Determinism and free will .

[Dywyddyr]

It appears there is an inherant perception that if God exists he could not have free will!

Correct. If he is truly omniscient then he can't have free will.

If God has Freewill then he has the ability to restrain himself by using that freewill or freedom to do so.
e.g.
Does restraining himself from riding a bicycle and choose to walk instead void his ability to ride a bike ? Nope!

Failure. Again.
If he restrains himself in any way then, at that time, he isn't omnipotent. The same way you're not a cyclist if you're walking, you're a pedestrian.

Does restraining himself to suffer the life of a mortal human make him any less omnipotent? Can God control his own potency? And if he did, does this actually not make him utterly potent?

So, according to you, omnipotence isn't actually omnipotent? It's already subject to restraint?

Do you not see the circular logic to this statement?

Nope. There is no circularity.
If I give up smoking then I'm no longer a smoker.
If I give up swimming then I'm no longer a swimmer.
I'd be an ex-smoker and an ex-swimmer, the way "god" would be "once omnipotent" if he restrained himself.

 

[Quantum Quack]

and If we are all god in our own ways

Then the person with the most free will is?

You need to differentiate between freewill which I believe is an absolute concept. Can't have "sort of or half freewill" can we?
and...
freedom which is a relative term...

IMO every one has the absolute freewill but due to oppression is unable to exercise it in a way that is free.

And oppresssion is in the main due to a lack of self restraint or discipine, not only by the individual but by the collective so if God was a master of self restraint and discipline he would be able to exercise that absolute freewill in the free-est manner possible.
Being the master of self restraint and discipline not only for himself but the collective as well.

no mean task hey?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Correct. If he is truly omniscient then he can't have free will.


Failure. Again.
If he restrains himself in any way then, at that time, he isn't omnipotent. The same way you're not a cyclist if you're walking, you're a pedestrian.


So, according to you, omnipotence isn't actually omnipotent? It's already subject to restraint?


Nope. There is no circularity.
If I give up smoking then I'm no longer a smoker.
If I give up swimming then I'm no longer a swimmer.
I'd be an ex-smoker and an ex-swimmer, the way "god" would be "once omnipotent" if he restrained himself.

ahh but you have the freewill to decide whether to give up smoking or tak it up again.
Do you think the entity labeled as God would not be able to return to Godhood using your approach any time he chooses to?
And being able too at any time does this not grant him the greatest of omnipotency of will. [ choice ]
Does God sleep at night?
Can God turn a blind eye?
Can God play the role as suggestive of the Treki "Prime Directive"
Could God be sitting there at a computer [ because it's more fun that way] online, having a giggle at these silly attempts to understand what it means to be the master of himself and the universe [both being his creation]

 

[Dywyddyr]

ahh but you have the freewill to decide whether to give up smoking or tak it up again.

Which doesn't alter the fact that while I'm not smoking I'm not a smoker, likewise while god puts restraints on his omnipotence he is no longer omnipotent.

Do you think the entity labeled as God would not be able to return to Godhood using your approach any time he chooses to?

Given the rather nebulous "abilities" of "god" I don't see why it couldn't decide to be non-omnipotent for a week or whatever.

And being able too at any time does this not grant him the greatest of omnipotency of will. [ choice ]

Really? You think choice is potency? There are many things I can choose but can't actually do or have.

Does God sleep at night?
Can God turn a blind eye?
Can God play the role as suggestive of the Treki "Prime Directive"
Could God be sitting there at a computer [ because it's more fun that way] online, having a giggle at these silly attempts to understand what it means to be the master of himself and the universe?

Search me, I don't subscribe to that particular myth. I've yet to find a definition of "god" that stands up.
Again, given his nebulous nature can't he do whatever he decides to do?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Which doesn't alter the fact that while I'm not smoking I'm not a smoker, likewise while god puts restraints on his omnipotence he is no longer omnipotent.


Given the rather nebulous "abilities" of "god" I don't see why it couldn't decide to be non-omnipotent for a week or whatever.


Really? You think choice is potency? There are many things I can choose but can't actually do or have.


Search me, I don't subscribe to that particular myth. I've yet to find a definition of "god" that stands up.
Again, given his nebulous nature can't he do whatever he decides to do?

Sorry but I think you are missing the point.
eg.
"I have a self created nuclear warhead in the trunk of my car. Do I take it out and use it or do I keep it for another day?
Just because I decide to keep it in the trunk doesn't diminish my potency or he potency of the nuclear device that I created."
eg.
"So I have all the knowledge in the universe, past present and future but decide not to use it, so I can play damn chess with out cheating"
Does not using the knowledge mean I am not knowledgable or omniscient?
Do you see the point?
Self restraint means that he can be omniescent and do nothing wth that knowledge or do something with it, the nature of freewill allows him to do so.

 

[chaos1956]

Which doesn't alter the fact that while I'm not smoking I'm not a smoker, likewise while god puts restraints on his omnipotence he is no longer omnipotent.

Not everyone thinks god is omnipotent.

Really? You think choice is potency? There are many things I can choose but can't actually do or have.

Potency? None with the current rope you have hung yourself with. Name one thing that is your choice not to do or have. Potency? I can arrange that after we are married.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Sorry but I think you are missing the point.
eg.
"I have a self created nuclear warhead in the trunk of my car. Do I take it out and use it or do I keep it for another day?
Just because I decide to keep it in the trunk doesn't diminish my potency or he potency of the nuclear device that I created."
eg.
"So I have all the knowledge in the universe, past present and future but decide not to use it, so I can play damn chess with out cheating"
Does not using the knowledge mean I am not knowledgable or omniscient?
Do you see the point?
Self restraint means that he can be omniescent and do nothing wth that knowledge or do something with it, the nature of freewill allows him to do so.

Incorrect again.
Omnipotent means capable of anything and everything. If there are restraints of ANY kind then "omnipotence" no longer obtains.
You didn't specify "not using" you specifically used the word "block" i.e. a restraint.

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
It presumes that "God" is unable to "block" himself from being all knowing and "All powerful". That God has no self restraint or discipline.

Post 267.

 

[chaos1956]

Incorrect again.
Omnipotent means capable of anything and everything.

Incorrect define Everything.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Incorrect again.
Omnipotent means capable of anything and everything. If there are restraints of ANY kind then "omnipotence" no longer obtains.
You didn't specify "not using" you specifically used the word "block" i.e. a restraint.

Post 267.

maybe, but at all times I stated quite clearly that the abilities he would employ are governed by his own will. "SELF Restraint, "Self blocking", as a self willed entity.

Omni potent means able to do anything and everything he chooses to do by self determination [ freewill - or volition ]
Sheesh, I could be God right now typing on this keyboard and deliberately or by choice not knowing what you are going to type in response as your freewill is sacrosanct and absoutely necessary for my happiness and participation in my own creation.

 

[Dywyddyr]

maybe, but at all times I stated quite clearly that the abilities he would employ are governed by his own will. "SELF Restraint, "Self blocking", as a self willed entity.

So? Restraint is restraint.
You said "block".


Look at what you actually wrote:

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
It presumes that "God" is unable to "block" himself from being all knowing and "All powerful".

If one is blocked from being all-powerful and all-knowing then one is NOT all-powerful or all-knowing. Regardless of how it's done.

Sheesh, I could be God right now typing on this keyboard and deliberately or by choice not knowing what you are going to type in response as your freewill is sacrosanct and absoutely necessary for my happiness and participation in my own creation.

Another fail.
If my freewill is absolutely necessary for your happiness then you are not all-powerful. How can you be if you're dependent on something else?

 

[Quantum Quack]

So? Restraint is restraint.
You said "block".


Look at what you actually wrote:

If one is blocked from being all-powerful and all-knowing then one is NOT all-powerful or all-knowing. Regardless of how it's done.


Another fail.
If my freewill is absolutely necessary for your happiness then you are not all-powerful. How can you be if you're dependent on something else?

ahh such is the nature of internt short speak...let me exaplain the use of the word "block"

I asked my self the question:
If I could "see" through every thing what would stop me from going blind?

I found that the barriers in the way of what you are looking for or at is actually what makes you real.
Now if you could see through everything including lies and deceptions, how would you survive in a world that requires these barriers to exist. [eg. the planet is a massive barrier]
You would have to do what most people do so easilly and that is deny your own ability by blocking it [self-denial] but of course if you are doing it with insight then it is no longer classic self denial is it. But deliberate "blocking" of insight or "vision" thus falloing under the realm of volition and freewill.


Reminds me of a classic funny song about the "streaker" [ nude person runner] where upon the husband says to the wife, "Ethyl don't look!!!!" but she looked any way!

 

[Dywyddyr]

ahh such is the nature of internt short speak...let me exaplain the use of the word "block"
I asked my self the question:
If I could "see" through every thing what would stop me from going blind?

What would make you go blind?

You would have to do what most people do so easilly and that is deny your own ability by blocking it [self-denial] but of course if you are doing it with insight then it is no longer classic self denial is it. But deliberate "blocking" of insight or "vision" thus falloing under the realm of volition and freewill.

Which puts into the category of "not seeing through everything".
Smoker - ex smoker. Swimmer - ex swimmer.
If you don't do something then you don't do it. If you refrain from omnipotence then you are not, for that period, omnipotent. Because you are denying yourself the actuality. Likewise with omniscience: if you decide NOT to know something then you don't know it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If my freewill is absolutely necessary for your happiness then you are not all-powerful. How can you be if you're dependent on something else?

actually a good question..

IF God's happiness is contigent upon factors he allows or determines then can he be considered as omnipotent?

hmmmm....yes a good question.
Possibly it is a question of perspective.
Does God consider himself as omnipotent or is that left to us mortals to consider him as?
God may very well not consider himself as omnpotent yet that which he created would. hmmmm a good question indeed.

 

[Quantum Quack]

What would make you go blind?

if you could see through every thing then there would be nothing to see therefore blind.

Which puts into the category of "not seeing through everything".
Smoker - ex smoker. Swimmer - ex swimmer.
If you don't do something then you don't do it. If you refrain from omnipotence then you are not, for that period, omnipotent. Because you are denying yourself the actuality. Likewise with omniscience: if you decide NOT to know something then you don't know it.

again I feel you are missing the point...no point repeating myself... have a re-read of the contra's and we shall talk again if you like...

Sorry but I think you are missing the point.
eg.
"I have a self created nuclear warhead in the trunk of my car. Do I take it out and use it or do I keep it for another day?
Just because I decide to keep it in the trunk doesn't diminish my potency or he potency of the nuclear device that I created."
eg.
"So I have all the knowledge in the universe, past present and future but decide not to use it, so I can play damn chess with out cheating"
Does not using the knowledge mean I am not knowledgable or omniscient?
Do you see the point?
Self restraint means that he can be omniescent and do nothing wth that knowledge or do something with it, the nature of freewill allows him to do so.

 

[Dywyddyr]

if you could see through every thing then there would be nothing to see therefore blind.

Really?
So you don't believe in glass? Perspex? Lexan? Water?

again I feel you are missing the point...no point repeating myself...

Strange, I have exactly the same feeling about you.

 

[chaos1956]

Really?
So you don't believe in glass? Perspex? Lexan? Water?

No he is saying his Free will does not allow him to believe in those things as it does not exist from his specific deterministic standpoint Example: If you put everything into a jar, could you physically see through it? No. As we know It is "physically impossible" to put everything into a jar, but his still does not negate his argument, as his free will allows his mind to fluctuate beyond what you would expect out of most people.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Really?
So you don't believe in glass? Perspex? Lexan? Water?


Strange, I have exactly the same feeling about you.

Maybe I have failed to convey the absolute nature of my use of the word everything...eh?

although I fail to see how everything could mean anything but absolute.

any ways...[sigh]
If I could see through everything including stuff like Glass and water and everything that they are made of including their reflexions and refractions and and and....

would be entirely invisable to me there for, unless you can find something else that doesn't fall under the "everything" umbrella...my point stands.

 

[Billy T]

QQ, seeing thru things does not mean you can not also see them. You see things by the light they reflect to your eyes. What you need to say is if everything were transparent* and non-reflecting, and not too hot then I would see nothing, but even this would not make you blind. Hot bodies would still radiate - you could, for example, still see the sun.

--------------
*They could also be opaque. - The real important characteristic for your not seeing them (assuming they are not self luminous) is that they have a zero coefficient of reflection.

Always: 1 = r+a+t and you don't care about how much of that unity is "a" and how much is "t" what you need is r = 0.

 

[M00se1989]

... Correct me If I am wrong... but if you stare at the sun for a long enough time would you not go blind? If it is all transparent and the sun still radiates it wouldn't matter what time of day it was or which direction you were facing, the radiation would still burn your eyes out.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The point was that if I could see nothing even though my eyes were perfectly ok I would be blind. It is the barriers that are present that give you something to look at.

"it is the rules of the game that make the game worth playing"
Take away the rules and what do you have...chaos!
"Can God set his own rules and play accordingly?"
...the nature of freewill says he can.
So...God could play chess with out cheating if he chose to do so..simply because he has the self restraint to not look into the mind of his opponents or read the future etc [ and look at the self imposed barriers instead ]