Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

An Omniscient Creator and Free Will

Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 2:21:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To me, these two things are contradictory. If we were created ex nihilo, then that would naturally include the physical components, such as the brain. Our decisions are derived from the processes of the brain (learned from neurology/psychology) which, in turn, are necessarily created by this all-knowing agent in the process of creating our brain. Such an agent would be infinitely familiar with all of the results that the will be reached by the brain's mechanisms according to the brain's design. To argue that one has free will (beyond the illusion thereof), I can see no other way than to argue that one's decision making abilities are not derived from the brain, but rather from some source preexistent to us and separate from God.

I ask genuinely, can anyone provide a counter to this thought?
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 2:26:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Wow...I am usually pretty good at wading through verbosity when reading a philosophical argument, but I read your OP twice and still have no clue what your real question is here?

How about quit trying to impress with your didactic vocab and framing your question in your own words? As I would love to discuss this topic with you.

Thanks?
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 2:36:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm not trying to impress anyone, that's just how I typed it. Sorry.

Basically, such a Creator would have had to create our brain. Our brain houses the mechanisms by which we make our decisions; not just subconscious, but all of the thoughts that our mind produces.

An omniscient Creator would have to design the mechanisms with intent, because random/unknown is impossible for an omniscient being.

Due to the necessity of intent, free will does not exist beyond an illusion. Our decisions (and how we make them) are predetermined by the Creator.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 2:44:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 2:36:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm not trying to impress anyone, that's just how I typed it. Sorry.

Basically, such a Creator would have had to create our brain. Our brain houses the mechanisms by which we make our decisions; not just subconscious, but all of the thoughts that our mind produces.

An omniscient Creator would have to design the mechanisms with intent, because random/unknown is impossible for an omniscient being.

Due to the necessity of intent, free will does not exist beyond an illusion. Our decisions (and how we make them) are predetermined by the Creator.

Well, good point.

But I think a Believer would tell you that if God were to design us with "perfect" brains that are not wired so as to lead us into Sin and temptation and disobedience, then, well, those "beings" he made reaally wouldn't be human, would they? More like automatons. Good little robots.

And what would the purpose of that be? What fun? LOL. What chance to learn and grow and persevere with our Faith when much evidence in the physical world would seem to deny the very existence of a Creator.

It would be sort of like a school. With kids and a teacher. What is the point of that you ask? Well, to learn. For the kids to grow. And prepare. To thrive later on.

Okay--sounds good.

BUT! Hold on. What if the kids are little automatons with already-prefect brains?

Hmm..then I guess no need for the school at all. What's the point? No humans = No Life = we are not here in the first place to discuss this matter! LOL.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 2:58:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 2:44:02 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/9/2015 2:36:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm not trying to impress anyone, that's just how I typed it. Sorry.

Basically, such a Creator would have had to create our brain. Our brain houses the mechanisms by which we make our decisions; not just subconscious, but all of the thoughts that our mind produces.

An omniscient Creator would have to design the mechanisms with intent, because random/unknown is impossible for an omniscient being.

Due to the necessity of intent, free will does not exist beyond an illusion. Our decisions (and how we make them) are predetermined by the Creator.

And what would the purpose of that be? What fun? LOL. What chance to learn and grow and persevere with our Faith when much evidence in the physical world would seem to deny the very existence of a Creator.

It would be sort of like a school. With kids and a teacher. What is the point of that you ask? Well, to learn. For the kids to grow. And prepare. To thrive later on.

Okay--sounds good.

BUT! Hold on. What if the kids are little automatons with already-prefect brains?

Hmm..then I guess no need for the school at all. What's the point? No humans = No Life = we are not here in the first place to discuss this matter! LOL.

I fully agree with that. I ask this question in response to seeing arguments that evil, or action contrary god's will, is a result of free will (primarily in defense of the PoE). Also, in regard to the idea that people can be punished or rewarded in an afterlife based on their actions or beliefs. If free will is not actually possible, then these ideas completely fall apart.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 5:44:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 2:21:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
To me, these two things are contradictory. If we were created ex nihilo, then that would naturally include the physical components, such as the brain. Our decisions are derived from the processes of the brain (learned from neurology/psychology) which, in turn, are necessarily created by this all-knowing agent in the process of creating our brain. Such an agent would be infinitely familiar with all of the results that the will be reached by the brain's mechanisms according to the brain's design. To argue that one has free will (beyond the illusion thereof), I can see no other way than to argue that one's decision making abilities are not derived from the brain, but rather from some source preexistent to us and separate from God.

I ask genuinely, can anyone provide a counter to this thought?

It really comes down to what you understand to be free will. You seem to imply libertarian free will, that is ones actions are uncaused by any prior physical states (needed for the free will defence). However compatibilism is a live option and tbh the most sensible theory of free will.
That aside, your train of thought is comparable to J.L. Mackie's who saw a problem for omnipotence in the libertarian idea of free will.
For him the question arose whether God cannot actually influence one's will or whether he factually decides not to do it.
Similarly for omniscience we can ask the question of whether God cannot know one's will or whether he just decides not to do it.
I think neither option is very promising for the theist.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 5:46:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 2:21:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
To me, these two things are contradictory. If we were created ex nihilo, then that would naturally include the physical components, such as the brain. Our decisions are derived from the processes of the brain (learned from neurology/psychology) which, in turn, are necessarily created by this all-knowing agent in the process of creating our brain. Such an agent would be infinitely familiar with all of the results that the will be reached by the brain's mechanisms according to the brain's design. To argue that one has free will (beyond the illusion thereof), I can see no other way than to argue that one's decision making abilities are not derived from the brain, but rather from some source preexistent to us and separate from God.

I ask genuinely, can anyone provide a counter to this thought?

Define "free will".
clay-slayer
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 6:33:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 2:44:02 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/9/2015 2:36:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm not trying to impress anyone, that's just how I typed it. Sorry.

Basically, such a Creator would have had to create our brain. Our brain houses the mechanisms by which we make our decisions; not just subconscious, but all of the thoughts that our mind produces.

An omniscient Creator would have to design the mechanisms with intent, because random/unknown is impossible for an omniscient being.

Due to the necessity of intent, free will does not exist beyond an illusion. Our decisions (and how we make them) are predetermined by the Creator.

Well, good point.

But I think a Believer would tell you that if God were to design us with "perfect" brains that are not wired so as to lead us into Sin and temptation and disobedience, then, well, those "beings" he made reaally wouldn't be human, would they? More like automatons. Good little robots.

And what would the purpose of that be? What fun? LOL. What chance to learn and grow and persevere with our Faith when much evidence in the physical world would seem to deny the very existence of a Creator.

It would be sort of like a school. With kids and a teacher. What is the point of that you ask? Well, to learn. For the kids to grow. And prepare. To thrive later on.

Okay--sounds good.

BUT! Hold on. What if the kids are little automatons with already-prefect brains?

Hmm..then I guess no need for the school at all. What's the point? No humans = No Life = we are not here in the first place to discuss this matter! LOL.

A "perfect " god would have to make the Perfect Brain.. perfection demands perfection,, anything less than "Perfect" renders this "Perfect " God imperfect..
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 7:47:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 5:44:11 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/9/2015 2:21:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
To me, these two things are contradictory. If we were created ex nihilo, then that would naturally include the physical components, such as the brain. Our decisions are derived from the processes of the brain (learned from neurology/psychology) which, in turn, are necessarily created by this all-knowing agent in the process of creating our brain. Such an agent would be infinitely familiar with all of the results that the will be reached by the brain's mechanisms according to the brain's design. To argue that one has free will (beyond the illusion thereof), I can see no other way than to argue that one's decision making abilities are not derived from the brain, but rather from some source preexistent to us and separate from God.

I ask genuinely, can anyone provide a counter to this thought?

It really comes down to what you understand to be free will. You seem to imply libertarian free will, that is ones actions are uncaused by any prior physical states (needed for the free will defence). However compatibilism is a live option and tbh the most sensible theory of free will.
That aside, your train of thought is comparable to J.L. Mackie's who saw a problem for omnipotence in the libertarian idea of free will.
For him the question arose whether God cannot actually influence one's will or whether he factually decides not to do it.
Similarly for omniscience we can ask the question of whether God cannot know one's will or whether he just decides not to do it.
I think neither option is very promising for the theist.

OK - Libertarian Free Will would be the "escape" to this dilemma. Thank you.

I briefly looked into this; how is this compatible with the subconscious mind's powerful role in decision-making? Emotions and urges are a result of the brain (which are beyond our will), which *heavily* drive our decisions. For instance, one might not normally steal a cookie from a co-worker's desk, but if one is starving, one is undeniably more likely to steal that cookie. The driving force of hunger is a definite influence to decision making, and it [hunger] is certainly not under our willful control.

Additionally, God could definitely influence our "free will" decisions. Why could He not create an imbalance in the chemicals in our brain to strengthen the influence of particular emotions, which in turn influence our decisions?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 8:13:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 7:47:43 AM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/11/2015 5:44:11 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/9/2015 2:21:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
To me, these two things are contradictory. If we were created ex nihilo, then that would naturally include the physical components, such as the brain. Our decisions are derived from the processes of the brain (learned from neurology/psychology) which, in turn, are necessarily created by this all-knowing agent in the process of creating our brain. Such an agent would be infinitely familiar with all of the results that the will be reached by the brain's mechanisms according to the brain's design. To argue that one has free will (beyond the illusion thereof), I can see no other way than to argue that one's decision making abilities are not derived from the brain, but rather from some source preexistent to us and separate from God.

I ask genuinely, can anyone provide a counter to this thought?

It really comes down to what you understand to be free will. You seem to imply libertarian free will, that is ones actions are uncaused by any prior physical states (needed for the free will defence). However compatibilism is a live option and tbh the most sensible theory of free will.
That aside, your train of thought is comparable to J.L. Mackie's who saw a problem for omnipotence in the libertarian idea of free will.
For him the question arose whether God cannot actually influence one's will or whether he factually decides not to do it.
Similarly for omniscience we can ask the question of whether God cannot know one's will or whether he just decides not to do it.
I think neither option is very promising for the theist.

OK - Libertarian Free Will would be the "escape" to this dilemma. Thank you.

I briefly looked into this; how is this compatible with the subconscious mind's powerful role in decision-making? Emotions and urges are a result of the brain (which are beyond our will), which *heavily* drive our decisions. For instance, one might not normally steal a cookie from a co-worker's desk, but if one is starving, one is undeniably more likely to steal that cookie. The driving force of hunger is a definite influence to decision making, and it [hunger] is certainly not under our willful control.
I don't know, I think libertarian free will is nonsense.

Additionally, God could definitely influence our "free will" decisions. Why could He not create an imbalance in the chemicals in our brain to strengthen the influence of particular emotions, which in turn influence our decisions?
Those who propose a libertarian free will are more often than not dualists of some sort, so I guess changing chemicals won't cut it for them.
As for other influences, it is often claimed that we only have a morally praiseworthy free will if we are not influenced by anything. God influencing our actions/emotions/etc would be an infringement of this will, hence a morally bad action. God is perfectly moral or good, therefore he would not influence our will in any way.

One thing I found to be rather striking is this account of free will and moral praise/blameworthiness on one hand and the theists who talk about God doing good stuff for them all the time, e.g., "why did I miss my train?", "there was an ill person on it, and I made you arrive late so that you won't catch a cold" or whatever.
There is an amusing amount of contradictory accounts of God's attributes and actions like the greatest conceivable being vs. divine simplicity.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 8:30:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 2:21:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
To me, these two things are contradictory. If we were created ex nihilo, then that would naturally include the physical components, such as the brain. Our decisions are derived from the processes of the brain (learned from neurology/psychology) which, in turn, are necessarily created by this all-knowing agent in the process of creating our brain. Such an agent would be infinitely familiar with all of the results that the will be reached by the brain's mechanisms according to the brain's design. To argue that one has free will (beyond the illusion thereof), I can see no other way than to argue that one's decision making abilities are not derived from the brain, but rather from some source preexistent to us and separate from God.

I ask genuinely, can anyone provide a counter to this thought?

Let us assume your position is valid and that free will is not derived from the brain but from some all knowing agent called God. We have to then credit this all knowing agent for all the miscues and genocidal behaviour it introduced in the decision process that overrode free will. How can man be responsible for his actions when God is the agent behind his actions?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 8:55:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 8:30:52 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 6/9/2015 2:21:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
To me, these two things are contradictory. If we were created ex nihilo, then that would naturally include the physical components, such as the brain. Our decisions are derived from the processes of the brain (learned from neurology/psychology) which, in turn, are necessarily created by this all-knowing agent in the process of creating our brain. Such an agent would be infinitely familiar with all of the results that the will be reached by the brain's mechanisms according to the brain's design. To argue that one has free will (beyond the illusion thereof), I can see no other way than to argue that one's decision making abilities are not derived from the brain, but rather from some source preexistent to us and separate from God.

I ask genuinely, can anyone provide a counter to this thought?

Let us assume your position is valid and that free will is not derived from the brain but from some all knowing agent called God. We have to then credit this all knowing agent for all the miscues and genocidal behaviour it introduced in the decision process that overrode free will. How can man be responsible for his actions when God is the agent behind his actions?

That is actually my point. If this is the case, man is not ultimately responsible for his actions. This is more clear when dealing with someone who is mentally ill (like dementia) where their decisions are wildly different than what they would be if the person was lucid. Anyway, this should not deter punishment or counter-action.

If a man is aware of punishment, then this knowledge plays a role in the decision-making process as a negative. If the mere awareness if not sufficient, then the realization of that punishment will provide a stronger negative. Capital Punishment should not be labeled "punishment" in my belief, because that is more of an act of protection for the rest of society.

In regards to someone in which punishment is not an option (like dementia), counter-action is taken in the form of treatment or medication or confinement. Ultimately, punishment and counter-action are not discarded if one is not ultimately responsible for their actions.

But this is an effort by society. If this judgment is coming from the being that *is* responsible for those decisions (God), then it is sorely unjust that the person is punished/rewarded for those decisions. It would be akin to rewarding a computer program for functioning correctly.
tejretics
Posts: 6,081
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 10:58:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 2:21:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
To me, these two things are contradictory. If we were created ex nihilo, then that would naturally include the physical components, such as the brain. Our decisions are derived from the processes of the brain (learned from neurology/psychology) which, in turn, are necessarily created by this all-knowing agent in the process of creating our brain. Such an agent would be infinitely familiar with all of the results that the will be reached by the brain's mechanisms according to the brain's design. To argue that one has free will (beyond the illusion thereof), I can see no other way than to argue that one's decision making abilities are not derived from the brain, but rather from some source preexistent to us and separate from God.

Ex nihilo doesn't really imply "free will"--biologically, but whether the actions we perform are truly "free" is relative, viz. in the deterministic sense we don't have free will, but in the biological sense we probably do.


I ask genuinely, can anyone provide a counter to this thought?

A better way to phrase this would be:

1. Omniscience implies lack of contingence.
2. There exist contingent events.
C. Omniscience's core implication is incorrect.

Google "omniscience paradox".
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 12:09:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 6:33:50 AM, clay-slayer wrote:
At 6/9/2015 2:44:02 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/9/2015 2:36:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm not trying to impress anyone, that's just how I typed it. Sorry.

Basically, such a Creator would have had to create our brain. Our brain houses the mechanisms by which we make our decisions; not just subconscious, but all of the thoughts that our mind produces.

An omniscient Creator would have to design the mechanisms with intent, because random/unknown is impossible for an omniscient being.

Due to the necessity of intent, free will does not exist beyond an illusion. Our decisions (and how we make them) are predetermined by the Creator.

Well, good point.

But I think a Believer would tell you that if God were to design us with "perfect" brains that are not wired so as to lead us into Sin and temptation and disobedience, then, well, those "beings" he made reaally wouldn't be human, would they? More like automatons. Good little robots.

And what would the purpose of that be? What fun? LOL. What chance to learn and grow and persevere with our Faith when much evidence in the physical world would seem to deny the very existence of a Creator.

It would be sort of like a school. With kids and a teacher. What is the point of that you ask? Well, to learn. For the kids to grow. And prepare. To thrive later on.

Okay--sounds good.

BUT! Hold on. What if the kids are little automatons with already-prefect brains?

Hmm..then I guess no need for the school at all. What's the point? No humans = No Life = we are not here in the first place to discuss this matter! LOL.

A "perfect " god would have to make the Perfect Brain.. perfection demands perfection,, anything less than "Perfect" renders this "Perfect " God imperfect..

You insists on parroting your claim for god to create a perfect brain.

LOL--so i guess my "school teacher" metaphor was pretty much lost upon you? And my claim that we would be less than human--automatons--without a flawed and free-to-choose mind?

I am not sure I can explain my idea any better, so perhaps I will cease in trying.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 1:12:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 6:33:50 AM, clay-slayer wrote:
At 6/9/2015 2:44:02 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/9/2015 2:36:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm not trying to impress anyone, that's just how I typed it. Sorry.

Basically, such a Creator would have had to create our brain. Our brain houses the mechanisms by which we make our decisions; not just subconscious, but all of the thoughts that our mind produces.

An omniscient Creator would have to design the mechanisms with intent, because random/unknown is impossible for an omniscient being.

Due to the necessity of intent, free will does not exist beyond an illusion. Our decisions (and how we make them) are predetermined by the Creator.

Well, good point.

But I think a Believer would tell you that if God were to design us with "perfect" brains that are not wired so as to lead us into Sin and temptation and disobedience, then, well, those "beings" he made reaally wouldn't be human, would they? More like automatons. Good little robots.

And what would the purpose of that be? What fun? LOL. What chance to learn and grow and persevere with our Faith when much evidence in the physical world would seem to deny the very existence of a Creator.

It would be sort of like a school. With kids and a teacher. What is the point of that you ask? Well, to learn. For the kids to grow. And prepare. To thrive later on.

Okay--sounds good.

BUT! Hold on. What if the kids are little automatons with already-prefect brains?

Hmm..then I guess no need for the school at all. What's the point? No humans = No Life = we are not here in the first place to discuss this matter! LOL.

A "perfect " god would have to make the Perfect Brain.. perfection demands perfection,, anything less than "Perfect" renders this "Perfect " God imperfect..

Perfection is subjective (in this sense). If a being is truly perfect, then no imperfection can be perceived. Two people can view a "perfect" being in different ways. Thus, perfection cannot exist.

That's my current thought, anyway.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 1:41:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 2:36:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm not trying to impress anyone, that's just how I typed it. Sorry.

Basically, such a Creator would have had to create our brain. Our brain houses the mechanisms by which we make our decisions; not just subconscious, but all of the thoughts that our mind produces.

An omniscient Creator would have to design the mechanisms with intent, because random/unknown is impossible for an omniscient being.

Due to the necessity of intent, free will does not exist beyond an illusion. Our decisions (and how we make them) are predetermined by the Creator.

From your standpoint as (I assume) a non-believer/Christian, do you think you have free-will?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 1:47:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 1:41:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 6/9/2015 2:36:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm not trying to impress anyone, that's just how I typed it. Sorry.

Basically, such a Creator would have had to create our brain. Our brain houses the mechanisms by which we make our decisions; not just subconscious, but all of the thoughts that our mind produces.

An omniscient Creator would have to design the mechanisms with intent, because random/unknown is impossible for an omniscient being.

Due to the necessity of intent, free will does not exist beyond an illusion. Our decisions (and how we make them) are predetermined by the Creator.

From your standpoint as (I assume) a non-believer/Christian, do you think you have free-will?

Currently, I am a non-believer. My current understandings cause me to lean towards causal determinism, so no, I don't believe in free will. However, if no means exists to dispel the illusion thereof (knowledge of the future), it doesn't actually matter. Random is such only as long as you don't know the outcome.
clay-slayer
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 2:08:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 1:12:32 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/11/2015 6:33:50 AM, clay-slayer wrote:
At 6/9/2015 2:44:02 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/9/2015 2:36:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm not trying to impress anyone, that's just how I typed it. Sorry.

Basically, such a Creator would have had to create our brain. Our brain houses the mechanisms by which we make our decisions; not just subconscious, but all of the thoughts that our mind produces.

An omniscient Creator would have to design the mechanisms with intent, because random/unknown is impossible for an omniscient being.

Due to the necessity of intent, free will does not exist beyond an illusion. Our decisions (and how we make them) are predetermined by the Creator.

Well, good point.

But I think a Believer would tell you that if God were to design us with "perfect" brains that are not wired so as to lead us into Sin and temptation and disobedience, then, well, those "beings" he made reaally wouldn't be human, would they? More like automatons. Good little robots.

And what would the purpose of that be? What fun? LOL. What chance to learn and grow and persevere with our Faith when much evidence in the physical world would seem to deny the very existence of a Creator.

It would be sort of like a school. With kids and a teacher. What is the point of that you ask? Well, to learn. For the kids to grow. And prepare. To thrive later on.

Okay--sounds good.

BUT! Hold on. What if the kids are little automatons with already-prefect brains?

Hmm..then I guess no need for the school at all. What's the point? No humans = No Life = we are not here in the first place to discuss this matter! LOL.

A "perfect " god would have to make the Perfect Brain.. perfection demands perfection,, anything less than "Perfect" renders this "Perfect " God imperfect..

Perfection is subjective (in this sense). If a being is truly perfect, then no imperfection can be perceived. Two people can view a "perfect" being in different ways. Thus, perfection cannot exist.

That's my current thought, anyway.

If something is claimed to be perfect, ad supposed to be perfect,, no matter what the human mind conceives , it would still be perfect.. otherwise it could not be declared perfect.. And again, anything that is perfect must adhere to perfection.. it is either perfect or it isn't.. there is no in between.. and how two people view something has no bearing on its reality.. it doesn't make it any less or more than it actually is..
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 2:31:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 2:08:40 PM, clay-slayer wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:12:32 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Perfection is subjective (in this sense). If a being is truly perfect, then no imperfection can be perceived. Two people can view a "perfect" being in different ways. Thus, perfection cannot exist.

That's my current thought, anyway.

If something is claimed to be perfect, ad supposed to be perfect,, no matter what the human mind conceives , it would still be perfect.. otherwise it could not be declared perfect.. And again, anything that is perfect must adhere to perfection.. it is either perfect or it isn't.. there is no in between.. and how two people view something has no bearing on its reality.. it doesn't make it any less or more than it actually is..

Perfect can exist when pertaining to an objective subject, such as a perfect fit (like a puzzle piece) or perfectly circular. However, when the meaning of the word perfect infers the perfection of a subjective quality, it becomes subjective as well. For instance, one person thinks the perfect being is perfectly just and another thinks the perfect being is perfectly merciful. Does this perfect being exercise perfect justice (everyone always receives the treatment they deserve) or perfect mercy (everything is always forgiven)? This use of perfection is founded on opinion, and is next to useless for an objective application.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 3:57:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 1:47:52 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My current understandings cause me to lean towards causal determinism, so no, I don't believe in free will.
What do you think of compatibilism?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 4:01:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 3:57:08 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:47:52 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My current understandings cause me to lean towards causal determinism, so no, I don't believe in free will.
What do you think of compatibilism?

Based on the description from this (http://www.theopedia.com...) source, I stand by my reasoning from this (http://www.debate.org...) debate. In other words, God is still responsible for the state of man's mind.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 4:07:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 4:01:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/11/2015 3:57:08 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:47:52 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My current understandings cause me to lean towards causal determinism, so no, I don't believe in free will.
What do you think of compatibilism?

Based on the description from this (http://www.theopedia.com...) source, I stand by my reasoning from this (http://www.debate.org...) debate. In other words, God is still responsible for the state of man's mind.

My question is whether you find it to be a compelling theory, theistic applications aside.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 5:25:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 8:55:58 AM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/11/2015 8:30:52 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 6/9/2015 2:21:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
To me, these two things are contradictory. If we were created ex nihilo, then that would naturally include the physical components, such as the brain. Our decisions are derived from the processes of the brain (learned from neurology/psychology) which, in turn, are necessarily created by this all-knowing agent in the process of creating our brain. Such an agent would be infinitely familiar with all of the results that the will be reached by the brain's mechanisms according to the brain's design. To argue that one has free will (beyond the illusion thereof), I can see no other way than to argue that one's decision making abilities are not derived from the brain, but rather from some source preexistent to us and separate from God.

I ask genuinely, can anyone provide a counter to this thought?

Let us assume your position is valid and that free will is not derived from the brain but from some all knowing agent called God. We have to then credit this all knowing agent for all the miscues and genocidal behaviour it introduced in the decision process that overrode free will. How can man be responsible for his actions when God is the agent behind his actions?

That is actually my point. If this is the case, man is not ultimately responsible for his actions. This is more clear when dealing with someone who is mentally ill (like dementia) where their decisions are wildly different than what they would be if the person was lucid. Anyway, this should not deter punishment or counter-action.

If a man is aware of punishment, then this knowledge plays a role in the decision-making process as a negative. If the mere awareness if not sufficient, then the realization of that punishment will provide a stronger negative. Capital Punishment should not be labeled "punishment" in my belief, because that is more of an act of protection for the rest of society.

In regards to someone in which punishment is not an option (like dementia), counter-action is taken in the form of treatment or medication or confinement. Ultimately, punishment and counter-action are not discarded if one is not ultimately responsible for their actions.

But this is an effort by society. If this judgment is coming from the being that *is* responsible for those decisions (God), then it is sorely unjust that the person is punished/rewarded for those decisions. It would be akin to rewarding a computer program for functioning correctly.

We already have laws that find people not guilty of crimes by reason of insanity. I have proven that God is rather helpless to stop the exercise of free will. For example. God created a talking serpent (Satan) that He could not shut up. God had to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because He could not stop the debauchery. And finally He could not stop the People from crucifying His only son Jesus.
God did create man to rule over all the fish and animals and the earth to be his domain. But God also punished Adam and when Adam fell from grace he gave up his earth domain to Satan. God did not take away Adam's free will , He took away his earth domain. But man still rules the earth. Don't let anyone tell you different
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 7:56:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 4:07:26 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/11/2015 4:01:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/11/2015 3:57:08 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:47:52 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My current understandings cause me to lean towards causal determinism, so no, I don't believe in free will.
What do you think of compatibilism?

Based on the description from this (http://www.theopedia.com...) source, I stand by my reasoning from this (http://www.debate.org...) debate. In other words, God is still responsible for the state of man's mind.

My question is whether you find it to be a compelling theory, theistic applications aside.

I'll have to look into that, then...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 8:20:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 10:58:02 AM, tejretics wrote:

...but in the biological sense we probably do.

Can you elaborate on this, please?

A better way to phrase this would be:

1. Omniscience implies lack of contingence.
2. There exist contingent events.
C. Omniscience's core implication is incorrect.

Google "omniscience paradox".

I can't find the one that resembles this one; maybe I just s*ck at searching, though. Anyhow, I get the gist.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 8:26:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 5:25:10 PM, Harikrish wrote:

We already have laws that find people not guilty of crimes by reason of insanity. I have proven that God is rather helpless to stop the exercise of free will. For example. God created a talking serpent (Satan) that He could not shut up. God had to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because He could not stop the debauchery. And finally He could not stop the People from crucifying His only son Jesus.
God did create man to rule over all the fish and animals and the earth to be his domain. But God also punished Adam and when Adam fell from grace he gave up his earth domain to Satan. God did not take away Adam's free will , He took away his earth domain. But man still rules the earth. Don't let anyone tell you different

Really, it has nothing to do with being able to control/affect free will; it's the fact that He knew how everyone was going to be and think prior to their creation. To put it simply, he provided the programming that our minds follow and therefore knows all possible results beforehand, being omniscient. At no point would interfering with the "programming" be relevant.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 7:32:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 5:25:10 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 6/11/2015 8:55:58 AM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/11/2015 8:30:52 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 6/9/2015 2:21:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
To me, these two things are contradictory. If we were created ex nihilo, then that would naturally include the physical components, such as the brain. Our decisions are derived from the processes of the brain (learned from neurology/psychology) which, in turn, are necessarily created by this all-knowing agent in the process of creating our brain. Such an agent would be infinitely familiar with all of the results that the will be reached by the brain's mechanisms according to the brain's design. To argue that one has free will (beyond the illusion thereof), I can see no other way than to argue that one's decision making abilities are not derived from the brain, but rather from some source preexistent to us and separate from God.

I ask genuinely, can anyone provide a counter to this thought?

Let us assume your position is valid and that free will is not derived from the brain but from some all knowing agent called God. We have to then credit this all knowing agent for all the miscues and genocidal behaviour it introduced in the decision process that overrode free will. How can man be responsible for his actions when God is the agent behind his actions?

That is actually my point. If this is the case, man is not ultimately responsible for his actions. This is more clear when dealing with someone who is mentally ill (like dementia) where their decisions are wildly different than what they would be if the person was lucid. Anyway, this should not deter punishment or counter-action.

If a man is aware of punishment, then this knowledge plays a role in the decision-making process as a negative. If the mere awareness if not sufficient, then the realization of that punishment will provide a stronger negative. Capital Punishment should not be labeled "punishment" in my belief, because that is more of an act of protection for the rest of society.

In regards to someone in which punishment is not an option (like dementia), counter-action is taken in the form of treatment or medication or confinement. Ultimately, punishment and counter-action are not discarded if one is not ultimately responsible for their actions.

But this is an effort by society. If this judgment is coming from the being that *is* responsible for those decisions (God), then it is sorely unjust that the person is punished/rewarded for those decisions. It would be akin to rewarding a computer program for functioning correctly.

We already have laws that find people not guilty of crimes by reason of insanity. I have proven that God is rather helpless to stop the exercise of free will. <snip>

Out of curiosity, what do you think of Exodus 9:12, then?

"And the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not listen to them, just as the LORD had spoken to Moses."

It appears as though He influenced someone's free will, here.
clay-slayer
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 9:21:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 2:31:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/11/2015 2:08:40 PM, clay-slayer wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:12:32 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Perfection is subjective (in this sense). If a being is truly perfect, then no imperfection can be perceived. Two people can view a "perfect" being in different ways. Thus, perfection cannot exist.

That's my current thought, anyway.

If something is claimed to be perfect, ad supposed to be perfect,, no matter what the human mind conceives , it would still be perfect.. otherwise it could not be declared perfect.. And again, anything that is perfect must adhere to perfection.. it is either perfect or it isn't.. there is no in between.. and how two people view something has no bearing on its reality.. it doesn't make it any less or more than it actually is..

Perfect can exist when pertaining to an objective subject, such as a perfect fit (like a puzzle piece) or perfectly circular. However, when the meaning of the word perfect infers the perfection of a subjective quality, it becomes subjective as well. For instance, one person thinks the perfect being is perfectly just and another thinks the perfect being is perfectly merciful. Does this perfect being exercise perfect justice (everyone always receives the treatment they deserve) or perfect mercy (everything is always forgiven)? This use of perfection is founded on opinion, and is next to useless for an objective application.

AGAIN: If something is Perfect, it is Perfect... no matter how you or I view it.. you need to stop the "It is a mater of perception BS} It is either perfect or imperfect.. No in between.. Your analogy points to the perfect being , being imperfect for if it were Perfect its mercy would be perfect across the board...LOL an opinion does not change what it is... my opinion on anything doesn't make it so..
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 9:28:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 7:32:43 AM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/11/2015 5:25:10 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 6/11/2015 8:55:58 AM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/11/2015 8:30:52 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 6/9/2015 2:21:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
To me, these two things are contradictory. If we were created ex nihilo, then that would naturally include the physical components, such as the brain. Our decisions are derived from the processes of the brain (learned from neurology/psychology) which, in turn, are necessarily created by this all-knowing agent in the process of creating our brain. Such an agent would be infinitely familiar with all of the results that the will be reached by the brain's mechanisms according to the brain's design. To argue that one has free will (beyond the illusion thereof), I can see no other way than to argue that one's decision making abilities are not derived from the brain, but rather from some source preexistent to us and separate from God.

I ask genuinely, can anyone provide a counter to this thought?

Let us assume your position is valid and that free will is not derived from the brain but from some all knowing agent called God. We have to then credit this all knowing agent for all the miscues and genocidal behaviour it introduced in the decision process that overrode free will. How can man be responsible for his actions when God is the agent behind his actions?

That is actually my point. If this is the case, man is not ultimately responsible for his actions. This is more clear when dealing with someone who is mentally ill (like dementia) where their decisions are wildly different than what they would be if the person was lucid. Anyway, this should not deter punishment or counter-action.

If a man is aware of punishment, then this knowledge plays a role in the decision-making process as a negative. If the mere awareness if not sufficient, then the realization of that punishment will provide a stronger negative. Capital Punishment should not be labeled "punishment" in my belief, because that is more of an act of protection for the rest of society.

In regards to someone in which punishment is not an option (like dementia), counter-action is taken in the form of treatment or medication or confinement. Ultimately, punishment and counter-action are not discarded if one is not ultimately responsible for their actions.

But this is an effort by society. If this judgment is coming from the being that *is* responsible for those decisions (God), then it is sorely unjust that the person is punished/rewarded for those decisions. It would be akin to rewarding a computer program for functioning correctly.

We already have laws that find people not guilty of crimes by reason of insanity. I have proven that God is rather helpless to stop the exercise of free will. <snip>

Out of curiosity, what do you think of Exodus 9:12, then?

"And the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not listen to them, just as the LORD had spoken to Moses."

It appears as though He influenced someone's free will, here.

Moses is not a very reliable character in the Bible. He had a problem following directions and wandered in the desert for 40 years before finding the promised land. He was asked to speak to the rock to draw water, but instead he struck it with his rod which angered God. As a punishment God denied him entry into the promised land.
Like Jesus Moses was inarticulate and slow of speech.
Exodus 4:10 Moses said to the Lord, "Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue."

Jesus alluded to the fact God hardened the hearts and blinded the people so they could not understand his parables. But we know that was not the real reason they could not understand Jesus. Jesus was mostly incoherent and his delusional messages confused even his on disciples. Jesus had to explain to them in secret what he was saying.

Also according to Mark his disciples were as dumb as the crowds because even they did not understand what Jesus was ranting. Jesus had to explain it all over to them privately.

Mark 4:34 In fact, in his public ministry he never taught without using parables; but afterward, when he was alone with his disciples, he explained everything to them.

Luke 8:10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.

Jesus admits he language skills were inadequate and hoped to do better at a later time. But that time never came, he was killed fir teaching nonsense.

John 16: 25 "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.

Why Jesus failed in his mission? No one could understand him, he was incoherent. The people still needed the Holy Spirit to reveal to them God's message.

1 Corinthians 2:10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

But to your question on Exodus 9:12.

"The reasons that the exodus couldn't really have happened are simple, and manifold.

First off, the Egyptians recorded every important event in hieroglyphs. But there is nothing there about the seven plagues, the exodus of the Egyptian slaves, or the destruction of their army.

And that"s weird. The exodus was a MASSIVE event. According to the bible, Moses led 600,000 Israelites out of Egypt. Archaeologists estimate the Egyptian population at the time (1450 BC) at 3 million people. Surely, someone would have noticed it if suddenly, a fifth of the entire population walked out!
The Egyptian economy would have collapsed, to say the very least. But in the historical and archaeological record: no such thing. Quite the contrary, never in history was the Egyptian empire doing better.

And there"s more. Around 1450 BC, you couldn"t just get up and leave Egypt. The Egyptian empire was vast, back then. It reached deep into what"s now Israel, with fortresses and army outposts everywhere. Canaan was Egyptian, the Sinai desert was Egyptian. Yet in Exodus and Numbers, we read how Moses and Joshua come across many cities and people " without ever bumping into even one Egyptian soldier.

Then, there are the details. Exodus mentions the Philistines, a people that didn"t exist yet. Cities like Ezion Geber, Arad, Heshbon and Kadesh Barnea weren"t founded yet. Other cities mentioned in Exodus and Numbers, like Ai and Jericho, were abandoned ruins for centuries by the time the Israelites arrived.

Essentially, Moses and the Israelites were walking through a fantasy land " a Middle East that never really existed!

The archaeology doesn"t help, either.

The bible tells us how 600,000 Israelites lived in the desert for forty years. It even gives details about where they set up camp. But although archaeologists can even recover the traces of small bands of bronze age tribesmen in the desert, no camp site of the Israelites has ever been found.

And then, you could argue that in real life, all the firstborn in a country don"t simply die overnight, and oceans don"t tend to open up when you raise your staff to them. But that"s debatable: after all, they were miracles."
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 11:04:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 9:21:26 AM, clay-slayer wrote:
At 6/11/2015 2:31:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/11/2015 2:08:40 PM, clay-slayer wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:12:32 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Perfection is subjective (in this sense). If a being is truly perfect, then no imperfection can be perceived. Two people can view a "perfect" being in different ways. Thus, perfection cannot exist.

That's my current thought, anyway.

If something is claimed to be perfect, ad supposed to be perfect,, no matter what the human mind conceives , it would still be perfect.. otherwise it could not be declared perfect.. And again, anything that is perfect must adhere to perfection.. it is either perfect or it isn't.. there is no in between.. and how two people view something has no bearing on its reality.. it doesn't make it any less or more than it actually is..

Perfect can exist when pertaining to an objective subject, such as a perfect fit (like a puzzle piece) or perfectly circular. However, when the meaning of the word perfect infers the perfection of a subjective quality, it becomes subjective as well. For instance, one person thinks the perfect being is perfectly just and another thinks the perfect being is perfectly merciful. Does this perfect being exercise perfect justice (everyone always receives the treatment they deserve) or perfect mercy (everything is always forgiven)? This use of perfection is founded on opinion, and is next to useless for an objective application.

AGAIN: If something is Perfect, it is Perfect... no matter how you or I view it.. you need to stop the "It is a mater of perception BS} It is either perfect or imperfect.. No in between.. Your analogy points to the perfect being , being imperfect for if it were Perfect its mercy would be perfect across the board...LOL an opinion does not change what it is... my opinion on anything doesn't make it so..

Subjective descriptions are based on opinion, and opinions do not have an objective meaning. Can you tell me what the *perfect* food would be? Specifically, in terms of taste, texture, etc.? No matter what food is imagined, it is only perfect to you. Likewise, my perfect food is only perfect to me. I do not believe that a food can be *objectively* perfect, because it pertains to *subjective* preferences.

I agree that this does not affect the objective state of something, and that something is either perfect or imperfect. What I am arguing is that using the word "perfect" in an opinionative sense is meaningless, objectively. You said, "If something is claimed to be perfect...", which indicates that there is a 'claimer' expressing an opinion.

--------------------------------------

Regarding perfectly just and perfectly merciful: I perceive a contradiction, here.

- Is it perfectly just to punish someone who is already forgiven?
- Is it perfectly forgiving to forgive someone only after punishment?

--------------------------------------

I am not expressing my opinions here to preach them; I am trying to expose them to reasonable criticism. If I should drop my belief, please tell me why I am wrong instead of just telling me that I am.

I would rather my beliefs die to reason than to have them live in delusion.