02 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59It is not at all cheating.
Thank you for that link Palynka.
I see that the argument relies heavily on using a definition of free-will which is kinda counter-intuitive and therefore, to my mind, cheating.
I was however interested in
"This is countered by the realization that a free-willed God is not constrained to realize everything, nor to consider all choices to be of equ n occupy His time with making new galaxies and making sub-atomic physics ever more perplexing.
It only separates predictability from free-will. To me these are not the same, nor should they intuitively be.
For example, I approach a bus driver and offer him two thousand dollars or a used Britney Spears record. That I know he would pick the first does not mean he didn't have the freedom to pick the latter. The same argument applies for an omniscient god. Since such a being would know my preferences, mood, thought process, etc (infinitely much more than I know about the bus driver) he would be able to predict with certainty what choices I make, despite me having the freedom to choose differently.
The other notion you find interesting (considering we're both atheists!) is not the one shared by the majority of believers of Abrahamic religions, so...why go there?
02 Jan 10
Originally posted by jaywillJaywill - with the best intentions I dont intend getting into a debate. But here are the answers to your questions. They are MY answers. Please respect them.
[b]==========================
Jaywill - I'm not looking for the "Truth" as you put it. That would be futile.
==============================
Okay. But how do you know it would be futile ?
=====================================
I am interested in religion from an academic perspective.
================================
Oka ...[text shortened]... at them.
Thanks again.
=============================[/b]
Why are you curious ?[/b]
1. If one found the "Truth" how would one know? Perhaps someone has found the elusive "Truth" but neither they nor anyone else will ever know that they have!
2. I have no problem in studying a restaurant's menu and not eating there.
3. i dont want to convrert you.
4. You are thinking of coining a new word - "Evangelphobic" .. good 4 u
5. I am curious in all things; science, natural history, geography - the season has made me look at religion.
😀
END OF INTERROGATION
02 Jan 10
Originally posted by PalynkaHow is the bus-driver to spend the $2,000. Predict that. Does he have free-will?
It is not at all cheating.
It only separates predictability from free-will. To me these are not the same, nor should they intuitively be.
For example, I approach a bus driver and offer him two thousand dollars or a used Britney Spears record. That I know he would pick the first does not mean he didn't have the freedom to pick the latter. The same argu ...[text shortened]... is not the one shared by the majority of believers of Abrahamic religions, so...why go there?
02 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59===========================
Jaywill - with the best intentions I dont intend getting into a debate. But here are the answers to your questions. They are MY answers. Please respect them.
1. If one found the "Truth" how would one know? Perhaps someone has found the elusive "Truth" but neither they nor anyone else will ever know that they have!
2. I have no problem in studying a story, geography - the season has made me look at religion.
😀
END OF INTERROGATION
I dont intend getting into a debate.
===============================
Wolfgang, I respect your desire to not want to get into a debate.
But I notice that you do want to collect answers to questions which you then make assertions about.
This is also a kind of preaching. To not expect "debate" in return to your assertions is like simply expecting your audience to say "Amen".
Your posture is "I am JUST here to ask a few questions as an atheist. Please do not debate me."
Okay, but I'll be watching if there is a challenging tone to the assertions you then make. This is kind of a one way debate Wolfgang. Or it indicates you only wish to speak with those who agree with you.
I wish you all the best in your searching.
02 Jan 10
Wolfgang,
Like this -
==================================
If everything is planned that surely means no free-will. It also means God has no decisiions to make since He did all his planning before hand. Just doesnt stack-up.
=======================================
Assertion #1 - BUT NO DEBATE ALLOWED
Just say "Whatever you say Wolfgang".
02 Jan 10
Originally posted by jaywillI manifestly DO NOT want to talk to people who agree with me. My question was aimed at believers of any faith. I am curious because I am an atheist.
[b]===========================
I dont intend getting into a debate.
===============================
Wolfgang, I respect your desire to not want to get into a debate.
But I notice that you do want to collect answers to questions which you then make assertions about.
This is also a kind of preaching. To not expect "debate ...[text shortened]... sh to speak with those who agree with you.
I wish you all the best in your searching.[/b]
02 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59This statement you made sounds more like an agnostic then an atheist:
I manifestly DO NOT want to talk to people who agree with me. My question was aimed at believers of any faith. I am curious because I am an atheist.
" Perhaps someone has found the elusive "Truth" but neither they nor anyone else will ever know that they have! "
02 Jan 10
Originally posted by jaywillI guess I am both.
This statement you made sounds more like an agnostic then an atheist:
[b]" Perhaps someone has found the elusive "Truth" but neither they nor anyone else will ever know that they have! "[/b]
As an agnostic; I agree with the statement, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
As an atheist; I do not believe in the existence of any such deity.
Unlike you I have no problem in admitting I may be wrong.
02 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59=========================
I guess I am both.
As an agnostic; I agree with the statement, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
As an atheist; I do not believe in the existence of any such deity.
Unlike you I have no problem in admitting I may be wrong.
Unlike you I have no problem in admitting I may be wrong.
==============================
I've been wrong plenty of times.
I also have no problem telling posters that a question that they asked was too difficult to answer.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
02 Jan 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59wolfgang59,
Thank you for that link Palynka.
I see that the argument relies heavily on using a definition of free-will which is kinda counter-intuitive and therefore, to my mind, cheating.
I was however interested in
"This is countered by the realization that a free-willed God is not constrained to realize everything, nor to consider all choices to be of equ ...[text shortened]... n occupy His time with making new galaxies and making sub-atomic physics ever more perplexing.
I see that the argument relies heavily on using a definition of free-will which is kinda counter-intuitive and therefore, to my mind, cheating.
I don't think it is cheating either. Intuition is only useful up to a point. When you start to look at the alternatives to compatibilist free will, for example the various flavours of libertarian free will, close scrutiny reveals that compatibilist free will is the least incoherent option.
To answer your question 2, if you take the OOO god as a premise, then it follows that whatever evils we observe, like the crucifixion, are necessary part of god's design. That is to say, the best of all possible worlds has the possibility of evil.