Dr Who and Columbus + free will

Originally posted by no1marauder
The universe is not moving on a timeline and there is no such thing as absolute time; time (and everything else) is relative to the observer. You need to study Einstein.

Your stuff is a lot of self-contradictory nonsense with some extra "magic" thrown in. You have no explanation for how exactly an entity can both exist at no point and every p ...[text shortened]... train thought experiment. http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html

"The universe is not moving on a timeline and there is no such thing as absolute time; time (and everything else) is relative to the observer. You need to study Einstein. "

I AGREE

Originally posted by knightmeister
Wrong again!!! God knows what you will do because to him you have already done it. It's extra dimensions you need to think about not time trapped predictions. If God was trapped in time your position on this would be unanswerable , but you and I both know that's not the eternal God most theists actaully believe in . Thus you have refuted a god of your own making ! 😀

You posted two contradictory posts back to back, both addressed to me.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You posted two contradictory posts back to back, both addressed to me.

Care to elaborate at all? I have the feeling that it may be your perception that I am contradicting myself , whereas in fact I may not be.

Was it the universe thing?

Originally posted by knightmeister
"You have no explanation for how exactly an entity can both exist at no point and every point in time. And assuming it could, it wouldn't have any ability to do anything but what it always did" PROVE THIS PLEASE



I am well aware of the contradictory nature of this argument and have already stated that it is paradoxical. All I am trying to illustr ...[text shortened]... will know the truth and the truth will set you free, then you will be free indeed" NT

You can give an imaginary being whatever attributes you choose to. You refuse to accept logical argument as "proof", so I have no idea how to "prove" to you that an entity existing at all points in a so-called timeline could never have done anything but what he did. You'd actually have to think logically about it and you refuse to do so, lapsing into "God is magic" everytime you get boxed into a contradiction. This makes this whole discussion fruitless (and pulling rabbits out of hats is a trick theists do on this Forum constantly).

Originally posted by no1marauder
You can give an imaginary being whatever attributes you choose to. You refuse to accept logical argument as "proof", so I have no idea how to "prove" to you that an entity existing at all points in a so-called timeline could never have done anything but what he did. You'd actually have to think logically about it and you refuse to do so, lapsing into "Go ...[text shortened]... uitless (and pulling rabbits out of hats is a trick theists do on this Forum constantly).

"so I have no idea how to "prove" to you that an entity existing at all points in a so-called timeline could never have done anything but what he did"

You don't have to prove it to me , I agree with your argument , it's just your definition of terms that causes confusion. If you are saying that God's actions are predetermined then can you tell me what it is that is determining them? By who or what exactly?

In any case , I think if you asking me to go on a journey inside the mind of God and eternity things are likely to get pretty confusing and my knowledge will be somehwat limited (LOL) . I have no idea if God even lives on a timeline or not. My hypothesis isn't a proof neither is it science , it's a little mental game to get you thinking , you need to read it in the spirit in which it is written. Do you really think any of it will ever make sense in the way you want it to? (read Dr Who part 3)

Originally posted by knightmeister
"so I have no idea how to "prove" to you that an entity existing at all points in a so-called timeline could never have done anything but what he did"

You don't have to prove it to me , I agree with your argument , it's just your definition of terms that causes confusion. If you are saying that God's actions are predetermined then can you tell me wh ly think any of it will ever make sense in the way you want it to? (read Dr Who part 3)

First, this sentence is nonsense.

If you are saying that God's actions are predetermined then can you tell me what it is that is determining them?

This is a self-contradictory statement; if something is pre-determined nothing else "determines" it. Most of your "arguments" are based on similar misuses of the English language. Or are examples of the Fallacy of Equivocation.

Second, I never used the term "pre-determined". Such a term is based on an idea of absolute time that is incorrect.

Third, you've dropped back into the "magic" argument. It's a waste of time to try to discuss things logically with someone who whenever they run into a logical corner use such a trick.

Originally posted by no1marauder
First, this sentence is nonsense.

If you are saying that God's actions are predetermined then can you tell me what it is that is determining them?

This is a self-contradictory statement; if something is pre-determined nothing else "determines" it. Most of your "arguments" are based on similar misuses of the English language. Or are exa ...[text shortened]... logically with someone who whenever they run into a logical corner use such a trick.

"This is a self-contradictory statement; if something is pre-determined nothing else "determines" it. Most of your "arguments" are based on similar misuses of the English language. Or are examples of the Fallacy of Equivocation." MARAUDER

I don't get this . The idea of determination is based on things having causes. A hard determinist might say that a tree grows in a certain way because it is determined by things like the genetic structure of the seed , weather conditions , the soil , the sunlight it is exposed to etc etc. IE There is a reason for it to be that way.

I must be under some kind of gross misunderstanding because as I understood it determinism requires cause and reasons. Everything is as it is because of a reason, or complicated set of reasons , and the reasons or causes is what makes it determined. The tree isn't just a tree because it's accident. In determinism there can be no "accidents" because there is always a reason for something to happen. If there is no reason that's going into the realm of the random where anything can happen.

My point is that God's actions may or may not be determined , but if they are they are certainly not determined by anything else other than himself , which makes it very different from the normal concept of determinism.

Originally posted by no1marauder
First, this sentence is nonsense.

If you are saying that God's actions are predetermined then can you tell me what it is that is determining them?

This is a self-contradictory statement; if something is pre-determined nothing else "determines" it. Most of your "arguments" are based on similar misuses of the English language. Or are exa ...[text shortened]... logically with someone who whenever they run into a logical corner use such a trick.

Second, I never used the term "pre-determined". Such a term is based on an idea of absolute time that is incorrect.

....in which case I suggest that you take this up with many of your Atheist colleagues who seem to use the word quite readily?
Don't forget that this whole thread is a response to a common Atheist objection based on the whole idea of pre determination versus free will and omniscience.

Originally posted by no1marauder
First, this sentence is nonsense.

If you are saying that God's actions are predetermined then can you tell me what it is that is determining them?

This is a self-contradictory statement; if something is pre-determined nothing else "determines" it. Most of your "arguments" are based on similar misuses of the English language. Or are exa ...[text shortened]... logically with someone who whenever they run into a logical corner use such a trick.

Third, you've dropped back into the "magic" argument. It's a waste of time to try to discuss things logically with someone who whenever they run into a logical corner use such a trick.



There is a big difference between running away into magic and embracing the limitations of our logic. If I am trying to describe (as best I can) something which is in a dimension that is dramatcally different from the dimensions we understand then it is reasonable to assume that our logic is going to get us into corners.
If you ever watch any stuff on TV by Quantum Physicists you soon realise that normal logic and language starts coming up short when describing the quantum world . It becomes paradoxical to an extent. That doesn't mean that we throw our hands up and say we can't understand it at all so we just have to accept it magically. But it also doesn't mean that must throw our hands up in the air and complain that it's becoming too difficult and paradoxical because of this we have moved into an "illogical corner" so we must therefore write the whole thing off .

This would be a polarised positon . There is a healthy balance in between and I am trying to stay in it , but like all polarisers you can't see the grey you just see "magic". ......until now?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Third, you've dropped back into the "magic" argument. It's a waste of time to try to discuss things logically with someone who whenever they run into a logical corner use such a trick.



There is a big difference between running away into magic and embracing the limitations of our logic. If I am trying to describe (as best I can) something which i ...[text shortened]... t like all polarisers you can't see the grey you just see "magic". ......until now?

It's truly sad that you would try to use Quantum Mechanics to excuse your "God is magic" tendencies. If you knew anything about this theory, you'd know it is based on statistical probabilities of occurrences in the subatomic world and is verified by observations. This is the opposite of what you are doing.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Second, I never used the term "pre-determined". Such a term is based on an idea of absolute time that is incorrect.

....in which case I suggest that you take this up with many of your Atheist colleagues who seem to use the word quite readily?
Don't forget that this whole thread is a response to a common Atheist objection based on the whole idea of pre determination versus free will and omniscience.

Again, you use a term incorrectly. When you say "atheist", you don't mean someone who doesn't believe in the existence of a god(s) - you mean someone who doesn't believe in the existence of the God you believe in. In fact, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

The point you can't seem to get through your skull, is that the "objection" you are referring is applicable only when you have a Creator God with the 4 O's who also takes some active interest in the personal decisions of human beings. The very fact that your magical God creates a universe knowing exactly what will happen in it makes any thought of free will by his creations a chimera. In fact the only thing you have added to standard Christian nonsense in this thread is the bizarre notion of an omniscient God who doesn't know what will happen until it does, which is, of course, a contradiction. How do you explain this coontradiction? "It's magic".

Originally posted by knightmeister
"This is a self-contradictory statement; if something is pre-determined nothing else "determines" it. Most of your "arguments" are based on similar misuses of the English language. Or are examples of the Fallacy of Equivocation." MARAUDER

I don't get this . The idea of determination is based on things having causes. A hard determinist might say that ...[text shortened]... han himself , which makes it very different from the normal concept of determinism.

More Fallacy of Equivocation.

More self-contradictions.

Tell me, if everything must be determined by something else, how does free will exist at all?

Originally posted by no1marauder
More Fallacy of Equivocation.

More self-contradictions.

Tell me, if everything must be determined by something else, how does free will exist at all?

I didn't say that I was a determinist I was just presenting the determinists' argument. Presumably you are a determinist? You probably are because you think free will impossible. I was using your own argument against you and now you turn round and argue against it as if it's my argument??

So for the record , I am not a hard determinist. If you are then you need to give me some reason why you think God's actions "must " be determined and what they are determined by , if you can't then your argument although possible is not reasonable or logical by the high standards of logic you set for yourself.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Again, you use a term incorrectly. When you say "atheist", you don't mean someone who doesn't believe in the existence of a god(s) - you mean someone who doesn't believe in the existence of the God you believe in. In fact, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

The point you can't seem to get through your skull, is that the "objection" you are ref ...[text shortened]... of course, a contradiction. How do you explain this coontradiction? "It's magic".

"In fact the only thing you have added to standard Christian nonsense in this thread is the bizarre notion of an omniscient God who doesn't know what will happen until it does, which is, of course, a contradiction. How do you explain this coontradiction? "It's magic"."MARAUDER

I have explained in Dr who (part2) why I don't think it is a contradiction TO ME . Have you read it? I think that if God is omniscient and then chooses to become less than this because it becomes necessary for free will then he is still omniscient in a real sense. He's still going to know everything anyway , he's just waiting a "while" to see if you surprise him or not , he could reclaim full omniscience at any moment he chooses , so he's not limited really , just self limiting. I understand that by your rigid and pedantic definition of the word results in a contradiction for you but you need to prove that there can be only one interpretation of this word in order to show me as self contradictory.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Again, you use a term incorrectly. When you say "atheist", you don't mean someone who doesn't believe in the existence of a god(s) - you mean someone who doesn't believe in the existence of the God you believe in. In fact, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

The point you can't seem to get through your skull, is that the "objection" you are ref ...[text shortened]... of course, a contradiction. How do you explain this coontradiction? "It's magic".

How do you explain this coontradiction?

I explained it in the Dr Who thread. Dr Who can travel in (or outside of) time so he knows the future but his knowledge is dependant on what happens.

It will always seem contradictory as long as you keep thinking in timelines only and don't think outside of time .oooops ...I forgot time is the ultimate dimension and eternity is impossible..we know this of course