Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

In case you missed this..

DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 2:56:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Posted: 1 day ago
At 6/5/2010 3:32:22 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

At 6/4/2010 11:36:03 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

At 6/3/2010 11:36:34 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Simple really, if you so please then I kindly invite you to attempt to convert me to your faith.

If you are not interested in doing so you don't have to post here.
If you are unwilling to discuss the nature of your faith you don't have to post here.
If you simply intend to post personal abuse you don't have to post here.

Let me tell you this story...

Once upon a time, there was a magical old man in the sky. He spoke everything into existence and thought everything was hunkey dory. Then one day his creation did something he either didn't forsee, or didn't care about happening, and punished his toys.

OR He foresaw AND cared BUT cared more about the free-will of His creation; without the ability to choose a separate destiny than God's Adam would essentially
have been a robot.


Later, he decided it was crap so he flooded everything. Then he promised he would never flood the earth again. So the next time things got bad, he did a /facepalm and regretted the promise about flooding, so he magically impregnated a virgin girl.

The old testament is a natural shadow of spiritual principles yet to come; the flood of water represents the fire (God's wrath) on the day of Judgement, the Ark represents Jesus Christ: Whoever is not 'In Him' (In His commands, His sacrifice etc) willl not survive.

The virgin birth, Like the rest of the miracles that Jesus performed in His earthly life, merely show that it is always God that makes a life.. So even when a child is conceived is the natural way, by sexual intercourse, it is STILL a Supernatural act of God.

Her baby became a Jewish zombie that died for your sins that you hadn't committed yet. Then a bunch of Jewish people started proclaiming he was their Messiah even though he didn't actually fit what they were looking for. When the rest of the Jews got pissy about this, they decided to make a new religion because of course they were right, and the other Jews were wrong.

Jesus Christ lived a sinless life, the law of Moses became real and activated in Him because He is sinless.

Jesus Christ is the Word, the true expression of God: the Cross of Christ says:

" Although you, who I have blessed more than any other nation, have falsely accused and condemned Me, have handed Me over to the godless to be mocked a crucified, although you have done this.. In return I offer you forgiveness and life Eternal. "

THIS is the true testimony of God! the New Testament!


Oh, and the crucial point to understanding this story is that everything science and history has told you is completely false. Except sometimes carbon dating but only when it conveniently authenticates the age of some scrolls in the desert.

No, most history is true.. most science is true.. but like rat poison (99% food, 1% poison) there are few great big lies that people WANT to swallow, so they can carry on sinning in comfort.

Do you believe now?

2 Peter 3:3
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2010 3:28:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
No one missed it, we just know you will ignore any replies or discussion of it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2010 3:29:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 3:28:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
No one missed it, we just know you will ignore any replies or discussion of it.

It IS a reply, and a singuarly devastating one to JCMT, hence his refusal to address!
The Cross.. the Cross.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2010 7:06:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/9/2010 2:56:59 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

Once upon a time, there was a magical old man in the sky. He spoke everything into existence and thought everything was hunkey dory. Then one day his creation did something he either didn't forsee, or didn't care about happening, and punished his toys.

OR He foresaw AND cared BUT cared more about the free-will of His creation; without the ability to choose a separate destiny than God's Adam would essentially
have been a robot.


Except for the fact that an omniscient God and individuals with free will are mutually exclusive. So inconvenient...

Later, he decided it was crap so he flooded everything. Then he promised he would never flood the earth again. So the next time things got bad, he did a /facepalm and regretted the promise about flooding, so he magically impregnated a virgin girl.

The old testament is a natural shadow of spiritual principles yet to come; the flood of water represents the fire (God's wrath) on the day of Judgement, the Ark represents Jesus Christ: Whoever is not 'In Him' (In His commands, His sacrifice etc) willl not survive.

... So in other words, the story really isn't true, and this is just a warning of what's REALLY going to happen if we make him mad. Whoever doesn't accept Jesus will be killed regardless of how good a life they have led... The baptized-as-a-child serial infant rapist will have a chance for heaven, but because the good and righteous and moral Buddhist never heard the gospel, he will burn in hell for all eternity. What a loving, just God, eh?

The virgin birth, Like the rest of the miracles that Jesus performed in His earthly life, merely show that it is always God that makes a life.. So even when a child is conceived is the natural way, by sexual intercourse, it is STILL a Supernatural act of God.

Are you suggesting the virgin birth was Jesus' first miracle? Even though it's very clear that God performed this (if it happened)... And you also just said that when a child is conceived the "NATURAL" way, this is a "SUPERNATURAL" action. Riiiight. Yet another glaring contradiction.

Her baby became a Jewish zombie that died for your sins that you hadn't committed yet. Then a bunch of Jewish people started proclaiming he was their Messiah even though he didn't actually fit what they were looking for. When the rest of the Jews got pissy about this, they decided to make a new religion because of course they were right, and the other Jews were wrong.

Jesus Christ lived a sinless life, the law of Moses became real and activated in Him because He is sinless.

Who said anything about Jesus living a sinful or sinless life? What does this have to do with anything?

Jesus Christ is the Word, the true expression of God: the Cross of Christ says:

" Although you, who I have blessed more than any other nation, have falsely accused and condemned Me, have handed Me over to the godless to be mocked a crucified, although you have done this.. In return I offer you forgiveness and life Eternal. "

THIS is the true testimony of God! the New Testament!


Actually, the Cross of Christ said "INRI" - Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum - or in English... Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. I don't know what you were smoking to come up with the nonsense above.

Oh, and the crucial point to understanding this story is that everything science and history has told you is completely false. Except sometimes carbon dating but only when it conveniently authenticates the age of some scrolls in the desert.

No, most history is true.. most science is true.. but like rat poison (99% food, 1% poison) there are few great big lies that people WANT to swallow, so they can carry on sinning in comfort.

Let's say that mot Christianity is true, but like rat poison (99% good idea, 1% lie) with a few big lies people WANT to swallow so they can feel good about their fear of death, and so they can carry on sinning in comfort knowing they will be forgiven if they ask...

Do you believe now?

2 Peter 3:3
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.


Translation:

Jesus said to the Twelve: I'm gonna tell you some REALLY stupid and unbelievable stuff, and people are going to laugh at you because you sound like idiots, but because I'm telling you this now, you will see how right I am about this simple idea, so everything else I sad MUST be true too.

DAT - you are the pinnacle of willful ignorance. You continue to amaze me with your armchair interpretations of religious texts and your deliberately dense reactions to very simple texts.

Undoubtedly you are either incredibly stupid, or the greatest troll in the history of the internet.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2010 7:45:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/15/2010 7:06:06 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Except for the fact that an omniscient God and individuals with free will are mutually exclusive. So inconvenient...


How? Is it the ole "if God knows what you do you couldn't have done anything else therefore negating your free will"? I hope not. Because that confuses certainty with necessity.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 6:40:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/15/2010 7:45:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/15/2010 7:06:06 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Except for the fact that an omniscient God and individuals with free will are mutually exclusive. So inconvenient...


How? Is it the ole "if God knows what you do you couldn't have done anything else therefore negating your free will"? I hope not. Because that confuses certainty with necessity.

I don't understand. One can be certain about a specific thing, AND have that knowledge by necessity as well. There are clearly instance where both necessity and certainty overlap.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 6:51:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 6:40:14 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/15/2010 7:45:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/15/2010 7:06:06 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Except for the fact that an omniscient God and individuals with free will are mutually exclusive. So inconvenient...


How? Is it the ole "if God knows what you do you couldn't have done anything else therefore negating your free will"? I hope not. Because that confuses certainty with necessity.

I don't understand. One can be certain about a specific thing, AND have that knowledge by necessity as well. There are clearly instance where both necessity and certainty overlap.

I'm not sure what you mean by necessity but what I mean "necessity" in the modal sense.

Saying that God knows what action you will take at any given time doesn't entail that you must necessarily take that action at that given time and thus negating your free will.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 7:08:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/15/2010 7:45:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/15/2010 7:06:06 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Except for the fact that an omniscient God and individuals with free will are mutually exclusive. So inconvenient...


How? Is it the ole "if God knows what you do you couldn't have done anything else therefore negating your free will"? I hope not. Because that confuses certainty with necessity.

Basically, yes. However, it is the people claiming that this confuses certain and necessary that are confused. Let me explain.

If God is omniscient, he knows all facts and circumstances about the universe. There is a somewhat silly version of this where God just kind of knows the future, but for the moment we will stick with the idea that God just knows everything that has happened up to a point.

Since all that we have available in our decision-making process are facts we can gather via sight, sound, touch, logic, etc... then it must be the case that what we consider free will is simply the product of these facts. And since God would know all the the facts, he would know exactly how things would play out.

Here's another example. Suppose we create a closed system in a massive tank filled with water. All particles in this tank are at relative rest - i.e. it is filled with water that is perfectly still. We are going to drop a pebble of a certain size into the water from a certain height, angle, etc... Since the movement of the particles is entirely dependent on the velocity and shape and angle, etc... of the pebble, if we know what those are before we drop the pebble, it is possible to calculate the exact position of each particle in 3 seconds without ever actually dropping the stone.

Granted, this would take immense computing power, but remember, we're talking about God here =P

So in effect, God knows all facts about the world at any given time, and can therefore calculate the facts about the world at any other given time. Before you begin sounding off about quantum tunneling and other seemingly random particles, is it not such a stretch of the imagination to think that the omniscient mind of God would have already conceived and calculated the infinite variations that particle may produce? Or better yet, who says the particle is really disobeying the laws of cause and effect? Perhaps we just don't understand them completely yet.

Getting back to the main point of free will, the deterministic nature of the world destroys strict free will. But what most people mean is called agency free will, where the individual simply has to believe they could have done otherwise to have this agency free will.

Do we have agency free will? That's the same as asking if things could have happened any other way than they did. And for the Christian, if everything that happens is the will of God, then the answer to that question is - no, you don't have even agency free will.

As a side note, if God wills something as a necessity, then it is also certain to happen. But if God knows with the certainty of omniscience that something will happen, then it is also necessary, or else God is not omniscient.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 7:18:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 6:51:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/16/2010 6:40:14 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/15/2010 7:45:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/15/2010 7:06:06 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Except for the fact that an omniscient God and individuals with free will are mutually exclusive. So inconvenient...


How? Is it the ole "if God knows what you do you couldn't have done anything else therefore negating your free will"? I hope not. Because that confuses certainty with necessity.

I don't understand. One can be certain about a specific thing, AND have that knowledge by necessity as well. There are clearly instance where both necessity and certainty overlap.

I'm not sure what you mean by necessity but what I mean "necessity" in the modal sense.

Saying that God knows what action you will take at any given time doesn't entail that you must necessarily take that action at that given time and thus negating your free will.

Well, congrats. If God knows that you will take Path A, and instead, you take Path B, God was wrong, he is no longer omniscient. Infact, if that were the case, his "Knowledge" would be no better than guessing.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 7:57:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 7:18:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/16/2010 6:51:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/16/2010 6:40:14 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/15/2010 7:45:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/15/2010 7:06:06 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Except for the fact that an omniscient God and individuals with free will are mutually exclusive. So inconvenient...


How? Is it the ole "if God knows what you do you couldn't have done anything else therefore negating your free will"? I hope not. Because that confuses certainty with necessity.

I don't understand. One can be certain about a specific thing, AND have that knowledge by necessity as well. There are clearly instance where both necessity and certainty overlap.

I'm not sure what you mean by necessity but what I mean "necessity" in the modal sense.

Saying that God knows what action you will take at any given time doesn't entail that you must necessarily take that action at that given time and thus negating your free will.

Well, congrats. If God knows that you will take Path A, and instead, you take Path B, God was wrong, he is no longer omniscient. Infact, if that were the case, his "Knowledge" would be no better than guessing.

What? I never said God doesn't know what you are going to do before you do it. What I'm saying is that that doesn't negate your free will because God knowing your action before it happens doesn't entail that you must by necessity do that action.

That'd be like saying that because I know what actions Anne Frank took during her time in a concentration camp that necessarily she MUST have took those actions. It doesn't follow.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 8:20:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 7:57:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/16/2010 7:18:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/16/2010 6:51:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/16/2010 6:40:14 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/15/2010 7:45:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/15/2010 7:06:06 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Except for the fact that an omniscient God and individuals with free will are mutually exclusive. So inconvenient...


How? Is it the ole "if God knows what you do you couldn't have done anything else therefore negating your free will"? I hope not. Because that confuses certainty with necessity.

I don't understand. One can be certain about a specific thing, AND have that knowledge by necessity as well. There are clearly instance where both necessity and certainty overlap.

I'm not sure what you mean by necessity but what I mean "necessity" in the modal sense.

Saying that God knows what action you will take at any given time doesn't entail that you must necessarily take that action at that given time and thus negating your free will.

Well, congrats. If God knows that you will take Path A, and instead, you take Path B, God was wrong, he is no longer omniscient. Infact, if that were the case, his "Knowledge" would be no better than guessing.

What? I never said God doesn't know what you are going to do before you do it. What I'm saying is that that doesn't negate your free will because God knowing your action before it happens doesn't entail that you must by necessity do that action.

That'd be like saying that because I know what actions Anne Frank took during her time in a concentration camp that necessarily she MUST have took those actions. It doesn't follow.

No no, fail. If your Anne Frank analogy were to be valid, then God does not exist in the NOW, just like you do not exist when Anne Frank was alive and making her choices. Are you telling me that God Does not currently exist?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 8:41:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 8:20:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/16/2010 7:57:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/16/2010 7:18:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/16/2010 6:51:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/16/2010 6:40:14 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/15/2010 7:45:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/15/2010 7:06:06 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Except for the fact that an omniscient God and individuals with free will are mutually exclusive. So inconvenient...


How? Is it the ole "if God knows what you do you couldn't have done anything else therefore negating your free will"? I hope not. Because that confuses certainty with necessity.

I don't understand. One can be certain about a specific thing, AND have that knowledge by necessity as well. There are clearly instance where both necessity and certainty overlap.

I'm not sure what you mean by necessity but what I mean "necessity" in the modal sense.

Saying that God knows what action you will take at any given time doesn't entail that you must necessarily take that action at that given time and thus negating your free will.

Well, congrats. If God knows that you will take Path A, and instead, you take Path B, God was wrong, he is no longer omniscient. Infact, if that were the case, his "Knowledge" would be no better than guessing.

What? I never said God doesn't know what you are going to do before you do it. What I'm saying is that that doesn't negate your free will because God knowing your action before it happens doesn't entail that you must by necessity do that action.

That'd be like saying that because I know what actions Anne Frank took during her time in a concentration camp that necessarily she MUST have took those actions. It doesn't follow.

No no, fail. If your Anne Frank analogy were to be valid, then God does not exist in the NOW, just like you do not exist when Anne Frank was alive and making her choices. Are you telling me that God Does not currently exist?

Are you telling me that you forgot that many theists generally think God exists outside of time? I.E. That he timelessly knows things?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 9:03:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 7:08:53 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
If God is omniscient, he knows all facts and circumstances about the universe. There is a somewhat silly version of this where God just kind of knows the future, but for the moment we will stick with the idea that God just knows everything that has happened up to a point.


Ok.

Since all that we have available in our decision-making process are facts we can gather via sight, sound, touch, logic, etc... then it must be the case that what we consider free will is simply the product of these facts. And since God would know all the the facts, he would know exactly how things would play out.


Sure.

Here's another example. Suppose we create a closed system in a massive tank filled with water. All particles in this tank are at relative rest - i.e. it is filled with water that is perfectly still. We are going to drop a pebble of a certain size into the water from a certain height, angle, etc... Since the movement of the particles is entirely dependent on the velocity and shape and angle, etc... of the pebble, if we know what those are before we drop the pebble, it is possible to calculate the exact position of each particle in 3 seconds without ever actually dropping the stone.


I'm following.

Granted, this would take immense computing power, but remember, we're talking about God here =P

So in effect, God knows all facts about the world at any given time, and can therefore calculate the facts about the world at any other given time. Before you begin sounding off about quantum tunneling and other seemingly random particles, is it not such a stretch of the imagination to think that the omniscient mind of God would have already conceived and calculated the infinite variations that particle may produce? Or better yet, who says the particle is really disobeying the laws of cause and effect? Perhaps we just don't understand them completely yet.


Yes, that sounds plausible.

Getting back to the main point of free will, the deterministic nature of the world destroys strict free will. But what most people mean is called agency free will, where the individual simply has to believe they could have done otherwise to have this agency free will.


I think you are mischaracterizing libertarianism about free will a bit but I'll let it slide.

Do we have agency free will? That's the same as asking if things could have happened any other way than they did. And for the Christian, if everything that happens is the will of God, then the answer to that question is - no, you don't have even agency free will.


Ok, good. Here's the meat.

First off, I would disagree with you that everything that happens is the will of God. I don't know of any theist that says that God wills evil to happen. He certainly allows it, though. There's a bit of a difference there.

That is not really relevant but I felt like pointing it out.

As a side note, if God wills something as a necessity, then it is also certain to happen. But if God knows with the certainty of omniscience that something will happen, then it is also necessary, or else God is not omniscient.

Uh, no. Are you saying God can't know contingent truths? That he can only know necessary truths?

God's omniscience only establishes that he knows before you do something that you will do that something. Not that you MUST do it. If you had done something else he would've known that, too. Like I alluded to before you are confusing God knowing for certain what you will do with it being necessary (i.e. couldn't have been any other way) that you do what you are going to do in the future.

"Necessarily God knows what you will do tommorrow" is the not the same as saying, "God knows what you will do tommorrow so necessarily you must do it".

Oh, hey this says it better:

"Specifically, point 4 commits the modal fallacy of assuming that because some choice is known to be true, it must be necessarily true (i.e. there is no way it could possibly be false).[11] Logically, the truth value of some proposition cannot be used to infer that the same proposition is necessarily true.

Using logical terminology and applying it to AFFW, there is a marked distinction between the statement "It is impossible (for God to know a future action to be true and for that action to not occur)" and the statement "If God knows that a future action is true, then it is impossible for that action to not occur." While the two statements may seem to say the same thing, they are not logically equivalent. The second sentence is false because it commits the modal fallacy of saying that a certain action is impossible, instead of saying that the two propositions (God knows a future action to be true, and that action does not occur) are jointly impossible. Simply asserting that God knows a future action does not make it impossible for that action not to occur. The confusion comes in mistaking a semantic relation between two events for a causal relation between two events."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

God's foreknowledge of a person's free actions doesn't force that persons's free actions anymore than me learning that Abe Lincoln was shot in the back of the head forced him to be shot in the back of the head.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 9:27:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 8:41:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Are you telling me that you forgot that many theists generally think God exists outside of time? I.E. That he timelessly knows things?

Then your argument still fails. What were talking about is logic and reasoning. If youre going to claim that God can contradict both, then theres no use talking about this anymore, since youve just made your position moot.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 9:34:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 9:03:08 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Ok, good. Here's the meat.

First off, I would disagree with you that everything that happens is the will of God. I don't know of any theist that says that God wills evil to happen. He certainly allows it, though. There's a bit of a difference there.
Does not the Book of Job claim that God creates everything Good and bad? Does not creation presuppose will? Furthermore, are you telling me that God wants to stop evil, but doesnt?
That is not really relevant but I felt like pointing it out.

As a side note, if God wills something as a necessity, then it is also certain to happen. But if God knows with the certainty of omniscience that something will happen, then it is also necessary, or else God is not omniscient.

Uh, no. Are you saying God can't know contingent truths? That he can only know necessary truths?

God's omniscience only establishes that he knows before you do something that you will do that something. Not that you MUST do it. If you had done something else he would've known that, too. Like I alluded to before you are confusing God knowing for certain what you will do with it being necessary (i.e. couldn't have been any other way) that you do what you are going to do in the future.

"Necessarily God knows what you will do tommorrow" is the not the same as saying, "God knows what you will do tommorrow so necessarily you must do it".

Oh, hey this says it better:

"Specifically, point 4 commits the modal fallacy of assuming that because some choice is known to be true, it must be necessarily true (i.e. there is no way it could possibly be false).[11] Logically, the truth value of some proposition cannot be used to infer that the same proposition is necessarily true.

Using logical terminology and applying it to AFFW, there is a marked distinction between the statement "It is impossible (for God to know a future action to be true and for that action to not occur)" and the statement "If God knows that a future action is true, then it is impossible for that action to not occur." While the two statements may seem to say the same thing, they are not logically equivalent. The second sentence is false because it commits the modal fallacy of saying that a certain action is impossible, instead of saying that the two propositions (God knows a future action to be true, and that action does not occur) are jointly impossible. Simply asserting that God knows a future action does not make it impossible for that action not to occur. The confusion comes in mistaking a semantic relation between two events for a causal relation between two events."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

God's foreknowledge of a person's free actions doesn't force that persons's free actions anymore than me learning that Abe Lincoln was shot in the back of the head forced him to be shot in the back of the head.

Isnt this why Philosophers have identified two types of Free will, one, which is true freedom where someone can truly act independant of determinism, while the other, is a free will where the indvidual believes he is acting out a freedom of choice but that choice is actually being determined without his knowledge, like those found in Brave New World?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 11:43:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 9:27:46 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/16/2010 8:41:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Are you telling me that you forgot that many theists generally think God exists outside of time? I.E. That he timelessly knows things?

Then your argument still fails. What were talking about is logic and reasoning. If youre going to claim that God can contradict both, then theres no use talking about this anymore, since youve just made your position moot.

How is a timeless being a contradiction to logic and reasoning?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 11:52:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/18/2010 11:43:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
How is a timeless being a contradiction to logic and reasoning?

Well, this is mainly pertaining to the christian concept of God. I agree that if a Deistic-view of God were the creator of this universe, then there would be no contradiction. But, the specific constraints applied to a God of a specific religion creates contradictions.
contra_profligates
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 4:53:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 7:57:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/16/2010 7:18:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/16/2010 6:51:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/16/2010 6:40:14 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/15/2010 7:45:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/15/2010 7:06:06 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Except for the fact that an omniscient God and individuals with free will are mutually exclusive. So inconvenient...


How? Is it the ole "if God knows what you do you couldn't have done anything else therefore negating your free will"? I hope not. Because that confuses certainty with necessity.

I don't understand. One can be certain about a specific thing, AND have that knowledge by necessity as well. There are clearly instance where both necessity and certainty overlap.

I'm not sure what you mean by necessity but what I mean "necessity" in the modal sense.

Saying that God knows what action you will take at any given time doesn't entail that you must necessarily take that action at that given time and thus negating your free will.

Well, congrats. If God knows that you will take Path A, and instead, you take Path B, God was wrong, he is no longer omniscient. Infact, if that were the case, his "Knowledge" would be no better than guessing.

What? I never said God doesn't know what you are going to do before you do it. What I'm saying is that that doesn't negate your free will because God knowing your action before it happens doesn't entail that you must by necessity do that action.

That'd be like saying that because I know what actions Anne Frank took during her time in a concentration camp that necessarily she MUST have took those actions. It doesn't follow.

Or to put it simply: knowledge per se doesn't cause anything
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 10:31:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 4:53:23 AM, contra_profligates wrote:

Or to put it simply: knowledge per se doesn't cause anything

Haha, well and much more sucinctly put, friend.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 11:14:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 4:53:23 AM, contra_profligates wrote:
Or to put it simply: knowledge per se doesn't cause anything

What were talking about is free will. Not whether God is actually forcing us to choose option A over option B, but rather, whether we had the choice in the first place.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 9:39:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 9:03:08 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

Ok, good. Here's the meat.

First off, I would disagree with you that everything that happens is the will of God. I don't know of any theist that says that God wills evil to happen. He certainly allows it, though. There's a bit of a difference there.

If God willed everything into existence as a set of facts as we discussed before, then he would know beforehand of all the evil facts of the future. So in effect, God did will evil. But I agree that this point is somewhat moot and is basically splitting hairs.

As a side note, if God wills something as a necessity, then it is also certain to happen. But if God knows with the certainty of omniscience that something will happen, then it is also necessary, or else God is not omniscient.

Uh, no. Are you saying God can't know contingent truths? That he can only know necessary truths?

No... not quite. If God is set up as we described before, then there really are no contingent truths. But if we ignore that and understand a contingent truth to be the sort of truth where we have A -> B or C -> D or E -> F etc... then all that is required is for God to be aware of all A, C, E, etc... An omniscient God would know all contingent truths, if there are indeed such things.

God's omniscience only establishes that he knows before you do something that you will do that something. Not that you MUST do it.

Yes, but since God's omniscience is not up for debate, you are stuck admitting that either you MUST do the action, or God is not omnipotent.

If you had done something else he would've known that, too. Like I alluded to before you are confusing God knowing for certain what you will do with it being necessary (i.e. couldn't have been any other way) that you do what you are going to do in the future.

I'm gonna come back to this below...

"Necessarily God knows what you will do tommorrow" is the not the same as saying, "God knows what you will do tommorrow so necessarily you must do it".

Oh, hey this says it better:

"Specifically, point 4 commits the modal fallacy of assuming that because some choice is known to be true, it must be necessarily true (i.e. there is no way it could possibly be false).[11] Logically, the truth value of some proposition cannot be used to infer that the same proposition is necessarily true.

Using logical terminology and applying it to AFFW, there is a marked distinction between the statement "It is impossible (for God to know a future action to be true and for that action to not occur)" and the statement "If God knows that a future action is true, then it is impossible for that action to not occur." While the two statements may seem to say the same thing, they are not logically equivalent. The second sentence is false because it commits the modal fallacy of saying that a certain action is impossible, instead of saying that the two propositions (God knows a future action to be true, and that action does not occur) are jointly impossible. Simply asserting that God knows a future action does not make it impossible for that action not to occur. The confusion comes in mistaking a semantic relation between two events for a causal relation between two events."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Ok. Let us examine this really quickly. See the italicized and bolded stuff in the last paragraph? Those two statements are:

~(F & ~F) = Not the case known future action and not that action.
F -> (~(~F)) = If known future action, then not, not that action.

The second of these can be transformed via truth table analysis into the first. The second is basically a prohibition on the circumstance (F & ~F)... which is exactly what the first one is.

Let's think about it a different way.

If God is omniscient, he knows all future actions (like we agreed before).
A man cannot act and not act... or act and act differently at the same time.
God's knowledge of an action cannot be of a different action than it will be.
---- By this, I mean that if God knows you will wear a blue shirt tomorrow, then
---- this cannot be the same thing as if God knew you would wear a red shirt
---- tomorrow.
Thus, God knows whatever action you will take.
Thus, if you acted differently than God knew, it would disprove God's omniscience.
But since God's omniscience is a premise we cannot break...
Therefore, one cannot act differently than God knows.

Here's another way to think about it:

Let's suppose all actions are binary in nature (A v B) & ~(A & B) - one or the other, and not both. So we can represent all actions from the beginning of time with a huge tree where one branch splits into 2, splits into 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, etc...

Since God knows all future actions, we can envision a bolded lie that traces through each layer of the tree, following only one choice at each branch it comes to - this represents the course of events as God knows it to be. No matter where you are temporally, you cannot deviate from that path, as the path would also represent reality. This idea is essentially hard determinism. So at each branch, or choice, even though it may seem to the agent that he has an option, the reality (har!) of the situation is that the choice has been made already.

God's foreknowledge of a person's free actions doesn't force that persons's free actions anymore than me learning that Abe Lincoln was shot in the back of the head forced him to be shot in the back of the head.

It doesn't tie the person's hand behind their back, no. The agent believes they have free will, but really they do not. There is an interesting way of forcing a choice that you can do to people that somewhat illustrates this point, though it is a very crude analogy. I think the Abe Lincoln example is a disanalogy, because it's about the past. Suppose you learned FOR A CERTAIN FACT, that the Eiffel Tower would fall tomorrow. Tomorrow comes and the Eiffel Tower does not fall. Then you did NOT learn FOR A CERTAIN FACT that the Eiffel Tower would fall... See where I'm going with this?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 3:46:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/15/2010 7:06:06 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 6/9/2010 2:56:59 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

Once upon a time, there was a magical old man in the sky. He spoke everything into existence and thought everything was hunkey dory. Then one day his creation did something he either didn't forsee, or didn't care about happening, and punished his toys.

OR He foresaw AND cared BUT cared more about the free-will of His creation; without the ability to choose a separate destiny than God's Adam would essentially
have been a robot.


Except for the fact that an omniscient God and individuals with free will are mutually exclusive. So inconvenient...

To your limited understanding perhaps, but as you havn't explained HOW they are mutually exclusive I guess we'll never know, right?

Later, he decided it was crap so he flooded everything. Then he promised he would never flood the earth again. So the next time things got bad, he did a /facepalm and regretted the promise about flooding, so he magically impregnated a virgin girl.

The old testament is a natural shadow of spiritual principles yet to come; the flood of water represents the fire (God's wrath) on the day of Judgement, the Ark represents Jesus Christ: Whoever is not 'In Him' (In His commands, His sacrifice etc) willl not survive.

... So in other words, the story really isn't true, and this is just a warning of what's REALLY going to happen if we make him mad. Whoever doesn't accept Jesus will be killed regardless of how good a life they have led... The baptized-as-a-child serial infant rapist will have a chance for heaven, but because the good and righteous and moral Buddhist never heard the gospel, he will burn in hell for all eternity. What a loving, just God, eh?

The story is absolutely true; is a shadow real? of course, it's a real shadow.

As, after the fall, humanity was no longer spiritual, and God (in His infinite love) still wanted to have a relationship with us, He had to work with natural forces to show spiritual principles.

Infant baptisim in unscriptural heresy, so we are in agreement here; it is actually a strategy from satan to prevent people from reaching true salvation.

Everyone has a conscience; Jesus said " Walk in the light while you have it, before darkness overtakes you. "
So everyone has a chance to be saved, but if they do not use what light they have, why would God give them more?

The virgin birth, Like the rest of the miracles that Jesus performed in His earthly life, merely show that it is always God that makes a life.. So even when a child is conceived is the natural way, by sexual intercourse, it is STILL a Supernatural act of God.

Are you suggesting the virgin birth was Jesus' first miracle? Even though it's very clear that God performed this (if it happened)... And you also just said that when a child is conceived the "NATURAL" way, this is a "SUPERNATURAL" action. Riiiight. Yet another glaring contradiction.

Well, in a sense God performed all of Jesus' miracles; but what I mean was that this first miracle was the same as all the other connected with Jesus' life: to show that actually EVERYTHING is a miracle! EVERYTHING is supernatural or created.

Her baby became a Jewish zombie that died for your sins that you hadn't committed yet. Then a bunch of Jewish people started proclaiming he was their Messiah even though he didn't actually fit what they were looking for. When the rest of the Jews got pissy about this, they decided to make a new religion because of course they were right, and the other Jews were wrong.

Jesus Christ lived a sinless life, the law of Moses became real and activated in Him because He is sinless.

Who said anything about Jesus living a sinful or sinless life? What does this have to do with anything?

EVERYTHING to do with anything! You seem so interested in contradiction in the Bible that I want you to understand this point; that the (perfect) Law of Moses was rendered imperfect by imperfect man BUT FULFILLED in the perfect (sinless) life of Jesus christ.

Jesus Christ is the Word, the true expression of God: the Cross of Christ says:

" Although you, who I have blessed more than any other nation, have falsely accused and condemned Me, have handed Me over to the godless to be mocked a crucified, although you have done this.. In return I offer you forgiveness and life Eternal. "

THIS is the true testimony of God! the New Testament!


Actually, the Cross of Christ said "INRI" - Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum - or in English... Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. I don't know what you were smoking to come up with the nonsense above.

You willfully misunderstand my meaning; ignoring my spiritual narrative.
This is choosing darkness.
This is rejecting God at it's most fundamental level.

Oh, and the crucial point to understanding this story is that everything science and history has told you is completely false. Except sometimes carbon dating but only when it conveniently authenticates the age of some scrolls in the desert.

No, most history is true.. most science is true.. but like rat poison (99% food, 1% poison) there are few great big lies that people WANT to swallow, so they can carry on sinning in comfort.

Let's say that mot Christianity is true, but like rat poison (99% good idea, 1% lie) with a few big lies people WANT to swallow so they can feel good about their fear of death, and so they can carry on sinning in comfort knowing they will be forgiven if they ask...

It is either completely true or completely false; like the answer to 2
+2.

Do you believe now?

2 Peter 3:3
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.


Translation:

Jesus said to the Twelve: I'm gonna tell you some REALLY stupid and unbelievable stuff, and people are going to laugh at you because you sound like idiots, but because I'm telling you this now, you will see how right I am about this simple idea, so everything else I sad MUST be true too.

DAT - you are the pinnacle of willful ignorance. You continue to amaze me with your armchair interpretations of religious texts and your deliberately dense reactions to very simple texts.

Undoubtedly you are either incredibly stupid, or the greatest troll in the history of the internet.

Personal attacks! the last refuge of the dismantled.

You are beaten Sir, you always were.
The Cross.. the Cross.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 8:16:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
He likes to quote from the Message "bible" - a collection of obtusely reworded Biblical phrases roughly translated into "modern" English... as though the original wasn't hard enough to make sense of.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 8:31:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 3:46:03 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

To your limited understanding perhaps, but as you havn't explained HOW they are mutually exclusive I guess we'll never know, right?

You obviously haven't been reading the rest of this thread, have you?

The story is absolutely true; is a shadow real? of course, it's a real shadow.

Is a lie real? Of course, it's a real lie. If you see the shadow of a horse, did you really see the horse? No, but the horse must have cast the shadow, right? The case of this story is like a hand-puppet shadow on a wall... you see the shadow of the dog, but it tells a story - it doesn't represent reality.

As, after the fall, humanity was no longer spiritual, and God (in His infinite love) still wanted to have a relationship with us, He had to work with natural forces to show spiritual principles.

Ok... so explain how God's infinite love leads him to kill every living thing on the planet except for a handful of people and some animals. Why couldn't he just have said Awww - to hell with it! and popped all the evil people out of existence?

Infant baptisim in unscriptural heresy, so we are in agreement here; it is actually a strategy from satan to prevent people from reaching true salvation.

Interesting... so you don't think baptized babies go to heaven? Not that I do... I'm just curious.

Jesus Christ is the Word, the true expression of God: the Cross of Christ says:
" Although you, who I have blessed more than any other nation, have falsely accused and condemned Me, have handed Me over to the godless to be mocked a crucified, although you have done this.. In return I offer you forgiveness and life Eternal. "


You willfully misunderstand my meaning; ignoring my spiritual narrative.
This is choosing darkness.
This is rejecting God at it's most fundamental level.

I'm not misunderstanding anything - I have no clue where you came up with that quote... it's not in the Bible... maybe it's in the Message "bible"... but I would love to see what passage that paraphrases. I think you just made it up.

It is either completely true or completely false; like the answer to 2
+2.

This shows a radical misunderstanding of mathematics... and if you want to use that example, Christianity is sometimes true, sometimes false.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 8:43:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Mmm, I'm inclined to believe free will and the Christian god are compatible - or at least the idea of God's omniscience doesn't negate free will.

It seems plausible to imagine two identical worlds where everything is identical (Twin Earth hypothesis), except in the second world you have a God who is omniscient. In world A, the WTC gets destroyed but no one knows about this ahead of time. In world B, the WTF gets destroyed but God knows about this ahead of time. I don't see how knowledge of a future act happening entails the actualization of it. A similar, intuitive analogy would be a fortune teller -- we wouldn't say a fortune teller caused an event to happen, even if they foresaw it.

UNLESS, you argue from the fact that God put everything "into motion", whatever that means.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 9:20:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
1. God knows I'm going to do X in the future.
2. If God knows I'm going to do X, X must happen. If it doesn't, God is not omniscient.
3. Free will entails that our actions are not certain.
4. Free will does not exist if God knows all my actions.

I don't understand why this line of thought is incorrect; despite attempts from atheists and theists alike to dissuade me of it.

Put it this way:

1. God knows I'm going to kill my mother. If I choose not to kill my mother, God is wrong and therefore not omniscient. Therefore, I must kill my mother. There is no way for me to avoid killing my mother. It is an event fixed in the future that I can't change. That clearly violates free will, and it extends to every action I take.
Cogito-ergo-sum
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 10:20:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 9:20:34 AM, Kinesis wrote:
1. God knows I'm going to do X in the future.
2. If God knows I'm going to do X, X must happen. If it doesn't, God is not omniscient.
3. Free will entails that our actions are not certain.
4. Free will does not exist if God knows all my actions.

I don't understand why this line of thought is incorrect; despite attempts from atheists and theists alike to dissuade me of it.

Put it this way:

1. God knows I'm going to kill my mother. If I choose not to kill my mother, God is wrong and therefore not omniscient. Therefore, I must kill my mother. There is no way for me to avoid killing my mother. It is an event fixed in the future that I can't change. That clearly violates free will, and it extends to every action I take.

Very well put.

'UNLESS, you argue from the fact that God put everything "into motion", whatever that means.' - Don't know what you mean by this Skeptic. It is a basic explanation of causality, God did something ergo something happened. If you believe in the creator God then everything can be traced back to God as the origin.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2010 7:33:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/21/2010 8:43:56 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Mmm, I'm inclined to believe free will and the Christian god are compatible - or at least the idea of God's omniscience doesn't negate free will.

It seems plausible to imagine two identical worlds where everything is identical (Twin Earth hypothesis), except in the second world you have a God who is omniscient. In world A, the WTC gets destroyed but no one knows about this ahead of time. In world B, the WTF gets destroyed but God knows about this ahead of time. I don't see how knowledge of a future act happening entails the actualization of it. A similar, intuitive analogy would be a fortune teller -- we wouldn't say a fortune teller caused an event to happen, even if they foresaw it.

Sure we would... saying God is omnipotent is tantamount to saying something like:

Given that all the fortune teller's visions are true, forseeing an event necessitates its action. It does not CAUSE the action (nor does this in and of itself necessitate it strictly), but it does mean the event WILL happen.

The reason I say in the fortune teller example it does not necessitate it is simply that the fortune teller is seeing things in a temporal order the same way other people see events... the event is already certain to happen... she is just becoming aware of it.

In the case of God, the necessity of the action is bound to God's omnipotent nature... if we say it is given that God is omnipotent, all actions he knows of must necessarily occur, else the given is incorrect.

UNLESS, you argue from the fact that God put everything "into motion", whatever that means.

I have no idea what this means, but determinism would also seem to hold if God didn't put everything into motion.