Originally posted by wolfgang59 Thank you for that link Palynka.
I see that the argument relies heavily on using a definition of free-will which is kinda counter-intuitive and therefore, to my mind, cheating.
I was however interested in
"This is countered by the realization that a free-willed God is not constrained to realize everything, nor to consider all choices to be of equ n occupy His time with making new galaxies and making sub-atomic physics ever more perplexing.
It is not at all cheating.
It only separates predictability from free-will. To me these are not the same, nor should they intuitively be.
For example, I approach a bus driver and offer him two thousand dollars or a used Britney Spears record. That I know he would pick the first does not mean he didn't have the freedom to pick the latter. The same argument applies for an omniscient god. Since such a being would know my preferences, mood, thought process, etc (infinitely much more than I know about the bus driver) he would be able to predict with certainty what choices I make, despite me having the freedom to choose differently.
The other notion you find interesting (considering we're both atheists!) is not the one shared by the majority of believers of Abrahamic religions, so...why go there?
Originally posted by jaywill [b]==========================
Jaywill - I'm not looking for the "Truth" as you put it. That would be futile.
==============================
Okay. But how do you know it would be futile ?
=====================================
I am interested in religion from an academic perspective.
================================
Oka ...[text shortened]... at them.
Thanks again.
=============================[/b]
Why are you curious ?[/b]
Jaywill - with the best intentions I dont intend getting into a debate. But here are the answers to your questions. They are MY answers. Please respect them.
1. If one found the "Truth" how would one know? Perhaps someone has found the elusive "Truth" but neither they nor anyone else will ever know that they have!
2. I have no problem in studying a restaurant's menu and not eating there.
3. i dont want to convrert you.
4. You are thinking of coining a new word - "Evangelphobic" .. good 4 u
5. I am curious in all things; science, natural history, geography - the season has made me look at religion.
Originally posted by Palynka It is not at all cheating.
It only separates predictability from free-will. To me these are not the same, nor should they intuitively be.
For example, I approach a bus driver and offer him two thousand dollars or a used Britney Spears record. That I know he would pick the first does not mean he didn't have the freedom to pick the latter. The same argu ...[text shortened]... is not the one shared by the majority of believers of Abrahamic religions, so...why go there?
How is the bus-driver to spend the $2,000. Predict that. Does he have free-will?
Originally posted by wolfgang59 Jaywill - with the best intentions I dont intend getting into a debate. But here are the answers to your questions. They are MY answers. Please respect them.
1. If one found the "Truth" how would one know? Perhaps someone has found the elusive "Truth" but neither they nor anyone else will ever know that they have!
2. I have no problem in studying a story, geography - the season has made me look at religion.
😀
END OF INTERROGATION
===========================
I dont intend getting into a debate.
===============================
Wolfgang, I respect your desire to not want to get into a debate.
But I notice that you do want to collect answers to questions which you then make assertions about.
This is also a kind of preaching. To not expect "debate" in return to your assertions is like simply expecting your audience to say "Amen".
Your posture is "I am JUST here to ask a few questions as an atheist. Please do not debate me."
Okay, but I'll be watching if there is a challenging tone to the assertions you then make. This is kind of a one way debate Wolfgang. Or it indicates you only wish to speak with those who agree with you.
==================================
If everything is planned that surely means no free-will. It also means God has no decisiions to make since He did all his planning before hand. Just doesnt stack-up.
=======================================
Originally posted by jaywill [b]===========================
I dont intend getting into a debate.
===============================
Wolfgang, I respect your desire to not want to get into a debate.
But I notice that you do want to collect answers to questions which you then make assertions about.
This is also a kind of preaching. To not expect "debate ...[text shortened]... sh to speak with those who agree with you.
I wish you all the best in your searching.[/b]
I manifestly DO NOT want to talk to people who agree with me. My question was aimed at believers of any faith. I am curious because I am an atheist.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 I manifestly DO NOT want to talk to people who agree with me. My question was aimed at believers of any faith. I am curious because I am an atheist.
This statement you made sounds more like an agnostic then an atheist:
" Perhaps someone has found the elusive "Truth" but neither they nor anyone else will ever know that they have! "
Originally posted by wolfgang59 Didnt mean to be disrespectful merely continuing your own analogy.
My analogy was meaningful only in the sense that predictability and free will are not the same. There is no relevance whatsoever to discuss whether I can predict how he would spend the 2K.
Originally posted by Palynka My analogy was meaningful only in the sense that predictability and free will are not the same. There is no relevance whatsoever to discuss whether I can predict how he would spend the 2K.
But your ability to predict he will take the 2K is relevant?
Originally posted by wolfgang59 Thank you for that link Palynka.
I see that the argument relies heavily on using a definition of free-will which is kinda counter-intuitive and therefore, to my mind, cheating.
I was however interested in
"This is countered by the realization that a free-willed God is not constrained to realize everything, nor to consider all choices to be of equ ...[text shortened]... n occupy His time with making new galaxies and making sub-atomic physics ever more perplexing.
wolfgang59,
I see that the argument relies heavily on using a definition of free-will which is kinda counter-intuitive and therefore, to my mind, cheating.
I don't think it is cheating either. Intuition is only useful up to a point. When you start to look at the alternatives to compatibilist free will, for example the various flavours of libertarian free will, close scrutiny reveals that compatibilist free will is the least incoherent option.
To answer your question 2, if you take the OOO god as a premise, then it follows that whatever evils we observe, like the crucifixion, are necessary part of god's design. That is to say, the best of all possible worlds has the possibility of evil.
Question 2
02 Jan '10 11:502 edits
Back to Top