Freethought & Rationalism Archive

wdog · 10-14-2002, 01:54 PM

dangin,

posted a reply on the next thread over that adresses this. It doesn't matter if god can see all time coordinates at once, we are only at one of them. Take the spatial analogy, god can see, or is at, all space coordinates at once. But so what? God is at jupiter right now, but I am not, so if he want to observe me then it only matters that he looks where I am at. Temporally you can say that god sees all time coordinates at once, but again so what? I am only at one of them. God may be present at next tuesday, but I am not.

If you want to observe this universe then you have to accept the rules of this universe. The only way to rescue out of time is to show that we exist at all time coordinates at once. Pretty silly when you consider the spatial analag. At best it is unsupported by any observation we have access to.

luvluv · 10-14-2002, 02:04 PM

wdog:

This now represents about the fifth time I am making this statement.

The object of this thread was to disprove the POSSIBILITY of the co-existence of omniscience and free will. A PHILOSOPHICAL argument was constructed to the effect that such a co-existence was not POSSIBLE. I am defending that such a co-existence IS POSSIBLE.

I am making no claim about reality whatsoever. You do not have to believe in an "out of time".

What you do have to admit, and what I believe you have admitted a few comments ago, is that the out of time scenario is a plausible way around the omniscience/free will problem THEREFORE we must admit that the co-existence of God and free will ARE POSSIBLE.

That the co-existence of God and free will are logical possibilities is the only goal I have set here.

I have given you two scenarios which would effectively show that the notion that omniscience and free will are incompatible to be false:

1) The open theism view which holds the future to be unknowable; therefore a God who does not know the future is still omniscient.

2) The out of time view.

Only if you can effectively refute both of these points would you refute MY goal here, which is to establish that it free will and omniscience CAN POSSIBLY co-exist. My attempt here is solely to show that the original premise of this thread was unsound.

I need only provide you with evidence that an Omnipotent Observer in another universe would not be bound by our physical laws if I was trying to establish the ACTUALITY of the out of time concept. I am only endeavoring to show the POSSIBILITY of it. From the standpoint of formal logic, a counter-argument does not have to be existent, it simply has to be non-contradictory.

I am here not, REPEAT: NOT trying to show you that either open theism or the out of time view are REALITIES, only that they are sufficient defeaters of the argument.

My only, repeat: ONLY, point here is that free will and omniscience can co-exist.

I've established that in two ways. If one gets your underclothes in a knot, go with the other one. The open theism view would seem to totally resolve all of your issues with flying colors, and would still leave you with the possibility of the co-existence of omniscience and free will sitting in your lap.

If this thread were made up by me and entitled: "out of time exists, and by golly I can prove it!", then you would be justified in castigating me for not providing you with firm evidence. But this thread is no such thread, it is a thread debating not whether out of time is a real concept but whether, say it with me, omniscience and free will can co-exist.

As a Christian it is not up to me to prove anything to you. It is simply my job to present the gospel. That's it. I am not responsible for whether or not you believe it or what you do with it. If you are unwilling to accept the gospel it really doesn't matter what theories I present you with, or how well proven they are, you'll find a way not to believe them.

My stated goal on this website is not to prove anything to anyone, it is to show them that the atheological arguments are not sound and that the option to believe is therefore still open to them.

So, my friend, if you admit that, from either the standpoint of open theism or the out of time view, that omniscience and free will can co-exist, then my work here is done.

wdog · 10-14-2002, 03:12 PM

ok luvluv,

I am not being malicious I hope you understand, I really like to dig in sometimes, and my underwear is quite fine- thank you.

in the spirit of inquiry...

Quote:

I have given you two scenarios which would effectively show that the notion that omniscience and free will are incompatible to be false:

1) The open theism view which holds the future to be unknowable; therefore a God who does not know the future is still omniscient.

2) The out of time view.

Only if you can effectively refute both of these points would you refute MY goal here, which is to establish that it free will and omniscience CAN POSSIBLY co-exist. My attempt here is solely to show that the original premise of this thread was unsound.

I don't think you understood, I showed that being out of time, even if true, does not allow one to see the future. so (1) and (2) above are really the same.

If you want to drive home a debate then, it now comes down to what exactly you mean by omniscience (I hold that as an absolute term of human invention, it is useless) from point number one. Unless you want to do that then there isn't much left.

Quote:

I need only provide you with evidence that an Omnipotent Observer in another universe would not be bound by our physical laws if I was trying to establish the ACTUALITY of the out of time concept

Out of time does not let anyone observe our future, know matter what the physical laws governing their behavior is. that is because the subject of its observation, us, is bound by our known physical laws.

To establish actuality of out of time is far different than establishing the possibility, which is what I think you mean to say. establishing the possibility may be hard or easy, it doesn't really matter since it really doesn't address the issue of free will/ omniscience.

Quote:

I am here not, REPEAT: NOT trying to show you that either open theism or the out of time view are REALITIES, only that they are sufficient defeaters of the argument.

I am making no claim about reality whatsoever.

If you don't care about your statements corresponding to reality luvluv, then franky I don't care to discuss anything with you. I would prefer to deal in reality myself as that is where we live. If reality is irrelevent, then why even bother with any argument, you can believe any old thing that pleases you, and you need not bother with us infidels.

have a good one

dangin · 10-15-2002, 06:30 AM

Hey wdog, I don't care if god existing out of time is possible or not, I don't believe in god. But even if god exists out of time, that is no out for luvluv.

Here's the deal. God knows everything you are going to do before you do it, before you are even born. God could list the actions of your life down to each tenth of a second getting its own line in the list.

The list exists before you do. So who is deciding what you do? It is impossible that you are the one deciding since all you actions are spelled out before you are born.

Someone else said it above, the illusion of free choice is not free choice.

HRG · 10-15-2002, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by K:
<strong>Devilnaut:

That's exactly why Einstein disliked it so much. The idea of non-causality didn't sit well with him at all.

H.U.P. does indeed imply noncausality for events on the quantum scale. Like anything in science, it hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it is well supported by observational evidence.

Events occuring at scales above the quantum level are still causal.</strong>

Approximately causal. But we won't notice the difference

Regards,
HRG.

K · 10-15-2002, 09:49 AM

HRG:

You're right it is only approximately causal. Thanks for the correction.

wdog · 10-15-2002, 04:54 PM

I agree with you devilnaut, I am 99% positive that the christian god does not exist. haven't really spent the time to investigate the general god question. It is just this sort of investigation that led me away from my christian background. I still make a serious attempt when i can to investigate apologetic claims, after all then i would become as closed minded as them

having broken free of the need for faith in something, i now sort of watch in wonder as Craig and company struggle to find arguments, any arguments that they can find, to keep their faith alive without having to put up with a lot of cognitive dissonance. all part of the psychology of religion.

K et al.,

In regard to HUP, it is my understanding that pretty much all our classical intuition breaks down on the quantum scale. Was it really casuality that led einstein to look for the hidden variables? I always thought it was the interpretation of lack an objective reality on that scale was what Albert didn't like. ah well, getting way off track here, but interesting.

dangin · 10-16-2002, 04:38 AM

Another thing, what about things that have huge impacts on us, that we don't choose.

Like sperm for instance. I love my sperm, I try to share it as much as possible, but seriously.

God knew you (any of you) were going to exist 10,000 generations ago. So he knew which sperm in each of the preceding 10,000 generations was going to impregnate your female ancestor from each of those generations. So it is clear that sperm doesn't have free will.

What about the guy who had that sperm loaded in the chamber for a week before he expelled it. He couldn't masturbate, have sex with another or anything else until he was "sperm docked" with the right female.

God's knowledge of who is going to be born and who isn't means god is selecting each and every spermy, and each and every eggy that will ever combine. Which means that god is guiding evolution with the micromanagement tactics of the worst whip cracking boss.

So, god is guiding the evolution of all the species that fail too. I think that implies something interesting. To me it says god fails, or god makes species knowing they are going to fail. What's with that?

Isn't omniscience seeming a little preposterous to everyone at this point?

K · 10-16-2002, 05:09 AM

dangin:

Then there's that nasty little subject of rape. If God creates everyone, then wouldn't rape be a sin only if the woman wasn't impregnated? Or does God purposely use sin and reprehensible crimes like rape to bring about His creation?

dangin · 10-16-2002, 05:41 AM

Damn, I didn't think about rape. When you consider that someone raped 2,000 generations ago is statistically related to everyone, then that specific rape had to be part of god's plan.

God supports rape.

I feel a t-shirt coming on. . .

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-14-2002, 01:54 PM	#71
wdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,547	dangin, posted a reply on the next thread over that adresses this. It doesn't matter if god can see all time coordinates at once, we are only at one of them. Take the spatial analogy, god can see, or is at, all space coordinates at once. But so what? God is at jupiter right now, but I am not, so if he want to observe me then it only matters that he looks where I am at. Temporally you can say that god sees all time coordinates at once, but again so what? I am only at one of them. God may be present at next tuesday, but I am not. If you want to observe this universe then you have to accept the rules of this universe. The only way to rescue out of time is to show that we exist at all time coordinates at once. Pretty silly when you consider the spatial analag. At best it is unsupported by any observation we have access to.

10-14-2002, 02:04 PM	#72
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	wdog: This now represents about the fifth time I am making this statement. The object of this thread was to disprove the POSSIBILITY of the co-existence of omniscience and free will. A PHILOSOPHICAL argument was constructed to the effect that such a co-existence was not POSSIBLE. I am defending that such a co-existence IS POSSIBLE. I am making no claim about reality whatsoever. You do not have to believe in an "out of time". What you do have to admit, and what I believe you have admitted a few comments ago, is that the out of time scenario is a plausible way around the omniscience/free will problem THEREFORE we must admit that the co-existence of God and free will ARE POSSIBLE. That the co-existence of God and free will are logical possibilities is the only goal I have set here. I have given you two scenarios which would effectively show that the notion that omniscience and free will are incompatible to be false: 1) The open theism view which holds the future to be unknowable; therefore a God who does not know the future is still omniscient. 2) The out of time view. Only if you can effectively refute both of these points would you refute MY goal here, which is to establish that it free will and omniscience CAN POSSIBLY co-exist. My attempt here is solely to show that the original premise of this thread was unsound. I need only provide you with evidence that an Omnipotent Observer in another universe would not be bound by our physical laws if I was trying to establish the ACTUALITY of the out of time concept. I am only endeavoring to show the POSSIBILITY of it. From the standpoint of formal logic, a counter-argument does not have to be existent, it simply has to be non-contradictory. I am here not, REPEAT: NOT trying to show you that either open theism or the out of time view are REALITIES, only that they are sufficient defeaters of the argument. My only, repeat: ONLY, point here is that free will and omniscience can co-exist. I've established that in two ways. If one gets your underclothes in a knot, go with the other one. The open theism view would seem to totally resolve all of your issues with flying colors, and would still leave you with the possibility of the co-existence of omniscience and free will sitting in your lap. If this thread were made up by me and entitled: "out of time exists, and by golly I can prove it!", then you would be justified in castigating me for not providing you with firm evidence. But this thread is no such thread, it is a thread debating not whether out of time is a real concept but whether, say it with me, omniscience and free will can co-exist. As a Christian it is not up to me to prove anything to you. It is simply my job to present the gospel. That's it. I am not responsible for whether or not you believe it or what you do with it. If you are unwilling to accept the gospel it really doesn't matter what theories I present you with, or how well proven they are, you'll find a way not to believe them. My stated goal on this website is not to prove anything to anyone, it is to show them that the atheological arguments are not sound and that the option to believe is therefore still open to them. So, my friend, if you admit that, from either the standpoint of open theism or the out of time view, that omniscience and free will can co-exist, then my work here is done.

10-15-2002, 06:30 AM	#74
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Hey wdog, I don't care if god existing out of time is possible or not, I don't believe in god. But even if god exists out of time, that is no out for luvluv. Here's the deal. God knows everything you are going to do before you do it, before you are even born. God could list the actions of your life down to each tenth of a second getting its own line in the list. The list exists before you do. So who is deciding what you do? It is impossible that you are the one deciding since all you actions are spelled out before you are born. Someone else said it above, the illusion of free choice is not free choice.

10-15-2002, 09:49 AM	#76
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	HRG: You're right it is only approximately causal. Thanks for the correction.

10-15-2002, 04:54 PM	#77
wdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,547	I agree with you devilnaut, I am 99% positive that the christian god does not exist. haven't really spent the time to investigate the general god question. It is just this sort of investigation that led me away from my christian background. I still make a serious attempt when i can to investigate apologetic claims, after all then i would become as closed minded as them having broken free of the need for faith in something, i now sort of watch in wonder as Craig and company struggle to find arguments, any arguments that they can find, to keep their faith alive without having to put up with a lot of cognitive dissonance. all part of the psychology of religion. K et al., In regard to HUP, it is my understanding that pretty much all our classical intuition breaks down on the quantum scale. Was it really casuality that led einstein to look for the hidden variables? I always thought it was the interpretation of lack an objective reality on that scale was what Albert didn't like. ah well, getting way off track here, but interesting.

10-16-2002, 04:38 AM	#78
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Another thing, what about things that have huge impacts on us, that we don't choose. Like sperm for instance. I love my sperm, I try to share it as much as possible, but seriously. God knew you (any of you) were going to exist 10,000 generations ago. So he knew which sperm in each of the preceding 10,000 generations was going to impregnate your female ancestor from each of those generations. So it is clear that sperm doesn't have free will. What about the guy who had that sperm loaded in the chamber for a week before he expelled it. He couldn't masturbate, have sex with another or anything else until he was "sperm docked" with the right female. God's knowledge of who is going to be born and who isn't means god is selecting each and every spermy, and each and every eggy that will ever combine. Which means that god is guiding evolution with the micromanagement tactics of the worst whip cracking boss. So, god is guiding the evolution of all the species that fail too. I think that implies something interesting. To me it says god fails, or god makes species knowing they are going to fail. What's with that? Isn't omniscience seeming a little preposterous to everyone at this point?

10-16-2002, 05:09 AM	#79
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	dangin: Then there's that nasty little subject of rape. If God creates everyone, then wouldn't rape be a sin only if the woman wasn't impregnated? Or does God purposely use sin and reprehensible crimes like rape to bring about His creation?

10-16-2002, 05:41 AM	#80
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Damn, I didn't think about rape. When you consider that someone raped 2,000 generations ago is statistically related to everyone, then that specific rape had to be part of god's plan. God supports rape. I feel a t-shirt coming on. . .

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.