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

[cluelusshusbund]

Origonaly posted by cluelusshusbund
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?

Surly... but can you give a specific esample of a decision you can make that doesnt have constraints... in other words... an esample of "free-will".???

 

[Dywyddyr]

Surly... but can you give a specific esample of a decision you can make that doesnt have constraints... in other words... an esample of "free-will".???

Since my entire existence is subject to one constraint or another the answer is: probably not.
And nope: an example of free will would also be "deciding what to have for tea" (if there is no fate).

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Surly... but can you give a specific esample of a decision you can make that doesnt have constraints... in other words... an esample of "free-will".???

Since my entire existence is subject to one constraint or another the answer is: probably not.

Only "probably not"... that seems odd sinse you thank you'r entire esistene is subject to 1 constraint or anuther.!!!

And nope: an example of free will would also be "deciding what to have for tea" (if there is no fate).

Wit an all-knowin God or not... i dont see evidence of "free-will" bein posible.!!!

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.

Put that way... it coud cause a person to "want to thank" they have somptin they cant give an esample of but refer to as "free-will"

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

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

"Belief" is fundamental in understanding knowledge.
Information, evidence, and all the other components which allows
knowledge to be accepted, can be percieved in a way which can be
believed if the recipient has little or no understanding of that particular field.

Because you're dragging the topic away...

Your premise relies on "knowledge has to be true to be knowledge", and while ultimately i agree with that, it doesn't take into account the stepping stones required to reach that level.

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

And as I have stated before; It is one thing to gain knowledge of truth and
falsity in hindsight, but how is it possible at the particular time, when the rigours of the disciplines you mentioned, are said to have been carried out, and legitemised and validated by the institutes of knowledge?

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.

So it wasn't a very good analogy?

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.

Even if it turned out to be true, belief would still play the same role.

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

How is it possible to learn without existing knowledge?

Really? And you believe that?

Yes. Your affirmation "knowledge has to be true, to be knowledge" does
not take into account the stepping stones required to reach that level of
understanding, which is probably why the notion of omniscience confuses you.

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.

God, is central to this thread.
What use is your analasys if you're not prepared to accept that?

Why?

Read above.

So, god calculates what you will do: pick A over B for example. Before you do it.

Okay.

Can you therefore pick B?

To pick B, would be to change your mind.
There would have to be a reason for this to happen, and this reason
would be etched into your character.
For example, you may have wanted to pick A because it seemed the
right choice to make, but in your heart want B because you prefer it.
That would mean your decision to pick A in the first place, was
not a strong decision.
If God can calculate that you would pick A, then the same method
of calculation can be used to calculate the unsurety of the decision, and
the full set of reasons which creates the characteristics for the unsurety.
In short, whichever you choose, you choose because of your particular
character.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

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

"Belief" is fundamental in understanding knowledge.

Because you're dragging the topic away...

Your premise relies on "knowledge has to be true to be knowledge", and while ultimately i agree with that, it doesn't take into account the stepping stones required to reach that level. So that needs to be sorted.

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

And as I have stated before; It is one thing to gain knowledge of truth and
falsity in hindsight, but how is it possible at the particular time, when the rigours of the disciplines you mentioned, are said to have been carried out, and legitemised and validated by the institutes of knowledge?

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.

So it wasn't a very good analogy?

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.

Even if it turned out to be true, belief would still play the same role.

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

How is it possible to learn without existing knowledge?

Really? And you believe that?

Yes. Your affirmation "knowledge has to be true, to be knowledge" does
not take into account the stepping stones required to reach that level of
understanding, which is probably why the notion of omniscience confuses you.

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.

God, is central to this thread.
What use is your analasys if you're not prepared to accept that?

Why?

Read above.

So, god calculates what you will do: pick A over B for example. Before you do it.

Okay.

Can you therefore pick B?

To pick B, would be to change your mind.
There would have to be a reason for this to happen, and this reason
would be etched into your character.
For example, you may have wanted to pick A because it seemed the
right choice to make, but in your heart want B because you prefer it.
That would mean your decision to pick A in the first place, was
not strong.
If God can calculate that you would pick A, then the same method
of calculation can be used to calculate the unsurety of the decision, and
the full set of reasons which lends itself to those characteristics.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

"Belief" is fundamental in understanding knowledge.

Nope.
Regardless, it is possible to have knowledge that one believes in, but if something isn't actually true then it doesn't matter how much you believe it, it will never become knowledge.

Your premise relies on "knowledge has to be true to be knowledge", and while ultimately i agree with that, it doesn't take into account the stepping stones required to reach that level.

Because, for this discussion, the steps aren't relevant.

And as I have stated before; It is one thing to gain knowledge of truth and falsity in hindsight, but how is it possible at the particular time, when the rigours of the disciplines you mentioned, are said to have been carried out, and legitemised and validated by the institutes of knowledge?

And as I have repeatedly stated; even at the time those things were not knowledge.
They may have been claimed to be knowledge but that's as useful as me claiming there's a tiger in my bathroom: the latter is easily demonstrable as a falsehood, other things may require more work to decide the veracity. That is why science (as opposed to teachers/ TV/ other popularisers) rarely makes claims of knowledge: the claims are normally hedged with comments along the lines of "so far as we can tell" or "the current thinking is..."

So it wasn't a very good analogy?

I see you missed the point again.
An individual's reasons for claiming something are many and varied.

Even if it turned out to be true, belief would still play the same role.

So?

How is it possible to learn without existing knowledge?

How is not possible to learn from scratch?
How did you learn to talk without knowing how to speak?
How did you learn mathematics without knowing how to do maths?

Yes. Your affirmation "knowledge has to be true, to be knowledge" does not take into account the stepping stones required to reach that level of understanding, which is probably why the notion of omniscience confuses you.

One more time: how that knowledge is achieved is irrelevant. If it knowledge then it is knowledge.
If it is knowledge it must be true.
That is the point in contention: if one truly knows the future then it is irrevocably fixed - however you found out.

God, is central to this thread.

Wrong:
Read Cris' statement again.
If the knowledge exists at all, in anyone, then the future is fixed.

What use is your analasys if you're not prepared to accept that?

What use are your arguments if you can't see that it's about the knowledge (or not) and not god?

To pick B, would be to change your mind.

To pick B would be to make god's calculation incorrect - therefore it wasn't a "perfect calculation".

There would have to be a reason for this to happen, and this reason
would be etched into your character.
For example, you may have wanted to pick A because it seemed the right choice to make, but in your heart want B because you prefer it.
That would mean your decision to pick A in the first place, was not a strong decision.

None of which addresses the point.
If the calculation is perfect is it possible to pick B?

If God can calculate that you would pick A, then the same method
of calculation can be used to calculate the unsurety of the decision, and
the full set of reasons which creates the characteristics for the unsurety.
In short, whichever you choose, you choose because of your particular
character.

In other words you're now claiming that the calculation does not result in knowledge of what you'll pick. Simply a probability of what you're likely to pick.

E.g. I know for an absolute fact he will definitely choose B.
On the other hand he might pick A. Or go to sleep and pick neither.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Nope.
Regardless, it is possible to have knowledge that one believes in, but if something isn't actually true then it doesn't matter how much you believe it, it will never become knowledge.

One may believe in his own ability to decipher truth, and/or the ability of
the source of the information, or evidence, either way belief play always
plays a role.

Because, for this discussion, the steps aren't relevant.

Knowledge requires steps, otherwise it is nothing more than unrelated information, or speculation.

And as I have repeatedly stated; even at the time those things were not knowledge.

So how do we know if something is true (before hindsight), if knowledge
isn't knowledge unless it is true?

They may have been claimed to be knowledge but that's as useful as me claiming there's a tiger in my bathroom:

If you tell me there is a tiger in your bathroom, that does not constitute as
knowledge. There is nothing more for me to know other than, I already know what a tiger is, and I know what a bathroom is.
Also there may be a couple of scenarios where the possibility of a tiger being in your bathroom are possible however unlikely.
If your house was situated near the Indian jungle, or you lived close to a zoo which housed tigers, belief in your claim would be reasonable, even if you were lying.
The same kind of method of justification can be applied to any
claimed knowledge.

...the latter is easily demonstrable as a falsehood, other things may require more work to decide the veracity.

And it can just as easily be demonstrated as truth, it all depends on the
circumstances that surround it.

That is why science (as opposed to teachers/ TV/ other popularisers) rarely makes claims of knowledge: the claims are normally hedged with comments along the lines of "so far as we can tell" or "the current thinking is..."

If they didn't have knowledge in the first place their comments "so far as we can tell" would have no credibility.

How is not possible to learn from scratch?
How did you learn to talk without knowing how to speak?
How did you learn mathematics without knowing how to do maths?

In all of these applications knowledge is required in order to gain more knowledge. I had to learn 1, then I had to understand the concept of 1.

One more time: how that knowledge is achieved is irrelevant.

It is very relevant because it will help to broaden the notion of omniscience.

That is the point in contention: if one truly knows the future then it is irrevocably fixed - however you found out.

With all due respect, you're being willfully ignorant here.
By disregarding the processes of knowledge, and choosing only to accept
the ultimate aim of knowledge as the starting point for knowledge, you have arrived at your conlusion without exploring any other possibilities.

Wrong:
Read Cris' statement again.
If the knowledge exists at all, in anyone, then the future is fixed.

So, we know he is referring to God, and even if he wasn't (which would be
hard to believe), God is still a good subject matter pertaining to omniscience.
But more importantly the title of the thread is "proof that the christian god can't exist, debunked".

What use are your arguments if you can't see that it's about the knowledge (or not) and not god?

What use is a discussion in 'religion' on omniscience, if God is not involved?

In other words you're now claiming that the calculation does not result in knowledge of what you'll pick. Simply a probability of what you're likely to pick.

What you pick has been decided by you, the intention behind the decision
is made up of your very being, who and what you are, at that exact point in time.
God is not involved in your personal choice, but God knows you, and everything that has made you the person you are at that moment.
So no matter what you decide God will know, but the choice would be yours, hence, free-will.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

One may believe in his own ability to decipher truth, and/or the ability of the source of the information, or evidence, either way belief play always plays a role.

Nope: it doesn't matter how hard you believe something - it still won't make true if it isn't.

Knowledge requires steps, otherwise it is nothing more than unrelated information, or speculation.

Again, this is not relevant.
If it's knowledge it's knowledge.

So how do we know if something is true (before hindsight), if knowledge isn't knowledge unless it is true?

You can't even see that? We don't know - that's why mistakes are made. That's why we keep checking.

If you tell me there is a tiger in your bathroom, that does not constitute as knowledge. There is nothing more for me to know other than, I already know what a tiger is, and I know what a bathroom is.

And that could be an assumption on part.

Also there may be a couple of scenarios where the possibility of a tiger being in your bathroom are possible however unlikely.

Exactly - you wouldn't know.

The same kind of method of justification can be applied to any
claimed knowledge.

Wasn't that my point - you have to verify it.

And it can just as easily be demonstrated as truth, it all depends on the circumstances that surround it.

Sigh. That is why we check and check again. And keep checking.

If they didn't have knowledge in the first place their comments "so far as we can tell" would have no credibility.

Wrong again.

In all of these applications knowledge is required in order to gain more knowledge. I had to learn 1, then I had to understand the concept of 1.

Also wrong: what knowledge did have before you learnt "1"? Oops.
And I did say that knowledge can be built on - but that is still a process of learning.

It is very relevant because it will help to broaden the notion of omniscience.

Broaden the notion of omniscience? You're joking, right? Omniscience: knowing everything. And specious - if the knowledge exist it exists.

With all due respect, you're being willfully ignorant here.

No, "with all due respect" you're introducing totally irrelevant factors.

By disregarding the processes of knowledge, and choosing only to accept the ultimate aim of knowledge as the starting point for knowledge, you have arrived at your conlusion without exploring any other possibilities.

Nope: it's not about the "aim" it's "does (can) the knowledge exist?"

So, we know he is referring to God, and even if he wasn't (which would be hard to believe)

Assumption on your part.

But more importantly the title of the thread is "proof that the christian god can't exist, debunked".

So? Scifes started - as a "debunking" (so far failed) of a previous thread.
If the knowledge exists at all (as Cris stated).

What use is a discussion in 'religion' on omniscience, if God is not involved?

God is a sideline compared omniscience itself.

What you pick has been decided by you, the intention behind the decision is made up of your very being, who and what you are, at that exact point in time.
God is not involved in your personal choice, but God knows you, and everything that has made you the person you are at that moment.
So no matter what you decide God will know, but the choice would be yours, hence, free-will.

Completely fails to address the paradox.
If it is known (infallibly) before the decision is made then the "decision" was not made out of "free will" - the "choice" could not, ever, have been other than what you did (will) pick.

 

[phlogistician]

Nope: it doesn't matter how hard you believe something - it still won't make true if it isn't.

Isn't that the crux of faith though, believers want things to be true so much, they assume they have to be true?

Subjection becomes fact, and reason is lost.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Isn't that the crux of faith though, believers want things to be true so much, they assume they have to be true?

Could be, and it works the other way round.
I want to believe that Jan and Scifes really are capable of understanding the point so much that I keep telling myself that I'm failing somehow to make the point clearly and cogently enough and that they don't see it because it's my fault.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

God is not involved in your personal choice,

What"personal-choise"... God created the very circumstances that causes you to pick A or B... hinse... whether you pick A or B is determined by the way God created you to behave under the circumstances he created.!!!

but God knows you, and everything that has made you the person you are at that moment.

God created you an you'r inviroment... he created it in such a way that you will behave in a particular way... ie... you can not behave in a way that devates from Gods plan.!!!

So no matter what you decide God will know, but the choice would be yours, hence, free-will.

So you'r definiton of "free-will" is havin no choise but to behave esactly the way God designed you to behave... what is free about that.???

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Nope: it doesn't matter how hard you believe something - it still won't make true if it isn't.

The point of belief is not to make it true, you believe because you
think its true.

Exactly - you wouldn't know.

I would know, because you would have told me.
Whether it's true or not, is a different thing altogether.

Wasn't that my point - you have to verify it.

Question; in mythology what was the name of the character who
stole from the rich and gave to the poor?

Answer; Robin Hood.

Correct.

Also wrong: what knowledge did have before you learnt 1..

I learnt that, every time my mother pointed to that picture she said "one", and then would ask me to repeat. I knew that picture had something to do with the sound "one".

And I did say that knowledge can be built on - but that is still a process of learning.

Back-peddaling now are we?

Broaden the notion of omniscience? You're joking, right? Omniscience: knowing everything. And specious - if the knowledge exist it exists.

What is "everything in this regard"?

Assumption on your part.

With good reason.

So? Scifes started - as a "debunking" (so far failed) of a previous thread.

I've given you an example of how free will can co-exist with omniscience.
But you keep putting your fingers in your ears while shouting LA LA LA!!!,
at the top of your voice.

You want it to fail so much, you have successfully convinced yourself of it.

If it is known (infallibly) before the decision is made then the "decision" was not made out of "free will" - the "choice" could not, ever, have been other than what you did (will) pick.

It's not known before the decision is made, it's known before the action
takes place. The decision is made by the entirety of the living entity is his
current state of condition. Try and keep up.

When we talk about choosing A or B, we are essentially influenced by our own character, it is not something we do while simultaneosly acting out our decision.

jan.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

To have perfect free will God cannot have created you or at minimum you must never believe or find out that He did.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

To have perfect free will God cannot have created you or at minimum you must never find out that He did.

How does not knowin that God created you give you perfect free will.???

 

[Dywyddyr]

The point of belief is not to make it true, you believe because you think its true.

So? Unless it can be shown to be true then it's belief.

I would know, because you would have told me.
Whether it's true or not, is a different thing altogether.

Ho hum: you wouldn't know you'd believe.

Question; in mythology what was the name of the character who
stole from the rich and gave to the poor?
Answer; Robin Hood.
Correct.

Which has what to do with anything?

I learnt that, every time my mother pointed to that picture she said "one", and then would ask me to repeat. I knew that picture had something to do with the sound "one".

Wrong: you had to learn the association.

Back-peddaling now are we?

Wrong again:

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

Post #117.

What is "everything in this regard"?

Nit-picking again? What does everything mean?

With good reason.

And specious.

I've given you an example of how free will can co-exist with omniscience.

No you haven't: you sidestepped it and ignored the paradox.

You want it to fail so much, you have successfully convinced yourself of it.

Wrong.

It's not known before the decision is made, it's known before the action takes place. The decision is made by the entirety of the living entity is his current state of condition. Try and keep up.

I see, so I can decide whatever I like but I'm constrained to acting only on what is predetermined?

When we talk about choosing A or B, we are essentially influenced by our own character, it is not something we do while simultaneosly acting out our decision.

And can it be known (infallibly) what we will do?

 

[Jan Ardena]

cluelusshusbund,

What"personal-choise"... God created the very circumstances that causes you to pick A or B...

Nevertheless, as you point out you can pick A or B.
Whichever you pick is your personal choice.

hinse... whether you pick A or B is determined by the way God created you to behave under the circumstances he created.!!!

But you still get to pick A or B, which is your personal choice.
That is the crooks of the discussion.

God created you an you'r inviroment... he created it in such a way that you will behave in a particular way... ie... you can not behave in a way that devates from Gods plan.!!!

The problem is, we think we can.

So you'r definiton of "free-will" is havin no choise but to behave esactly the way God designed you to behave... what is free about that.???

You said it yourself, you can choose A or B.
The design, and whether we are actually free agents, is a different topic
altogether.

jan.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

How does not knowin that God created you give you perfect free will.???

You are free from divine influence. No need to worry whether God is guiding you or has set you on a predestined path. You are totally dependent on life's experiences to make your choices. There is no debt that is to be paid back.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

The design, and whether we are actually free agents, is a different topic
altogether.

So i will know what you mean... how do you define "free agent".!!!

 

[Dywyddyr]

You are free from divine influence. No need to worry whether God is guiding you or has set you on a predestined path. You are totally dependent on life's experiences to make your choices. There is no debt that is to be paid back.

That does not give you perfect free will.
Whether you know or not about god says nothing about whether you have been or not.
We could all be programmed, and the knowledge of that programming (and programmer) deleted (or not installed) before being "let loose".

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

We could all be programmed, and the knowledge of that programming (and programmer) deleted (or not installed) before being "let loose".

Then you wouldn't know, deleted or uninstalled would be the same as not finding out. Isn't that what I said?