Athiest bashing and free will.

Shane_C

I saw a very interesting article in the independent last saturday by that young christian guy (can't remember his name, he's the one who always talks about primary schools ) supposedly bashing atheism, saying that by not believing in god and by choosing the path of logic you should also not believe in free will. He got a bit of backlash over the week in the letters to the editor but I (a devout agnostic) completely agree with him. I think a fundamental part of atheism and agnosticism is that without a spirit or soul we are just biological robots running on chemical imbalances and electrical impulses, all of which can be predicted (by someone much smarter than us). Any thoughts???

Tim Robbins

Shane_C wrote:

I saw a very interesting article in the independent last saturday by that young christian guy (can't remember his name, he's the one who always talks about primary schools ) supposedly bashing atheism, saying that by not believing in god and by choosing the path of logic you should also not believe in free will. He got a bit of backlash over the week in the letters to the editor but I (a devout agnostic) completely agree with him. I think a fundamental part of atheism and agnosticism is that without a spirit or soul we are just biological robots running on chemical imbalances and electrical impulses, all of which can be predicted (by someone much smarter than us). Any thoughts???

It's David Quinn. He needs to clarify what he means by "Free will". I am an atheist and I am free to type in the message forum right now, so is that free will? How does God or belief in God give me more free will?

BTW I think the free will arguments is a very wooly argument from theists.
I see it weak for various reasons:
1. How can something that you don't know even exists give you free will?
Surely you have to know it exists first.
2. Surely if God presented himself, made an appearance on the late late show we would then know he exists, and be free to choose whether to follow or not? Surely this would be the best way for God to give us free will.
3. How can the Christian God be considered of giving us "free will" if you are threathened with punishment for non compliance i.e. Hell.
4. If free will has to be given, well then by regression who gives God Free will? Does God have no free will or does God just have free will intrinsically? If God can have free will intrinsically well then it is possible to have free will intrinsically.
5. If Quinn's meant free will in a philosophical sense i.e. the opposite to causality, well then he is saying our hole lifes are determined by cause and effect. For a start Calvinists think that are lifes are entirely pre-determined, but more to the point, Science has shown that some phenomea (can't spell) are not driven by cause and effect.

So the argument is wooly. It sounds good because it has a good buzz word but upon closer examination, it falls apart.

estebancambias

What a tool. Probaly some pansy letter in which his 'attack' was some moderate rant rather than a full-fledged attack on Atheists.

Generally an Atheist will be a liberal, which promotes free speach and all that other crap people think they deserve.

Scofflaw

Shane_C wrote:

I saw a very interesting article in the independent last saturday by that young christian guy (can't remember his name, he's the one who always talks about primary schools ) supposedly bashing atheism, saying that by not believing in god and by choosing the path of logic you should also not believe in free will. He got a bit of backlash over the week in the letters to the editor but I (a devout agnostic) completely agree with him. I think a fundamental part of atheism and agnosticism is that without a spirit or soul we are just biological robots running on chemical imbalances and electrical impulses, all of which can be predicted (by someone much smarter than us). Any thoughts???

I agree with a lot of the points Tim has made, and I think he's raised most of the good arguments against God being some kind of provider of free will - particularly that the argument collapses in exactly the same way as the "prime mover" or "prime creator" arguments do.

I'd say there's several different ways of looking at the question. One can argue pure determinism, where this post is predictable from the very first moments of the Big Bang. Fortunately, quantum indeterminacy makes a huge hole in that, since things like the exact moment a radioactive atom will decay is indeterministic, but has real effects. You could argue that once you've taken that into account, the world is deterministic outside those effects, so that each truly indeterministic event is followed by a deterministic chain of consequences that is only interrupted by the next indeterministic event. You could argue that in the many-worlds hypothesis, every universe follows a deterministic chain, and splits each time an indeterministic event occurs.

Alternatively, you could point out that we don't really know what we mean by "free will", because we don't know what we mean by "will", except that it is a manifestation of "consciousness", and we have no real idea what that is - and that, as usual, the Christian position he's arguing is a shortcut to the usual preferred Christian answer, taken in the absence of any real definition of the very thing he's arguing about. In other words, he is substituting his own plausible 'truth' for an honest admission that we can't even define the meaning of the question.

cordially,
Scofflaw

humanji

Well, as has been said before (by smarter people than me), the existence of god means there is no free will. God knows everything, including the past, present and future. If he knows the future, he knows every choice we are going to make. If he knows every choice we are going to make then we can't deviate from those choices. If we can't deviate from those choices, then we don't have free will, do we?

Scofflaw

humanji wrote:

Well, as has been said before (by smarter people than me), the existence of god means there is no free will. God knows everything, including the past, present and future. If he knows the future, he knows every choice we are going to make. If he knows every choice we are going to make then we can't deviate from those choices. If we can't deviate from those choices, then we don't have free will, do we?

Nah, I still think that one is resolvable by God's position outside time. Although you cannot change the decisions you made yesterday, that does not mean you didn't have free will yesterday (assuming you have it today). From God's perspective, we've already exercised our free will, and he sees it all like it was yesterday, because he himself is not time-bound.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph

estebancambias wrote:

Generally an Atheist will be a liberal, which promotes free speach and all that other crap people think they deserve.

Troll troll is troll. (ironically, you're allowed post that here)


On topic: yup. As an atheist I think determinism is, more or less, a fact. I don't think this is a major calamity, as such. I agree an awful lot with Hume. There's a better, more agreeable to me, summary of his position somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment...

Zillah

The term "free will" doesn't even mean anything. I challenge anyone to produce a thorough definition of freewill without recourse to undefined supernatural phenomena (like the "soul").

estebancambias wrote:

Generally an Atheist will be a liberal, which promotes free speach and all that other crap people think they deserve.

Deserve? What a strange choice of word. An Atheist does not believe in God, hence there is no almighty authority figure to determine who deserves what. We want free speech and all that other crap we want.

Do you not want free speech? Do you think it would be nice if a Secular Government banned you from mentioning God ever again under pain of death? They block TV channels, curtail the internet, burn books...the whole shebang. Does something about that not feel very wrong to you?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

How can something that you don't know even exists give you free will? Surely you have to know it exists first.

I'm really struggling to understand the reasoning behind this statement. What is the logical connection between knowing someone exists and their ability to give free will? I can see no logical or philosophical reason why an unknown God could not create people and give them free will.

Surely if God presented himself, made an appearance on the late late show we would then know he exists, and be free to choose whether to follow or not? Surely this would be the best way for God to give us free will.

So God, if He exists, must manifest himself in a way that Tim chooses? Wouldn't that make Tim the deity, and make God Tim's little pet puppet?

How can the Christian God be considered of giving us "free will" if you are threathened with punishment for non compliance i.e. Hell.

The fact that adverse consequences will follow some courses of action more than others in no way eradicates our freedom to take those courses of action. For example, I know that if I jump off the top of a high building then the consequences will be fatal. I also know that refusing to jump will yield consequences more conducive to longevity. Nevertheless, I still have free will to choose whether to jump or not, and every year a given number of people use their free will to commit suicide.

All that aside, I think David Quinn was talking crap.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I'm really struggling to understand the reasoning behind this statement. What is the logical connection between knowing someone exists and their ability to give free will? I can see no logical or philosophical reason why an unknown God could not create people and give them free will.

Neither can I, but I can see several reasons why it would be a very silly assertion for someone to make.

PDN wrote:

So God, if He exists, must manifest himself in a way that Tim chooses? Wouldn't that make Tim the deity, and make God Tim's little pet puppet?

After all, He's not a tame God.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

After all, He's not a tame God.

Yes, I had that quote in mind, but I remembered Tim has an aversion to CS Lewis and, since I am feeling more mellow & less provocative than usual, I decided to leave the tame lions out it.

Keith186

humanji wrote:

Well, as has been said before (by smarter people than me), the existence of god means there is no free will. God knows everything, including the past, present and future. If he knows the future, he knows every choice we are going to make. If he knows every choice we are going to make then we can't deviate from those choices. If we can't deviate from those choices, then we don't have free will, do we?

You got Quinn by the balls there buddy, v. good point.:p http://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Asiaprod

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Troll troll is troll. (ironically, you're allowed post that here)..

I see it as you have free will to walk into the Lion's den, and the lion has free will to eat you up:)

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I'm really struggling to understand the reasoning behind this statement. What is the logical connection between knowing someone exists and their ability to give free will? I can see no logical or philosophical reason why an unknown God could not create people and give them free will.

Argument is: God gives you Free Will.
Rebuttal: We don't know if God exists so how can we say God gives you free will.
Cringy analogy:
Argument is: Scofflaw's C6RSpaceship can make you look younger
Rebuttal: We don't know Scofflaw's C6RSpaceship exists so can we say it can make you look younger.

Now, Christians (some I've met) try to use the free will argument as an argument of existence. This is nonsensical, because than Free Will and God become circular. There is no axiom or first principle.

So God, if He exists, must manifest himself in a way that Tim chooses? Wouldn't that make Tim the deity, and make God Tim's little pet puppet?

A play with words there PDN. Not that "Tim chooses" but that the evidence can be consider objective and reliable not just something "Tim chooses".
I didn't choose for my Mum and Dad to show themselves to me, they just that it was important that they did.

The fact that adverse consequences will follow some courses of action more than others in no way eradicates our freedom to take those courses of action. For example, I know that if I jump off the top of a high building then the consequences will be fatal. I also know that refusing to jump will yield consequences more conducive to longevity. Nevertheless, I still have free will to choose whether to jump or not, and every year a given number of people use their free will to commit suicide.

Yes but if the consequences are that bad, what's the big deal about free will?
Again it's a play with words. "free will" sounds like something special, because the word "free" usually infers the action is immune from negative consequences. If I told my girlfriend I have "free will" to be with any chick I wanted to be, she would initially be worried and then annoyed that I recked her head playing with words.

The other problem with "free will" is it is usually used as rebuttal to why is there so much pain in the world?
For example:
Atheist: Why is there so much pain and evil in the world for example wars?
Christian: Because, God gives man free will and man makes those decision to go to wars not God.
Atheist: What about genetic diseases that children have?
Christian: ? (Usually incapable of answering anything remotely logical).

I find the free will argument intensly annoying because Christians think they have something smart, but when you look at closely they don't at all.
But they usually refuse to do look at it closely.
David Quinn is a perfect example.

Why don't they admit faith for what it really is, a complete absence of logic and not bother with attempts at logic?

What's wrong with that?

I admit my emotions are being controlled by Ireland's dismal performance in the world cup and this is something I have no control over and is utterly meaningless, compared to the crisis in A&E, but it happens. I just admit it's irrational and illogical.

Shane_C

Ha, popular post but a bit off the point I wanted to explore.
For now, present theism and God don't exist (expecting backlash ).

First of all I would like to assume that if something is completely predictable i.e. a software system or your drunk friend, it has no free will. It has made the choice without thinking before the problem has arisen.

Consider a single celled organism is sitting on the floor somewhere. It does not have free will and is completely governed by its chemical and genetic makeup. Move up a rung on the evolutionary ladder and you find species are harder and harder to predict as they get more complicated. To me that shows a lack of understanding and intelligence on our part rather than the presence of free will. To believe free will exists is to believe we are greater than other animals who are completely predictable.

Now to re-introduce god, he created us, making us greater. He gave us the throne above all other living things. However, most importantly, most theists believe he had a hand in creating each one of us personally and is a deciding factor in our personalities, giving us free will.

On a final note, I don't believe we as atheists have the right to mock christian beliefs as they don't have the right to mock ours. There is still a lot of our "faith" un proven and I wouldn't be surprised if scientology turned out to be the one true faith . (actually I probably would)

Dades

Shane_C wrote:

On a final note, I don't believe we as atheists have the right to mock christian beliefs as they don't have the right to mock ours. There is still a lot of our "faith" un proven and I wouldn't be surprised if scientology turned out to be the one true faith . (actually I probably would)

There is only one thing unproven - and it is unprovable to show something doesn't exist.

But yeah, we shouldn't mock beliefs. Most of the people I know and love believe in God. I guess sometimes in the confines this forum it's hard for scepticism to keep in line with 'respect'. Though I think our Christian posters here don't need or want continuous protection.

Fanny Cradock

humanji wrote:

Well, as has been said before (by smarter people than me), the existence of god means there is no free will. God knows everything, including the past, present and future. If he knows the future, he knows every choice we are going to make. If he knows every choice we are going to make then we can't deviate from those choices. If we can't deviate from those choices, then we don't have free will, do we?

Without meaning to cause offence, that is a very flawed argument. It offers no insight to back-up your claims. In a nutshell, you have stated that God's omnipotence precludes the possibility of free will. Fair enough! But that carries equal weight to me stating that foreknowledge doesn't equate to limitations in our choices.

Tim Robbins wrote:

How can the Christian God be considered of giving us "free will" if you are threathened with punishment for non compliance i.e. Hell.

I would assume, Tim, that you would not consider your free will impinged in the society you live in? Do you feel shackled? You, as much as anyone, are subject to laws of a nation whether you like it or not.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yes but if the consequences are that bad, what's the big deal about free will?
Again it's a play with words. "free will" sounds like something special, because the word "free" usually infers the action is immune from negative consequences. If I told my girlfriend I have "free will" to be with any chick I wanted to be, she would initially be worried and then annoyed that I recked her head playing with words.

So you are defining 'free will' as the ability to make choices yet for no negative consequences to ever ensue from those choices. In that case I doubt that 'free will', as you define it, exists for anyone.

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

I guess sometimes in the confines this forum it's hard for scepticism to keep in line with 'respect'.

Pff! Pffff I say! I'll respect a Christian's right to have such beliefs, but I won't respect them or those beliefs. I think respect for (rather than respect for the right to have) religious beliefs is a ridiculous product of over the top politically correct thinking. I am so sick of people being afraid to upset each other.

Seriously, read some Sam Harris.

Zillah

PDN wrote:

So you are defining 'free will' as the ability to make choices yet for no negative consequences to ever ensue from those choices. In that case I doubt that 'free will', as you define it, exists for anyone.

Would you care to define it?

(Bearing in mind please, that referring to an undefined God or Soul does not count as a definition)

PDN

Zillah wrote:

Would you care to define it?

The doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. (from dictionary.com)

This simple definition covers what most people understand as free will. For example, I have free will whether to cheat on my wife or not. The fact that cheating on her would result in bad consequences (marriage break up, my daughter knowing her dad is a piece of crap, having to spend Saturdays in museums & MacDonalds) in no way lessens my free will. In fact thousands of men exercise their free will and cheat on their wives, despite the consequences.

Dades

Zillah wrote:

I think respect for (rather than respect for the right to have) religious beliefs is a ridiculous product of over the top politically correct thinking. I am so sick of people being afraid to upset each other.

I was talking about showing respect to users (and/or friends and family) by at least trying not to mock their beliefs.

Zillah wrote:

Seriously, read some Sam Harris.

Seriously, I'll read what I want.

PDN

Zillah wrote:

Would you care to define it?

(Bearing in mind please, that referring to an undefined God or Soul does not count as a definition)

Stop playing silly games.

A definition does not lose its validity because it refers to God, particularly when the only mention of God is to exclude him from the definition.

Now we're disagreeing over the definition of 'definition'. :rolleyes:

If you can produce an entry from any reputable dictionary that says a 'definition' must exclude all possible references to God, then I will conform to that restriction. Otherwise I will continue to type my posts in English instead of in Zillah's private little language.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' (Lewis Carroll)

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

I was talking about showing respect to users (and/or friends and family) by at least trying not to mock their beliefs.

Hmm. I'll need at least one exemption.

IN CAPS,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Stop playing silly games.

A definition does not lose its validity because it refers to God, particularly when the only mention of God is to exclude him from the definition.

Now we're disagreeing over the definition of 'definition'. :rolleyes:

If you can produce an entry from any reputable dictionary that says a 'definition' must exclude all possible references to God, then I will conform to that restriction. Otherwise I will continue to type my posts in English instead of in Zillah's private little language.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' (Lewis Carroll)

That's not quite fair, though. If you were to define free will in terms of God, the soul, consciousness, or anything else that required further definition, without doing that further definition, that would be an unusable definition.

The definition you've offered does not suffer from these flaws.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I would assume, Tim, that you would not consider your free will impinged in the society you live in? Do you feel shackled? You, as much as anyone, are subject to laws of a nation whether you like it or not.

No I think I get a fairer deal from the state then God. It's democracy versus dictatorship really.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

So you are defining 'free will' as the ability to make choices yet for no negative consequences to ever ensue from those choices. In that case I doubt that 'free will', as you define it, exists for anyone.

Well we could pick at negative consequences and see that they vary in great degrees. But I get your point and its well made.

Everything changes when we include consequences and I think this highlights some of the problems with "free will".

I think it's a sophistry argument. It sounds good but when you examine it, it is lacking substance and runs into problems quite quickly.

Zillah

PDN wrote:

The doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Ok, first of all, allow me to explain the whole "no God/Soul" point.

I am asking for a definition of X, where X is unknown. If someone then defines X as Y, where Y is also unknown, that has not actually defined anything at all. If someone were to define freewill as coming from the soul or a state conferred upon us by God, then they are using an undefined term within their definition, hence they have defined nothing at all.

As Scofflaw points out, yours does not suffer from this flaw. It does however suffer from a crippling lack of detail.

"Expresses personal choice" is meaningless. Define "choice"? Define "personal"? For example, at what degree of influence would you consider a person no longer exercising their free will? If I were to dose you with a psychotropic drug and you killed your family because you thought they were gremlins trying to eat your flesh, I assume you would consider that an example of you not exercising your freewill?

What if you had a tumour that was secreting hormones that made you become enraged at the slightest provocation and you hurt someone? Have you lost your "freewill" yet? What if your genes had caused your brain to develop in a similar fashion, is it still not freewill? Does the difference between freewill amount to the difference between a tumor and the double helix?

The point of all of this is: There is a reason for everything. Cause and effect dictates how this world functions. Every time you ask "Why did he choose that?" you can always track it back to some force that was entirely beyond his control. We don't have some magical isolated centre of self, we're just extremely complex cause and effect machines.

Tim Robbins

Zillah wrote:

The point of all of this is: There is a reason for everything. Cause and effect dictates how this world functions. Every time you ask "Why did he choose that?" you can always track it back to some force that was entirely beyond his control. We don't have some magical isolated centre of self, we're just extremely complex cause and effect machines.

I think you could be wrong there. There are some theories in science which negate the cause / effect relationship. Quantum Physics - someone else can explain better than me.

PDN

Zillah wrote:

As Scofflaw points out, yours does not suffer from this flaw. It does however suffer from a crippling lack of detail.

"Expresses personal choice" is meaningless. Define "choice"? Define "personal"? For example, at what degree of influence would you consider a person no longer exercising their free will? If I were to dose you with a psychotropic drug and you killed your family because you thought they were gremlins trying to eat your flesh, I assume you would consider that an example of you not exercising your freewill?

What if you had a tumour that was secreting hormones that made you become enraged at the slightest provocation and you hurt someone? Have you lost your "freewill" yet? What if your genes had caused your brain to develop in a similar fashion, is it still not freewill? Does the difference between freewill amount to the difference between a tumor and the double helix?

I agree that my definition lacks detail, rather inevitable when a 21-word phrase is trying to define a complex issue.

Being dosed with a psychotropic drug, or suffering from a brain tumor that caused me to act contrary to a lifetime's values, would come under the heading of 'physical forces'.

The point of all of this is: There is a reason for everything. Cause and effect dictates how this world functions. Every time you ask "Why did he choose that?" you can always track it back to some force that was entirely beyond his control. We don't have some magical isolated centre of self, we're just extremely complex cause and effect machines.

This is determinism, of the incompatibilist variety. If you really believe that then it would seem that David Quinn (as described in the OP) had a point after all (at least for some, if not all, atheists).

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

This is determinism, of the incompatibilist variety. If you really believe that then it would seem that David Quinn (as described in the OP) had a point after all (at least for some, if not all, atheists).

Cheers...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

I would back up humanji

If God exists as defined by most Christians, then free will is an illusion because the unknown quantity of the future is an illusion.

The universe is set by the initial way it was created (by God), and once it is set the time line for universe is set. It cannot be a variable, because God knows it. There is one single time line of the universe, and that time line exists from the moment of the creation of the universe.

The fact that God lies outside of time is not an issue for that, it in fact is a requirement. If God did not lie outside of time he could not see the time line as a single 4 dimensional space.

Think of it this way. The classical view of free will is a set of doors in front of us, to which we can choose to go through one of them. We don't know what is on either side of any of them (see cannot see ahead into the future), but we can see the choices we can make. When we pick a door the time line will flow through that door into the future that lies behind it.

If God exists there is in fact just one door, but we may believe there are others. But these are illusions. There has to be only one door because it is the door God knows the time line will flow through. The time line is set flowing through one door and it is set from the moment of creation by the initial set up of the universe.

And the important bit is that we don't decide that door, because doing so would mean that the door is not picked until we decide to pick it, in which case to God the door is "x" until we do. That is not possible because God already knows what "x" is.

Now of course I've had this discussion with Christians and it normally comes around to them saying I'm wrong but they don't know why, or that I shouldn't be so arrogant to attempt to conclude what "infinity" is like for God or some such nonsense.

So I'm weary about discussing this if anyone is just going to tell me either of the above again. But heck knock yourselves out

red_ice

Shane_C wrote:

by not believing in god and by choosing the path of logic

i resent that comment. How very close minded

Zillah

PDN wrote:

Being dosed with a psychotropic drug, or suffering from a brain tumor that caused me to act contrary to a lifetime's values, would come under the heading of 'physical forces'.

So its a "lifetime's values" that determine freewill? But we get our values from our friends/family/culture. So according to your argument "freewill" is doing what those around you want you to do?

Also, your genes are no less a physical force than a drug I dose you with. If someone is genetically predisposed towards violent murder they're using their freewill to kill, but if I use some drugs to cause the exact same effect in your brain you're having your freewill taken from you? What if I had been giving you those drugs since birth? Or they found their way accidently into your water supply?

Come on, stop tip toeing around the issue, I shouldn't have to drag it out of you bit by bit. If you're sure we have this thing called freewill then gimme a more than a few lines to explain it.

Zillah

Some further thoughts I've had:

The universe can be one of three ways; deterministic, random or controlled.

Deterministic: From the begining of the universe cause and effect have dictated one path the universe can take. In this case freewill makes no sense as everything I will ever choose is dictated by other forces.

Random: At the quantum level things are determined randomly and the effects radiate upwards. In which case freewill makes no sense as all my decisions are ultimately randomly determined by collapsing quantum states.

Controlled: A universe where an omnipotent deity dictates how everything goes, in which case there is no such thing as freewill as our will is the deity's will.

Is there a type of universe I'm missing that you're proposing we live in?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Now of course I've had this discussion with Christians and it normally comes around to them saying I'm wrong but they don't know why, or that I shouldn't be so arrogant to attempt to conclude what "infinity" is like for God or some such nonsense.

So I'm weary about discussing this if anyone is just going to tell me either of the above again. But heck knock yourselves out

Your memory is very selective.

Last time this was discussed I seem to remember the problem being that you insisted on conflating foreknowledge with predestination, but were unable or unwilling to articulate convincingly just why one necessarily implies the other.

If I look back at the past then I can see a set of events taking place. The fact that only one set of events actually took place does not mean that was the only possible course of events.

Equally, if God looks forward in the future then he can see that we shall, of our own free will, choose certain courses of action. We are not constrained by any external force to make those choices, therefore there is no conflict between God's foreknowledge and free will.

I doubt that there is much point in having that debate all over again unless you have something new to offer.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Your memory is very selective.

Who are you again?

PDN wrote:

Last time this was discussed I seem to remember the problem being that you insisted on conflating foreknowledge with predestination, but were unable or unwilling to articulate convincingly just why one necessarily implies the other.

That wasn't my problem, that was a rather weak argument used against my assertion, in a kinda "You don't know how God works, how can you say that" way. Claiming you must have choice because it says so in the Bible is not the same as an argument against the idea you don't have choice.

It was never a counter-argument, people just wanted it both ways, God knows everything but you still have a choice, God just knows your choice before you make it, but you are still free to make it.

Which is a paradox. But then on the Christian forum paradoxes don't seem to both people that much.

PDN wrote:

If I look back at the past then I can see a set of events taking place. The fact that only one set of events actually took place does not mean that was the only possible course of events.

Not at the time, but it does when you look back.

The past cannot change because it has already been observed. It is fixed by the fact that it has happened.

The past never changes, the bit that changes it the future as you move into it. Once the present is obsevered, once it "happens" it is fixed. In the same way the future itself is fixed by the fact that God observes it.

PDN wrote:

Equally, if God looks forward in the future then he can see that we shall, of our own free will, choose certain courses of action. We are not constrained by any external force to make those choices, therefore there is no conflict between God's foreknowledge and free will.

But we have no actual freedom to choose, it is simply an illusion. It is like saying that the mathematical variable "x" is free to be anything, so long as it is 5

Or its like the old sketch that appears in sit-coms so much, the guy says to his friend "You can have any one you want", and as the friend goes to pick one the guy goes "Not that one"

It is not choice. We are constrained by the time line itself

PDN wrote:

I doubt that there is much point in having that debate all over again unless you have something new to offer.

I would agree

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Not at the time, but it does when you look back.

The past cannot change because it has already been observed. It is fixed by the fact that it has happened.

The past never changes, the bit that changes it the future as you move into it. Once the present is obsevered, once it "happens" it is fixed. In the same way the future itself is fixed by the fact that God observes it.

But we have no actual freedom to choose, it is simply an illusion. It is like saying that the mathematical variable "x" is free to be anything, so long as it is 5

Or its like the old sketch that appears in sit-coms so much, the guy says to his friend "You can have any one you want", and as the friend goes to pick one the guy goes "Not that one"

It is not choice. We are constrained by the time line itself

Not at all, although it seems as if we are. Ignoring God, we are timebound - that's how we make decisions. Situation X presents itself, and we choose response A or response B.

That tomorrow I will know which you chose, and you will be unable to change your choice, does not constrain your choice now, and God's knowledge of tomorrow, and your inability to go back and change it, doesn't either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

omg.
Blanked.
I am never talking to you again PDN.

Shane_C

red_ice wrote:

i resent that comment. How very close minded

That is kinda sensitive of you, how about "logic only" or "the most logical path the earth's scientists can find and agree on". We can't all be PC all the time and everyone else seemed to know what I meant.

It would be nice if you could explain yourself...

Scofflaw wrote:

Not at all, although it seems as if we are. Ignoring God, we are timebound - that's how we make decisions. Situation X presents itself, and we choose response A or response B.

I would think not.

Consider the situation X: You come towards a cat.
question = does the cat run away.

Answer is based on certain conditions:

How friendly the cat is (based on the chemicals and makeup of the brain)
Does the cat know you (based on whether your image is wired into the cats brain)
Has the cat been abused (does the cat remember abuse and have natural defence mechanisms which are easily activated)
How starved for attention the cat is (does the cat remember affection and is it running low on feel good chemicals)
Does your body language signal threat. (what does the cat perceive as threat, which will be lodged somewhere in its mind)
etc....


With all factors gathered accurately and weighted correctly why wouldn't it be possible to predict outcome to situation X before the situation occurs, just as we can predict the movements and decisions of lesser beings?

Finally, I think anyone who believes the theory of evolution has no right to say a cat has less free will than a human.

I don't mean to make this look so mathematical as that would make my (and I'm sure others) theory look like more than it is: pure theory.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote:

No I think I get a fairer deal from the state then God. It's democracy versus dictatorship really.

Although that quip may provide you with a nice sound bite, it doesn't really get any closer to answering your original question.

It is funny that you should chose to judge God as a dictator. If, for a moment, you consider the Christian perspective that it was God who created life, the universe and everything - including the ability to devise systems of governance such as democracy - then your moral criteria for judging and decrying God would seem to be something that he has allowed. That's an aside, though. I wonder could you explain why you think God (or the Christian notion of one) to be a dictator in the first place?

JC 2K3

"Do as I say and you will be rewarded. Disobey me and you shall suffer for eternity once your life on Earth has ended."

Is this not a correct interpretation of God's message to us? Sounds pretty dictator-like to me.

Fanny Cradock

JC 2K3 wrote:

"Do as I say and you will be rewarded. Disobey me and you shall suffer for eternity once your life on Earth has ended."

Is this not a correct interpretation of God's message to us? Sounds pretty dictator-like to me.

Well done on addressing the complexities of Christianity in once sentence. Quite an amazing feat, really.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Not at all, although it seems as if we are. Ignoring God, we are timebound - that's how we make decisions. Situation X presents itself, and we choose response A or response B.

That tomorrow I will know which you chose, and you will be unable to change your choice, does not constrain your choice now, and God's knowledge of tomorrow, and your inability to go back and change it, doesn't either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes but that is because the future is fundamentally different than the past. The future can change based on our actions because it is unknown in the present, where as the past cannot, it is known it happened it is fixed.

The point is that God makes the future known, as known as the past, and therefore it becomes as fixed as the past is. It is no longer fundamentally different.

JC 2K3

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Well done on addressing the complexities of Christianity in once sentence. Quite an amazing feat, really.

Just showing how one might interpret God as being a dictator.

I mean, at the end of the day, what is free will if the wrong choices result in suffering?

Timans

When "Doing as I say" is doing the right thing by other people, it's hardly a dictatorship, is it?

"Be Nice to People guys" says Simon.



"Whoa, Simon is such a fascist"

I think not.

JC 2K3

It's more like "Be nice to people or I'll make you suffer for eternity".

And Christianity has a lot more rules than "be nice to people".

Zillah

Timans wrote:

"Be Nice to People guys" says Simon.

"Whoa, Simon is such a fascist"

I think not.

Is Simon threatening me with eternal torture if I don't obey him?

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Although that quip may provide you with a nice sound bite, it doesn't really get any closer to answering your original question.

Just so we can be clear, in your opinion:
What was my original question?

It is funny that you should chose to judge God as a dictator. If, for a moment, you consider the Christian perspective that it was God who created life, the universe and everything - including the ability to devise systems of governance such as democracy - then your moral criteria for judging and decrying God would seem to be something that he has allowed. That's an aside, though. I wonder could you explain why you think God (or the Christian notion of one) to be a dictator in the first place?

I actually think God does not exist and it is a delusion hard wired into our brains because we fear uncertainty, death and we have not come up a better way of dealing with it.

Bet let's suppose I am wrong and God does exist. To answer your question:
"why you think God (or the Christian notion of one) to be a dictator in the first place?"
Answer:He decides the rules, and they can't be changed.
Whereas the state has rules but we decide them and they can be changed.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but that is because the future is fundamentally different than the past. The future can change based on our actions because it is unknown in the present, where as the past cannot, it is known it happened it is fixed.

The point is that God makes the future known, as known as the past, and therefore it becomes as fixed as the past is. It is no longer fundamentally different.

So, your claim would therefore be that because the future is unknown specifically to us, it remains open to change? Wouldn't the corollary of that be that someone with amnesia can change the past?

If God knows the future, that doesn't change how it is for us - we still go through each decision point and make decisions. The future is fixed, not because we don't make decisions, but because from a perspective where time is just another visible dimension, we have already made those decisions. It doesn't change the fact that we, as ourselves, have yet to get to that decision point and make the decision as far as we are concerned - because the future has yet to happen to us.

Similarly, someone with very good knowledge of us may be able to predict which decision we will take in the face of a particular situation - does that mean we have no free will? What if they knew we would be facing circumstances that would normally cause someone to take one specific choice, but that we would not take that choice?

God's (hypothetical) foreknowledge of our choices is not some kind of trick whereby he forces us, by dint of arranging circumstances, to make that choice, but a mere record of those choices, independent of time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Just so we can be clear, in your opinion:
What was my original question?

I actually think God does not exist and it is a delusion hard wired into our brains because we fear uncertainty, death and we have not come up a better way of dealing with it.

Bet let's suppose I am wrong and God does exist. To answer your question:
"why you think God (or the Christian notion of one) to be a dictator in the first place?"
Answer:He decides the rules, and they can't be changed.
Whereas the state has rules but we decide them and they can be changed.

Except, of course, that really we change "God's" rules pretty often.

cordially,
Scofflaw