21 Mar 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis is just another version of "Goddunnit" the last defense of the theist.
Judges in boxing need to know both the rules of boxing, as well as the facts involved in the bout itself (i.e. who punched whom where and how many times). In terms of knowledge, they would need to know at least as much, if not more, than the boxers themselves.
That's why I said you'd need to be at least all-knowing to judge God.
21 Mar 06
15 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm not discussing your perspective. I agree that you perceive that you have an alternative. I don't dispute this. I wish you would quit repeating the "from my perspective" refrain. It's not in dispute that you perceive that you have alternatives and thus free will.
Of course I (from my perspective) have an alternative - I can always choose otherwise.
My claim is that according to your world view, free will is illusory, and that perceived alternatives are not actually logically possible alternatives. Your intended rebuttals based on "from my perspective" are not rebuttals at all, as they are perfectly consistent with my assessment of your world view.
My point is that, according to your world view, in actuality you don't have an alternative. (Repeat: I am not making a claim that you don't perceive to have alternatives. My claim is that they cannot logically exist in actuality.) Your position entails that, in actuality, you have no free will.
God's knowledge of my choice beforehand does not mean my own choice was not free.
That's exactly what it means. Such is the nature of knowledge - anything that is known cannot be otherwise; nothing that is false can be known. The knowledge implies that no logically possible alternative actually existed at the time of the perceived choice (even if an alternative was perceived to exist). Do you dispute this?
21 Mar 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLet's apply your logic to another situation:
I'm not discussing your perspective. I agree that you perceive that you have an alternative. I don't dispute this. I wish you would quit repeating the "from my perspective" refrain. It's not in dispute that you perceive that you have alternatives and thus free will.
My claim is that according to your world view, free will is illusory, and th ...[text shortened]... rceived choice (even if an alternative was perceived to exist). Do you dispute this?
We all know what the 9/11 hijackers did. According to your logic, "knowledge implies that no logically possible alternative actually existed at the time of the perceived choice (even if an alternative was perceived to exist)". Hence, the 9/11 hijackers had no alternative except to hijack and crash the aircraft, killing thousands.
Indeed, by your logic all free will is illusory - regardless of whether there is an all-knowing God or not.
Do you dispute this?
21 Mar 06
4 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes. Can you really not see the substantial difference between the two cases?
Do you dispute this?
It was not the case that I had that knowledge at the time of the 9/11 decisions. Without an omniscient God, there existed no knowledge that would logicaly preclude the existence of alternatives. My knowledge only existed after the fact. (If I had knowledge prior to 9/11 of what they would do, then it would be the case that no alternatives could logically exist, but I didn't have such knowledge.)
By contrast, you assert that at no time did God not have knowledge of those decisions. God's knowledge didn't exist only after the fact. That knowledge logically precluded the existence of alternatives, as it existed prior to the time of the perceived choice.
Your world view entails illusory free will. Mine does not.
21 Mar 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThis is also what would be scary about fortune-tellers if their alleged magical powers indeed existed.
Yes. Can you really not see the substantial difference between the two cases?
It was not the case that I had that knowledge at the time of the 9/11 decisions. Without an omniscient God, there existed no knowledge that would logicaly preclude the existence of alternatives. My knowledge only existed after the fact. (If I had knowledge pri ...[text shortened]... time of the perceived choice.
Your world view entails illusory free will. Mine does not.
Fortune-tellers could only tell "the" future by magical means if there was indeed only *one* particular future; otherwise, they would merely be speculating about various future possibilities that might eventuate, as anyone would their alleged magical powers could.
But, if fortune-tellers really possessed such magical powers, then there really would only be one future, which would seem to imply, for the reasons that Dr. Scribbles has suggested, the impossibility of free will, as there would be no alternatives, that might come to pass, to freely choose between.
Why do those who frequent fortune-tellers never worry about the general metaphysical implications of their beliefs???
21 Mar 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeMost likely answer: cuz they don't have access to treatises in philosophy in their trailer parks.
This is also what would be scary about fortune-tellers if their alleged magical powers indeed existed.
Fortune-tellers could only tell "the" future by magical means if there was indeed only *one* particular future; otherwise, they would merely be speculating about various future possibilities that might eventuate, as anyone would their alleged magic ...[text shortened]... nt fortune-tellers never worry about the general metaphysical implications of their beliefs???
23 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou are confusing the different aspects of God's omniscience. When God's attributes are viewed in their entirety, along with the divine decree, one is able to make sense of how God's will and man's free will can coexist in human history. This from the thread, Doctrine of Divine Decree:
Your world view entails illusory free will. Mine does not.
I Definition and Description, con’t
D. The divine decree is the eternal plan by which God has rendered certain all of the events of the universe, including both angelic and human history--- past, present, and future. God’s decree rendered all things as certain to occur; He decided that they would exist. In doing so, He did not interfere with angelic or human free will. In fact, He decreed that we would have free will. In giving us volition, He also decreed that our decisions, whatever they might be, would certainly take place--- even those that are contrary to His desires. Being omniscient, He knew ahead of time precisely what we would decide. He not only decreed that those decisions would exist but He also decreed the exact manner, consistent with His character, in which He would handle our decisions.
God knows not only what will happen throughout human history, but all possibilities, as well... without ever interfering with man's free will choices.
23 Mar 06
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHe decreed that they would happen, but their happening was a product of free will?
You are confusing the different aspects of God's omniscience. When God's attributes are viewed in their entirety, along with the divine decree, one is able to make sense of how God's will and man's free will can coexist in human history. This from the thread, Doctrine of Divine Decree:
I Definition and Description, con’t
D. The divine decre... ...[text shortened]... y, but all possibilities, as well... without ever interfering with man's free will choices.
Have I reduced this correctly?
Nemesio
23 Mar 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNo, I don't.
Yes. Can you really not see the substantial difference between the two cases?
It was not the case that I had that knowledge at the time of the 9/11 decisions.
Saying "at the time" is just another way of bringing perspective in. Every person's present is another's (or indeed his own) past or future.
(If I had knowledge prior to 9/11 of what they would do, then it would be the case that no alternatives could logically exist, but I didn't have such knowledge.)
If knowledge of a future event means that no alternatives can logically exist, then why can't this be applied to past events?
24 Mar 06
Originally posted by sonhouseOr fewer people that know anything about Islam.
One interesting statistic: (or maybe not), 145 replies to the christian most vile and only 54 to the islam most vile. Three to one more argumentative on the christian side. Wonder what that means if anything. Just more christians here?
A recent survey in Australia found 1/3 of people freely admitted they knew nothing about it at all. The percentage who had a decent understanding was pretty small.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
24 Mar 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeAlso consider the fact that such determinism is a presupposition of science (including Quantum mechanics). Thus, there is no free will!
This is also what would be scary about fortune-tellers if their alleged magical powers indeed existed.
Fortune-tellers could only tell "the" future by magical means if there was indeed only *one* particular future; otherwise, they would merely be speculating about various future possibilities that might eventuate, as anyone would their alleged magic ...[text shortened]... nt fortune-tellers never worry about the general metaphysical implications of their beliefs???