Originally posted by FreakyKBHI perceive that I decided it. All evidence points to that fact as well, so I believe it is so.
Granted. Did you decide that all on your own, or did someone (thing) make you decide it?
If you grant my point, you have quite a bit of retracting to do, as it refutes the bulk of your assertions in this thread.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOnly if knowledge of an object can logically (not necessarily in time) precede the object known.
In fact, under your premise that God has foreknowledge, illusory free will is exactly the case: the perception of free will without the actuality of it.
Which it cannot. Your paradox is an illusion.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSo there are no actual decisions in there, just perceptions of the same? How did you determine that perceptions were the only reality?
I perceive that I decided it. All evidence points to that fact as well, so I believe it is so.
If you grant my point, you have quite a bit of retracting to do, as it refutes the bulk of your assertions in this thread.
When I typed, "Granted," it was in reference to your assertion that I am a "gullible idiot." When one considers the probable commingled origins of idiocy and prophecy, I'd much rather be an idiot than one such as you, who thinks they think for themselves.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou already granted the point of your idiocy. You didn't have to make a further post demonstrating its truth.
So there are no actual decisions in there, just perceptions of the same? How did you determine that perceptions were the only reality?
When I typed, "Granted," it was in reference to your assertion that I am a "gullible idiot." When one considers the probable commingled origins of idiocy and prophecy, I'd much rather be an idiot than one such as you, who thinks they think for themselves.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOur function here is not to hammer out a ‘standard of suffering’ or a ‘level of moral acceptability’ whatever you take those phrases to mean. Look, for the umpteenth time: use your own definitions here. Exactly what do you not understand about that? Again: does the aforementioned Down’s baby experience logically unnecessary pain and suffering or not?
Here's the ball, LJ. You bring up Down babies (presumably nothing to do with you, so we'll just credit you with a supreme sense of fair play and representation), and specifically, the physical suffering they experience. Remember, [b]you bring up suffering. In order to define a standard of suffering, a level of moral acceptability must be established ...[text shortened]... ult?
You still haven't answered the question relative to who is hurt when a lie is told.[/b]
You clearly just do not understand the logical entailments of your own claims. For this reason, you grossly underestimate the force of the evidential problem of evil.
For instance, is it morally acceptable for God to establish the world, if He knew it would result in someone's loss of balance? upset stomach? skinned knee? bulged disc? aortic stenosis?
Let’s take the skinned knee as an example: a person skins his knees and experiences some physical pain and general discomfort. Based on the attributes that you yourself have assigned to your God, if that skinned knee is not somehow logically necessary for the greater good to obtain, then that skinned knee is evidence for the non-existence of your God (or at least, your God is callous). Yes, your idea of God really is that silly.
What if, in viewing the physical as temporary, He determined to use it as the transfer agent of bringing His glory to man? This transfer requires work. Who's suffering (work) is efficacious for His intended result?
You can lay a whole bunch of what ifs on the table, but the question still comes down to whether or not the instances of suffering and evil that we observe regularly are logically necessary for the greater good. So perhaps these what ifs may constitute in your mind some foundation for some argument aimed at showing as much -- e.g., that the pain and eventual deaths of those Down’s babies were logically necessary. Well, let’s hear it.
You still haven't answered the question relative to who is hurt when a lie is told.
I already addressed this when I wrote “Within the context of this discussion, who the hell cares? Keep your eyes on the ball, Freak.”
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNope. If God has perfect knowledge of all my future actions, then my future is determined. Libertarian free will goes out the window right there. You still have compatibilist free will to consider, but as I stated before, there is absolutely nothing about free will that logically necessitates the existence of hell. So your claim that hell is necessary and certain due explicitly to human free will is a false claim.
I am not using any "libertarian notion of free will," I am using the attributes and characteristics of God. Because you cannot fathom how God could know beforehand all thoughts/decisions/actions does not erase the same from reality. The fact that you are able to make decisions right now proves you have free will. The fact that Satan rebelled against God ...[text shortened]... nce of hell, to argue against its existence on a moral basis is contradictory to your premise.
According to your view, nothing is logically necessary and all items possess the same value. Regardless of your repugnance of hell, to argue against its existence on a moral basis is contradictory to your premise.
What? I’m afraid I don’t speak Gibberish. I make little sense of this.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIn this particular instance it is the match that causes the fire, not the other way around*. The fire, in itself, does not cause the chemical composition or mechanical structure of the match to be what it is.
I use a match to light a fire. Fire does indeed influence the nature of the match.
Anyway--go on.
If we look at the domain of knowledge, it is the event which causes knowledge, not the other way around; the thing known is always [ontologically] prior to (or logically the antecedent of) the act of knowing. I know A because A happens or is true, not the other way around.
So, for instance, I know that the Battle of the Bulge occurred because it occurred; the Battle of the Bulge did not occur because I know† it occurred. Event A (Battle of the Bulge) causes event B (my knowledge of the Battle of the Bulge), not the other way around.
Agree?
---
* in terms of efficient cause. In terms of final cause, of course, the fire is a cause for the match because the match has been constructed with the purpose of creating a fire. In this discussion, it should be understood that by 'cause' I mean efficient cause.
† where 'knowledge' is true, justified, non-accidental belief.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat's because you're alive now. Certain German generals knew that the Battle of the Bulge was going to occur before it happened--they planned it that way. And there were German troops behind the lines in American uniforms who knew that the Battle of the Bulge was occurring while their American counterparts did not. Of course the Battle of the Bulge was not named until it was over.
So, for instance, I know that the Battle of the Bulge occurred because it occurred; the Battle of the Bulge did not occur because I know† it occurred. Event A (Battle of the Bulge) causes event B (my knowledge of the Battle of the Bulge), not the other way around.
But yes, I agree with you--you didn't cause the Battle of the Bulge.