Spirituality
01 Jun 10
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by PBE6My continued point to you is this: to understand the proper context and underlying values in play, you must first understand the value system of the One calling the shots. What is it about Him that would bring about such an event as the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ, on the cross?
You 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.
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAh! So I'm simply ignorant of the underlying values that make sexual abuse OK, now I see. So what are these values? Explain in as much detail as you can muster, this should be fascinating.
My continued point to you is this: to understand the proper context and underlying values in play, you must first understand the value system of the One calling the shots. What is it about Him that would bring about such an event as the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ, on the cross?
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by vistesdThe mistake here is the comparison of apples against oranges. Knowledge is not action and vice versa, and to apply considerations about one to the other can only confuse.
I agree about libertarian conceptions of freedom being incoherent (you probably taught me that!).
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 ...[text shortened]... ce, If God knows (infallibly) in advance that S will do A, then S is not free with respect to A.
God's knowledge about any event is not action on or toward the event: it is simply knowledge. We can hardly say that action in the past is no longer free on the basis of its occurrence, any more than we can say current activity is not free on the basis of its contemporary status. God's knowledge about all of history is perfectly perspicuous, without defect, past-present-future. He knows actual as well as possible, and not one piece of His knowledge influences any of the stages of time.
In the future, an apple will exist.
God knows that apple will exist.
That apple will fall.
God knows that apple will fall.
Neither God's knowledge of the apple's existence or its eventual fall are influenced by God's knowledge. Conversely, the apple's existence and fall do not impact God's knowledge. It was possible for that apple to have not existed, which would have removed the reality of its existence from God's knowledge of the actual into the category of God's knowledge of the possible. However, prior to creation, God knew both categories: all that would happen and all that could happen, a complete and comprehensive whole.
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by PBE6Seriously? Are you really having that much trouble with the thought I am LABORING to convey? You cannot ask a question about value until you know the value of the One who is in charge. That Person died on the cross. What system of value does He have that would allow such a travesty of justice?
Ah! So I'm simply ignorant of the underlying values that make sexual abuse OK, now I see. So what are these values? Explain in as much detail as you can muster, this should be fascinating.
Until you answer that question, any question about man's inhumanity to man is wholly insignificant.
04 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyLet me make it even simpler for you (I hope)...I infallibly know (means I cannot possibly, under any circumstances, ever ever be wrong...not even a little bit wrong) a [specific] dog [Rover_41393] with a red collar, will come along [tomorrow at 15:43], catch the ball mid flight, run off for a distance of 214.3 meters, sit down and chew it to pieces.
So 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?
Ok? You following so far? I cannot possibly be wrong remember (because my knowledge is infallible). Ok let's continue...
Tomorrow at 15:43, Rover_41393 waits till I drop the ball then sits a few yards away from me with a dopey look on it's face. 10 minutes later Rover_41393 canters off without the ball.
Explain!*
*In case you forgot, I knew, without any chance of being wrong, that Rover_41393 would do as described in my first paragraph.
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf he knows how I will act (whether I know it or not) in such a way as to do X. I cannot act in anyway that would contradict your God knowing I would do X. Free-will in this setting is illusionary.
He 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.
If you say your God knows all my futures, all things I could possibly do then until he makes a specific choice out of the infinite array of alternatives he doesn't have knowledge of the particular outcome that will *actually* occur and thus would not be omniscient.
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat value system is at work here? Apparently a skewed and inconsistent one. OK, now that I've answered your question, will you please answer mine?
Seriously? Are you really having that much trouble with the thought I am LABORING to convey? You cannot ask a question about value until you know the value of the One who is in charge. That Person died on the cross. What system of value does He have that would allow such a travesty of justice?
Until you answer that question, any question about man's inhumanity to man is wholly insignificant.
How can an omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent God allow a child to be sexually molested?
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by PBE6will you please answer mine?
What value system is at work here? Apparently a skewed and inconsistent one. OK, now that I've answered your question, will you please answer mine?
[b]How can an omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent God allow a child to be sexually molested?[/b]
No.
Give mine more thought and we'll discuss it.
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by AgergYou still haven't demonstrated how His knowledge impacts or influences your action, nor have you addressed any of the sharper points in my previous post.
If he knows how I will act (whether I know it or not) in such a way as to do X. I cannot act in anyway that would contradict your God knowing I would do X. Free-will in this setting is illusionary.
If you say your God knows all my futures, all things I could possibly do then until he makes a specific choice out of the infinite array of alternatives he doesn ...[text shortened]... nowledge of the particular outcome that will *actually* occur and thus would not be omniscient.
04 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOkay. You are sensible. I will not forget.
Half-joking. You just seemed a little obsessed with the topic.
The Bible is sometimes allegorical, sometimes literal, sometimes poetic, sometimes, well, like any other literary document, a broad spectrum of application. Context is everything.
edit:I still dont see why you persist on calling it "He". Tradition?
04 Jun 10
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHis infallible knowledge makes it impossible for me to act in any way counter to what he knows. That is the influence his knowledge has upon my actions. I'll revisit your previous post...[update] What didn't I address?? [update 2] Do you mean the post not addressed to me? Since Indirectly I believe I have addressed your points in my own responses to you.
You still haven't demonstrated how His knowledge impacts or influences your action, nor have you addressed any of the sharper points in my previous post.
I ask you a similar question to that which I asked Whodey above:
God knows infallibly I will do X in 5 minutes from now
In 5 minutes time I make a free-will choice that I shall fail to do X
explain!
04 Jun 10
I only want to reinforce here, as a technicality if you will, bbarr’s distinction between freedom of action and freedom of will. I was kind of fumbling around with that, but hadn’t seen it clearly enough to express it clearly; but that was why I used the phrase “the freedom to effectively choose”.
As I said before, I don’t see someone’s having (infallible) knowledge as constituting any determining agency with regard to my choice. But a logical contradiction is built into the dual assertion, and LJ’s syllogism clearly (and I think insurmountably) shows that.
04 Jun 10
Originally posted by vistesdI've missed the thread, can you tell me if you're talking about libertarian or compatibilistic free will?
I only want to reinforce here, as a technicality if you will, bbarr’s distinction between freedom of action and freedom of will. I was kind of fumbling around with that, but hadn’t seen it clearly enough to express it clearly; but that was why I used the phrase “the freedom to effectively choose”.
As I said before, I don’t see someone’s having (infallib ...[text shortened]... ilt into the dual assertion, and LJ’s syllogism clearly (and I think insurmountably) shows that.
I don't see omniscience being incompatible with compatibilism.
04 Jun 10
3 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI argue that there is a determining agency. As an example consider two variables x y, related (for simplicity) by the equation y=f(x) (where f is some function like sin(.) or (.)^2, etc...), and suppose the domain of x (the values it can take) is (again, for simplicity) the set of integers. As x varies, the dependent variable y takes on it's value based upon the current value of x and the function f applied to it
I only want to reinforce here, as a technicality if you will, bbarr’s distinction between freedom of action and freedom of will. I was kind of fumbling around with that, but hadn’t seen it clearly enough to express it clearly; but that was why I used the phrase “the freedom to effectively choose”.
As I said before, I don’t see someone’s having (infallib ...[text shortened]... ilt into the dual assertion, and LJ’s syllogism clearly (and I think insurmountably) shows that.
Now say we fix y=5; this gives the equation 5=f(x), and depending upon the function f, the domain of x is restricted so as to satisfy this new relation
How does this fit in with omniscient God? We can imagine x being things I want to do, and f(x) be the action of freely choosing to do such things. Now we say it is known infallibly by God that I will go for a cigarette in 5 minutes, how is the set of things I can choose to do not constrained/determined by this knowledge? Ie, in 5 minutes can I instead flush all my cigarettes down the toilet without replacement?