90 replies to this topic

[Belial]

Jebreil, on 07 July 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Belial



What? If this was really the case, you should be a full believer in God, for if all these things are specific, then ultimately, they are designed by a designer, i.e. God.

If I were a theist, I am quite certain I would believe it.

Jebreil, on 07 July 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

This is true, and it is unfortunate that I did not make it clear. Beethoven put the cords together, i.e. he designed the piece. He didn't design the piece to be beautiful though. That particular arrangement of cords by itself gave rise to beauty. It wasn't that the same symphony could be ugly for the human ear, but for Beethoven's beautiful "design".

The arrangemt of chords, gives rise to sounds which we find beautiful.  The sounds are specific, and why we feel they are beautiful is specific too. Beauty itself, doesnt actually exist.

Jebreil, on 07 July 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

I am differentiating between the two. One where we can use the word "design" (even for God) and one where it does not make sense. For example, I may design a symbolism to show 1+1=2, but I don't design the actual mathematical operation. Nor does God "design" the truth. Truth is not arbitrary.

And with this, there is a difference between physical things, such as actions and events.  And non existant things like 1+1=2.  When we speak of creation, we are speaking of things that were actually created.  Not non existent ideas.

God didnt exactly create 1+1=2. It doesnt exist.  Ok, let me read back a bit and see if I can relate this point to your previous posts here.

ok so we have here.

"2. You write "All future actions were designed / included by God in His Creation." I agree with included and not designed. I find including an idea into the existing order is not the same as designing the idea."

"Light is in-itself luminous - God doesn't take a dark Light and make it luminous - God just brings "luminous Light" into existence."

This is a sketchy example, and isnt the same as something like saying.   Even light isnt necessarily luminous. Luminosity is just a word that we made up to describe something that physically exists in a specific way.

1+1=2 is also something we just made up to describe something physical.  So while God may not have designed non existent ideas like 1+1=2.  He would have still designed the two objects that exist that allow us to make that equation. Along with the events that would lead to the existence of the objects that we use to make those ideas.

ok yes.  Why would, lets say human action, be seperate from a human, as the number 2 is seperate from 2 physical objects? Or seperate as luminosity is from actual physical light.

Or are you saying that human chioce, is something we create, as we create number 2, or an idea like luminosity to describe things. God can create us, but not necessarily the choices we make just as he can create us, but not necessarily create the number 2 or luminosity.

Edited by Belial, 07 July 2012 - 11:32 AM.

[Belial]

You can ignore everything in green here really.  This is just me thinking aloud. Same with the post above.  I would need to better understand your position to know how to respond, or what to look for.

this is tricky.  Im going to think about this for awhile.  Feel free to add ideas to help me reach a conclusion.  Something like the adjective we have created, and the idea, luminosity. We created.  Then there is the physical existence of what luminosity is, which is something that physically exists in a specific way, which must have been designed if created.

A truth like 1+1=2 i dont think is directly comparable to something like light physically existing=luminosity. For whatever reason, those two ideas do not sound the same. Something like beauty, as luminosity doesnt actually exist. It is just a word used to describe how we physically react. Which is something specific that would be designed.

As opposed to a truth in mathematics. Which has no real physical attribute with it.  It just kind of is true for no apparent reason aside from what it is itself.

That sounds ok for now.

If God created something like light, that is luminous.  He would be creating a physically specific existent thing. That would need to be designed in order to be later described as luminous. Luminosity couldnt be used as an adjective without that physical relationship.

Numbers like 1+1=2 could be a truth, but it has no physical relation to anything in reality on its own. It doesnt necessarily describe anything aside from itself. And it doesnt mandate design, it just kind of is.


Im gonna save myself the trouble and ill stop posting here.  If you could try to specify...to a greater extent, what you mean Jebriel.

Jebreil, on 07 July 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

This is true, and it is unfortunate that I did not make it clear. Beethoven put the cords together, i.e. he designed the piece. He didn't design the piece to be beautiful though. That particular arrangement of cords by itself gave rise to beauty. It wasn't that the same symphony could be ugly for the human ear, but for Beethoven's beautiful "design".

I am differentiating between the two. One where we can use the word "design" (even for God) and one where it does not make sense. For example, I may design a symbolism to show 1+1=2, but I don't design the actual mathematical operation. Nor does God "design" the truth. Truth is not arbitrary.

And ill respond to this one more time.  Bheethoven did design the piece to be beautiful. He could have designed it to sound bad, but he instead, designed it to sound good. You said, the arrangement of cords by itself gave rise to beauty.  Well, beauty doesnt actually exist, so this statement of yours, doesnt make sense to me. I dont understand your third sentence.

for the second part.  Yes, God doesnt design truth.  Thats fine.  Though im not sure how that relates to the discussion. Let me read Quisants posts.


ok, so you are saying that, God hasnt compelled 1+1=2, thats just what it is. It is a truth.  Just as light is luminous.  It isnt something that can be subjectively designed because it is already a truth?

If this is what you mean.  i could design a sword to be sharp.  It is a truth that the sword is sharp, while still being my design. Just as, if I created people to act in a certain way, they would be my design, even if it is a truth that they exist the way that they do.

And so, God could design truth.

Edited by Belial, 07 July 2012 - 12:30 PM.

[Pascal]

Quisant, on 06 July 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

1. God knows you will pick the blue one
2. If God knows you will pick the blue one, you will pick the blue one
3. If it isn't actually possible that you not pick the blue one, then you are not free
4. So, you will pick the blue one...

If God knows you will pick the blue one then it is impossible for you to pick the red one.

You left out what is an imporant premise in my opinion. It's the fact that God is all knowing and very importantly absolutely perfect. If he does know the future (up for debate), then, his knowledge of the future is never ever wrong, not even once. So, these things MUST happen in the future or it would violate Gods perfection which we know (from the judeo-christian-islamic view) is impossible.

I'm sure we all agree that these things MUST occur. It's just the bearing on free will that we're all concerned with. Yes, God knows the future. Does this impinge on our free will? This is where we all start to disagree.  I mention this because it seems some people think others dont accept that these actions must occur and we're getting hung up on that point. I dont believe in free will (for now, dont know much about this area, we're all still learning), so, i dont find it particularly disturbing.

If i was a believer though, this would be a headache of a problem for me. Is it possible (theologically) to both be a believer and deny free will?

Edited by kingpomba, 07 July 2012 - 04:11 PM.

[Belial]

Jebreil, on 07 July 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Belial

OK. In order to clarify any vagueness, let's pretend none of this has been discussed before in this thread, and I'll start afresh.

The underlined-italics show God's actions - the " " show the things which He enacts.

God created "human beings" and determined "them to sin" - this, in my opinion, is not the case. But, if true, it would have meant that God is to blame, since He made human beings who were not in-themselves sinful, and then determined them to sin.

God created "human beings who in situations xyz commit x'y'z' sin" - this absolves God from the human beings commission of sin, because God did not create the person so that they have no choice but to sin, but made a person who freely chooses to sin.

In point 2, one may ask of God "why create a sinner?" but one may not say "God is responsible for the commission of the sin".


----

This way, we can leave all confusing talk of "design" aside and deal with the actual issue, which is God's responsibility.

Ill be honest, I was considering this a discussion about how people could have free will if things were predetermined by God.  I hadnt considered any relation between our prior discussion and one with the topic "Gods responsibility".

Are we changing the subject?  I dont mind if we are.  Just let me know.

Edited by Belial, 07 July 2012 - 09:39 PM.

[Quisant]

Jebreil, on 06 July 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Yes. He created everything. He did not compel them to be anything other than what they are.

Are you saying that God basically throws the "dice" already knowing the result but the "dice" have a choice?

*

kingpomba, on 07 July 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

You left out what is an imporant premise in my opinion. It's the fact that God is all knowing and very importantly absolutely perfect. If he does know the future (up for debate), then, his knowledge of the future is never ever wrong, not even once. So, these things MUST happen in the future or it would violate Gods perfection which we know (from the judeo-christian-islamic view) is impossible.

I'm sure we all agree that these things MUST occur. It's just the bearing on free will that we're all concerned with. Yes, God knows the future. Does this impinge on our free will? This is where we all start to disagree.  I mention this because it seems some people think others dont accept that these actions must occur and we're getting hung up on that point. I dont believe in free will (for now, dont know much about this area, we're all still learning), so, i dont find it particularly disturbing.

If i was a believer though, this would be a headache of a problem for me. Is it possible (theologically) to both be a believer and deny free will?

The real problem is that no believer would ever concede that free will is an illusion.
The (utterly impossible) apologetic goal is to grant "God" perfect foreknowledge of every possible state of reality, yet still make it seem like it's our fault for doing exactly what we were predetermined to do.

All the best.
*

[Gypsy]

Quisant, on 08 July 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

Are you saying that God basically throws the "dice" already knowing the result but the "dice" have a choice?

inanimate objects like dice wouldn't have free will.

[Pascal]

Quisant, on 08 July 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

The real problem is that no believer would ever concede that free will is an illusion.

I am obviously on your side but i'm just interested in this, why not?

Quisant, on 08 July 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

The (utterly impossible) apologetic goal is to grant "God" perfect foreknowledge of every possible state of reality, yet still make it seem like it's our fault for doing exactly what we were predetermined to do.

Part of being a good (and more importantly honest person who is still actually looking for truth rather than just shoving ideas around) philosopher is being able to argue from both sides. I think i could solve this relatively easily though, i'll play the devils advocate.

Heres how:

A lot of people argue in regards to omnipotence God can do everything, except those things that are logically impossible. I don't believe it makes God any less omnipotent just because he can't make a 4 sided triangle or 1+1=3.  It's the power to do all things that can be done but these things just can't.

How about we apply a similar measure to Omniscience. It's the power of God to know all the things that are knowable.

We could end up with two situations here then:

(A) God simply doesn't know the future at all

( B ) God knows all the actions in the future except those which are directly the result of free will.

I mean really, we're all just accepting its possible for God to know things that haven't happened yet but is it? I think the solution here makes logical sense and i would be personally be modestly satisfied if someone leveled it at me. What big loss is there if God doesn't know the parts of the future that can not be determined (bad pun). I don't see it as that much of a wound on the idea of God if he doesn't know things that are impossible to know.

Let's work backwards. Say we all believe that free will and random events exist. I go to the casino and go to the roulette table. I put it on 9 red. It's a random event whether it lands on 9 or not. Since we accept its a random event and not determined, God does not know the outcome, indeed, if we accept random events and free will exist in the first place, he can't know the outcome or it would no longer be random.

(Everyone else feel free to jump in as well, just because i'm replying to a point in his post, doesn't mean i'm not talking to everyone else either)

Dante: It's great to see some well thought out lengthy posts with a lot of substance. If you're new welcome indeed, hopefully you stick around.

Edited by kingpomba, 08 July 2012 - 07:38 AM.

[Quisant]

Gypsy, on 08 July 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

inanimate objects like dice wouldn't have free will.

Imagination - try - leap?  


If prior knowledge does exist before the decision event, and that prior knowledge is assumed to be perfectly correct,
every alternative other than the known outcome is unavailable.
Otherwise the knowledge would be wrong.

If God exists..
We were in the mind of God before creation, God chose to create this world, we are God's will become matter.
God has planned and known everything before the beginning, all of it to the smallest quark. Past, present, future.

God has populated all time and space with every coming eventuality.
This destroys any possibility of free will. Hell and Paradise are a ludicrous farce.

Wslm.
*

kingpomba, on 08 July 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

I am obviously on your side but i'm just interested in this, why not?

Because our sins would be the sins of God.
*

Tennis now!

Edited by Quisant, 08 July 2012 - 07:51 AM.

[Gypsy]

Quisant, on 08 July 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

Imagination - try - leap?  

I rather not.   Household appliances coming alive..blender chasing you around the house...trash can trying to eat you..not a pretty sight.

Quisant, on 08 July 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

God has populated all time and space with every coming eventuality.
This destroys any possibility of free will.
Hell and Paradise are a ludicrous farce.

Lets forget the heaven and hell but if we focus just our life on earth here, wouldn't you say that we do indeed have free will here, on earth at least, and within all its constrains?

Edited by Gypsy, 08 July 2012 - 08:04 AM.

[Quisant]

Gypsy, on 08 July 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

Lets forget the heaven and hell but if we focus just our life on earth here, wouldn't you say that we do indeed have free will here, on earth at least, and within all its constrains?

I was just saying that the notion of 'free will' is incompatible with the notion of an Omniscient Creator.
But if we forget Omniscience/ free will saga for a moment, do we have free will?

I haven't thought about it a lot, I am not sure we have free will...

We appear to have no knowledge of what we are about to 'will' next.
We are not the author of our own thoughts. That is, we don't pick our next thought.

We can often do what we want, but we cannot 'will' what we will.

Do you think we have free will?

?
Wslm.
*

[Quisant]

Jebreil, on 08 July 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

No. I am saying that God basically throws a "choosing dice" already knowing the result and the "choosing dice" has a choice.

Is it possible for the 'choosing dice' to choose anything different from the result God already knows?

*

[Belial]

Jebreil, on 08 July 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

Belial





Yes, we are still having that discussion. I must have been confused at the end of my post. Let me repost with changes:


--------------------------------

The underlined-italics show God's actions - the " " show the things which He enacts.

God created "human beings" and determined them "to sin without their choosing" - this, in my opinion, is not the case.

God created "human beings who in situations xyz voluntarily commit x'y'z' sin"

In point 2, God predetermines that such-and-such a sinner should exist but not that such-and-such a human being should sin. If the human in-itself is ethical, it would be a contradiction to assume that God would make it sin, just as it is a contradiction for God to make a human a non-animal. A human, by definition, is an animal, and God existentiates an entity which satisfies this definition.


To bring back the geometric point, a triangle by itself implies a trilateral. God does not determine a triangle to become a trilateral. The triangle contains the fact that it is also a trilateral. God existentiates the triangle, and an existing triangle is, by virtue of itself, a trilateral.

To relate it to human beings and sin, the character of Stalin is identical to that entity which was born on X and was raised in Y and had his first employment in Z. It is identical to that entity which carried out mass-murders across the Soviet Union. In the world God creates, the character of Stalin is part of the fabric. God does not make the character of Stalin into a mass-murderer. God creates a world where there is such-and-such a character who holds the reins of a country and commits mass-murder.

One may ask, "why does God create a world with a mass-murderer called Stalin?" but not "why does God make Stalin a mass-murderer?"

Why can we not ask, why does God make stalin a mass murderer? People, by definition are not perfectly ethical, sinless beings.

[Quisant]

Jebreil, on 08 July 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

It is not possible for God to already know a different result from what the "choosing dice" chooses.

That is because God originally chose the result.

Play with words if you must but play by the rules.
It is ridiculous and a little sad to try and swim in a bath tub.
wslm.
*

[Belial]

Jebreil, on 08 July 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

Quisant



It is not possible for God to already know a different result from what the "choosing dice" chooses.

I dont see how this answers the question.

Ill agree with quisant, thus far.  If God chose the result of the dice rolling, then he couldnt know anything other than what he decided to originally roll.

The only way he could know another result, is if he created another form of the choosing dice. In which case, he would know no result other than that one.  Because he is in full control over what is being rolled and what the results will be.

Edited by Belial, 08 July 2012 - 10:16 AM.

[Belial]

Jebreil, on 08 July 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Belial



Because He did not make Stalin a mass murderer. He existentiated Stalin the mass-murderer. You can only ask Him why He brought into existence such a monster. He didn't make the monster a monster.

why not?

Jebreil, on 08 July 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

The question is badly put. It puts the cart before the horse. He wants to say God knows a result and so we are compelled to make that result. I am saying that we make a result and that is why God knows that result.

As to the bold part:
God did not choose the result. We chose the result. God chose to make us choosing that result.

You said, we make a result and that is why God knows that result.  However, God knew all, prior to us making that result.

Edited by Belial, 08 July 2012 - 01:05 PM.

[Belial]

Jebreil, on 08 July 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

Belial


I am uncertain what you mean by the question.
Are you asking why he didn't make the monster a monster?

Yes.

Jebreil, on 08 July 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

God knows that if a Euclidean triangle exists, its angles will equal 180 degrees. He knows this prior to the existence of the Euclidean triangle.
God knows that if this character called Stalin, born on X, raised in Y, doing Z for a job, then he will commit mass murder. He knows this prior to the existence of Stalin.


Thus, God knows a possibility simultaneous to that possibility, but prior to the possibility's actualization.

Stalin, becoming a mass murderer isn't necessarily a truth like a triangles angles are. If this character called stalin, born in X raised in Y doing Z job (all things foreseen and created by God), then he will commit mass murder (also foreseen and created by God).

It is, planned out.  Designed. Even a triangle is something that, in order to exist, must be planned to be created.  If someone asked me to draw a triangle, i still have to stop, think, and draw in a very specific way to make truth of that triangle.

It's almost as if you are arguing against free will or choice, if you are comparing a humans free will, to a triangles mandated truth. People could not exist in any other way aside from how they were created to exist, just as a triangle couldnt exist in any other way aside from how it was created to exist..  And that isn't really freedom of anything.  Will or choice.

Stalin has no more of a choice in murder, than a triangle has a choice in the total of its angles.

Edited by Belial, 08 July 2012 - 02:34 PM.