"proof that the christian god can't exist, debunked"

[scifes]

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

you can, but you don't.

 

[scifes]

So someone explain to me why a sane person would choose eternal torture. Sounds pretty terrifying, doesn't it?

To call this choice free, is truly insane.

you tell us, why do you, a sane person, choose eternal torture?

i used to think it's insane too..till i came here..

scifes,

If everything is the result of cause and effect then free will may not exist.

If the future is knowable, note that it doesn't matter whether anything actually has knowledge of the future or not, then everything is predetermined and free will cannot exist.

If the future is unknowable, and that means omniscient beings cannot exist, and if there is randomness in the universe such that micro cause and effect chains are not real, then many of our choices in life may well be spontaneous, unpredictable, and of true free will.

cris, a model, a scenario, a story of a guy who has free will..that's all..

 

[Dywyddyr]

Seeing as you would like to think you have free will, but as yet are undecided, means you have free will.

No it doesn't.
The "logic" doesn't hold together at all.
I could be undecided because I was destined to be that way.

No, they include (among other things) truths.

Riiight. And the difference, to your mind, is...?

We know it was fake, but our knowledge of it's fakery is not primariily based on the truth that it was fake.
But upon the full understanding of it's fakery, (which includes different aspects of knowledge) we can now conclude what the truth is.
That is how knowledge works.

Also specious: it was untrue then, it's untrue now. Therefore it was belief not knowledge.

You're right it was never true, but while it was believed to be true,
the belief was based on knowledge, albeit erronous, and second-hand.

If it wasn't true it wasn't knowledge.

In hindsight, yes, but without it, not necessarily.

Wrong: Knowledge is not knowledge unless it's true.

By true knowledge, I mean perfect knowledge, omnicscience.

Okay: and for it be knowledge of any kind it must be true.

If the future is knowable, and we therefore, cannot have free-will, what is that knowledge based on, given the correct definition of knowledge?

It doesn't matter what it's based on, on this case: presumably god, being god, knows because that's his nature.

If we dance to the tune of that knowledge, and our every action is predestined by that knowledge, then why call it knowledge, or omniscience?

Cart before the horse, as I explained.
The future (i.e. what you WILL pick) can only be known if is fixed - predestined. Therefore if someone does know the future it follows that it is fixed. If it is fixed then we have no choice.

Knowledge comes from our relationship with reality, resulting in experience, and percieved through our senses. Perfect knowledge is knowing things as they are. If God is God, then He knows things perfectly, as opposed to imperfectly. He would then be in a position to know future events without having to dictate it.

One more time: it is not dictated.

You were quite right, I did sidestep this point. The reason being, it has the same old assumptions, i.e, knowledge=truth, and, omniscience is based on knowledge without undertstanding, and is actually a predestined set of rules with regard to living entities.

Wrong: knowledge being based on truth is not an assumption, it's part of the definition of truth.
Omniscience being knowledge without understanding is not an assumption (unless you count yourself). I have made no comment on the nature of omniscience, other than that is what it says: knowing everything.

You seem to miss the point that we can choose that which is untrue, as in the case of Piltdown Man, which renders your point, knowledge = truth, and, we dance to that tune, moot.

Also wrong. And an illustration of how you miss the point completely.
If the future is knowable then we were destined to make the error of Piltodwn: there was no choice.

The fact is, we can change our mind through our own volition, to suit ourselves despite the truth, and this is the power of our free will.

"The fact"?
And you can prove this how?

I'm sure you understand that knowledge, we deem "the truth", has to
be based on something which relates to us.
So my question is, why is having perfect knowledge, any different?

You're STILL missing the point: if it isn't true it isn't knowledge.

You pick A because you want to pick A, and the reasons for your wanting to pick is the knowledge that God posesses.

No: if god knows then we have no choice.

According to your understanding.
But why do you insist on sticking with it?

Er, that's the topic for the thread.

You now have food for thought, if you want it.

Food for thought? On how often and consistently someone can miss the point?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Well thats interestin... do you thank you have "free-will".???

Er,

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
I'd like to think so.

But I don't know.

you can, but you don't.

And this is your grand reply?
Fail.
If god knows then we cannot. It's that simple.

 

[scifes]

And this is your grand reply?
Fail.
If god knows then we cannot. It's that simple.

yes we can.

 

[Dywyddyr]

yes we can.

If god knows what we will do we can't since if we did (or were capable of doing) that would make god wrong.
Which is the whole point of contention.
In other words you've spent the entire thread waffling and then your "grand refutation" is "yes we can", but with absolutely no backup (evidence would be hard to provide, but some sort of chain of logic would help).

Follow this chain (and Cris's argument) again.
In order for something to be knowledge it must be true (something Jan Ardena doesn't seem to understand). (That's part of what makes knowledge knowledge as opposed to belief).
If it is true it cannot, ever, be false.
Therefore if god knows what we will do it must be true that we will do it.
Therefore we cannot NOT do it.
There can be no possibility whatsoever that we could do otherwise.

We have no choice.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Follow this chain (and Cris's argument) again.
In order for something to be knowledge it must be true (something Jan Ardena doesn't seem to understand). (That's part of what makes knowledge knowledge as opposed to belief).

The pursuit of truth requires knowledge.
This knowledge comes in different forms, theoretical, personal, and practical.
The truth is true, and the only knowledge that can claim "the truth" is perfect knowledge. As we do not have perfect knowledge, we have to make
use of whatever information, experience, or evidence is available to us to pursue the truth. All is knowledge, it becomes false, or fake, because of our
imperfections, and failings.

If it is true it cannot, ever, be false.
Therefore if god knows what we will do it must be true that we will do it.
Therefore we cannot NOT do it.
There can be no possibility whatsoever that we could do otherwise.

But it is not true because God knows it, it is true because that is what we
want, need, forced, or conditioned to do.
Details, are immaterial, intentions count.
There are various way to do one intentional thing.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The pursuit of truth requires knowledge.

That's your personal take on things.

This knowledge comes in different forms, theoretical, personal, and practical.

And if it isn't true it isn't knowledge.

The truth is true, and the only knowledge that can claim "the truth" is perfect knowledge. As we do not have perfect knowledge, we have to make use of whatever information, experience, or evidence is available to us to pursue the truth. All is knowledge, it becomes false, or fake, because of our imperfections, and failings.

Wrong again.
Please look at the link I gave: by definition if it isn't true it isn't knowledge, it's merely belief.

But it is not true because God knows it, it is true because that is what we want, need, forced, or conditioned to do.

I didn't say it was true because god knows, I said that if it was knowledge it must therefore be true.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

That's your personal take on things.

So how do you pursue truth?

And if it isn't true it isn't knowledge.

Do you regard information, evidence, experience, and theory, as truth?

Wrong again.
Please look at the link I gave: by definition if it isn't true it isn't knowledge, it's merely belief.

I have, and I have looked other definitions of knowledge, and it
doesn't say that. This is your personal take on the information.
You believe this is knowledge.d

I didn't say it was true because god knows, I said that if it was knowledge it must therefore be true.

You said; there is no possibility we can do anything other than what is
known by God. You say this because you believe knowledge = truth, and we cannot undo the truth. So if God knows what the future holds we are forced to act according to that knowledge and as such, cannot possibly have free will.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So how do you pursue truth?

Off topic.
How do you define truth?

Do you regard information, evidence, experience, and theory, as truth?

Specious question.
Obviously some can be, some isn't.

I have, and I have looked other definitions of knowledge, and it doesn't say that. This is your personal take on the information.

So you didn't really read it...

1. Knowledge as Justified True Belief

According to the following analysis, which is usually referred to as the "JTB" account, knowledge is justified true belief.

The JTB Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p iff
1. p is true;
2. S believes that p;
3. S is justified in believing that p.

Your credibility is fading.

You said; there is no possibility we can do anything other than what is
known by God. You say this because you believe knowledge = truth, and we cannot undo the truth. So if God knows what the future holds we are forced to act according to that knowledge and as such, cannot possibly have free will.

Wrong twice.
I do not believe knowledge = truth. Knowledge, to be knowledge, must be true however. Being true is one of the criteria for something to qualify as knowledge, otherwise it's just belief. Please try to follow...
And I also exhorted you to read Cris's post: if ANYONE has knowledge of the future then free will does not exist.
God is the exemplar in this case since the claim is that god does know.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Off topic.

You say knowledge must be true, to know something is true one must
know what is truth, and what is false.

How do you define truth?

That's a question you should answer, otherwise
how will you know whether knowledge is true?

Obviously some can be, some isn't.

But is all classified as knowledge, right?

So you didn't really read it...

I told you I read it.
And your quote did not reveal that knowledge must be true
and all else is belief. At least that's not what I got from it.
Would you care to explain how it meant that?

Your credibility is fading.

I guess it must be because you say so.

Wrong twice.
I do not believe knowledge = truth. Knowledge, to be knowledge, must be true however.

Then what is your definition of true, if it does not pertain to truth?

Being true is one of the criteria for something to qualify as knowledge, otherwise it's just belief. Please try to follow...

Knowledge the whole process of obtaining truth, not just the end of said
process. The phrase "we learn by our mistakes" comes to mind".

And I also exhorted you to read Cris's post: if ANYONE has knowledge of the future then free will does not exist.
God is the exemplar in this case since the claim is that god does know.

I know that's what it says, given Cris's position on the whole thing, what else
could it purport. It is a premise based on world view, not on reason or logic, unless you believe it is okay to use a strawman God as an example.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You say knowledge must be true, to know something is true one must know what is truth, and what is false.

You're going waay off topic. Again.
"Truth" seems to mean something different to you than does "true".
To be true it must be demonstrable and verifiable as such.

That's a question you should answer, otherwise how will you know whether knowledge is true?

Wrong again: you're the one that is disputing "true".

But is all classified as knowledge, right?

Wrong: since I stated that some isn't (or may not be) true then it isn't knowledge. It's belief.

I told you I read it.
And your quote did not reveal that knowledge must be true and all else is belief. At least that's not what I got from it.
Would you care to explain how it meant that?

The quote showed that to be knowledge it must also be true. If it isn't true then it is simply a belief.
E.g. I can claim however hard I like that there's a tiger in my bathroom. If it isn't true that there is a tiger there then it is simply my belief.

Then what is your definition of true, if it does not pertain to truth?

Huh?

Knowledge the whole process of obtaining truth, not just the end of said process. The phrase "we learn by our mistakes" comes to mind".

Knowledge is the end product. Learning is the process.

I know that's what it says, given Cris's position on the whole thing, what else could it purport.

If the future is knowable, note that it doesn't matter whether anything actually has knowledge of the future or not, then everything is predetermined and free will cannot exist.

It is a premise based on world view, not on reason or logic

Wrong: the logic is impeccable.
A or B: knowledge of the future or free will.

unless you believe it is okay to use a strawman God as an example.

Strawman?
How so, when god is held (as you have stated) to have perfect knowledge?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
...do you thank you have "free-will".??? ”

Er,
I'd like to think so.

But I don't know.

I suspect that nobody "knows"... but do you thank you have free-will.???

 

[Dywyddyr]

I suspect that nobody "knows"... but do you thank you have free-will.???

Which bit of "I don't know" did you miss?
I don't know.

As previously stated, I would like to think I do.
But I can't be sure that I wasn't "programmed" that way by... whatever (genes, events leading back to the Big Bang, the butterfly that flew past the Albert Hall two years ago...)
As this thread illustrates we may well have the illusion of free will and everything is fixed: in which case we're also condemned to "believe"* that we have free will, or, even "worse" believe that we're thinking hard about whether or not we do when all we're doing is following an unseen script and what we think isn't really "what we think" but part of the script that's running internally.

* Of course if it is fixed then we don't "believe" either, any more than a computer believes it's doing anything when running a programme: it's ALL (maybe) part of the script and I am not really me, just a "cog" that's programmed to act as though it is.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

You're going waay off topic. Again.
"Truth" seems to mean something different to you than does "true".
To be true it must be demonstrable and verifiable as such.

But what if it is deemed "true" only to be unearthed 50 years later as false?
How could it have been true?

Wrong again: you're the one that is disputing "true".

Just trying to get you to commit to something.
It like trying to fit an inflated balloon in a little box.

Wrong: since I stated that some isn't (or may not be) true then it isn't knowledge. It's belief.

Which ones aren't knowledge?

The quote showed that to be knowledge it must also be true. If it isn't true then it is simply a belief.
E.g. I can claim however hard I like that there's a tiger in my bathroom. If it isn't true that there is a tiger there then it is simply my belief.

But you would know there's no tiger in your bathroom, and it begs the question why you would want to believe something you know isn't true.
And saying that the quote showed you " does not
explain how you have come to that conclusion.

Knowledge is the end product. Learning is the process.

Let me get this straight.
You're saying we don't require knowledge to learn?

Wrong: the logic is impeccable.
A or B: knowledge of the future or free will.

No it's not.
You're reasoning on the matter bears testamant to that.

Strawman?
How so, when god is held (as you have stated) to have perfect knowledge?

If God has perfect knowledge, then His process of calculation is also perfect.
If His calculation is perfect, then He can calculate the future. Isn't that a more likely understanding of God's knowledge than "i guess he must be omniscient because that's just his nature. That doesn't explain knowledge, let alone perfect knowledge, but you seem happy to go with it.

I suggest you try and understand who and what God is (or what he's supposed to be, if you're atheist/agnostic). Otherwise you're just simplifying everything to suit your worldview whether you realise it or not.

jan.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
Do you thank you have "free-will".???

...I would like to think I do.

So how do you define this thang..."free-will"... that you like to thank you have.???

 

[Dywyddyr]

But what if it is deemed "true" only to be unearthed 50 years later as false?
How could it have been true?

Again you're conflating belief with knowledge.
It was never true.

Just trying to get you to commit to something.
It like trying to fit an inflated balloon in a little box.

Because you're dragging the topic away...

Which ones aren't knowledge?

How many more times: the ones that aren't true: if they aren't true they're beliefs not knowledge.

But you would know there's no tiger in your bathroom, and it begs the question why you would want to believe something you know isn't true.

People have all sorts of strange reasons for believing things that aren't true.
In the above case I could be mentally ill, or under the influence of drugs, or merely stupid.

And saying that the quote showed you " does not explain how you have come to that conclusion.

Then you are, once again, failing to think. If one of the conditions for something to be knowledge is that it must be true then if so-called knowledge is not true it cannot be knowledge: it may be believable but it isn't knowledge - i.e. it's a belief.

Let me get this straight.
You're saying we don't require knowledge to learn?

Knowledge is what you learn: learning is the process of acquiring knowledge. You can build on existing knowledge, but that's still learning.

learn
• verb (past and past part. learned or chiefly Brit. learnt) 1 acquire knowledge of or skill in (something) through study or experience or by being taught. 2 become aware of by information or from observation. 3 memorize.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/learn?view=uk

No it's not.

Wrong again.

You're reasoning on the matter bears testamant to that.

Really? And you believe that?

If God has perfect knowledge, then His process of calculation is also perfect. If His calculation is perfect, then He can calculate the future.

Okay, I'll address this later.

Isn't that a more likely understanding of God's knowledge than "i guess he must be omniscient because that's just his nature. That doesn't explain knowledge, let alone perfect knowledge, but you seem happy to go with it.

A more likely understanding? Pfft I made the comment I did because I am not prepared to make any statements about the nature of god.

I suggest you try and understand who and what God is (or what he's supposed to be, if you're atheist/agnostic).

Why?

Otherwise you're just simplifying everything to suit your worldview whether you realise it or not.

Wrong again.
Okay, back to this:
"If His calculation is perfect, then He can calculate the future."
So, god calculates what you will do: pick A over B for example. Before you do it.
Can you therefore pick B?
If "yes" that means that god's calculation was wrong and therefore not perfect. (And hence no knowledge, but belief).
If "no" then you didn't have a choice, because you couldn't pick B.
And note that the "can you" question is not "will you", it's "is there any possibility whatsoever that you could".

Either there is knowledge or there is free will, there cannot be both.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So how do you define this thang..."free-will"... that you like to thank you have.???

Good question.
I had to resort to a dictionary since I'm fairly nebulous on what I think it should be.
Okay, we've got
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
From Answers.com, it's as good a start as any.
While I certainly don't think there's such a thing as choice free from all constraint (can I afford it? will it go with the curtains? will I fall over if I have another pint? etc etc) the last part is probably closer - unconstrained by fate or divine will.
Maybe because if it is fate (or divine will) then we are, as previously stated, simply following an unknown script, and the end (whatever it is) is already decided - in other it makes things pointless: why not just skip to the end to start with (if there is an end, e.g. heaven or whatever).
If it is fate then I'm not me I'm a cog that only "thinks" it's me.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
So how do you define this thang..."free-will"... that you like to thank you have.???

Good question.
...I'm fairly nebulous on what I think it should be.

Thats seems odd sinse its somptin you like to thank you have.!!!

While I certainly don't think there's such a thing as choice free from all constraint (can I afford it? will it go with the curtains? will I fall over if I have another pint? etc etc) the last part is probably closer - unconstrained by fate or divine will.

So if you do have free-will... its only "partial" free-will... but give an esample of an "unconstrained" free-will decision.???

 

[Dywyddyr]

Thats seems odd sinse its somptin you like to thank you have.!!!

Odd? Really?
I'd like to have a big house, but I can't tell you what colour the kitchen would be, or where the stair case is in relation to the study...

So if you do have free-will... its only "partial" free-will... but give an esample of an "unconstrained" free-will decision.???

Er, didn't I list some of the constraints?
Consideration for others, available budget, legality, availability and numerous other things are all constraints: an "unconstrained free will" would be subject to none of those, surely?