Holy spirit

Originally posted by Agerg
I take it as axiomatically true that for [b]any entity that exists then it cannot be contradictory, ie: above logic.
By this I mean that for two mutually exclusive and well defined properties P, ¬P then P^¬P is not a valid premise. Ie: let P = has three legs, ¬P = does not have three legs, then you cannot have as valid the premise that for Percy P^¬P is t ...[text shortened]... bvious example.
This is how I am so confident as to make that statement you quoted me on here.[/b]

take it as axiomatically true that for any entity that exists then it cannot be contradictory, ie: above logic.
------agerg-----------------------------------------------------------------

I agree absolutely.

The only problem is that your free will v omniscience argument is.........

a) based on a misunderstanding of God's omniscience

and

b) depends on it being impossible for no such entity to exist in eternity (ie no in time).

What you don't realise is that "logic" is a relative term that can also change according to pre-concieved notions of time. I agree that the basis of logic is that something is not self contradictory , but it's becasue I don't see the FW v O as contradictory that it's not a problem for me.

It's not logical that an electron can be in two places at once but some people say it can apparently

Originally posted by knightmeister
take it as axiomatically true that for any entity that exists then it cannot be contradictory, ie: above logic.
------agerg-----------------------------------------------------------------

I agree absolutely.

The only problem is that your free will v omniscience argument is.........

a) based on a misunderstanding of God's omniscience

and ical that an electron can be in two places at once but some people say it can apparently

….It's not logical that an electron can be in two places at once but some people say it can apparently
.…

that’s because it has been PROVEN that it can:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n26_v12/ai_18469259

How do you know that it is “not logical“?

Just because YOU don’t understand something doesn’t mean it must be illogical.
There are people that know and understand vastly more than you or I because, put simply, they are simply vastly more intelligent than you or I.
I do not pretend to actually understand the strangeness of quantum physics but, and this appears to be the fundamental deference between you and I, I am not so arrogant to think for even a moment that, despite some other people vastly more intelligent than I understanding it, just because I do not understand it, that means it MUST be just all nonsense.
( Also, if it WAS all just nonsense then much of our modern technology wouldn’t work etc etc )

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….It's not logical that an electron can be in two places at once but some people say it can apparently
.…

that’s because it has been PROVEN that it can:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n26_v12/ai_18469259

How do you know that it is “not logical“?

Just because YOU don’t understand something doesn’t mean it must be ...[text shortened]...
( Also, if it WAS all just nonsense then much of our modern technology wouldn’t work etc etc )[/b]

All of which proves my point really. You see I agree with you. Quantum physics is pretty wierd and superficially illogical , but the reality is that it turns out to be that way.

This is precisely what I am trying to point out to Agerg. He thinks that just because something seems self contradictory (eg FW v O) therefore it must be false. We both know different though.

Ironic that you should inadvertently come to my aid.

sorry KM but omniscience in its strict sense is knowledge of all things, it is defined as such and there is no ambiguity. To say your God is omniscient is to say amongst many things that for all actions I will perform, the outcome is known to your God.
Importantly, these outcomes are known to your god before (assuming for arguments sake your god sees our entire timeline) I exist at a specific point on our timeline. Therefore I can do nothing other than what your god saw me do at such point this timeline plays out where I exist.
If your god knows I will do X and I instead do Y then this contradicts omniscience. But if I can do nothing other than X then I have no freewill.
Basically omniscience precludes freewill.

When you talk about quantum mechanics the behaviour at that level is not sufficiently understood to say what is or isn't logical in the same way that you can say all numbers in the integers greater than 5 are even is illogical.


Finally as an aside I don't actually believe in freewill, I believe (but cannot assert as fact) that we exist in a deterministic universe.

Finally once again...please tell me what you mean by "logic is a relative term"

Originally posted by Agerg
Omniscience precludes freewill...

I can see your line of thinking, but I think you may be incorrect. Just because God is all knowing of all events and their outcomes, it does not necessarily follow that he predestined those events to be what they are. It mearly says that he is aware of all possible outcomes and indeed which outcome shall actually occur.

A simple example to express the idea could be a fortune teller rolling a pair of dice, they would be aware of the possible outcomes, and aware of the final one, but not able to control it.

This is of course independent of the concept of predestination which you may be thinking of.

Originally posted by divegeester
I can see your line of thought but I think you may be incorrect. Just because God is all knowing of all events and their outcomes, it does not necessarily follow that he predestined those events to be what they are. It mearly says that he he is aware of all possible outcomes and indeed which outcome shall actually occur.

A simple example to exp ...[text shortened]...

This is of course independent of the concept of predestination which you may be thinking of.

Firstly it isn't actually important that God predestined me to do X or not. What is important is that at a specific point on the timeline before I exist on it your god knows that I shall do X. When the timeline catches up I must do X.

But secondly, an omniscient god implies this god knows what will be the set of outcomes that will arise from the creation of a universe and the things he would supposedly do/create in it. Thus if your god did create the universe AND he is omniscient then your god did indeed cause my doing of X at such time it is correct to do it.

when you suggest the fortune teller (I don't believe that such things exist in the real sense of the word as opposed to scammers) is aware of the final outcome do you mean to say he knows infallibly what the final outcome is such that for all intents and purposes it is a done deal, or that he is merely quite sure?

Originally posted by knightmeister
take it as axiomatically true that for any entity that exists then it cannot be contradictory, ie: above logic.
------agerg-----------------------------------------------------------------

I agree absolutely.

The only problem is that your free will v omniscience argument is.........

a) based on a misunderstanding of God's omniscience

and ical that an electron can be in two places at once but some people say it can apparently

It's not logical that an electron can be in two places at once but some people say it can apparently

There is nothing "not logical" about the effects of wavelike behavior (or of inseparable particle-wave behavior). Check out the double-slit experiment, for example.

On the other hand, it is simply self-contradictory when your view entails both (1) that god acts in time and (2) that it is not the case that god acts in time.

I find it laughable that you talk so much about 'logic', but you obviously don't know the first thing about it or how to employ it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
All of which proves my point really. You see I agree with you. Quantum physics is pretty wierd and superficially illogical , but the reality is that it turns out to be that way.

This is precisely what I am trying to point out to Agerg. He thinks that just because something seems self contradictory (eg FW v O) therefore it must be false. We both know different though.

Ironic that you should inadvertently come to my aid.

….You see I agree with you.
.…

Ok; lets continue:

….Quantum physics is pretty weird and superficially illogical , but the reality is that it turns out to be that way.
..…

-you just disagreed with me there! I very clearly implied that quantum physics is NOT illogical!
-read my post again.

The rest of your post (that says my argument is against Agerg’s argument) is flawed because of this -I neither said nor implied anything about Agerg’s argument -I was ONLY commenting about your last quote of that post -nothing more!

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]It's not logical that an electron can be in two places at once but some people say it can apparently

There is nothing "not logical" about the effects of wavelike behavior (or of inseparable particle-wave behavior). Check out the double-slit experiment, for example.

On the other hand, it is simply self-contradictory when your view entails b ...[text shortened]... about 'logic', but you obviously don't know the first thing about it or how to employ it.[/b]

On the other hand, it is simply self-contradictory when your view entails both (1) that god acts in time and (2) that it is not the case that god acts in time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------lemon------------------------------------------------

So an eternal God who is not trapped within time (like we are) cannot logically enter into time in anyway? Please explain......

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]It's not logical that an electron can be in two places at once but some people say it can apparently

There is nothing "not logical" about the effects of wavelike behavior (or of inseparable particle-wave behavior). Check out the double-slit experiment, for example.

On the other hand, it is simply self-contradictory when your view entails b ...[text shortened]... about 'logic', but you obviously don't know the first thing about it or how to employ it.[/b]

There is nothing "not logical" about the effects of wavelike behavior (or of inseparable particle-wave behavior). Check out the double-slit experiment, for example.
----------------lemon------------------------------

I agree. At first sight however the phenomena appears to be contradictory and strange , later we realise it isn't once you appreciate the wave/particle nature of light.

So it is with appreciating the timeless/in time qualities of God.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….You see I agree with you.
.…

Ok; lets continue:

….Quantum physics is pretty weird and superficially illogical , but the reality is that it turns out to be that way.
..…

-you just disagreed with me there! I very clearly implied that quantum physics is NOT illogical!
-read my post again.

The rest of your post (that say ...[text shortened]... about Agerg’s argument -I was ONLY commenting about your last quote of that post -nothing more![/b]

-you just disagreed with me there! I very clearly implied that quantum physics is NOT illogical!
--------------------hammy------------------------------

I agree it isn't illogical but it can appear that way to start off with.

Originally posted by Agerg
Firstly it isn't actually important that God predestined me to do X or not. What is important is that at a specific point on the timeline [b]before I exist on it your god knows that I shall do X. When the timeline catches up I must do X.

But secondly, an omniscient god implies this god knows what will be the set of outcomes that will arise from t ...[text shortened]... h that for all intents and purposes it is a done deal, or that he is merely quite sure?[/b]

But secondly, an omniscient god implies this god knows what will be the set of outcomes that will arise from the creation of a universe and the things he would supposedly do/create in it.
----------------------------------------agerg------------------------

Not exactly true. God does not know anyone's future "in advance". He knows it as a past event because he is eternal.

So in one sense he does know what you are doing in 2010 , but until you do it , he can't know.

Another way of understanding this is this. If God doesn't create you then he cannot know what you will do with your life. He has to create you to find out . Your life has to be lived in time in order for God to know anything. If you don't make choice A then he can't know choice A. He is reliant on your choices for his knowledge.

The fact that he has the ability to see all of time from an eternal perspective is irrelevant because he cannot "FORESEE" any event. If you don't make choice A , he can't know it.

It's technically inaccurate to say that he sees things BEFORE they happen , he doesn't - he sees them AFTER they happen.

Originally posted by Agerg
sorry KM but omniscience in its strict sense is knowledge of all things, it is defined as such and there is no ambiguity. To say your God is omniscient is to say amongst many things that for all actions I will perform, the outcome is known to your God.
Importantly, these outcomes are known to your god [b]before (assuming for arguments sake your god ...[text shortened]... universe.

Finally once again...please tell me what you mean by "logic is a relative term"[/b]

Therefore I can do nothing other than what your god saw me do at such point this timeline plays out where I exist.
If your god knows I will do X and I instead do Y then this contradicts omniscience. But if I can do nothing other than X then I have no freewill.
Basically omniscience precludes freewill
------------------AGERG------------------------------------------------


Not technically true. As long as you have free will at that moment to choose X or Y then you have free will. The fact that God knows that in the end you chose X , does not mean that Y was not possible.

The mistake you make is assuming that because God knows choice X that means that Y was impossible. This does not logically follow.

The reason it doesn't follow is because God is bound to know whatever you choose. If you choose Y he will know Y . If you choose Z he will know Z. It doesn't matter. You can choose a million different things and God will still know.

I know what Hitler will do in 1939 - does that prove that he had no free will and could not have invaded austria first?

Originally posted by knightmeister
-you just disagreed with me there! I very clearly implied that quantum physics is NOT illogical!
--------------------hammy------------------------------

I agree it isn't illogical but it can appear that way to start off with.

My apologies for misunderstanding you for I thought you meant the exact opposite!
So when you said:

….….Quantum physics is pretty weird and superficially illogical , but the reality is that it turns out to be that WAY.
.… (my emphasis)

The “that WAY” you are referring to is NOT “illogical” but “ONLY superficially illogical” (i.e. it is actually logical despite appearing illogical)
-is that what you meant? -if so, then I would agree that I agree with you here.

But the reason why I thought you meant the former was because of your earlier comment:

….it's NOT logical that an electron can be in two places at once but some people say it can apparently..… (my emphasis)

Was this a misprint?

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's technically inaccurate to say that he sees things BEFORE they happen , he doesn't - he sees them AFTER they happen.

That is somewhat technically incorrect too. Under your hypothesis, the universe if taken as a whole with all of time included is essentially a static object. The question then is whether God sits in some external time line and sort of instantaneously created the complete static universe, or is God also a static part of the whole?