Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Paradox...

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2010 10:02:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Paradox with God and free choice and determination. Have we free will or are we determined?

I want to touch on a certain matter here. I was speaking to a gentle man on this subject, he doesn't believe in God yet being fairly philosophical, had difficulty understanding my solution to this matter.

God being all knowing, therefore must know who will do what and at what time. This created a problem, well an assumed problem. The gentle man said that he does not believe in God because if God exists God is awe knowing and therefore knows the future, therefore determines his disbelief in God. However this approach is fallacious.

Firstly we have to believe that God exists or not, that is step one. So there is no point in assuming God is all knowing if you do not believe in God, despite if it is conceptual. If you are saying God exists for arguments sake you therefore must consider that we believe God knows everything, we do not know that God knows everything. That in place, to assume that God knows everything is bad logic, because we don't know. The whole point to the argument is to discuss and debate whether God exists. To assume that God does not exist based on the assumption that God exists is very illogical.

Secondly we must believe that God is all knowing, we cannot know that God is all knowing. So from there on we assume that God knows who will and will not go to hell or heaven. It is fallacious to assume that God will send you to hell (if He exists) based on the concept of determinism, for example; someone might say, "I am going to go to hell because God knows everything and He knows if I am going to go to hell." The clue is in the statement, hence the option of saying 'or not' after saying, 'I am going to go to hell'. We have to believe that God is all knowing, we cannot know God is all knowing. And even in a conceptual situation, it is invalid to assume such. Since the concept isn't reality, but used for example.

I will finish here, any thoughts?
tigg13
Posts: 302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2010 1:55:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/24/2010 10:02:41 PM, GodSands wrote:
Paradox with God and free choice and determination. Have we free will or are we determined?

I want to touch on a certain matter here. I was speaking to a gentle man on this subject, he doesn't believe in God yet being fairly philosophical, had difficulty understanding my solution to this matter.

God being all knowing, therefore must know who will do what and at what time. This created a problem, well an assumed problem. The gentle man said that he does not believe in God because if God exists God is awe knowing and therefore knows the future, therefore determines his disbelief in God. However this approach is fallacious.

Firstly we have to believe that God exists or not, that is step one.:

Wrong. The issue of whether or not omniscience contradicts free will can be approached irrespective of one's beliefs. You don't have to believe that the moon is made of green cheese to wonder where all of that green milk could have come from.

So there is no point in assuming God is all knowing if you do not believe in God, despite if it is conceptual. If you are saying God exists for arguments sake you therefore must consider that we believe God knows everything, we do not know that God knows everything.:

Are you suggesting that we cannot test the validity of an assertion unless we already know that the assertion is true? Again, what you or I or anyone else believes is irrelevant to the question of whether or not omniscience contradicts free will.

That in place, to assume that God knows everything is bad logic, because we don't know.:

I guess you are saying that we can't assume something is true unless we already know that it is true. How, exactly, would you go about testing the logical accuracy of a statement if you didn't know whether or not it is true?

The whole point to the argument is to discuss and debate whether God exists.:

No, the whole point of the debate is to discuss whether or not omniscience contradicts free will. If you happen to believe in a God that is omniscient and has given us fee will and it turns out that this isn't possible, that's your problem. There is certainly no reason why there couldn't be a God if omniscience contradicts free will; He either wouldn't be omniscient or we wouldn't have free will.

To assume that God does not exist based on the assumption that God exists is very illogical.


So is the assumption that God does exist based on the assumption that He exists. But, as I have said, this has nothing to do with issue.

Secondly we must believe that God is all knowing, we cannot know that God is all knowing. So from there on we assume that God knows who will and will not go to hell or heaven. It is fallacious to assume that God will send you to hell (if He exists) based on the concept of determinism, for example; someone might say, "I am going to go to hell because God knows everything and He knows if I am going to go to hell.":

You've kind of got the statement backwards. A determinist would say, "If God knows everything, then he knew before I was born whether or not I will go to heaven or hell. So how could this decision be mine to make if it was already decided before I was born?"

And, again, it doesn't matter whether or not you know God is all knowing, just believe if God is all knowing or haven't a clue if God is all knowing - if He is, then free will has to be an illusion.

The clue is in the statement, hence the option of saying 'or not' after saying, 'I am going to go to hell'.:

But your statement was inaccurate so it really doesn't matter.

We have to believe that God is all knowing, we cannot know God is all knowing. And even in a conceptual situation, it is invalid to assume such. Since the concept isn't reality, but used for example.

You're still insisting that you can't make an assumption unless you know that what your assuming is true. Actually an assumption is only invalid if you already know it isn't true. If it is unknown whether or not an assertion is true (as in the case of a belief) what better way is there to test that assertion than to make assumptions about it (all assumptions are conceptual, by the way) and then testing those assumptions to see whether or not they are true?

I will finish here, any thoughts?

It seems that you tried to completely avoid the question of whether or not free will is possible if God is omniscient by focusing on the issue of whether or not you can make assumptions about God if you don't already believe in Him. I would really like to know your thoughts on this question instead of watching you invent reasons for why we shouldn't ask it.
HeWhoLightsTheWay
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2010 4:11:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
i agree with tigg, you cant say we can not assume on the bases that you dont know, assuming is all about what you dont know. All points brought on by tigg are valid. Sorry buds but you are avoiding the true debate.