DCLugi Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 Yes. Would it follow that he knew that many would be doomed to hell before creating them?
thebeardslastcall Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 Would it follow that he knew that many would be doomed to hell before creating them? What would be the point of creating hell if no one was going to go there? Even a human can know what they're willing to do in some situations and what is possible. So doesn't take godly knowledge or omniscience to know he would create and send people to hell.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 Would it follow that he knew that many would be doomed to hell before creating them? He knew many would choose hell from the options on offer, yes.
Koroviev Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 What would be the point of creating hell if no one was going to go there? Even a human can know what they're willing to do in some situations and what is possible. So doesn't take godly knowledge or omniscience to know he would create and send people to hell. He knew many would choose hell from the options on offer, yes. As a human I agree that yes you can know with a high degree of certainty what people will do in certain situations or given certain choices, but omniscience requires knowing with 100% certainty, negating free will, and omnipotence requires the ability to change what people will do, negating free will and omniscience. There can be an argument for determinism or free will but not both.
thebeardslastcall Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 As a human I agree that yes you can know with a high degree of certainty what people will do in certain situations or given certain choices, but omniscience requires knowing with 100% certainty, negating free will, and omnipotence requires the ability to change what people will do, negating free will and omniscience. There can be an argument for determinism or free will but not both. I believe free will and determinism are compatible, but don't believe there is such a thing as omnipotence or omniscience. And I was stating my view in regards to moral responsibility, which doesn't require knowing with 100% certainty. If I know there is a high likelihood of my actions leading to eternal damnation of others then whether or not it happens doesn't necessarily matter in regards to how I would be morally judged. If I set up an evil trap that could by chance kill someone and no one happens to fall into it, the fact that I ran that risk still means I was kind of evil for taking that chance for no moral reason. I was suggesting that you could call the Christian God view evil whether or not omniscience was had.
DCLugi Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 He knew many would choose hell from the options on offer, yes. Isn't it sadistic to create something, that you consider your child, knowing that it will be doomed to suffer for all eternity?
Koroviev Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 I believe free will and determinism are compatible, but don't believe there is such a thing as omnipotence or omniscience. And I was stating my view in regards to moral responsibility, which doesn't require knowing with 100% certainty. If I know there is a high likelihood of my actions leading to eternal damnation of others then whether or not it happens doesn't necessarily matter in regards to how I would be morally judged. If I set up an evil trap that could by chance kill someone and no one happens to fall into it, the fact that I ran that risk still means I was kind of evil for taking that chance for no moral reason. I was suggesting that you could call the Christian God view evil whether or not omniscience was had. Ah, that makes sense yes I definitely agree that entrapment is immoral. I'm a little confused on free will and determinism though...isn't determinism by it's very definition the opposite of free will. If everything is pre-determined you do not have the free will to make choices counter to what is pre-determined.
thebeardslastcall Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 Ah, that makes sense yes I definitely agree that entrapment is immoral. I'm a little confused on free will and determinism though...isn't determinism by it's very definition the opposite of free will. If everything is pre-determined you do not have the free will to make choices counter to what is pre-determined. Some people define it as such, but I think that's due to an erroneous interpretation of the consequences of determinism. Determinism doesn't mean predetermined or prescripted as that implies things are before they are in a sense. Events happen when they happen, but no sooner.
Koroviev Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 Some people define it as such, but I think that's due to an erroneous interpretation of the consequences of determinism. Determinism doesn't mean predetermined or prescripted as that implies things are before they are in a sense. Events happen when they happen, but no sooner. but isn't that the literal definition of determinism? Full Definition of DETERMINISM 1 a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws b : a belief in predestination 2 : the quality or state of being determined http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determinism
Donnadogsoth Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 As a human I agree that yes you can know with a high degree of certainty what people will do in certain situations or given certain choices, but omniscience requires knowing with 100% certainty, negating free will, and omnipotence requires the ability to change what people will do, negating free will and omniscience. There can be an argument for determinism or free will but not both. We must distinguish between temporal omniscience and eternal omniscience. Temporal omniscience would negate free will as you describe. Eternal omniscience would not, because it is looking at events "sideways" to time. God created beings capable of free will, discovered what they would do in what situations, and then created those situations. He selected the freely choosing beings he wishes to exist, to exist. Isn't it sadistic to create something, that you consider your child, knowing that it will be doomed to suffer for all eternity? Only if the child has no choice of whether to misbehave or not. We can choose not to go to hell.
thebeardslastcall Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 Some definitions of determinism also specifically state it as being anti-freewill. I do not think all definitions of determinism are legit. The underlying concept holds without some of these derived definitions that don't fit with the underlying concept of a causal deterministic universe. Much of the trouble with discussing determinism comes with these conflicted definitions and with how some people group what they think logically follows from determinism into the definition, when what they think logically follows from determinism doesn't in fact logically follow.
Koroviev Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 We must distinguish between temporal omniscience and eternal omniscience. Temporal omniscience would negate free will as you describe. Eternal omniscience would not, because it is looking at events "sideways" to time. God created beings capable of free will, discovered what they would do in what situations, and then created those situations. He selected the freely choosing beings he wishes to exist, to exist. Are you saying that eternal omniscience allows for knowing the outcome of every choice but not knowing what choice will be made? Whereas temporal omniscience would know not only the outcome of every choice but also what choice would be made? Some definitions of determinism also specifically state it as being anti-freewill. I do not think all definitions of determinism are legit. The underlying concept holds without some of these derived definitions that don't fit with the underlying concept of a causal deterministic universe. Much of the trouble with discussing determinism comes with these conflicted definitions and with how some people group what they think logically follows from determinism into the definition, when what they think logically follows from determinism doesn't in fact logically follow. Gotcha, so I guess the question is what's the definition of determinism?
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted September 18, 2015 Author Posted September 18, 2015 As a human I agree that yes you can know with a high degree of certainty what people will do in certain situations or given certain choices, but omniscience requires knowing with 100% certainty, negating free will, and omnipotence requires the ability to change what people will do, negating free will and omniscience. There can be an argument for determinism or free will but not both. A definition of determinism alone cannot decide wether its compabtible with free-will. Because it depends on the definition of freewill, which right now am only aware of 2 that are internally fully consistent.
thebeardslastcall Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 Gotcha, so I guess the question is what's the definition of determinism? Well it's complicated to explain and not easy to understand (my book has a whole chapter for it along with other chapters which relate, like a chapter on free will & consciousness, and frequent contention shows it's not easily understood), but put simply it's just that everything follows logical natural "laws" or "physics". That everything flows in a causal logical fashion and that the rules are consistent and nothing escapes these rules. Depending on your definition and understanding of randomness you can say this means no true randomness in the universe (no results unrelated to anything that prior existed). Some people think you need some sort of gap in determinism or causality for freewill but I disagree and think that randomness or non-causality, in this sense, would be anti-freewill, not pro-freewill.
Koroviev Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 A definition of determinism alone cannot decide wether its compabtible with free-will. Because it depends on the definition of freewill, which right now am only aware of 2 that are internally fully consistent. I absolutely agree, if the definition of determinism does not in and of itself contradict free will (i.e. if the definition is not "determinism is the opposite of free will" which some definitions are.) Well it's complicated to explain and not easy to understand (my book has a whole chapter for it along with other chapters which relate, like a chapter on free will & consciousness, and frequent contention shows it's not easily understood), but put simply it's just that everything follows logical natural "laws" or "physics". That everything flows in a causal logical fashion and that the rules are consistent and nothing escapes these rules. Depending on your definition and understanding of randomness you can say this means no true randomness in the universe (no results unrelated to anything that prior existed). Some people think you need some sort of gap in determinism or causality for freewill but I disagree and think that randomness or non-causality, in this sense, would be anti-freewill, not pro-freewill. Ok, I think I see what you're saying, you cannot make choices if everything is random because you have no prior knowledge from which you can base those choices. However, I'd call that consistency rather than determinism.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 Are you saying that eternal omniscience allows for knowing the outcome of every choice but not knowing what choice will be made? Whereas temporal omniscience would know not only the outcome of every choice but also what choice would be made? No, I'm saying eternal omniscience can know everything about a person's choices whilst still allowing those choices to be free. It's only time-bounded thinking that presumes omniscience and free will are incompatible.
thebeardslastcall Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 Ok, I think I see what you're saying, you cannot make choices if everything is random because you have no prior knowledge from which you can base those choices. However, I'd call that consistency rather than determinism. Randomness, which could also be called non-determinism or non-causality, negates knowledge. It creates false knowledge and negates the relevance of knowledge. Determinism is a form of consistency in regards the rules, logic, and flow of the universe. Doesn't mean we'll understand that logic, but that it exists. Randomness in this context is a lack of consistency, breaking the laws of physics (not what we think they are, but what they actually are), based on no logic or causality, which is naturally and inherently unpredictable. Thus physics like gravity always exist and if they 'go away' for some reason it's due to some deeper logic or physics as opposed to some 'randomness' in the rules. Thus the base physics or rules or flow of the universe has a consistency to it and is deterministic. As regards free will you need some consistency for free will to be at all meaningful and to arise. A lack of consistency in the base causality of the universe would be a disruption to free will and thus anti-freewill in a fashion. Thus I contend determinism supports free will (if you have a definition that is possible) and that anything other than a deterministic universe would be 'more anti-freewill' than a deterministic universe. Thus you either, by this constraint of logic, think free will is an impossible concept or think that it exists in its most possible and strongest form in a fully deterministic universe.
Koroviev Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 No, I'm saying eternal omniscience can know everything about a person's choices whilst still allowing those choices to be free. It's only time-bounded thinking that presumes omniscience and free will are incompatible. Right, but "choices being free" means that god cannot know which you will make. Randomness, which could also be called non-determinism or non-causality, negates knowledge. It creates false knowledge and negates the relevance of knowledge. Determinism is a form of consistency in regards the rules, logic, and flow of the universe. Doesn't mean we'll understand that logic, but that it exists. Randomness in this context is a lack of consistency, breaking the laws of physics (not what we think they are, but what they actually are), based on no logic or causality, which is naturally and inherently unpredictable. Thus physics like gravity always exist and if they 'go away' for some reason it's due to some deeper logic or physics as opposed to some 'randomness' in the rules. Thus the base physics or rules or flow of the universe has a consistency to it and is deterministic. As regards free will you need some consistency for free will to be at all meaningful and to arise. A lack of consistency in the base causality of the universe would be a disruption to free will and thus anti-freewill in a fashion. Thus I contend determinism supports free will (if you have a definition that is possible) and that anything other than a deterministic universe would be 'more anti-freewill' than a deterministic universe. Thus you either, by this constraint of logic, think free will is an impossible concept or think that it exists in its most possible and strongest form in a fully deterministic universe. Ok, yeah that definitely makes sense, and by that definition of determinism (as the opposite of randomness) I would completely agree that you cannot have free will without determinism, but would you not agree that you cannot have free will with the commonly accepted definition (above) of determinism which is more along the lines of pre-determinism?
DCLugi Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 We must distinguish between temporal omniscience and eternal omniscience. Temporal omniscience would negate free will as you describe. Eternal omniscience would not, because it is looking at events "sideways" to time. God created beings capable of free will, discovered what they would do in what situations, and then created those situations. He selected the freely choosing beings he wishes to exist, to exist. Only if the child has no choice of whether to misbehave or not. We can choose not to go to hell. But you created it knowing it's outcome. It didn't have choice to be created. If you create something already knowing that it's going to hell then wouldn't that qualify as evil.
thebeardslastcall Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 Ok, yeah that definitely makes sense, and by that definition of determinism (as the opposite of randomness) I would completely agree that you cannot have free will without determinism, but would you not agree that you cannot have free will with the commonly accepted definition (above) of determinism which is more along the lines of pre-determinism? I think predeterminism and determinism in this sense are not compatible. predeterminism implies all the future is in the present, which doesn't make sense. There is a common perceptual shift people make without realizing it that they try to take an outside of time perspective for a deterministic universe and what we would call the future being 'set' or 'determined' call this predetermined, which is an inside of time perspective. Thus I state people are often using two contradictory perspectives at the same time without realizing it. Using terms that are based on time and a perspective based outside of time at the same time, which doesn't make sense. The future is determined, but not 'predetermined'. It exists and is set in the future, but from inside of time perspective it hasn't been determined yet and thus in a manner doesn't exist yet, if you can understand that. Just as the past is set so is the future in the same manner, but the past isn't in the present nor is the future, but they are connected and deterministically related. I would also note that there are no 'outside of time' agents or perceptions. Thus outside perspectives are non-existent and merely a theoretical exercise in understanding the universe. There's no such thing as a being outside of time. Being is motion is time based. Non-motion is non-existence, thus any definition that puts God outside of time puts God into non-existence. Determinism is time itself in a fashion as it's the physics, logic, and flow of the universe that makes it exist. But you created it knowing it's outcome. It didn't have choice to be created. If you create something already knowing that it's going to hell then wouldn't that qualify as evil. I agree that Christianity with hell is pretty evil in many ways, but to give a counter perspective and question, what's the alternative? What if to create any life and good you had to commit evil and thus your options are nothingness or to commit this evil to create life? Would not it be a greater evil to not create any existence and life than to do so knowing some would be damned to hell for eternity? (and yes I know this then gets into contradictions with other notions of God)
DCLugi Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 I think predeterminism and determinism in this sense are not compatible. predeterminism implies all the future is in the present, which doesn't make sense. There is a common perceptual shift people make without realizing it that they try to take an outside of time perspective for a deterministic universe and what we would call the future being 'set' or 'determined' call this predetermined, which is an inside of time perspective. Thus I state people are often using two contradictory perspectives at the same time without realizing it. Using terms that are based on time and a perspective based outside of time at the same time, which doesn't make sense. The future is determined, but not 'predetermined'. It exists and is set in the future, but from inside of time perspective it hasn't been determined yet and thus in a manner doesn't exist yet, if you can understand that. Just as the past is set so is the future in the same manner, but the past isn't in the present nor is the future, but they are connected and deterministically related. I would also note that there are no 'outside of time' agents or perceptions. Thus outside perspectives are non-existent and merely a theoretical exercise in understanding the universe. There's no such thing as a being outside of time. Being is motion is time based. Non-motion is non-existence, thus any definition that puts God outside of time puts God into non-existence. Determinism is time itself in a fashion as it's the physics, logic, and flow of the universe that makes it exist. I agree that Christianity with hell is pretty evil in many ways, but to give a counter perspective and question, what's the alternative? What if to create any life and good you had to commit evil and thus your options are nothingness or to commit this evil to create life? Would not it be a greater evil to not create any existence and life than to do so knowing some would be damned to hell for eternity? (and yes I know this then gets into contradictions with other notions of God) I was posing the question with the impression that god is all powerful and not subject to conditions for creating life.
thebeardslastcall Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 All powerful doesn't make any sense to me as a concept. I don't even know what people mean by it. It's self-contradictory. Just a grandiose term to inflate the idea of God and to try to shut down people's reasoning centers when questions arise and to get around the whole idea of things not making sense, because they think God is so grand it's okay if he doesn't make any sense as that just feeds into the notion that he's beyond our understanding which is the anti-reasoning part of religion that doesn't want you to overthink things because it's pointless with such a grand and great and 'all powerful' god.
Koroviev Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 All powerful doesn't make any sense to me as a concept. I don't even know what people mean by it. It's self-contradictory. Just a grandiose term to inflate the idea of God and to try to shut down people's reasoning centers when questions arise and to get around the whole idea of things not making sense, because they think God is so grand it's okay if he doesn't make any sense as that just feeds into the notion that he's beyond our understanding which is the anti-reasoning part of religion that doesn't want you to overthink things because it's pointless with such a grand and great and 'all powerful' god. This is what I was trying to point out as well. I'd argue the same holds true for omniscience.
DCLugi Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 All powerful doesn't make any sense to me as a concept. I don't even know what people mean by it. It's self-contradictory. Just a grandiose term to inflate the idea of God and to try to shut down people's reasoning centers when questions arise and to get around the whole idea of things not making sense, because they think God is so grand it's okay if he doesn't make any sense as that just feeds into the notion that he's beyond our understanding which is the anti-reasoning part of religion that doesn't want you to overthink things because it's pointless with such a grand and great and 'all powerful' god. I agree but generally that's the definition that I hear. I suppose the "what if" questions could go on forever.
WorBlux Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 I am inclined to think that the main reason from which this argument was put forward hasn't been mentioned yet. Considering the philosophical commitements I've seen in monotheism (basicly the edicts and epistemology of the religion is considered more reliable then an individual's reason.): -I don't think a believer would seek to accomodate god to general relativity. He would do the opposite with sci-fi or/and the ''We are wrong and haven't found out about it yet''. (off-topic)Wasn't there a thing which said time is the product of quantum.. entanglement? Even taking a more rationalistic view of time it holds as long as you looking down a narrow scope. Time can be though of as the "what" whereby a cause bring a potentiality into reality. The traditional arguments assert that if a valid description (essence) of God is accepted, the description itself is rationally compelling to accept the actual existence of God. Especially in regard to the first three of Aquinas proofs. God if a thing that possibly could exist, then does actually exist. There is here not passing of potential to actual and no place for time. That makes sense, however it won't convince any philosopher here most likely. To back it up, logic only applies in our universe as we see it. Without time, without sentient brains, there is no logic, we are the sole purveyors of it. God is something very hard to convey, because words are only markings representing some concept we previously understand. Using these terms loosely, if God "exists" outside of time, then being all knowing and all powerful is not a logical contradiction; it is only so when time is a factor.,,,, But it also brings into question God's personality or rationality. When you or I make a decision in a since we change our mind, bring or create a new aspect of ourself to reality. If God is outside of time even in the rationalistic sense how did he move from a God that possibly could create this universe to the one who did. Or is he perpetually both or neither. I find some of the arguments for a first cause compelling, but I don't find it convincing me of this cause is a omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent, and personal in any solid sense of the words.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 Right, but "choices being free" means that god cannot know which you will make. No, God knows what we will freely choose. We might think of it in terms of knowing a person's character. You might get to know someone so well you know exactly what they're going to do at a particular juncture. Your knowledge doesn't make their choice any less free. God knows you so well he knows everything you're going to do, even as he doesn't interfere with your choices. But you created it knowing it's outcome. It didn't have choice to be created. If you create something already knowing that it's going to hell then wouldn't that qualify as evil. Evil would be creating someone who has no choice but to go to hell. Without choice, you're right, God is evil. But since humans do have choice, sending them to hell for their sins is not evil.
Koroviev Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 No, God knows what we will freely choose. We might think of it in terms of knowing a person's character. You might get to know someone so well you know exactly what they're going to do at a particular juncture. Your knowledge doesn't make their choice any less free. God knows you so well he knows everything you're going to do, even as he doesn't interfere with your choices. But see that's where the problem is you can know someone so well you know most likely what choice they will make in a given instance based on circumstances, but that person could still surprise you. Knowing with 100% certainty before those circumstances arise which choice someone would make means there is no possible way that person could ever make any other choice, therefore choice is not possible. Also where is the line drawn does god know every choice he is going to make as well forever into infinity?
Donnadogsoth Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 But see that's where the problem is you can know someone so well you know most likely what choice they will make in a given instance based on circumstances, but that person could still surprise you. Knowing with 100% certainty before those circumstances arise which choice someone would make means there is no possible way that person could ever make any other choice, therefore choice is not possible. Also where is the line drawn does god know every choice he is going to make as well forever into infinity? (1) Your objection to prescience is presuming humans have infinitely chaotic natures. I may know my friend is going to castle in Chess as soon as possible, and indeed he does every time, but he still has choice, except that his nature rules him. In a sense, he made his choice regarding his nature earlier on in life and is thus a puppet of himself that I can read and predict the actions of. God views us as similar puppets, our choice to act made in eternity and applied in temporal infinity (i.e. the everyday world). Thus he knows what we will do even though we freely did it. (2) God does not make choices in temporal terms, he makes a single Choice in eternity that echoes throughout our temporal infinity. IE God does not change.
Koroviev Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 (1) Your objection to prescience is presuming humans have infinitely chaotic natures. I may know my friend is going to castle in Chess as soon as possible, and indeed he does every time, but he still has choice, except that his nature rules him. In a sense, he made his choice regarding his nature earlier on in life and is thus a puppet of himself that I can read and predict the actions of. God views us as similar puppets, our choice to act made in eternity and applied in temporal infinity (i.e. the everyday world). Thus he knows what we will do even though we freely did it. (2) God does not make choices in temporal terms, he makes a single Choice in eternity that echoes throughout our temporal infinity. IE God does not change. However, free will (at least the common understanding of free will) means your friend could surprise you, omniscience means there are no surprises.
DCLugi Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 No, God knows what we will freely choose. We might think of it in terms of knowing a person's character. You might get to know someone so well you know exactly what they're going to do at a particular juncture. Your knowledge doesn't make their choice any less free. God knows you so well he knows everything you're going to do, even as he doesn't interfere with your choices. Evil would be creating someone who has no choice but to go to hell. Without choice, you're right, God is evil. But since humans do have choice, sending them to hell for their sins is not evil. If you are aware of what my choices are going to be before creating me and still create me knowing that my fate is hell. I don't think that we are getting anywhere but thanks for the chat.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 20, 2015 Posted September 20, 2015 However, free will (at least the common understanding of free will) means your friend could surprise you, omniscience means there are no surprises. Such is the difference between a temporal observer and an eternal one.
Koroviev Posted September 20, 2015 Posted September 20, 2015 Such is the difference between a temporal observer and an eternal one. So a "temporal" observer can be surprised and not surprised at the same time?
Donnadogsoth Posted September 20, 2015 Posted September 20, 2015 So a "temporal" observer can be surprised and not surprised at the same time? Come again?
Koroviev Posted September 21, 2015 Posted September 21, 2015 Basically what you are saying is that since god is a "temporal" observer he can both be surprised by our actions, because we have free will, and not be surprised because he already knows what we will choose. Outside of time or "temporal observer" are simply just different ways of saying god exists outside of this universe, but since existence is inherently tied to this universe that means god cannot exist.
thebeardslastcall Posted September 21, 2015 Posted September 21, 2015 Basically what you are saying is that since god is a "temporal" observer he can both be surprised by our actions, because we have free will, and not be surprised because he already knows what we will choose. Outside of time or "temporal observer" are simply just different ways of saying god exists outside of this universe, but since existence is inherently tied to this universe that means god cannot exist. I think he was saying the friend is the temporal observer and god is the 'eternal' one and that the friend can be surprised, but god can't.
Recommended Posts