I Knew That I Was Going To Like This Guy

[RayThom]

... that merely looks like rhetorical hearsay... smoke and mirrors. Maybe I should become a new prophet and write the same nonsense. Regardless, there is no PROOF here no matter how you phrase it.

If god is so powerful why doesn't he demand more than a mere expectation of faith from his brainwashed minions... shouldn't they have found proof by now? And why is this bible stuff always what is regurgitated when a nonbeliever questions the existence of allah or yahweh, or whatever you prefer to call him?

Oh, I'm done now. I can offer up nothing more that will be looked at with new eyes.

DIXI

[Big RR]

Back to the free will discussion, Andrew, you are presuming time must occur in the way we experience it--sequential moments that are experienced only once and then pass (and based on out understanding of causality, this does make sense) ; if that is true, I agree that free will is impossible as the future must be predestined if anyone or anything can see it. However, it is also possible to hypothesize other orders--maybe everything occurred at once and we experience it in the little packets we call "moments"; in such a case, the omniscient being would be able to see any moment he/she/it wanted after it occurred, even though we perceive them as occurring in a sequential order. The original choices made were not predestined, and the fact that the being can look at any moment after they occurred does not negate the free choice that occurred at the time.

An unorthodox view, perhaps, but certainly one that would be viewed as omniscience by the ancients, if not us as well.

[oldr_n_wsr]

An unorthodox view, perhaps,

I agree with it also and I was trying to find a way to describe it but you put it better than I could
We are trying to give the higher being our attributes and understandings where we should not. We can only see "time" as past, present and future, where as these may or may not be the only way to view it.

[dales]

... that merely looks like rhetorical hearsay... smoke and mirrors. Maybe I should become a new prophet and write the same nonsense. Regardless, there is no PROOF here no matter how you phrase it.

If god is so powerful why doesn't he demand more than a mere expectation of faith from his brainwashed minions... shouldn't they have found proof by now? And why is this bible stuff always what is regurgitated when a nonbeliever questions the existence of allah or yahweh, or whatever you prefer to call him?

Oh, I'm done now. I can offer up nothing more that will be looked at with new eyes.

DIXI

FOOL

[Andrew D]

When you teach a dog to sit at your command and then he does, that doesn't mean that the dog has no choice. It only means that you know what choice he will make.

Really?

What if three feet in front of the dog there lies a juicy steak? Is there absolutely certainty that the dog will not choose going for the steak over your "sit" command?

Is there absolutely no possibility that the dog will ignore your command and go for the steak?

[Andrew D]

I assert that if God exists and is what Christian doctrine asserts him (or her) to be, then human free will is impossible.

Indeed you assert it but are unable to prove it. You fail to demonstrate that another person's foreknowledge of a result has any retroactive influence whatever on that result.

Well, which is it?

Is it foreknowledge? Or is it retroactive?

Grab a theory and run with it. But don't flip from one theory (foreknowledge) to a different theory (retroactive influence) in mid-argument.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Is there absolutely no possibility that the dog will ignore your command and go for the steak?

With my dog? Yes, there is no possibility he will go for that steak until I say he can. I can (and have) leave the room and he will not go for it.
I have balanced food on his nose and he won't flip it off and eat it until I say he can.

Now if there is a newspaper on the driveway, nothing will stop him from going and getting it and bringing it to me. he is a little lax in his "stay" command when it comes to the newspaper. We are working on it.

[Andrew D]

Really, oldr_n_wsr?

Even if your dog has not eaten for three days? Five days? A week?

Even if your dog is hovering on the brink of starvation, and there is no one (or nothing) there to stop him from eating?

Your dog will die of starvation rather than eat the steak that is in front of him?

Remember, we are talking about "absolutely no possibility"?

Do you really think that there is no imaginable set of circumstances in which your dog will choose life over obeying your command?

[dales]

Your dog is a real newshound there, oldr.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Really, oldr_n_wsr?

Even if your dog has not eaten for three days? Five days? A week?

Even if your dog is hovering on the brink of starvation, and there is no one (or nothing) there to stop him from eating?

Your dog will die of starvation rather than eat the steak that is in front of him?

Remember, we are talking about "absolutely no possibility"?

Do you really think that there is no imaginable set of circumstances in which your dog will choose life over obeying your command?

I can't say as I would not knowingly put him in that position. But I guess there is the possibility.

Your dog is a real newshound there, oldr.

Yes he is. And if he could figure out a way to open the mailbox, he would get fetch that for us also. As it is, we take the mail out of the mailbox and he "demands" we give it to him so he can take it inside.

[MajGenl.Meade]

But if oldr left the room and wasn't there to see, the dog has both obeyed him (starving itself to death) and disobeyed him (eating the steak). That there's kwantum fizzics... or something...

But seriously Andrew....

Well, which is it? Is it foreknowledge? Or is it retroactive? Grab a theory and run with it. But don't flip from one theory (foreknowledge) to a different theory (retroactive influence) in mid-argument

I apologise for my imprecision. It comes of my twisted mind and mistakenly using "foreknowledge" (since you are comfortable with it even though it is not a proper understanding). Omniscience is the active knowing of all things - not merely the forecasting or knowing in advance what is going to happen. I was thinking of omniscience reaching back from wherever omniscience is (hence 'retro') and falling into the same error as yourself. Appy polly loggies again. Let's try that one more time.

God knows (unrestricted by terms such as "fore", "current", "future") what your free choices will be. To God, of course they are inevitable - all things conform to His plan and purpose which humans cannot change no matter what they do. To you, they are not inevitable at all - you could choose X or Y, in either case, God knows which it is to be/is/was. He knows what you will choose - you do not until you choose it.

God knows that tomorrow you will freely choose to eat cornflakes instead of Rice Krispies. He does not determine which one you will eat - he knows which one you will choose (freely) to eat. Your free will can contemplate only a future event - "I will eat cornflakes for breakfast but have not yet done so". God's knowledge encompasses that you will not choose Rice Krispies and that you have already done so. Also (BTW) that you wouldn't slash your wrists the evening beforehand. Or go to Rio de Janeiro. Or get drunk. Or stay sober. Or whatever it is.

I ask again in genuine curiosity - do you believe in God - yes or no and do you feel that either is a free choice you are making? Those are the only two choices really... saying "I don't know" or "I don't have any proof" or "I don't have sufficient data to make a judgement" "or "I neither believe nor disbelieve" are simply long ways to say "No". But if you want to deny that assertion, do you feel that your denial is a free choice or is it coerced by God?

I'm enjoying this discussion - hope you don't abandon it.

Meade

[RayThom]

Yet another christian religious thread that's all bluster with no substance and doesn't matter which way you argue it. Trying to prove a negative, that's all. Never argue with a crazy person or true believer.

I wanted to be done with this crazy talk but God forced me to add to it without my knowledge. He's such a devil using me this way. If I only had free will. Man, what a tool and/or fool I am. Damn you, God!

Meade, keep the faith. And in the end, we'll both end up in the exact same place. I GUARANTEE it.

[dales]

PEACE

[Lord Jim]

It seems to me that this from Big RR:

you are presuming time must occur in the way we experience it--sequential moments that are experienced only once and then pass (and based on out understanding of causality, this does make sense) ; if that is true, I agree that free will is impossible as the future must be predestined if anyone or anything can see it. However, it is also possible to hypothesize other orders--maybe everything occurred at once and we experience it in the little packets we call "moments"; in such a case, the omniscient being would be able to see any moment he/she/it wanted after it occurred, even though we perceive them as occurring in a sequential order.

And this from Meade:

God knows (unrestricted by terms such as "fore", "current", "future") what your free choices will be. To God, of course they are inevitable - all things conform to His plan and purpose which humans cannot change no matter what they do. To you, they are not inevitable at all - you could choose X or Y, in either case, God knows which it is to be/is/was. He knows what you will choose - you do not until you choose it.

Make essentially the same point and reflect the way I have always looked at this...

I see absolutely no contradiction between Free Will and God knowing what choices will be made...It's just a matter of different perspectives...

From the limited mortal perspective, experiencing time in a linear one-way direction, one chooses freely; from the omniscient perspective of God, who is not bound by experiencing time in this fashion, the choices are already known...

Once you get hold of the concept that God does not experience time the way we do, it all falls logically in to place, and there is no contradiction.

[Big RR]

I think there is one difference Jim; I think there must have been a point in time (or the space time continuum) at which the supreme being did not know what was going to occur; that some sort of randomness or unpredictability existed at that point before the choice was made. Meade, as I understand it, looks t the universe as part of god's plans set in motion, and I presume god has planned exactly what will happen--predestination in a way. Meade (and please feel free to step in and correct me if I am wrong) states that god does not make the choice for you, but based on other posts he has written, I do think he believes god designed the universe to follow god's plan. In such a case, I would presume one action affects another to shape events toward the plan, and your choices are shaped for you. So yes, god did not force me to make the choice I just made, god just deigned a universe in which I could make no other choice. Whether this is "free choice" or not is a matter of semantics, but IMHO the situation reduces to the question of whether one's choice is thrust upon him (by whatever mechanism), or whether that choice is made free of such outcome oriented pressure.

I personally have no problem with god knowing hat will ultimately occur as he exists outside of our notion of time, but unless we can concede that any choices must have been made at one point before god knew the outcome, I am forced to agree with Andrew that the choice is not free, anymore than we can say we freely choose to remain on the surface of the earth and not float in the sky; that choice is what the laws of nature/the universe/god compel us to do.

[Rick]

What shape is infinity?

[Joe Guy]

[Rick]

Check yer spellin...

[Joe Guy]

You spell infinity, I spell infiniti
infinity, infinity, infiniti, infiniti
Let's call the whole thing off...

[Big RR]

What shape is infinity?

A vest has how many sleeves?