|
Sharkie posted:The point is that you can't make a choice that is unknown to an omniscient God. If God is omniscient, he cannot be surprised by a moral choice you make. Therefore, when you are making moral choices, the only one you have available is the choice that God knows, therefore eliminating the choices that would "surprise God" by violating his omniscience, therefore you don't have the free will to make that moral choice. I still rather like the idea of Retcon God, every choice you make changes the past so that God always knew about it.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The concept of free will requires it to be some sort of entirely magical, unrestrained idea. This isn't even true outside of Catholic doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Sorry... CCC 416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings. This is madness. Neither Adam nor Eve had any knowledge of Good or Evil, according to the Bible, prior to eating the fruit. They literally could not have known they were committing sin, or even what Sin was. Eve could not have known disobeying God was wrong, as again, she had no knowledge of Good or Evil. There was no way for Adam and Eve to win. Their eating of the fruit was literally inevitable. This is like leaving a cake out and then savagely beating your dog when he eats it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:You have the choice. God knows what you choose. I'm afraid this is a very vague answer and doesn't address the issue of whether God knows in advance, thus creating the problem described multiple times above of restricting your free will, or whether god doesn't know until you do, thus refuting his omniscience. Unless you define omniscient as "God knows everything that happens as it happens but doesn't know the future because free will renders the future unknowable." Which sort of works except it begs the question of how God created the universe to begin with if he's constrained by the limitations of time. Cavaradossi posted:This isn't even true outside of Catholic doctrine. What do you mean it isn't true? It's a well understood component of any argument about whether free will exists or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm afraid this is a very vague answer and doesn't address the issue of whether God knows in advance, thus creating the problem described multiple times above of restricting your free will, or whether god doesn't know until you do, thus refuting his omniscience. God knows what you choose. You still chose it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:God knows what you choose. You still chose it. Right, but why did God choose it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:God knows what you choose. You still chose it. That's the same answer, and still doesn't address the paradox. Does God know in advance or does he not know until?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:God knows what you choose. You still chose it. That seems to veer too close to predestination and the lack of free will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I see what's going on now. Yeah I'm not using it in the sense of soters 'saving people in the afterlife'. You haven't read the whole thread: Are you mortalist?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:You have the choice. God knows what you choose. I choose to make a choice that God didn't know I'd make.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Does God know in advance or does he not know until? You choose something (you have free will). Because you choose it, God has always known it (God is omniscient).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I choose to make a choice that God didn't know I'd make. Good luck with choosing that - and with choosing to fly 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What do you mean it isn't true? It's a well understood component of any argument about whether free will exists or not. It isn't true that free will is considered to be magical, or unrestrained, even outside Catholic doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:You choose something (you have free will). Why didn't you just say "in advance".
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Every poster can say that, you ignore multiple things when you can't search for them quickly enough on another website. Now I am ignoring things because I am choosing to sleep.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:You choose something (you have free will). Wait so you actually are suggesting Retcon God? I was kind of joking with that. Cavaradossi posted:It isn't true that free will is considered to be magical, or unrestrained, even outside Catholic doctrine. Well, you're right in the sense that free will is considered not to exist outside of people who think it's magical and part of your soul or whatever, or people who haven't really thought about it one way or another and just sort of feel like free will might exist because it feels good. But a logical defence of free will does require it to be basically magic. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:It isn't true that free will is considered to be magical, or unrestrained, even outside Catholic doctrine. 1. God made Man the way they are, in order that we might freely choose to be with him, or not as the case may be. 2. He knows exactly how we're all going to choose and did in advance. From the hypothetical position of God, who executed this plan, this looks more like arbitrarily creating beings destined for eternal torment (assuming this is what you get if you reject God).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Good luck with choosing that - and with choosing to fly So you admit that I only ever have 1 choice, the one God knows I'll make. So you admit that there is no free will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:It isn't true that free will is considered to be magical, or unrestrained, even outside Catholic doctrine. Well, yes, it is. I obviously have the ability to will myself to fly, or giggle at trolls. The question is whether or not I have the power to bring that will to fruition—and if I don't, the only reason I don't is because God created me with the ability to lol at trolls, but not the capacity to fly. So, why not create me without the capacity to sin, if sin is so bad?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wait so you actually are suggesting Retcon God? No he's not, because temporally "retcon God" and "knows in advance" are the same thing. There's no distinction. If God exists outside of time, then "knowing in advance" isn't really a concept, but for the purposes of "did he have knowledge that could have informed his creation", then the answer is basically yes. Which is the real question. I don't know why anyone should bother to reply at this point because he's intentionally being obtuse and failing to honestly address people's questions. I went into this thread actually somewhat impressed by kyrie's breadth of knowledge, but stuff like this really shows how problematic religion is once you start arguing with someone outside of their belief structure. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:God knows what you choose. You still chose it. I literally don't understand how someone can make this statement without recognizing it as a paradox. I think the issue is the definition of "choice". I think Canaradossi views choice simply as "a thing you do", where it's better thought of as "one thing you could possibly do instead of others". In the former definition, it makes perfect sense to say "you do things, and God knows what things you will do beforehand". It does not, however, make sense to say "You have the option of doing any of several things, but you do not have the option to do any thing other than one certain one." The former is not actually free will (though it may indeed have the illusion of free will). There was a question earlier: If God knows I will eat an apple, can I choose to eat a banana? And your answer was, "then God knew you would eat a banana." But, no, God knew I would eat the apple. We're starting with that premise. If the only possibility is that I will eat the apple, how do you call that a choice? It has only the appearance of being a choice. This is the issue I was touching on earlier with claiming the omni-traits then using the parent analogy that ignores those traits. It's almost like your answers are stream of consciousness, addressing only the issue present at that second, without taking into account the implications of issues discussed before. You answer, "God knew you would eat a banana", seeming to forget that the first thing we stated in the scenario was that he knew I would eat the apple.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Diligent, well-researched posting about Christian thought You know what this is? This is the detritus of pre-rational systems of thought. Humanism stripped everything wonderful and useful Jesus had to offer and gives it to you straight with no mystical bullshit. It's over with
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
so has anyone explained what exactly the concept of a supernatural god brings to the table yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I literally don't understand how someone can make this statement without recognizing it as a paradox. Christianity is full of paradox and mystery. It is okay within the philosophical strictures of the religion. That's how, for instance, Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man at the same time. That's how we have 100% free will and at the same time God knows 100% everything we will ever do before we do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:so has anyone explained what exactly the concept of a supernatural god brings to the table yet? A lovely hotdish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:so has anyone explained what exactly the concept of a supernatural god brings to the table yet? Job Creation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Christianity is full of paradox and mystery. It is okay within the philosophical strictures of the religion. That's how, for instance, Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man at the same time. That's how we have 100% free will and at the same time God knows 100% everything we will ever do before we do it. Oh, okay, so: willfully ignoring reality. Gotcha, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Christianity is full of paradox and mystery. It is okay within the philosophical strictures of the religion. That's how, for instance, Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man at the same time. That's how we have 100% free will and at the same time God knows 100% everything we will ever do before we do it. In any other context, this would be recognized as doublethink without much, if any, argument. I remain unconvinced why it shouldn't here as well. icantfindaname posted:so has anyone explained what exactly the concept of a supernatural god brings to the table yet? According to CowsonCrack (I think, it's been a few pages), it's a great piece of cover behind which to shelter from the existential terror of being aware of one's own limited mortality in a universe that not only is uncaring of your existence, it won't even notice when that existence ends. Nintendo Kid posted:A lovely hotdish. A good one, or one of those midwestern ones where everything is drenched in mayo, ranch dressing, and fluff?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:so has anyone explained what exactly the concept of a supernatural god brings to the table yet? A great excuse to stop thinking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:so has anyone explained what exactly the concept of a supernatural god brings to the table yet? An excuse to do whatever you want and claim it as irreproachably holy
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:According to CowsonCrack (I think, it's been a few pages), it's a great piece of cover behind which to shelter from the existential terror of being aware of one's own limited mortality in a universe that not only is uncaring of your existence, it won't even notice when that existence ends. So is prescription medication, which is probably better for you in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:paradox...is okay within the philosophical strictures of the religion. I disagree. Why? Because you say so? Prove it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I disagree. Why? Because you say so? Prove it. no no, Objective Truth only comes from god, remember? you're the one who has to prove your view is god-compatible 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Christianity is full of paradox and mystery. It is okay within the philosophical strictures of the religion. That's how, for instance, Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man at the same time. That's how we have 100% free will and at the same time God knows 100% everything we will ever do before we do it. Having obvious contradictions is not some point of pride. It shows a weak understanding of the logic of your own position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
it sounded cool to Hellenized Roman citizens. that's the explanation
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Sure I believe something nonsensical, but when it comes to something I really really really want to be true, that's okay!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
This thread would be a lot simpler if people just realized that accepting a world-view that isn't consistent with material reality can still have a positive effect on the individual person. Kyrie claims that his belief in Catholic doctrine has made his life better, and it's totally believable that that's true. There's ample evidence that belonging to a religion can improve a person's life, and in that sense, it's a rational choice to believe in the irrational. There's a dark side to that, but it's pretty understandable. When people fall out of a religion, or have their life harmed and limited by it, it can be pretty ugly, and religion can be used for really nefarious purposes. I think it makes more sense to focus on these things, then to debate the weird esoterics of religious dogma, because it doesn't work with a true believer. A person who reaps rewards from faith doesn't participate in that faith principally because of a logical argument, but because they reap rewards. If you can't offer them something equivalent in non-belief, why should they care?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:A person who reaps rewards from faith doesn't participate in that faith principally because of a logical argument, but because they reap rewards. If you can't offer them something equivalent in non-belief, why should they care? Yeah that's super nice and all but when someone of faith then insists that I'm doomed and possibly even evil for not being in their fruity club I drat well expect them to loving prove it
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:This thread would be a lot simpler if people just realized that accepting a world-view that isn't consistent with material reality can still have a positive effect on the individual person. Kyrie claims that his belief in Catholic doctrine has made his life better, and it's totally believable that that's true. There's ample evidence that belonging to a religion can improve a person's life, and in that sense, it's a rational choice to believe in the irrational. Religion in general I don't have much issue with, but poor arguments are poor arguments, if you're going to have a debate I do expect some quality there. I can not mind that someone believes in God and still think they're a very poor debater. "I believe in God because it makes me feel good." is something I can't and wouldn't dispute, "I believe in god because <nonsensical argument about it being the truth of reality>" both can be disputed, and merits it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Religion in general I don't have much issue with, but poor arguments are poor arguments, if you're going to have a debate I do expect some quality there. In a kind of related case, I don't have a problem with someone saying "I believe in God, and don't have a problem with gay people, because Jesus never mentioned it," cool, whatever. I do have a problem with "I believe in God, and that means gay people are wicked and rebellious, hellbound and causing hurricanes." IRL only one of these has a chance of me disputing the person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:31
|
|
