»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Free Will and Omniscience
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Free Will and Omniscience |
|
|
aaron woodside Member
since 2001-09-26
Posts 256 |
Just wondering what everyone thought about Mankind's Free Will and God's Omniscience. Are they compatible? Can you have one with the other? I'll post my opinions after I read some of yours. ex animo, Aaron Woodside There are no great men, only men in great circumstances. |
||
| © Copyright 2002 aaron woodside - All Rights Reserved | |||
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
Great topic. Guess you're talking about the Christian God YHWH, right? Here's my thoughts... a) If God is omniscient, he must have knowledge of all things past and present. b) If God is omniscient, he has knowledge of all things present and how they respond to one another - therefore knowing what the future will be. c) If Mankind has free will, he is allowed to make decisions based entirely on his environment and his own knowledge. "Free Will" suggests that a person has freedom to decide which choice they make in life. It is impossible for God to have full knowledge of someone's decision, while still giving them any decision at all. Sure it is our choice based on our knowledge and opinions, but if the choice can be known prior to our making it, do we have any choice at all? If God knows what is going to occur for all people, then free will is meaningless - because we can only make "decisions" that seem like decisions for us, but are really just us satisfying the future that God knew would happen. Let's say God takes his knowledge of one person's decision and writes it down on a piece of paper, seals it in an envelope. The choice that is written on the piece of paper will invariably be the one that occurs, because God has knowledge of all things that would influence the person's opinion, their effects on his decision, and therefore, what his decision will be. Because God knows the future, that is the future that will always occur - otherwise God would be wrong. And if God was wrong, he wouldn't be omniscient. Free will is an illusion... it can seem like we're making a choice, but if our choices can be predicted with 100% accuracy by an omniscient God before we ever make them, how are they choices at all? It seems like the only one who makes any choices at all is God himself. |
||
|
aaron woodside Member
since 2001-09-26
Posts 256 |
"wink" I could play Devil's Advocate, but I'll bide my time for now and let someone else do it. Very insightful answers. ex animo, Aaron Woodside There are no great men, only men in great circumstances. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
There are probably about a thousand different ways to show that omniscience and free will are NOT contradictory, and another few thousand to demonstrate that omniscience by its very nature is a self-referencing paradox resulting in the kind of circular reasoning evidenced here. We've probably talked about most of those ways in the past few years, too. (Do a search on omniscience to find most of them. Then try one on paradox.) So, let's try a new approach. If I knew the exact day and hour of your death, would that affect your actions from now until then? If I told you the exact day and hour of your death, would that affect your actions from now until then? See the difference? |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
quote: I'm going to risk sounding slow and say, I don't? If an omniscient God was to tell you what your future would be, for whatever reason, it would influence your choices - but he would still have knowledge of how it would influence those choices, what choices you would make. God couldn't really do that without lying in the long run. I suppose I see a paradox you're making here - that God couldn't tell someone their future without it changing, and therefore having been a lie, because of free will. But I'm not satisfied; that doesn't change the property of omniscience, that if it can know future event with 100% accuracy, that event will inevitably occur. In the long run, God would know even his own actions, which means he would know that he would tell the person their future, and his knowledge of their future would really have been based on the person's response to this knowledge... So with an omniscient God... that just sticks them in a paradox. Could you clarify your point a little? I'm not sure how this suggests that omniscience and free will can co-exist. [This message has been edited by Local Parasite (12-26-2002 11:53 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Any form of absolute power becomes a self-referencing paradox. Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift? If he can't, it's not absolute power. If he can, it's not absolute power. The same is true of omniscience. You concluded your first post with the observation, "It seems like the only one who makes any choices at all is God himself." But if He has absolute foreknowledge, He already knows what choices He will make and therefore has no choices to make. Self-referencing paradox. Here's links to a few earlier discussions on paradoxes: /pip/Forum8/HTML/000296.html /pip/Forum8/HTML/000365.html |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
You make a good point, Ron. But I don't think the self-referencing paradox you described can be used to illustrate that omniscience itself cannot exist. Perhaps omniscience cannot co-exist with choice, because that choice would be known even to the omniscient being, and therefore would not be choice at all, but mere obedience to the being's own foreknowledge. The property of all knowledge wouldn't negate itself, because knowledge of knowledge doesn't defeat knowledge... it just confirms it. A being could exist with omniscience and simply not make choices, couldn't it? I've heard the "can God make a rock too heavy for himself" argument and agree with it... it does suggest that omnipotence is impossible. I still believe, however, that omniscience does not self-contradict... if I'm just in the dark here, would you mind enlightening me? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Does God know how heavy a rock would have to be before he couldn't lift it?  Any absolute power, whether omniscience or omnipotence or omnipresence, is a paradox just waiting to happen. Indeed, virtually any absolute necessarily references itself and has the potential to be a paradox. "All rules have exceptions," is either false or a paradox. But you're right, that certainly doesn't mean omniscience can't exist and that's not what I'm arguing. If you followed the links above, you've read about the Liar's Paradox, and I doubt any of us would argue that lying doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that you can't legitimately use a self-referencing paradox to prove anything - because you can use a self-referencing paradox to prove EVERYTHING. Why stop with free will? The same logic can be used to prove there is no conscious thought and everything you are thinking is a drama playing in the mind of God. You could also use it to demonstrate there is no such thing as time. A paradox, almost by definition, contradicts reality. If you accept a paradox, as the free will versus omniscience argument does, all of reality is refuted. The only thing that fascinates me about this very old paradox is that it's the only one I know of that carries its own paradoxical answer. A paradox is a contraction in reality, but omnipotence defines reality. Were God to share his absolute knowledge with you, it could not create a paradox because it would redefine your reality to include that paradox. |
||
|
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
I like "virtually any absolute." Way to dodge an absolute.  The liar's paradox exists only in speech... "this statement is false" is a paradoxical statement, but that doesn't mean ~all lies~ are self-referencing paradoxes. I wouldn't say that lies don't exist, but I would say that "this statement is false" doesn't exist. Saying something is a paradox is saying that it self-contradicts, which is perhaps the only way to prove that something is false. Let's take the omnipotence paradox for example. It's really a self-contradiction, and here's why: 1. An omnipotent being can do anything. 2. An omnipotent being can lift anything. 3. An omnipotent being can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it. 4. Therefore an omnipotent being cannot do anything, if he could not lift this rock that he created. See how it self-contradicts? You cannot have the power to do anything and also knowingly limit yourself while still having the power to do anything. Therefore you cannot be omnipotent. A self-referential paradox is the same as a self-contradiction, and self-contradictions by their very nature are false. I can't have a chair with no more than four legs that also has five legs. quote: I'm going to quote you on this the next time someone asks me why I don't believe in God.  It's amazing the effect ice can have on the world. ~Allysa [This message has been edited by Local Parasite (12-26-2002 02:56 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: This sentence is false. Surely you see the problem with your logic? You CANNOT draw the conclusion that a paradox is false without creating the very paradox you seek to thwart. The Aristotelian Law of the Excluded Middle asserts that "every proposition is either true or false." That doesn't mean that we have to KNOW the truth value, just that it has to have one at any given point in time. A paradox doesn't, which is precisely why a paradox refuses to fit into our system of logic. Here's a more comprhensive (and therefore more complicated) discussion of The Law of the Exluded Middle. quote: You were, at least, on somewhat stronger ground with this attempt. One might argue, of course, that your very reference to the statement proves its existence, else you couldn't reference it. But we don't need to go that circuitous route, either. Essentially, you are denying the Law of the Excluded Middle and asserting a third possibility, one of non-existence (most who go this route try to argue ambiguity as a third alternative, but one's as good as another). That doesn't work either. Let's assume a statement has three possible values, as you suggested: a) True statements b) False statements c) Statements that don't exist Now consider the statement: This statement is false or does not exist. If the statement is true, then it is false or does not exist, i.e., the statement is not true. Obviously, a contradiction. If the statement is false, then the statement is true. Another contradiction. If the statement doesn't exist, then the statement is true. Oops. Here we are again. Any paradox that defies the Law of the Excluded Middle can be extended into Nth dimensions and will STILL be a paradox. It falls outside our system of logic and CANNOT be used within our system to prove anything (or, rather, it can prove anything you want it to prove). quote: All I've really demonstrated is that human constructs can't define God. That hardly seems surprising to me. On the other hand, if you COULD define God within human understanding, I would be willing to accept that as proof that such a defined God didn't exist as a God. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"An omnipotent being can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it." What does omnipotent really mean in the context of Judeo-Christian tradition ...the ability to do anything at all, including the hopelessly absurd? God's omnipotence is better defined as having all power to accomplish what he deems worthy to be accomplished ... As Ron said, he defines reality. And he defines what the "impossible" is, which only he can perform. He has chosen to raise the dead, for example, because he has decreed that life should triumph over death. And life comports with his nature and character. He has not decreed things which are actually paradoxical, only those which are seemingly paradoxical to finite minds. Why does a seed have to die to bring forth life? Upon reflection, certain "paradoxes" turn out to be the truest nature of things. Consider the statement... "God is good". A speculative human definition of omnipotence could argue that an omnipotent being should have the power to be both good and evil at the same time. But a biblical definition of omnipotence denies such thinking as foolishness. Yes, reality is what God defines it as. But I would argue that this is not completely arbitrary ... but is reflective of God's innate character. Is God bound to his own character? The Bible seems to suggest so ... "He cannot deny himself" is what the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy. Now I admit that the fact that the uncreated God has a character which he does not arbitrarily create, is a mystery and presents finite minds with a great struggle. But the character and nature of God have the claim of divinity about them. Why have they existed in such an uncreated, and uncontingent state for all eternity? Because they, in and of themselves, have the eternal right to do so. Their justification is self evident. It is self evident, for example, that love is better than hate. But again, my point is that demanding the absurd of omnipotence only forces "omnipotence" into the speculative juxtapositions of our minds. Does omnipotence have parameters? In Genesis, God is said to have made man in his image. An "image" communicates the idea of form. Form is always an exlusive thing .... it cannot be just anything at all, but must be "true to form". Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-26-2002 08:33 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Let's see... what was that punchline? Oh.. yeah... Put them in a round room and tell them to pee in the corner... |
||
|
Caelestis Junior Member
since 2002-12-10
Posts 12Canada |
One might define omnipotence as the ability to do anything that can possibly be done. In this case, a rock too heavy for an omnipotent god to lift could not be created. I can't back this up, but I have a feeling, or perhaps a hope, that if a god or gods did in fact exist, that they would be bound by the laws of logic. Certain things, such as being both exclusively red and exclusively blue, are not logically possible. Creating a rock too heavy for an omnipotent god to lift is not logically possible. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well you're close. It's much simpler though really. Focus instead of our own limitations. We, for example, do not have the free will to spin straw into gold, to spontaneously combust, or to lift more than our skeletons can physically support. Our 'Free' will is, in fact, limited to a very few choices. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Confusing free will with abilities, LR? People have been doing that since Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal" (and before, I'm sure). Without a distinction, the result is a hierarchy of elitism. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Don't confuse free will with freedom. Free will means we can try to spin straw into gold, it doesn't guarantee success. Freedom is limited by environment, free will is limited by our ability to think of something desirable. No contradition between free will and omniscience. In fact, it doesn't matter what metaphysical schema you put in place to describe the world (free world may not exist in hypothetical worlds, philosophical zombies for instance), free will is there because you can act/not act on your desires. The results are irrelevant, foreknowledge is irrelevant, the origins of desire are irrelevant, free will exists. Take a deep breath, stand up, notice the others watching the play, hear the cough in the back row, and tip toe carefully (Don't disturb the others, they're too happy being fooled) out of the Cartesian theatre and into the fresh night air. Now, don't you feel better. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
OK then... even by that standard your free will is still limited by your intellect and imagination. Still confused? quote: Rather Zen of you Brad... lol [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (12-29-2002 01:18 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Sure, free will is limited by the choices we can make. I don't have free will if I can't think of a choice. Zen? Really? I'm reading Dennet right now, probably a little too close to it for a more 'balanced' view of what he's saying. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Maybe a touch of Tao too... It reminded me of Kapra |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
I'm a bit confused here... are we debating free will, pre-determination, or omnipotence? It seems to me that our arguments are overlapping and that we may be purporting the idea that the existence or nonexistence of one has a bearing on the others. Brad nailed free will just fine in his last reply. Foreknowledge has no bearing on free will whatsoever. Foreknowledge does not equate to pre-determination. If our reference God is all knowing then it will obviously know all paths created by any choice we make, yes it will even know what choice we do make, but that doesn't mean we aren't the ones making the choice. If our paths were set then we would be writing about pre-determination and that would eliminate free will. Paradox? Ron had the right of it I believe. If I am the power, I determine the reality, therefore, paradox is irrelevant to me because I control it. Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
defenestrate Junior Member
since 2003-01-10
Posts 46nc, us |
if the sun sets, do you not see it become dark? if a man makes a choice based on a soul that is theoretically created by a god, can the god not see the man making the choice? does omniscience (or, for that matter, does free will) REALLY require cause and effect? part of the purpose of religion is to cover the areas of existence that can be experienced but not quantified, rationalized, compartmentalized, or sequenced (by the observer). i feel that causality nullifies the very concept of faith in a higher being. my personal take: i've seen the tail wag the dog, but that does not make the tail not a part of the dog. now snatch the pebble from my hand. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
defenestrate, quote: " i feel that causality nullifies the very concept of faith in a higher being." Why? Could you elaborate and be specific? Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Think about it, Stephen. If you believe for every effect there must be a cause, you come front and center with the first question every three-year-old asks. So, who created God? |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Now we're bordering on proof of existence of a higher power.... faith is the only proof here. Logic cannot answer some of the questions asked, who created God? He was always there. Can we prove that? Absolutely not. It must be accepted through faith, and through faith we go beyond ourselves and our human limitations and experience something outside of ourselves. Of faith this can be said: It is the true essence of humanity and the spark that ignites our ability to become more than dirty, hairy, cave-dwelling, talking animals. Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"Think about it, Stephen. If you believe for every effect there must be a cause, you come front and center with the first question every three-year-old asks. So, who created God?" Ron... Are you masquerading on your own poetry forums again? I could've sworn that I addressed "Defenestrate". Just funning, It's always good to talk to you Ron. Here goes...Causality is necessarily the belief that everything is caused? Not accepting the monistic aspect of naturualism, and believing in the unique and indispensible existence of God, I have no problem ascribing causality to all things except the Eternal Creator. But there is the natural / supernatural distinction that I rely on. My question meant to ask, why should believing in causality, as a general principle, rule out the existence of God? I just don't think it has to. No one ever claimed that God is like everything else, or that he is subject to temporality. I believe that all things in the natural world have causality because of their dependent nature ... But why should one be forced philosophically, or even logically, to apply this dependence to the Creator? Applying causality to God would put us into an infinite regress of trying to get to the bottom of all worlds, ... would the original please stand up? And this is perhaps a more maddening problem than merely being willing to ascribe the originality to God that holy men have asserted all along. In fact you would end up having to deny causality to something, by pinning it to everything ... indeed, the chain of causality itself. In the end, it is my theory, we will end up erroneously ascribing the attributes of God to other things if we do not give it freely to him. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-15-2003 12:06 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Heck, I don't know. How many exceptions would you like to make? Imagine you're standing on the caboose of a train travelling 120 mph. You throw your best fast ball, which has been consistently clocked at a very respectable 80 mph, into the wake of the train. Using logic, your experience, common sense, and a bit of math, please tell me how fast the ball is travelling? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
hmmmm.... 200 actual mph? But still an 80 mph relative to you and the passengers? I am no physicist. It's probably quite a different answer based on relativity. So tell me. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Good answers! Yea, for the last 2,000 plus years, the correct answer was to add the two velocities and arrive at 200 mph. And, yea, you're right again, relativity changed that. It had to change it. There is nothing preventing that train from going "almost" the speed of light. Say, C -50 mph? If you threw your fastball off the back of the train, then, the ball would be travelling C + 30. That's a bit of problem since nothing can exceed C. Our instincts and common sense tells us to just add the velocities, giving us the formula t + b (train plus ball). This worked for several thousand years. When a particle travelling at high speeds emits another particle, however, that formula falls flat on its face. The math isn't real important, but here's the correct formula for adding velocities. v = (t + b)/(1 + tb/C^2) At the kinds of speeds we travel here on Earth, the difference between those two formulas is impossible to even measure. A space craft orbiting our planet at thousands of miles per hours can still use the old t+b formula, too, because at those "human" speeds, it really doesn't matter. Only when we observe particles travelling at a good fraction of the speed of light in particle accelerators do we discover, lo and behold, Einstein was right yet again. Okay, so what does all this have to do with causality? The principal of cause and effect is just as ingrained into our "common sense" and experience as was the adding of velocities. It's hard for us to imagine that travelling faster and faster will actually cause our mass to increase and time to slow, because its something we haven't (and likely never will) actually experience or see. Only when you get outside the realm of human experience does it hold true. In a similar manner, it's hard for us to imagine an effect without a cause. In our human experience, everything was caused by something. But relativity and quantum mechanics dramatically demonstrate that our human experience is limited. There's a whole lot going on in the universe that we never see. I think causality is almost certainly a localized phenomenon. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, for example, shows us that a particle can go from point A to point C without ever passing through point B. And it does so for no reason beyond the fact that it can. You'll never be able to point to a specific particle and say, "It's going to tunnel from A to C because ..." Maybe we just don't know enough yet to determine cause? Maybe. But I suspect that as science advances, we're only going to discover more and more areas where cause doesn't necessarily precede effect. If Einstein's citadel should ever be toppled, for example, and the speed of light is no longer considered a universal limitation, everything we think we know will be turned upside-down. Time can be made to run in any direction you want, and cause and effect will become effect and cause, with the waters muddied beyond any possible clarity. Who created God? I think we're in agreement that God is an exception to the rule of causality. But the minute you allow one exception to creep into your reality, a few more are always just around the corner. Somehow, I don't think that's unintentional. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: since no one seems to know I'm going to apply for the patent |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Assuming that there is a Creator - what if She chooses not to know the future? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks. |
||
|
defenestrate Junior Member
since 2003-01-10
Posts 46nc, us |
quote: "defenestrate,... Why? Could you elaborate and be specific?" gladly. my point is very simple-that faith in a higher power tends to imply a lack of obvious "logical" cause-and-effect chains, e.g. x event happened because god made it happen. i'm not judging this viewpoint in and of itself, simply pointing out that "because god made it happen" is an assumed given that automatically precludes any logical progression preceding said statement. i'm not saying that you can't use it as a start to chain if that's where it all starts for you, nor that a more secular explanation would necessarily be more accurate, but rather that in every argument i've ever read, it all starts with a self-referential given, not one that is neccessarily accepted by all parties of a discussion, e.g. "god created the universe, because he's god" "no he didn't, the big bang did, because x scientist wrote a lot about it". either way, in my opinion, logic does NOT serve to explain the essential nature of beingness on any level, because either side (and i hate to think of this as a duality-based argument, but i'm keeping it simple for the sake of my sanity) relies on a given that the other will not accept, as in "god existed, and then he made everything" vs. "there was a huge explosion, creating an expanding, forming universe". i hope that clears things up. if it does not, i'm happy to go into this further. |
||
|
defenestrate Junior Member
since 2003-01-10
Posts 46nc, us |
in fact, stephen, i will streamline this yet further by asserting that faith in a higher omniscient creator implies an accepted, subjective, exclusive given-thus leaving out all other parties, just as accepting that a big bang causing eveything implies the same. does that lay it all out reasonably simply? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Basically, you're suggesting that any "beginning," whether religious or secular, rules out causality? That sure would make it hard to cope with life and living. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Defenestrate ... "in every argument i've ever read, it all starts with a self-referential given, not one that is neccessarily accepted by all parties of a discussion, e.g. "god created the universe, because he's god" "no he didn't, the big bang did, because x scientist wrote a lot about it". either way, in my opinion, logic does NOT serve to explain the essential nature of beingness on any level, because either side (and i hate to think of this as a duality-based argument, but i'm keeping it simple for the sake of my sanity) relies on a given that the other will not accept, as in "god existed, and then he made everything" vs. "there was a huge explosion, creating an expanding, forming universe" I see your point. But it seems to me that no matter what point of view we choose to take, we cannot escape accepting something as a given. Presuppositions are indispensible in any and every worldview. If we reject a belief in God because of causality, we do not thereby avoid exempting something from causality, and making it uncaused. How can you indentify the cause of an infinite chain of cause and effect? No particular thing within the chain caused the chain itself. What causes the law-like cause and effect process? No matter which view you take, something eludes causality. There is no avoiding this. My whole reason for asking you to clarify was to show that if causality presents difficulties for theism, it presents the same difficulties for naturalism. You seem, in your quote above, to admit this yourself. Unfortunately we are stuck with one or the other of these choices. Aside from causality, I would suggest that other considerations are more determinate in the question of naturalism vs. theism. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-18-2003 12:31 AM).] |
||
|
defenestrate Junior Member
since 2003-01-10
Posts 46nc, us |
ron, >Basically, you're suggesting that any "beginning," whether religious or secular, rules out causality? > >That sure would make it hard to cope with life and living i'm saying that a beginning PRECLUDES causality, that if you say that X action is the first action in a sequence of events, causality as a logical device OBVIOUSLY cannot possibly hold fully. causality implies, what, a cause and an effect, right? well, what if you're talking about the CAUSE of the beginning? you run into a wall. i'm not saying this is bad, i'm saying that you must accept some lack of correlation with standard logic when including the beginning of a thing in a chain of causality UNLESS you consider the factuality of said beginning event a given. this all seems very straighforward to me. i believe in causality, and i also believe that logic cannot solve everything. does this make it all a little more palatable? [This message has been edited by defenestrate (03-23-2003 04:14 AM).] |
||
|
defenestrate Junior Member
since 2003-01-10
Posts 46nc, us |
stephen, |QUOTE|I see your point. But it seems to me that no matter what point of view we choose to take, we cannot escape accepting something as a given. Presuppositions are indispensible in any and every worldview. If we reject a belief in God because of causality, we do not thereby avoid exempting something from causality, and making it uncaused. How can you indentify the cause of an infinite chain of cause and effect? No particular thing within the chain caused the chain itself. What causes the law-like cause and effect process? No matter which view you take, something eludes causality. There is no avoiding this. My whole reason for asking you to clarify was to show that if causality presents difficulties for theism, it presents the same difficulties for naturalism. You seem, in your quote above, to admit this yourself. Unfortunately we are stuck with one or the other of these choices. Aside from causality, I would suggest that other considerations are more determinate in the question of naturalism vs. theism.|UNQUOTE| i am not disagreeing with you. my point is that logic cannot and will not function unless all parties in a discussion ALREADY agree on the givens. this renders logic ineffectual in matters regarding questions like this. it is a useful tool for query, but pretending that the centre will hold when you pair two obviously incongruous things together (e.g. logic and arbitrary presupposition) is foolhardy! btw, i do not presume to know so much as to feel comfortable with trying to assert to others the name or nature of my creator or any existence attributed to it. i don't have to choose one or the other. i choose to observe and to learn and to continue to think, and neither theism nor naturalism need be excluded in my quest to do just that. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"i am not disagreeing with you. my point is that logic cannot and will not function unless all parties in a discussion ALREADY agree on the givens. this renders logic ineffectual in matters regarding questions like this. it is a useful tool for query, but pretending that the centre will hold when you pair two obviously incongruous things together (e.g. logic and arbitrary presupposition) is foolhardy!" I understand that logic has it's limits. When we consider presuppositions and causeless causes, (which are unavoidably present in both naturalism and theism) of course we can't use the logical dictates that apply to causality. These are questions, in my opinion, which go beyond logic. There is, however, a distinction to be made between an "arbitrary presupposition" and an axiom. An arbitrary presupposition is supplied and taken for granted by it's proponent. An axiom is taken for granted also, but not supplied in an arbitrary way by it's proponent. It is identified as a self-supporting principle or rule. How is it self supported? Usually by the consequences of it's acceptance, or rejection. Though logic is limited in making the choice between naturalism and theism, it still comes into play. Theism is an axiom able to explain rational thought (of which logic is a part) in nature. Naturalism undermines rational thinking by it's reductionism. Naturalism presupposes that everything has come from natural / material causes ... including what we call rational thought. But if rational thought stems, like everything else, from mere material causes, then on what grounds do we call it rational? Rational thought is not merely caused, as in cause and effect, it has the quality of validity. There are grounds for correct thinking, not mere causes. Interestingly, the more causes we can identify, for someone believing the way they do, the easier we can suspect that their beliefs are irrational or invalid. Biases are identified by their direct cause and effect relationship to thought, while rationality is not. So how can rational thought, or knowledge, be explained naturalistically? A belief which refutes itself by invalidating all thought and belief, is too problematic for me. Theism may have it's problems for the mortal mind, but it is the precondition for the very fuction of the mind ... the only one which would allow any problems or solutions to matter, or even exist. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-25-2003 03:09 AM).] |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Stephanos, What do you define as rational thinking? Is eating the brains of your enemies rational? I only ask because it seems you are inferring that rational thought leads to one universal and unassailable answer, that anything that deviates is irrational but the evidence we see around us doesn’t support that notion. Ingrained societal behaviour and social pressure affect rational thought. Which is why I might say that eating the brains of your enemies seems irrational and a native of a South American tribe might say that it’s irrational not to. The obvious conclusion is that rational thought doesn’t guarantee a universal answer, in which case the judgement of rationality becomes a subjective ideal and that subjectivity lends validity to any supposed correct thinking. Rational thinking isn’t rational in the sense that it’s correct thinking, rational thought is simply a useful or accepted way of thinking in a social setting. Big bang or the hand of a creator? I’ve a sneaky suspicion that looking back in time searching for a beginning isn’t the right orientation to approach the question. Looking forward in time on the other hand yields some interesting possibilities and some obvious questions, for instance will time itself ever end. If the answer is no, time will never end, then why should time have a finite beginning? The problem of a cause-less cause only comes into the equation with regard to the big bang if it was a beginning without such a claim cause and effect rolls on through the big bang. The problem of the cause-less cause remains however if the hand of a creator is introduced into the argument, if God exists he/she must always have existed or is the result of an undetermined cause. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"Is eating the brains of your enemies rational? I only ask because it seems you are inferring that rational thought leads to one universal and unassailable answer, that anything that deviates is irrational but the evidence we see around us doesn’t support that notion." Aren't you confusing rationality with morality here? Eating the brains of your enemies or not, would be a moral question moreso than a rational question. However, I also believe that morality is more than conventional and has a universal aspect. We don't arbitrarily invent our moralities either. But that would be a whole different thread. But regardless of moral questions, I think you would agree that we do not arbitrarily invent reasoning, inference, or logic, else the term "illogical" is meaningless. I think you might be misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. You yourself are using inference and reasoning in your approach to me, correctly assuming that I value rational thought above irrational thought. You are assuming that your arguments hold weight on the basis of their rationality. But naturalism itself undermines the validity of any rational thought, by not being able to give account for it. Any thought which invalidates all thought, necessarily invalidates itself. I'm not limiting rational thought to mean morality, logic, metaphysics, or any one area. Choose any area you wish. If in a literal sense I argued that I can both eat my cake, and not eat it at the same time, I would be making an irrational statement. You would immediately say that is absurd, and you would be right. But material reductionism (or naturalism) would explain my thought in terms of matter and chemistry at the most fundamental level. My absurd thought would be caused in essentially the same way that your rational thought would be caused... by a certain configuration of molecules and atoms in the cortex which sprang immediately from the previous configuration in obedience to physical laws. But cause and effect cannot be the whole story when it comes to knowledge. There has to be a ground and consequent relation that plays into causality. And this is what cannot be explained in naturalistic terms. But if we believe that God exists and created us, we have grounds for rational thought and knowledge ... even if our thoughts are imperfect and only a shadow of his own eternal mind. But molecules in motion cannot explain rational thought whatsoever. It can't even give a sound reason for why we should even be having this conversation, or any other for that matter. "The problem of a cause-less cause only comes into the equation with regard to the big bang if it was a beginning without such a claim cause and effect rolls on through the big bang. The problem of the cause-less cause remains however if the hand of a creator is introduced into the argument, if God exists he/she must always have existed or is the result of an undetermined cause." No, a causeless cause must be accepted either way . . . with theism or naturalism. It is simply unavoidable. A cause and effect chain which is infinite can at least in theory be considered a whole entity. What caused the chain itself? No part within in it can cogently be said to have caused the process itself. What of the mechanism of cause and effect? What caused that? We don't escape the problems of causality by cutting God out, we just shift the problem to nature itself. Notice that we can take your last sentence and substitute the words "Nature" and "naturalism" for "God", and "hand of a creator", and it remains equally true. "The problem of the cause-less cause remains however if naturalism is introduced into the argument, if nature exists, it must always have existed or is the result of an undetermined cause." Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-25-2003 09:09 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Why? Neither science nor the Bible can account for the effects of gravity, yet this planet still continues to revolve around its star, captured by an action-at-a-distance force that can't be proven and can't be adequately explained. Our failure to understand doesn't change the nature of our reality. It only changes our perception of it. I purposely chose an example different from yours, Stephen, but I hope you realize the same can be said of rational thought. You said, "if we believe that God exists and created us, we have grounds for rational thought and knowledge," but that's not entirely accurate. The existence of God gives us grounds only for OUR rational thought, telling us nothing at all about His. I believe, at the end of the day, the Christian and the scientist are both sitting in the same little flat-bottomed row boat, each holding their own oar. Should they ever learn to coordinate their strokes, we might actually stop going around in circles. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"You said, "if we believe that God exists and created us, we have grounds for rational thought and knowledge," but that's not entirely accurate. The existence of God gives us grounds only for OUR rational thought, telling us nothing at all about His. " That statement has an agnostic flavor. "...nothing at all about his" is an extremely comprehensive statement. If we believe that God created us in his image, and that he wants us to know something of his mind, then we can trust that we are able to. I have learned much of God from observing nature, and even human nature. On the other hand, I am not saying that our rational thought even begins to begin revealing the depths of the mind of God. I am merely stating that it is a shadow of something larger. But a shadow can't be explained apart from the object that casts it. When I speak of naturalism, I am not pitting Christians against Scientists. Not all scientists are naturalists, even those who study natural science. I'm speaking of philosophical naturalism which presupposes that nature is a closed materialistic system. This is a far cry from me trying to be "anti-scientific". In fact, rational thought and inductive reasoning is the basis for science itself. Denying philosophical naturalism is not the same as denying the value of science. I feel that theism actually gives validity to the priciples upon which science is based. David Hume, skeptic and strict naturalist himself, was honest enough to question how we can justify any knowledge at all, including science, in a naturalistic universe. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-25-2003 10:29 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"Why? Neither science nor the Bible can account for the effects of gravity, yet this planet still continues to revolve around its star, captured by an action-at-a-distance force that can't be proven and can't be adequately explained. Our failure to understand doesn't change the nature of our reality. It only changes our perception of it." Ron, I agree with this. I never said that those who espouse naturalism become actually irrational in all their thoughts. Rationality, like gravity, functions regardless of what you attribute it to. What I meant by saying that naturalism undermines the validity of rational thought, is that the worldview itself cannot give a cogent account for the existence of such thought. Mine is a statement that even though naturalists use rational thought, depend upon it's acceptance at large, and argue as if everyone knows that it is more than conventional, they hold a world view that is contrary to their own thoughts and actions. Again, this seems to me like a man arguing against the existence of air, while breathing the very thing he is denying. And to point out that naturalists have and use rational thought, in order to give some credence to their assertions, holds no more weight than saying that the anti-air argument might be true seeing that the man can still breathe without believing in air. That is begging the question. The value and usefulness of rational thought to both naturalists and theists is not in question. The validity of a naturalistic explanation of the universe, and it's capacity to allow in it's borders meaningful knowledge is what is in question. That men and women rely on rational thinking in spite of their inconsistent world view is not surprising. We are created in the image of God, even if when we don't believe in him. He still rains on the just and the unjust, so to speak. And you are right, like gravity, rational thought is intrinsically valuable, regardless of our understanding. But from that reason alone, we should critically ask how rational naturalism really is. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-25-2003 11:13 PM).] |
||
|
defenestrate Junior Member
since 2003-01-10
Posts 46nc, us |
stephanos, you make very valid points. logic is a tool in almost anything, with due care. this does not change my initial point, but you have obviously thought this out, though the conviction in you weighs heavily against objectivity. truth may not rely on objectivity much of the time, but it's important to remember that people choose/create sides for a reason, and that reason is not necessarily the pursuit of truth. in the end, i am convinced that i cannot convince you to rethink what givens are to be considered universal, which pretty much makes this a moot point, but i appreciate the verbal dueling. edited for a second time because copious amonts of bourbon don't seem to help me type out the proper words. [This message has been edited by defenestrate (03-27-2003 01:14 AM).] |
||
|
aaron woodside Member
since 2001-09-26
Posts 256 |
Lol, why stop now guys. I enjoyed recieving 5 emails a day from this. I also enjoyed the opinions. I can't keep up with most of you, but I still enjoyed them. ex animo, Aaron IN NOMINE PATRI ET FILII ET SPIRITUS SANCTI |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
This thread reminds me of some research I was doing into one of CS Lewis's arguments about God's omniscience. He claimed that God is above and beyond time, so to speak, giving Him the ability to know what we are doing at any moment, whether it be a moment in our past, future, or present. If this is the case, how does it effect the discussions taking place here? I skimmed through Stephanos's replies and was surprised that he did not bring CS Lewis into this complex equation. But perhaps I did not look closely enough...? 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2 |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Fractal, The explanation that God exists outside of time relies on the rather large supposition that he does in fact exist and if you take away that singular belief the exercise, and original claim, are meaningless. For the sake of argument though let’s suppose God does exist and he lives outside of time having the ability to know simultaneously what was, what is, and more importantly what will be, is this an argument for or against free will? Some believe it’s a strong argument against free will, if God knows the future then the future is predestined and fixed we have no option but to act and make decisions that will ultimately result in that future coming to fruition. The inability to freely decide our future negates the possibility of free will, or does it? One argument against the above is that although God knows the future we obviously don’t and every decision we make to arrive at that future is made by utilising our free will, in that case how free can a decision be that can have only one outcome? If I ask you to think of a colour knowing that you will choose red are you truly free to choose any colour you like or is free will an illusion and you have only one choice - red? If you look at the argument closely it’s possible that God and free will can exist and that red simply appears to be the only choice when armed with Gods ability to see the result of the choice in advance. The next question is obvious - does God posses a free will - and if he does how does that affect our free will? [This message has been edited by Crazy Eddie (04-12-2003 09:23 AM).] |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
quote: So does this thread. Without the assumption that God exists, this thread is but a big waste of time, unless running what-if scenarios is your cup of tea. Perhaps I should cite the CS Lewis passage I was referring to. In Mere Christianity, Lewis claims that the difficulty with believing both in God's existence and our free will is often caused by an assumption that "God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being that He can see ahead and we cannot." But if God can see what we will do in the future then it is difficult to imagine us being free not to do it. Lewis proposes that we think of God as being outside and above the time-line. "In that case, what we call 'tomorrow' is bisible to Him in just the same way as what we call 'today'. All the days are 'Now' for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them..." He claims that the same would be true of the future. 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2 |
||
|
chasing rain Senior Member
since 2001-05-15
Posts 737Canada |
quote: Uhm...question. It is believed that time does not pass for God; that a hundred million years is but a drop of water in a bucket for Him. If this is so, that time does not exist for God, then what exactly is the future? If we had any free will, couldn't we stop time? [This message has been edited by chasing rain (04-13-2003 02:18 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
And the conversation approaches the point at which theology finds itself intersecting with theoretical physics. You're not too far from string theory at this point. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Running what if scenarios is my cup of tea, how else would you get an atheist to accept, for the sake of argument, that God exists? I understand what C.S. Lewis was trying to say, I just think it falls apart when you ask the obvious question -–does God possess a free will? If there is a fixed future for God to see it has to be by definition…well, fixed. If it is fixed he can’t do anything to influence or change it, he has no choice but to play the hand that will culminate in that future coming to fruition – he has in effect no free will. The alternative is that there are innumerable possible futures and God knows them all and can take action to influence which one becomes reality. In this scenario I have the free will to choose any colour I like but God can make me choose red – which means I have no free will I just think I have. It could be though that there are innumerable possible futures and God knows them all but chooses to allow fate and our free will to dictate which one becomes reality. In this scenario God plays no role in the destiny of man and has no influence upon man beyond the influence that man decides to afford him. God can see all the possible futures of man but doesn’t know which one we will choose. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
And now Heisenberg with a side of Kapra...  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Define "not too far," LR? Redefining the complexity of space-time into 10 dimensions (or 11, for M-Theory), seems a far cry to me from flattening it into 0-dimensions. quote: You're missing a third alternative, I think, though that's hardly surprising since it runs completely contrary to the way our minds operate. It's so contrary, in fact, that it can't easily be put into a language that is necessarily mired in past- and future-tense. God has free will and can make any decisions He wishes. In fact, He already has made all those decisions. Outside of time, remember? And before someone asks if God can later change His mind, ask instead why would He? All of his decisions were/are/will be perfect. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I'll answer you later Ron (but you do know I have an answer don't you...) For now I don't want to disturb the thread. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
LR You forgot Russell Ron, I thought I had that covered with God knowing the past present and future simultaneously. Doesn’t your assertion that he may already have made the decisions, and that those decisions won’t change as they’re perfect, suggest he has no choice? Perfect or not if God has made all the decisions for us how can any of our decisions be deemed to be free? As far as string theory is concerned I have to admit my knowledge is limited, for instance I always believed that M-Theory was the name for the yet undiscovered unified string theory, the mother of all string theories so to speak. With that in mind I’ll leave the string theory discussion to LR. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Walter or Robert John? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Sorry but you're just begging this one Ron: quote: So... does God have the free will to make the wrong choice? enjoy...  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote:No, because you're still differentiating between them. Hold out your hand and look at it very closely. Done? Now tell me, were you looking at the breadth or the depth of your hand? Unless you very consciously make the effort, chances are you don't make that distinction at all. We "see" and "think" in three dimensions, and only in unusual circumstances do we attempt to limit our thoughts to less. I was just being cute when I suggested God had "already" made all of His decisions (I never said He made any of ours). I could just as easily have said He hasn't made any decisions yet, but someday will. When you're not constrained by time, both statements are equally valid, equally possible. When you suggest that for God to know the future, he "has no choice but to play the hand that will culminate in that future coming to fruition," you're necessarily thinking sequentially. You're saying that "this" will lead to "that." To live outside of time, cause and effect no longer exist apart from each other, but are merged into a single "what is." God isn't playing a hand that will culminate in the future, because the hand being played and the future both already exist as part of a single something we can't quite imagine let alone easily see. There is no past, present, or future to know. There is only "what is." |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Same answer, LR. There is no wrong choice, except as a distinction you or I make. There is only "the" choice, because there is only "what is." |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
LR Jack… I mean Bertrand Ron, I understand the proposed timelessness of Gods action in relation to the sequential constraints of mans existence, under such conditions Gods action will have occurred yesterday today and tomorrow all at the same time as far as he’s concerned. The timing of his decision isn’t an issue, whether he has any free will in arriving at that decision is the question I’m interested in. You asked me to look at my hand, which I did, but I didn’t need to if I do indeed possess a free will, I could just have easily looked at my foot. In a thousand years from now God could decide that I should in fact look at my knee and with a wave of his hand I would be looking at my knee – but when? God could be outside time but I’m not. One day a thousand years from now is the same as today and the same as yesterday as far as God is concerned but his timeless decision still acts to remove my free will the second I look at my knee. Darn it – I just looked at my knee! |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ah.. actually Walter probably fits my reference better.. I was into a harmonic paradigm long before I even studied him just as a matter of my own conclusion... interesting stuff -- too bad (he was a crackpot) But Bertrand will do Ron... but if there is only 'THE' choice then doesn't that force the obvious? (to a finite corporeal being that can only percieve a Cartesian model of the universe?) [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-13-2003 08:43 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Does God have free will? When you remove the "He has to preserve a fixed future" from the question, because there is no such thing as a future, then the obvious answer is, "Why not?" As to your knee, the promise of the Bible is that God will not force you to look at it. He knows if you did/do/will, but still leaves the choice to you. One might even surmise that our entire physical universe is expressly designed to eliminate foreknowledge that might otherwise obstruct that freedom. The restraints imposed by reality, like the one about not travelling faster than the speed of light, sometimes seem completely arbitrary and meaningless. But those very restraints are the things that define our concept of time. Those very restraints are the things that seem to shield us from "what is." |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
LR Was Walt the geezer who drew the vortex image of life and death and the nine wave-string harp? Ron, Sorry to seem dumb here Ron but are you saying that God in this scenario does or does not have the ability (and the free will) to force my decision making process to his end? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
The way you've worded your question makes it irrelevant to the issue of your own free will. Do you have the ability and free will to murder someone close to you? Ah, but would you? The fact that you can takes someone's life isn't, by itself, reason for them to fear you. Translate that mortal trust into an absolute trust and the ability to do something is much less important than the promise to not do it. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Among other things Ed... yes... Most interesting was his periodic table of elements http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8989/russtbl.gif he actually had the respect of men like Tesla -- for more -- http://www.altenergy.org/3/new_energy/early_pioneers/russell/russell.html wierd wild stuff -- but, still a crackpot when you get right down to it... interesting how some of his notions are actually panning out in quantum mechanics -- if he just would have said -- what if? instead of 'I recieved it by divine enlightenment!' |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Sorry about that -- that gif is on geocities -- you can't access it through a back door... go here http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8989/ and then click on the periodic table |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
I don't know that the question of whether or not God has free will has any merit. If the universe does indeed have time as a "property" then does it not stand to reason that God created time too? But then, I'm no theoretical physicist, so perhaps someone could help me out of any foolish ignorance, with regard to that subject, in which I my be trapped. 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2 |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
You've hit on a major point there Mr. Fractal -- time (and space) only exists in the universe... this universe -- other universes have different laws and properties. If there are extra-universal universes beyond infinity (another property of this universe) then the existence of a 'god' must also be extra-universal and lie beyond infinity. And isn't it good to know the big crunch is dead? [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-14-2003 02:31 PM).] |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
LR, Doesn’t the introduction of infinity allow multiple Gods? Ron, Do I have the free will to murder someone close to me? – Yes. Would I - I’d have to say no with a caveat for certain circumstances. But that’s just me, you’d get a different set of answers from different people, my question is do you believe God can directly dictate the answers given by those people and the actions based upon those answers? Not does he but can he? Fractal, You don’t need to convince me that the question has no merit – as I said I’m an atheist – but it’s worth thinking about just in case I’m wrong. If God exists and has the free will to override my free will I don’t have any to start with. I think time is a bit of a red herring in all this, the question, before I turned it on it’s head to come at it from another angle, was does man possess a free will. Putting God above, beyond or outside time is a neat trick but can’t dodge the fact that any specific interaction in the affairs of man must manifest itself at some point in our time. If God has the free will and the ability to make me look at my knee in 10 seconds from now it’s irrelevant what his relation to time is the effect or interaction must occur to me in 10 seconds from now. Darn it I looked at my knee again! [This message has been edited by Crazy Eddie (04-15-2003 04:48 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Whoa... I go do something responsible and civil like going to work for a few days, and you guys take the ball and run! I'll be back. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Fractal: " I skimmed through Stephanos's replies and was surprised that he did not bring CS Lewis into this complex equation. But perhaps I did not look closely enough...?" Actually the argument for theism from reason or rational thought, is touched on by Lewis in his book "Miracles", especially in the third chapter called "The cardinal difficulty of naturalism". Of course this line of thought does not directly deal with omniscience and free will. It more has to do with finding out which worldview can provide a framework where rational thought may exist with any meaning. Do you know of any C.S. Lewis' writings that deal directly with omniscience, omnipotence, and free will? I guess that the connection between the question of rational thought, and the question of free will, might be one which has to do with asking how there can be free will without rational thought. If everything were a result of a naturalistic process inside a purely mechanical universe, then not only our thoughts, but our choices are necessarily mere links in the causal chain. When there is no mind or "will" involved in the overall scheme of the the universe, how can there be a mind or will within the universe that is not illusory? Every particular in the universe is forced to exhibit the character of the whole, which in a naturalistic universe is ultimately chemical. But how can chemical processes make choices? This seems to me to result in a much more fatal problem than the one imposed by theism. For theism, there is at least the boon of having a will to start from. The thing at the base ... at the rock-bottom reality of the universe, is at least consistent and congruent with the thing we hold in question ... a will. The question of how these wills can be "free", no doubt presents us with difficulties. For example, is freedom more like a gradient, or is it an either/ or situation? I see no problem with assuming that a being with ultimate freedom (God) could delegate his freedom to created beings, albeit a limited version. I also don't see why a being with ultimate freedom could not choose to suspend (but always with oversight) his freedom, or omniscience, or omnipresence, for a purpose ... such as in giving humans wills that somehow matter. I know this is knotty, but if we start with a willful being, we at least can have other wills to ponder. Naturalism doesn't have this benefit. Someone please explain will arising from nonwillful chemistry, in such a way that does not undermine every rational thought and action that we may choose. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-15-2003 07:37 PM).] |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Hello Stephanos I can imagine a non interfering God (see below) but it’s the “wills that somehow matter” in your post that worries me, free will presumes a freedom of choice for the individual made without direct interference from a third party, that includes deities. If God directly intercedes to influence our choice do we really have a free will? quote: This is one possible explanation - a non-interfering God – but is that the type of God some people claim to know and love, added to that I’m not sure it allows for a particularly rosy future for mankind. If free will is due to suspension of Gods ability to interfere directly in mans free will then presumably when that suspension comes to an end so too will the illusion of free will afforded to man. I don’t know about you but losing my free will doesn’t seem like paradise to me. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Crazy Eddie: "does or does not (God) have the ability and the free will to force my decision making process to his end?" Your statement is presupposing something. It states, in an a priori fashion, that you possess the ability to make decisions. This is at least some measure of freedom ... or you could not be the one making the decisions. I believe that we have the ability to choose. This is free will as commonly understood. Is it the same freedom of will that belongs to God alone? I would describe it as a limited or "creaturely" free will. What is it limited by? ... nature, time, influences, heredity, etc... But limited does not mean non-existent. Could it be possible that the question of freedom runs more on a gradient? And just because you don't possess the fullness, does it mean that you possess no measure of freedom? God give us freedom to choose. His ability to "force" your decision making process to his own ends, does not mean that he necessarily forces your decision. For example, My four year old son can freely scribble some dots on a piece of paper. I can connect those dots in such a way as to make a picture. Drawing the picture of course is an act of my own will and freedom that does not violate his. In the same way, why couldn't God have the unlimited ability and freedom to orchestrate our choices to conform to his own will and design ... without being forced to eliminate our real ability to choose? So in this scenario, your choices would be God's raw material to construct something of his own. You might argue that God's freedom would be compromised by the fact that he becomes dependent upon and limited by our choices. But this is precisely where the glory lies in the claims of Christianity. God's most alluring description is as the condescending one, the sacrificing one, the incarnate God who became flesh. So God gives up his freedom, in a sense, to give us ours ... even to the point of dying on a cross for sins (another word for abused and ill-wrought freedom). But even though he condescends, he doesn't compromise. The artist who is able to take someone's scribbles, and scratches, and wrong brush strokes, and make of them a breathtaking masterpiece is perhaps the greatest artist of all. So I guess looking at it this way, the Christian view is one of a God who gives up, if not omniscience and omnipotence, at least it's priviledges and perks for a time... who though he fully takes it up again (that is, his Godhood and the absolute sovereignty implied in the title), has in a real and personal way layed it down for humankind. What a secure freedom it is which doesn't have to grasp it with white knuckles. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-15-2003 07:23 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Sorry, but I just don't see where the premise leads to the conclusion. Imagine that I handed you a big, juicy, bright red apple. Best looking apple in the whole world. If I turned around five minutes later and asked you to give it back (assuming you were still admiring it and hadn't already slurped it down), would you willingly return it to me? I'm guessing, being a decent and accommodating fellow, that you likely would. Did the apple ever really belong to you? Your question seems to indicate you think not. And, you know, I would probably agree. But what if I didn't ask for it back? Ever? Would the fact that I "could" ask prevent you from accepting the gift and eventually eating the apple? I might even understand that kind of response if I had given you gifts in the past only to turn around and take them back again. But if I had given you countless apples, never asking they be returned, it just wouldn't make sense for you to keep putting them in a drawer in anticipation that I "might" rescind my gift this time? Yes, I believe God has the power to revoke His gift of free will. Should He ever exercise that power, I might even agree with you that the gift was never a true gift. But He hasn't, and the promise is that He won't. I see no reason, given those stipulations, to let my apple rot in a drawer. Not incidentally, some believe there is a third alternative in our apple scenario. Imagine, for a moment, that the apple you were given tasted even better than it looked. A thousand thousand times better! Instead of greedily eating the whole thing, you might well find yourself satisfied after a few bites and feel so appreciative that you want to share your gift with the one who gave it. Does free will cease to be free if it is freely given? Or, to return to your own analogy, what if you asked God to make you look at your knee? |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Eddie: quote: Isn't that a bit like saying that we're all walking deadmen because there exist murderers in our society who have the ability to kill us? quote: What does that have to do with the question of whether or not we have free will? Besides, I don't think anyone here would think anything to the contrary of your statement. Why? Because we live in a universe in which just about everything takes place at specific points in time. That includes your knee and any amount of staring at it you might engage in, whether divinely inspired or not. Stephanos: quote: I only know of the passage I cited earlier. It is found in the book you introduced me, as a matter of fact. Check out Book 4: Chapter 3 of Mere Christianity, entitled "Time Beyond Time." It's near the end. As far as your other comments are concerned, I'll read them over and see if I can find any objections or other thoughts. 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2 --Smit My Creations [This message has been edited by fractal007 (04-15-2003 09:19 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I stated earlier: "You might argue that God's freedom would be compromised by the fact that he becomes dependent upon and limited by our choices. But this is precisely where the glory lies in the claims of Christianity. God's most alluring description is as the condescending one, the sacrificing one, the incarnate God who became flesh. So God gives up his freedom, in a sense, to give us ours" Ron's last post brought Out something important, that I wasn't seeing clearly enough until I read it in his last reply. If one can argue that God's freedom is compromised by allowing ours, one can also argue that our freedom is compromised by his ... that either way, or for either party, freedom is not true freedom ... but only free in appearance. But the answer to that is the same from either vantage. What if freedom in the truest sense is one which freely gives itself up as a voluntary offering, and suspends it's rights for a greater right? If this isn't so, then obedience to the divine will (or any will for that matter) must be looked at as servile and slavish... and free will is in jeopardy. Since it might be considered a high attribute for God to surrender some of his own freedom (a timeless result of the incarnation) to give us ours, it could in the same way apply to us. Should we grudge not having absolute freedom ... what we would call complete autonomy? Maybe the degree to which we cannot have freedom, being creatures and not the Creator, is that part which should fittingly be offered back to him. To use an idea of C.S. Lewis, it is the eternal dance between the creature and the Creator. He has bowed to us and we learn to bow to him in return. Instead of this contingent freedom being called some mockery of freedom, perhaps total autonomy should be called the mockery ... the counterfeit. It just seems that since the beginning we have desired for autonomy amounting to Godhood, with devastating results ... There's another story somewhere about apples which illustrated this point. I know I've moved quite away from metaphysics and epistemology, and into ethics. But I think it all connects somehow. Anyway I thought Ron's analogy of offering apples to be a good one. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-15-2003 10:01 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Does infinity imply multiple gods? Maybe. I've often said that if man is made in the image of god and he made the universe the only possible explanation for his doing so would be that he was trying to impress a girl. Which would imply at least two gods -- in which case I would have to be diagnostic -- ow...been busy with that which makes us more equal than any other -- TAXES! so... now I must rest -- I'll get back into the cosmology issues soon though. (believe it or not -- Ron, Stephanos, and I are not that far apart on this -- really) ok ok... here's something to chew on anyway... logic, decisions, free will -- all necessary to us and our universe -- but -- not necessarily to god -- the topic question bogs down in it's anthropomorphing of god. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-16-2003 12:33 AM).] |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Ron, Apples are nice but I’d prefer an orange and that’s my point, if a third party has the ability to change my choice to an apple however nice that apple seems I’ve lost whatever free will I thought I had. Fractal, quote: No, because murderers don’t have the absolute ability to kill us they only have the ability to try, if God can intercede to override our free will I presume being omnipotent he will have that ability absolutely. quote: I was responding to the introduction of the premise that God existed outside of time in an earlier reply, I’m glad, but rather surprised, to hear that everyone agrees with my statement. Stephanas, Are you saying that God has the free will to choose whether to allow us to have a free will? If so how exactly is his free will diminished, that would be his freely arrived at choice after all wouldn’t it? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
CE: "Are you saying that God has the free will to choose whether to allow us to have a free will? If so how exactly is his free will diminished, that would be his freely arrived at choice after all wouldn’t it?" First question... Yes, I am saying that God has the free will to choose to allow us to have free will. His free will is diminished in the sense that he has relinquished absolute autocracy over every element of his creation. Having absolute control and unmitigated free will would mean dictating every grain of sand, every molecule, every atom, every mind. But not desiring automata, God chose to allow us to choose some things. That is how it was diminished ... He mitigated his glory enough to allow us to share some of it. But you are right in suggesting that he didn't really lose his free will. It is retained, in that he chose to allow us to have wills. There was a humility, but it was a willful humility. His free will is also retained, in the sense that he has reserved the ability to use our choices as raw material for his own ends. Just like I can connect my 4 year old's dots on the paper, and make a picture he never imagined, without interfering with where he put the dots. I would daresay that he might even like it better when I'm through. I am after all, a better artist than he is. So I guess I'm trying to say that God's free will was self-limited, but not diminished in value or Glory. (once again, the incarnation is the greatest example of this) This was the only way that we could have wills or any freedom at all. C.S. Lewis once said that one of the greatest miracles of deity has to be the ability to create beings who are able of their own accord, if they choose, to deny their Creator. Upon reflection, I have to agree with him. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Selected from Stephanos: quote: You could start with Stephen Wolfram -- the inventor/author of Mathmatica. His latest work http://www.wolframscience.com/ is 'A New Kind of Science' In the Q/A he describes the premise: quote: [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-16-2003 11:54 PM).] |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Eddie: Even assuming my counter is invalid, I still do not see that God's ability to counter our free will results in our not having it in the first place. This sounds a bit like boolean logic. The not operator is capable of inverting 1 to result in 0. But just because that operator exists and is capable of operating on some 1 does not mean that that 1 is already 0. 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2 |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR: "You could start with Stephen Wolfram -- the inventor/author of Mathmatica" Looks like some very innovative and interesting areas of research in the areas of complexity. I visited his own website, read alot of what he has to say about "A new kind of science". And I also read some reviews of the book. I perceived a certain pitch of egoism from his own descriptions of his research and findings. Of course this isn't always a bad thing, except to a point. Claiming that one's own findings will turn every human discipline upon it's head, from mathematics, to philosophy, to religion, seems presumptuous ... to say the least. Now I haven't read the book, so my replies are limited to first impressions ... from Wolfram, and from others. His critics describe his work as innovative, but not as Avante Gard or exclusively his own discovery, as he claims. This doesn't seem like an attack to me, but a reasonable assessment. Many of his critics seemed willing to give praise and credit to him when it was due. There are many other criticisms to be considered. You can check some out at the following: http://www.math.usf.edu/~eclark/ANKOS_reviews.html But granting that CA has merit, I still don't see how it can even approach the question of consciousness and will within a naturalistic universe. You can say that Wolfram's universe is more information based, and that substance is an illusion ... (consciousness and individuality, it seems, must follow), but the program being run without a willful designer, still imposes the naturalistic problem. Steven Weinberg in a review writes: "Wolfram even tackles the old conflict between belief in a deterministic view of nature and in the existence of free will. He suggests that free will is an illusion that arises from the apparent unpredictability of the complex behavior produced by those simple rules of biology that he imagines to govern the human organism." This illustrates exactly what I meant. I didn't deny that there is a plethora of explanations for consciousness in a naturalistic universe. But I also added a conditon in my request ... that "it would not undermine every rational thought and action we may choose". Consciousness and will and individuality turning out to be an illusion is pretty devastating. It's so devastating, that I'm compelled to ask, Why should I consider any of this illusion's propositions for a universal scheme to be worthy of consideration? You've also got to ask when it comes to such algorithms ... Since they were found and organized and executed by an intelligent willful mind (ie Stephen Wolfram), it is hard to conceive such as proof against an intelligent and willful universal mind. Who was the organizer of these universal algorithms to start with? Who designed this "universal computer" that he describes as a model for the cosmos? It lands us back to square one after all. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-19-2003 11:02 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I'd say that you're too kind Stephen when you say 'certain pitch of egoism' in regards to Wolfram. In fact -- 'presented with the Hubris of a megalomaniac' might be a more apt description of his demeanor. But, in reality what he has is just arrogance. It's the kind of arrogance that all of us have when we KNOW for a fact that we're right, and we all take on that demeanor when it happens. (It's the same kind of arrogance that religionists present their case with) Otherwise -- I suspect not much would ever get done. Of course that doesn't mean that Wolfram is right. Frankly -- it's not possible really to know at this point. We don't even know if Einstein was right, after all. But that's really the point. I'm not a detractor or follower of Wolfram personally. As I mentioned previously -- I'm still stuck in the 'old' science of string theory -- and not even good at it. I brought NKS into the discussion strictly as a counterpoint to your comments -- and I do think that he has, as you said, some interesting work. The notion that complexity evolves from a simple set of rules does have some merit that we can see repeating through nature -- not the least of which is our own DNA. It's not surprising to me that the scientific community, particularly mathematicians, are meeting Wolfram head on. He is a threat to the 'industry' of math. It's not uncommon for this kind of peer resistance to rear it's ugly head at new ideas -- particularly when presented with the haughtiness of Wolfram. It seems to follow though that Wolfram is able to describe the universe in the language of cellular automaton and computer code. That is his language -- just as math was Newton's. Just as Christianity is yours. Just as music was Russell's. I suspect that looking at the universe from the NKS perspective will yield some interesting finds -- but part of the problem of the 'science' is that the results of the simple rules aren't predictable -- I haven't read the book either -- but I would think this presents some challenges to Wolfram's would-be disciples. That still doesn't mean that he's wrong. Of course, the existence of NKS thought and complexity science also doesn't mean that you're wrong. Personally, I've always been offended to think that who I am can be so easily altered by a regimen of Zoloft or Prosac. In fact, when it was suggested by a therapist a few years back I was completely taken aback. After all -- I had perfectly good reasons to be depressed. I was supposed to be. I didn't want a magic pill to take away my pain because that was all I had left. On the other hand, when you watch someone die slowly, as their brain gets eaten up with cancer and the morphine begins to take them over and they become progressively someone else (which would be the case of just someone with alcoholism for instance)-- you begin to realize that brain chemistry is really all that we do have up there -- which presents us again with the problem of theology. That you find the problem of naturalism as the conclusion to every question is not surprising Stephen -- because you're looking for it. Just as the atheist is looking for a way to discredit the existence of a god. In reality though -- we're all agnostics -- the difference being the Christian (or other theists et al) is the agnostic that wants there to be a God and want him to be the right one. The atheist is either a theist who is mad at god (thereby no atheist at all) or the agnostic that hopes there isn't one. Somewhere on the continuum is me -- just the plain agnostic that's willing to listen to ideas. Wolfram would present the universe as an illusion (but I notice he's charging money for his book). Kapra points out that quantum physics approaches the point where the universe looks like a great thought. The Maharamayna says 'The supreme truth is established by total silence, not logical discussion and argument. He alone sees the truth who sees the universe without the intervention of the mind, and therefore without the notion of a universe.' And of course the Hebrew scriptures simply say 'Be still and know that I am'. Who knows? |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Aaron- I must admit that this is indeed an interesting topic to ponder. Since I am of no mind to completely read all of the posts that are here before, I shall post mine as I see the facts for myself... G-d's Omniscience and free will are nowhere near exclusive terms, and work together quite handily, thank you. Figure it this way... I have two children. I am spending my time and energy teaching them to make good and wise decisions for themselves, because I know what will happen if they don't. The decisions, however, are ultimately theirs to make, and theirs to abide by. Another way to see it is by watching (and quoting) from the movie "Oh G-d" (My apologies to all of us not young enough to have missed the commercials for it on TV). George Burns said, in the lead role, that He gave us all the tools to make the decisions, yet what we do with those tools is up to us. When the morning cries and you don't know why... |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Fractal, quote: My presumption was that God at some point would act to intervene, your assertion is that only at that point will mankind lose his free will and that at every point before that time mankind did in fact possess a free will. I maintain that the point at which God decides to intervene isn’t important it’s the fact that he/she can and would intercede if it looks like mankind is making a wrong decision that matters. The very fact that he/she chooses not to interfere acts to diminish mankind’s free will in the same way that a child’s free will is diminished by the interceding acts of a parent (see below). Ringo, Would you allow your children the free will to do anything they chose to? If your children decided to run away from home, stay up all night or eat chocolate for every meal I’m fairly certain that you, as a responsible parent, would intervene. That’s what parents do, they filter the decisions of their offspring allowing them only enough free will to make choices that the parent agrees with, children only have the free will to make choices that are sanctioned by the parent which is in essence no free will at all. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Now you're confusing free will with permission to do something, two very different things, and I suspect you're mixing in a pinch of "ability to do something," which, again, is a very different thing. The parent decides what a child will do, but does not, in the short term, determine what a child will think. And as we all know, in the long term, the parent has almost no control at all. Short of extreme circumstances, you have the free will to steal something if you wish. That's entirely your decision. You do not have permission to steal something, of course, but that lack does not rob you of the underlying decision. It just sets a price, one you may be unwilling to pay. And while you may have the free will to decide to steal everything, it's doubtful you have the ability to do so. Free will isn't about actions, but about choices. Your presumption that God would intervene remains just a presumption, one that makes little sense even on the surface. What would be the point of creation? To use your own analogy, you're not talking about training a child, or disciplining a child, or even restraining a child for their own safety. What you're talking about is a full frontal-lobotomy of the kid, turning it into an mindless robot completely under your control. That might make a parent's life easier, but it wouldn't be very satisfying. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Ron, I admit mixing choices with permissions Ron and definitely agree that they are different animals entirely but they are inextricably linked and easily confused, I was hoping to use the impact of one to highlight the implications of the other without clearly defining either. I should have known better than to try to gloss over such important distinctions with so many qualified decorators in the house. [This message has been edited by Crazy Eddie (04-21-2003 02:28 PM).] |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Eddie- I didn't make myself clear on my post. As of right now, my job is to teach my children how to make intelligent decisions for their own life, so that when they are adults, and no longer answer to me and their mother, they are able to make the proper decisions more easily. Right now, they DO NOT have free reign... that does not mean that I rule with the ever-popular iron fist. Do I allow the kids to make decisions that I know are complete and total mistakes?? Sometimes. A good example would be the chocolate cake you mentioned. My son got a double chocolate fudge cake with chocolate fudge icing for his birthday the year he was 12. (he's 14 now) We had a small family only party after dinner, and he insisted that he was old enough to make his own decisions, and that he felt it was perfectly OK to eat the entire thing. My wife and I decided that, if he was old enough to do it, he was old enough to take the consequences. So we told him to have fun, and eat as much as he wanted to. 1/2 an hour later, I wandered into the dining room to find an emptry cake tray, and a VERY unhappy child. His stomach hurt, and he was sick because of all the junk. result of us allowing him to make that mistake... He now limits HIMSELF with the amount of garbage that he eats. Another such example happened just a couple of months ago. He wanted to see a movie that we had rented, however, it was almost his bedtime. He argued that since he was all of 14 and a half, he should be allowed to stay up all night on the weekend if he chose to. We absolutely agreed, and he stayed up until about 4:30 in the morning watching videos. Well, just because he went to bed extremely late (early??) didn't give him any reason at all to skip Mass the next morning... and his mother and I chose that particular morning to attend the 7:30 service instead of the 12:00 service because we had a family outing planned. He was not ahppy when I turned on his light and yelled for him to get out of bed. He was even more unhappy when I stole his blanket (it was still winter,and I only keep the house at 60 degrees at night... that's why the Lord invented blankets.. and 65 during the day. He was tired, and he was cold, and he was miserable. He was also very unhappy when I kept jabbing him in the ribs as he tried to fall asleep during the service, and he was severely unhappy when I didn't allow him to sleep at all until his normal bedtime that night... ok, I cheated and gave him that extra half hour... End result?? My son now understands that his life (be it church, or work, or whatever) and responsibilities do not stop in the morning if he decides to stay up all night. There have been other small instances where we have allowed him to reap the "benefits" of his actions. Are they dangerous? No. Are they going to cause him harm? No. I am not perfect, however, I am a better father than that. I can sit here and lecture him and tell him what, when, and how to do everything, and all that's going to do is give me a sore throat and him tired ears. Occasionally experience is the best teacher. Now, once he becomes an adult, He will have a set of rules to live by (as do we all), and he is expected to follow them. Unfortunately, the only one that can decide if he will is him. I, as his father, can no longer do it for him. The same thing applies, I feel, to THE Father. He gave us a set of rules to live by, and sent us people to assist him in teaching those rules to us (parents, clergy, Gospels, profits, etc), but at the end of the day... it is OUR decision on how well we follow them, and we are forced to accept the responsibility of not doing what is expected. I hope that better explains my thoughts on Free Will vs. Omniscience. When the morning cries and you don't know why... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR wrote: ". . . when you watch someone die slowly, as their brain gets eaten up with cancer and the morphine begins to take them over and they become progressively someone else (which would be the case of just someone with alcoholism for instance)-- you begin to realize that brain chemistry is really all that we do have up there -- which presents us again with the problem of theology." Being a Registered Nurse, I do see this kind of thing on a regular basis ... Alchoholism and Cancer being only two examples. And I would be foolish to present Christianity as a pat answer to pain, decay, and death in the human experience. In it's best expression, it is an answer from one who has gone into the very depths of these experiences ... God himself, in the person of Jesus Christ. And even those who are believers, if they are honest, will not glibly claim that death is a petty obstacle. Something which caused Jesus himself to weep is no light matter. It causes me to weep often enough. But to say that such things show that "brain chemistry is really all that we do have up there" is a slipping toward despair. Not only would that make death in the final analysis meaningless, but also life. It makes the incoherency of someone with end-stage disease, equal with what we would consider the sanest and clearest of minds in day to day life. Chemistry is chemistry. And if all there is is that, then we've lost our basis of value ... even to value life over death. But we don't live like that. I suspect that one of the reasons people decide that reality is no more than a mirage of molecules, is the general ugliness and impropriety of death itself. I know, I've been there too. We get offended at death. Why else would you have such a hard time accepting a conclusion that you obviously feel you have been forced to, by the macabre nature of dying? But the very fact that you find it difficult is maybe a clue to something within, that seems to think otherwise. You have made value judgements that death is an absurdity. And the very fact that you have, tells me that there is something in you more than chemistry. Is your preference of life over death arbitrary? I ask, because not only do you prefer it, you do so along with the vast majority of humanity. It could be said that since some afflicted people prefer death, there is evidently nothing universal about the preference for life. But isn't welcoming death the exception to the rule? And most people prefer death only when life has become "death-like" in regard to decay and pain. So even death is desirable only because we project onto it experiences of life, such as peace, cesation of pain, quietness, etc... We really seem to want life after all ... across the board. Why would this tendency be present in a race that is merely chemistry? Naturalism only reiterates the problem. Christianity does give an answer. There is the assertion of a God who created life and prefers it. There is an explanation as to why we are dying and subject to futility, pain, and death... All of which concords with our inner struggles with moral questions, guilt, and death. There is also the assurance that for believers death is not the end of the story. We have a promise of resurrection for the body. I find it interesting that you wrote your reply on 4/20, when all over the world people celebrate what is in the deepest sense, the very answer to your post. LR: "In reality though -- we're all agnostics" In a world view that allows knowledge to exist and have meaning, this is not necessarily true. Some may really know after all. Just food for thought. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-24-2003 11:52 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Your conclusions carry more weight, Stephen, than your arguments. Let's rephrase your question slightly. Why would the will to survive be a survival trait? If we, as a race, didn't prefer life over death, we wouldn't be here to listen to your questions today. Chemistry, random events, and sufficient time will answer your question every bit as well as does the Bible. That you and many others find the answer unsatisfying, by itself, doesn't make the answer wrong. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Only to you, or someone who shares your paradigm and particular value system. John Lennon posed the really interesting question: What IF there's no heaven? How then do you live? Where do you find meaning? What is the best way? Would it change what you would do tomorrow morning when you get out of bed? quote: No it doesn't. A person with schizophrenia has an actual physical illness in their brain the same as a person in end-stage does. Which is what took me aback about my therapist's suggestion. Psycotropic medications can take the schizophrenic's abnormal brain function and return it to a normal state. But, why on earth would a mental health professional want to treat someone with a 'normal' brain, experiencing a normal response to a dreadful situation, with a mind-altering drug? quote: And the answer from Christianity is? Because a woman ate a piece of fruit? I don't want to go down that path really because I don't want this to turn into invective as we've done before. On the other hand -- if you want to call it naturalism -- ok.. but .. there is a perfectly good survival reason for death. The human genome is designed to seek to propagate as broadly as possible(or in the case of some with as many broads as possible). It is apparently designed to live just long enough to reproduce and raise offspring -- and then get out of the way. This ensures the continuation of the genome and a rapid succession of opportunities for adaptation and improvement. That may not be an answer you prefer but it does not reiterate the problem. quote: If you encounter those 'some' out there walking on water or moving mountains please be sure to e-mail me. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-27-2003 05:30 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Stephanos : "But to say that such things show that "brain chemistry is really all that we do have up there" is a slipping toward despair. Not only would that make death in the final analysis meaningless, but also life." LR's reply: "Only to you, or someone who shares your paradigm and particular value system. John Lennon posed the really interesting question: What IF there's no heaven? How then do you live? Where do you find meaning? What is the best way? Would it change what you would do tomorrow morning when you get out of bed?" Take a look at your first statement, in the light of the history of philosophy ... and in the light of history itself. Nihilism and existential despair arose out of the ashes of the Enlightenment ... precisely the part of history where we asserted our own autonomy and prowess of reason apart from our Creator. When this intoxicating illusion died, and we realized that we weren't all that we thought we were, so did the grand feelings of the Renaissance. This is the path of naturalism. A boastful assertion that there is no God, but that we are great anyway, followed by a painful realization that we aren't. Then comes all the alienation from nature and from each other, that results from such a premise. The only rebound that has been offered seems to be an antifoundationism that has learned to live with despair. When we think that bad news is the only news, the horror is not altered, but we become altered to it ... comfortably numb. I say all of this to say that despair is not limited to a theistic worldview. I'm not denying that it is a part (Just read the Psalms)... But only in a theistic worldview are we even offered an antidote. "Relax. Sure, there's no such abstract thing as 'hope', because we only superimpose our wishes onto the faceless vortex of nothingness. But hey, It isn't so bad." ... isn't really an answer. John Lennon did pose the question above, but he didn't answer it. Naturalistic philosphers have been trying to answer it ever since the Enlightenment. The answer, without the Lord, has led to a non-answer . . . denial of knowledge, truth, and any meaning that we do not create ourselves. Now does that mean that naturalists do not have any real purpose or meaning in life? No. They do, despite their own paradigm. God is good to all. When you say that day to day, you have purpose and integrity, I don't deny it. Stephanos : "...It makes the incoherency of someone with end-stage disease, equal with what we would consider the sanest and clearest of minds in day to day life. Chemistry is chemistry." LR's reply: "No it doesn't. . ." I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am not denying that there is a difference between those who are sane, and those who aren't, or even those who are moribund. But when someone asserts that humans are chemistry and nothing more, the differences are of no consequence. Sanity, insanity, happiness, sadness, despair, health, illness, are said to be just different configurations of atoms and molecules. You say that they matter because we connect values to them. Yeah, but in that worldview, even values are chemistry ... the same essential phenomenon. With naturalism, there is no value system that is not completely arbitrary, and so without meaning. But as I said before, I know that naturalists, agnostics, and atheists do not operate according to the full implications of their worldview. So I agree with you. I know that there is in reality a significant difference between such things. LR: " The human genome is designed to seek to propagate as broadly as possible(or in the case of some with as many broads as possible). It is apparently designed to live just long enough to reproduce and raise offspring -- and then get out of the way. This ensures the continuation of the genome and a rapid succession of opportunities for adaptation and improvement." It's interesting that you use the word "designed" here. Also the words "opportunities" and "improvement" suggest a standard. What standard was there to measure any improvement, in a wholly chemical world before life arose? Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (05-01-2003 05:16 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: But Christianity rests on the same premise, Stephen. Does it really matter if it's science or the Bible that tells us we aren't all that hot? According to your logic, that realization dissolves into despair regardless of how we reach it. Of course, in reality, learning that the Universe doesn't revolve around us isn't debilitating regardless of the source. What you would consider a false Purpose is still a Purpose, and every healthy adult (with an emphasis on healthy) will find it where they can. Personally, I don't think that's an accident. God's plan would apparently be ill-served if two thirds of all humanity killed themselves. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"But Christianity rests on the same premise, Stephen. Does it really matter if it's science or the Bible that tells us we aren't all that hot? According to your logic, that realization dissolves into despair regardless of how we reach it." Yes, and to come up we had to go down. But when down is the result of a fall, there is the possibility of standing upright again. When down is the result of sheer nature, and up doesn't even exist, it's a different thing altogether. One scenario has redemption on which to base hope, the other only arbitrary attempts. I was referring mainly to the prerequisite of faith in God, to have any pathway out of the nihilistic night. One position at least holds the possiblity of exodus. And anyway I really was referring more to philosophical naturalism ... not science. Science does not say there is no God. Some believe, as I think you do, that it very much indicates there is. "Of course, in reality, learning that the Universe doesn't revolve around us isn't debilitating regardless of the source. What you would consider a false Purpose is still a Purpose, and every healthy adult (with an emphasis on healthy) will find it where they can. Personally, I don't think that's an accident. God's plan would apparently be ill-served if two thirds of all humanity killed themselves. " I agree with you. The fall from pride can be a good thing, as long as it doesn't prove fatal. You say that you personally don't think it's an accident. Well, neither do I. Actually that's my whole point. The most thoroughgoing naturalists, atheists, and agnostics are made in his image too. His gifts are given liberally to all. But wasn't his plan that natural grace would draw them and lead them to a fuller knowledge of himself, and not that the truth would remain "supressed", as mentioned in Romans chapter one? I know I'm talking in biblical language here, but what I mean is this... The purpose, general industry, and satisfaction that is given more or less to all of humanity, if not meant to lead us to God, may have lost it's true purpose too. I'm not denying that it is generally present, regardless of someone's held beliefs. I'm just saying that it's a signpost, not the destination. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (05-02-2003 11:55 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I was reading an interesting book called "An Overture Of Light" by Calvin Miller the other night and came upon the following lines of poetry, which touch on our topic. They spoke of all they'd be Once the nothingness had yielded: "I shall give up sole volition- Sovereign and undistputed To Create the precious Gift of human will," the Father said, "That all who live may know How glorious it is to be like God And deep within the self to choose." "I shall give up my own right Of self-protection and wear Such wounds as flesh may know," The Son replied. "I shall lead all who will To turn from mere mortality To become a part of everything enduring," The Spirit called. Stephen |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Too tired to approach this one at the moment Stephen, your work is well done as always -- just one quick note: Learn the difference between a real atheist and a fake atheist (that is to say a theist who is mad at god)...! (here's a clue -- a real one doesn't have an agenda) [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (05-03-2003 12:57 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR, But haven't you noticed this about agendas ... that they can be as unassuming as just wanting to do your own thing? Atheism that springs from purely metaphysical considerations was something that even Aldous Huxley was skeptical of. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (05-06-2003 01:12 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Actually no, I'd call that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Speaking of which -- Jefferson is as good a segue as any -- quote: If I'm to assume that despair is the end of 'naturalism' (which I think you're using as a cache to hold atheism, agnosticism, deism, et al) because of the Nihilsts then I could equally conclude that the 'end' of white male christianity is violence, terror, and racism due to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Jones, but that wouldn't be true either. White Male Christianity has given us Jerry Falwell and John Shelby Spong, Tony Campolo and Pat Robertson, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, there is no definitive any more than there is a definitive among 'naturalists' -- Einstien, Jefferson, Darrow, Darwin, Nietzsche -- all very different. And the Deist, Jefferson, gave us one of the most clear visions of hope ever in the Declaration of Independence. (that should give you PLENTY to dispute but why stop there?)quote: But Lennon did answer it -- it wasn't a great answer -- but an answer -- all the people living for today, in peace -- not exactly a roadmap. His point is though quite valid -- would the map of the world be different? Would we see the wars we're seeing now? His thoughts were penned in the midst of the Cold War -- which was very much a religious war -- the good Christian America vs. the evil Godless Soviet Union -- to the extent that Eisenhower had 'under God' put in the Pledge of Alegience. BTW That's what I mean when I say an 'agenda' --crusading against things like the pledge or a plaque of the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn -- a real Atheist or Agnostic doesn't give a rat's patootie if people beleive in one god or a thousand -- it isn't that big of a deal -- and even Jefferson recognized that if he didn't attribute the 'rights' he bragged about in the Declaration to a higher power then there is NO stopping the state from trampling all over us constantly. So as an agnostic --I'm quite happy to have the prospect of a god reigning in the likes of Falwell. quote: Yes -- I use the word designed because it is appropriate -- the adaptive nature of life demands constant design changes -- just as the common cold has mutated into the SARS virus. It redesigned itself. Thats one of the really intersting things about humans -- that we can recognize the difference between a percieved optimum and reality -- that standard is not fixed either -- it is based on adaptive characteristics as well and objectives that are subjective. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (05-24-2003 09:39 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Gee LR, why such a short reply?  I guess my replies are none the shorter. Give me a few days and I'll get back to you on this. I must recover from a work week(end) that will end after Monday Thanks, Stephen. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
