Originally posted by Conrau KSo the cats out of the bag. You have a DIFFERENT reason for not believing in free will. Indeterminacy v determinacy is another debate all together. What I presume you have been trying to debate is that God being omniscient implies lack of free will , but you have not shown why this should be so , so you turn somewhere else. You have not shown HOW or WHY our wills are determined or affected by God knowing or not knowing. You can't make a case to say why having an eternal being watching you and knowing your life therefore stops you being free. You have failed to make a CAUSAL connection. If God stopped watching us or knowing our actions why would that make us more free? What ACTUAL difference would it make?
So let me ask. I can do this or that, right? Yet, God knows which one I am going to do? I'm not going to bother questioning this God-out-of-time concept. It requires to much bending of logic beyond credibility. But let me get this straight. God, not restricted by time, created the universe at the same time it ended. From what I read of knightmeister's posts ...[text shortened]... ltaneously.
And anyway, actions must be determined since indeterminacy implies randomness.
You have so far failed to grasp the inadequacy of all the words we use (like simultaneously , happen , same time , am going to ) and refused to accept that extra dimensions are going to be tricky and paradoxical. You have not separated out your own projections of time from God's perspective. I'll say it for the final time. God does NOT know what you are going to do until you have done it , but the moment you do it is the same for him as this present moment in which you are reading this post. I presume you would accept that quantum particles could be in two different places in the universe at the same time and that light can be a wave and a particle simultaneously. So why not accept that God could be in more than one timezone simultaneously?
You may not accept it or find it believable but do you at the very least accept that Christians are not neccessarily being self contradictory if they see God's omniscience as not impinging on free will? They don't believe the same thing as you do.
Originally posted by knightmeister-You can't make a case to say why having an eternal being watching you and knowing your life therefore stops you being free. You have failed to make a CAUSAL connection. If God stopped watching us or knowing our actions why would that make us more free? What ACTUAL difference would it make?-
So the cats out of the bag. You have a DIFFERENT reason for not believing in free will. Indeterminacy v determinacy is another debate all together. What I presume you have been trying to debate is that God being omniscient implies lack of free will , but you have not shown why this should be so , so you turn somewhere else. You have not shown HOW or WH ...[text shortened]... d's omniscience as not impinging on free will? They don't believe the same thing as you do.
Yes, just because God knows the future it doesn’t mean that God caused that future to occur, but it does mean that the future is somehow predetermined. From my point of view, my future is largely determined by my choices. From Gods point of view these choices have already been made, and I am incapable of behaving in any other way. So my ‘free will’ is an illusion caused by my lack of knowledge. From God's perspective my future is inevitable. Again, though this doesn’t mean that Gods knowledge in itself robs me of free will, the existence of a being which possesses perfect knowledge of the future implies that we live in a universe where free will doesn’t exist (of couse if God created this kind of universe, then he is responsible for my not having free will, but that’s beside the point).
-You have so far failed to grasp the inadequacy of all the words we use (like simultaneously , happen , same time , am going to ) and refused to accept that extra dimensions are going to be tricky and paradoxical –
Oh come on! This isn’t paradoxical, its absurd. You seem to be saying that some Christian claims should not (indeed cannot) be subjected to logical critique. That’s up to you, but I (and hopefully Conrau) will continue to submit Christian claims to a little more rigor.
-You may not accept it or find it believable but do you at the very least accept that Christians are not necessarily being self contradictory if they see God's omniscience as not impinging on free will? They don't believe the same thing as you do.-
Actually, many Christians think it contradictory. Calvin constructed a theology of predestination impressive both for its honesty and rigor which severely limited the nature of free will and managed to square it will scripture.
Originally posted by chronicmanIf God is all knowing you have to know how he knows it all!
Is there really such a thing as free will?
First lets consider the belief that god is an all-knowing being.
If you accept that god is an all-knowing being.
Then one would have to argue.
God knows how your life will start and end also knows everything in between.
Having said that and accepted as fact.
The only way possible for God to know every ...[text shortened]... act he wills it to be so. Therefore no one has free will and everyone is living as god wills it.
Does God know because He causes all things to happen just as God
wants which means only God has free will, or does God know, because
He simply sees all things occur, and we were the one making our
choices? I believe He knows because He sees it all, but we are the
ones making our own choices.
Kelly
Originally posted by NimzofishDon't tell me you're also part of K's dodgy-logic club.
-You can't make a case to say why having an eternal being watching you and knowing your life therefore stops you being free. You have failed to make a CAUSAL connection. If God stopped watching us or knowing our actions why would that make us more free? What ACTUAL difference would it make?-
Yes, just because God knows the future it doesn’t mean that Go ...[text shortened]... igor which severely limited the nature of free will and managed to square it will scripture.
Yes, just because God knows the future it doesn’t mean that God caused that future to occur, but it does mean that the future is somehow predetermined.
Somehow? You're gonna base your whole critique on "somehow"? As I told K: you're gonna have to do better than that.
From Gods point of view these choices have already been made, and I am incapable of behaving in any other way.
Wrong. From God's point of view they are being made.
So my ‘free will’ is an illusion caused by my lack of knowledge.
Really? So if you knew what you would do, it would somehow make your choice (which you have already admitted to) free? You're in exactly the same boat as K: prove how knowledge infers causality.
This isn’t paradoxical, its[sic] absurd. You seem to be saying that some Christian claims should not (indeed cannot) be subjected to logical critique. That’s up to you, but I (and hopefully Conrau) will continue to submit Christian claims to a little more rigor.
Argumentum ad ignorantium. All you and K have been able to do with the given logical arguments is sprout ad hominems (your "its[sic] absurd" being case in point) rather than address the arguments themselves for flaws in them.
Originally posted by NimzofishIf you are suggesting that God being everywhere stops our choices
-You can't make a case to say why having an eternal being watching you and knowing your life therefore stops you being free. You have failed to make a CAUSAL connection. If God stopped watching us or knowing our actions why would that make us more free? What ACTUAL difference would it make?-
Yes, just because God knows the future it doesn’t mean that Go ...[text shortened]... igor which severely limited the nature of free will and managed to square it will scripture.
from being made by us. I am not sure I'd even agree with this, "Yes,
just because God knows the future it doesn’t mean that God caused
that future to occur, but it does mean that the future is somehow
predetermined." It boils back down to who makes our choices and
who has the will to do so, if my life is predetermined it is by the
choices I make if my will is free. The whole of making laws, asking
us to follow God, the warnings of danger for doing wrong, the rewards
for doing right become meaningless. All of existence would become
nothing but a mental masturbation for God if that were true, void of
all true meaning and purpose.
Personally, I can only see God the great “I am” simply having a
greater purpose than such a mental joke, but indeed where God and
God alone could create a universe where free moral agency has been
given to so many people. I think the desire to attack such a thing to
is the same as what Adam felt when confronted with the results of his
actions, blame someone else for what he did.
Kelly
Originally posted by Halitose-Somehow? You're gonna base your whole critique on "somehow"? As I told K: you're gonna have to do better than that-
Don't tell me you're also part of K's dodgy-logic club.
[b]Yes, just because God knows the future it doesn’t mean that God caused that future to occur, but it does mean that the future is somehow predetermined.
Somehow? You're gonna base your whole critique on "somehow"? As I told K: you're gonna have to do better than that.
From Gods point ...[text shortened]... being case in point) rather than address the arguments themselves for flaws in them.
I’m not basing my critique on ‘somehow predetermined’; I don’t think the nature of that predetermination is necessarily relevant to the direction of the discussion. I thought we were talking about whether God’s omniscience implies that the future is predetermined and the implications it has for free will. Speculations as to the process by which that predetermined universe is arrived at, i.e. the underlying structure which allows for the future to have already ‘occurred’ from Gods point of view, is a discussion best saved for when we’ve established one way or the other whether the universe is predetermined in principle.
-Wrong. From God's point of view they are being made.-
That’s fine. So God doesn’t know the future, his omniscience is limited to events that have already happened or are in the process of occurring. I think that the sticking point is whether God knows the future or not.
-Really? So if you knew what you would do, it would somehow make your choice (which you have already admitted to) free? You're in exactly the same boat as K: prove how knowledge infers causality.-
No, knowing doesn’t in itself cause the event to occur. Rather, knowing the future implies that we live in a predetermined universe. Imagine I have a tarot deck that always correctly predicts the future. It tells me that tomorrow that I’ll go to church. Am I free to decide not to go (free will)? If I don’t go then I don’t have a tarot deck that always correctly predicts the future. If I do go, and the tarot cards may indeed correctly predict the future.
Now, assume that the Tarot cards will always be correct, but I don’t use them. In this case I would have the illusion of free will, while in reality my future is predetermined and this can be confirmed by using the cards.
-Argumentum ad ignorantium. All you and K have been able to do with the given logical arguments is sprout ad hominems (your "its[sic] absurd" being case in point) rather than address the arguments themselves for flaws in them.-
I haven’t used any ad hominem arguments. Saying an assertion or a line of reasoning is absurd does not constitute a personal attack. Furthermore, you know full well that paradox and contradiction mark the limit of logical reasoning. You may choose to believe an assertion based on a paradox (as might I) but it is absurd to claim that it is logical.
1 edit
Originally posted by NimzofishReread the thread. You’re going over covered ground.
-Somehow? You're gonna base your whole critique on "somehow"? As I told K: you're gonna have to do better than that-
I’m not basing my critique on ‘somehow predetermined’; I don’t think the nature of that predetermination is necessarily relevant to the direction of the discussion. I thought we were talking about whether God’s omniscience implies that th assertion based on a paradox (as might I) but it is absurd to claim that it is logical.
Btw, argumentum ad hominem: argument to the man, i.e., one that appeals to the person addressed.
That is exactly what you were doing -- instead of addressing the logic or disagreeing with the premises -- you debunk it by claiming that the proponent is absurd. If it is so absurd then it should be easy as pie for you to destroy the argument with the smallest effort.
Originally posted by HalitoseIs this what happened?:
Reread the thread. You’re going over covered ground.
Btw, argumentum ad hominem: argument to the man, i.e., one that appeals to the person addressed.
That is exactly what you were doing -- instead of addressing the logic or disagreeing with the premises -- you debunk it by claiming that the proponent is absurd. If it is so absurd then it should be easy as pie for you to destroy the argument with the smallest effort.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
If not then it's not an ad hominem
Originally posted by knightmeisterGod can be in two "timezoqnes at once" I have no qualms of this. However, I feel it is an equivocation of what it means to be omniscient.
So the cats out of the bag. You have a DIFFERENT reason for not believing in free will. Indeterminacy v determinacy is another debate all together. What I presume you have been trying to debate is that God being omniscient implies lack of free will , but you have not shown why this should be so , so you turn somewhere else. You have not shown HOW or WH ...[text shortened]... d's omniscience as not impinging on free will? They don't believe the same thing as you do.
If God appears to me right now (in my timezone) and I ask what is my future. God should be able to tell me if he is omniscient. This would be the standard expectation of most Christians. Its also an integral part of prayer. Prayer is often seen a practice which allows Christians to divine the future. Then there's all those prophets in the bible.
These examples seem to suggest that our future is determined.
And the whole "God out of time" is really meaningless. If God is omniscient he knows the future (one future) from where we are in time. Thus, our actions are pre-determined.
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseHmmm. Yes okay. Covered ground. Then why didn't you just say that first. Why go to the trouble of deconstructing what i said if you were just going to dismiss it as 'covered ground' when i replied.
Reread the thread. You’re going over covered ground.
Btw, argumentum ad hominem: argument to the man, i.e., one that appeals to the person addressed.
That is exactly what you were doing -- instead of addressing the logic or disagreeing with the premises -- you debunk it by claiming that the proponent is absurd. If it is so absurd then it should be easy as pie for you to destroy the argument with the smallest effort.
Ad hominem. If i say your argument is wrong because you are fat, then i'm using an an ad hominem argument. If i say that your argument is wrong AND you are fat, I'm making an assertion followed by a personnal attack. Theres a difference. In any case its irrelevent, because i did neither. This is what i said:
"Oh come on! This isn’t paradoxical, its absurd. You seem to be saying that some Christian claims should not (indeed cannot) be subjected to logical critique. That’s up to you, but I (and hopefully Conrau) will continue to submit Christian claims to a little more rigor."
I think i clearly said that the claim is absurd not the man. I suggested (if you want to read it like that) that knightmeister should be more rigorous in his analysis of christian claims - which he may take offence from (I hope not).
It is absurd to make an argument using paradox and contradiction to support your assertion. Paradox and contradiction can be used to logicaly refute an argument (and perhaps prove the contrary), not support it. That doesn't mean you can't hold paradoxical claims to be true, just that they're not going to help you in logical debate.
Originally posted by frogstompYou are limiting the definition of "ad hominem" to personal attack. The full application, which btw includes a personal attack, denoted in the Latin (ad = to; hominem = person i.e. to the person), could be ascribed to any number of red herrings made personally against a debate opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument. The unqualified "its absurd", which makes no attempt to address the argument constitutes an emotional appeal to the debater rather than a rational form of argument.
Is this what happened?:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
If not then it's not an ad hominem
2 edits
Originally posted by Halitose"It's absurd" is not an attack on the hominem, although a thin-skinned one might view it as such.
You are limiting the definition of "ad hominem" to personal attack. The full application, which btw includes a personal attack, denoted in the Latin (ad = to; hominem = person i.e. to the person), could be ascribed to any number of red herrings made personally against a debate opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument. The unqualified "its absurd ent constitutes an emotional appeal to the debater rather than a rational form of argument.
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)..... from a site that keeps trying to put a trojan on my computer.if you want to see it just ask ..lol
Saying an argument made by a person is absurd is an attack on the argument itself, albeit a weak one.
You'd have a case here:
Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule
Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:
X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.
and btw:
Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
where is bbarr when he's needed?
Originally posted by frogstompI'll concede. Rec'd.
"It's absurd" is not an attack on the hominem, although a thin-skinned one might view it as such.
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing ...[text shortened]... nt to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
where is bbarr when he's needed?