Generalizing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-08-2012, 10:32 PM (This post was last modified: 03-08-2012 10:48 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 08:24 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I don't see a problem in God knowing choices we are going to make while allowing us the free choice of choosing that choice he alone knows about.

That is so seriously mind-fucked that it qualifies as motherfucking delusionally brilliant.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
03-08-2012, 11:15 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 10:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(03-08-2012 08:24 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I don't see a problem in God knowing choices we are going to make while allowing us the free choice of choosing that choice he alone knows about.

That is so seriously mind-fucked that it qualifies as motherfucking delusionally brilliant.

Yup. Gotta score some points for that one.

Ideas, please have a think about what you wrote bearing in mind that "all-knowing" does not just apply to current and past events.

Rahn, next time go for sheep rather cows, perhaps? T'would make more sense to a christian.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2012, 11:30 PM
RE: Generalizing
Ideas,( not sure If I could call you by your real name on here Tongue) The notion of Knowledge, especially when God is concerned, is ABSOLUTE.

If God "Knows" you are going to make this choice, because he is all knowing, you don't have free will to choose otherwise.
If God knew you were going choose hamburger for dinner, you had to choose it.

With Free-Will God can't know what you choose, and thus refutes omniscience.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
04-08-2012, 01:10 AM
RE: Generalizing
Ideas - i would like to think that part of the reason you believe in a god is because of the properties you were told god has.
You were told that god is all loving, all knowing, all wise, all seeing, etc. You were told this by someone in authority, perhaps your parents and then it was reaffirmed by another authority at your church and then by family authority of elder aunts, uncles, grandparents. You trust their words and what they say because they haven't lead you astray in other facets of your life.

You have been told that god is the ultimate authority and only he can judge. You were told that he will judge you after you pass from this world.
You were told that if you obey god's word that god will give you an eternal reward. You were told that if you didn't, a hellish torture for all time awaits you.

Now, why would they tell you all of these things if they weren't true ?
Answer: Because their parents told them and their parents told them. It gets past down from generation to generation and along the way things change.
Talk to your parents about the things they were taught in church and see if they match. Talk to your grandparents or aunts & uncles.
Each generation things change. Customs change and the way a religion is taught changes.
It's why we have some 50,000 different denominations in the country. People argued about what should be taught. People argued about which church was truly gods church.

God never came down himself and told you he was the ultimate authority. He never told you he was all knowing or all wise or that you should obey him without question.
Oh but you may say "He says all of that in the bible". You mean that book that men put together. That book that has been revised more than 30,000 times over the past 1600 yrs.
Did god inspire all of these changes ? Did he call down to men to tell that this book that was in the bible should be taken out now ? Did he talk to Kings and have them edit it so it was most favorable to the Kings plans ? Did he tell men to create the bible in the first place ? You won't find any texts that ever said god came down and instructed us on how to make a bible.
You won't find any references on what tests can be done to prove if a book was inspired by god or not. You will never see any instructions given by god on how to build anything.

God never instructed men on how to build a simple log cabin or stone walls or how to make tools. Everything we have learned as human beings came from the discoveries we have made through science, evidence and reason. All of the medicines we have now didn't come from a god. We made them to combat the natural diseases and plagues that exist and change over time. They evolve, just as we do. Each new flu season is often a new flu strain that changed from the previous strain.

When we take a doctors advice we often rely on his or her authority as a doctor. It is their years of medical study and internship and hard work and experience that we trust.
They earned a position of authority based on what they know. They didn't magically arrive one day and said "We are more knowledgeable than you and this is why you should trust us"
We have medical schools with standards and information that is handed down from research and peer reviewed tests, medical trials and lots and lots of books on human physiology.
God didn't write these books. People did and educated themselves about the world in which we live from the observations we made.

Now let's take a look at a king. He is the leader of a country. Should you do as he commands ?
Let's examine the consequences. He has an army at his disposal. He has hired assassins who can kill all of your family during your christmas dinner.
A king has a great deal of POWER at his disposal. Power does grant authority, but you must ask yourself, are you obeying his requests because he is wise, or are you the wise one for doing as the powerful man says to do so you won't get killed.

As children, you are correct, we learn from those around us who know more about the world, but as we grow up and become adults, it's up to us to research the facts, to discover the truths, to find out what makes us happy and then try to achieve some sense of self in this world. You can't do that by obeying blindly some set dogma of beliefs.

God is not an authority figure. He is not the all seeing father who you must obey like a child. He is a story passed down from generation to generation by people who still see themselves as children who need to be guided. As sheeps to the shepard. They don't see themselves as adults who can take care of their own lives.

As atheists, we live life as we observe it, as this once in a lifetime chance, as the only life that we are sure to have. We see it in the most precious of lights, so easily snuffed out.
We live our lives according to a social morality that has been built upon for ten of thousands of years. We work toward a rule of law that is just because the world isn't.
Authority is earned in this world because of what each individual person has learned through experience and time.

You grant god authority over you because of an assertion of all knowing, all wise, all seeing because that is what you were told. Nothing more.
It's because of this that others can say "I am god's messenger on earth. He speaks through me, therefore you should do as I say"

It's false authority based on nothing, because God is a false authority based upon people saying he is an authority and nothing more than that.

Perhaps I should have just said "Don't be a sheep" as DLJ requested and not typed all of this.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Rahn127's post
04-08-2012, 01:52 AM
RE: Generalizing
ideasonscribe, I think you've missed my reply on page 2. Huh

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 05:13 AM
RE: Generalizing
I'd just like to comment on the free will digression.

The latest science suggests that past, present and future actually exist simultaneously. The notion of a universal now has fallen into disfavour. What that means is, one can observe the past and the future from the present and people can be at different points in time while sharing a now.

The fact that past, present and future exist simultaneously does not negate the notion of free will. We still have agency, time simply unfolds differently than we imagined. It's no longer a question of can we or can we not change the future. It's simply a matter of, which future did we create through our agency.

If God has the ability to perceive time as a whole, then he can be omniscient. This, again, does not negate free will.

As a shitty analogy, I tell you a story. Bill was born in Arkansas. He married a girl named Hillary. He had kids. He became governor. He became president. He weathered a scandal. He left office after eight years and worked internationally. He became a cyborg. He led humans to Mars. He invented zero calorie ice cream. He convinced aliens to not attack earth.

All of the elements of that story exist simultaneously. We can go back to birth in Arkansas, or the sex scandal. We can go forward to the invention of zero calorie ice cream. We perceive all of the story as a united whole. That doesn't mean that Bill didn't have free agency. It means that time itself can be viewed as a united whole because it all exists simultaneously.

Omniscience does not negate free will.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
04-08-2012, 05:33 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2012 05:37 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Generalizing
(04-08-2012 05:13 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I'd just like to comment on the free will digression.

The latest science suggests that past, present and future actually exist simultaneously. The notion of a universal now has fallen into disfavour. What that means is, one can observe the past and the future from the present and people can be at different points in time while sharing a now.

The fact that past, present and future exist simultaneously does not negate the notion of free will. We still have agency, time simply unfolds differently than we imagined. It's no longer a question of can we or can we not change the future. It's simply a matter of, which future did we create through our agency.
Hold it there, Ghost. At the beginning of your post, you talked about recent science suggesting that past, present and future exist simultaneously and in the second paragraph you claim that it's a fact and argue based upon it being true. It would be helpful if you were able to provide a source proving that it's a fact.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
04-08-2012, 05:49 AM
RE: Generalizing
(04-08-2012 05:13 AM)Ghost Wrote:  The latest science suggests that past, present and future actually exist simultaneously. The notion of a universal now has fallen into disfavour. What that means is, one can observe the past and the future from the present and people can be at different points in time while sharing a now.

You make science sound like the fashion scene. You also seem to over-heavily rely on what's currently trending. Blue is the new black and temporal permanency is the new multiple-universes-theory. Meh.

(04-08-2012 05:13 AM)Ghost Wrote:  The fact that past, present and future exist simultaneously does not negate the notion of free will. We still have agency, time simply unfolds differently than we imagined. It's no longer a question of can we or can we not change the future. It's simply a matter of, which future did we create through our agency.

Which is why I referred to free will as a magnificent illusion. If every action we make was pre-ordained at the beginning of time, then we could never have made any other action. We're not agents who can ad-lib. We're actors reading from a very old script.

(04-08-2012 05:13 AM)Ghost Wrote:  If God has the ability to perceive time as a whole, then he can be omniscient. This, again, does not negate free will.

If everything is pre-ordained, then it doesn't matter if God is omniscient, a rubber chicken or a little umbrella resting in an Alabama Slammer. Every action God takes is also pre-ordained. Imagine that notion... an infinite existence, knowing how everything will unfold...

(04-08-2012 05:13 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Omniscience does not negate free will.

Hold on tightly to that illusion. Dodgy
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Red Celt's post
04-08-2012, 06:35 AM
RE: Generalizing
Hey, Vosur.

I wrote that post at 7am right after I woke up. Turn this into a semantical argument if you like. The content of my argument does not rest on my use of the word fact in that one instance. I'm pretty sure you know that.





Direct all further complaints to Brian Greene.

Hey, Red Celt.

I'm sorry if the science is making your life difficult. But please don't accuse me of being some sort of science hipster. Weak sauce, dude.

Quote:Which is why I referred to free will as a magnificent illusion. If every action we make was pre-ordained at the beginning of time, then we could never have made any other action. We're not agents who can ad-lib. We're actors reading from a very old script.

Free will is not the illusion, time is. It's not that the future is set and we cannot avoid it, it's that all of time exists simultaneously. It is not linear as we perceive it to be (the past is gone, I am now, the future has yet to happen). This does not mean that you have no free agency. You can act within time, at least, there's no evidence to suggest that you cannot, or more to the point, that you do not.

The preordination you are describing is actually causality which is a different notion entirely; and one that has yet to be proven. Causality suggests that previous actions strictly determine future actions. It's the material version of destiny. Causality assumes that the future does not yet exist. Whether causality is true or not has no bearing on the illusion of time.

Quote:If everything is pre-ordained, then it doesn't matter if God is omniscient, a rubber chicken or a little umbrella resting in an Alabama Slammer. Every action God takes is also pre-ordained. Imagine that notion... an infinite existence, knowing how everything will unfold...

Again, saying that the past prescribes the future, causality, is a different argument.

As far as God's actions being pre-ordained, that would suggest that he is not omnipotent. There's no reason to assume that. (There's not much reason to assume anything about God for that matter)

The point that I am making, quite simply, is that if God can perceive time as a whole, then he can know what happens at any point in time; he can be omniscient. That doesn't mean that free agency is necessarily negated.

So be a smart ass all you like and make glib comments about me holding onto illusions because oh, crime of crimes, I disagreed with your hypothesis. I have science on my side. You do not. Now how you gonna act?

GENERAL NOTE: I of course am not suggesting that God exists, neither am I suggesting that he does not. I'm simply showing that this particular notion, that omniscience necessarily negates free will and/or vice versa, is unsupported by physics as it is currently understood. Free will can exist in a universe with an entity that knows everything if, as the science suggests, all of time exists simultaneously. People might be upset that it opens a door for God. I don't particularly care. My allegiance is to science.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 06:50 AM
RE: Generalizing
What the fuck, man. You're playing the science card as if your daddy can beat up my daddy. You don't have science on your side.

Some scientists hold the view that you posited. Some scientists don't. But science isn't about fashion-statements, or the hypotheses of scientists... who disagree with each other. Science is about the known, the proven and the confirmation by repeated studies that arrive at the same conclusion.

Scientists are the agents of science, not the science itself. If you confuse those two notions, you will fall prey to the Creationists who offer Creationist scientists as proof that their mythology is scientific.

There are different hypotheses about the beginning (and possible end) of the universe. Some will say that there was an explosion. Some will say that there was an expansion. Some will say that the universe will stop expanding and contract to an eventual Big Crunch. Others will say that the universe is on an infinite repeat-loop of Big Bang/Big Crunch and that it never had a start point.

Which one is correct? The one that is cool to hold on to, at any given time?

That isn't scientific. Don't pretend that it is.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Red Celt's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: