Cris, i dont mean to disrespect you, but if I slap you in the face, you should not get mad at me, because I dont have free will, It is God's mistake, right?
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Cris, i dont mean to disrespect you, but if I slap you in the face, you should not get mad at me, because I dont have free will, It is God's mistake, right?
Cris;1814029 If God knows exactly every action you will take for your entire life a billion years before you are born then exactly what free will do you have in the matter? In such a scenario all your life will have been pre-determined long before you were born and you will be powerless to do anything different. I.e. free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive conditions.[/QUOTE said:
Azizbey,
Your tape analogy doesn’t work but try this one. Suppose you are given a tape of a game that will take place 1000 years from now. And now wait 1000 years, those players will do exactly as depicted on the tape since they will have no choice in the matter, their actions will have been predetermined. The very existence of the foreknowledge confirms that pre-determination has occurred not that the knowledge is a cause.
You don’t appear close to understanding the issue yet. It has nothing to do with whether I believe free will exists or not. Neither would we be able to tell the difference whether it did or not. If our actions are predetermined then what we perceive as free will is simply our illusion – we would be just pre-programmed puppets.
You’ve missed the point.
You are not there yet. Knowledge of the events is not the cause of the events, as I have said before they are not connected. But perfect knowledge of future events does mean those events must occur, otherwise the claimed knowledge would be false. I.e. the events are necessarily pre-determined. I make no attempt to explain the cause of how such events would be pre-determined.
Your tape analogy doesn’t work but try this one. Suppose you are given a tape of a game that will take place 1000 years from now. And now wait 1000 years, those players will do exactly as depicted on the tape since they will have no choice in the matter, their actions will have been predetermined. The very existence of the foreknowledge confirms that pre-determination has occurred not that the knowledge is a cause.
Actually it is about experiential knowledge, since logical deductions firmly rest upon them (in the form of premises).
For instance this is a logical statement
P1 - all horses can fly
P2 - all pigs are horses
C - Therefore all pigs can fly
You can't contend the logic of that statement but you can contend the truth of it by inquiring who are the persons who have experience of horses flying or pigs being horses.
Similarly when you talk of god being illogical, you are simply talking about your limits of experiential knowledge. Or perhaps it is more polite to say that you work with differing premises (namely, your premise that nothing can exist beyond the medium of cause and effect) than a theist when you are forming logic.
Your request to indicate a scenario where effect can precede the cause kind of misses the point. The idea is that an eternal object would have eternal qualities. For instance suppose we were talking of an eternal fire. That means it would also have eternal heat, eternal light and eternal smoke. Even though the heat, smoke and light would be (eternally) contingent on the fire, it would not be entirely appropriate to say that they exist within the medium of cause and effect. The idea is that effect and cause are both eternal, even though the effect remains (eternally) contingent on the cause.
So practically speaking there are 5 issues of comprehension in our phenomenal world
- god
- the living entity
- material nature (the "stuff" that is not conscious)
- time factor
- karma (results of action - determining issues of cause and effect)
the first four are eternal
The second, third and fourth are eternal contingent properties of the first (much like smoke, heat and light are eternal properties of fire)
The fifth is not eternal, mainly because it is a quality that is sometimes displayed by number 2.
Asking for a scenario where effect can precede the cause is kind of like asking for a karma that is not a karma. And furthermore, to request that god be established in the language of karma is also an impossible ask since its a temporary designation for one of his potencies (karma is pertinent for the living entity who has fallen under conditioned existence, not god).
Cris
I think you lost in translation. your tape example is good, i like that. but you still have the control of your actions, there is no illusion. you are not acting like a pre-programmed puppet, at least I dont.
if you are right,then there should not be crime,thus punishment, and therefore justice. i dont think judge Judy will buy it.
well, at this point my final words are, when you die you will find out the ultimate truth, just like the rest of us. i wish everyone good luck
best regards
additionally Cris
by definiton, God has to know the future events, since time phenomenon does not apply to him. just becasue He knows what will I do, he does not control my actions, just like we are having this conversation, He has no control over us.
well i come to a point that I repeat myself.
by definiton, God has to know the future events, since time phenomenon does not apply to him. just becasue He knows what will I do, he does not control my actions, just like we are having this conversation, He has no control over us.
well i come to a point that I repeat myself.
cris,
I have probably said this before, or someone else has, but there is one possibility which i feel you cannot refute.
Perhaps God just has perfectly adjusted predictive machinery, and the idea of timelessness and omnipresence is not the MECHANISM by which GOd knows everything.
E.G. - I can effectively predict, based on my dog's apparent mood whether he will eat a dog biscuit i give to him. It is possible I could be wrong, because i may not be in possession of enough CURRENT knowledge - it is possible a meteor is hurtling through the atmosphere and will kill us both before he can bite into it, I can't say.
Perhaps our intuition of God's perfect foreknowledge is only a recognition of an "intellect" capable of reducing matters we find complex into something God considers useful for incredibly basic inductive reasoning.
Even if everything God predicts, based on God's developed knowledge of causes and current situations of the universe on every level, comes true, that implies nothing about God's participation in the events.
I have probably said this before, or someone else has, but there is one possibility which i feel you cannot refute.
Perhaps God just has perfectly adjusted predictive machinery, and the idea of timelessness and omnipresence is not the MECHANISM by which GOd knows everything.
E.G. - I can effectively predict, based on my dog's apparent mood whether he will eat a dog biscuit i give to him. It is possible I could be wrong, because i may not be in possession of enough CURRENT knowledge - it is possible a meteor is hurtling through the atmosphere and will kill us both before he can bite into it, I can't say.
Perhaps our intuition of God's perfect foreknowledge is only a recognition of an "intellect" capable of reducing matters we find complex into something God considers useful for incredibly basic inductive reasoning.
Even if everything God predicts, based on God's developed knowledge of causes and current situations of the universe on every level, comes true, that implies nothing about God's participation in the events.
Cole,
I made the argument earlier that with perfect knowledge of every event in the universe all subsequent events could be perfectly predicted based on precisely understood cause/effect chains. Even to a god Heisenberg's uncertainty would not be a challenge. This led to discussion on the philosophy of determinism.
But this supports the original topic proposal. If at the alleged point of creation a god with such perfect ability to see all cause-effect chains and to see the final end result - then allowed it to proceed. Presumably that would be his plan. I.e. he planned for specific individuals to die and others to be saved.
The argument then becomes that with such perfect ability why didn't he engineer a universe where none would die? But that's another paradox.
I made the argument earlier that with perfect knowledge of every event in the universe all subsequent events could be perfectly predicted based on precisely understood cause/effect chains. Even to a god Heisenberg's uncertainty would not be a challenge. This led to discussion on the philosophy of determinism.
But this supports the original topic proposal. If at the alleged point of creation a god with such perfect ability to see all cause-effect chains and to see the final end result - then allowed it to proceed. Presumably that would be his plan. I.e. he planned for specific individuals to die and others to be saved.
The argument then becomes that with such perfect ability why didn't he engineer a universe where none would die? But that's another paradox.
azizbey,
Now expand that vision to the whole of time, from creation to the end of time. Since he can see everything with perfect detail and every action that will occur and since he established the initial conditions and can see the end result, then hasn't he in effect determined exactly what you will do?
The problem still remains. Even though it appears he is not controlling what you do, you nevertheless have no choice but to do what he knows will occur.
Now expand that vision to the whole of time, from creation to the end of time. Since he can see everything with perfect detail and every action that will occur and since he established the initial conditions and can see the end result, then hasn't he in effect determined exactly what you will do?
azizbey,
In this sense everything you do down to to the minutest detail is determined by all preceding actions.
Hehe. Interestingly those who support the philosophy of determinism, closely related to this topic, make that exact same point. They argue that a criminal has no choice in the matter of what he does but that his actions are the result of a prior potentially infinite chain of causes and effects. He should not be punished over something he has no control.
In this sense everything you do down to to the minutest detail is determined by all preceding actions.
Unfortunately there is nothing to indicate that death brings any reward other than non-existence.
Lg,
So here is a different approach.
Existence - is an axiom. Without this truth nothing else makes sense.
Existence is dependent on time – is an axiom. I.e. if time were absent then existence would have zero duration, and consequently existence would not be possible.
Events occur - is an axiom. If this were not true then the entire universe would be totally motionless, including any gods that might be around.
An event necessarily involves the passage of time – is an axiom; I.e. for an event to occur there must be a “before” condition and an “after” condition.
Every event has a cause – is an axiom. If this were not true then no events would occur.
Every event generates an effect – is an axiom. I.e. there is an after condition as defined above.
Conclusion – anything that exists is dependent on time and cause and effect of anything that exists has the necessary property of cause preceding the effect.
We also experience these things but those axioms are not dependent on our knowledge or experience.
The remainder of your post appears to depend on what I see as a false conclusion, unless I have missed a subtlety in your argument, but naming something eternal doesn’t appear to materially affect my argument.
So here is a different approach.
Existence - is an axiom. Without this truth nothing else makes sense.
Existence is dependent on time – is an axiom. I.e. if time were absent then existence would have zero duration, and consequently existence would not be possible.
Events occur - is an axiom. If this were not true then the entire universe would be totally motionless, including any gods that might be around.
An event necessarily involves the passage of time – is an axiom; I.e. for an event to occur there must be a “before” condition and an “after” condition.
Every event has a cause – is an axiom. If this were not true then no events would occur.
Every event generates an effect – is an axiom. I.e. there is an after condition as defined above.
Conclusion – anything that exists is dependent on time and cause and effect of anything that exists has the necessary property of cause preceding the effect.
We also experience these things but those axioms are not dependent on our knowledge or experience.
Unless the fire is totally motionless then the dynamics within the motion of fire would be the results of continuous causes and effects, whether eternal or not.
The remainder of your post appears to depend on what I see as a false conclusion, unless I have missed a subtlety in your argument, but naming something eternal doesn’t appear to materially affect my argument.
I think that is a slightly different discussion than you trying to prove that God's knowledge of all events CAUSES the events. I thought you have been saying that God must either be totally active in every molecular movement due to precognition, or not exist. I think that that proposition is untrue under a couple of possible scenarios.Cris said:
The idea that God is implicit in evil by NOT ACTING , or acting in a way which we might deem less than good is a different point entirely.
Perhaps God did engineer a universe where none die, and maybe universal grace exists, or reincarnation is allowed for, to save the lost. The information on the subject seems largely based on people's religious "impressions" and not scientifically testable so it is hard to say.Cris said:
But if you are a just a mechanism of nature, a form created by totally impersonal forces, as the objectivist believes, what does your dying matter to a greater scheme of anything anyway? None at all.
Cris
I think all I can say is that there are paradigms of thought that hold time as an aspect of existence and not as an absolute controlling force of it.
“
ok
it breaks down here
I think all I can say is that there are paradigms of thought that hold time as an aspect of existence and not as an absolute controlling force of it.
“
the analogy illustrates how the effect would exist beyond issues of time and cause and effect (as we commonly experience and rationalize them)
similarly, your post appears to depend on a false conclusion - namely naming existence dependent on time
Lg,
In our previous discussion I was leaning towards time being an axiomatic property of existence as opposed to something seperate, as I think you agree. But apart from semantics I sense my suggestions here are close.
We may be stumped here again with trying to work without that ellusive clear definition of time.
In our previous discussion I was leaning towards time being an axiomatic property of existence as opposed to something seperate, as I think you agree. But apart from semantics I sense my suggestions here are close.
We may be stumped here again with trying to work without that ellusive clear definition of time.
Basically I am working with the idea of time being an axiomatic property of a certain type of existence (namely the one we commonly agree to be existing in at the moment).
To run with this type of existence as absolute (and sufficient for establishing the parameters for discussion of god) is not valid, at least according to the body of work that surrounds the topic in question, god.
I haven't read through this entire thread so if I'm covering old ground then please ignore me:
On the subject of free will Vs Gods omniscience (and the paradox thereof)
If free will exists then this implies that the universe can follow an infinite number of paths through time based on which actions people take during their lifetimes (a butterfly effect). We cannot possibly comprehend infinity, but if God exists in the infinite then he will know of every conceivable effect of every desicion people make, therefore retaining his omniscience, even though free will still exists.
To put it a different way, If the universe was to come to an end in the future, say in a billion years time, between now and then there are (almost) an infinite number of events could happen based on the actions people take, but if God knows every outcome to all your possible actions then he is still omniscient, even though free will still exists.
Not sure if that makes a lot of sense as it does in my head but I just wanted to write it down while it was there.
On the subject of free will Vs Gods omniscience (and the paradox thereof)
If free will exists then this implies that the universe can follow an infinite number of paths through time based on which actions people take during their lifetimes (a butterfly effect). We cannot possibly comprehend infinity, but if God exists in the infinite then he will know of every conceivable effect of every desicion people make, therefore retaining his omniscience, even though free will still exists.
To put it a different way, If the universe was to come to an end in the future, say in a billion years time, between now and then there are (almost) an infinite number of events could happen based on the actions people take, but if God knows every outcome to all your possible actions then he is still omniscient, even though free will still exists.
Not sure if that makes a lot of sense as it does in my head but I just wanted to write it down while it was there.
Last edited:
Joeb,
Hi and welcome to sciforums.
The fallacy is that knowing every possibility is not the same as knowing which actual path will occur. For free will to be true he must wait for a free will decision before he knows which path that will take, until the next decision, etc. IOW he still DOESN'T know what will hapen next even if he knows all possibilities, and if he doesn't know then he can't be omnisicent.
Hi and welcome to sciforums.
Yes it makes perfect sense and I have been waiting a long time for someone to say that.
The fallacy is that knowing every possibility is not the same as knowing which actual path will occur. For free will to be true he must wait for a free will decision before he knows which path that will take, until the next decision, etc. IOW he still DOESN'T know what will hapen next even if he knows all possibilities, and if he doesn't know then he can't be omnisicent.
Suppose as some people do that we exist in an infinite number of universes and have lived our own lives over and over (universes keep collapsing and reforming). If God is pan-dimensional then he will already know what we are about to do in the particular universe he is observing...
(even though our free will has been executed in every possible way in other universes).
p.s. I'm aware that this argument falls at the same hurdle if you apply it only to this particular reality (universe), its just another way of looking at it. I'm sure you will agree that if there is a God, he would probably think quite laterally
(even though our free will has been executed in every possible way in other universes). p.s. I'm aware that this argument falls at the same hurdle if you apply it only to this particular reality (universe), its just another way of looking at it. I'm sure you will agree that if there is a God, he would probably think quite laterally