Jump to content


Photo

Omniscience


  • Please log in to reply
257 replies to this topic

#221 ksalzar_*

ksalzar_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 965 posts

Posted 19 June 2005 - 01:50 AM

I just read through all 8 pages of this thread.....Long read.

I am not a person who has much experience in discussing(or debating as the case may be) in philosophy.
There are many statements I cannot understand, which is a bit annoying unfortunately as I would like to follow the logic.

There are also alot of things I wanted to comment on along the way but by the time I got done reading it all to catch up I have forgotten the many things I wanted to comment on.

Many of the questions and speculations brought up seemed obvious to me as certain biblical passages came to mind. If I get a chance to re-read it I will bring these up specifically I suppose. The only example I can think of at the moment is regarding the "omni-beneign"(did I spell beneign correctly, probably not) being. Verses such as this...

Romans 2:6-8
who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal  life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do R74 not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.


Obviously God is not always beneign to every person in every situation.


Anyhow, it seems I am well surpased by more than a couple here in both my writing/composition skills and (more importantly in this instance) my philisophical skills.

Which brings me to a particular question that is on my mind regarding both pantrog and skeptic. Are your intentions in this thread to enlighten me, to build me up in the way of truth and knowleadge? Or is this soley a past time for you? The reason I ask is I am not willing to devote time to re-reading this thread and actually posting my thoughts if the people I am discussing with are not going to be willing to bend down to my handicapped position on logic and philosophy and help me to understand the things they write and put forth. For instance I know that Adanac asked what a certain sentence Pantrog wrote meant, to which I was wondering the same thing as it went right over my head - but in my read(with a little skimming, so I may have missed the reply if it was there) I did not see an explanation. This is unfortunate since it seemed to be a key sentence in understanding a few points, and more importantly understanding peoples positions and motives in the discussion.


Well hopefully my few points were not to far below the level of discussion on this thread so as to be a waiste of time for you all, they are simply my thoughts on the subject given in an attempt to help each other understand truth better.

-Kyle

Edited by ksalzar, 19 June 2005 - 01:56 AM.


#222 ksalzar_*

ksalzar_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 965 posts

Posted 19 June 2005 - 02:09 AM

Those deaths will occur regardless of the model we use. You know that. You're not trying to avoid several billion deaths. You're trying to contrive several billion rewards of perfection and avoidance of suffering.


with respect, and I appreciate we will disagree, I don't consider several billion unavoidable deaths 'glorious'.

Nor do I. Why would you think that I would consider that glorious?



I suppose this is one example before I go to bed where I see a biblical reference as giving an obvious answer to the posed position.

Ezekiel 33:11
Say to them, `As I live!' declares the Lord GOD, `I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.


God does not consider death glorious either from these verses. Perhaps I am missing the nuaince of the argument though? Maybe we are discussing the deaths of the "innocent" people(as opposed to the "wicked"), which is a discussion in and of itself.

Anyhow, if I am missing the suttleties of the discussion here hopefully someone will be kind enough to guide me to a point where I can benefit from this discussion as well.


It seems obvious to me that the deaths are not glorious, yet justice is glorious.
The loss of freedom of a criminal due to his crimes is not glorious(going to jail or whatever the punishment may be), its a tragedy - yet the government executing the punishment for wrong doing is just, it is a good thing(dare I say glorious thing?).
Is this not correct?

Edited by ksalzar, 19 June 2005 - 02:15 AM.


#223 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 19 June 2005 - 03:15 AM

Christadelphians have the truth yes ... or no?

Yes.

Christadelphian total population ~50,000 - 'correct'


Maybe.

Human total population ~6,000,000,000 - 'not correct'


No. There may be other groups which are correct.

Therefore in considering my initial 'speculation' that - humans are commonly unwittingly deluded about their metaphyscial position. The Bayesian prior probability for a human 'being correct' is ~0.00000833. I might be tempted to buy a Pascalian-lottery ticket at these odds ... but the muslims and catholics are offering better deals.


Do your equation with atheism and some form of theistic belief, and then tell me what you get.

But at the end of the day, do tell me what this is about.

Sorry, and dedicated members of faithful judaic traditions until 30AD. You presently possess the definititive memories and personalities from a predicted universe we never bothered actually doing. Well moving on I think we have time for a quick hymn ..."


What does that mean?

#224 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 19 June 2005 - 06:06 AM

Kyle, hello

Which brings me to a particular question that is on my mind regarding both pantrog and skeptic. Are your intentions in this thread to enlighten me, to build me up in the way of truth and knowleadge? Or is this soley a past time for you?


well once again I can only speak for myself - skeptic, if he is around, can perhaps give his take. Firstly this is a philosophy thread on an internet forum, so yes I'm here to explore complex ideas, theres nothing like being challenged on an idea to make you go and understand it better. Ultimately you have to form your own opinions, you cannot rely on us to supply them.

If there are any particular areas you want recovered you'd better explicitly state them. If you were interested in my breakdown of the varied views on determinism produced in the history of philosophy - a look at a revelvant wiki is porbably the best thing to do.

Ultimately I agree the deity would logically have to described as semi-benign, but then this is just another untestable 'emporer's new clothes' characteristic along with the invisibility, immortality, omnipotence and omnipresence. I'm sure the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) is semi-benign as well.

God does not consider death glorious either from these verses.


No rational human thinks that death of innocents is glorious, this does not mean that it is true of a semi-benign deity. Given the fact that 'he' fore-saw & permited a world where terrible things happen to innocent people several times every minute .. you begin to wonder.

http://bmj.bmjjourna...l/330/7505/1402

Do your equation with atheism and some form of theistic belief, and then tell me what you get.

But at the end of the day, do tell me what this is about.


Even if there are ten times as many non-CDs 'that are correct' (who? which hindu sects did you have in mind) my initial assertion that '>99.99% of humans are commonly unwittingly deluded about their metaphyscial position' only needs adjusted to - 99.17% to still hold true.

Sorry, and dedicated members of faithful judaic traditions until 30AD. You presently possess the definititive memories and personalities from a predicted universe we never bothered actually doing. Well moving on I think we have time for a quick hymn ..."


well some hymns are quite short. The tricky bit I suppose is if you had faithful christadelphians from all ages they may not all agree on which hymn book to use.

But the concept of a 'definitive' state at resurrection - is similar to our 'information' discussion next door. If what a person is and thinks and knows is an information construct (say ~10 exabytes) that is reconstructed on judgment day... if the acceptable constructs are known by the deity at 7:30am Monday 1st January, 4000 B.C. why not just get on with constructing them to start with and avoid all the dead babies?

#225 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 19 June 2005 - 08:09 AM

Do your equation with atheism and some form of theistic belief, and then tell me what you get.

But at the end of the day, do tell me what this is about.


Even if there are ten times as many non-CDs 'that are correct' (who? which hindu sects did you have in mind) my initial assertion that '>99.99% of humans are commonly unwittingly deluded about their metaphyscial position' only needs adjusted to - 99.17% to still hold true.

Yes I agree, but you've missed my point. Please read it again.


Sorry, and dedicated members of faithful judaic traditions until 30AD. You presently possess the definititive memories and personalities from a predicted universe we never bothered actually doing. Well moving on I think we have time for a quick hymn ..."


well some hymns are quite short. The tricky bit I suppose is if you had faithful christadelphians from all ages they may not all agree on which hymn book to use.

But the concept of a 'definitive' state at resurrection - is similar to our 'information' discussion next door. If what a person is and thinks and knows is an information construct (say ~10 exabytes) that is reconstructed on judgment day... if the acceptable constructs are known by the deity at 7:30am Monday 1st January, 4000 B.C. why not just get on with constructing them to start with and avoid all the dead babies?


Because that is not a process which brings glory to God.

#226 He-man

He-man

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,673 posts

Posted 19 June 2005 - 10:06 AM

Mordecai: No the source of religion is man

:stop:

God is the "source of everthing".
"It is atheistic to affirm the existence of God (in the way man exists) as it is to deny it. God does not exist as a being. He is the ground and power of Being . Everything that is, has both its origin and its power to be, in him." Princeton Seminary Bulletin, Nov 60, pp. 11-21

As we cannot call God a being, so we cannot call him a person, he is the ground of everything personal. God participates in everything that is but the divine participation creates that in which it participates. There is hardly a word about God in Scripture which does not affirm his freedom. He creates, saves, reveals, and punishes without being influenced in any way.

In more abstract terms, God is free because he has "aseity" he is a se, self-derived. One may add that God is his own destiny, and in God freedom and destiny are one.

God is a living God, he is "spirit" which is the unity of power and meaning. Spirit is then the "telos" or fulfillment of life. The statement that God is Spirit, means that life as spirit is the inclusive symbol for the divine life.

God's originating creativity power of "creatio ex nihilo" means there is nothing prior to or alongside of God , with which he creates. There is no second power or material co-eternal with God out of which he creates.

Man's fall is the result of actualized freedom. Man is the "imago Dei"image of God in which he differs from all other creatures, namely, his rational structure.

God out of eternity creates things and time together. God is never a spectator, he always directs everything toward its fulfillment.
God is the "source of everthing".

Edited by He-man, 19 June 2005 - 10:09 AM.


#227 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 19 June 2005 - 01:58 PM

Do your equation with atheism and some form of theistic belief, and then tell me what you get.

But at the end of the day, do tell me what this is about.


Even if there are ten times as many non-CDs 'that are correct' (who? which hindu sects did you have in mind) my initial assertion that '>99.99% of humans are commonly unwittingly deluded about their metaphyscial position' only needs adjusted to - 99.17% to still hold true.

Yes I agree, but you've missed my point. Please read it again.


ok the maths:

Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand

1) Assuming that one of these is correct.
2) Taking the monotheistic judeo-christian traditions vs. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist

Your looking at a bayesian prior probability of ~ 18% for atheism, compared with 56% for yourselves (within which we must include Anglican priests, Ultra Orthodox Rabbis, Pope Benedict XIV and Sunni terrorists).

But at least we agree on the high frequency with which humans delude themselves.

#228 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 19 June 2005 - 08:07 PM

Your looking at a bayesian prior probability of ~ 18% for atheism, compared with 56% for yourselves (within which we must include Anglican priests, Ultra Orthodox Rabbis, Pope Benedict XIV and Sunni terrorists).


If we have 18% atheists, and 56% religious, then what are the other lot? Agnostics?

But even with the statistics you presented, is that going to make you run out and join one of those religions? No. Your entire 'argument' regarding statistics was just a legpull, it wasn't even relevant to the discussion.

But at least we agree on the high frequency with which humans delude themselves.


Absolutely. And I personally have no problem with that. That's their business, isn't it?

Edited by Fortigurn, 19 June 2005 - 08:09 PM.


#229 He-man

He-man

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,673 posts

Posted 20 June 2005 - 03:28 PM

Pantrog:my initial assertion that '>99.99% of humans are commonly unwittingly deluded


Let us look at some other assertions: Moses led 40,000 people out into the desert and guess what? Less than 2% actually made it into the holy land of promise.
Moses himself was not even allowed to enter! :eek:

So, take 2% of the Christianity 2.1 billion, (even if they were all correct) population and see what possibility you come up with numerically, of any of them making it into the Kingdom of God. :bow:

God is Omnipotent and with the affirmation of God, the Father Almighty, separates exclusive "monotheism" from every other religion.
Sin is unbelief "hubris". Unbelief is not the rejection of church doctrine. It means the act or state in which man turns away from God and toward himself of his own freewill.
Self elevation is man's greatness, but the danger is that man will refuse to recognize his finitude. He elevates himself beyond his limitations. Man turns away from God to draw the whole world to himself and make himself the center and focus of all reality.
The attempt to be the center of everything gradually has the effect of its ceasing to be the center of anything. Destiny is distorted into mechanical necessity.
Having lost a sense of God's omnipresence man experiences a spatial contigency ; he does not belong anywhere.
He remains a "pilgrim on earth"; homeless and dispairing.
Christ Anointed is the one who restores man to his essential unity with God. Faith guarantees itself. Historical critism cannot question the validity of such "immediate awareness".

God's originating creativity power of "creatio ex nihilo" means there is nothing prior to or alongside of God , with which he creates. There is no second power or "material co-eternal" with God out of which he creates.
:book:

#230 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 20 June 2005 - 04:53 PM

If we have 18% atheists, and 56% religious, then what are the other lot? Agnostics?

But even with the statistics you presented, is that going to make you run out and join one of those religions? No. Your entire 'argument' regarding statistics was just a legpull, it wasn't even relevant to the discussion.


sure - all good religious memes have some similar properties to the rest, wasn't sure how far you wanted me to count ... for interest lets have a look:

Hinduism. polytheism (3 million deities and counting)

Chinese traditional religion. i.e. Taoism, Confucianism (zero deities)- but I'm sure theres some Monkey god in there somewhere.

Buddhism. technical zero deities but it depends who you ask.

primal-indigenous. Aboriginal wind spirits?

African Traditional & Diasporic: - lots of animal spirits.

Sikhism. Monotheism, mutant judeo-christian at a push, maybe.

Zoroastrianism and Baha'i are pre-christian and post-christian monotheisms, not sure about Jainism. Shinto - ancestor/emporer-god worship.

No. Your entire 'argument' regarding statistics was just a legpull, it wasn't even relevant to the discussion.


<*sigh*> the only reason we went down this avenue was to get you to agree with a logical statement that I made 2 pages ago. Given that you are a 'human' and that humans frequently delude themselves about religion - it is (1) logically possible you are wrong about your position, (2) that a Bayseian estimate (a logical quantitative framework) suggests the probability is quite high.

...and before you start saying "ah but what about you" I've already stated my agreement in the thread called "Pantrog's Version Of Atheism".

#231 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 20 June 2005 - 07:16 PM

<*sigh*> the only reason we went down this avenue was to get you to agree with a logical statement that I made 2 pages ago. Given that you are a 'human' and that humans frequently delude themselves about religion - it is (1) logically possible you are wrong about your position...

It is logically possible, yes.

...(2) that a Bayseian estimate (a logical quantitative framework) suggests the probability is quite high...


And I pointed out that the probability is in fact higher for atheists. So this entire argument is, in fact, totally useless.

#232 He-man

He-man

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,673 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 12:43 PM

pantrog:sure - all good religious memes have some similar properties

I don't know why you include polytheistic religions in your calculations.

"The demoniac application of divine power is overcome by the establishment of an absolutely transcendent One. "Exclusive monotheism resists polytheism (Trinitarism) without the assertion of demoniac (Satanic) claim. This God is absolute against every other god in his self manifestation in the nation of Israel.

Hinduism the Brahma, for example, is polytheistic with the gods Shiva and Vishnu.


God is Omnipotent and with the affirmation of God, the Father Almighty, separates exclusive "monotheism" from every other religion :bow:

Pantrog, your own self elevation is your greatness, but the danger is that you will refuse to recognize your finitude. You elevate yourself beyond your limitations. You turn away from God to draw the whole world to yourself and make yourself the center and focus of all reality.
The attempt to be the center of everything gradually has the effect of its ceasing to be the center of anything. Destiny is distorted into mechanical necessity.
Having lost a sense of God's omnipresence you experience a spatial contigency ; you do not belong anywhere.
You remain a "pilgrim on earth"; homeless and dispairing.

John 12:44,45 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me :oops:

#233 Skeptic

Skeptic

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,108 posts

Posted 22 June 2005 - 07:48 AM

hi there, Kyle

...Which brings me to a particular question that is on my mind regarding both pantrog and skeptic. Are your intentions in this thread to enlighten me, to build me up in the way of truth and knowleadge?


Untill or unless you ask me directly to, I won't presume my words to carry that much importance...

Or is this soley a past time for you?


No, it isn't solely a pastime either. I visit BTDF mainly for my own benefit. The Christadelphian community know their Bible very well. Who better to take a question to about the Bible or God? BTDF is also a community that has only displayed patience with my personal search for truth and my struggle with trying to make sense of important aspects of religion that keep me from being able to just believe (something that seems to come so easily to others...).

The reason I ask is I am not willing to devote time to re-reading this thread and actually posting my thoughts if the people I am discussing with are not going to be willing to bend down to my handicapped position on logic and philosophy and help me to understand the things they write and put forth.


I applaude your willingness to read the whole thread, mate. This is a two-way thing however: people will accommodate you if you show yourself willing to read up a bit on logic and philosophy.

For instance I know that Adanac asked what a certain sentence Pantrog wrote meant, to which I was wondering the same thing as it went right over my head - but in my read(with a little skimming, so I may have missed the reply if it was there) I did not see an explanation. This is unfortunate since it seemed to be a key sentence in understanding a few points, and more importantly understanding peoples positions and motives in the discussion.


If you ask someone in a respectful way to clarify something he said (as you have just done) then that person would be quite rude not to answer you (unless he made an honest mistake and didn't see the answer).

Edited by Skeptic, 22 June 2005 - 07:49 AM.


#234 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 22 June 2005 - 11:02 AM

Kyle,

For instance I know that Adanac asked what a certain sentence Pantrog wrote meant, to which I was wondering the same thing as it went right over my head - but in my read(with a little skimming, so I may have missed the reply if it was there) I did not see an explanation. This is unfortunate since it seemed to be a key sentence in understanding a few points, and more importantly understanding peoples positions and motives in the discussion.


If you ask someone in a respectful way to clarify something he said (as you have just done) then that person would be quite rude not to answer you (unless he made an honest mistake and didn't see the answer).


I think the 'certain sentance' may have been this one.

Adanac posted his response here.

And then I replied here.

If you want to talk about it more - just let me know.

#235 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 22 June 2005 - 11:04 AM

I don't know why you include polytheistic religions in your calculations.


He-man, don't worry the 56% didn't include the polytheisms only the judeo-christian monotheisms as stated.

And I pointed out that the probability is in fact higher for atheists. So this entire argument is, in fact, totally useless.


Only when comparing with 'belief in a deity in general' (and even then its close), atheism/agnosticism ranks about four orders of magnitude higher in probability than certain theological systems I could mention....

Edited by pantrog, 22 June 2005 - 11:12 AM.


#236 He-man

He-man

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,673 posts

Posted 26 June 2005 - 10:29 AM

No, it isn't solely a pastime either. I visit BTDF mainly for my own benefit

:oops:

Okay, so how about discussing some scripture? :eek: :book:

#237 Skeptic

Skeptic

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,108 posts

Posted 27 June 2005 - 03:33 AM

No, it isn't solely a pastime either. I visit BTDF mainly for my own benefit

:oops:

Okay, so how about discussing some scripture? :eek: :book:

Sure. Go here...

#238 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 04 July 2005 - 06:39 PM

The answer, of course, is that God is not omnibenevolent. If He was omni-benign, He would treat absolutely everyone in an absolutely wonderful and positive fashion regardless of whether or not they obeyed His laws.


The problem is FORM determines the functions, this is why retarded people are retarded, the blind are blind, etc. Because they have inherited inferiorly designed physical structures, god knows the exact precise chemical and other physical mechanisms that cause people to think incorrectly. People are still ultimately automatons, in that their choices and thoughts are dictated by the physical structure of their brain whether they have free will or not because of god's divine foreknowledge of how the mechanics and chemistry of peoples minds work. God knows exactly what effects nutrients, agents, and other compounds and organisms ingested and exposed to human beings will have on them. He knows exactly what genetics are harmful and the resulting structural errors will cause human malfunctioning and disbelief in him, its all in the design. You believe in god because your exposure to the bible based on your genetically determined brain structure. To say humans have "Free will" is to say humans determine their own potential abilities, that they determine what their body does with nutrients, how their cells repair themselves and changethe structure of their mind, that consciously control their immune system and all the other automated systems that ARE NOT within conscious human control. Its painfully obvious that all people are not made equally, if all people are not made equally then the quality of their choices will very wildly according to their genetically inherited characteristics which shape all human information processing for the duration of their lives.

Not to mention human memory and intelligence varies wildly because human genetics is not standardized in any way, its totally subject to contingency of the mother, her diet, her environmental exposure to toxins, and the same goes for the child after it is born and developing, the first few years of life when you are feeding and looking after a child, your actions or negligence help shape in unknown ways what kind of choices the child will make later in life based on the quality and foundational structures made by cells which ARE beyond human control. All choices are direct results of the quality of intellectual ability you've been given, so you can't get away determinism and that god designed people badly from the star, god is ultimately responsible for everyone’s choices because HE is the designer, who do you blame when robots with free will malfunction and go awry? The designer, especially when that designer is capable of never producing imperfect beings that would not choose him, he intentionally created an imperfect being, not to mention the stupidity of god in not providing serious evidence of his identity so we could figure out whether or not there was a high probability that we were lying to ourselves. A person with different IQ's (and hence different brains) will make radically different choices. If all brains were made standardized they should all come to the proper conclusions.

Humans are simply constructs, if humans truly had free will they would have power equal to god, you can't truly be free without power or resources. Man is a slave, a dependent creature on the current laws of the universe which he has no control over. Think about Man's dependence on his own biology and nature, the water, nutrients, the sun, the solar systems place in the universe that for the moment is preventing the utter annihilation of his race by physical processes that will with 100% certainty wipe out all life when the sun goes or some cosmic calamity happens like a huge meteor strike or say a large chunk of the moon being knocked off by an impact and crashing into the earth.

The sole reason man is barbaric ignorant creature is because he is inferior form of creature, and for the believer, god designed people to be brutish, evil, ignorant, slanderous, etc, because after all god is the one who designed the genetic systems that people run on. He designed their emotional systems, how each individual will react to a situation based on the rules and structures he himself designed. People dont have any control over the rules of how their mind operates, no one has control over whether they learn something or not, or remember something or not, these automatic processes are all beyond conscious human control and were designed by god if you're a believer, so a person is at the whim at what their automated cellular systems were designed and instructed to do by god, your very thoughts and choices are dictated by the rules of those hidden systems you think you are in control of when you are not.

Sleep is the perfect example of how we are not in control or truly free, we cannot truly choose to go without sleep without harming our intellectual functioning or eventually our body forcing the shutdown of our consciousness or "free will center", this proves that people are at the mercy of their automated biological systems.

Edited by mordecai, 04 July 2005 - 09:21 PM.


#239 Paidion_*

Paidion_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted 20 December 2005 - 05:24 PM

If anyone (let alone God) knows that you will raise your hand at 8 PM tomorrow evening, then you are unable to refrain from raising your hand at 8 PM tomorrow.

For if it is known that you will raise your hand at 8 PM tomorrow (in the absolute sense of "know") then you will raise your hand at 8 PM tomorrow.

One of the meanings of "X knows that B (where B is a statement) is true" implies that B is true. That is part of what it means to KNOW.

So if the statement "you will raise your hand at 8 PM tomorrow" is true , then you will be unable to refrain from raising your hand at 8 PM tomorrow. But suppose the sentence is false. Then you will be unable to raise your hand at 8 PM tomorrow. In either case there is something you cannot do. Therefore, you do not have free will.

I believe that people do have free will --- the power to choose.
Therefore, I conclude that statements about the future have no truth value NOW. They are neither true nor false.

To say that someone KNOWS that a statement about the future is true is a declaration that the statement has present truth value. This I cannot accept

#240 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 21 December 2005 - 01:30 AM

If anyone (let alone God) knows that you will raise your hand at 8 PM tomorrow evening, then you are unable to refrain from raising your hand at 8 PM tomorrow.

For if it is known that you will raise your hand at 8 PM tomorrow (in the absolute sense of "know") then you will raise your hand at 8 PM tomorrow.

One of the meanings of "X knows that B (where B is a statement) is true" implies that B is true. That is part of what it means to KNOW.

So if the statement "you will raise your hand at 8 PM tomorrow" is true , then you will be unable to refrain from raising your hand at 8 PM tomorrow. But suppose the sentence is false. Then you will be unable to raise your hand at 8 PM tomorrow. In either case there is something you cannot do. Therefore, you do not have free will.

I believe that people do have free will --- the power to choose.
Therefore, I conclude that statements about the future have no truth value NOW. They are neither true nor false.

To say that someone KNOWS that a statement about the future is true is a declaration that the statement has present truth value. This I cannot accept.


I refer you to the attached document. :coffee:

Edited by Evangelion, 21 December 2005 - 01:11 PM.

'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users