Godless said:
Thus to me this means predetermined acts. i.e. if god's knowledge & actions have always been known to him, then the future is predetermined. So is it's will, and our will have been known to "god" from begining of time, thus to postulate an omniscient being contradicts free will, when this entity has full knowledge of what will occur from begining of time, then it can't change it's mind because to do so would render god not omniscient. With perfect knowledge means to me that it's consciousness had its mind set from begining of time thus the paradox Chris talks about. If omniscient being exists, no free will.
You're still missing the point. Yes, God knows everything at the beginning of time. Yes, God can never change His mind. Yes, God has full knowledge of what is occurring. Yes, God's mind is set from the beginning of time. Yes, I understand the paradox of the language I'm using between past and present tenses. I'm doing that purposely.
Here is a way to consider it:
There are possible worlds and there are actual worlds. The actual worlds are what are. Time is the sequenced movement between actual worlds. What determines what possible worlds are actual, is choice. There are two kinds of entities. The holistic and the sequenced. Sequenced entities experience actual worlds sequentially. Holistic entities experience actual worlds holistically. Hence, the sequenced entities experience actual worlds one at a time, in sequence, while holistic entities experience actual worlds simultaneously, holistically.
Aristotle made this distinction when he defined the two infinities: actual infinity and potential infinity. An actual infinite is a complete set, it is perfect, holistic. A potential infinite is an incomplete set, and tends toward the infinite, thus operating by sequence. Really, the universe is potentially infinite. It operates in sequence, or time. Moving from one possibility, or possible world, to the next, probably endlessly. It is impossible for an actual infinite to exist within the universe, as is clear because of the many contradictions that arise. The universe itself is actually not a thing that can be talked about. Things exist in the universe, but "universe" is actually merely a conceptual categorization of reality. That is, it is the sum of existing things. Thus, we can say it is potentially infinite, sequential, since all existing things are in a constant state of flux.
Since the universe, itself, is merely a categorization, and not a specific thing, but contains things, it can be said that it has had a beginning. This is because all things have beginning. If the universe is a summation of existing things, and all things have beginning, then the universe also had a beginning. While one may argue that energy/matter has always existed, and therefore the universe has always existed, that could only be true if you argued that the universe is the summation of energy/matter. This I might go along with, though I find it interesting that many people argue that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, and yet other people say that in a vaccuum matter appears to pop into existence from nowhere. I say the matter isn't closed yet.
However, moving on. All things have beginning, so whether you wish to argue that the universe is infinitely old based on the energy/matter argument, you must still recognize the fact that things have beginning. Thus it stands to reason that some force caused things to come into being. You're left with two options: 1. The energy/matter itself has consciousness and caused itself to form things. 2. There is some outside intelligent force that caused matter/energy to form into things. Or, I suppose you could also simply reject the statement that there was an origin to things and say that things, like matter/energy have always existed.
However, no matter what stand you take, you're lacking in empirical evidence, thus to hold a position one way or the other means you're asserting a stance based on purely on abstract logic. You, of course, will argue that there is not empirical evidence for a conscious universe, nor empirical evidence for a conscious extra-universal being, thus your stance is more logical. However, I would argue that it seems contradictory to say that a universe of things, all of which have beginning, did not have beginning. I would argue that it seems contradictory to say that a universe that operates on the principle of cause and effect didn't have an original cause. Others might argue that the universe did have a beginning, but that it has had many beginnings and operates on another universal principle of cycles, and thus, though having many beginnings (and endings), is itself infinitely old. Some would argue that it is cyclic, but that it did have a beginning, and that the cycles are births and deaths of the universe, but merely universal cycles along an endlessly spiralling time-line.
In the end, what we're left with are theories, all drawing from what we know and experience. What matters, what makes one person take one stance over another, is his own personal experiences. You, for example, find it necessary to have empirical evidence otherwise you won't believe it to be true. I am someone who doesn't put so much emphasis on empirical evidence, but do consider it very important. What we both share in common is our devotion to logic, because no matter what stance we take, we both recognize that humans are intelligent creatures for whom it is fully natural and good to make use of. Thus, for people like you and I, it is immoral to disregard the use of the mind. However, I would hope that you recognize that the mind operates both logically and intuitively (again, this duality of sequence and holism). Thus, while I am devoted to logic, I do accept intuition as a viable source of knowledge. This is why I do not place extreme emphasis on empirical evidence, because though intuition also makes use of the evidence it is presented with, it is the logical mind that desires to examine every bit of it, so as to understand each step in the process of reaching the conclusion.
Thus, because I choose to make the stand that there exists a first cause, a universal beginning, an actual infinite, a purely holistic reality, an eternal, I must understand the meaning of such a stance as certainly as I can. Those attributes that I then attribute to this actual infinite are logical progressions, logical results of attempting to understand that reality. Yes, they do seem paradoxical, but that is because when trying to understand them, most people approach the matter as though they were considering a temporal reality, something belonging to sequence, to the universe. This is the error.
If there is an holistic reality, then all of reality already exists: past, present and future. This is because past, present and future are merely categories utilized by the logical mind, within a logical or sequential setting. Some would say that this definitely means predestination. However, predestination implies a predestinator. What, or who, was the predestinator? It cannot be said to be knowledge, since knowledge does not determine what is, knowledge only recognizes what is. If God knows all of time, from all eternity, then it is not God's knowledge that has determined all of time, God's knowledge is only a recognition of what is. Thus, to say that God is omniscient, is to say that all of time already is, already exists, but it says nothing more.
What then is the predeterminator? Could you argue that the first cause was the predeterminator, since then everything following that is an indirect result of it, thus making God the predeterminator (assuming one holds God as the first cause)? If so, then you have already assumed that humans do not have free will, as we have no ability to alter the course set by the first cause.
What then is the predeterminator? I answer that there is no predeterminator. Rather, what is, is determined by choice. Thus, humans are responsible for reality as it is (at least after humans came into existence). Thus, while I say, I am existing now, and my choices will determine a small part of the future, what I'm really saying is that the choices I make now, are what have determined the future that already exists. Then, one might say that the future is predetermined, but only as far as it is individuals, us, you and I, who determine(d) it.
This keeps both human free will in tact, the eternality and unchangability of God in tact, as well as His omniscience.
Godless said:
...ancient nomads who created this god in the first place to give hope to its people that they were the chosen ones of this god. Their ingnorance was not to question this rhetoric, but accept without knowledge if the elders claims held water.
That is was created by those nomads is assumptive, along with the reasons you ascribe to that creation.
Godless said:
The first cause argument has been shown many times to be fallacious.
Fallacious in what way? I've read the rebuttle. Aquinas never claims the first cause argument to be a proof. He merely says that it is a good reason for believing in a God. As for the "possibly multiple first causes" (or multiple gods) argument, I've already indicated why that wouldn't be the case. I've set up reality with a basic duality, the incomplete and the complete, the partial and the whole, the imperfect and the perfect, the logical and the intuitive, the sequential and the holistic, the potentially infinite and the actually infinite, the temporal and the eternal. The nature of the actual infinite, as a first cause to the potential infinite is such that it can only allow for the singular, rather than the plural. There can not have been multiple "gods" as they would all have been eternal, actually infinite, perfect, complete, etc.. and thus all identical and unified, effectively making them a single unit, rather than a group.
Concerning the need for an origin of God, again, the duality of the real should be explanation enough. If the God is eternal, and unchanging, then all of existence is eternal. Thus, though the universe had a beginning, it has also always existed. The reason the universe logically needs a beginning is because things have beginning, sequence also has beginning. Holistic existence could not have a beginning, because that would imply that it is not holistic, but rather incomplete, imperfect. Because the universe changes, it can be seen to not be complete, holistic, actually infinite. It is sequenced, tending toward the infinite, potentially infinite. I do not say that the universe has a beginning because it needs explanation. I say it has a beginning because that is its nature. God does not have a beginning because that is the nature of God.
Godless said:
I don't think that the universe is sequential, thus no begining. But an eternally existent phenomena.
I believe reality is eternal, but the universe, as the sum of existing things, must necessarily be temporal, sequential. I don't know how you could possibly deny this. But please, I'd like to hear your argument (sorry, didn't read the link before writing this. I might take a look when I'm done).
Godless said:
The bible was writen by primitive men, their mentality was undergoing a mental evolution, thus the mind was becoming self aware. "I Am" is a formal way of saying I exist as an idividual. Moses I think was not only delusional but also schizophrenic, thus it was only his imagination were he heard the voice say. I am it was his self consciousness that he heard. The little voice inside everyone's head. You know by now I refer to Dr. Julian Jaynes theory of origins of consciousness.
This is conjecture, so I'm not going to say anything concerning it. I'll let the issue of axioms and the "I AM" drop for now, for the sake of staying on topic. The topic, of course, being the contension that omniscience precludes free will.
