is already pre-determined. There is no free will if there is one path. We assume it is free will because we do not see the future. Again this will become clearer (hopefully) after you see the experiment.
You are either confused or an idiot. Your trying to tell me I'm an idiot for something you are confused about. You've done this tactic several times already in this thread. You don't understand the topic or how its relevant because of your narrowed(incorrect) view.
Everything happens and thus an infinite number of universes are created. Why are you in this particular universe at this particular time? ITs because your current "self" chose this path. While other selves chose other paths. Its just by "choice" and 'chance" that this reality is "real". Thats what I mean by a pseudo free will. I never claimed it to be Your definition of free will.
Because I'm arunig from a point that "if god exists" it is an impossibility. IF you definition of free will is "being able to choose but always choosing what will be reguardless" then I guess you and I will never agree on true free will.
Again the experiment will hlep.
and It still doesn't run counter to them if you look at the model. Causality only works from our perspective. If were able to see time in reverse then causality also is reversed. And it only expands upon our knowledge IF the theory is correct. Right now its just a theory I was just mentioning it. However it is still an eternal truth that for the most part it is true. If you were take yourself sitting right now and re-trace your steps or peer backwards through time you would view yourself in a world in which causality is reversed. You ate a cracker because you were thirsty to quench your thirst sort of deal.
Its not up for debate as its fact. But the theory and why I was using it states that our current state is determined by both future events and past events. It doesn't in any way negate the fact that past events caused our present state, but also expanding that the reverse of our futures will bring us to the present. The idea and its function, truth and simplicity can and is understood bby children. The only reason your refuting it right now is because for "free will" to be ture it must be able to completly stand alone from the future.
Explained above. It is physics. and it doesn't mean that the future causes the past but our current state (an infinitly small measurement of time or flashframe of the universe) is determined by both the past and the future. The theory was theorized under the understanding that if you play something in reverse it behaves as such and does not change.
Lol
No. I was rather clear. The argument is we exist, the universe exists. If we deny what we can measure, see, experience, think, ect ect ect then there is no need to argue futhrer. I didn't expect you to take that route but I cut it off in case you or anyone else would pull something like that.
The first time I read those passages I found it very troubling how God hardened the pharoah's heart, causing him to keep the Israelites enslaved. God stripped him of free will to make him do evil. Afterward, God punished the pharoah and Egypt for what He Himself made happen. But what I found even more troubling was how easily christian apologetics would lie (typically by 'interpreting' passages in a manner that is the opposite of what they're actually saying) in order to make God's evil acts sound like acceptable behaviour.
I was curious to know how christian apologetics try to weasel out of this predicament these days and I fell across this site today. This is what they said:
Um yeah...that totally sounds like free will. Not.
They go on to say...
Because when God does one evil act after another, it isn't wrong because God can do no wrong. Puke.
You can almost cut the hypocrisy with a knife.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
Except defining Hell as a place in the Cosmology of Christianity where God's presence is withheld is impossible. According to the doctrine of almost every Christian Denomination (except perhaps one or two fringe groups), God is by definition Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. The last one of those, Omnipresence, means that there cannot exist a place where his presence is withheld due to the fact that he is always present, everywhere. Thus you cannot define hell as a place where he is not. Rather hell is defined quite literally by Jesus himself, as a place of Eternal Torment. Jesus does not define it as a place without God's presence, that is a later church made and contradictory definition.
Also while I am on the subject. I define Omnipotence as the ability to do anything that is logically possible, even if it is not possible for a human to do. That is why God can create universes. Because it is logically possible for him to be able to do so. I further define Omniscience as the ability to see all possible futures, presents, and pasts branching out before him, but not to control those futures unless he takes an active role in them via one of his four other abilities (Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Incarnation, or the ability to bestow Prophecy).
With the resources that currently exist on the planet at the current time, it is possible to end world hunger 100%. Similarly it is likely that somewhere on the planet there is a cure to most diseases, and the ones we can't find a cure for, are diseases that we need in place in order to maintain some level of population control so that we don't overwhelm the food supply.
The problem is that there is a large segment of society who believes it is their god given right to have more wealth, food, and medical care than the vast majority of the worlds population. As such it is unlikely that we will ever see a situation where in humankind is willing to bring about a conclusion to the suffering of their fellow man.
As far as natural disasters, old age, and other causes of suffering that food, monetary, and medical resources cannot solve... those are a necessary evil. Natural Disasters serve a necessary role in our planets functions and while they may cause devastation, it would be far worse for the planet as a whole if they did not occur. Old Age is the ultimate limiting factor on the planets population cap, and without it we would eat our food supplies out of existence causing even more starvation than currently exists, not to mention what it would do to truly non-renewable resources. There are other factors as well, but ultimately some suffering is necessary for the survival of our species as well as all the other species on the planet.
You um... do realize that Sin is an entity itself, as well as a behavioral concept? Sin was a Mesopotamian God, and I believe that the ancient Jews (pre-Moses period) ascribed many of the same traits to Sin that modern Christians ascribe to Satan (who ironically is technically God's right hand Angel and is the one who serves as Prosecuting Attorney in the Heavenly Court, at least according to one of the earliest books of the Old Testament to be written).
So when you say we are being punished for Adam and Eve's sin, are you saying we are being punished for their behavior? Or for their worship of an ancient Mesopotamian God? In either case it would be near treachery to the Judeo-Christian God for what Adam and Eve allegedly did. They disobeyed God's one and only (at the time) commandment, that in and of itself is treachery and worthy of being cast out of paradise. Unfortunately the Ancient Jews believed in a generational punishment system for certain transgressions, and disobeying Gods most important (only) commandment would be the biggest transgression you could accumulate worthy of the biggest punishment ever.
And painful debilitating diseases are what an all-knowing, all-good God came up with?
No diseases are "necessary." There are plenty of better ways to regulate the population that does not involve human suffering. Additionally, unless you think ancient humans had the resources to do all that, there would be still genrations and genrations that would get the short end of the stick no matter how good they were.
So, why should others pay for their evil? It's inherently unjust.
No suffering is "necessary;" that's question begging hogwash which leads to the stifling of actual solutions.
Stop trying to get the facts to fit your beliefs and start fitting your beliefs to the facts.
1. Implicit assumption that all human suffering is bad. Justify this?
2. Regarding regulating population: such as?
Don't get me wrong, I agree that human suffering isn't necessary. I do, however, think it is inevitable, and I'm not convinced that's a bad thing.
Are you God? Do you presume to tell God what is and is not a necessary condition of human life and the survival of the human species?
Okay, lets put it this way... scientists to the best of my knowledge currently believe the ultimate carrying capacity for humans on the planet earth is hard capped at around 12 billion people. What that means is if the planet's population ever exceeds 12 billion, that there will not be enough resources on the planet to sustain that number of people for more than a couple of years. Our planet's population is currently sitting somewhere between 6 and 7 billion. This level of population is largely maintained by the fact that deaths are usually about even with births. However if you removed all forms of death from the human species, except for dying of hunger, then the planets population cap would be reached in a manner of a few years.
You realize the story of Adam and Eve is largely a metaphor explaining the relationship of God and Human Sin right?
EDIT: And P.S. I do not believe the painful debilitating diseases are necessarily God's idea. Just because God is the creator and ultimately the one who implements things into creation, does not mean he is the one who comes up with every single idea. He may be all knowing, all powerful and all present, but that doesn't mean he is necessarily the one who comes up with the best torment. And by the way, torment is sometimes the best way to cultivate spiritual growth. Just ask Job.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No thats not what I am saying at all. I am saying that death is acceptable because it averts the extinction of the human species as a whole. Does that put things in better context for you?
If we hit the population cap its not so much that a few people would die as it is that EVERYONE would die. And quite rapidly as well.
EDIT: I mean can any of you comprehend what would happen to us as a species if Adam and Eve were real. If they were given the ability and knowledge of how to reproduce right at their creation, and if they and all their descendents were actually immortal (but not invulnerable) and they actually choose the option of obeying God instead of listening to the serpent? Eden may have been a paradise on earth, but I highly doubt it was infinite in size the way that Heaven is. In fact the dimensions of Eden are explicitly described in the Bible itself so we know that it was not infinite in size. Thus if Adam and Eve had spawned a race of immortal beings who were not violent by nature... they would overwhelm the ability of Eden to support them, despite it being a paradise.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Eh... its complicated. This has been happening ever since Christianity split off from Judaism, but alot of people misinterpret Satan's role (I don't call him Lucifer because Lucifer means the Morning Star and that is actually one of Jesus' titles). Anyways, Satan was at least according to the book of Job (one of the earliest books written in the Old Testament, predating Genesis by a long shot) part of the Court of God. By this I literally mean "Court" as in a Legal system, and not the meaning that is used by a Monarch.
Satan's role in the Court of God was basically the same as a Prosecuting Lawyer's role in a modern day court. It is largely because of what he does to Job that many people see him as Evil, including the Author of Revelation I imagine. However the problem with this interpretation is that Satan had the approval of God to go ahead with the tormenting of Job. The reason he had this approval was so that God could prove Job's faithfulness to him. And it turned out God was right in the long run.
Also, it should be noted that the snake in the Garden of Eden is only identified as Satan by Christians. Neither Islam nor the Jews recognize such an identification. Islam does recognize the snake as a demon or Ifrit (I think) but thats not the same as it being Satan.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's not that they misinterpret Satan's role, it's that Satan as a character changed over the history of Judaism. Satan was originally an angel of the Heavenly Host, who served as an accuser for humanity but was, nevertheless, an angel.
Overtime the tradition of Satan being a fallen angel and embodiment of evil came about as apocalyptic ideas developed.
DalkonCledwin claimed--without reason--that human suffering was necessary, I rebuttaled--without reason--that it was not. Now, it's up to others to decide on which unfounded axiom is more agreeable to them.
As one example: Having less babies. It's already happening; humans in first world countries seem to be naturally inclined to have less kids than those in countries where there is less chance of survival. Check the statistics. Seems like a more elegant solution than "necessary painful deaths."
However, it makes things like AIDS seem like "God's will," which makes it seem like we're just wasting time and money trying to fix it. The implication in the idea that some suffering is 'necessary' makes us more complicit in it. Thus, I reject the idea out-of-hand.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
The rebuttal to those questions is trivial:
Are YOU God? Do YOU presume to tell me what is and is not a necessary condition of human life and the survival of the human species?
Since you just did. Additionally, I did not tell God, I told you. Unless your claim is that you are God? One would guess it is the way you're handing out edicts about how some people must be killed.
Anyway, I choose to look at the facts using the logical brain I was given. You're argument is unsupported by them. You are inventing reasons for an all-knowing, all-good God when they don't exist. You should go where the facts lead you, you should not be trying to lead the facts to where you wish them to be. To do so is to pervert Truth.
So, where did they come from? Where do flesh-eating bacteria come from? Who is responsible for them? Who is creating new life if not God?
You said that earthquakes and the like are necessary to balance Earth. Well, who is responsible for Earth being like that? Who is responsible for God's creation if not God?
Did man make viruses? Did man make the Earth's tectonic plates?
They do not. The universe is "moving along the line of time," as it were, because that is what time measures. These two ideas are not incompatible. In fact, that's precisely what time is.
No, time would still have meaning for him just as height, width, and depth would. They simply don't measure him. That doesn't mean they wouldn't apply to anything in creation, which is what you're trying to argue.
Saying time would not be relevant to us is incorrect. God being able to see all of space at once does not mean we are not bound to a specific position in space at any given time, just as we exist in a specific point in time at any given time.
Alright. Am I supposed to tell you what it is?
Of course. Just because only one outcome results does not mean only one outcome could have resulted. That's part-and-parcel with free will. It doesn't matter if only one thing comes about, it matters whether or not choice was involved when that one thing came about.
It remains irrelevant whether God sees my actions "before" I do them.
No it's not. It cannot be said that I chose this path because there exists every other scenario somewhere else in the multiverse. A choice is as much defined by what one does not do as what one does. I cannot be said to choose not to eat french toast if I have, by virtue of the multiverse, chosen to eat french toast.
Like your number argument. I cannot be said to have chosen a number if I split into ten different Highrollers choosing ten different numbers. That's the opposite of choice. It means I am powerless to choose anything because when presented with a set of potential actions, I must do all of them. Whatever current state I'm in is not based on my input, but merely randomness. This is not free will.
As Blinking said earlier, if you can argue the existence of a system in which God does not exist and there is free will, then it is possible for God to exist and that free will to remain intact.
The existence of God does not invalidate free will.
Ok, at least read this part and hear me out. Then we can decide to walk away or keep going:
I want to scrutinize your ideas of "what will be regardless."
All events of the past have been set. From our current vantage point, we can see the past, or at least the parts we were there for.
So does that mean we have no choice in the past? At t= 2:30 PM EST, March 30, 2012 did Highroller have no free will? No, at that time Highroller did. He had was making choices at that time. He's made choices every second since then.
We are, however, occupying a different position in time, and therefore we cannot make choices in the past, but we can make choices in the now, and when we get to the future, we can make choices then. At t= 2:30 PM EST, March 30, 2014, Highroller will be able to make choices then.
Similarly, we can apply this concept to position. I am no longer in my front yard. I was making choices earlier in my front yard, but I cannot do so now, because I am indoors.
As you say, time is coordinate, just like the three spatial dimensions are coordinates.
With this in mind, the fact can perceive all points in time at once and all points in space at once doesn't influence whether or not I can make a choice.
For instance, Highroller of 2014 can see what I'm going to do today. He does not violate the idea of free will because Highroller of 2014 occupies a different point in time wherein he has already done these events. But that doesn't mean I don't have free will in my current time.
Yes, obviously God can see what choices I'm going to make today. That because God occupies a point outside of time and can see everything. But that doesn't mean that God's existence means I don't have choice.
No, that does not follow. The glass does not fall because it is broken. It is broken because it falls. Time is not symmetrical.
It is not.
NOTHING--absolutely unequivocally--NOTHING in science is an unquestionable fact. The very idea is an anathema to all that science IS.
2) The Universe does not exist.
3) God foresees a Universe where I do X, but has not YET created it.
4) Because the Universe does not exist (and therefore I do not exist) in #3, my action cannot be the cause of his knowledge.
5) God creates the Universe he saw in #3.
6) Because of 1, 3, and 4, X is now necessary and I could not do otherwise.
It is possible that I don't have Free Will.
I am closer to Pike's argument. But even he doesn't really address #4 in my diagram above.
How do you solve this problem? How can my action cause his knowledge if he hasnt even created the universe yet.
It is irrelevant whether or not he exists in our spacetime. It only matters that he had the knowledge prior to the act of creation - which is what many passages in the Bible and other judeo-christian texts claim.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/
"8. Conclusion
There are a number of arguments for fatalism, and it seems that one way of countering all of them would be to adopt the Aristotelian solution, or something akin to it. It would be neat if it could be made out that this was the only solution, so that the fate of fatalism was inextricably linked to the fate of the Aristotelian solution. But it does not seem that this is so, except possibly, on the assumption that an omniscient God exists, in relation to middle knowledge. But even then, the solution is only a poor relation to the Aristotelian solution.
So it is possible that both fatalism and the Aristotelian solution are wrong. And it is, of course, always possible, for all that has been said, that fatalism is correct."
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
No one cares that it is snowing in Bolivia
If this debate is going to move forward Highroller needs to define his version of freewill and his version of omniscience. Until then this is just two ships passing in the dark of night.
Edit: that was the first time i ever used a smiley
But that's just it: why do you do X?
No, that doesn't follow. God's foreseeing the universe. Therefore he can foresee what you're going to.
Something can logically precede something even if it doesn't chronologically precede something. This is demonstrated by our time traveler scenario. (Incidentally, I never knew that traveler and traveller are both acceptable spellings. This forum does teach us things! :))
Why? Because he created me to. I have already given this answer several times, it hasn't changed.
If I dream of a girl that doesn't actually exist, and in my dream she has sex with me - then, AFTER I wake up, I create my dream exactly as a reality - does she have sex with me of her own free will?
My answer is NO.
We are God's dream made real. That is all. There is no free will there.
You are ADDING something to the diagram that isn't there. Some sort of temporal causality that you have not supported. It is your argument that it is still my action (or my choice) that causes his knowledge. But I argue this is false, because I do not actually exist to do anything, or choose anything when he gains his knowledge.
Something that doesn't exist cannot do anything.
Unless you want to argue that existing in God's dream is enough of an existence to grant us agency of choice, in which case, I do not readily accept that argument, you will have to fight for it.
See above.
Right, but I'm not refuting the Time Traveler argument.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
No no no no no, before that. God's about to create the universe, he's looking at the universe, he sees you do X. Why?
That's because we're not capable of inventing things with wills independent of our own (well, maybe we are. Writers often speak of characters writing themselves. However, it's pretty clear that sex fantasy girl is not a fleshed out... is not a three-dimensional... is not a fully-developed... character. Is there a word for this that can't be made into a pun on breasts?) She's a fantasy, not a full human being.
Saying human beings can't create things with free will in their imaginations may or may not be true, but either way doesn't put any sort of boundaries as to what God can do. I can't turn water into wine. God can. I can't make life. God can. I can't conceive of the universe in its grand scale. God can. I can't conceive of the quantum scale of size. God can. I don't know what life was like before time and space. God does.
So, does that answer your question then?
I am just re-posting this in the hopes that it leads to an actual debate and not just two people assuming different definitions then arguing past one another
I wouldn't know. But since I don't exist yet, I'm going to argue that it can't be because I chose to.
And we were God's fantasy prior to creation. You have not refuted anything.
He made reality to be exactly like a fantasy he had. he has the power I guess to do such a thing.
You completely ignored the point of the analogy to go on some tangent about how I don't have God powers as a human. Nice deflection but it won't work on me.
Assuming the same powers of God. If I dream of a nonexistant girl who has sex with me, and after I wake up I create a reality that is exactly like my dream, does she have sex with me of her own free will?
My answer is no, now you answer without twisting **** up.
Sigh you're making me a sad philosopher.
No. The Time Traveler scenario is not the same, and by a long shot.
I'm trying to have a philosophical debate. But it's...futile?
I'm going with
Free Will:
Noun - The power of acting without the constraint of necessity, fate, or divine will; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+will
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+will
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
If he accepts your definition that would be very helpful
An honest answer, but this entire discussion hinges upon the answer to that question.
That doesn't make any sense. By that logic, you can't perform X since you don't exist yet.
So once again, why do you do X?