A flaw with God.

Scofflaw

art wrote:

But put that into the perspective of a believer and the motivation of free will dissipates. Will I steal the apple or not steal it... steal or not steal... ah sod it, what's it matter, I'm already in hell or heaven...

Yes - although I suppose you could say that if you make the "good choice", it shows that you were destined for Heaven - in other words, by choosing the good, you demonstrate that you are good, reaffirming your path to Heaven.

If that were entirely sufficient as a deterrent from evil, religion would not require the very large number of other forms of moral coercion that it does in fact employ. I suspect it's one of the reasons that religion tends to focus more on the freewill aspects than on God's atemporal omniscience.

cordially,
Scofflaw

art

That then is I presume the heart of the contradiction: If God really is omnipotent (in the manner you propose), free will is essentially irrelevant to the believer in that God. But all religion requires free will to authenticate it's own purpose. So, in effect, Religion must oppose the omnipotence of God. Which is what most of the Old Testament does really, giving us the disconcerting image of God as a somewhat cantankerous old git in a white coat conducting experiments on his creations.

Scofflaw

art wrote:

That then is I presume the heart of the contradiction: If God really is omnipotent (in the manner you propose), free will is essentially irrelevant to the believer in that God. But all religion requires free will to authenticate it's own purpose. So, in effect, Religion must oppose the omnipotence of God. Which is what most of the Old Testament does really, giving us the disconcerting image of God as a somewhat cantankerous old git in a white coat conducting experiments on his creations.

I tend to agree. Universalist monotheisms need to be able to claim their God is omnipotent and omniscient, otherwise it looks pretty bad. On the other hand, you don't want the believer thinking too hard about that, so there's a massive set of hedging statements and obfuscation.

Mind you, that's not so much a philosophical paradox as a marketing problem...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

At the risk of simplification "free will" the main theistic excuse given as to why bad things happen to good people. We patently have free-will (leaving aside complex biological/chemical/philosophical arguments) therefore god must have granted it.

So although there may be a paradox between an omniscient god and free will - both are necessary to maintain the illusion. As Scofflaw says - they probably don't want people thinking too hard about it.

pH

I tend to agree with Scofflaw, just because you have free will doesn't necessarily mean that God couldn't look ahead into the future and see what you will do with it.

In one of the Dawkins threads where the radio interview was linked, the guy from the Indo was claiming the opposite as an undisputed fact - *without* God, free will cannot exist.

I would recommend the wiki page and also Dennett's "Freedom evolves"

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

I will propose, for the umpteenth time, and in no great hope of being understood, that one can reconcile free will with omniscience by positing God as able to view all time simultaneously, while we can only move through it sequentially. Our choices are freely made, but from God's point of view they have already been made.

But you're still leaving out that fact that God created the universe knowing full well the consequences of his initial choices. Cause and effect carries on from the dawn of time until now, and God knew that by putting that photon there instead of over there billions of years ago he was making it so that I'd be an atheist and that I'd do X Y and Z. And if he had put it over there then he'd make it so that I was a devout worshipper who turned left instead of right and chose A not B.

As he transcends time, and he created the universe, he therefore dicates 100% of existence from start to finish.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

But you're still leaving out that fact that God created the universe knowing full well the consequences of his initial choices. Cause and effect carries on from the dawn of time until now, and God knew that by putting that photon there instead of over there billions of years ago he was making it so that I'd be an atheist and that I'd do X Y and Z. And if he had put it over there then he'd make it so that I was a devout worshipper who turned left instead of right and chose A not B.

As he transcends time, and he created the universe, he therefore dicates 100% of existence from start to finish.

Hmm, no. God does play dice, let us say - the universe contains genuinely random events.

God does not dictate where this or that photon goes, nor did he do so when he created the universe.That is genuinely random, and so your choices are not constrained by God "setting things up" so that you make choice A rather than B. God observes, he does not dictate.

However, at the point of Creation, God certainly knew that you would choose of your own free will to become an atheist. Given that he nevertheless chose to create anyway, something over which you had no control, I would find that he bears too much responsibility for your choice to make punishment anything but an act of tyranny.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

As I'm pointing out on the Christian forum though, the idea that randomness exists external to God isn't really possible, without contradicting the main western definition of God.

If that were the case it would be

1 - Randomness
2 - God
3- The laws of the universe.

Most Christians will tell you that God has to come first on any list, everything begins and ends with God. To God there is no randomness.

God cannot be contained, enslaved, by any factor, including randomness. Randomness must exist below God, something cannot happen that is external to God. Which is why free will is a paradox. One of the ideas has to be wrong.

Personally I think we do have free will and God doesn't exist. But I probably shouldn't say that too much on the Christian forum.

Anyway, having too parrellel threads is too head wrecking ... everyone move over to the Christian forum

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

As I'm pointing out on the Christian forum though, the idea that randomness exists external to God isn't really possible, without contradicting the main western definition of God.

If that were the case it would be

1 - Randomness
2 - God
3- The laws of the universe.

Most Christians will tell you that God has to come first on any list, everything begins and ends with God. To God there is no randomness.

As I've said on the other thread, I can't see why there's a conflict between God and randomness. If He chooses to create randomness, he has the power to do so - He just doesn't have to accept the results.

Wicknight wrote:

God cannot be contained, enslaved, by any factor, including randomness. Randomness must exist below God, something cannot happen that is external to God. Which is why free will is a paradox. One of the ideas has to be wrong.

Personally I think we do have free will and God doesn't exist. But I probably shouldn't say that too much on the Christian forum.

Anyway, having too parrellel threads is too head wrecking ... everyone move over to the Christian forum

True that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

If there is anything truly random in the universe then God is not omniscient.

Me: God, when will particle X decay?
God: I don't know.

Not omniscient. Hence freewill is only possible in a universe where God is not omniscient.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

If there is anything truly random in the universe then God is not omniscient.

Me: God, when will particle X decay?
God: I don't know.

Not omniscient. Hence freewill is only possible in a universe where God is not omniscient.

Or to put it another way

Me: God, when will particle X decay?
God: I haven't decided yet

Not only is there no randomness from Gods viewpoint, but there are no external factors effecting anything either, since nothing can be external from God.

pH

Zillah wrote:

If there is anything truly random in the universe then God is not omniscient.

Me: God, when will particle X decay?
God: I don't know.

Not omniscient. Hence freewill is only possible in a universe where God is not omniscient.

What's randomness got to do with free will?

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

If there is anything truly random in the universe then God is not omniscient.

Me: God, when will particle X decay?
God: I don't know.

Not omniscient. Hence freewill is only possible in a universe where God is not omniscient.

Sigh.

Me: God, when will particle X decay?
God: next Tuesday.
Me: when did you decide that?
God: I didn't - nuclear decay is random.
Me: how do you know then?
God: because I can see next Tuesday.
Me: where is it then?
God: 5 days out along the time axis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Froot

The Atheist wrote:

It's called discussion and its a good way for people to interact and pass the time.

I did not speak condescendingly, I would ask the same of you.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I never voiced my view on god or religion so dont assume that I am disagreeing with any of you.

To me it is quite obvious that the entire existence of god is simply a form of controlling the masses. Organised religion is one of the greatest management feats in the history of the world.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Me: when did you decide that?
God: I didn't - nuclear decay is random.

You are thinking too much like an atheists

You are thinking of God as someone viewing something external to him, like I view this computer monitor. He looks into the future and sees what happened, but what happened is external to him. But there is nothing external to God, by definition.

The randomness of nuclear decay cannot exist externally to God when God is defined as theists define Him. Which is a pretty good reason why God doesn't exist

Zombrex

pH wrote:

What's randomness got to do with free will?

They are both circumstances where the outcome is not pre-determined.

Fallen Seraph

It's amusing to reflect on the fact that this is a forum of atheists having a theology debate.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

You are thinking too much like an atheists

You are thinking of God as someone viewing something external to him, like I view this computer monitor. He looks into the future and sees what happened, but what happened is external to him. But there is nothing external to God, by definition.

The randomness of nuclear decay cannot exist externally to God when God is defined as theists define Him. Which is a pretty good reason why God doesn't exist

Dang. Two threads. Still, as I said on the other thread, no. It is perfectly possible for God to create randomness if he wishes, because being present everywhere is not the same thing as constantly willing everything.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Me: God, when will particle X decay?
God: next Tuesday.
Me: when did you decide that?
God: I didn't - nuclear decay is random.
Me: how do you know then?
God: because I can see next Tuesday.
Me: where is it then?
God: 5 days out along the time axis.

If nuclear decay is random, then it is outside his power, right? Which leads to a paradox; is God powerful enough to remove something from his own infinate power?

pH

Wicknight wrote:

They are both circumstances where the outcome is not pre-determined.

...... and ?

What has predetermined outcomes got to do with free will?

Zillah

pH wrote:

...... and ?

What has predetermined outcomes got to do with free will?

Uh, generally its considered that the two are mutually exclusive...

pH

Zillah wrote:

Uh, generally its considered that the two are mutually exclusive...

Generally?

Are you saying that you reject absolutely the Compatibilist argument? On what grounds?

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

If nuclear decay is random, then it is outside his power, right? Which leads to a paradox; is God powerful enough to remove something from his own infinate power?

I'm still not sure why God should not be able to generate randomness, or how it is that a random number generator that he has created somehow has to be "outside his power" to operate. All that is necessary is that he not enforce the result through his will - and if that is impossible for him, then there can be no such thing as free will in any case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

pH wrote:

Generally?

Are you saying that you reject absolutely the Compatibilist argument? On what grounds?

Well there is an argument to be made that compatibilism is not really free will, since it proposes that free will is actually determined by what has gone before.

I suppose it depends on how one defines "free will"

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm still not sure why God should not be able to generate randomness, or how it is that a random number generator that he has created somehow has to be "outside his power" to operate. All that is necessary is that he not enforce the result through his will - and if that is impossible for him, then there can be no such thing as free will in any case.

Because to generate randomness God has to generate something that He isn't actually generating. The randomness comes from somewhere else. You then fall into a paradox.

I think the problem is that you are viewing the event as we would, God creates A, which is then left alone and it generates B.

But remember there is no time, because God exists outside of space time. God doesn't create just A, He also creates B at exactly the same instant. In fact everything God does or will do is all done in a time-free singlarity point.

To make B random He would have to create B with properties He is not aware of. Thats the paradox, can God create something that He doesn't know how it will be created.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Because to generate randomness God has to generate something that He isn't actually generating. The randomness comes from somewhere else. You then fall into a paradox.

I think the problem is that you are viewing the event as we would, God creates A, which is then left alone and it generates B.

But remember there is no time, because God exists outside of space time. God doesn't create just A, He also creates B at exactly the same instant. In fact everything God does or will do is all done in a time-free singlarity point.

To make B random He would have to create B with properties He is not aware of. Thats the paradox, can God create something that He doesn't know how it will be created.

Why so? After all, all God needs to do is create a perfectly weighted and edged dice, and roll it. The fact that he sees the outcome at the same time as the result is not important, and he's fully aware of all the properties of the dice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote:

It's amusing to reflect on the fact that this is a forum of atheists having a theology debate.

Mmm. Theology is such fun, though - entirely unconstrained by fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Why so? After all, all God needs to do is create a perfectly weighted and edged dice, and roll it. The fact that he sees the outcome at the same time as the result is not important, and he's fully aware of all the properties of the dice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But its not just the dice God makes, is the ground the dice is rolled upon, along witht eh physical laws of nature that decide how the dice will react.

In essence God invented randomness itself, in that he creates the conditions that allow randomness to form, and as such has ultimate control over it.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But its not just the dice God makes, is the ground the dice is rolled upon, along witht eh physical laws of nature that decide how the dice will react.

In essence God invented randomness itself, in that he creates the conditions that allow randomness to form, and as such has ultimate control over it.

Sure. But why does that stop him setting up a random mechanism? Your argument only applies if you assume randomness is actually just the result of hidden mechanistic outcomes.

I can't see why God can't make the decay of an atom random. If He wants, he can hand-decay the atom, or he can leave it to go itself, randomly. He can see the outcome in any case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> Theology is such fun, though - entirely unconstrained by fact.

And uncomplicated by logic. Anything you want can be true. Just by believing it!