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

Mrs.Lucysnow

01-15-10, 07:40 AM

No people I haven't suddenly turned to Jesus but Scifes asked me to post this for him. It addresses some comments and ideas previously made while sparring with Cris.

*knowing the result of a given choice doesn't stop it from being taken
out of free will.

You give your cat two bowls of food, you know which one it'll choose,
doesn't mean it didn't choose it out of its free will.

*a given choice having a set of predetermined results means nothing
for the one taking the choice if he didn't know the predetermined
result assigned to him.

An entity A exists in the universe, A has true real free will, it uses
it to make a choice, another entity B billions of light years away
takes a look into a telescope and says "I knew it", entity A doesn't
hear entity B.

*one putting another in a scenario where he knows the subject will
make a negative choice out of his free will, is not an unjust action,
because the subject DID choose it out of his free will and wasn't
forced so the blame is exclusively on him, but such action is
naturally questionable.God's actions are unquestionable, both because we can do nothing about them, also because he has no needs to fulfill, all his actions are doing as he wants to.

you give your brother a chocolate cake and a salad dish to choose
from. You know he'll choose the cake. But it is not your fault that he
chose it. Nor are you unjust for letting him make the choice.

In conclusion: we determine which predetermined destiny to end up
with. We simply make the choice. whatever we choose, becomes/turnes
out to be our predetermined destiny.

quotes:
"Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of
Jesus as a savior is predetermined"

But unknown.

"Effectively we have no choice in the matter."
Please demonstrate.

"Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the
will of God"

What if god's will is for us to have a will of our own, displayed in
the ability to disbelieve in him, to kill and rape..?

"Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome
of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be
omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions"

The outcome of our decisions is predetermined but not coerced; god is
omniscient but exclusively so.

"If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born,
regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does
he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set
destined for eternal damnation?"

Valid question.
"This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil"

Not if the set of individuals reached their predestined destiny with
their own free will.

Dywyddyr

01-15-10, 07:55 AM

As usual Scifes misses the point;

knowing the result of a given choice doesn't stop it from being taken out of free will.
But it does.

You give your cat two bowls of food, you know which one it'll choose,
doesn't mean it didn't choose it out of its free will.
But we don't know, we assume, but we cannot be absolutely 100% certain.
The cat might choose differently, it might die suddenly, etc etc.

a given choice having a set of predetermined results means nothing
for the one taking the choice if he didn't know the predetermined
result assigned to him.
If the results are known beforehand then they are pre-ordained, irrevocably fixed, and no other option (than the one taken) is possible, we would be running on rails, following an unseen but locked script whatever we might tell ourselves about "choice".

Not if the set of individuals reached their predestined destiny with
their own free will.
There's the crux: if it's predestined then we didn't have the choice...

-ND-

01-15-10, 03:19 PM

scorpius

01-27-10, 10:05 PM

The numbers in heaven and hell are always changing. .
you been there and counted them have you?

ChildOfGod777

02-04-10, 12:37 AM

The Good news is that God does predestine and determine SOME things, and others he ALLOWS.

Predestination is real. God chooses. His choice over-rules your choice. And there is nothing you can do about it! :-)

If God wants to save you, He will, and you can't stop him. He will pursue you, find you, change your heart, love you with unfailing love, and you will respond to Him.... why? Because when God chooses, it happens. PERIOD.

When Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead, Laz didn't get to choose. Jesus said, "COME FORTH"!!! and it happened. Just like us, we are DEAD in our sins, and then God awakens us when He chooses, and we respond because He chose! I LOVE IT! God is powerful, He speaks things into existance.

But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God CHOSE YOU TO BE SAVED through the
sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He CALLED you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord
Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)

"Who has saved us and CALLED us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in
Christ Jesus from all eternity," (2 Timothy 1:9)

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart (will) of flesh.
I will put My Spirit within you and CAUSE you to walk in My statutes, and YOU WILL keep My judgments and do them." (Ezek. 36:26-27)

"For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are
fulfilled." (Rev. 17:17)

"The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD...He turns it wherever He wishes. (Pr. 21:1)

God CHOOSES. He makes plans. He does what he pleases. Who is man to tell God what to do....

"The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets" (1 Kings 22:23)

"God sent a spirit of ill will between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech" (Jud. 9:23)

The LORD works out everything for his own ends— even the wicked for a day of disaster. Proverbs 16:4

The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?
Exodus 4:11

BUT THERE IS GOOD NEWS!!!!!! God loves.... PREDESTINATION IS LOVE!!!

IN LOVE he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.... Eph 1:5

"For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30)

FOREKNEW means to know "intimately" not having knowledge of. But an intimate loving relationship. Do you know God intimately?

There is a ton more info I need to give you...

But just know that God makes himself known to people, he reveals himself to whom he chooses, he loves and saves all that he plans. He does not fail.

Nor is he unjust to punish anyone. All deserve to die. We have all chosen death. If you have ever chosen sin ONE TIME, you have chosen death. You
then deserve hell. We all deserve it!! If anyone should be mad, it's the Christian who isn't getting what he has chosen! Even the christian chose death, but God chose salvation for him! THAT'S LOVE, That's predestination.

Before the world, God chose to save me.

How do I know?

He revealed Himself to me, He pursued me with an UNFAILING love, a love that can't fail to save me. And of course I responded!!! How can't I? It's like walking up to someone and offering them a billion dollars for free. WHO WOULDN'T TAKE THAT!?!?! The only person who wouldn't take it is the person who doesn't understand. If you didn't know what money was, or had no understanding on money, you wouldn't want it, because it has no value to you. God gave me understanding, to know him, and to know what it means to have life in Him. SO OF COURSE I RESPONDED! And now He sustains me, keeps me strong to the end! He keeps me on the path, keeps me repenting, keeps me in His love.

being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Phil 1:6)

He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God, who has called you
into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful. (1 Corinth 1:8-9)

May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming
of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it. (1 Thess 5:23-24)

To Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— to the only
God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. (Jude 1:24-24)

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of
my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. (John 10:27-29 )

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2)

"I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me." (Jer. 32:40)

Surely God is my help; the Lord is the one who sustains me. (Psalm 54:4)

Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me. (Psalm 51:12)

I have waaaay more proof if this isn't enough. I also can answer any questions you may have! :-)

spidergoat

02-04-10, 12:42 AM

If God knows everything he's going to do, why go through the formality of doing it?

Dywyddyr

02-04-10, 03:29 AM

The Good news is that God does predestine and determine SOME things, and others he ALLOWS.
Supposition.

Predestination is real. God chooses. His choice over-rules your choice. And there is nothing you can do about it! :-)
More supposition.

Followed by lots of nothing.

Nor is he unjust to punish anyone. All deserve to die. We have all chosen death. If you have ever chosen sin ONE TIME, you have chosen death. You then deserve hell.
Slightly harsh don't you think?
Death penalty and everlasting Hell for stealing a pencil from work.

How do I know?
You don't know, you believe.

Followed by lots more nothing.

I have waaaay more proof if this isn't enough.
You don't have any proof.

I also can answer any questions you may have! :-)
By quoting someone else's words? How, um, clever of you...

ChildOfGod777

02-04-10, 10:53 AM

I'm about to give you a lot of info... so read carefully...

It's true. My proof is based on the bible AND experience. If you don't believe in the bible, or have never experienced God, of course you don't believe. I don't expect you to. I was just like you, until God revealed himself to me.

And the reason you don't believe is because God hasn't revealed himself to you. But however, IF God reveals himself to you, then you will believe in Jesus & the bible, just like I do. Let me show you...

Because I can show you in the bible WHY you are the way you are. You will al least agree that it makes sense to you, even if you doubt God exists, this SHOULD still make sense to you. It's truth. You don't believe because God has chosen you..... YET! lol

so check it out... and read slowly if you have to, read carefully and really listen to what it's saying....

Luke 10:22
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son CHOOSES to reveal him." -Jesus, the son, CHOOSES whom to reveal God to.

"I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me; I was found by those who did not seek me. To a nation that did not call on my name, I said, 'Here am I, here am I.' ISAIAH 65:1 (God revealed himself to people who CHOSE to reveal himself to)

John 5:21
For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. -YES, to whom HE IS PLEASED TO GIVE IT.

Jesus declares that God has CHOSEN and GIVEN people to Him, and those people that God chose to give to him WILL COME TO JESUS and no one can stop it. It's inevitable. It will happen. Jesus says it...

"All that the Father gives me WILL COME TO ME, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." John 6:37 - Pretty obvious right here!!! If JESUS says you are coming to him, YOU ARE COMING!!!!

Jesus answered. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44 -YOU CAN'T COME TO JESUS unless He says you can! AGAIN we see it. The Father will DRAW a person to Him and he will SAVE THEM if He so chooses. IF He doesn't draw you, YOU WON'T BELIEVE!

Now here is a good bit of info... but read this.... Jesus is talking to the disciples here...

John 6:60-70
On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that NO ONE CAN COME TO ME UNLESS THE FATHER HAS ENABLED HIM." From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve?

SEE IT AGAIN!?!? Jesus knows, And God ENABLES people to come to Him. HE CHOOSES!!! The reason this whole JESUS thing makes sense to me... He chose me, revealed himself to me. I was JUST LIKE YOU until He did it.

Now check out how God does whatever he wants...

Isaiah 46:9-11
Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.
From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that will I bring about;
what I have planned, that will I do.

NO ONE TELLS GOD how to run things. NO ONE. HIS GREATNESS cannot even be FATHOMED! When God speaks, IT HAPPENS! He spoke the world into existence, He spoke planets into existence, when He speaks, it happens! That's power.

Now here is EVEN MORE info...

You STILL don't believe? YOU STILL REJECT GOD?? of course you do... I'll show you why... because ALL MEN REJECT GOD... until He reveals himself to them, and gives them understanding, gives them eyes to see and ears to hear, gives them a new heart and new desires... but check out the evilness of man....

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil CONTINUALLY. Genises 6:5

The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though EVERY INCLINATION of his heart is EVIL from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. Genesis 8:21(this was right after the FLOOD with Noah. He even brought the flood because man was so evil!!! God destroys evil whenever He chooses to) We see here also that man is VERY EVIL!!!

The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are ANY who understand, any who seek God. ALL have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. Psalm 14:1-3

"As it is written: 'There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.'" (Romans 3:10-11)

OK... so do you understand man is evil? All men HATE and reject God!!! SO.... God CHOSE to take it upon himself to change that. HE decided to make SOME people NEW. Give SOME people understanding. GIVE SOME people new hearts and new desires. And after doing that, those people in return will seek him, and love him, and live for him. Which is what I first stated at the begining. God CHOOSES to reveal himself to people, at different times, as he pleases.

STILL DON'T BELIEVE ME!?!?! it's because Jesus hasn't given you EYES to see the truth or EARS to hear the truth!

Matthew 13... Jesus speaks here...

"The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been GIVEN to you, but not to them.

"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

(YOU SEE what I am typing but don't understand? You hear the gospel but still don't understand it? You haven't been given ears to hear, or eyes to see!!!!)

In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.' But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.

This passage is in the bible in 4 different places... It's clear that some people won't understand. He even gives a parable with this reguarding HEARING the word of God... also here in matthew 13...

"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

I LOVE IT!!!!! It's so true.

Ok so hopefully by now you are starting to take this in and understand it. But LIKE I HAVE SAID.... the only way you will even understand what I am saying is if God chooses to open your heart to what I am saying.... which is what he did in the bible with a lady... check it out....

We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord OPENED HER HEART to respond to Paul's message.

The Lord will open up a heart to respond IF HE CHOOSES to do so. If not, you won't believe anything I am saying. But the good news.... Is I believe HE will. I believe you are starting to think about it RIGHT NOW. I believe you came to this page for a reason! I believe God wanted me to share this with you, He wants to open your heart, He wants to save you, He wants you to know Him, and He is revealing Himself to you through this message!!!

If you haven't understood it, read this again. Let it sink in. God will show you himself. Once you know it's true.... REPENT of your sin, ask to be baptized by His holy spirit and HE WILL SEND HIS SPIRIT INTO YOUR SOUL!!!! You will be made new!!!

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 1:15
"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

Luke 13:3
I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:21
And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Acts 16:31
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

AND REMEMBER.... Jesus is the only way...

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I'll be praying for you :-)

Dywyddyr

02-04-10, 11:02 AM

It's true. My proof is based on the bible AND experience.
It's true for you: not true as a provable truth.

If you don't believe in the bible
QED: it's belief, not knowledge.

And the reason you don't believe is because God hasn't revealed himself to you.
Nope.

Because I can show you in the bible WHY you are the way you are. You will al least agree that it makes sense to you, even if you doubt God exists, this SHOULD still make sense to you. It's truth. You don't believe because God has chosen you..... YET! lol
More assumptions on your part.

(YOU SEE what I am typing but don't understand? You hear the gospel but still don't understand it? You haven't been given ears to hear, or eyes to see!!!!)
I understand it: I just don't see any reason to believe it.

I'll be praying for you :-)
Only because it makes you feel better: it does nothing for me.

ChildOfGod777

02-04-10, 11:24 AM

No, you don't understand. If you did, you would be living for Jesus.

It's like me offering you a billion dollars in cash and then you responding with "I understand the value of money, I just don't want it".

You think I believe this cause it makes me feel better?!?!? LOL

I believe this because It's true. I don't want to live a lie. I want to live in the truth. And the truth is that I'm going to spend eternity with God in a world with no pain and be filled with joy and hope. Like a permanent vacation FOREVER.

Those who reject Him spend forever in HELL!

How can this do nothing for you....??? ....oh I know why it does nothing.... you don't "understand it". You haven't been given the understanding. And until your heart opens up to it, you will always reject God. The bible BLANTANTLY says it. I just showed you in scripture. Not to mention I have another hundered verses or so backing it up even more.

Oh well, I have done what I needed to. I know that If God wants to save you, He will get to you one day. He will pursue you to a point where you cannot run anymore. He will reveal himself to you, love you, and save you.... If he so chooses. I'll be praying for you. Seriously.

Dywyddyr

02-04-10, 11:35 AM

No, you don't understand. If you did, you would be living for Jesus.
It's you that doesn't understand. I do understand I just don't believe. Your failure of understanding is that you can't see how someone can not believe.

It's like me offering you a billion dollars in cash and then you responding with "I understand the value of money, I just don't want it".
And your point would be...? You think there aren't any people who don't care about money?

You think I believe this cause it makes me feel better?!?!? LOL
Please re-read what I wrote, and what I replied to. I said that praying would make you feel better, it does nothing for me.

I believe this because It's true. I don't want to live a lie.
And because no one wants to think they're living a lie they convince themselves that what they believe IS true. However you cannot demonstrate that it is so.

I want to live in the truth. And the truth is that I'm going to spend eternity with God in a world with no pain and be filled with joy and hope. Like a permanent vacation FOREVER.
Those who reject Him spend forever in HELL!
Wild supposition...

How can this do nothing for you....??? ....oh I know why it does nothing.... you don't "understand it". You haven't been given the understanding. And until your heart opens up to it, you will always reject God. The bible BLANTANTLY says it. I just showed you in scripture. Not to mention I have another hundered verses or so backing it up even more.
What a wonderfully self-sustaining argument. If I don't believe it's because god doesn't want me to, if I do believe it's because god showed me...
You post any verse you like from the bible: it still won't prove it's true, since you can't prove the bible is true.

I'll be praying for you. Seriously.
Only if it makes you feel better. Otherwise save your energy. I don't need, or want, your prayers.

ChildOfGod777

02-04-10, 11:51 AM

You don't believe the bible... even though the bible clearly states that someone who doesn't believe only "doesn't believe" because God hasn't revealed himself to them and hasn't chosen to give them understanding. Which is EXACTLY what is happening here! You can't believe it unless God does a work in your heart.

You can't disagree with the fact that God hasn't chosen you. You just have to accept that! You have absolutely nothing at all to prove to me that it is false.

However, I have proof it is true. Everything I have said is EXACTLY what is happening here.

But man.... like I said before.... God can still save you. He can (and probably will) save you. The very fact that you happen to be talking to me now is because God loves you. He wanted you to hear this. And he is using me to get to you. God uses his people to "chose" or to "elect" more people.

You may still be running from God, you may still reject him today. BUT ONE DAY, He'll get into your heart, He'll pursue you so incredibly that you won't be able to sleep. You'll go crazy until you know Him. Once you know Jesus, you have peace, you have life, and you LOVE IT!!! seriously man.

Look, I'm just a 26 year old guy who loves jesus. Everything I speak to you is true. I don't want to argue with you man.... I want you to see the light. I believe one day you'll see it.

You mind telling me your name?

Dywyddyr

02-04-10, 12:07 PM

You don't believe the bible... even though the bible clearly states that someone who doesn't believe only "doesn't believe" because God hasn't revealed himself to them and hasn't chosen to give them understanding. Which is EXACTLY what is happening here! You can't believe it unless God does a work in your heart.
Like I said: the perfect self-supporting argument.
Why should I believe the bible?
Because it's true?
Who says it's true?
Er, the bible does...

You can't disagree with the fact that God hasn't chosen you.
Of course I can.
In order for god to have chosen me he has to exist in the first place.

However, I have proof it is true.
Not at all. None.

The very fact that you happen to be talking to me now is because God loves you. He wanted you to hear this. And he is using me to get to you.
Too funny.

You may still be running from God, you may still reject him today. BUT ONE DAY, He'll get into your heart, He'll pursue you so incredibly that you won't be able to sleep. You'll go crazy until you know Him. Once you know Jesus, you have peace, you have life, and you LOVE IT!!! seriously man.
More assumptions...

Everything I speak to you is true.
Nope: everything you say you believe to be true. But you can't prove it.

You mind telling me your name?
For what reason?
If it's to pray, like I said, don't bother... And you shouldn't need my name anyway, since IF god exists he'd know A) who I am and B) who you mean. :rolleyes:

ChildOfGod777

02-04-10, 12:37 PM

haha TRUE. I don't need your name. But I'd like to know it, so that I know who I am praying for. But yes, obviously God knows your name, and He knows who I am praying for! :-)

You keep saying "I can't prove it". That's the typical statement. Romans 1:20 says that God's existence is proved in the creation of the world. That is proof enough. Obviously you want more proof.

Well, you may not know it, but the bible was written in different places all over the world, by different people who never knew each other. The Old testiment written in hebrew and the new in greek. How is it that the 66 books written all happened to match up? They all equal one book, that all lines up? Written by different people in different languges. Yet some of the authors had never read any other sections? Or spoke other laguages. How is it that over 150 PROPHECIES were written and then they all came to be!?!? For example, in the old testement, over 150 things were written that ACTUALLY HAPPENED. In psalm David writes what is going to happen to Jesus on the cross EXACTLY and QUOTES what people will say, and it dates back 500 years BEFORE IT HAPPENED! AND IT HAPPENED EXACTLY WHAT HE WROTE!!! In fact, the ACTUAL MANUSCRIPTS are still in tact, with the actual dates. No other book or manuscripts can claim what the bible can. No other religion has prophecies dated and written in books that have happened. Only the bible. Christianity is different that all other religions. BY FAR. The bible also has another 150 prophices that HAVEN'T happened yet.... BUT WILL. LIke revelation, the end of the wolrd. Those will all be fulfilled just as the other prophices were ALL FULFILLED!!!

But that's still not good enough for you?

Just know that God wants to save you. He has used me to speak to you. And probably other people in the past, and more will come in the future. You will die one day and you will stand before God. GUARANTEED. Just know this... God has been gracious to you your whole life. He hasn't sent you to hell after you have sinned against his holy law. He could have, but he is patient, and loving. He contineues to speak to you. He is speaking through me right now. SO REMEMBER, on that Day you stand before Him, hopefully you will have changed by then. But IF NOT, know that you will be punished, and sent to hell for CONTINUING to REJECT HIM. When you ask him "how were you supposed to know"? Or that "you needed proof". He will simply tell you that He tried to tell you, over and over and you never listened. That you never once tried to reach out to him. You never cared about him. You only cared about yourself. And He will be JUST to punish you. I just pray that never happens.

I really am praying for you. I hope this sinks in your heart.

Oh and my name is Steve :-)

Dywyddyr

02-04-10, 12:52 PM

haha TRUE. I don't need your name. But I'd like to know it, so that I know who I am praying for.
So that you can feel better about yourself?

Romans 1:20 says that God's existence is proved in the creation of the world. That is proof enough.
No it isn't: what proof do you have that the bible (and specifically Romans 1:20) is anything more than guess work?

Well, you may not know it, but the bible was written in different places all over the world, by different people who never knew each other. The Old testiment written in hebrew and the new in greek. How is it that the 66 books written all happened to match up? They all equal one book, that all lines up? Written by different people in different languges.
And you're probably ignoring the fact that at the Council of Nicaea (among others) the texts that would be published/ released to constitute the bible were carefully selected (and edited?) to support the then-current desired "take" on things.
So you're claiming that none of the books contradict each other? At all?

How is it that over 150 PROPHECIES were written and then they all came to be!?!? For example, in the old testement, over 150 things were written that ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
150 eh?
Got a link?

In psalm David writes what is going to happen to Jesus on the cross EXACTLY and QUOTES what people will say, and it dates back 500 years BEFORE IT HAPPENED! AND IT HAPPENED EXACTLY WHAT HE WROTE!!!
Really?
It definitely wasn't edited at all?
It's not a question of interpretation?

In fact, the ACTUAL MANUSCRIPTS are still in tact, with the actual dates.
Link?

The bible also has another 150 prophices that HAVEN'T happened yet.... BUT WILL.
Supposition...

You will die one day and you will stand before God. GUARANTEED.
Nope.

Just know this...
:roflmao:

But IF NOT, know that you will be punished, and sent to hell for CONTINUING to REJECT HIM. When you ask him "how were you supposed to know"? Or that "you needed proof". He will simply tell you that He tried to tell you, over and over and you never listened. That you never once tried to reach out to him. You never cared about him.
And if god does exist and he made me then he made me to be exactly the way I am: if I don't believe it's his fault.

spidergoat

02-04-10, 12:54 PM

Steve, you are mistaken about a great many things. For instance, although there were many authors of the Bible, their accounts differ so much, it is possible for scholars to assign certain texts to specific authors. On the subject of prophecies, the authors knew what the old prophecies were, and altered the story to fit them. Sometimes, this happened much later, as with the mistranslation into Greek from Aramaic of a word meaning "young woman". It was translated as virgin, which is where the concept of virgin birth came from. Interestingly, virgin birth was a feature of other, more ancient religions too, so maybe it wasn't as much a mistake as a deliberate alteration to make the story more compelling.

Besides, books in general aren't proof of much of anything. While certain historical facts are represented in the Bible, we have no way of knowing if the rest of it is true. It's quite possible that there was no person we know as Jesus.

ChildOfGod777

02-04-10, 02:00 PM

Ok here is ONE site that has just 100 prophicies... i know there are more.... but this should keep you busy awhile. It breaks them into subjects. Take time to read them. Seriously.

w w w . 100 prophecies . o r g /

Next, the bible doesn't contradict. It only condradicts if you don't understand what is being written to whom or why. Just as an example.... In the old testement there was a lot of extra laws for a group of people at a certain time. SOME of them don't apply to us. They were just for a certian people. Like shaving your beard or a tatoo. Kind of like if you parents told your sister that she couldn't have a boyfriend until she was 16, but they let YOU have a girlfriend at the age of 16. Only because you were the guy. Sometimes different rules are set for different people. BUT SOME will say.... OH IT SAYS IT, IT MUST APPLY TO EVERYONE. Which isn't true. THIS SORT OF THING HAPPENES ALLLLLLL THE TIME. People don't understand it was for a time or purpose. Some things written in the bible were written only to BELIEVERS, some times it's written to a specific group. You have to study. The answers are there.

Next, what spider says isn't correct. The authors didn't just read prophicies and make up a story to fit it! lol. That ridiculous. Who would make up a story about death on a cross? And AFTER Jesus ressurected 500 PEOPLE WITNESSED IT. Then Jesus left and told peter he would build his church on a rock (aka JESUS IS THE ROCK) And he said "And the gates of hades will not overtake it". And what do ya know.... 2000 years later we still have the church, that grew from 500 people, and the gates of Hell hasn't stop us. INTERESTING. Another PROPHECY fulfilled!

AND BESIDES ALL OF THIS INFO that is blatantly true. I told you I have had EXPERIENCE as well. You see, not only did God choose to show me truth, but he let me see it first hand and experience the power of God. He gave me understanding.

How do you explain me CHANGING just like the bible says. It says once you recieve Christ you get a new heart, new mind, and new desires. THAT HAPPENED. It says I will be connected to Jesus and bear fruit. I LOVE TO TALK ABOUT Jesus. The bible said this would happen and it has. I have watched the change in my life and in the lives of others. I have seen his miracles. From people getting healed of Brain tumors to people being healed of cancer. I have watched God provide for me in my life. He is real. I can't denie it.

Dywyddyr

02-04-10, 02:21 PM

Ok here is ONE site that has just 100 prophicies...
And most of those are so vague to begin with they could have anything claimed to fulfil them, and the site itself states that there's contradictory interpretations (but dismisses the contra-proposals as coming from "unbelievers").
For example:

God will never forget the children of Israel
Bible prophecy: Isaiah 49:13-17
Prophecy written: Between 701-681 BC
Prophecy fulfilled: Throughout history
There was, for example, a fairly lengthy period ('39-'45, remember it?) where they weren't particularly looked after...

Next, the bible doesn't contradict.
One site:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Typical example:

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Oops.
Or:

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Next, what spider says isn't correct. The authors didn't just read prophicies and make up a story to fit it! lol. That ridiculous.
Wrong again: there's (as far as I know) documented evidence that spider's remarks are correct.

AND BESIDES ALL OF THIS INFO that is blatantly true.
You mean you believe it's true.

I told you I have had EXPERIENCE as well.
And?
Experience is entirely subjective...

How do you explain me CHANGING just like the bible says.
People change all the time.

I have seen his miracles. From people getting healed of Brain tumors to people being healed of cancer.
You've actually seen this have you? You're qualified to diagnose cancer/ brain tumours?
You have proof they had cancer/ brain tumour and then they didn't?

spidergoat

02-04-10, 02:43 PM

Ok here is ONE site that has just 100 prophicies... .

Considering that the entire bible was written long after the alleged death of the alleged Jesus, they could all be made up. Give me 50 years, and I could write a book that correctly "predicted" everything that would happen in 2010.

Medicine*Woman

02-04-10, 08:02 PM

*************
M*W: Welcome to Sciforums. What was it that led you to Sciforums? God is glad you are here. You might think that you found Sciforums on your own, but God sent you here to learn. God knows you are still young and impessionable. God knows you have been taught the bible, and he is genuinely concerned for you. Those before you, your parents and grandparents, etc., have taught you what they believe. That happens. It's an expected part of parenthood to do that. But, I wonder how much thought you have had on your own, IOW, finding your own interpretation of what your ancestors have told you?

Because you preach a lot in your posts, that shows me that you are not using your own wits to think about what you are saying. That is not why god gave you a brain. He intends for you to use it.

In order to truly learn about the bible, you must learn as much as you can about the history surrounding the bible times, because there is a difference between literary history and actual history. One is literal and the other is metaphorical.

Since god led you to this site, you must pay attention and learn. You wouldn't want to disappoint god, would you?

TheVisitor

02-05-10, 08:12 AM

*************
M*W: Since god led you to this site, you must pay attention and learn. You wouldn't want to disappoint god, would you?

I guess I get carried away sometimes...
I was joking about the circle thing, seemed funny at the moment, but I need to apologize.
Having fun at the expence of others isn't right...sorry about that M*W.
We all need to play nice, including me.

I LOVE TO TALK ABOUT Jesus.
Resistance is not always a bad thing, sometimes it makes you stronger.
In searching for their answers...may these debates be good for you as well.

ChildOfGod777

02-05-10, 08:42 AM

Dywyddyr

02-05-10, 08:43 AM

This is a "science" forum.
Good start, but then you spoil it...

Of course that's not true.
Really?
You know that how?
Proof?

But one thing remains constant. Every word of it is a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Oops, massive supposition.

TheVisitor

02-05-10, 09:13 AM

"But one thing remains constant. Every word of it is a revelation of Jesus Christ."

Proof? Oops, massive supposition.

You know.... I wasn't done editing that post yet.
You seem to be everywhere at once. How do you do that?

But since you brought it up I don't think it's a "massive" supposition at all.
Like M.*W. and I both mentioned, the Bible is at the same time both literal and metaphorical.

Perhaps you would like to point out a scripture that doesn't reflect Jesus Christ in at least one of these two ways?

Dywyddyr

02-05-10, 09:20 AM

You seem to be everywhere at once. How do you do that?
I'm a sad individual with nothing else to do in my life.

Perhaps you would like to point out a scripture that doesn't reflect Jesus Christ in at least one of these two ways?
It's rather hard to be revelatory of someone who in all probability didn't actually exist.

ChildOfGod777

02-05-10, 09:27 AM

In all seriousness mr dywyddyr.... Why do you think this way? Ever been in church? Every prayed to God? Or where you raised to just think whatever? Did you study science and make up your own mind? Were you scared by an event that makes you denie God? What's the story? There must be a reason...

TheVisitor

02-05-10, 10:04 AM

IIt's rather hard to be revelatory of someone who in all probability didn't actually exist.

Good point. Even your statement reveals Him in the scriptures.
They state there is a set time for His kingdom to come to power, until then He has gracefully chosen to remain in the background.
The powers that be must be allowed to have their time.
The fact you pointed this out shows His intention to remain "invisible" to the world up till now has been a success.

Dywyddyr

02-05-10, 03:33 PM

In all seriousness mr dywyddyr.... Why do you think this way?
Another question would be: Why do you think this way?

Ever been in church?
Yes.

Every prayed to God?
Not really.

Or where you raised to just think whatever?
Not really.

Did you study science and make up your own mind? Were you scared by an event that makes you denie God? What's the story? There must be a reason...
Amateur psychology now?
Correction: it's because there's no reason to believe.

Good point. Even your statement reveals Him in the scriptures.
How? Just because a bunch of people wrote something years ago doesn't give it any validity.

The fact you pointed this out shows His intention to remain "invisible" to the world up till now has been a success.
Another one of those self-sustaining arguments...

spidergoat

02-05-10, 05:06 PM

I also realize that ALMOST no one that comes on these sites is here to LEARN or LISTEN. They are here to SHARE & TELL. My chances of helping anyone see the truth is slim to none. Maybe I should just realize that? lol
Maybe I don't need help. Maybe you are just spouting the same religious BS I hear everywhere. Many people reap the benefits of meditation, which is similar to prayer only there is no supernatural component (which is unnecessary). There's nothing special about praying to Jesus, it's the same as meditating on a rock. There's no God, no heaven, no afterlife. Science offers excellent explanations of why we are here, and they are based on evidence, not mythology.

TheVisitor

02-05-10, 09:05 PM

There's no God, no heaven, no afterlife. Science offers excellent explanations of why we are here, and they are based on evidence, not mythology.

You made some very good points, and on the surface I would have to agree.
Let's dig a little deeper than just the surface for a minute.
Using your choice of science as reference point let's take just one example.
Light. You can see it so you believe it's real enough. Right? OK.

But you can only see a narrow spectrum of the actual bandwidth that truly exists.
Ultraviolet and infrared are out of the range of your senses.
What makes you so sure nothing else of material substance is out of your range as well?

Need another?
Science has proven there are entire worlds you can not see without some kind of outside help.
The Micro and the Macro, the speed of molecular vibration.
Slowed down the same molecules that appear solid, "disappear" when they are excited and speed up.
They are still just as real but you can no longer see them.
Just a few examples of how your statements are invalidated by the very science you thought supported you.

How many more examples are out there just beyond the range of your perception.
The Bible speaks of quite a few.

PsychoticEpisode

02-05-10, 09:13 PM

What makes you so sure nothing else of material substance is out of your range as well?

Nothing I like seeing more than God reduced to some undetectable bandwidth. God's going deeper and deeper into the unknown with each passing day. Wonderful. As I said in another thread, God used to be on a mountaintop.

TheVisitor

02-05-10, 09:16 PM

Nothing I like seeing more than God reduced to some undetectable bandwidth.
OK,... I've got to admit I got a "chuckle" out of that one.
But as for the rest of it...

God's going deeper and deeper into the unknown with each passing day. Wonderful.
As I said in another thread, God used to be on a mountaintop.

I covered that in post #27 to Dywrddyr.
Please try to keep up.

PsychoticEpisode

02-05-10, 09:23 PM

I covered that in post #27 to Dywrddyr.
Please try to keep up.

No need, the plot never changes, only God's location.

earth

02-05-10, 09:25 PM

Good point. Even your statement reveals Him in the scriptures.
They state there is a set time for His kingdom to come to power, until then He has gracefully chosen to remain in the background.
The powers that be must be allowed to have their time.
The fact you pointed this out shows His intention to remain "invisible" to the world up till now has been a success.

Every indication is kingdoms are going extinct. And it is wishful thinking to believe human civilization is going to return to its antiquated past. The prediction is less kingdoms in the future not more of them.

TheVisitor

02-05-10, 10:02 PM

No need, the plot never changes, only God's location.
True enough. Location is one aspect that is changing.
"On earth as it is in heaven"...but it's not the "only" thing that's changing.

And it is wishful thinking to believe human civilization is going to return to its antiquated past.
"Human civilization" has appeared to advance in knowledge for a few millennia.
But our past wasn't as "antiquated" as you have been led to believe.
What we fell from, and are being restored to, is far beyond this kind of knowledge.
It's like the difference between the limited capacity of a single computer, and the resources of one connected to the Net.
That is just a crude comparison. It's a connection we fell from that's being restored.

Every indication is kingdoms are going extinct. The prediction is less kingdoms in the future not more of them.
There will be kingdoms and survivors left to tell the tale. Isaiah 66:15-19.
After the smoke clears, and His kingdom is established on the earth ...there will be peace.

PsychoticEpisode

02-06-10, 09:39 AM

"On earth as it is in heaven"...

Then Earth would be as mysterious a divine location as God's unearthly realm. Why move God around?

John99

02-06-10, 11:41 AM

Science offers excellent explanations of why we are here,

Wow, never heard anyone say that before.

scifes

02-07-10, 03:43 AM

As usual Scifes misses the point;
as usual Dywyddyr is being selective in his replying.
btw, do you mind me calling you dwyder? much simpler to spell..

But it does.
demonstrate.

But we don't know, we assume, but we cannot be absolutely 100% certain.
The cat might choose differently, it might die suddenly, etc etc.
when we assume the cat will make a certain choice, let's say 80%, does that takes 80% of the cat's free will?:bugeye:
what the heck does knowledge of the choice has to do with MAKING the choice?

If the results are known beforehand then they are pre-ordained, irrevocably fixed, and no other option (than the one taken) is possible, we would be running on rails, following an unseen but locked script whatever we might tell ourselves about "choice".
whatever we might tell ourselves about choice?
there you go, answered yourself.
the rails are unseen the script is unknown, can't you make your choice? steer yourself?

There's the crux: if it's predestined then we didn't have the choice...
the choice is predestined..
the choice is predestined..
yes, it is a choice, as the dictionary defines it..that "choice".. the one and only.

Dywyddyr

02-07-10, 05:33 AM

as usual Dywyddyr is being selective in his replying.
I'm addressing (and debunking) your entire rgument, how is that being selective?

btw, do you mind me calling you dwyder? much simpler to spell..
Yes I do mind. If you must wreck my name at least simply shorten it to "D".

demonstrate.
I did: but it involves you reading the rest of my post. :p

when we assume the cat will make a certain choice, let's say 80%, does that takes 80% of the cat's free will?:bugeye:
Of course not: this is an illustration of your failure to understand the argument.
When we say "There is an 80% chance the cat will pick.." we are operating under assumptions: the choices (or possible outcomes) are much larger than we consider - if the cat falls over dead we'd simply say "Oh, that doesn't count, we'll try again"*.

what the heck does knowledge of the choice has to do with MAKING the choice?
If the outcome (A or B) is known irrefutably beforehand then there was no choice, whatever we might tell ourselves.

whatever we might tell ourselves about choice?
there you go, answered yourself.
the rails are unseen the script is unknown, can't you make your choice? steer yourself?
Of course not. Again.
If the script is already written that we will choose A then how, possibly, could we choose B?
And if we could not choose B then the illusion that we had a choice is merely that: an illusion.

the choice is predestined..
the choice is predestined..
yes, it is a choice, as the dictionary defines it..that "choice".. the one and only.
If god exists and choices ARE predestined the dictionary definition (by definition) becomes invalid.

If god knows that we will choose A then we MUST choose A, otherwise god will be proven wrong.
It's that simple.
Either the choice is known, and therefore is not a choice, or it is not known and we do have a choice.

* Some of these assumptions are known and unstated (for example the cat might die, the universe might explode), and some are unknown.

scifes

02-07-10, 12:23 PM

I'm addressing (and debunking) your entire rgument, how is that being selective?

the argument is composed of more than what you replied to, for example, you said nothing about my entity a and entity b example, which is a way of a demonstration of my point.

Yes I do mind. If you must wreck my name at least simply shorten it to "D".

lol no prob D, does it have to be capital?

I did: but it involves you reading the rest of my post. :p

examples please. ones we can work on..

Of course not: this is an illustration of your failure to understand the argument.
When we say "There is an 80% chance the cat will pick.." we are operating under assumptions: the choices (or possible outcomes) are much larger than we consider - if the cat falls over dead we'd simply say "Oh, that doesn't count, we'll try again"*.
if knowing the outcome of the cat's choice by 80% of certainty doesn't take away 80% of the cat's free will, why would knowing the outcome of its choice with a 100% degree of certainty strip it of it's free will and ability to chose 100%?
hope you are seeing it now..

If the outcome (A or B) is known irrefutably beforehand then there was no choice, whatever we might tell ourselves.
possible combinations of "know" and "choose":

1-knowledge, no choice:
god knows you'll die naked, and forces you to die so, you have no choice in the matter, he sends a demon to strip you and slit your throat.

2-choice, no knowledge:
there is no god, the future does not exist, only as it folds into present, you see the biggest meteor coming to wipe up your city, you choose whether to die naked or not.

3-no choice, no knowledge:
same as the previous scenario(2), except a junkie across the street pins you to the ground and insists you die naked, or any other thing that is forced upon you and takes away your ability to carry out your choice, like sudden death, or whatever.

4-choice, knowledge:
god knows whether you die naked or not, the meteor is coming your way, you wonder if it'll hurt more if you have your cloths on or not, you hesitate, make up your mind, and do it.
fifty thousand billion years ago, a holy piece of parchment had your name, longitude and latitude coordinates, date and time of death up to the milli second, and the exact size, color, brand name of the cloths you're wearing(or not) at the time of your death.

mister D, did you make the choice of how to die or no? were you forced it? does that stop it being known? am i not awesome?:D

Of course not. Again.
If the script is already written that we will choose A then how, possibly, could we choose B?
And if we could not choose B then the illusion that we had a choice is merely that: an illusion.
'a 'a...cont-ra-diction..
the script is already written that we will "what" A?
why would we not choose B? well because we chose A of course:m:
if wanted to go against the script and choose B instead, the script would turn out to be B and not A, and here you see how crucial it is that we DON'T KNOW what is written in the script, so we can't even claim we are forced on anything, because we don't know what it's we're supposed to do, to try and go against it.

If god exists and choices ARE predestined the dictionary definition (by definition) becomes invalid.
...

If god knows that we will choose A then we MUST choose A, otherwise god will be proven wrong.
capitalizing MUST changes nothing,
mister D, you are offered a snickers and a twix bar, listen carefully, you MUST choose your predestined choice, we all know that you're rebellious and a trouble seeker and you don't like being forced into anything, so you'll try to disoby and choose the one other than the one predetermined to you, but uh, the catch is, we don't know which one you MUST choose...heh, it's like saying you MUST choose that which you MUST choose..nothing new there..

It's that simple.
yeah it is, hope you get it now.

Either the choice is known, and therefore is not a choice, or it is not known and we do have a choice.
lol, demonstrate, by an example..

Dywyddyr

02-07-10, 12:42 PM

the argument is composed of more than what you replied to, for example, you said nothing about my entity a and entity b example, which is a way of a demonstration of my point.
Oops: you misunderstood.
Your entity A and B did nothing more to further your point than does the comment about "knowing" what the cat is going to do. Or god.
If entity A truly knows then there is no choice, if entity A is merely assuming (as we do with the cat) then he doesn't know.

lol no prob D, does it have to be capital?
Abso-fraggin'-lutely.

examples please. ones we can work on..
I gave illustrations: if it is known that A will be chosen then B cannot be chosen. It's that simple. If B cannot be chosen then there is no actual "choice".

if knowing the outcome of the cat's choice by 80% of certainty doesn't take away 80% of the cat's free will, why would knowing the outcome of its choice with a 100% degree of certainty strip it of it's free will and ability to chose 100%?
hope you are seeing it now..
Because, as stated, we don't know with 80% certainty. We assume and exclude certain "possible" options. The cat might die, the universe might explode. The statement of 80% certainty assumes that some things that could happen happen will not: it's NOT knowledge, it's a statement of, in effect, belief.

possible combinations of "know" and "choose":
Again you're not seeing it correctly. If god KNOWS for certain then that "choice" MUST be the one I make. If that is the One I MUST make then I could not, at any time, pick anything else. The "choice" is an illusion.
It's not a question of "force" it's simply a question "was the choice actually mine?" And the answer would be "No, since it was pre-ordained and I couldn't actually pick anything other than what I did".

'a 'a...cont-ra-diction..
the script is already written that we will "what" A?
why would we not choose B? well because we chose A of course:m:
if wanted to go against the script and choose B instead, the script would turn out to be B and not A, and here you see how crucial it is that we DON'T KNOW what is written in the script, so we can't even claim we are forced on anything, because we don't know what it's we're supposed to do, to try and go against it.
If we could pick B and re-write the script then god couldn't have known beforehand which we'd pick. It's not a question of "force".
It doesn't matter that we don't know, if anyone (i.e. god) knows then the future must be fixed. If the future is fixed then there are no choices.

capitalizing MUST changes nothing,
mister D, you are offered a snickers and a twix bar, listen carefully, you MUST choose your predestined choice, we all know that you're rebellious and a trouble seeker and you don't like being forced into anything, so you'll try to disoby and choose the one other than the one predetermined to you, but uh, the catch is, we don't know which one you MUST choose...heh, it's like saying you MUST choose that which you MUST choose..nothing new there..
Again you're missing the point. If it is absolutely known which I will pick then I cannot pick the other option, otherwise that knowledge wouldn't be knowledge. So I pick whatever is pre-written but still believe that it was a free choice, even though it wasn't.

scifes

02-08-10, 01:16 AM

Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.

does the external coercion exist because of the knowledge?
period.

Dywyddyr

02-08-10, 02:33 AM

does the external coercion exist because of the knowledge?
period.
You keep coming back to this: there is no coercion.
But if the future is known it is fixed.
Therefore there is no choice, because the "alternatives" are illusory.

scifes

02-08-10, 02:53 AM

i'm coming back to the original argument and it's premise, as this thread is debunking it, it is not a new argument with new premises.
so you admit that the premise of cris's argument is false, hence, his whole argument or proof that the christian god and free will can't exist, or form a paradox, is...
FALSE!!
am i correct?

now, if you want to support his same point with a new argument and a new premise,(in which i think you need to state that dictionaries are wrong :p), then post a new thread, and i'll join you in it :D.

:thankyou:

scifes

02-08-10, 02:56 AM

which is this:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=3182

Dywyddyr

02-08-10, 03:04 AM

i'm coming back to the original argument and it's premise, as this thread is debunking it, it is not a new argument with new premises.
I know. And you're failing miserably at the debunking.

so you admit that the premise of cris's argument is false
No. I'm showing where, and how, you fail to understand the argument.

hence, his whole argument or proof that the christian god and free will can't exist, or form a paradox, is...
FALSE!!
am i correct?
Also wrong.

now, if you want to support his same point with a new argument and a new premise,(in which i think you need to state that dictionaries are wrong :p), then post a new thread, and i'll join you in it :D.
:thankyou:
There's no need for a new thread.
I've already supported that argument, and now you're claiming (wrongly) to have debunked it.

I'll try to simplify it for you:

If god knows which we're going to do (keep it simple: pick A or pick B) then we do not actually have the choice.
For something to be known it must be true. Therefore if it is true that we will pick A we cannot, under any circumstances, pick B.
Hence the "choice" is an illusion: we cannot pick B whatever we tell ourselves because the selection of A, being true, was, is and always will be true. Even before the "choice" was made.

scifes

02-08-10, 01:42 PM

now, i really really don't know how many times do i have to spell it out for you, it's about time you give up and admit D, being stubborn is good, but when you're right, so drop your pride and surrender to truth, you're never too old to learn new things you know, even from a glass ants advocate like me..learn new things you know, even from a glass ants advocate like me..

[QUOTE=Cris;43501]
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.

does the external coercion exist because of the knowledge?
period.

there is no coercion.

you've just said that his premise is wrong, how can you still keep "but"ting anything about the argument? isn't it done? finished? period?
how can one win against you D? or are you one who has the "it's a goat even if it flew" saying apply to them?
if you, one of the most intelligent atheists i know, can't accept this simple defeat, how can you still speak of how close minded theists are? how brainwashed, arrogant and ignorant, illogical they are?

cris was very clear in his argument, his definitions were so, and my debunkment of it was of similar clarity, choice is independent of knowledge, especially when the chooser doesn't have access to said knowledge, and this is all subject to his own definitions, what are you still trying to achieve here?

the way i see it, you have two choices;
1-either demonstrate on a line parallel to his argument how my objection is wrong, and the argument still holds.
2-give a model for us to work on, you can not do this, because you are wrong.
3-admit that cris's argument is flawed, that i have debunked it, and feel free to pursue his concept in a new thread, i assure you, when you do that, you'll bring nothing new, you'll only question the definition of choice as humans know it, i won't necessarily oppose you there, because it would be more of a philosophical debate than strictly a religious one, because cris's definition of choice is the one known to humans, and his argument is based on that, all that's left to you is to question that - the definition itself-.

i'm also interested in what other readers here think, and who they think is making more sense, me or D.

Dywyddyr

02-08-10, 03:26 PM

Cris

02-08-10, 06:23 PM

scifes, Lucy,

*knowing the result of a given choice doesn't stop it from being taken
out of free will.Yes it does. If an event is known before it occurs then the concept of free-will becomes irrelevant and illusory.

You give your cat two bowls of food, you know which one it'll choose,
doesn't mean it didn't choose it out of its free will.That is not knowledge, that is an assessment of probability. Such assessments approach knowledge as the time between assessment and event become shorter, but it is still not knowledge until the event has occurred. What happens here if a dog suddenly appears at the very last second and scares the cat away and then eats the food itself? What has happened to your claim to knowledge?

Now if you can tell me with certainty that a specific cat at a time 1 million years from now will choose between one bowl over another then that would be impressive. Let's assume you can do that, what now can we say about the potential free-will choice of the cat, that at the time you have this knowledge, does not yet exist? Does the cat have any choice to do anything other than exactly what you know it will do? No, its exact actions have been predetermined, there is no choice involved.

The very presence of knowledge of future events fundamentally conflicts with any notion of a choice to do anything other than what is known will occur. The paradox highlights the probability that obtaining knowledge of future events is simply not possible except in science fiction. Time does not appear to be a medium through which it is possible to traverse but rather it is no more than a property of existence in the same sense that your breadth, width, and height, are the other primary dimensional properties. One should no more talk about traveling through time than one would discuss traveling through height. The future does not exist, only present time exists. So knowledge of what has yet to occur is not possible. However, if we were to fully comprehend every variable in the universe and how these variables interact with each other then it is conceivable that we could potentially accurately predict future events by examining the very long chains of minute cause and effects that would lead to those future events.

In that light we could hypothesize that a god might have the ability to understand such complexity and be able to predict future events perfectly. That now brings us back to free-will and our cat. If the cat chooses one bowl over another is it free-will or is it entirely the result of a very long chain of causes and effects starting with the start of the universe? In this case the appearance of free will again be no more than a deterministic and predictable event. Free will would again not be the case.

I don't see any debunking yet.

PsychoticEpisode

02-08-10, 07:44 PM

I don't see any debunking yet.

Not bloody likely to either.

I think Scifes knows that God cannot pass any judgments if man is incapable of choice. To do so God would be judging Himself, not us. Unacceptable as that is, it then becomes prudent to inject free will into predestined lives. Scifes cannot admit defeat here even if he is soundly thrashed, too much at stake.

scifes

02-08-10, 11:27 PM

alright, i'm thoroughly offended now, cuz i'm either too stupid i'm missing a point you all are seeing, or you're all sticking to your beliefs no matter what, and are playing me for a fool to expect me to actually follow along..

cris, please tell us what you think of my entity a and entity b example, D what do you think of my dying naked possibilities, you (as usual) excluded them from your reply, please counter example.

scifes

02-09-10, 03:10 AM

BWAHAHAHA,i've just bought a book called (rough translation): "curing the ill, in matters of fate and destiny, causes and reasons", for an ancient bedwin, you all know those centery old cattle shooers..well one of them is about to obliterate all yer asses..i mean, why knock you out with a stick if i can run you over with a tank?

Tiassa, i care for what you think of this thread, in case you're reading..

Dywyddyr

02-09-10, 04:56 AM

alright, i'm thoroughly offended now, cuz i'm either too stupid i'm missing a point you all are seeing
Well we didn't want to be the ones to say it. :p

D what do you think of my dying naked possibilities, you (as usual) excluded them from your reply, please counter example.
Because they're simply reiterations of previous arguments, but just this once...

1-knowledge, no choice:
god knows you'll die naked, and forces you to die so, you have no choice in the matter, he sends a demon to strip you and slit your throat.
So what? That's coercion.
Knowledge does not mean coercion!

2-choice, no knowledge:
there is no god, the future does not exist, only as it folds into present, you see the biggest meteor coming to wipe up your city, you choose whether to die naked or not.
Yep: that's one way of looking at it (or one possible explanation).

3-no choice, no knowledge:
same as the previous scenario(2), except a junkie across the street pins you to the ground and insists you die naked, or any other thing that is forced upon you and takes away your ability to carry out your choice, like sudden death, or whatever.
Adds nothing to the argument.

4-choice, knowledge:
god knows whether you die naked or not, the meteor is coming your way, you wonder if it'll hurt more if you have your cloths on or not, you hesitate, make up your mind, and do it.
fifty thousand billion years ago, a holy piece of parchment had your name, longitude and latitude coordinates, date and time of death up to the milli second, and the exact size, color, brand name of the cloths you're wearing(or not) at the time of your death.
If there is knowledge there is no choice.

From the bottom, one step at a time:

If god knows that, given a "choice", you will pick A which will you pick?
Which can you pick?
If you claim that that it is possible for you to pick B what does that mean about god's knowledge that you will pick A?

phlogistician

02-09-10, 07:34 AM

Those who reject Him spend forever in HELL!

You need to go and re-read your bibles, because they specifically don't say that.

sifreak21

02-09-10, 09:21 AM

Wow, yeah. True this is the Science Forums... most people are here to talk about science and there disbelief in the ALMIGHTY.

I also realize that ALMOST no one that comes on these sites is here to LEARN or LISTEN. They are here to SHARE & TELL. My chances of helping anyone see the truth is slim to none. Maybe I should just realize that? lol

As for the MYSTORY lady. I'm afriad you got it all wrong. You are way off. BUT GOOD LUCK TO YA!!!! lol

I didn't just "believe" what my parents told me. I read the bible, study, I have a personal relationship with Jesus. He is in my life, guides me, helps me. It's amazing the things that He does. I'm for sure walking with the Lord. And no one could convince me otherwise.

If you all read what I just wrote in the last 5 posts.... you will see that I believe if God wants you coming to heaven, He'll get you one way or another! He never fails to save those he chooses :-) Praying for you all!

no people are here to state there opinion freely, then there are people like you stating unprovable facts and people here wont keep there mouth shut they will call you out which they should. the bible is in my eyes nothing more than a fiction story passed down over the ages.

im sure a good author could write another book that makes you believe out of fear, what if this is true i may spend eternity in hell, emense suffering! well istead of taking that chance im gonna believe in something there is no proof what so ever of donate 10% of my paycheck so the pastor can buy himself a million dollar mansion and a bently but mroe power to them there screwing believers everywhere, one of the greatest scams of all time.

but back to the point, you say there is proof but yet there is none your believe in faith is from your personal experiences, which im 99% sure whatever they are have a valid explination, and the writings of the bible. but yet you have not one shred of proof. i understand what you have been saying but i dont and unless unrefutible proof that god does all will not believe in a glamorus fiction story im sorry, there is more proof now adays of UFO's /aliens then of god

sifreak21

02-09-10, 09:34 AM

You made some very good points, and on the surface I would have to agree.
Let's dig a little deeper than just the surface for a minute.
Using your choice of science as reference point let's take just one example.
Light. You can see it so you believe it's real enough. Right? OK.

But you can only see a narrow spectrum of the actual bandwidth that truly exists.
Ultraviolet and infrared are out of the range of your senses.
What makes you so sure nothing else of material substance is out of your range as well?

Need another?
Science has proven there are entire worlds you can not see without some kind of outside help.
The Micro and the Macro, the speed of molecular vibration.
Slowed down the same molecules that appear solid, "disappear" when they are excited and speed up.
They are still just as real but you can no longer see them.
Just a few examples of how your statements are invalidated by the very science you thought supported you.

How many more examples are out there just beyond the range of your perception.
The Bible speaks of quite a few.

in the field of lasers i thought id chime in on this post ^_^

we can only see the visible spectrum.. you 100% correct, but comparing Ultraviolet and infrared to a being is outrageous.. and we can see them might i add. night vision goggles can see IR light so we know for 100% fact its there and you can see the effects of UV wavelenghts everywhere, i can show you un refutable proof that UV and IR exsist you got something to show me god? not writings not dreams not personal experiences,

On your second part there, you shot yourself in the foot. with outside help we can see these microscopic worlds, with outside help we cant look around and see god walking among us.

as i have not read the bible cover to cover i dont know what exampes of "just out of our range" there are and what ones if any we can prove without a reasonable doubt

scifes

02-09-10, 10:11 AM

D, can we say it boils down to order?

i put it like this;
you make your choice, god knew it all along.

you put it like this;
god knows it, can you choose otherwise?

let's try to apply models,

1-you are faced with A and B, you choose one, god knew it all along.

2-god knows you'll choose A, hence you don't have a choice to choose B.

PEOPLE!!
which makes more sense?
now do you see why the avoidance of giving a live example? a model to work on?
cuz then there'll be no place for playing with words..or am i going even deeper down the road of stupidity?
manifestation... i love it.

scifes

02-09-10, 10:16 AM

Not bloody likely to either.

I think Scifes knows that God cannot pass any judgments if man is incapable of choice. To do so God would be judging Himself, not us. Unacceptable as that is, it then becomes prudent to inject free will into predestined lives. Scifes cannot admit defeat here even if he is soundly thrashed, too much at stake.

yo psychotic, didn't want to be one who asks for people's opinions then ignores them, so thanks for your time, though you know yourself that you have a choice whether to believe in god or not, as much as you have the choice to admit it or not..so, idk..:shrug:

Dywyddyr

02-09-10, 10:23 AM

D, can we say it boils down to order?
No.

i put it like this;
you make your choice, god knew it all along.
you put it like this;
god knows it, can you choose otherwise?
If god knew then there could not have a choice - we couldn't choose otherwise.

let's try to apply models,
1-you are faced with A and B, you choose one, god knew it all along.

2-god knows you'll choose A, hence you don't have a choice to choose B.
You're still not seeing it: if is known before hand then we cannot choose the one that we didn't.
Your "examples" are the same thing: we can't choose differently than god "predicted".

which makes more sense?
now do you see why the avoidance of giving a live example? a model to work on?
Your own "models" show where you're going wrong.
If it is known we cannot go against that choice.

You haven't answered this:
If god knows that, given a "choice", you will pick A which will you pick?
Which can you pick?
If you claim that that it is possible for you to pick B what does that mean about god's knowledge that you will pick A?

scifes

02-09-10, 11:09 AM

You haven't answered this:
If god knows that, given a "choice", you will pick A which will you pick?
Which can you pick?
If you claim that that it is possible for you to pick B what does that mean about god's knowledge that you will pick A?
that's coercion of some sort, you see, you know what god knows you're gonna choose, so you can't but choose it, you have to choose A, cuz god knows you're gonna choose it.

but, the key matter is that we don't know what god knows, and hence we're to-tal-ly independent of what he knows, it's as if he isn't there(;)).
you get it now?

if god told us what we are predestined to pick;

Which can you pick?
only what god knows i will pick, which is A.

on the other hand, if god did not tell us what he predestined us to pick;

Which can you pick?
i can pick either:shrug:

for a moment let's pretend that god exists, and that he predetermined what would happen in this world, how does that stop me from choosing whether i brush my teeth before i sleep or not?

are you going to say;"IF god predestined you to brush them, you sure as hell won't sleep till you brushed them, one friggin way or another"?
then i'd agree, BUT, you said, "IF", now what is the alternative to that "IF" being true?
that god predestined me to sleep without brushing my teeth, in which case i also, would in no way brush them before i sleep, no matter what.

now i, when i was about 15 years old i guess, was puzzled and baffled by this, i wanted to try, to experiment, to go against god's predetermination, i wanted to go off the rail, try doing something i couldn't, something i shouldn't, go off god's script..

:scratchin:...
but where's the script?
how can i go against something i don't know?
how can i claim to be bound to something i don't know, if i want to break from it?

was i supposed to brush my teeth or not, according to god's plan?
.....
....
...
..
.
"ahh f*** it, i'll just do what i want"..

Dywyddyr

02-09-10, 12:07 PM

that's coercion of some sort, you see, you know what god knows you're gonna choose, so you can't but choose it, you have to choose A, cuz god knows you're gonna choose it.
No it isn't coercion of any sort: it doesn't matter whether we know that god knows it or not.
If the future is known it must be fixed. If it's fixed we don't have choices.

but, the key matter is that we don't know what god knows, and hence we're to-tal-ly independent of what he knows, it's as if he isn't there(;)).
you get it now?
Wrong again: see above.

if god told us what we are predestined to pick;
only what god knows i will pick, which is A.
on the other hand, if god did not tell us what he predestined us to pick;
i can pick either:shrug:
No you can't, because if you pick the one that god says you weren't going to pick then that means god was wrong and that he didn't know.

for a moment let's pretend that god exists, and that he predetermined what would happen in this world, how does that stop me from choosing whether i brush my teeth before i sleep or not?
Because if it's pre-determined then you didn't choose.

are you going to say;"IF god predestined you to brush them, you sure as hell won't sleep till you brushed them, one friggin way or another"?
then i'd agree, BUT, you said, "IF", now what is the alternative to that "IF" being true?
If it's predestined then choice is an illusion...

now i, when i was about 15 years old i guess, was puzzled and baffled by this, i wanted to try, to experiment, to go against god's predetermination, i wanted to go off the rail, try doing something i couldn't, something i shouldn't, go off god's script..
:scratchin:...
but where's the script?
how can i go against something i don't know?
how can i claim to be bound to something i don't know, if i want to break from it?
was i supposed to brush my teeth or not, according to god's plan?
.....
....
...
..
.
"ahh f*** it, i'll just do what i want"..
Exactly: if god knows (i.e. it's predetermined) then whatever you do (even if you think you're making random choices) aren't choices since it was already written down that it would happen.
You're following a script - which is fixed - even though you haven't read it.
And you can't deviate from that script, because whatever you choose was decided beforehand.

scifes

02-09-10, 12:50 PM

If if it's predestined then choice is an illusion...

that's basically all what you're saying.
couple clicks off the OP don't you think?

Dywyddyr

02-09-10, 12:57 PM

that's basically all what you're saying.
Which you're supposed to be debunking...

couple clicks off the OP don't you think?
Hardly.

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

PsychoticEpisode

02-09-10, 03:00 PM

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

In the context of this thread, that is one of the toughest questions ever asked in the Religion sub-forum. I'm jealous that I never thought of it. I hope the answer is just as good.

Dywyddyr

02-09-10, 03:05 PM

In the context of this thread, that is one of the toughest questions ever asked in the Religion sub-forum. I'm jealous that I never thought of it.
No need to be that jealous.
When I die I'll leave you my brains in my will. Then you can think of questions like that. ;)

PsychoticEpisode

02-09-10, 03:21 PM

No need to be that jealous.
When I die I'll leave you my brains in my will. Then you can think of questions like that. ;)

No problem, I'll put it up on the shelf next to my @#$^%$&! collection:D. Sorry, my reply got a little garbled there;). I thought I had some good questions in the Creation thread that theists shied away from. Every now and then you see a good question and say to yourself. 'Man , I've got to remember that". So yes, your question to Scifes is one of those. If theists can't answer a question or they avoid it altogether then it most certainly qualifies as worthy. I just hope Scifes doesn't pull an LG and say we can't comprehend God or His ways. I have my fingers crossed that he comes in with something good but for the life of me I don't know how.

Try Again

02-09-10, 04:40 PM

spidergoat

02-09-10, 04:42 PM

Why do Buddhists deserve everlasting torture?

Try Again

02-09-10, 04:49 PM

Why do Buddhists deserve everlasting torture?

John 14:6 (New International Version)

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

spidergoat

02-09-10, 05:03 PM

I could interpret that to mean, "no one comes to enlightenment except in the same way I did".

Dywyddyr

02-09-10, 05:06 PM

God does not enjoy sending people to hell, but it must be done.
Of course he likes it. He decided from the start who was going and who wasn't, and then set us up to go (or not).

Romans 8:
28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,[a] who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those [B]God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Ephesians 1
4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will

Your own quotes condemn god as an arrogant sadist.

Try Again

02-09-10, 06:33 PM

I could interpret that to mean, "no one comes to enlightenment except in the same way I did".

Yes, I suppose you could interpret it that way. As long as you are ignorant to the rest of the text.

Medicine*Woman

02-09-10, 07:09 PM

[QUOTE=Try Again;2475355]I do not like to see people go to hell, but it is not my will that happens. God does not enjoy sending people to hell, but it must be done.
*************
M*W: How many people have you actually seen go to hell? Did they get back with you on that? Those wonderful folks down at the patriarchy (you know, the ones who created your god as a work of fiction), also created hell for the sole purpose of riddling human beings into guilt.

Give it up. You don't know what you're talking about.

Try Again

02-09-10, 07:10 PM

Cris

02-09-10, 09:27 PM

scifes,

cris, please tell us what you think of my entity a and entity b example,OK.

a given choice having a set of predetermined results means nothing
for the one taking the choice if he didn't know the predetermined
result assigned to him.If a result is predetermined then there can be no choice. A choice implies multiple possible results. A predetermined result means there is only a single outcome. The terms "choice" and "predetermined" are mutually exclusive.

"taking the choice" can be no more than an illusion since there is only one possible outcome.

"means nothing"? So, your point?

"result assigned to him"? What does this mean?

An entity A exists in the universe, A has true real free will, it uses
it to make a choice, another entity B billions of light years away
takes a look into a telescope and says "I knew it", entity A doesn't
hear entity B.Sounds like a good guess. How does this debunk the paradox between predetermined events and free will?

Cris

02-09-10, 09:48 PM

scifes,

does the external coercion exist because of the knowledge?If something has the ability to know future events there is no essential implication that the existence of the knowledge would cause the event.

Cris

02-09-10, 09:59 PM

scifes,

choice is independent of knowledge, especially when the chooser doesn't have access to said knowledge,You haven't understood the argument yet. If the knowledge exists then there is no choice. As I have said many times the two conditions are mutually exclusive. Either there is a free choice and there is no knowledge, or there is knowledge and hence there is no choice. The two conditions cannot coexist.

Cris

02-09-10, 10:18 PM

Try again,

I do not like to see people go to hell, but it is not my will that happens. God does not enjoy sending people to hell, but it must be done.That's an admission that God does not exist. He is characterized as omnipotent (all powerful), i.e. if he really doesn't want people to go to hell he has the power to create the scenario where they do not. If he chooses not to use that power then it must be because he does want people to suffer. To deliberately cause people to suffer needlessly is evil and that is a direct contradiction to his other claimed characteristic that God is omnibenevolent (all good). Either he is not all powerful and is therefore impotent, or he is evil. Either way the claims for such a god cannot be met and hence he cannot actually exist.

Peter 3:9 (New International Version)

9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.But only because of the scenario that he artificially created. Had he not wanted people to sin he could have created us with the wisdom and knowledge to understand the issues clearly so that sinning would always be avoided. Since he chose to create us imperfect then it is because he did want us to sin. Either way he is the direct result of our actions because of his design and hence we cannot be held accountable for his despotic nature.

Ephesians 1

4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he[c] predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—Looks like preaching and is irrelevant to the thread topic.

Please stay on topic or have your posts deleted.

scifes

02-10-10, 02:27 AM

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

I hope the answer is just as good.

i llllove giving short yet complex answers to short yet complex questions..

this reminds me of skin's question to LG, "can god create a rock he can't carry?"
...
but you've gotta wait for it:)

scifes

02-10-10, 02:31 AM

scifes,

You haven't understood the argument yet. If the knowledge exists then there is no choice. As I have said many times the two conditions are mutually exclusive. Either there is a free choice and there is no knowledge, or there is knowledge and hence there is no choice. The two conditions cannot coexist.

ok,
give me a model of a choice made out of free will, even if it was an imaginary one.

Jan Ardena

02-10-10, 03:26 AM

Dywyddyr,

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

Simples.
If God knows you're going to pick A, it is because He knows, not that your choice
was predetermined.
The trouble with this so called paradox is that it doesn't take into account what
knowledge actually is, or how we obtain it.
In all scriptures there is an aspect of God which is in the heart of each individual living entiity. This aspect knows the living entity in every way possible, and this is how God
would know the choice we make. Not that He just somehow knows everything without experience.

jan.

Dywyddyr

02-10-10, 05:35 AM

Dywyddyr,
Simples.
If God knows you're going to pick A, it is because He knows, not that your choice was predetermined.
If your choice is known beforehand then it must have been predetermined.

The trouble with this so called paradox is that it doesn't take into account what knowledge actually is, or how we obtain it.
Wrong.
It's got nothing to do with how it's obtained. If it's knowledge it must be true.

In all scriptures there is an aspect of God which is in the heart of each individual living entiity. This aspect knows the living entity in every way possible, and this is how God would know the choice we make. Not that He just somehow knows everything without experience.
jan.
And we're back to "how can you possibly choose B if god knows you're going to choose A?".
If you choose B then god didn't know...
If you choose A there was no free will because it was known (i.e. true) beforehand, before you even started to consider which you'd pick.

Jan Ardena

02-10-10, 07:43 AM

Dywyddyr,

Wrong.
It's got nothing to do with how it's obtained. If it's knowledge it must be true.

Truth is truth, knowledge is how one arrives at the truth.
The truth of the matter is, the living entity has the god-given
power to choose. That is the knowledge. God would know what
the living entity would choose, because He knows the living entity,
not that the living entity has to choose based on a predestined knowledge.
That is not free will.

And we're back to "how can you possibly choose B if god knows you're going to choose A?".

It is the nature of the living entity that makes the ultimate
decision to choose.

If you choose B then god didn't know...

If you choose B, then you did so based on your particular nature.
God knows your nature, which is the underlying principle for your
movements.

jan.

Dywyddyr

02-10-10, 08:16 AM

Dywyddyr,
Truth is truth, knowledge is how one arrives at the truth.
Nope.
Knowledge is knowledge.
If something is known it must be true. And if it's true then it can't be wrong.

The truth of the matter is, the living entity has the god-given power to choose.
Supposition.

That is the knowledge. God would know what the living entity would choose, because He knows the living entity,not that the living entity has to choose based on a predestined knowledge.
That is not free will.
If it is known infallibly what is going to be chosen, beforehand, then the choice is "fixed". The "chooser" cannot pick anything else. Therefore it IS predestination.

It is the nature of the living entity that makes the ultimate decision to choose.
That's what the whole debate is about: you're assuming that we do have free will and then trying to fit that into the other assumption: that god knows what we'll do.

If you choose B, then you did so based on your particular nature.
God knows your nature, which is the underlying principle for your movements.
Exactly: if it is our nature to choose B then there is no free will: we're simply doing as we're "programmed" by nature...

Jan Ardena

02-10-10, 08:39 AM

Dywyddyr,

Nope.
Knowledge is knowledge.
If something is known it must be true. And if it's true then it can't be wrong.

I think we're saying the same thing, but I will add, knowledge is only truth
if it is truth. The truth is there regardless of knowledge, it cannot be false.

Supposition.

Then the whole debate becomes supposition.

If it is known infallibly what is going to be chosen, beforehand, then the choice is "fixed".

No, it means the knower has perfect knowledge.

The "chooser" cannot pick anything else. Therefore it IS predestination.

You've contradicted yourself. The "chooser" by dint of the name can pick something else, but chooses not to, because of reasons known to him.
If there is predestination, it is only because of the "chooser" choice.

That's what the whole debate is about: you're assuming that we do have free will and then trying to fit that into the other assumption: that god knows what we'll do.

God knows what we will do, because He knows us, our every thought, desire, and deed, from the very begining. That is knowledge. Knowledge is not based on no-knowledge.

Exactly: if it is our nature to choose B then there is no free will: we're simply doing as we're "programmed" by nature...

If one becomes imprisoned by ones own desires, then one will have no choice
but to choose that which one desires.
So one who cannot see the forest for the trees, has only themself to blame.

jan.

Dywyddyr

02-10-10, 08:49 AM

Dywyddyr,
I think we're saying the same thing, but I will add, knowledge is only truth
if it is truth. The truth is there regardless of knowledge, it cannot be false.
And if it can never be false then we cannot ever choose the opposite of what is known we will choose: therefore the choice is effectively pre-selected.

Then the whole debate becomes supposition.
Nope.
The debate is about free will being incompatible with god. It's an either/ or thing.

No, it means the knower has perfect knowledge.
And if the knowledge is perfect then we're back to "you cannot EVER choose anything other than what god knows you will pick": the choice was decided long ago.

You've contradicted yourself. The "chooser" by dint of the name can pick something else, but chooses not to, because of reasons known to him.
If there is predestination, it is only because of the "chooser" choice.
Wrong again. Why do you think I put the word "chooser" in quote marks?
Either he is a chooser OR it's predestined. One or the other: until we know (or decide) then the word "chooser" is the best we have...

God knows what we will do, because He knows us, our every thought, desire, and deed, from the very begining. That is knowledge. Knowledge is not based on no-knowledge.
And if it's knowledge it can't be wrong: no choice.

If one becomes imprisoned by ones own desires, then one will have no choice but to choose that which one desires.
So one who cannot see the forest for the trees, has only themself to blame.
Specious point: do you pick walking or the bus? How much does "desire" come into it?
If it is KNOWN what we will do at any (and every) juncture then there is no choice.

Jan Ardena

02-10-10, 12:10 PM

Dywyddyr,

And if it can never be false then we cannot ever choose the opposite of what is known we will choose: therefore the choice is effectively pre-selected.

Huh! That makes no sense.
Knowledge is required to know truth, if we
accept knowledge that is false, then it will become
evident (eventually) that the knowledge is false.

Nope
The debate is about free will being incompatible with god. It's an either/ or thing.

Obviously not, otherwise we would agree to disagree and be done with it.

And if the knowledge is perfect then we're back to "you cannot EVER choose anything other than what god knows you will pick": the choice was decided long ago.

The two are unrelated.
You must show how having perfect knowledge affects choice.

Wrong again. Why do you think I put the word "chooser" in quote marks?
Either he is a chooser OR it's predestined. One or the other: until we know (or decide) then the word "chooser" is the best we have...

You "chose" the word "chooser", because you instinctively know that
we have free will.
You are IMHO using this argument to prove God does not exist, and/or, belief in God is illogical.

And if it's knowledge it can't be wrong: no choice.

How long was the 'Piltdown Man' regarded as knowledge of the missing evolutinary link, and believed by men of knowledge, before it was proven
false?
Good knowledge can lead to truth, but it is not truth.
Truth is SEPARATE from the pursuit of knowledge.
We now know that the tale of the "Piltdown Man" was believed
to be true out of nothing more than choice, as in truth, it was a fake.

Specious point: do you pick walking or the bus? How much does "desire" come into it?

It depends on me.
If it is a nice sunny day I may feel like walking, or
if it's pissing down with rain I may feel like catching the bus.
Whatever takes my fancy (desire).
However, I may be forced to take a bus if I need to get somewhere
in a hurry. But the choice is still mine, as it is my desire to get where
i'm going to on time.

If it is KNOWN what we will do at any (and every) juncture then there is no choice.

The two are unrelated.
Please show how you come to this conclusion.

jan.

Dywyddyr

02-10-10, 12:22 PM

Huh! That makes no sense.
Then you're failing to understand the argument.

Knowledge is required to know truth, if we accept knowledge that is false, then it will become evident (eventually) that the knowledge is false.
If it's false it's not knowledge.
So if god has the knowledge that we will pick A it MUST be true that we will do so.

Obviously not, otherwise we would agree to disagree and be done with it.
So you're still failing to understand the argument.

The two are unrelated.
Wrong.

You must show how having perfect knowledge affects choice.
If it's knowledge it must be true: therefore if it is true that we will pick A before we do so we cannot pick A.

You "chose" the word "chooser", because you instinctively know that
we have free will.
Oh you're assuming...

You are IMHO using this argument to prove God does not exist, and/or, belief in God is illogical.
Also wrong: the argument (from Cris) is that free will and god (if he is omniscient) are incompatible. It's an either/ or.

How long was the 'Piltdown Man' regarded as knowledge of the missing evolutinary link, and believed by men of knowledge, before it was proven false?
Good knowledge can lead to truth, but it is not truth.
Truth is SEPARATE from the pursuit of knowledge.
We now know that the tale of the "Piltdown Man" was believed to be true out of nothing more than choice, as in truth, it was a fake.
And therefore wasn't knowledge, it was belief.

It depends on me.
If it is a nice sunny day I may feel like walking, or if it's pissing down with rain I may feel like catching the bus.
Whatever takes my fancy (desire).
However, I may be forced to take a bus if I need to get somewhere in a hurry. But the choice is still mine, as it is my desire to get where i'm going to on time.
And if it was known beforehand that you'd take the bus how could you decide to walk?

The two are unrelated.
Please show how you come to this conclusion.
One more time:
If it is known (i.e. TRUE) that I will do X then, regardless of whatever I tell myself about "choosing" I will, inevitably, do X. The "choice" will not exist (or ever exist) since the outcome of that choice was known and true before I made the "choice". I could not "decide" to do Y, or Z, of F or H because it was, even before I "thought about" which to do, true that I would do X.

It comes back, again to:
if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

Jan Ardena

02-10-10, 01:19 PM

Dywyddyr,

Then you're failing to understand the argument.

I understand the argument, but what you said didn't make sense
unless there is another definition of knowledge that is not defined
in the dictionary.

If it's false it's not knowledge.

But it was regarded as mainstream knowledge at the time.

So if god has the knowledge that we will pick A it MUST be true that we will do so.

Yes, but that only shows that God has perfect knowledge, not
that we therefore have no free will. We still choose to pick A because
it fits our personal situation.

So you're still failing to understand the argument.

You're the one trying to fit squares in round pegs, not me.
AFAIC it is very simple unless you choose to play with defini.tions

If it's knowledge it must be true: therefore if it is true that we will pick A before we do so we cannot pick A.

Explain how if something is true, it affect personal choices.
People chose to accept the knowledge of Piltdown Man, although it was
untrue. What if it was true, how would it have changed the outcome?

Oh you're assuming...

Yes, if you like.
Do you have any other explanation?

Also wrong: the argument (from Cris) is that free will and god (if he is omniscient) are incompatible. It's an either/ or.

You both need to define what is knowledge, and therefore, what is perfect
knowledge. What is truth, and how truth and knowledge effect our day to day choices. Otherwise you can say what you like.

And therefore wasn't knowledge, it was belief.

It was knowledge, it just wasn't truth.

And if it was known beforehand that you'd take the bus how could you decide to walk?

Why would I want to walk if I decided to take the bus?
And how could someone else who knows me inside out, knowing I would take
the bus, influence my decision in any way shape or form?

One more time:
If it is known (i.e. TRUE) that I will do X then, regardless of whatever I tell myself about "choosing" I will, inevitably, do X. The "choice" will not exist (or ever exist) since the outcome of that choice was known and true before I made the "choice". I could not "decide" to do Y, or Z, of F or H because it was, even before I "thought about" which to do, true that I would do X.

It comes back, again to:
if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

If it helps your choice to believe that God does not exist, or belief in God is illogical, therefore irrational, then so be it.

jan.

Dywyddyr

02-10-10, 01:48 PM

I understand the argument, but what you said didn't make sense unless there is another definition of knowledge that is not defined in the dictionary.
Really?
Knowledge is a justified true belief.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

But it was regarded as mainstream knowledge at the time.
And?
It turned out not to be knowledge: in other wasn't, not being true it wasn't knowledge.

Yes, but that only shows that God has perfect knowledge, not that we therefore have no free will. We still choose to pick A because it fits our personal situation.
Wrong again.
If it's knowledge it must be true. And therefore we cannot "choose" otherwise.

You're the one trying to fit squares in round pegs, not me.
AFAIC it is very simple unless you choose to play with defini.tions
Then you clearly haven't understood the argument.

Explain how if something is true, it affect personal choices.
Because we cannot make it false (by picking something else, for example).

Yes, if you like.
Do you have any other explanation?
We may not have free will. You assumed that I "instinctively know that we have free will". Incorrect.

You both need to define what is knowledge, and therefore, what is perfect knowledge. What is truth, and how truth and knowledge effect our day to day choices. Otherwise you can say what you like.
I'm using the actual definition of knowledge: a justified, true belief.
And true means "not false" (at its simplest).

It was knowledge, it just wasn't truth.
If it wasn't true then it was belief not knowledge.

Why would I want to walk if I decided to take the bus?
And how could someone else who knows me inside out, knowing I would take
the bus, influence my decision in any way shape or form?
Once more showing that you're failing to understand.
If it's known (i.e. true) before you "decide" then you cannot do otherwise, or that "knowledge" wasn't knowledge: i.e. it wasn't true.

If it helps your choice to believe that God does not exist, or belief in God is illogical, therefore irrational, then so be it.
In other words you can't actually answer the question.

Jan Ardena

02-10-10, 05:51 PM

Dywyddyr,

We may not have free will. You assumed that I "instinctively know that we have free will". Incorrect.

As far as you're concerned you have free will, right?
If not then please explain how you make decisions,.

I'm using the actual definition of knowledge: a justified, true belief.
And true means "not false" (at its simplest).

I can relate to these definitions.

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=knowledge

If it wasn't true then it was belief not knowledge.

We definately know that now, in hindsight.
But at the time it was regarded as knowledge, not belief, and
it was espoused by an established institute of knowledge meaning
it must have been true because the evidence said so.

Had we been having this conversation at that time, you most probably
would not give me the time of day if I'd have said the evidence was false,
and the scientists in question were liars. This proves that knowledge is not
truth unless it is true, justified or not.

Once more showing that you're failing to understand.
If it's known (i.e. true) before you "decide" then you cannot do otherwise, or that "knowledge" wasn't knowledge: i.e. it wasn't true.

Can true knowledge of a thing be known without understanding that thing?
Do you think God has knowledge irregardless of experience, and everything that comes into being dances to the tune of that knowledge?
If yes, why?

In other words you can't actually answer the question.

I answered the question.
In short, I do things based on my own decision within the
boundary of my limitations.

jan.

Dywyddyr

02-10-10, 06:17 PM

As far as you're concerned you have free will, right?
I'd like to think so.
But that could merely be the way I'm destined to be.

If not then please explain how you make decisions,.
You're assuming again.

I can relate to these definitions.
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=knowledge
Okay, they include that it must be true to be knowledge.

We definately know that now, in hindsight.
But at the time it was regarded as knowledge, not belief, and it was espoused by an established institute of knowledge meaning it must have been true because the evidence said so.
"It must have been true because the evidence said so"?
Yet the evidence that it was fake must also have been there all along. If something is true it's true: regardless of belief.
Piltdown was never true. It was believed to be (erroneously).

From the outset, there were scientists who expressed scepticism about the Piltdown find.
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man).

Had we been having this conversation at that time, you most probably
would not give me the time of day if I'd have said the evidence was false,
and the scientists in question were liars.
You're assuming again...

This proves that knowledge is not truth unless it is true, justified or not.
Knowledge is not knowledge unless it's true.

Can true knowledge of a thing be known without understanding that thing?
Which has what to do with the question?
What is "true knowledge"?

Do you think God has knowledge irregardless of experience, and everything that comes into being dances to the tune of that knowledge?
If yes, why?
If yes to which? There are two questions in there.
The first I have no opinion.
The second must, of necessity (given my position in this thread), be "yes".
If there is knowledge then everything "dances to the tune of that knowledge" (although that seems to presuppose [as Scifes keeps doing] some form of coercion: that's incorrect, the knowledge flows from the reality: reality is the way it is and will, and can only, be, and knowledge is aware of that).
It can't be otherwise.

I answered the question.
In short, I do things based on my own decision within the boundary of my limitations.
If you're claiming that "If it helps your choice to believe that God does not exist, or belief in God is illogical, therefore irrational, then so be it" was your answer then you didn't actually answer the question: you sidestepped it.
The question posed is NOT about god being illogical, or irrational, it's about the incompatibility of god's omniscience AND free will.
One or the other of them must go.

Cris

02-10-10, 06:56 PM

scifes,

give me a model of a choice made out of free will, even if it was an imaginary one. If everything is the result of cause and effect then free will may not exist.

If the future is knowable, note that it doesn't matter whether anything actually has knowledge of the future or not, then everything is predetermined and free will cannot exist.

If the future is unknowable, and that means omniscient beings cannot exist, and if there is randomness in the universe such that micro cause and effect chains are not real, then many of our choices in life may well be spontaneous, unpredictable, and of true free will.

Lori_7

02-10-10, 07:06 PM

This is easy guys. Just remove the time constraint. If god is not subject to it, which IMO it's reasonable to assume it's not, then god would indeed know our choices before we do.

Dywyddyr

02-10-10, 07:10 PM

This is easy guys. Just remove the time constraint. If god is not subject to it, which IMO it's reasonable to assume it's not, then god would indeed know our choices before we do.
Riiight.
So you want to introduce yet another (unprovable) assumption. :rolleyes:
It still doesn't take care of the problem.
If he knows what we're going to do then we have to do it.

pywakit

02-10-10, 08:33 PM

This is nuts. You argue the finer points of nothing.

The concept of god(s) is a man-made fantasy.

What is it you don't get?

How can you argue the authenticity of imagination?

Why don't you discuss the intricities of elves?

Ghosts. Banshees. Witches. Spirits. Peter Pan?

"I read a book, and I believe it's contents."

"Why?" someone asks.

"Because lot's of other people believe it, too. Anyway, God wrote that book."

"Oh. And you know this because .... ?"

"Because the book says so!"

"What if the book lied?"

"That's impossible!"

"Really. How do you arrive at that conclusion?"

"Because the book says it's the True Word of God! So it CAN'T be false!"

"Hmmm. Ok. Are these your only proofs?"

"No! Look how long it has lasted! 2000 years!"

"I see. And how does this 'evidence' confirm it's authenticity?"

"Because it couldn't have lasted this long if it was false!"

"Well, there you are. Case closed. God exists."

Can anyone here define insanity?

Jan Ardena

02-10-10, 08:38 PM

Dywyddyr,

As far as you're concerned you have free will, right?

I'd like to think so.
But that could merely be the way I'm destined to be.

Seeing as you would like to think you have free will, but as
yet are undecided, means you have free will.

Okay, they include that it must be true to be knowledge.

No, they include (among other things) truths.

Yet the evidence that it was fake must also have been there all along. If something is true it's true: regardless of belief.

We know it was fake, but our knowledge of it's fakery is not primariily based on the truth that it was fake.
But upon the full understanding of it's fakery, (which includes different aspects of knowledge) we can now conclude what the truth is.
That is how knowledge works.

Piltdown was never true. It was believed to be (erroneously).

You're right it was never true, but while it was believed to be true,
the belief was based on knowledge, albeit erronous, and second-hand.

Knowledge is not knowledge unless it's true.

In hindsight, yes, but without it, not necessarily.

Can true knowledge of a thing be known without understanding that thing?

Which has what to do with the question?

By true knowledge, I mean perfect knowledge, omnicscience.

If the future is knowable, and we therefore, cannot have free-will, what is
that knowledge based on, given the correct definition of knowledge?
If we dance to the tune of that knowledge, and our every action is predestined by that knowledge, then why call it knowledge, or omniscience?

the knowledge flows from the reality: reality is the way it is and will, and can only, be, and knowledge is aware of that).
It can't be otherwise.

Knowledge comes from our relationship with reality, resulting in experience, and percieved through our senses. Perfect knowledge is knowing things as
they are. If God is God, then He knows things perfectly, as opposed to imperfectly. He would then be in a position to know future events without having to dictate it.

If you're claiming that "If it helps your choice to believe that God does not exist, or belief in God is illogical, therefore irrational, then so be it" was your answer then you didn't actually answer the question:

I see what you mean now.

One more time:
If it is known (i.e. TRUE) that I will do X then, regardless of whatever I tell myself about "choosing" I will, inevitably, do X. The "choice" will not exist (or ever exist) since the outcome of that choice was known and true before I made the "choice". I could not "decide" to do Y, or Z, of F or H because it was, even before I "thought about" which to do, true that I would do X.

You were quite right, I did sidestep this point. The reason being, it has the
same old assumptions, i.e, knowledge=truth, and, omniscience is based on
knowledge without undertstanding, and is actually a predestined set of rules with regard to living entities.

You seem to miss the point that we can choose that which is untrue, as in the case of Piltdown Man, which renders your point, knowledge = truth, and, we dance to that tune, moot. The fact is, we can change our mind through our own volition, to suit ourselves despite the truth, and this is the power of our free will.

I'm sure you understand that knowledge, we deem "the truth", has to
be based on something which relates to us.
So my question is, why is having perfect knowledge, any different?

It comes back, angain to:
if god knows you'regoing to pick A how can you pick B?

You pick A because you want to pick A, and the reasons for your wanting
to pick is the knowledge that God posesses.

The question posed is NOT about god being illogical, or irrational, it's about the incompatibility of god's omniscience AND free will.
One or the other of them must go.

According to your understanding.
But why do you insist on sticking with it?
You now have food for thought, if you want it.

jan.

pywakit

02-10-10, 09:47 PM

Can anyone here define insanity?

Nope. Guess not.

So I guess making an extremely strong case for the bible(s) being written by men completely ignorant of the natural world/universe would just be ignored by those who 'choose' to believe.

Ok. I'll play for a minute.

Let's talk about that 'free choice' for a sec. Maybe you have already covered this and I missed it.

Just a few definitions of 'free'. All of the following were pulled (and edited) from a dictionary.

5. exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.

6. able to do something at will; at liberty: free to choose.

7. clear of obstructions or obstacles.

9. exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains, burdens, etc.

11. provided without, or not subject to, a charge or payment.

12. given without consideration of a return or reward.

15. not joined to or in contact with something else.

16. acting without self-restraint.

21. not subject to special regulations, restrictions.

23. that may be used by or is open to all.

29. at liberty to enter and enjoy at will.

30. not subject to rules, set forms, etc.

36. without cost, payment, or charge.

Christians tell us that we can 'freely choose' between loving Jesus/God or not.

A gift of 'freedom of choice' granted to us by our loving, and wise Creator.

However, there is a slight penalty for 'not'.

This penalty, hardly worth mentioning, consists of being tortured beyond imagination for all eternity ... with no reprieve. Ever.

(Christians insist that is God's rule, not theirs, and since God can't be evil, neither can His rules be evil.)

This would be analogous to me walking up to you and putting a gun to your genitals.

Now I give you a choice. Love me or I blow your genitals off.

Technically, yes. You have a choice to make. Make either one you want.

No, don't ask. There are just the 2 choices. There is no 3rd, or 4th choice cuz I don't want to give you other options.

So? What's it gonna be? Love me?... Or suffer immediate excruciating pain?

From Wiki : (edited)

Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to act by employing threat of force.

Duress is to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]."

Intimidation is the act of making others do what one wants through fear.

Threat is an explicit or implicit message from ( an entity ) to someone that the ( entity ) will cause something bad to happen to the other, often except when certain demands are met

So someone explain to me why a sane person would choose eternal torture. Sounds pretty terrifying, doesn't it?

To call this choice free, is truly insane.

cluelusshusbund

02-11-10, 12:24 AM

No people I haven't suddenly turned to Jesus...

Well mayb this will help all to understan Gods definition of "free-will".!!!

Som peoples argument about Gods free-will seems to be based on the idea that God poofed "us" into existence but had no idea (at the time) what the out-com of his creaton woud be... an only after he created humans was he able to look into the future to discover the out-com of his creation... but the prollem wit that is... God is all-knowin... so even befor he put his creation plan into action he alredy knew who woud go to heaven an who woud go to hell.!!!

You see... God had an infinite number of creation designs to choose from... he coud have created humans in such a way that more woud choose Jesus an make it to heaven... or he coud have created us in such a way that fewer woud choose Jesus an mor woud go to hell.!!!

The instent God desided on the plan he chose to put into action... the fates was sealed for everbody in that creaton plan.!!!

The "free-will" God gave us... limits us to behave esactly the way his creaton plan was designed for us to behave.!!!

Edit:::

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
As far as you're concerned you have free will, right?

I'd like to think so.

Well thats interestin... do you thank you have "free-will".???

cluelusshusbund

02-11-10, 01:33 AM

...if there is randomness in the universe such that micro cause and effect chains are not real, then many of our choices in life may well be spontaneous, unpredictable, and of true free will.

So what woud that true free-will be... makin choises wit-out any mental consideraton... an bein surprized at the choise we made.???

scifes

02-11-10, 02:05 AM

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

you can, but you don't.

scifes

02-11-10, 02:10 AM

So someone explain to me why a sane person would choose eternal torture. Sounds pretty terrifying, doesn't it?

To call this choice free, is truly insane.
you tell us, why do you, a sane person, choose eternal torture?

i used to think it's insane too..till i came here..

scifes,

If everything is the result of cause and effect then free will may not exist.

If the future is knowable, note that it doesn't matter whether anything actually has knowledge of the future or not, then everything is predetermined and free will cannot exist.

If the future is unknowable, and that means omniscient beings cannot exist, and if there is randomness in the universe such that micro cause and effect chains are not real, then many of our choices in life may well be spontaneous, unpredictable, and of true free will.

:o
cris, a model, a scenario, a story of a guy who has free will..that's all..

Dywyddyr

02-11-10, 02:31 AM

Seeing as you would like to think you have free will, but as yet are undecided, means you have free will.
No it doesn't.
The "logic" doesn't hold together at all.
I could be undecided because I was destined to be that way.

No, they include (among other things) truths.
Riiight. And the difference, to your mind, is...?

We know it was fake, but our knowledge of it's fakery is not primariily based on the truth that it was fake.
But upon the full understanding of it's fakery, (which includes different aspects of knowledge) we can now conclude what the truth is.
That is how knowledge works.
Also specious: it was untrue then, it's untrue now. Therefore it was belief not knowledge.

You're right it was never true, but while it was believed to be true,
the belief was based on knowledge, albeit erronous, and second-hand.
If it wasn't true it wasn't knowledge.

In hindsight, yes, but without it, not necessarily.
Wrong: Knowledge is not knowledge unless it's true.

By true knowledge, I mean perfect knowledge, omnicscience.
Okay: and for it be knowledge of any kind it must be true.

If the future is knowable, and we therefore, cannot have free-will, what is that knowledge based on, given the correct definition of knowledge?
It doesn't matter what it's based on, on this case: presumably god, being god, knows because that's his nature.

If we dance to the tune of that knowledge, and our every action is predestined by that knowledge, then why call it knowledge, or omniscience?
Cart before the horse, as I explained.
The future (i.e. what you WILL pick) can only be known if is fixed - predestined. Therefore if someone does know the future it follows that it is fixed. If it is fixed then we have no choice.

Knowledge comes from our relationship with reality, resulting in experience, and percieved through our senses. Perfect knowledge is knowing things as they are. If God is God, then He knows things perfectly, as opposed to imperfectly. He would then be in a position to know future events without having to dictate it.
One more time: it is not dictated.

You were quite right, I did sidestep this point. The reason being, it has the same old assumptions, i.e, knowledge=truth, and, omniscience is based on knowledge without undertstanding, and is actually a predestined set of rules with regard to living entities.
Wrong: knowledge being based on truth is not an assumption, it's part of the definition of truth.
Omniscience being knowledge without understanding is not an assumption (unless you count yourself). I have made no comment on the nature of omniscience, other than that is what it says: knowing everything.

You seem to miss the point that we can choose that which is untrue, as in the case of Piltdown Man, which renders your point, knowledge = truth, and, we dance to that tune, moot.
Also wrong. And an illustration of how you miss the point completely.
If the future is knowable then we were destined to make the error of Piltodwn: there was no choice.

The fact is, we can change our mind through our own volition, to suit ourselves despite the truth, and this is the power of our free will.
"The fact"?
And you can prove this how?

I'm sure you understand that knowledge, we deem "the truth", has to
be based on something which relates to us.
So my question is, why is having perfect knowledge, any different?
You're STILL missing the point: if it isn't true it isn't knowledge.

You pick A because you want to pick A, and the reasons for your wanting to pick is the knowledge that God posesses.
No: if god knows then we have no choice.

According to your understanding.
But why do you insist on sticking with it?
Er, that's the topic for the thread.

You now have food for thought, if you want it.
Food for thought? On how often and consistently someone can miss the point?

Dywyddyr

02-11-10, 02:41 AM

Well thats interestin... do you thank you have "free-will".???
Er,

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
I'd like to think so.
But I don't know.

you can, but you don't.
And this is your grand reply?
Fail. :rolleyes:
If god knows then we cannot. It's that simple.

scifes

02-11-10, 02:54 AM

And this is your grand reply?
Fail. :rolleyes:
If god knows then we cannot. It's that simple.
yes we can.

Dywyddyr

02-11-10, 03:07 AM

yes we can.
If god knows what we will do we can't since if we did (or were capable of doing) that would make god wrong.
Which is the whole point of contention.
In other words you've spent the entire thread waffling and then your "grand refutation" is "yes we can", but with absolutely no backup (evidence would be hard to provide, but some sort of chain of logic would help).

Follow this chain (and Cris's argument) again.
In order for something to be knowledge it must be true (something Jan Ardena doesn't seem to understand). (That's part of what makes knowledge knowledge as opposed to belief).
If it is true it cannot, ever, be false.
Therefore if god knows what we will do it must be true that we will do it.
Therefore we cannot NOT do it.
There can be no possibility whatsoever that we could do otherwise.

We have no choice.

Jan Ardena

02-11-10, 05:44 AM

Dywyddyr,

Follow this chain (and Cris's argument) again.
In order for something to be knowledge it must be true (something Jan Ardena doesn't seem to understand). (That's part of what makes knowledge knowledge as opposed to belief).

The pursuit of truth requires knowledge.
This knowledge comes in different forms, theoretical, personal, and practical.
The truth is true, and the only knowledge that can claim "the truth" is perfect knowledge. As we do not have perfect knowledge, we have to make
use of whatever information, experience, or evidence is available to us to pursue the truth. All is knowledge, it becomes false, or fake, because of our
imperfections, and failings.

If it is true it cannot, ever, be false.
Therefore if god knows what we will do it must be true that we will do it.
Therefore we cannot NOT do it.
There can be no possibility whatsoever that we could do otherwise.

But it is not true because God knows it, it is true because that is what we
want, need, forced, or conditioned to do.
Details, are immaterial, intentions count.
There are various way to do one intentional thing.

jan.

Dywyddyr

02-11-10, 05:59 AM

The pursuit of truth requires knowledge.
That's your personal take on things.

This knowledge comes in different forms, theoretical, personal, and practical.
And if it isn't true it isn't knowledge.

The truth is true, and the only knowledge that can claim "the truth" is perfect knowledge. As we do not have perfect knowledge, we have to make use of whatever information, experience, or evidence is available to us to pursue the truth. All is knowledge, it becomes false, or fake, because of our imperfections, and failings.
Wrong again.
Please look at the link I gave: by definition if it isn't true it isn't knowledge, it's merely belief.

But it is not true because God knows it, it is true because that is what we want, need, forced, or conditioned to do.
I didn't say it was true because god knows, I said that if it was knowledge it must therefore be true.

Jan Ardena

02-11-10, 06:15 AM

Dywyddyr,

That's your personal take on things.

So how do you pursue truth?

And if it isn't true it isn't knowledge.

Do you regard information, evidence, experience, and theory, as truth?

Wrong again.
Please look at the link I gave: by definition if it isn't true it isn't knowledge, it's merely belief.

I have, and I have looked other definitions of knowledge, and it
doesn't say that. This is your personal take on the information.
You believe this is knowledge.d

I didn't say it was true because god knows, I said that if it was knowledge it must therefore be true.

You said; there is no possibility we can do anything other than what is
known by God. You say this because you believe knowledge = truth, and we cannot undo the truth. So if God knows what the future holds we are forced to act according to that knowledge and as such, cannot possibly have free will.

jan.

Dywyddyr

02-11-10, 06:35 AM

So how do you pursue truth?
Off topic.
How do you define truth?

Do you regard information, evidence, experience, and theory, as truth?
Specious question.
Obviously some can be, some isn't.

I have, and I have looked other definitions of knowledge, and it doesn't say that. This is your personal take on the information.
So you didn't really read it...
1. Knowledge as Justified True Belief

According to the following analysis, which is usually referred to as the "JTB" account, knowledge is justified true belief.

The JTB Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p iff
1. p is true;
2. S believes that p;
3. S is justified in believing that p.
Your credibility is fading.

You said; there is no possibility we can do anything other than what is
known by God. You say this because you believe knowledge = truth, and we cannot undo the truth. So if God knows what the future holds we are forced to act according to that knowledge and as such, cannot possibly have free will.
Wrong twice.
I do not believe knowledge = truth. Knowledge, to be knowledge, must be true however. Being true is one of the criteria for something to qualify as knowledge, otherwise it's just belief. Please try to follow...
And I also exhorted you to read Cris's post: if ANYONE has knowledge of the future then free will does not exist.
God is the exemplar in this case since the claim is that god does know.

Jan Ardena

02-11-10, 07:17 AM

Dywyddyr,

Off topic.

You say knowledge must be true, to know something is true one must
know what is truth, and what is false.

How do you define truth?

That's a question you should answer, otherwise
how will you know whether knowledge is true?

Obviously some can be, some isn't.

But is all classified as knowledge, right?

So you didn't really read it...

I told you I read it.
And your quote did not reveal that knowledge must be true
and all else is belief. At least that's not what I got from it.
Would you care to explain how it meant that?

Your credibility is fading.

I guess it must be because you say so.

Wrong twice.
I do not believe knowledge = truth. Knowledge, to be knowledge, must be true however.

Then what is your definition of true, if it does not pertain to truth?

Being true is one of the criteria for something to qualify as knowledge, otherwise it's just belief. Please try to follow...

Knowledge the whole process of obtaining truth, not just the end of said
process. The phrase "we learn by our mistakes" comes to mind".

And I also exhorted you to read Cris's post: if ANYONE has knowledge of the future then free will does not exist.
God is the exemplar in this case since the claim is that god does know.

I know that's what it says, given Cris's position on the whole thing, what else
could it purport. It is a premise based on world view, not on reason or logic, unless you believe it is okay to use a strawman God as an example.

jan.

Dywyddyr

02-11-10, 07:31 AM

You say knowledge must be true, to know something is true one must know what is truth, and what is false.
You're going waay off topic. Again.
"Truth" seems to mean something different to you than does "true".
To be true it must be demonstrable and verifiable as such.

That's a question you should answer, otherwise how will you know whether knowledge is true?
Wrong again: you're the one that is disputing "true".

But is all classified as knowledge, right?
Wrong: since I stated that some isn't (or may not be) true then it isn't knowledge. It's belief.

I told you I read it.
And your quote did not reveal that knowledge must be true and all else is belief. At least that's not what I got from it.
Would you care to explain how it meant that?
The quote showed that to be knowledge it must also be true. If it isn't true then it is simply a belief.
E.g. I can claim however hard I like that there's a tiger in my bathroom. If it isn't true that there is a tiger there then it is simply my belief.

Then what is your definition of true, if it does not pertain to truth?
Huh?

Knowledge the whole process of obtaining truth, not just the end of said process. The phrase "we learn by our mistakes" comes to mind".
Knowledge is the end product. Learning is the process.

I know that's what it says, given Cris's position on the whole thing, what else could it purport.
:confused:

If the future is knowable, note that it doesn't matter whether anything actually has knowledge of the future or not, then everything is predetermined and free will cannot exist.

It is a premise based on world view, not on reason or logic
Wrong: the logic is impeccable.
A or B: knowledge of the future or free will.

unless you believe it is okay to use a strawman God as an example.
Strawman?
How so, when god is held (as you have stated) to have perfect knowledge?

cluelusshusbund

02-11-10, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
...do you thank you have "free-will".??? ”

Er,
I'd like to think so.

But I don't know.

I suspect that nobody "knows"... but do you thank you have free-will.???

Dywyddyr

02-11-10, 08:23 AM

I suspect that nobody "knows"... but do you thank you have free-will.???
Which bit of "I don't know" did you miss? :p
I don't know.

As previously stated, I would like to think I do.
But I can't be sure that I wasn't "programmed" that way by... whatever (genes, events leading back to the Big Bang, the butterfly that flew past the Albert Hall two years ago...)
As this thread illustrates we may well have the illusion of free will and everything is fixed: in which case we're also condemned to "believe"* that we have free will, or, even "worse" believe that we're thinking hard about whether or not we do when all we're doing is following an unseen script and what we think isn't really "what we think" but part of the script that's running internally.

* Of course if it is fixed then we don't "believe" either, any more than a computer believes it's doing anything when running a programme: it's ALL (maybe) part of the script and I am not really me, just a "cog" that's programmed to act as though it is.

Jan Ardena

02-11-10, 08:33 AM

Dywyddyr,

You're going waay off topic. Again.
"Truth" seems to mean something different to you than does "true".
To be true it must be demonstrable and verifiable as such.

But what if it is deemed "true" only to be unearthed 50 years later as false?
How could it have been true?

Wrong again: you're the one that is disputing "true".

Just trying to get you to commit to something.
It like trying to fit an inflated balloon in a little box.

Wrong: since I stated that some isn't (or may not be) true then it isn't knowledge. It's belief.

Which ones aren't knowledge?

The quote showed that to be knowledge it must also be true. If it isn't true then it is simply a belief.
E.g. I can claim however hard I like that there's a tiger in my bathroom. If it isn't true that there is a tiger there then it is simply my belief.

But you would know there's no tiger in your bathroom, and it begs the question why you would want to believe something you know isn't true.
And saying that the quote showed you " does not
explain how you have come to that conclusion.

Knowledge is the end product. Learning is the process.

Let me get this straight.
You're saying we don't require knowledge to learn?

Wrong: the logic is impeccable.
A or B: knowledge of the future or free will.

No it's not.
You're reasoning on the matter bears testamant to that.

Strawman?
How so, when god is held (as you have stated) to have perfect knowledge?

If God has perfect knowledge, then His process of calculation is also perfect.
If His calculation is perfect, then He can calculate the future. Isn't that a more likely understanding of God's knowledge than "i guess he must be omniscient because that's just his nature. That doesn't explain knowledge, let alone perfect knowledge, but you seem happy to go with it.

I suggest you try and understand who and what God is (or what he's supposed to be, if you're atheist/agnostic). Otherwise you're just simplifying everything to suit your worldview whether you realise it or not.

jan.

cluelusshusbund

02-11-10, 08:42 AM

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
Do you thank you have "free-will".???

...I would like to think I do.

So how do you define this thang..."free-will"... that you like to thank you have.???

Dywyddyr

02-11-10, 09:00 AM

But what if it is deemed "true" only to be unearthed 50 years later as false?
How could it have been true?
Again you're conflating belief with knowledge.
It was never true.

Just trying to get you to commit to something.
It like trying to fit an inflated balloon in a little box.
Because you're dragging the topic away...

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

But you would know there's no tiger in your bathroom, and it begs the question why you would want to believe something you know isn't true.
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.

And saying that the quote showed you " does not explain how you have come to that conclusion.
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.

Let me get this straight.
You're saying we don't require knowledge to learn?
Knowledge is what you learn: learning is the process of acquiring knowledge. You can build on existing knowledge, but that's still learning.

learn
• verb (past and past part. learned or chiefly Brit. learnt) 1 acquire knowledge of or skill in (something) through study or experience or by being taught. 2 become aware of by information or from observation. 3 memorize.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/learn?view=uk

No it's not.
Wrong again.

You're reasoning on the matter bears testamant to that.
Really? And you believe that?

If God has perfect knowledge, then His process of calculation is also perfect. If His calculation is perfect, then He can calculate the future.
Okay, I'll address this later.

Isn't that a more likely understanding of God's knowledge than "i guess he must be omniscient because that's just his nature. That doesn't explain knowledge, let alone perfect knowledge, but you seem happy to go with it.
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.

I suggest you try and understand who and what God is (or what he's supposed to be, if you're atheist/agnostic).
Why?

Otherwise you're just simplifying everything to suit your worldview whether you realise it or not.
Wrong again.
Okay, back to this:
"If His calculation is perfect, then He can calculate the future."
So, god calculates what you will do: pick A over B for example. Before you do it.
Can you therefore pick B?
If "yes" that means that god's calculation was wrong and therefore not perfect. (And hence no knowledge, but belief).
If "no" then you didn't have a choice, because you couldn't pick B.
And note that the "can you" question is not "will you", it's "is there any possibility whatsoever that you could".

Either there is knowledge or there is free will, there cannot be both.

Dywyddyr

02-11-10, 09:15 AM

So how do you define this thang..."free-will"... that you like to thank you have.???
Good question.
I had to resort to a dictionary since I'm fairly nebulous on what I think it should be.
Okay, we've got
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
From Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/free-will), it's as good a start as any.
While I certainly don't think there's such a thing as choice free from all constraint (can I afford it? will it go with the curtains? will I fall over if I have another pint? etc etc) the last part is probably closer - unconstrained by fate or divine will.
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.

cluelusshusbund

02-11-10, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
So how do you define this thang..."free-will"... that you like to thank you have.???

Good question.
...I'm fairly nebulous on what I think it should be.

Thats seems odd sinse its somptin you like to thank you have.!!!

While I certainly don't think there's such a thing as choice free from all constraint (can I afford it? will it go with the curtains? will I fall over if I have another pint? etc etc) the last part is probably closer - unconstrained by fate or divine will.

So if you do have free-will... its only "partial" free-will... but give an esample of an "unconstrained" free-will decision.???

Dywyddyr

02-11-10, 09:44 AM

Thats seems odd sinse its somptin you like to thank you have.!!!
Odd? Really?
I'd like to have a big house, but I can't tell you what colour the kitchen would be, or where the stair case is in relation to the study... :p

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?

cluelusshusbund

02-11-10, 10:01 AM

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

02-11-10, 10:08 AM

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

02-11-10, 10:44 AM

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

02-12-10, 04:31 AM

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

02-12-10, 04:50 AM

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

02-12-10, 05:03 AM

"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. :rolleyes:

Jan Ardena

02-12-10, 06:56 AM

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

02-12-10, 07:10 AM

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

02-12-10, 07:32 AM

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

02-12-10, 07:37 AM

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. :eek:

cluelusshusbund

02-12-10, 07:38 AM

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

02-12-10, 08:01 AM

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

02-12-10, 08:11 AM

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

cluelusshusbund

02-12-10, 08:14 AM

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

02-12-10, 08:18 AM

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 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2476524&postcount=117).

What is "everything in this regard"?
:rolleyes: 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

02-12-10, 08:23 AM

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

02-12-10, 08:26 AM

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

02-12-10, 08:28 AM

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

02-12-10, 08:32 AM

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

02-12-10, 08:35 AM

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?

Jan Ardena

02-12-10, 08:40 AM

Dywyddyr,

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

I wouldn't necessarily believe, or dis-believe.

Which has what to do with anything?

It means I have knowledge of something that's not necessarily true.

Wrong: you had to learn the association.

Isn't that the same thing?

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

Wrong.
I haven't :D

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

There is predetermination, we know that, and yes we are
constrained to those predetermination. So yes, you can decide what you
want within the boundaries of existence.
There are 26 letters in our alphabet, no more, no less, but you write what you like within that limitation.

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

I believe it can be calculated, and the ability to calculated requires knowledge.

jan.

cluelusshusbund

02-12-10, 08:41 AM

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.

Whether Gods esist or not... i dont have beleifs that Gods esist... i thank the very term "free-will" is nonsinsical... i thank its dew to ignerence stoopidity or delusion that people thank they can make choises which ant influenced... an i dont haave a prollem wit the idea that the "choises-i-make" are determined.!!!

Jan Ardena

02-12-10, 08:42 AM

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

To do anything you like without certain limitations (body, mind, etc..)

jan.

Dywyddyr

02-12-10, 08:45 AM

Then you wouldn't know, deleted or uninstalled would be the same as not finding out. Isn't that what I said?
"Not knowing" isn't the same as "not being".
If we didn't know anything about god (i.e. not being created) it would not mean that we we hadn't been created. Therefore we could could still have been created (and on predetermined paths): and we still wouldn't have free will.

If we knew (or even simply believed) that we had been created and had someone to answer to that would be merely one more constraint on our behaviour. And that applies even if god doesn't exist but we think he does.
We don't have to conform to the law (but we probably take it into account when we're doing something that may be illegal).
We don't have to consider how our spouse will react if we fancy chatting the blond by the bar (but it's maybe wise).
Similarly, if we think there's a god we consider the possible consequences of doing something he wouldn't like.

In short, not knowing about god would remove one constraint on the "illusion" of free will: it wouldn't mean that we have it. (We may well, but it doesn't follow as a consequence of not knowing).

PsychoticEpisode

02-12-10, 08:52 AM

Whether Gods esist or not... i dont have beleifs that Gods esist... i thank the very term "free-will" is nonsinsical... i thank its dew to ignerence stoopidity or delusion that people thank they can make choises which ant influenced... an i dont haave a prollem wit the idea that the "choises-i-make" are determined.!!!

I think it's nonsense also but how many times have you heard the term free will without God's name not being mentioned. Time to end the stupidity. People make choices all the time because of influences, so yes free will is not free from it. I am only paying particular attention to the divine portion of the argument. I'm an atheist for crying out loud.

Saying that you have no problem with your choices being predetermined is actually a choice you made. How did you arrive at it?

Dywyddyr

02-12-10, 08:53 AM

I wouldn't necessarily believe, or dis-believe.
And now you're backtracking: you stated:

I would know, because you would have told me.
Whether it's true or not, is a different thing altogether.
Simply because I told you something would not mean you had knowledge: if you decided to take me at my word it would be belief until verified.

It means I have knowledge of something that's not necessarily true.
One more time: if it isn't true it isn't knowledge.

Isn't that the same thing?
No. You had no knowledge about the association (e.g. "1" meant nothing to you) until you were taught it.

Wrong.
I haven't :D
You hand-waved past it without addressing it.

There is predetermination, we know that
No we don't know it.

and yes we are constrained to those predetermination. So yes, you can decide what you want within the boundaries of existence.
There are 26 letters in our alphabet, no more, no less, but you write what you like within that limitation.
And you are STILL skirting the issue.

I believe it can be calculated, and the ability to calculated requires knowledge.
Calculated infallibly?

Back to basics:

Can it be known (infallibly: without "perhaps" or "maybe" or "or this could happen") whether, given the "choice" between A and B, someone will absolutely certainly pick A?
If it can be known (before the "choice" is made) then, given that it was known for a certainty they would pick A how could they have, at any stage whatsoever, picked B?
If they could not, therefore, have ever picked B how can there be a claim of "free will"?

PsychoticEpisode

02-12-10, 09:01 AM

"Not knowing" isn't the same as "not being".
If we didn't know anything about god (i.e. not being created) it would not mean that we we hadn't been created. Therefore we could could still have been created (and on predetermined paths): and we still wouldn't have free will.

There was more than one condition levied by me in my first post here today. Not knowing God created you was one. Yes but I also stated that not being created by God or not believing that He did was also cause for freeing up your will. Whether God created you or you didn't know He did both have the same affect.

I think what you're saying is that if I didn't know God created me then that is something I would know about God. If this is the case then please explain again.

Dywyddyr

02-12-10, 09:06 AM

I think what you're saying is that if I didn't know God created me then that is something I would know about God. If this is the case then please explain again.
I thought I had explained.
Not knowing says nothing at all about whether or not you have been created.
And if you have been created then you are subject to constraints whether you know it or not: hence no perfect will.
If god has created us it makes no difference what (if anything) we know about him: we don't have "perfect free will" because we're nevertheless subject to whatever constraints were built in.

cluelusshusbund

02-12-10, 09:12 AM

Saying that you have no problem with your choices being predetermined is actually a choice you made. How did you arrive at it?

Well... dew to the genes an envioment i have... i havent see any evidence that "choises" ant determined by cause an effect... an dew to those sam rasons (genes/enviroment)... i foller the evidence what ever concluson it leads to.!!!

cluelusshusbund

02-12-10, 09:32 AM

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
...how do you define "free agent".!!!

To do anything you like without certain limitations (body, mind, etc..)

How do you define "free-will".???

PsychoticEpisode

02-12-10, 09:34 AM

I thought I had explained.
Not knowing says nothing at all about whether or not you have been created.

Agreed

And if you have been created then you are subject to constraints whether you know it or not: hence no perfect will.

Knowing this would definitely negate free will. By not knowing, I am free to choose without a known influence, free to become an atheist. At the time I typed my first post I originally was going to not print the last two conditions and maybe I should have. However I was deliberating whether God would predestine my choice to be an atheist. It seemed so contrary and bizarre that perhaps I let it muddle my thinking. Was I a victim of knowing about God?

As with my first condition, perfect free will is only possible if God never created you. Now this does not prevent you about hearing about God, whether true or not doesn't matter. There's is still a chance that God could influence your will even if He didn't create you. This is why I added the other conditions....not knowing that God is going to bust your ass regardless, frees you from His influence. In this vein I equated not knowing with not creating. C'est la vie.

Dywyddyr

02-12-10, 09:44 AM

By not knowing, I am free to choose without a known influence, free to become an atheist.
There's the crux - "known influence".
That's what I was disputing the "perfection" of the free will. There could well be influences hard-wired in (one way or the other regarding god's will) that we were not aware of if we had been created but still knew nothing about god.
(I also subscribe to the idea that there are unknown influence anyway - not woo woo stuff, simply that we don't know everything we could about the mind and what behaviour really is).

As with my first condition, perfect free will is only possible if God never created you.
Nope, see above: just because god doesn't exist it doesn't mean that we're free of other influences.
If god doesn't exist you still have to consider your wife's reaction when you fancy chatting up the blonde, for example.

God existing precludes free will, but his absence doesn't automatically confer it.

PsychoticEpisode

02-12-10, 10:09 AM

Nope, see above: just because god doesn't exist it doesn't mean that we're free of other influences.
If god doesn't exist you still have to consider your wife's reaction when you fancy chatting up the blonde, for example.

God existing precludes free will, but his absence doesn't automatically confer it.

Just so we're clear..... I said God didn't create. Big difference between not creating and existing. I also said we would not be free of some type of influence in this case. That is why I added the other two conditions. If you don't believe in or know God then I agree you could be preprogrammed but as I said, I was having trouble convincing myself that God pushed me towards atheism. My hope was that by not knowing or believing that it ultimately freed you from any influenced choices. If I don't know or believe in God then I have no reason to be influenced by Him. ( pre-program aside...good one on your part, never considered it) Gotta Go.

Dywyddyr

02-12-10, 10:14 AM

Just so we're clear..... I said God didn't create. Big difference between not creating and existing.
Ah, okay: apologies, I went back and saw where you'd realised you'd equated the two.

My hope was that by not knowing or believing that it ultimately freed you from any influenced choices. If I don't know or believe in God then I have no reason to be influenced by Him. ( pre-program aside...good one on your part, never considered it) Gotta Go.
Without god, or the knowledge, or the belief we'd have more chance being free from influences.
Later dude.

scifes

02-12-10, 10:16 AM

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?
i have some questions, please answer honestly:

1-do you seriously consider the possibility that your question is fallacious, and that your position is wrong, are you ready to admit it if it appears to you so?
as this is a yes or no question, i request of you to continue the rest of the questions if your answer is yes, if your answer is no, then kindly do not bother.

2- can there be more than A and B? for example A, B, C, D....?

3-"A" and "B" are interchangeable in your question, no? i can replace every "A" with a "B" and every "B" with an "A" and it would still mean the same, no?

4-what is the significance of "A" and "B"? what do they represent? and in case more than two letters may exist, what is the "meaning" of each of them?

Dywyddyr

02-12-10, 10:35 AM

i have some questions, please answer honestly:
1-do you seriously consider the possibility that your question is fallacious, and that your position is wrong, are you ready to admit it if it appears to you so?
as this is a yes or no question, i request of you to continue the rest of the questions if your answer is yes, if your answer is no, then kindly do not bother.
Fallacious how?
Please explain, I don't know what you mean by the "question being fallacious".
I admit that I could be wrong on the interpretation (e.g. it may not be an either/ or solution and there's something I've missed) or that there's an answer that eludes me: so far it's not been put forward though.

2- can there be more than A and B? for example A, B, C, D....?
Of course there can. How does that alter the question? Can the "choice" be known before it's made?

3-"A" and "B" are interchangeable in your question, no? i can replace every "A" with a "B" and every "B" with an "A" and it would still mean the same, no?
4-what is the significance of "A" and "B"? what do they represent? and in case more than two letters may exist, what is the "meaning" of each of them?
These two have the same answer: A and B represent the possibilities in a"choice". Bus or walk? The blonde or the brunette? Stay in or go out? Sausages for tea, or egg, or sandwiches or pizza?
I simplified it to A and B because the number of possible selections do not alter the question itself: can the end selection be known before the "choice" is made?

Can the result of any "choice" be known before it's made?
Yes or no?

And I put to you your own question:
Do you seriously consider the possibility that your position is wrong, are you ready to admit it if it appears to you so?
Yes or no?

I ask because it appears you're STILL prevaricating.
You promised us an answer two days ago (post 79) and so far haven't provided us one.

scifes

02-12-10, 10:47 AM

Fallacious how?
Please explain, I don't know what you mean by the "question being fallacious".
I admit that I could be wrong on the interpretation (e.g. it may not be an either/ or solution and there's something I've missed) or that there's an answer that eludes me: so far it's not been put forward though.
should i take that as a yes?:confused:
if yes i can, please continue.

These two have the same answer: A and B represent the possibilities in a"choice".
and on what basis are these possibilities divided?
in your original question, which choice would be A and which one(or group) would be B?

Dywyddyr

02-12-10, 10:59 AM

should i take that as a yes?:confused:
if yes i can, please continue.
Well, yes to being able to admit the position is wrong.

and on what basis are these possibilities divided?
in your original question, which choice would be A and which one(or group) would be B?
Does it matter? It depends on the available choices.
If you continue this then I can only assume you're not serious about answering.
None of that is relevant at all to the basic question:
Can someone's "decision" be known before it's made?
Yes or no?
It's about the general principle, not specific circumstances.

Trying to deflect answering by introducing trivialities does nothing whatsoever to help your case.

scifes

02-12-10, 11:12 AM

A and B represent the possibilities in a"choice".

and on what basis are these possibilities divided?
in your original question, which choice would be A and which one(or group) would be B?

Does it matter? It depends on the available choices.
you misunderstood, would you agree that in your original question:

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?
A is the choice you pick, also the choice god knows you're going to pick, while B is the choice(s) you do not pick, also, the choice(s) god knew you're not going to pick?
i'm just trying to keep it as simple as possible, do you agree to my "definitions" of A and B? yes or no?

Dywyddyr

02-12-10, 11:16 AM

A is the choice you pick, also the choice god knows you're going to pick, while B is the choice(s) you do not pick, also, the choice(s) god knew you're not going to pick?
i'm just trying to keep it as simple as possible, do you agree to my "definitions" of A and B? yes or no?

If A is what you pick (and what god knows you'll pick) then surely it's at least slightly obvious that, given there was only A and B to pick from, B would fall into the category of "not picked and known beforehand that it wouldn't be picked".

You're prevaricating...

Jan Ardena

02-12-10, 11:55 AM

Dywyddyr,

Simply because I told you something would not mean you had knowledge: if you decided to take me at my word it would be belief until verified.

It means I have knowledge of what you told me, belief or lack of
would not change that.

One more time: if it isn't true it isn't knowledge.

Do you know what the name of the girl who made he way into the house
of the 3 bears and eat all baby bears porridge?
Please be honest.

No. You had no knowledge about the association (e.g. "1" meant nothing to you) until you were taught it.

Not true.
Read my response again.

No we don't know it.

Are we not destined to die?

And you are STILL skirting the issue.

Basically this means, I have no answer for this sound logic,
so I will make some accusation in an attempt to put an
end to it.

Calculated infallibly?

No. Infallable calculation

Can it be known (infallibly: without "perhaps" or "maybe" or "or this could happen") whether, given the "choice" between A and B, someone will absolutely certainly pick A?

Can't get around it, so you shift the goal-posts?
Read my previous response you will see that it can.

If it can be known (before the "choice" is made) then, given that it was known for a certainty they would pick A how could they have, at any stage whatsoever, picked B?

a) who said it can be known "before" the choice is made?
b) If they want to choose A, why would they want to choose B?

If they could not, therefore, have ever picked B how can there be a claim of "free will"?

They could have picked B, but they chose A.
Are you not aware of the content of your writing?

jan.

scifes

02-12-10, 11:57 AM

so A=the choice you'll pick.
B=the choice you're not going to pick.
A and B are two kinds of choices, the only two kinds of choices.

let's substitute in your "famous" question:

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?
it would turn out;

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick (the choice you're going to pick) how can you pick (the choice you're not going to pick)?
as we can all see, this question is senseless and illogical and downright stupid, for..wait a sec..-time out-
{

You promised us an answer two days ago (post 79) and so far haven't provided us one.
that would be the question i quoted and substituted, (post 79)..
and, um..the nonexistent answer that [wasn't provided], would also be the non-existent post containing the unprovided answer..post #101 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2476396&postcount=101)
}
now back to where we were, the question "If god knows you're going to choose the choice you're going to pick, how can you pick the choice you're not going to pick" as i said..was..well, let us say "baffling"..that only the simplest, most obvious, most straight forward answer would do, that's the only intellectually honest answer i had..;

you can, but you don't.
simple enough folks?
the refutation?

And this is your grand reply?
Fail. :rolleyes:
If god knows then we cannot. It's that simple.
anyone wondered why?
anyone dared commit the crime of questioning Dywyddyr word?

you see, according to Dywyddyr's logic, in order for us to have true free will, in order for our free will not to be an illusion, we have to prove that we're able to choose what we don't choose by choosing it, making our initial choice NOT our choice and the other unchosen choice our choice..
hence another answer i thought of for the question

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?
is;
you mean choose them both??
as A then would become B and B would become A.
but i thought that might be a bit hard to understand, and definitely very easy to mutilate and misrepresent..

so how DOES predestined knowledge of a choice make that choice illusionary?

the honest answer is,because we can't choose other than what we choose (i.e what god know we're going to choose)..
what we choose=what god know's we're going to choose.
poor us, we're confined to that, we're forced to go by our choices..we want to go out of the illusion and choose what we don't choose.

Dywyddyr,
your words are of no theoretical or practical value, they make no sense whatsoever, they are absolutly unapplicable in this OR in any other imaginary world of your choice, for they are not within the boundries of human rationale, they're mere "this is how it is because i say it is" no proof, no anology, no explenation, no model or method, just a lot of time to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over verbatim, and hope it'll stick somewhere as correct.

now YOU answer the question;
if i gave you A and B to choose from Dywyddyr, in a world with no god, no prediction, are you able to choose?

if i gave you A and B to choose from, and told you your choice has been predestenied, does that affect your choice in any fucking way?

don't refute me unless with proof, or some sort of backup, other than "because i say so".

Jan Ardena

02-12-10, 11:58 AM

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
...how do you define "free agent".!!!

How do you define "free-will".???

The ability to choose of your own mind.

jan

Dywyddyr

02-12-10, 12:20 PM

It means I have knowledge of what you told me, belief or lack of would not change that.
No: you'd have knowledge that I had told you, not knowledge about the tiger itself, or my bathroom.

Do you know what the name of the girl who made he way into the house of the 3 bears and eat all baby bears porridge?
Please be honest.
How is this at all relevant?
No: I know the name of the girl in the story though.

Not true.
Read my response again.
And like I said: you're incorrect - you had to learn the association. The word "one" could have meant tractor (if that was the picture), or blue - you learned what "1" meant through a process.

Are we not destined to die?
Ho ho ho. Destined? Are we? The word "destined" implies a conscious agency.

Basically this means, I have no answer for this sound logic, so I will make some accusation in an attempt to put an end to it.
You haven't displayed "sound logic".

No. Infallable calculation
Er yes. Calculated, infallibly = infallible calculation.

Can't get around it, so you shift the goal-posts?
Read my previous response you will see that it can.
No, your "infallible calculation" of what would be done turned out to assignment of probabilities.

a) who said it can be known "before" the choice is made?
The question was CAN it be known beforehand?

b) If they want to choose A, why would they want to choose B?
Way to miss the point. Is it possible to choose B if the choice of A was known beforehand?

They could have picked B, but they chose A.
Are you not aware of the content of your writing?
I see you're oblivious to the actual logic of the question.
If they could have picked B then it cannot have been known for a certainty that they would pick A.

Dywyddyr

02-12-10, 12:45 PM

as we can all see, this question is senseless and illogical and downright stupid, for..wait a sec..-time out-
Why?
Or are you admitting that we can ONLY choose what god knows we will pick?
In other words we do not choose freely, we only pick what god knows we're going to?
And your answer is incorrect.
Back to the point: if it is known beforehand (incontrovertibly, a fact) how can you pick the other one?

now back to where we were, the question "If god knows you're going to choose the choice you're going to pick, how can you pick the choice you're not going to pick" as i said..was..well, let us say "baffling"..that only the simplest, most obvious, most straight forward answer would do, that's the only intellectually honest answer i had..;
Which skirts the entire issue.

Edit: most of the above is now irrelevant due to the statement from Scifes below.

the honest answer is,because we can't choose other than what we choose (i.e what god know we're going to choose)..
what we choose=what god know's we're going to choose.
poor us, we're confined to that, we're forced to go by our choices..we want to go out of the illusion and choose what we don't choose.
Ah no: you've answered the question.
We can't choose what we don't choose.
Thank you.
We do not have free will because we'll always choose what god knows we will choose.

Dywyddyr,
your words are of no theoretical or practical value, they make no sense whatsoever, they are absolutly unapplicable in this OR in any other imaginary world of your choice, for they are not within the boundries of human rationale, they're mere "this is how it is because i say it is" no proof, no anology, no explenation, no model or method, just a lot of time to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over verbatim, and hope it'll stick somewhere as correct.
No, you finally got round to answering the question and making the point for me.
If god knows then we don't have free will.
In your own words:

we can't choose other than what we choose (i.e what god know we're going to choose)..
what we choose=what god know's we're going to choose.
And THAT was Cris's point.
If god knows, we DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL.
Therefore atheists (as with everyone else) were destined from the start to be atheists and those that will go to Hell (or wherever) were assigned there from the very beginning, with no "choice" whatsoever in the matter - it wasn't (and isn't) our decision: god made us to be atheists.
Atheists were created to be atheists.
And that's a "merciful" god?

now YOU answer the question;
if i gave you A and B to choose from Dywyddyr, in a world with no god, no prediction, are you able to choose?
Yes.

if i gave you A and B to choose from, and told you your choice has been predestenied, does that affect your choice in any fucking way?
If the conditions above are still true and the only variation is your statement the answer is still yes.
Wow you really DO miss the point don't you?
How many times have I stated outright, in this thread alone, that if there is knowledge (which predestination counts as) then our "choices" are not choices: we are doomed to select what was predicted for us to select, and that choice can ONLY exist if there is no knowledge possible.

don't refute me
Refute you?
You asked a question...:rolleyes:

*** Conclusion***
Going from the above, i.e. "what we choose=what god know's we're going to choose" I can only assume (as I must because that's how god intended it) that Scifes and Jan have only been acting as they were intended to, so I won't hold them to blame (as I cannot: because, since I do not it must have been intended that I would not).
I only hope that god got his necessary "kick" from observing the last 9 pages.
Rather than "debunking" Cris's claim (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=3182) Scifes has validated it:

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born [Note: admitted by Scifes, above], regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

God may exist: but he's certainly not what you'd accept as a role-model.
Thank you.

Jan Ardena

02-12-10, 02:55 PM

Dywyddyr,

No: you'd have knowledge that I had told you, not knowledge about the tiger itself, or my bathroom.

So?
We have imperfect knowledge.
What's new?

How is this at all relevant?
No: I know the name of the girl in the story though.

If you know something, then that's knowledge.

And like I said: you're incorrect - you had to learn the association. The word "one" could have meant tractor (if that was the picture), or blue - you learned what "1" meant through a process.

There were different pictures of different colours, but the one thing that
remained the same was the 1.
Yes I learned through a process, a step by step process. The way I explained it to you.

Ho ho ho. Destined? Are we? The word "destined" implies a conscious agency.

Yes, we are destined to die.

Er yes. Calculated, infallibly = infallible calculation.

No it doesn't.

No, your "infallible calculation" of what would be done turned out to assignment of probabilities.

No. You turned it into an assignment of probabilities.

The question was CAN it be known beforehand?

you said;

If it can be known (before the "choice" is made) then, given that it was known for a certainty they would pick A how could they have, at any stage whatsoever, picked B?

Your getting clumsy.

Way to miss the point. Is it possible to choose B if the choice of A was known beforehand?

What does "beforehand" mean in this context?

I see you're oblivious to the actual logic of the question.
If they could have picked B then it cannot have been known for a certainty that they would pick A.

They could have picked B if they wanted to, but, they chose A.
Just take your atheist hat off, and actually think about what I'm saying.
You don't have to believe it, or agree with it, but you'll see that it debunks this so-called paradox.
If you can't do that, then it becomes obvious that you aren't really interested
in any form of reasonable discussion.

jan.

Dywyddyr

02-12-10, 03:25 PM

We have imperfect knowledge.
What's new?
So you didn't actually have a point there?

If you know something, then that's knowledge.
It's knowledge because it's verifiable.

Yes I learned through a process, a step by step process. The way I explained it to you.
So now you aren't claiming you had knowledge to start with?

Yes, we are destined to die.
Nope: we will die, but it hasn't been shown that there's a conscious agency that's set it up for us to die.

No it doesn't.
Okay, why not?

No. You turned it into an assignment of probabilities.
Nice try but untrue:

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.
Post #125.
If there's any unsureness of the final result then it becomes a probability, not a certainty.

Your getting clumsy.
I see you haven't been following the thread at all, merely assuming what I've written instead of reading it.
Post #146
Can it be known (infallibly: without "perhaps" or "maybe" or "or this could happen")

What does "beforehand" mean in this context?
Is English a language you actually speak?
Beforehand = before the "choice" is made.

If they could have picked B then it cannot have been known for a certainty that they would pick A.
If they could have then that means there was (and is) no calculation (or any other method of knowing) before they made the decision.

They could have picked B if they wanted to, but, they chose A.
Then it cannot have been infallibly predicted.

Just take your atheist hat off, and actually think about what I'm saying.
You don't have to believe it, or agree with it, but you'll see that it debunks this so-called paradox.
If you can't do that, then it becomes obvious that you aren't really interested in any form of reasonable discussion.
This amounts to a claim if I don't see things your way I'm not being serious...
Very, er, :shrug:
Maybe I should simply say the same to you: if you can't see that paradox is real then you're not actually interested.
Get the point?

Jan Ardena

02-12-10, 05:23 PM

Dywyddyr,

Nope: we will die, but it hasn't been shown that there's a conscious agency that's set it up for us to die.

destiny:

something that predetermines events:
a force or agency that predetermines
what will happen

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=destiny

Okay, why not?

"Infallible calculation" describes the calculation.
Swapping the words around doesn't seem to mean anything.

Nice try but untrue:

Post #125.
If there's any unsureness of the final result then it becomes a probability, not a certainty.

The unsureness stems from the character of the person given the choice.

I see you haven't been following the thread at all, merely assuming what I've written instead of reading it.
Post #146

Didn't you read the quote of yours I posted?

Is English a language you actually speak?
Beforehand = before the "choice" is made.

If there is no choice (as in before the choice was made), what is there
to calculate?

If they could have then that means there was (and is) no calculation (or any other method of knowing) before they made the decision.

This is a response to your own post.

They could have picked B if they wanted to, but, they chose A.

Then it cannot have been infallibly predicted.

I've explained how this could work in earlier posts, either you can't see it, or you don't want to see it. But you have yet to give a reason why.

This amounts to a claim if I don't see things your way I'm not being serious...

Read my response again, and you'll see that I said "you don't have to agree with it".

Maybe I should simply say the same to you: if you can't see that paradox is real then you're not actually interested.
Get the point?

It's only a paradox within limits set by you.
God has no limits.

jan.

Dywyddyr

02-12-10, 05:53 PM

destiny:
something that predetermines events:
a force or agency that predetermines what will happen
Quite: so what exactly is the force or agency (which I have previously stated is required for it to be destiny)

Infallible calculation" describes the calculation.
Swapping the words around doesn't seem to mean anything.
And now you're being ridiculous.
An infallible calculation is the result of something being calculated infallibly.

The unsureness stems from the character of the person given the choice.
And the unsureness (as you said) is in the calculation: in other words it's a probabilistic result, not a definitive "This is what will be selected"

Didn't you read the quote of yours I posted?
I did: I also quoted the post that led directly to my wording of "can".
Do try to keep up.

If there is no choice (as in before the choice was made), what is there to calculate?
Er, which (of the "options") will be chosen? You really aren't following this at all are you?
My apologies, I assumed you were because some of your posts appeared to be relevant to the topic of discussion and my statements.
Once the choice has been made no calculation is required. :rolleyes:

They could have picked B if they wanted to, but, they chose A.
So god doesn't know what we're going to pick?

I've explained how this could work in earlier posts
No, you handwaved round it.

Read my response again, and you'll see that I said "you don't have to agree with it".
You also said
but you'll see that it debunks this so-called paradox.
If you can't do that, then it becomes obvious that you aren't really interested
Effectively: if I can't see your point I'm not being serious.

It's only a paradox within limits set by you.
Then you have failed completely to understand the questions.
Following the chain of reasoning given at the end of my reply to Scifes I can (because that's what was, obviously, intended by god) give you no further time until you have shown me conclusively that you have understood the question. I can't hold you responsible for engaging (at length) in discussing a topic about which you have now shown yourself to have almost zero comprehension, because that, too, (by Scifes' logic) was what you were intended to do. Once again I can only wonder (because, presumably, I was intended to) at the things god finds worthwhile to have us do.

God has no limits.
Yet you, personally, feel you're qualified to talk about some of his characteristics.
If he has no limits what makes you think you're capable of saying anything meaningful about god at all?

scifes

02-12-10, 09:48 PM

you should've answered the first question "no", troll.

Why?
Or are you admitting that we can ONLY choose what god knows we will pick?
nope, god knows what we're going to choose.

In other words we do not choose freely, we only pick what god knows we're going to?
when we choose freely, god knew it all along sonny.

And your answer is incorrect.
says you, the cornered guy with only one sentence to paraphrase a million ways.

Back to the point: if it is known beforehand (incontrovertibly, a fact) how can you pick the other one?
lol, WHAT is known before hand?
what is known before hand is the choice i'll be making out of my free will, and so yes, i am so poor i can't choose other than the choice i make out of free will.
hence, i don't have freee will :roflmao: what a troll you turned out to be.

Ah no: you've answered the question.
We can't choose what we don't choose.
Thank you.
:jawdrop:
OMG!!
why you're welcome, want me to get you a cab to the asylum?

If god knows then we don't have free will.
if the tree is pink the fish is grizzly.

If god knows, we DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL.
if the tree is pink THE FISH IS GRIZZLY.

Therefore atheists (as with everyone else) were destined from the start to be atheists and those that will go to Hell (or wherever) were assigned there from the very beginning, with no "choice" whatsoever in the matter - it wasn't (and isn't) our decision: god made us to be atheists.
Atheists were created to be atheists.
lool, what about the atheists who converted? eh troll?

And that's a "merciful" god?
ohhh that's one side of him, the one you might not be facing dear friend..

now let me show you how it's done:

if i gave you A and B to choose from Dywyddyr, in a world with no god, no prediction, are you able to choose?

Yes.
veeery goood..meaning you have "true" free will which is not illusionary.
um, and:

if i gave you A and B to choose from, and told you your choice has been predestenied, does that affect your choice in any fucking way?

If the conditions above are still true and the only variation is your statement the answer is still yes.
and so, there's no difference between the true free will when god doesn't exist(said D) and the illusionary one when god DOES exist and know everything beforehand.
it just makes no difference.

Wow
"he actually made me admit it!!"
but you know trolls:

you really DO miss the point don't you?
they tend to repeat themselves, you see that past sentence, it was the first reply ever here..

How many times have I stated outright, in this thread alone,...
enough to earn the title of a troll, you see, debate doesn't work by repeating stuff, that's how trolling works.

that if there is knowledge (which predestination counts as) then our "choices" are not choices: we are doomed to select what was predicted for us to select, and that choice can ONLY exist if there is no knowledge possible.
yes, you must have repeated this a million times by now, and you haven't gotten sick of it, add some spices now and then man, some proof sugaring, some example or model dip, some analogy sauce.. cuz anymore of this from you and i'm going to the hospital.

Refute you?
You asked a question...

ha ha, yes i asked a question, but i knew (and i was right) that you'll give more than an answer, smarty. and that's why i said to keep your "because i said so" for yourself if you can't back it up, which you didn't, as expected of a troll.

cluelusshusbund

02-12-10, 10:23 PM

Origionaly posted by 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.

To clarify what i ment in that statment:::

Ever detale of our existence hapens the way it does because of the way we was specificaly designed by God... God knew befor we was even borned that we woud pick "A" (not "B")... ie... we was programed by God to pick "A"... our lives unfold as if they were a movie on film... an no mater how many times the movie of our life was re-wound an played bak... we woud pick "A" ever time.!!!

Do you agree wit that.???

cluelusshusbund

02-12-10, 11:16 PM

Hay Scifes... Did God know that Adam an Eve woud sin even befor he created 'em.???

cluelusshusbund

02-12-10, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
...how do you define "free agent".!!! ”

To do anything you like without certain limitations (body, mind, etc..)

Are som humans "free-agents".???

How do you define "free-will".???

The ability to choose of your own mind.

Is our free-will limited in any way.???

scifes

02-13-10, 12:56 AM

Hay Scifes... Did God know that Adam an Eve woud sin even befor he created 'em.???

yes he did.
why create them then? idk, i'm no god:D

is he at fault for the choice they made?
that question answers itself now doesn't it?choice is choice, there's no changing that..
cuz by rephrasing -to look at things the other way- :
they made the choice, is god at fault for it for creating them?
why create a being with the ability to choose, if you know they'll make the wrong choice?
the responsibility that comes with the ability to choose cuts the blame of their wrong choice from reaching you, and becoming your responsibility..
but why do it to begin with?
i don't know..i don't know why god does anything..it's just beyond me..no food no money no need..:shrug:

could adam and eve chose not to sin?
why that's easy isn't it..imagine that you could ask them face to face, what do you think they'd answer?
they were the first humans, just like us, ask any sinner in this world, was he able not to sin? ask me, and i'd tell you yes i can, when i choose to sin i do sin, and when i choose not to i don't..temptation plays a role, but in the end no one forces me.
ask atheists if they're able to become theists, there are plenty around here who say they can't.

Dywyddyr

02-13-10, 03:01 AM

you should've answered the first question "no", troll.
I assume you mean your question about "could I change my mind?".
Another example of your dishonesty: YOU gave me the answer and now you're claiming it's my fault...

nope, god knows what we're going to choose.
when we choose freely, god knew it all along sonny.
So you're back to obfuscation (and retracting your statements).
If god knows (infallibly) what we will choose, and he's never wrong then how can we choose whatever we like?

says you, the cornered guy with only one sentence to paraphrase a million ways.
So you've changed your mind again?

lol, WHAT is known before hand?
what is known before hand is the choice i'll be making out of my free will, and so yes, i am so poor i can't choose other than the choice i make out of free will.
hence, i don't have freee will :roflmao: what a troll you turned out to be.
My apologies to you. also: you are another that can't follow a chain of logic.

:jawdrop:
OMG!!
why you're welcome, want me to get you a cab to the asylum?
I quote your own words and you make accusations of asylums?

if the tree is pink the fish is grizzly.
if the tree is pink THE FISH IS GRIZZLY.
One more display of your inability.

lool, what about the atheists who converted? eh troll?
They were meant to convert. Can you not see the consequences of your own claim?

now let me show you how it's done:
veeery goood..meaning you have "true" free will which is not illusionary.
um, and:
Again a failure to follow the logic.

and so, there's no difference between the true free will when god doesn't exist(said D) and the illusionary one when god DOES exist and know everything beforehand.
it just makes no difference.
Wrong again.
Your question referred to a statement by you (only) not the actual existence of predestination.

"he actually made me admit it!!"
but you know trolls:
they tend to repeat themselves, you see that past sentence, it was the first reply ever here..
enough to earn the title of a troll, you see, debate doesn't work by repeating stuff, that's how trolling works.
I see, so when you stated:

we can't choose other than what we choose (i.e what god know we're going to choose)..
what we choose=what god know's we're going to choose.
it was an accident?
I forced you into?
Because you were pressured and didn't have time to think about what you really wanted to say?
I put you on the spot and you felt you HAD to give an answer (whether you meant it or not).
I made you give a reply within 41 minutes?

ha ha, yes i asked a question, but i knew (and i was right) that you'll give more than an answer, smarty. and that's why i said to keep your "because i said so" for yourself if you can't back it up, which you didn't, as expected of a troll.
And you were dishonest about being able to accept that you were wrong...
You make my point for me and, rather than acknowledge the fact you resort to calling me a troll.
So noted.

Dywyddyr

02-13-10, 03:29 AM

Final note on the topic.
Funnily enough, one of the books I'm currently reading is on cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) and here we have two marvellous displays of it.
Both SciFes and Jan are prepared to follow the chain of logic (and, indeed, make appeals to logic), but when it comes to god they both back pedal rapidly and make assertions of "Oh but logic doesn't apply in this case".

Two conflicting beliefs:
logic works (to the extent that they will call on it repeatedly in an effort to refute me)
logic doesn't work (when god is involved, i.e. in this special circumstance in which I have decided it doesn't).
We've even had the statement from Jan that "god has no limits", which, as I pointed, makes any statement (or even speculation) by a human an utterly pointless exercise from the start.
Which appears to be resolved (at least partly!) by insults and claims of trolling...

Much like this thread...

Scifes' constant questions to me on could I at least admit the possibility I could be wrong and admit the point if he were to show me (and , effectively, Cris) that we have been wrong were accompanied by the implication that he could, and would, do the same.
Yet, having made my point for me Scifes now resorts to backtracking, claims that I'm a troll and that he was somehow "forced" into making statements he didn't really mean.
So much for honesty.

scifes

02-13-10, 04:20 AM

Dywyddyr,
1-when i said
"he actually made me admit it", i said it as if it's you saying it, like on your tongue.

2-how many times here have i admitted that i'm wrong, and how many times have you? do you have ANY idea how easy and socially appealing it is for me to admit i'm wrong and leave with the conclusion that i've learnt something new? to join the group? be "like" the rest? not be looked down upon like a "woo woo"?
but what is VERY hard for me, like i said before, is to give in to pressure and say "yeah you're right" when my brain tells me it's not, to say that it turned out you were correct when i don't believe it.
you on the other hand, i've never seen admit he's wrong on something, well that's mainly because you're good at almost anything, but still..not even once?
how hard is it to have that record broken?

then on the other hand in case you truely see your point to be correct and ours wrong, then i don't know what to say, you are CERTAINLY doing very poorly in matter of quality and great in matters of quantity... i'm just so sure about this, i've given all my arguments, had them all sidestepped by
Again a failure to follow the logic.
you are another that can't follow a chain of logic.
One more display of your inability.
Again a failure to follow the logic.
Wrong again., it rally frustrates me, cuz my proof is there alright, it hasn't been answered, just muddled with and rejected, and your argument is one sentence, one statement, one "fact"; that's how you treat it, you can't even apply it to a friggin example..and you weary me with your disintegration of a whole general idea into small sentences replied to by the self righteous refutes of yours, which i can easily reply to, but the clutter that'll create is unbelievable, and the deviation away from the matter at hand increases by each reply of yours...sigh
if you want me to go back and reply to each refutation of my arguments i can, the page would be a mile long though, and i know that won't stop you from replying to it in a two mile long reply, which would require a 4 mile long reply from me, so i reach the end, arguments depleted, unanswered and unaccepted, and you're still there replying to all who come with the same reply..!
i should just give up..i thought many times, just leave the thread...but i thought, till when? if i leave it now i'll leave others after, besides, it's not a matter of POVs, as i SEE your POV and i believe it WRONG, so should i abandon what i believe is right because it's hard to show so?
lol, i even considered putting you on my ignore list, it seems being the proclaimed woo-woo banisher has gone up your head, not only is defeat in front of those out of the question, your tactics are even a bit similar to theirs now, which for me seem to be just stalling till they abandon hope and leave..

if god knows the single outcome, what are the other choices there for? mere display? personal satisfaction? illusion of being in control?
what is the meaning of "choice", if not all choices are equally available? all having the same possibility of being chosen? isn't it one is 100% and the rest 0%?

even while typing the previous words, they're just not sitting quite right with me, not because then god would be evil, but my brain is saying it's wrong..

what's the point of reference here? for choice i mean? us, or the cosmos? us or universal objectivity? us or god?

for us(the ones making the choice) it makes no difference for us, whether our choice is preknown or not, as long as we don't know it, we're still independent, oblivious, ignorant, of that knowledge, merely TELLING us that our choice is known does not effect us, or our choice..

on a universal cosmological observing point of view, then yes maybe, choice is illusionary for us humans, if time unfolds out of white paper, and starts writing, then yes choice is not illusionary, if on the other hand, the book is written, and time is merely RE_WRITING what has already been written, then yes maybe choice is illusionary.

taking these two cosmological POV to us humans, does it make any difference?
the cosmological illusionary choice and the cosmological non-illusionary choice, can we differentiate between them? can we know which is which?
it's like OUR eyes are filtered to see only what's written NOW, what's being written now, so for us, whether the the paper that isn't written into yet is white or not makes no difference for us, we see it blank anyway, for one who can see the future (god for example), yes there are two possibilities of choice a true one and an illusionary one, for the external observer only, not us.

the choice, is taken by us.
the choice is roped, glued, nailed to us humans.

that is why i refused to acknowledge your other universal view.

Dywyddyr

02-13-10, 04:47 AM

you on the other hand, i've never seen admit he's wrong on something, well that's mainly because you're good at almost anything, but still..not even once?
how hard is it to have that record broken?
This boils down to "I personally think you're wrong, but Dywyddyr won't agree with me. So he's simply being stubborn even though I can't actually show him to be wrong".

it rally frustrates me, cuz my proof is there alright,
Wghat you claim to be proof, and I've shown it doesn't hold up.

it's not a matter of POVs, as i SEE your POV and i believe it WRONG
You believe, but you can't show...

lol, i even considered putting you on my ignore list, it seems being the proclaimed woo-woo banisher has gone up your head, not only is defeat in front of those out of the question, your tactics are even a bit similar to theirs now, which for me seem to be just stalling till they abandon hope and leave..
And another ad hom.
You blame your failure on me...

if god knows the single outcome, what are the other choices there for? mere display? personal satisfaction? illusion of being in control?
what is the meaning of "choice", if not all choices are equally available? all having the same possibility of being chosen? isn't it one is 100% and the rest 0%?
So does god (or anyone) know or not?

for one who can see the future (god for example), yes there are two possibilities of choice a true one and an illusionary one, for the external observer only, not us.
Exactly. This is what I've been trying to get across to you all along:
A true choice (i.e. what is foreseen) and an illusory one.
It doesn't matter that it's true/ illusory to an external observer: if it's true/ illusory at all then we HAVE NO REAL CHOICE. We only think we do.

And I'll say it now for you: the typical (and so far) only refutation you'll have will be something along the lines of: "Oh but you're not looking at it properly. God is god and we do have a free will because what I just said doesn't really work like that."
The disconnect in thinking continues...

Once more you make my point for me.
We don't have a choice, we're puppets: we are as we were intended to be from the very start. Those who believe, were made (constructed, not "forced") to believe, those who don't were made that way, as were those who "change their minds".

It's really (really really really) funny though, because if this is the case then atheists have a "better" understanding of god than do theists.
Theists will continue their cognitive dissonance and keep repeating "Oh but god is good, he loves us" and atheists realise that he's a sadistic puppet master who set us up from the start.

scifes

02-13-10, 05:04 AM

sorry couldn't continue reading when i came along this
if it's true/ illusory at all then we HAVE NO REAL CHOICE. We only think we do.

what is choice than to think we have a choice?

scifes

02-13-10, 06:17 AM

This boils down to "I personally think you're wrong, but Dywyddyr won't agree with me. So he's simply being stubborn even though I can't actually show him to be wrong".
what if i showed you over and over and over and you'd still won't agree? as i have did?
re read our debate from the start and tell me how many times i've displayed it.

Wghat you claim to be proof, and I've shown it doesn't hold up.
there's a difference between showing it doesn't hold up and quoting parts of it and typing sentences.

You believe, but you can't show...

i have showed, more than once, and requested that you show in return, more than once, and you've ignored, each and every one.
and i warn you from making claims like these, less than 5 posts ago you were declaring i promised you an answer and didn't provide it, it's too soon to be repeating your mistake.

And another ad hom.
You blame your failure on me...

if i had a mistake in this, it's that i was so concerned of avoiding ad homs that i let you run loose, ad hom is using info about the debater to win something in a debate, if anything, i've lost much in this debate because of info i have about my debater.

So does god (or anyone) know or not?
yes god does, and for god we're like a movie seen by him a billion times, our so called "choices are meaningless"
but for us, choices are choices.
and because of that, we are held for the consequences.
do not, i repeat, DO NOT ask clueless's question, as i've answered it in length, the "why would he create us when he knows our choices".. that is simply an irrelative question for us to ask, for an observer observing us and god, he may question that, but we have our choice in our hand, and we make the decisions, and we can't blame god for giving us choice.

Exactly. This is what I've been trying to get across to you all along:
well it's been there for some time, when will my message reach you?

A true choice (i.e. what is foreseen) and an illusory one.
It doesn't matter that it's true/ illusory to an external observer: if it's true/ illusory at all then we HAVE NO REAL CHOICE. We only think we do.
i've asked a root question about this in the previous post, if you answer honestly, you'll get what i mean.

And I'll say it now for you: the typical (and so far) only refutation you'll have will be something along the lines of: "Oh but you're not looking at it properly. God is god and we do have a free will because what I just said doesn't really work like that."
The disconnect in thinking continues...
and here you declare that i don't have the potential of bringing a proper refutation, why did you say yes you're aware of the possibility of being wrong then before? eh?

Once more you make my point for me.
you said this a thousand times, and the point is, you never had a point for neither me nor you nor anyone to prove. your point is that none of us have a point, you morph into the opposite of what one says, you're anti-woo woo, you become anti-sense when woo woo come up with sense.

We don't have a choice, we're puppets: we are as we were intended to be from the very start. Those who believe, were made (constructed, not "forced") to believe, those who don't were made that way, as were those who "change their minds".
and you are a 100% correct, we can NEVER change what god intended us to be, but not knowing WHAT god intended us to be, we can choose.

one who is born atheist doesn't know if god "constructed" him to be an atheist-muslim convertee, or an atheist-christian-convertee, or an atheist all along to the grave.
so he can choose, and that choice would turn out to be what he was constructed to be, as i've said, 179 posts ago, that:

In conclusion: we determine which predetermined destiny to end up
with
but for one who forgot 78 posts back, one who appearantly didn't read #101 and demanded it's contents, it's understandable.
and so, to this point of yours, i RE-plant a flag in the ground saying DEBUNKED.
what did i recieve the first time i debunked this?;

As usual Scifes misses the point;

It's really (really really really) funny though, because if this is the case then atheists have a "better" understanding of god than do theists.
Theists will continue their cognitive dissonance and keep repeating "Oh but god is good, he loves us" and atheists realise that he's a sadistic puppet master who set us up from the start.
atheists are rarely correct, and when they reach potentially correct conclusions, they make the wrong choices.
D, i agree with this portion, but that sadistic god is gonna put you in hell and theists in heaven.
way to go with a better understanding:rolleyes:

Dywyddyr

02-13-10, 08:57 AM

what if i showed you over and over and over and you'd still won't agree? as i have did?
re read our debate from the start and tell me how many times i've displayed it.[
Wrong: you simply go so far along the chain of logic and then declare that it doesn't follow in this case. Without showing why.

i have showed, more than once, and requested that you show in return, more than once, and you've ignored, each and every one.
I have shown - the simple chain of logic.

and i warn you from making claims like these, less than 5 posts ago you were declaring i promised you an answer and didn't provide it, it's too soon to be repeating your mistake.
Your "answer" turned out to be "we can choose differently, but we don't".
No answer at all.

if i had a mistake in this, it's that i was so concerned of avoiding ad homs that i let you run loose, ad hom is using info about the debater to win something in a debate, if anything, i've lost much in this debate because of info i have about my debater.
Ad hom is making a personal attack to deflect the argument. And so far your "avoidance of making them" has been:
"your tactics are even a bit similar to theirs [woo woos] now"
"want me to get you a cab to the asylum?"
"what a troll you turned out to be" etc...

yes god does, and for god we're like a movie seen by him a billion times, our so called "choices are meaningless"
but for us, choices are choices.
Again, that's what I have been saying: our choices seem like choices for us, but they aren't.
Does the phrase "following a script" ring a bell?
I said that way back in post #2.

and because of that, we are held for the consequences.
We are held to the consequences because we follow a script written by god?

well it's been there for some time, when will my message reach you?
Please note: I am NOT here at your beck and call - I've been out with friends. At least grant me the same consideration I give you - that you are free to post as and when you wish.
Assuming this is the question

what is choice than to think we have a choice?
then the answer should be as obvious to you as it is to me.
To actually have the choice.

i've asked a root question about this in the previous post, if you answer honestly, you'll get what i mean.
I have, how does that help you?

and here you declare that i don't have the potential of bringing a proper refutation, why did you say yes you're aware of the possibility of being wrong then before? eh?
For the simple reason that if you come up with anything that actually does show me to be wrong I will acknowledge it.

you said this a thousand times, and the point is, you never had a point for neither me nor you nor anyone to prove. your point is that none of us have a point, you morph into the opposite of what one says, you're anti-woo woo, you become anti-sense when woo woo come up with sense.
Waffle.

and you are a 100% correct, we can NEVER change what god intended us to be, but not knowing WHAT god intended us to be, we can choose.
You're contradicting yourself.
It doesn't matter if we don't know. You said it yourself: we can only choose what we were intended to choose, the "other options" are illusory since we cannot pick them.

one who is born atheist doesn't know if god "constructed" him to be an atheist-muslim convertee, or an atheist-christian-convertee, or an atheist all along to the grave.
so he can choose, and that choice would turn out to be what he was constructed to be, as i've said, 179 posts ago, that:
If he "chooses" what he was constructed to be then he didn't choose - he had no alternative.

but for one who forgot 78 posts back, one who appearantly didn't read #101 and demanded it's contents, it's understandable.
Wrong again.
I read and it wasn't an answer.
If we can choose otherwise then it could not be known infallibly that we will.
In other words: if we have choice (real choice) then god is not all-knowing.

Dywyddyr

02-13-10, 09:07 AM

And I almost missed this one from Jan:

If God has perfect knowledge, then His process of calculation is also perfect.
If His calculation is perfect, then He can calculate the future. Isn't that a more likely understanding of God's knowledge than "i guess he must be omniscient because that's just his nature.
Post #115 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2476515&postcount=115)
A somewhat self-defeating argument.
If god has perfect knowledge why would he do a calculation?
A calculation is something that is performed in order to ascertain the result/ answer.
Either god already knows the answer and doesn't need to do the calculation or he's capable of "perfect calculation" but doesn't already know what the result is going to be - i.e. he is not omniscient.

Dywyddyr

02-13-10, 09:55 AM

Nearly forgot this:

atheists are rarely correct, and when they reach potentially correct conclusions, they make the wrong choices.
Which translates as: yes, I admit (tacitly) that I can't actually give any valid reasoning as to why you're wrong, but you're an atheist so it's okay for me to ignore the logic.

scifes

02-13-10, 11:51 AM

loooool..:roflmao:
i haven't laughed from my heart this hard before..let's just forget this D, i'm ready to, hope you are too.. somethings are more important than others..:D:)

cluelusshusbund

02-13-10, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Hay Scifes... Did God know that Adam an Eve woud sin even befor he created 'em.???

yes he did.

is he at fault for the choice they made?

How was it ther choise when they was designed in such a way that them sinnin was inevitable.???

...to look at things the other way- :
they made the choice, is god at fault for it for creating them?

God rigged the "game" for a specific out-com (that Adam an Eve woud sin)... so how is it the fault of Adam an Eve that they sined.???

cluelusshusbund

02-13-10, 01:24 PM

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
“ 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.
Jan

Please give an esample of that so i mite beter understan what you mean.!!!

Dywyddyr

02-13-10, 01:37 PM

loooool..:roflmao:
i haven't laughed from my heart this hard before..let's just forget this D
Since you've shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest (in more ways than one) there seems to be no point carrying on.
I take it that you mean "Let me (Scifes) forget it, because then I can pretend I didn't fail".

somethings are more important than others..:D:)
One of the "more important things" being, from the evidence, maintaining your belief while continuing to also believe you're capable of following (and understanding) a logical argument.

Jan Ardena

02-13-10, 01:52 PM

Dywyddyr,

Quite: so what exactly is the force or agency (which I have previously stated is required for it to be destiny)

Material nature.

And the unsureness (as you said) is in the calculation: in other words it's a probabilistic result, not a definitive "This is what will be selected"

The unsureness is part of the overall character of the person.
God knows the persons character, and the reason for who and what
they are at that particular moment in time.

Er, which (of the "options") will be chosen? You really aren't following this at all are you?

I've explained all this, why are you bringing it back.
The person will choose, based on the entirety of his being, at that moment.

Once the choice has been made no calculation is required. :rolleyes:

We make choices all the time, and the decisions we make form the
fabric of our character and personality. in this life.
Knowing what we will do next through process of calculation must be pretty tedious.
I used the term "calculation" to specifically show how knowing the outcome of a persons choice could occurr without influencing the free will. But I can't imagine God spending His time calculating the future movements of each living entity.

They could have picked B if they wanted to, but, they chose A.

So god doesn't know what we're going to pick?

It doesn't matter what we decide as we ourselves have set the path, full
of reasons, as to what we will choose.
If I love ice cream, but not very fond of rhubarb pie, given the choice of the
two, I will go for the thing I want, and anyone who knows me would know that.

No, you handwaved round it.

I don't think you know how to deal with my explanation.

You also said
Effectively: if I can't see your point I'm not being serious.

And I'm right.
Debunk my point if you're serious, instead of going round circles.

Following the chain of reasoning given at the end of my reply to Scifes I can (because that's what was, obviously, intended by god) give you no further time until you have shown me conclusively that you have understood the question.

Has it ever occured to you that you don't understand the answer.

I can't hold you responsible for engaging (at length) in discussing a topic about which you have now shown yourself to have almost zero comprehension, because that, too, (by Scifes' logic) was what you were intended to do.

D, this question, and this so-called paradox is easy to understand, and answer. I get the feeling you have been caught off guard.
Feel free to pull the plug whenever you're ready, because I don't think you
have any comebacks.

Once again I can only wonder (because, presumably, I was intended to) at the things god finds worthwhile to have us do.

Are you a theist?

Yet you, personally, feel you're qualified to talk about some of his characteristics.

So do you.

God has no limits.

If he has no limits what makes you think you're capable of saying anything meaningful about god at all?

Because I am infinitesimally part and parcel of God, as are you,
and every living entity. :)
Don't you just feel warm and tingly inside? :)

jan.

Jan Ardena

02-13-10, 02:14 PM

Dywyddyr,

If god has perfect knowledge why would he do a calculation?

Because His calculation would be perfect.

A calculation is something that is performed in order to ascertain the result/ answer.

And His answer would be perfect, hence the term "perfect knowledge".

Either god already knows the answer and doesn't need to do the calculation or he's capable of "perfect calculation" but doesn't already know what the result is going to be - i.e. he is not omniscient.

We calculate all the time, even when we don't think we're calculating.
Calculation is a part of existence.
eg. take something simple like eating, how many calculations do you think it takes to eat a banana, or a piece of cake.
But we don't have to stop and ponder about it.

jan.

cluelusshusbund

02-13-10, 02:16 PM

Jan Ardena

02-13-10, 02:17 PM

cluelusshusbund,

Is our free-will limited in any way.???

Yes, our bodies.

jan.

swivel

02-13-10, 02:18 PM

Predestination and free will aren't the problem. You can skirt these by saying we are free to choose, but god knows which way we will choose in any given situation/place/time. The real problem arises with god having created the universe (and us) with full knowledge of every action we would or wouldn't make. It isn't like he's a passive observer of all these instances of "free will," the real problem is that he made us and our environment in a way that precludes any alternative actions.

Ergo, he is responsible for everything we do and don't do, evil and otherwise. Again, not by dint of foreknowledge, but due to his omnipotence and role as Prime Mover.

He made Adam, Eve, and the apple knowing full-well what was about to happen. Every bad thing in the universe is thus his fault. Which is why it's best not to believe in the asshole, rather than suffer such a prick to exist in our superstition. He doesn't deserve our belief, much less our fealty.

Dywyddyr

02-13-10, 02:31 PM

Material nature.
Nope.
Doesn't work:
Look at the definition again:

des·tine (dstn)
tr.v. des·tined, des·tin·ing, des·tines
1. To determine beforehand; preordain: a foolish scheme destined to fail; a film destined to become a classic.
2. To assign for a specific end, use, or purpose: money destined to pay for their child's education.
3. To direct toward a given destination: a flight destined for Tokyo.
Death is not assigned or directed. Those require (as I said, a conscious agency). If we learn how to extend our lives would you then say that we've beaten destiny? In which case it can't have been destiny from the start can it?

I will not address any further diversions from the main topic: you've attempted it too often and they aren't relevant.

The unsureness is part of the overall character of the person.
God knows the persons character, and the reason for who and what they are at that particular moment in time.
Your own words: “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".
Make your mind up.
Is the calculation unsure or is the person?
If you claim that it's the person are you saying god knows (for certain) which we will pick?

I've explained all this, why are you bringing it back.
Because YOU asked the question - "If there is no choice (as in before the choice was made), what is there
to calculate?" Get it?

The person will choose, based on the entirety of his being, at that moment.
But does god know before the person chooses what will be chosen?

We make choices all the time, and the decisions we make form the fabric of our character and personality. in this life.
Knowing what we will do next through process of calculation must be pretty tedious.
You're waffling round the point.
Does god know before the person chooses what will be chosen?

I used the term "calculation" to specifically show how knowing the outcome of a persons choice could occurr without influencing the free will.
But failed. Knowledge of what will happen (no matter how arrived at) means that the choice is fixed.

It doesn't matter what we decide as we ourselves have set the path, full of reasons, as to what we will choose.
If I love ice cream, but not very fond of rhubarb pie, given the choice of the two, I will go for the thing I want, and anyone who knows me would know that.
Does god know before the person chooses what will be chosen?
And, back to an earlier part of the thread, no "anyone who knows you" does NOT know that: they can assume, they can consider it highly likely. But as far as they know you could always pick something else.

I don't think you know how to deal with my explanation.
Because you didn't give "an explanation".

And I'm right.
Debunk my point if you're serious, instead of going round circles.
You haven't got a point: you insist on skirting the issue.
Does god know before the person chooses what will be chosen?

Has it ever occured to you that you don't understand the answer.
It HAS occurred to me that your answer consists of double-think as far as the "answer" is concerned.

D, this question, and this so-called paradox is easy to understand, and answer.
Then answer it.

I get the feeling you have been caught off guard.
Hardly. Not even close.

Feel free to pull the plug whenever you're ready, because I don't think you have any comebacks.
Wrong again.

Are you a theist?
What? :eek:
This is more evidence that you don't actually read what I've written.

So do you.
Wrong. Aren't I the one that specifically said I didn't feel qualified (and you proceeded to expound on god's calculations)?

Because I am infinitesimally part and parcel of God, as are you, and every living entity.
That's an assumption: and nothing more.

Don't you just feel warm and tingly inside?
Nope.

We calculate all the time, even when we don't think we're calculating.
Calculation is a part of existence.
Nope.

eg. take something simple like eating, how many calculations do you think it takes to eat a banana, or a piece of cake.
But we don't have to stop and ponder about it.
Nope.

cal·cu·late (klky-lt)
v. cal·cu·lat·ed, cal·cu·lat·ing, cal·cu·lates
v.tr.
1. To ascertain by computation; reckon: calculating the area of a circle; calculated their probable time of arrival.
2. To make an estimate of; evaluate:
Or even

v.intr.
1. To perform a mathematical process; figure
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/calculate

And, if we go with your interpretation, then you even raising the point of "calculation" was entirely specious. When does anyone ever say "I calculated how to get the fork with the beans from the plate to my mouth"? Do we not regard that sort of action as being natural? Sort of "in our nature to do such things"? As I stated?

Dywyddyr

02-13-10, 02:32 PM

Predestination and free will aren't the problem. You can skirt these by saying we are free to choose, but god knows which way we will choose in any given situation/place/time.
If god knows then we are not and cannot be free to choose.

cluelusshusbund

02-13-10, 02:36 PM

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
How do you define "free-will".???

The ability to choose of your own mind. ”

Is our free-will limited in any way.???

Yes, our bodies.

So humans have un-equal free-will.???

When you use the term "body"... does that include our mind.???

...how do you define "free agent".???

“ To do anything you like without certain limitations (body, mind, etc..) ”

Are som humans "free-agents"/please give an esample of a "free-agent".???

Jan Ardena

02-13-10, 03:09 PM

cluelusshusbund,

So humans have un-equal free-will.???

Compared to...?

When you use the term "body"... does that include our mind.???

Yes and no.
The body is designed for the material environment.
The mind is not as gross as the body, so is not subject to
the same limitation, but can be convinced (conditioned) that the body, along
with the environment is the ultimate reality.

Are som humans "free-agents"/please give an esample of a "free-agent".???

I don't see how that could be possible in ordinary circumstances.

jan.

cluelusshusbund

02-13-10, 04:06 PM

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
Is our free-will limited in any way.???

Yes, our bodies. ”

So humans have un-equal free-will.???

Compared to...?

Compared to people whos bodys ant equal???... or what did you mean when you said that our bodys can limit our free-will.???

When you use the term "body"... does that include our mind.???

Yes and no.
The body is designed for the material environment.
The mind is not as gross as the body, so is not subject to
the same limitation, but can be convinced (conditioned) that the body, along
with the environment is the ultimate reality.

So our minds can also put limitatons on our free-will.!!!

Do all humans have equal amounts of "free-will."???

...how do you define "free agent".???

To do anything you like without certain limitations (body, mind, etc..) ” ”

Are som humans "free-agents"/please give an esample of a "free-agent".???

I don't see how that could be possible in ordinary circumstances.

oK... please give an esample of a "free-agent".!!!

Jan Ardena

02-13-10, 07:08 PM

cluelusshusbund,

Compared to people whos bodys ant equal???... or what did you mean when you said that our bodys can limit our free-will.???

Free will is the ability to make your own choices.
The limitation of the body doesn't impede that.
As far as the mind is concerned, I don't eknow what level of impairment
it would have to reach, to be beyond the ability of free-will, if indeed
there is such a level.

So our minds can also put limitatons on our free-will.!!!

I don't know.
If there is such a thing as complete mind-control, then maybe.
But as we've seen from various de-programming teams, such a mind
can be restored.

Do all humans have equal amounts of "free-will."???

Given what free-will is (the ability to choose for yourself), I think yes.

oK... please give an esample of a "free-agent".!!!

What I meant by "free-agent" in the context I used, was a person who
had no limitations at all, either bodily or mentally.

Such a person would be God, or someone like God, but less powerfull.

jan.

PsychoticEpisode

02-13-10, 09:21 PM

The real problem arises with god having created the universe (and us) with full knowledge of every action we would or wouldn't make.

This is interesting because if God knows everything about this universe then He doesn't really need to be here. Could explain why He is absent.

Jan Ardena

02-13-10, 09:21 PM

Dywyddyr,

Nope.
Doesn't work:
Look at the definition again:

Death is not assigned or directed. Those require (as I said, a conscious agency). If we learn how to extend our lives would you then say that we've beaten destiny? In which case it can't have been destiny from the start can it?

This does not define destiny, it is the definition of destine, and
has nothing to do with the topic of predestination

Your own words: “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".
Make your mind up.
Is the calculation unsure or is the person?

If God has perfect knowledge and intelligence, how he be unsure of anything?

If you claim that it's the person are you saying god knows (for certain) which we will pick?

I'm saying He knows it will happen.

Does god know before the person chooses what will be chosen?

If the person hasn't chosen, then there is nothing to know with regard to choosing what hasn't been chosen.
But, God knows the person, so if the question of choice was to arise, then God would know what choice would be made on that basis.
Knowledge of something has to be based on something. Your implication
that something can be known when there's nothing to be known is illogical.

What? :eek:
This is more evidence that you don't actually read what I've written.

I assume you aren't, but I thought I'd ask.

Wrong. Aren't I the one that specifically said I didn't feel qualified (and you proceeded to expound on god's calculations)?

Anyone who as read a scripture and has a basic understanding of words, can be qualified to define God the way I have.
In the bible, Eve chose to partake of the forbiden fruit, despite God's instuction, is clear evidence (hypothetical or otherwise) that free-will exists, yet you argue that it cannot less God is not God by dint of His perfect knowledge. This marks you as someone who feels he is qualified to talk about His characteristics, who in actuality is not.

That's an assumption: and nothing more.

Everything in this discussion is based on assumption.

And, if we go with your interpretation, then you even raising the point of "calculation" was entirely specious. When does anyone ever say "I calculated how to get the fork with the beans from the plate to my mouth"? Do we not regard that sort of action as being natural? Sort of "in our nature to do such things"? As I stated?

It is regarded as natural.
But we don't comment on it, because we are in perfect knowledge of it (those of us who are able). That's the beauty of perfect knowledge, one doesn't have to think about ones actions, it appears as if it's the most natural thing in the world. ;)

jan.

cluelusshusbund

02-13-10, 10:48 PM

Origionaly posted by Jan
What I meant by "free-agent" in the context I used, was a person who had no limitations at all, either bodily or mentally.

Such a person would be God, or someone like God, but less powerfull.

Is the Holey-Bible God the only "free-agent" you know of.???

Anyhow... God has no limits so surly has free-will... do you thank God is pleased wit the humans he used his free-will to create.???

scifes

02-14-10, 12:18 AM

WOW man, you sure have some razor teeth under that clown face of yours..

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Hay Scifes... Did God know that Adam an Eve woud sin even befor he created 'em.???

How was it ther choise when they was designed in such a way that them sinnin was inevitable.???
hmm..good question..
the answer:
because they didn't know whether they were designed to sin or not when they sinned..:)
an outcome was inevitable, which one? they didn't know, god knew of course, but he didn't give the knowledge of the outcome of their choice to them so they can actually make that choice and then hold them accountable for it..
see, if god told them "don't eat from that tree", then 5 minutes later said "oh and btw, it's already been written in the book of time that you're gonna eat from it", then yeah, adam would be like "then why the **** did you tell us not to eat from it?" (of course adam would be more polite with god)..BUT,
god told them not to eat, they heard him, and could've (to their knowledge) not have eaten..
also there's the crux of all this being in the past, in the present or future it's more clear:
let's say i work in a company, and i was offered a bribe, hell, i'm predestined to either accepting it or not, but i wouldn't know which one is it till i choose it:D..i can accept the bribery and say god knew it all along, or i can refuse it and say god knew it all along.
BUT,
if i do accept it..
and i get caught, and it becomes the biggest slander in history..
and what? million of years from now(if humans still existed) one would ask the other "was it really scifes's choice whether to accept the bribe or not?, hasn't it been known by god beforehand? will scifes be held accountable for it then or not?"

God rigged the "game" for a specific out-com (that Adam an Eve woud sin)... so how is it the fault of Adam an Eve that they sined.???
because he rigged them with choice too.
he rigged them with not knowing that they were rigged to sin:D

scifes

02-14-10, 12:43 AM

Predestination and free will aren't the problem. You can skirt these by saying we are free to choose,
NO WE'RE NOT!! ccan''t you read it written all over the place?:p

but god knows which way we will choose in any given situation/place/time. The real problem arises with god having created the universe (and us) with full knowledge of every action we would or wouldn't make. It isn't like he's a passive observer of all these instances of "free will," the real problem is that he made us and our environment in a way that precludes any alternative actions.
i guess you're kinda correct.

Ergo, he is responsible for everything we do and don't do, evil and otherwise. Again, not by dint of foreknowledge, but due to his omnipotence and role as Prime Mover.
nope, god bestowed us with responsibility too, or is that beyond his ability?
he made some people go to hell, but he bestowed them with the ability not to, so that (and the following is strictly religious) at the end of time, at the day of judgment, those who hell was made before them, and they were created for it, would be asked by god whether they were able to choose otherwise? whether they were able to follow? that of course would be yes, and so then he puts them in hell that he created for them, allll along..(:roflmao: sorry, couldn't stand the irony)..because like, take this place for example, if one wants to open a new thread and say "hey guys i really believe in jesus you know, so..wish me luck"..what's gonna stop him? can those who chose NOT to open these threads come in front of god and say "hey that's unfair!! you KNEW all along that we're gonna screw up..you KNEW all along that we wouldn't want to get banned from sciforums and so we wouldn't open those threads, it's actually YOUR fault god!!" lool..then they're gonna search for james r and strangle the life outta him:D..

PS, i really don't mean to preach, which this may be regarded as, but am just trying to demonstrate how people not only have free will, but are logically responsible for their choices too..and james is a good guy really, if he just gives sam a break.

He made Adam, Eve, and the apple knowing full-well what was about to happen. Every bad thing in the universe is thus his fault.
lol of course it is..

Which is why it's best not to believe in the asshole, rather than suffer such a prick to exist in our superstition. He doesn't deserve our belief, much less our fealty.
are you stoooopid or what? what the hell kinda logic is that? are you outta your mind?
OK we get it, lets imagine god IS responsible for all the evil in this world, and he's evil enough to actually punish some of us for it, your logical conclusion is to heck with him, we're gonna ignore him? we're gonna run away? we're gonna riot? we're gonna sue him?
shouldn't the logical choice be to at least try NOT to be with the group of the poor souls who're gonna get the unfair judgment? don't you give a damn about survival, and this is no earthly survival(ASSUMING GOD EXISTS OF COURSE), it's eternal shit..

and here you come and say "god's unfair, so we shouldn't believe in him"..where's the connection between the two things?

or wait a sec..are you saying the idea of an evil god existing is too hard to bear, so you'll just shut your eyes to it and act if it isn't there? that's your answer? intellectual denial?

scifes

02-14-10, 12:49 AM

What causes you to continue to choose to sin.???

:confused:
idk, what causes anyone to sin?
....
..
hmm, i guess it's to "gain" stuff..

scifes

02-14-10, 12:58 AM

Since you've shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest (in more ways than one) there seems to be no point carrying on.
I take it that you mean "Let me (Scifes) forget it, because then I can pretend I didn't fail".

One of the "more important things" being, from the evidence, maintaining your belief while continuing to also believe you're capable of following (and understanding) a logical argument.

ok look, let's make a deal, if you promise me whatever hapens in this thread will not affect anything outside it, i'll do anything you want, i'll reply to alll your questions and arguments and everything..

although to be extremely honest, jan is handeling you veeary well IMO, so by agreeing to play by any rules you put out, i think we'll have a better chance of knowing if the chandelier is hanging from the ceiling or is erected on the ground.:D

cluelusshusbund

02-14-10, 01:03 AM

Scifies
...ask any sinner in this world, was he able not to sin? ask me, and i'd tell you yes i can, when i choose to sin i do sin, and when i choose not to i don't..temptation plays a role, but in the end no one forces me.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
What causes you to continue to choose to sin.???

:confused:
i guess it's to "gain" stuff..

Jesus hates sin an yet you contunue to freely choose to sin... do you love sin mor than you love pleasin Jesus.???

scifes

02-14-10, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
What causes you to continue to choose to sin.???

Jesus hates sin an yet you contunue to freely choose to sin... do you love sin mor than you love pleasin Jesus.???

will sometimes overcomes temptation, and sometimes doesn't.

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 07:04 AM

This does not define destiny, it is the definition of destine, and has nothing to do with the topic of predestination
Your knowledge of English requires some work. Destine/ destiny/ (pre)-destine are all related.
For example:

des·ti·ny (dst-n)
n. pl. des·ti·nies
1. The inevitable or necessary fate to which a particular person or thing is destined; one's lot.
2. A predetermined course of events
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/destiny

If God has perfect knowledge and intelligence, how he be unsure of anything?
I'm saying He knows it will happen.
So god does know?

If the person hasn't chosen, then there is nothing to know with regard to choosing what hasn't been chosen.
So god doesn't know?

But, God knows the person, so if the question of choice was to arise, then God would know what choice would be made on that basis.
All you're doing here is moving the problem back one step.
If the question were to arise? What?
If god has perfect knowledge then surely he also knows whether the question will or will not arise.
And you're also contradicting yourself:
Jan 1: so if the question of choice was to arise, then God would know what choice would be made on that basis
Jan 2: If the person hasn't chosen, then there is nothing to know with regard to choosing what hasn't been chosen
You're wriggling and evading. As usual.

Knowledge of something has to be based on something. Your implication that something can be known when there's nothing to be known is illogical.
Once more you fail to actually apply logic despite calling on it.
If god knows, infallibly, then he knows.
He knows which we will choose if the question arises. But he also knows whether that question will arise or not...

In the bible, Eve chose to partake of the forbiden fruit, despite God's instuction, is clear evidence (hypothetical or otherwise) that free-will exists, yet you argue that it cannot less God is not God by dint of His perfect knowledge. This marks you as someone who feels he is qualified to talk about His characteristics, who in actuality is not.
I see you failed at English comprehension. I am not discussing the "nature of god" but the consequences of that nature as claimed by others.

Everything in this discussion is based on assumption.
Wrong.

It is regarded as natural.
But we don't comment on it, because we are in perfect knowledge of it (those of us who are able). That's the beauty of perfect knowledge, one doesn't have to think about ones actions, it appears as if it's the most natural thing in the world. ;)
Therefore your introduction of "calculation" was totally specious.

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 07:13 AM

ok look, let's make a deal, if you promise me whatever hapens in this thread will not affect anything outside it
It never has so far has it?
You and I have had some really ding-dong arguments in one thread and still (AFAIK) been okay in others.

although to be extremely honest, jan is handeling you veeary well IMO
I'm sorry but you're wrong. Typical examples from Jan:

Jan 1: so if the question of choice was to arise, then God would know what choice would be made on that basis
Jan 2: If the person hasn't chosen, then there is nothing to know with regard to choosing what hasn't been chosen (BOTH! from Post #200)

Jan 1: [Is our free-will limited in any way.???] Yes, our bodies. (post #195)
Jan 2: Free will is the ability to make your own choices. The limitation of the body doesn't impede that. (Post #198)

Jan appears to not know what he thinks on the subject and is floundering by replying to each post individually without an overall concept except, maybe, "defend the belief". He's saying anything that will make his point at that particular time, even if contradicts something he's said previously in order to defend another point.

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 08:05 AM

because they didn't know whether they were designed to sin or not when they sinned..:)
an outcome was inevitable, which one? they didn't know, god knew of course
If god knew then the outcome was, as you said, inevitable. If god knew they would pick (and he's never wrong) how could they pick B. Or in this case, if god knew (infallibly) that they would sin, how could they not? If it's known beforehand then that is what must happen.

but he didn't give the knowledge of the outcome of their choice to them so they can actually make that choice and then hold them accountable for it..
It doesn't matter that they didn't know.
If god knew (i.e. it was a fact) that they would sin (and god is never wrong) they could not have "chosen" otherwise.

also there's the crux of all this being in the past, in the present or future it's more clear:
let's say i work in a company, and i was offered a bribe, hell, i'm predestined to either accepting it or not, but i wouldn't know which one is it till i choose it:D..i can accept the bribery and say god knew it all along, or i can refuse it and say god knew it all along.
But in either case that says nothing real about god's knowledge, that's your claim about god's knowledge. If god knew infallibly which you "choose" before you chose it then you didn't actually choose.

I think this highlights the failure (in understanding the paradox) quite well.

Does god know before we choose? (Or even something as simple as does god know what the next animal you see will be?)
Bearing in mind that know doesn't mean "yes, but this could happen" or "there's a probability that you could decide to forget it and go home". To know means know for a fact, an incontrovertible fact that cannot alter and was therefore always true.

Let's try a simple example: if I have a card that is either red or green on one side does it matter what I think it will be when I turn it over to look? If it's red it will always be red.
I can bet on what colour it will be, but that won't alter the outcome: and an outcome that is a fact is a fact.

Extrapolate this (in case you think I'm going off at a tangent): If I claim that somewhere there is a planet with exactly 87 fish in a hand-shaped lake, does my claim (or someone else's counter-claim that I couldn't possibly know) alter whether it exists or not?
If it is a fact that that planet exists then my knowledge won't alter that fact.

Similarly with the "choice": if god knows then it must be a fact (either way: yes or no) and doesn't alter based on whether we know or not.

scifes

02-14-10, 08:06 AM

It never has so far has it?
You and I have had some really ding-dong arguments in one thread and still (AFAIK) been okay in others.
lol i know, but as you said, that's how it's been so far:D..
well then ok..so what do you want me to do? i am telling you that i am ready to subject my self to any restraints you put, in order to have me "lose" this argument, i mean just have it end, reach a conclusion..

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Typical examples from Jan:

Jan 1: so if the question of choice was to arise, then God would know what choice would be made on that basis
Jan 2: If the person hasn't chosen, then there is nothing to know with regard to choosing what hasn't been chosen (BOTH! from Post #200)

Jan 1: [Is our free-will limited in any way.???] Yes, our bodies. (post #195)
Jan 2: Free will is the ability to make your own choices. The limitation of the body doesn't impede that. (Post #198)
hmm..:scratchin:

Jan appears to not know what he thinks on the subject and is floundering by replying to each post individually without an overall concept except, maybe, "defend the belief". He's saying anything that will make his point at that particular time, even if contradicts something he's said previously in order to defend another point.
that's why i said s/he's handeling you very well:D
one who's only concept is "oppose the belief" is bound to see others as holders of nothing but "defend the belief", you know the hammer nail saying don't you?

and jan's a guy???

scifes

02-14-10, 08:21 AM

If god knew then the outcome was, as you said, inevitable. If god knew they would pick (and he's never wrong) how could they pick B. Or in this case, if god knew (infallibly) that they would sin, how could they not? If it's known beforehand then that is what must happen.
yup it must happen, but they didn't know that, so they obliviously "chose" it.

It doesn't matter that they didn't know.
:facepalm:
of course it does!!
if they knew they didn't have a choice then they didn't have a choice, they were forced into it obviously!
but if they didn't know they didn't have a choice then they are identical to those who genuinely have a choice. as choice is a state of mind.

If god knew (i.e. it was a fact) that they would sin (and god is never wrong) they could not have "chosen" otherwise.
they couldn't have, but they didn't know that, so they can't run away from responsibility, their excuse doesn't hold.

But in either case that says nothing real about god's knowledge, that's your claim about god's knowledge. If god knew infallibly which you "choose" before you chose it then you didn't actually choose.

I think this highlights the failure (in understanding the paradox) quite well.

Does god know before we choose? (Or even something as simple as does god know what the next animal you see will be?)
Bearing in mind that know doesn't mean "yes, but this could happen" or "there's a probability that you could decide to forget it and go home". To know means know for a fact, an incontrovertible fact that cannot alter and was therefore always true.

Let's try a simple example: if I have a card that is either red or green on one side does it matter what I think it will be when I turn it over to look? If it's red it will always be red.
I can bet on what colour it will be, but that won't alter the outcome: and an outcome that is a fact is a fact.

Extrapolate this (in case you think I'm going off at a tangent): If I claim that somewhere there is a planet with exactly 87 fish in a hand-shaped lake, does my claim (or someone else's counter-claim that I couldn't possibly know) alter whether it exists or not?
If it is a fact that that planet exists then my knowledge won't alter that fact.
i really appreciate you actually offering examples, but i'm sorry i couldn't understand any:confused:.

but i just had a flash of genius, you'll love this (at first:D);
two kids live with their parents, the first kid's are biological REAL parents, the second is adopted with ILLUSIONARY parents, does the faith/belief/knowledge/whatever they both share, they both hold, which is identical in both of them, that their parents are real, make both their parents real?
lol whaddya think?

Similarly with the "choice": if god knows then it must be a fact (either way: yes or no) and doesn't alter based on whether we know or not.
yes it is a fact, we can't choose otherwise, but since we don't know that we end up "choosing" none the less..lol

Jan Ardena

02-14-10, 08:22 AM

Dywyddyr,

(pre)-destine are all related.
For example:

Related, but not the same.
Destiny does not necessarily require conscousness by any definition, but does require someTHING, or some force, or agency. The laws of material
nature is a force, a force which predetermines the fate of all things under its control.

So good does know?

I'll tell you what, you answer my question first, then I
will answer yours.

So god doesn't know?

There is nothing to know.

If god has perfect knowledge then surely he also knows whether the question will or will not arise.

What does having "perfect knowledge" have to do with knowing something that doesn't exist, or is yet to exist.

And you're also contradicting yourself:
Jan 1: so if the question of choice was to arise, then God would know what choice would be made on that basis
Jan 2: If the person hasn't chosen, then there is nothing to know with regard to choosing what hasn't been chosen
You're wriggling and evading. As usual.

That's neither wiggling or evading.

He knows which we will choose if the question arises. But he also knows whether that question will arise or not...

1) Why would He?
2) How is it possible to have knowledge of something that doesn'st exist?

Such a question may arise, but it may not, it is dependant on the circumstances. To know that the question, and choice will arise, before it existed is to know something that has already happened, although it hasn't happened. That is illogical.

I see you failed at English comprehension. I am not discussing the "nature of god" but the consequences of that nature as claimed by others.

Who?

Therefore your introduction of "calculation" was totally specious.

How so?

jan.

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 08:26 AM

lol i know, but as you said, that's how it's been so far
If I've managed to put up with you so far... :p

well then ok..so what do you want me to do? i am telling you that i am ready to subject my self to any restraints you put, in order to have me "lose" this argument, i mean just have it end, reach a conclusion..
If that's what you think I'm doing then you really HAVE missed the point. What rules have I introduced?
I'm not looking for a "me win, you lose" I'm looking for the "right" answer.
And before you go off ranting, by "right" I mean an answer that holds up logically and makes sense.
There's always the possibility that such an answer could well turn out to wrong: (e.g. if god does exist and he's somehow fixed things so that they make sense to us but are actually not the case - but that comes back to the "it's essentially fruitless making any inquiry" category).

that's why i said s/he's handeling you very well
one who's only concept is "oppose the belief" is bound to see others as holders of nothing but "defend the belief", you know the hammer nail saying don't you?
And you miss the point again (and make a false assumption): if I have an overall coherent concept and Jan doesn't (to the point where he directly contradicts a previous statement of his own in order to sustain his "argument") how valid is the argument?
And you're assuming that that my concept is "oppose the belief". On the contrary, my sole purpose here is to check the logic.

and jan's a guy???
Rule 1: everybody on the internet is a guy :p
As far as I know "he" is. Jan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan) is a male name (or a shortened form of Janet, to be honest I assumed [going by Rule 1] that Jan is male: my apologies to Jan if that isn't the case.)
On the other hand I do know we have female posters that are (mostly) comfortable with everyone else's assumption that they're male, it reduces certain, ah, types of poster making inappropriate comments/ PMs.

Jan Ardena

02-14-10, 08:33 AM

Dywyddyr

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Typical examples from Jan:

Jan 1: so if the question of choice was to arise, then God would know what choice would be made on that basis
Jan 2: If the person hasn't chosen, then there is nothing to know with regard to choosing what hasn't been chosen (BOTH! from Post #200)

Jan 1: [Is our free-will limited in any way.???] Yes, our bodies. (post #195)
Jan 2: Free will is the ability to make your own choices. The limitation of the body doesn't impede that. (Post #198)

Jan appears to not know what he thinks on the subject and is floundering by replying to each post individually without an overall concept except, maybe, "defend the belief". He's saying anything that will make his point at that particular time, even if contradicts something he's said previously in order to defend another point.

All you have done is display quotes, then proceed to to say they are contradictory, which is all you seem offer to as refutation.
Show why they are contradictions, give examples of the floundering.

Anyone can say "Wrong", but it don't mean shit, in a debate unless you
demonstrate why.

You on the other hand, have offered absolutely nothing.
Stop squirming and nail this discussion if you can. :)

jan.

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 08:47 AM

Related, but not the same.
Destiny does not necessarily require conscousness by any definition, but does require someTHING, or some force, or agency. The laws of material
nature is a force, a force which predetermines the fate of all things under its control.
Wrong: as shown in the quoted definition I gave.

I'll tell you what, you answer my question first, then I will answer yours.
So ask it...
Or are you referring to this one?
Does god know before the person chooses what will be chosen?
I thought you'd left MY question to YOU in there by accident.

There is nothing to know.
Pardon?
So now you're claiming that before we make a "choice" there is nothing to know? Not even "what will we choose"? So god doesn't know, before we make a choice, what we will choose?

What does having "perfect knowledge" have to do with knowing something that doesn't exist, or is yet to exist.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression that omniscience, perfect knowledge, included (sort of by definition) knowing everything that can be known.
So perfect knowledge also includes ignorance? I have perfect knowledge, I am omniscient, but I haven't got a clue where my keys are?

That's neither wiggling or evading.
Again you're failing badly somewhere:
Look at your statements:
Jan 1: God would know
Jan 2: there is nothing to know

1) Why would He?
2) How is it possible to have knowledge of something that doesn'st exist?
Contradicting yourself again.
"He knows which we will choose if the question arises."
If he knows before we choose (when the question arises) how can he not also know whether or not the question will arise? Is his knowledge of us only partial so that in certain situations only he knows what we do, yet at the same time so flawed that he doesn't know what situations we will get into? Do we not arrive at a "decision point" by making other decisions (facing other "choices"?
The choice of "ice cream or cake" arrives because of an earlier choice "restaurant or bookshop", which came about through "stay at home or go into town", which came about through " buy a house or go to a foreign country for two years". Everything we do is a selection between "alternatives". Does god only know what we will do for half of those "choices"? Or 75%. Tell me please.

Such a question may arise, but it may not, it is dependant on the circumstances. To know that the question, and choice will arise, before it existed is to know something that has already happened, although it hasn't happened. That is illogical.
In other words god doesn't know.

Who?
Theists, including you: they are the ones who ascribe "perfect knowledge" and "omniscience" to god.

How so?
Because you raised the point in an effort to counter my statement that I took the perfect knowledge to be "in the nature of god" and you argue yourself round to claiming that perfect calculation turns out to be "the most natural thing in the world" that "one doesn't have to think about". I.e. what I said in the first place.

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 09:00 AM

All you have done is display quotes, then proceed to to say they are contradictory, which is all you seem offer to as refutation.
Show why they are contradictions, give examples of the floundering.
Okey doke.

Jan 1: so if the question of choice was to arise, then God would know what choice would be made on that basis
Is a claim that god would know.

Jan 2: If the person hasn't chosen, then there is nothing to know with regard to choosing what hasn't been chosen (BOTH! from Post #200)
Is a claim that there is nothing to know.

So god would know which we would choose, yet at the same time he wouldn't know which we would choose because you claim (incorrectly) that "there's nothing to know".

Jan 1: [Is our free-will limited in any way.???] Yes, our bodies. (post #195)
A statement that our bodies limit our choices.

Jan 2: Free will is the ability to make your own choices. The limitation of the body doesn't impede that. (Post #198)
A directly contradictory statement that our bodies do not impede our choices.

Shadow1

02-14-10, 09:14 AM

hmm, i didnt understand this topic much, can anyone say it more simply, i don't christanity, but i do beleive in God,
:)

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 09:29 AM

yup it must happen, but they didn't know that, so they obliviously "chose" it.
But they didn't "choose". It was pre-ordained that they go the way they did. Everything they picked was set for them.

:facepalm:
of course it does!!
if they knew they didn't have a choice then they didn't have a choice, they were forced into it obviously!
You're still wrong.
If god knew which they would pick (i.e. it was, from the very start, a FACT) then they could NOT choose other than what was predicted, or god would have been wrong.

but if they didn't know they didn't have a choice then they are identical to those who genuinely have a choice. as choice is a state of mind.
No, choice is not a state of mind and not knowing is NOT identical to actually having a choice.

they couldn't have, but they didn't know that, so they can't run away from responsibility, their excuse doesn't hold.
You just said it: "they couldn't have". If they couldn't have then how can THEY be held responsible?

i really appreciate you actually offering examples, but i'm sorry i couldn't understand any:confused:.
So just stick to the logic.

but i just had a flash of genius, you'll love this (at first:D);
two kids live with their parents, the first kid's are biological REAL parents, the second is adopted with ILLUSIONARY parents, does the faith/belief/knowledge/whatever they both share, they both hold, which is identical in both of them, that their parents are real, make both their parents real?
lol whaddya think?
Not even close.
In the first case it is a fact that the parents are his (biological) parents, in the second, it's false.

yes it is a fact, we can't choose otherwise, but since we don't know that we end up "choosing" none the less..lol
Still wrong.
Put it this way, even though we don't know, CAN we we pick the "other" one?
If god knows we'll pick A, could we pick B? Is it at all possible for us to pick B?
Note this isn't about "do we think we can pick B" it's "could we, under any circumstances whatsoever, pick B"?

Jan Ardena

02-14-10, 11:27 AM

Dywyddyr,

Wrong: as shown in the quoted definition I gave.

You gave two definitions.
The first defined the word destine, the second word was destiny..
"Destiny", does not require consciousness as an agent.

post 193,

1. des·tine (dstn)
tr.v. des·tined, des·tin·ing, des·tines
1. To determine beforehand; preordain: a foolish scheme destined to fail; a film destined to become a classic.
2. To assign for a specific end, use, or purpose: money destined to pay for their child's education.
3. To direct toward a given destination: a flight destined for Tokyo.

The 2nd definition, post 208

des·ti·ny (dst-n)
n. pl. des·ti·nies
1. The inevitable or necessary fate to which a particular person or thing is destined; one's lot.
2. A predetermined course of events

Can you see the difference?

So ask it...
Or are you referring to this one?
Does god know before the person chooses what will be chosen?
I thought you'd left MY question to YOU in there by accident.

That is not the question I asked; why don't you pay attention?

post 208,

If God has perfect knowledge and intelligence, how he be unsure of anything?

So now you're claiming that before we make a "choice" there is nothing to know?

I've been saying all along if the question has not arised, the person will not
have to make a choice for a question that has not arised. This means there is no choice for the person to make, hence there is nothing to know. If the question does arise, and the person is faced with making a choice, then the choice can be known by God.

As I have stated this a gazillion times, I am not going to state it again.

Not even "what will we choose"? So god doesn't know, before we make a choice, what we will choose?

God will know anything that can be known, that is omniscience.
The notion of knowing something that is non-existence is illogical, what to speak of silly.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that omniscience, perfect knowledge, included (sort of by definition) knowing everything that can be known.

Yes, everything that CAN be known.
How can knowledge of the non existent take place?

So perfect knowledge also includes ignorance? I have perfect knowledge, I am omniscient, but I haven't got a clue where my keys are?

If you regard the non-existent as something to know, then yes.
Do your keys exist?

Contradicting yourself again.
"He knows which we will choose if the question arises."
If he knows before we choose (when the question arises) how can he not also know whether or not the question will arise?

I didn't say God cannot know that the question will arise.
I said if the question doesn't arise, then there is nothing to know.
Hence my question to you;
How is it possible to have knowledge of something that doesn'st exist?

Is his knowledge of us only partial so that in certain situations only he knows what we do, yet at the same time so flawed that he doesn't know what situations we will get into?

I don't get your point.

Everything we do is a selection between "alternatives". Does god only know what we will do for half of those "choices"? Or 75%. Tell me please.

Our choices are based on reasons, at specific times, places, and circumstances, and the reasons dictate the choices we make at any given
moment in time. We are constantly in a state of acting, in some capacity or other, even if we are not aware of it. We are the sum total of our actions, and all our choice decisions are a result of every action and reaction made up to each moment.
From scriptoral accounts it is understood that God accompanies every living entity within the heart, and knows every single detail of that LE from the begining of time.

In other words god doesn't know.

You're just wasting my time, aren't you.

jan.

scifes

02-14-10, 11:37 AM

hmm, i didnt understand this topic much, can anyone say it more simply, i don't christanity, but i do beleive in God,

lol i'd like to explain the paradox to you, but am afraid you won't understand the answer to it, then you'd get messed up for a mere play of words..didn't your parents tell you to stay away from atheists?:D

welcome to sciforums shadow one..the whole discussion is as follows;
god exists right? can you make choices in your life or not?:D

But they didn't "choose". It was pre-ordained that they go the way they did. Everything they picked was set for them.
it was preordained they'd "choose" their choice, you'll never change that even if you keep trying from today till tomorrow.....uh, i mean, next year..

You're still wrong.
If god knew which they would pick (i.e. it was, from the very start, a FACT) then they could NOT choose other than what was predicted, or god would have been wrong.
please stop saying "you're wrong", it's annoying when you just state it that simply, show how one is wrong, instead of just saying so.

ok, let's do this another way;
they could not choose the other choice, granted, but they didn't know that, so it makesno difference to the choice making, or does it?

No, choice is not a state of mind and not knowing is NOT identical to actually having a choice.
ha ha yes it is show me how it's not without just "saying so"

they couldn't have, but they didn't know that, so they can't run away from responsibility, their excuse doesn't hold.
You just said it: "they couldn't have". If they couldn't have then how can THEY be held responsible?

they couldn't have, but they didn't know that, so they can't run away from responsibility, their excuse doesn't hold.
you do understand why i lost my temper don't you? how's this done seventy times in one thread not be counted as trolling?

So just stick to the logic.
lol

Not even close.
In the first case it is a fact that the parents are his (biological) parents, in the second, it's false.
just like a choice is a choice in a godlessworld and a choice is not a choice in a goddy world,no?

apart from this:

Still wrong.
you've pretty much put your finger on it here:

Put it this way, even though we don't know, CAN we we pick the "other" one?
If god knows we'll pick A, could we pick B? Is it at all possible for us to pick B?
Note this isn't about "do we think we can pick B" it's "could we, under any circumstances whatsoever, pick B"?
if we think we have choice, we have choice, whether you like it or not!
why?
because we can never be sure!!:D

Jan Ardena

02-14-10, 11:48 AM

Dywyddyr

A statement that our bodies limit our choices.

It does.

A directly contradictory statement that our bodies do not impede our choices.

That's right despite our limitations, we still have free will.

CON-TEXT.

jan.

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 11:55 AM

You gave two definitions.
The first defined the word destine, the second word was destiny..
"Destiny", does not require consciousness as an agent.
That would be because "destiny" is directly related to "destine" as previously stated. :rolleyes:
One is a noun, the other a verb.

des·ti·ny...
to destine, from Latin dstinre, to determine
[from Old French destinee, from destiner to destine]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/destiny

That is not the question I asked; why don't you pay attention?
Post #208 was mine.
So the question was "If God has perfect knowledge and intelligence, how he be unsure of anything?"
Which I DID answer: "so god does know". And directly after your question (in post #200 - just for future reference) you ALSO stated "If the person hasn't chosen, then there is nothing to know with regard to choosing what hasn't been chosen" which implies that he doesn't know (what will be chosen).

I've been saying all along if the question has not arised, the person will not have to make a choice for a question that has not arised. This means there is no choice for the person to make, hence there is nothing to know. If the question does arise, and the person is faced with making a choice, then the choice can be known by God.
So god will know, (if the question arises) before we choose? But he won't know IF the situation will arise?
Hardly omniscient.

God will know anything that can be known, that is omniscience.
The notion of knowing something that is non-existence is illogical, what to speak of silly.
So god does and also doesn't know what we will choose?
He does know because he knows everything us that can be known and he doesn't know because, according to you, you cannot know what will be chosen.

Yes, everything that CAN be known.
So you're claiming that it cannot be known BEFORE we choose?
Yet you also state: "If the question does arise, and the person is faced with making a choice, then the choice can be known by God."
So he can know?

I didn't say God cannot know that the question will arise.
I said if the question doesn't arise, then there is nothing to know.
You're missing the point.

Hence my question to you;
How is it possible to have knowledge of something that doesn'st exist?
Presumably if I knew that I'd be god. It isn't my claim that god is omniscient.

I don't get your point.
You have claimed that god will know what we'll choose if we arrive at decision point (between A and B, for example), but that he doesn't know IF we'll arrive at that point. Somewhat contradictory.
In other words, he'll know something as simple as "cake or ice cream", but he won't know which we'll pick if the choice is "Restaurant or bookshop".

From scriptoral accounts it is understood that God accompanies every living entity within the heart, and knows every single detail of that LE from the begining of time.
So god knows every single detail about us but he doesn't know whether or not we will at some point be faced with a choice between ice cream and cake. But he will know beforehand, (before the choice is made, before the decision exists), what that decision will be.
You're back to contradicting yourself again.

You're just wasting my time, aren't you.
Nope, you're wasting everyone's: I'm rapidly realising that you don't have a single clue as to what you actually mean.
Get back to me when you learn how to stop contradicting yourself.

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 12:04 PM

It does.
That's right despite our limitations, we still have free will.
CON-TEXT.
Doubletalk.
Jan 1: [Is our free-will limited in any way.???] Yes, our bodies. (post #195)
Free will is limited by our bodies.

Jan 2: Free will is the ability to make your own choices. The limitation of the body doesn't impede that. (Post #198)
Free will is not limited by our bodies.

There is no "context". Free is and is not limited by our bodies (according to you).
If free will is not limited by our bodies then (given the limitations of our bodies) what do we actually have? Nearly free will? Slightly free will? Vaguely free will with cherries?

Your own definition

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
The ability to choose of your own mind.
Post #173 is pretty categorical.

scifes

02-14-10, 12:05 PM

uh, i'm just saying jan, that what "we" believe is: "god knows what happened, what is happening, what will happen, and what didn't happen if it did happen how would it happen (turn out)":cool:.
but by your definition it would be easy, omnipotence doesn't include knowledge of the future, so we're free to choose..
but then we know our choices and god doesn't? :scratchin:??

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 12:08 PM

but by your definition it would be easy, omnipotence doesn't include knowledge of the future, so we're free to choose..
but then we know our choices and god doesn't? :scratchin:??
No, we don't know either.
(Until we've decided that is).

scifes

02-14-10, 12:10 PM

gee D, give the guy/gal a break, our bodies restrict some of our will, and does not restrict some of our other will, just think about it.
stop standing on shaky ground, (s)he told you it's about context, and i'm too lazy to look for your contradictions in the previous 11 pages of text, mind you.

scifes

02-14-10, 12:19 PM

No, we don't know either.
(Until we've decided that is).

then (S)he wins!!:yay:
:roflmao:
lol, that was easier than i thought..

god is omnipotent (by that definition),no one knows our choice, we're free.

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 12:24 PM

lit was preordained they'd "choose" their choice, you'll never change that even if you keep trying from today till tomorrow.....uh, i mean, next year..
If so then they could not "choose" differently.

please stop saying "you're wrong", it's annoying when you just state it that simply, show how one is wrong, instead of just saying so.
You said it yourself, above: if it was pre-ordained then nothing can/ or could change it.

ok, let's do this another way;
they could not choose the other choice, granted, but they didn't know that, so it makesno difference to the choice making, or does it?
If you CAN'T choose the other one how is there a real choice?
If god knows for a fact that you WILL have ice cream how can you possibly pick cake?

ha ha yes it is show me how it's not without just "saying so"
What?
If there really is a choice then we can pick the other one, if the choice is illusory the no matter what we think we cannot pick anything other than the one that's pre-ordained.

You just said it: "they couldn't have". If they couldn't have then how can THEY be held responsible?
Um, that was MY point. You said "so they can't run away from responsibility, their excuse doesn't hold.".
If you cannot choose anything other what is pre-ordained (take the bribe for example) then how can you be held responsible?

you do understand why i lost my temper don't you? how's this done seventy times in one thread not be counted as trolling?
You quote yourself and claim it's trolling? Nice one. :p

just like a choice is a choice in a godlessworld and a choice is not a choice in a goddy world,no?
If god knows what we're going to do before we do it then we MUST do it (otherwise god will be wrong). If god exists and actually is omniscient then we are following a script with no options whatsoever. Despite appearances.

if we think we have choice, we have choice, whether you like it or not!
why?
because we can never be sure!!:D
It doesn't matter what we think, it doesn't matter that we "aren't sure"*: we have a script to follow (a script that is written in stone). We can believe we have choices but whatever we pick is already written.

* If god exists and is omniscient it's also written that we will be "unsure". But we aren't we're just "robots"following a programme that WE are unaware of.

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 12:39 PM

then (S)he wins!!:yay:
:roflmao:
lol, that was easier than i thought..
god is omnipotent (by that definition),no one knows our choice, we're free.
You really should learn to read better:

but by your definition it would be easy, omnipotence doesn't include knowledge of the future, so we're free to choose..
but then we know our choices and god doesn't? :scratchin:??
So you want to redefine "omniscience"?
God is not "all knowing"?
Go ahead, see how far you get telling the major religions that god doesn't know.

And FYI it isn't a win, since the OP referred to Cris's thread and that thread was specifically about the attribute of "omniscience" including foreknowledge.
If that argument (and this one) had been in any way about omniscience NOT including foreknowledge then it wouldn't have gone of the way it has.

The OP:
"If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born
Post #2
If the results are known beforehand then they are pre-ordained
Get the point?
The thread is about foreknowledge.

gee D, give the guy/gal a break, our bodies restrict some of our will, and does not restrict some of our other will, just think about it.
In other words one of his definitions of what free will is was wrong?
Either "free will" itself has limitations or we don't have free will but a limited sub-set of it.

stop standing on shaky ground, (s)he told you it's about context, and i'm too lazy to look for your contradictions in the previous 11 pages of text, mind you.
Context nothing.
If free will is the ability to choose of your own mind then physical attributes curtail some of that free will: i.e. we don't all have it.
If free will is "being able to do anything within the capabilities of your mind AND body" then we all have differing degrees of freedom.

cluelusshusbund

02-14-10, 12:50 PM

will sometimes overcomes temptation, and sometimes doesn't.

Do you consider it a flaw in you'r character that you continualy choose to sin.???

cluelusshusbund

02-14-10, 02:04 PM

Origionaly posted by Jan
Free will is the ability to make your own choices.

As far as the mind is concerned, I don't eknow what level of impairment it would have to reach, to be beyond the ability of free-will, if indeed there is such a level.

For esample:::

Does an insane person deserve punishment (by God) if they (mistakenly of course) hear God tell them to kill ther children so the Devil cant harm them... an then in fact sin by killin ther children.???

Ever detale of our existence hapens the way it does because of the way we was specificaly designed by God... God knew befor we was even borned that we woud pick "A" (not "B")... ie... we was programed by God to pick "A"... our lives unfold as if they were a movie on film... an no mater how many times the movie of our life was re-wound an played bak... we woud pick "A" ever time.!!!

Do you agree wit that.???

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. ”

Please give an esample of that so i mite beter understan what you mean.!!!

cluelusshusbund

02-14-10, 03:10 PM

Well Scifies... you agree that God created humans wit the inability to choose anythang other than what they was programed to choose... but because they didnt know the game was rigged they shoud still be held acountable for ther actions.!!!

To me... i likein it to intentonally breedin a blind short-legged dog... an then enterin it in a race wit long legged dogs... an then punishin it because it lost the race.!!!

We agree that free-will is an illusion... our disagrement boils down to morals... you thank its moral that God punishes people who he intentionaly designed in such a way that guranteed falure... i dont.!!!

swivel

02-14-10, 04:18 PM

If god knows then we are not and cannot be free to choose.

Sure we can be. Keep in mind that I'm an atheist and I'm arguing hypotheticals, here. We can posit a god that knows the universe's entire timeline. We could go either way on all dichotomous decisions, but to god, those decisions have already been made. They are in the past, to him.

The confusion comes from the implausibility of reproducible randomness. This is the same thing that makes sports spectators superstitious. The thinking goes like this: a basketball game is full of so many random events (bounce of a ball, flick of a wrist, twisted ankle, etc...). The spectator at home thinks everything they do somehow influences that distant sporting event. Why? Because, if left to run all over again, there's no conceivable way it would turn out the same way twice. This irreproducibility (to coin a term) fools one into thinking the dash to the fridge caused the fumble. No way in the world that fumble could happen the same way twice if left to play out all over again. Me not going to the fridge is a second run-through. Therefore my run to the fridge altered distant events.

Same fallacy is made in arguments of predestination. I choose A. God knows I was gonna choose A. But now I wanna argue I chose B. God knowing means my choices are limited, he won't let it play out one more time. This time I won't fumble. Etc...

The argument I'm making is that we only get one chance to choose. One time for each decision. That decision is free, but that doesn't mean it can be "seen," then played out a second time with a different outcome. We are able to choose ahead of time, given our capacity to be fickle, and god, like some oracle, knows what we're gonna do.

If it makes it easier to understand, look at god's foreknowledge as being no different than you or I watching someone make a decision. Now that they made it, could they have done otherwise? Sure. Did they do otherwise? Nope. Does that mean they weren't free? Not enough evidence to say either way. Now, imagine god "sees" our decisions one picosecond before we make it. Or one year. Or one million. That ability to see the future shouldn't get us tied up on the argument. It's a hypothetical sense, like smelling colors.

One more thing to clarify: in addition to not believing in any sort of god, I also do not believe in free will. Not one ounce. So I'm not arguing from the heart, here, or from a position of belief. Just looking at logical consistencies within hypothetical systems.

Cheers.

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 04:41 PM

We could go either way on all dichotomous decisions, but to god, those decisions have already been made. They are in the past, to him.
Exactly: they are irretrievably fixed.

The confusion comes from the implausibility of reproducible randomness.
If god knows everything there is no randomness: it's a fixed script - the only randomness is in our perceptions of it.

Same fallacy is made in arguments of predestination. I choose A. God knows I was gonna choose A. But now I wanna argue I chose B. God knowing means my choices are limited, he won't let it play out one more time. This time I won't fumble. Etc...
Not quite.
The word "know" itself means that something is true (if it's not a true then you don't know something you simply believe it).
If it's true that you will choose ice cream then it cannot (ever) be false. If it is at all possible to know (infallibly) the future that means the future is fixed and no choices are )or ever will be) possible.

The argument I'm making is that we only get one chance to choose. One time for each decision. That decision is free, but that doesn't mean it can be "seen," then played out a second time with a different outcome. We are able to choose ahead of time, given our capacity to be fickle, and god, like some oracle, knows what we're gonna do.
Again it comes back to the word "know". If there's any possibility that we could do other than what god says (knows) we will do then god didn't have knowledge in the first place: merely a good guess (or list of probable outcomes).

If it makes it easier to understand, look at god's foreknowledge as being no different than you or I watching someone make a decision. Now that they made it, could they have done otherwise? Sure. Did they do otherwise? Nope.
No, see above: if god knows beforehand (and don't forget the claim is that god knows everything from the start - even from before you're born, not just a picosecond before you choose) then we cannot choose anything other than what god said we would.

Have you read Cris's original thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=3182)? This one assumes that most participants have, so you may not have realised the underlying definitions/ assumptions of the argument. (If you have, my apologies).