Spirituality
01 Jun 10
03 Jun 10
Originally posted by AgergSo what if you were an expert on the dogs behavoir? In fact, lets say, for the sake of arguement, that you know the dog will chew the ball to pieces. Did the dog have the free will to do so?
Dude...you're forming analogies that have no bearing on the situation you propose. For your ball analogy, it's final resting place in some specific instance of time is determined by mechanics.
To help you out (changing it from a problem governed by physics to one governed by a "free choice" on the part of some other entity); perhaps I [b]infallibly know ...[text shortened]... other event than this (ie; no cats with red collars or dogs with blue collars etc...)).
\
03 Jun 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatSetting aside the whole issue of God for a second, do you think we have free will?
Yeah, I see. Once you get to the point in a discussion where your position is shown to be logically inconsistent you just stick in a bit more magic and pretend that inconsistency is actually a strength. God gave you (well, not you so much - let's say 'us' instead) the gifts of rationality and logic simply in order to confuse the issue of his own existence, that about right?
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by PBE6I've provided you with the question you ought to be asking first. Answer it, and then you will have the answer to the other, less-important question.
You're just avoiding answering the question. Why don't you just answer it? Feel free to add in your evangelist claptrap while you're at it.
No extra charge for the claptrap.
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by AgergHe isn't acting. You are acting. He knows how you will act. You do not know how you will act until you are acting. No influence. It is certain to Him, but uncertain to you, me or anyone else.
For all intents and purposes, to say your god knows infallibly the future is tantamount to the assertion the future is fixed. There can no variability. Saying it knows all future is no more informative than me knowing all possible choices you could make if asked to pick a number from 1 to a hundred. If however with knowledge of all choices I infallibly knew yo ...[text shortened]... utcomes) but not *infallible* knowledge about the particular outcome which would be manifest.
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by whodeyI think that bbarr's addition to my post addresses this.
To address your first point, I think God is only concerned with free will in relation to relationship to him, much like our own loving relationships. After all, we are said to be made in the image of God. It would then explain our drive for loving relationships. In fact, that is what makes us "tick".
So what is worse, is it sexually molesting a child or ...[text shortened]... days of Noah and Sodom are to be believed which led to their demise.
04 Jun 10
LJ’s careful conjoining of God’s putative infallible foreknowledge with our putative libertarian free will seems key here. It is not that simple foreknowledge determines in any way an actual choice, but that what is set up here is an illogical state of affairs--at least if my “free will” means an actual ability to effectively choose among alternatives:
(1) God knows that I will choose X;
(2) God cannot be wrong (his knowledge is infallible);
(3) It is possible that I actually choose ~X.
But, (3) contradicts (1) and (2).
Now, it may seem to (non-omniscient) me that I can effectively choose either X or ~X. But if I am actually able to choose ~X, then God’s foreknowledge would not be infallible (i.e., God could be wrong).
Again, it is not a question of whether (anyone’s) knowledge determines my deliberations or their outcome. It is about setting up a state of affairs which says both that God knows infallibly what I will choose, and that I am actually able to choose something else. The logical contradiction seems built in at the get-go.
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat about jesus being god? did JC not have a member? Where do you draw the line of the literal approach to the bible? Because it seems to me sometimes you,(I mean you and other christian theists), take things literally and say that we must take them literally, while at other times its obvious that I'm being silly for asking such a lowbrow question, such as the one you responded to😕
Wouldn't He need a body in order to have one? He doesn't have a body, ergo...
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelWhat is it about the penis that you find so offensive? Desire? Hatred? Distrust? Envy?
What about jesus being god? did JC not have a member? Where do you draw the line of the literal approach to the bible? Because it seems to me sometimes you,(I mean you and other christian theists), take things literally and say that we must take them literally, while at other times its obvious that I'm being silly for asking such a lowbrow question, such as the one you responded to😕
I suggest you sit down and think on it for awhile.
04 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHuh? Now I'm not sure if your piss taking or not here. ("joke detection" was never one of my strong points. A few people have had a few laughs at my expense because of this trait. All Good.)
What is it about the penis that you find so offensive? Desire? Hatred? Distrust? Envy?
I suggest you sit down and think on it for awhile.
As are my thoughts about penises. Why do you think I find them offensive? How did you conclude that from my question? (Like I said, I hope you are joking, because if you can get that from my posts, then you can get a square that is also a circle.)
04 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdRight, I think infallibility is a key issue. Without the stipulation of infallibility on God's foreknowledge, I think the problem of theological fatalism (with respect to libertarian conceptions) dissolves. I'm still not quite sure how best to invoke the infallibility condition, but my line of attack would still be similar to what we discussed toward the very end of Thread 88908.
LJ’s careful conjoining of God’s putative infallible foreknowledge with our putative libertarian free will seems key here. It is not that simple foreknowledge determines in any way an actual choice, but that what is set up here is an illogical state of affairs--at least if my “free will” means an actual ability to effectively choose among alte ...[text shortened]... actually able to choose something else. The logical contradiction seems built in at the get-go.
(As a side note, I still think libertarian conceptions of freedom are incoherent to begin with. But that is probably a whole other issue.)
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNot to mention that you totally ignored my questions.
What is it about the penis that you find so offensive? Desire? Hatred? Distrust? Envy?
I suggest you sit down and think on it for awhile.
Again, I'll ask once more: Where do you draw the line between literal and non-literal interpretations of the bible? Obviously not everything in the bible can be taken literally ,as at least one poster has suggested I do. (I am VERY interested in the reasoning amongst christians theists and their justifications for their subsequent conclusions as regards this point.)
04 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI agree about libertarian conceptions of freedom being incoherent (you probably taught me that!).
Right, I think infallibility is a key issue. Without the stipulation of infallibility on God's foreknowledge, I think the problem of theological fatalism (with respect to libertarian conceptions) dissolves. I'm still not quite sure how best to invoke the infallibility condition, but my line of attack would still be similar to what we discussed toward th ...[text shortened]... nceptions of freedom are incoherent to begin with. But that is probably a whole other issue.)
Wow, what a good olde thread that was; I even got to invoke Groundhog Day! I should go back and thoroughly review the whole thing though...
_________________________________________________
EDIT: Since it is much more rigorously presented that what I did above, I have copied here your formulation from page 9 of that thread--
1. G knows in advance that S will do A.
2. It is not possible both that G believes S will do A and that S refrain from doing A (infallibility).
3. G believes S will do A (entailed by 1). So from 1 and 2, it is not possible that S refrain from doing A.
4. If it is not possible that S refrain from doing A, then it is not within the power of S to refrain from doing A.
5. If it is not within the power of S to refrain from doing A, then S is not free with respect to A.
6. Hence, If God knows (infallibly) in advance that S will do A, then S is not free with respect to A.
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou can answer both questions if you like, just please make sure you're explicit about why you think the sexual molestation of a child is a good thing.
I've provided you with the question you ought to be asking first. Answer it, and then you will have the answer to the other, less-important question.
No extra charge for the claptrap.
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelHalf-joking. You just seemed a little obsessed with the topic.
Huh? Now I'm not sure if your piss taking or not here. ("joke detection" was never one of my strong points. A few people have had a few laughs at my expense because of this trait. All Good.)
As are my thoughts about penises. Why do you think I find them offensive? How did you conclude that from my question? (Like I said, I hope you are joking, because if you can get that from my posts, then you can get a square that is also a circle.)
The Bible is sometimes allegorical, sometimes literal, sometimes poetic, sometimes, well, like any other literary document, a broad spectrum of application. Context is everything.