|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
skconqueror
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| skconqueror wrote: |
| They get around these two somewhat conflicting statements by saying that God doesn't know the eventual outcome (because it leaves Christianity open to the question of how could a loving God create someone destined for hell). Picture it as a spiders web. God knows every situation you will face and the finite repercussions based on all of those events. This is the reason God sent the Holy Spirit to convict you. There is always a chance that "free will" will cause one to accept Jesus. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JustJohn wrote: |
| I'm not here to debate the existence of God. |
I am not debating the existence of a deity. The OP asked a hypothetical question: Would free will exist if an omniscient deity had created humanity? I replied to the OP by pointing out that the adjective omniscient is meaningless as it leads to a paradox.
My argument goes as follows:
1) The Bible claims god is omniscient, as well as omnipotent.
Psalm 147:4,5
He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.
Revelation 19:6
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
2) Omniscience is defined by the dictionary as "having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things." Omnipotence is defined, by the same dictionary, as "almighty or infinite in power, as God."
3) If a deity has complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness and understanding, then it must know all that was, is, and will be. If a deity knows all that will be, then it cannot interfere in its creation, as to do so would indicate that it did not know all that would be. Ergo, if a deity knows what will happen, but does something else, it is not omniscient. If a deity knows what will happen, but can't change it, then it isn't omnipotent.
Using a strict definition omnipotent leads to the Omnipotence paradox, which poses "the question whether it makes sense to attribute omnipotence to anything, usually a being of some sort, or whether such an attribution is meaningless."
My conclusion is that such an attribution is meaningless, as it cannot exist unless redefined in the way which you so handily demonstrated, i.e. a deity is omnipotent as long as it doesn't limit it's own ability to perform actions.
| JustJohn wrote: |
| I'm here to help you understand the problem with your argument. Let me explain this one more time on the odd hope that you have the ability to listen reason even when it doesn't say what you want. |
I understand the arguments that you're making, they're quite clear, however, we're coming at this problem from two different angles: I'm using a strict definition of the terms under discussion when presenting my arguments for rejecting the idea of an omnigod, you, on the other hand, redefine the terms to suit yourself.
Religion was created for slaves. Free yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Once again the religious and irreligious posters of Dave's have a slap fight over who's right and who's damned.
You know who's damned? Me, damned stupid to think a reasonable cohesive discussion could take place on a topic that involves religion on this board.
Jesus would have none of you for a sunbeam. Sunbeams are not made like you, full of vitriol and self-righteousness. (Oh, and for those of you who don't believe, stop baiting them, it's like kicking a dog and even you wouldn't kick a dog, would you?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No offense Omkara but your logic is a little lacking. For example, if I'm understanding you correctly you allow 1-5 but not 6. However, 6 is merely the logical extension of 1-5. It's like saying "I know A necessitates B and we have A, but I don't think we have B." Doesn't work.
Your issue with 7 is in the wrong spot, it's actually an issue with the conclusion. As for these...
| Omkara wrote: |
| We're still laughing, though we can't be locked up or killed for doing so these days. We've got mountains of evidence. |
Okay, but irrelevant. Doesn't counter my point in any way.
| Quote: |
| I don't trust the judgment of converts. They are so credulous. |
Don't have to trust them, fact used only as support for number 10.
| Quote: |
| Amazing, isn't it? |
That's kind of the point. It would be rather strange if it was obviously a hoax, and it should have been obvious one way or another at the time.
Ah yes. If you take that as a dichotomy you're absolutely right. Notice however, that I said "in all likelihood." What we have is a probable dichotomy given the rest of the argument.
And back to the belief in miracles thing, if you can give me a ridiculously well authenticated document that was widespread at a time it could be easily verified along with evidence that people were taking the publishers seriously then I'll assume the same probable dichotomy in those cases as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
I understand the arguments that you're making, they're quite clear, however, we're coming at this problem from two different angles: I'm using a strict definition of the terms under discussion when presenting my arguments for rejecting the idea of an omnigod, you, on the other hand, redefine the terms to suit yourself.
Religion was created for slaves. Free yourself. |
Well I'll give you credit for an elegant attempt at sidestepping your error. I couldn't have done it better myself.
However, the fact remains that "your definition" is
1. simple nonsense unless we drop logic and
2. useless to your argument if you DO drop it
Game over, man. Game over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JustJohn,
I didn't say that I had a problem with the proposition that there was a man who claimed he was god. I moreover do not have a problem with saying that Jesus claimed as much. Some, better qualified than me, would argue against this claim.
I did say, however, that I have a problem with the claim itself, especially as it is generally understood in conjunction with the concept of the trinity. I reject it.
However, this does not mean that I do not think it is an interesting idea. there are many interesting ways of studying both the idea itself and the way in which the idea has related to civilization. But for me to accept the literal, obtuse and conservative understanding of the idea would be an abomination to the integrity of the critical faculty.
We accept these claims without sufficient evidence; accept them though the clear evidence would contradict them. Then, we spend time attributing great things to the idea we call god. Then, theology uses creative and interesting ways to work around the contraditions.
They assume the hypothesis to be true, then work to keep it true. This is a poor way to accumilate knowledge. It in fact prevents gaining knowledge.
We talk about omniscience and prevent real science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
They assume the hypothesis to be true, then work to keep it true. This is a poor way to accumilate knowledge. It in fact prevents gaining knowledge. |
Well, the goal of religion is not to fashion a better TV set. Nevertheless, most religions do foster knowledge, and always has.
| Omkara wrote: |
| We talk about omniscience and prevent real science. |
There's your false dichotomy. How does hypothetical postulation on the nature of God prevent real science? It doesn't.
I find the absolutism here very creepy. Nobody is stopping scientists from their endeavours. Why do you (note: not scientists, most of them are too busy to bring this debate into Dave's threads) insist on scheduling their priorities? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alright, I agree with that last post to a large degree. I know a lot of religious people that aren't terribly willing to listen to reason and a fair handful I would consider actually anti-intellectual. I however, happen to be a scientist and am quite able to do my job and philosophize about religion at the same time.
Anyway, I of course have no problem with you rejecting that Jesus was what he claimed. That wasn't part of the argument. What I was doing was showing that based on the evidence we arrive at the "probable dichotomy."
If you take the whole thing to be absurd then you'll have no problem writing Jesus off as a clever magician or assuming that one of the less likely possibilities must be true. But if I had only this argument to base my decision on I would say that Jesus was most likely for real. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
2) Omniscience is defined by the dictionary as "having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things." Omnipotence is defined, by the same dictionary, as "almighty or infinite in power, as God."
3) If a deity has complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness and understanding, then it must know all that was, is, and will be. If a deity knows all that will be, then it cannot interfere in its creation, as to do so would indicate that it did not know all that would be. Ergo, if a deity knows what will happen, but does something else, it is not omniscient. If a deity knows what will happen, but can't change it, then it isn't omnipotent.
Using a strict definition omnipotent leads to the Omnipotence paradox, which poses "the question whether it makes sense to attribute omnipotence to anything, usually a being of some sort, or whether such an attribution is meaningless."
My conclusion is that such an attribution is meaningless, as it cannot exist unless redefined in the way which you so handily demonstrated, i.e. a deity is omnipotent as long as it doesn't limit it's own ability to perform actions.
---
Religion was created for slaves. Free yourself.
Thanks, that adds alot to the discussion. |
I have an issue with your logic in the section in bold. It's rather easy to get around, and most religious scholars and philosophers have already reasoned it out.
God, being omniscient and omnipotent as defined by the current Christian bible, acted to create reality and saw of all reality in that moment of creation. God also saw, at that moment, when and where, for us at least because such distinctions would be meaningless for an omniscient and omnipotent being, it would have to act to steer its creation to its desired end point. God can act all he wants as he's always known when and where, again this is for those of us living in linear time, because he has already decided to act in the instant of creation. Presumably, to our eyes, God would exist in a single moment of creation and act outward from that moment, but for him never leave that moment. God is in effect the point from which the big bang expanded.
NOW...
The point of this thread was to discuss the concept of free will in a world with the above God, the God of the current Christian, St. James for the most part, Bible.
Can there truly be a concept of free will if all of God's actions are already made and the end result of all the actions, including the act of creating itself, has already been decided from said deity's perspective. Our actions as inhabitants of the creation become meaningless as any action God might need to make to steer the creation back on course will be, in God's since have been, made.
Or not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I was going to mention that 3) is flawed, but I didn't feel it was worth my time to explain it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros Wrote:
| Quote: |
| Well, the goal of religion is not to fashion a better TV set. Nevertheless, most religions do foster knowledge, and always have. |
This implies that there exists no thing we might call Pure Science, which sets out with no intention but to know. By putting together the knowledge gained from Pure Science, and even that gained by Applied Science, we can construct a cosmology which is in a continual process toward truth. This is the beauty of Science: it's success depends on the principle of Falsification; it is continually amended.
The point of Science is not to build a better TV, though that is one benefit.
Religion, on the other hand, does not have a mechanism of amendment. It assumes it has the primary cause of all things; then, it works to individual causes, though there be no clear link nor any sufficient reason to believe that there is that primary cause.
Science, antithetically, moves from particulars, individual causes, looks for patterns, organizes theories, moves slowly toward more unified causal explanations.
| Quote: |
| Omkara wrote: |
| We talk about omniscience and prevent real science. |
There's your false dichotomy. How does hypothetical postulation on the nature of God prevent real science? It doesn't. |
That religion starts with an unproven hypothesis, requires faith and not evidence, is antithetical to the scientific mindset. It corrodes thinking, prejudices who might be to a better degree objective.
A scientist may be religious and practice science, granted. But this requires a kind of compartmentalization. Sometimes, it requires that the scientist hold contradictory beliefs.
The politicalization of, for example, the evolutionary debate, is but one area in which the religious mindset is preventing--once again--the movement of knowledge.
| Quote: |
| I find the absolutism here very creepy. Nobody is stopping scientists from their endeavours. Why do you (note: not scientists, most of them are too busy to bring this debate into Dave's threads) insist on scheduling their priorities? |
I also don't see dave's posters trying to pass legislation demanding that we give up precious time in the classroom to teach unproven and unestablished "theories.'
Religious thinking is replete with fundamental errors. It is creative thinking, to be sure. But as an epistemological system, it is fatally flawed. They claim knowledge where they have none. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JustJohn Wrote:
| Quote: |
| Alright, I agree with that last post to a large degree. I know a lot of religious people that aren't terribly willing to listen to reason and a fair handful I would consider actually anti-intellectual. I however, happen to be a scientist and am quite able to do my job and philosophize about religion at the same time. |
I understand. I think speculation and even speculative philosophy are good and useful. The problem I have is that too many people are unable to make a correct distinction between claims of knowledge and speculative propositions. They confuse opinions with fact, beliefs with knowledge, world-views with theories.
I am willing and able to speculate about Jesus, and find it even necessary to do so. But I also have found it necessary to strongly criticise the essential form of religion. I think it is dangerous and needs to either be uprooted or amended in a radical way.
| Quote: |
| Anyway, I of course have no problem with you rejecting that Jesus was what he claimed. That wasn't part of the argument. What I was doing was showing that based on the evidence we arrive at the "probable dichotomy." |
I probably misunderstood your point. I was between classes and wanted in on the debate. So, I could not trace your argument back to the roots.
I often hear: "Either Jesus was crazy, or he was telling the truth." I thought this may have been the argument you were forwarding, but only some details changed.
| Quote: |
| If you take the whole thing to be absurd then you'll have no problem writing Jesus off as a clever magician or assuming that one of the less likely possibilities must be true. But if I had only this argument to base my decision on I would say that Jesus was most likely for real. |
I only think that understandings of things are absurd. The story in itself is not absurd. It is just a story.
It is interesting that this story is only debated in certain cultures under certain circumstances. The meaning of the story is more culturally specific than it is universal. I hold that it is only universal inasfar as it reveals the form and structure of the human mind and the human struggle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Religion, on the other hand, does not have a mechanism of amendment. It assumes it has the primary cause of all things; then, it works to individual causes, though there be no clear link nor any sufficient reason to believe that there is that primary cause. |
There are assumptions in every system. Science has its own assumptions, and science will never be able to fall back and prove its own assumptions. However, I don't quarrel with Science. More importantly, neither does most of the religious world.
| Quote: |
| Omkara wrote: |
| We talk about omniscience and prevent real science. |
There's your false dichotomy. How does hypothetical postulation on the nature of God prevent real science? It doesn't. |
| Quote: |
| That religion starts with an unproven hypothesis, requires faith and not evidence, is antithetical to the scientific mindset. It corrodes thinking, prejudices who might be to a better degree objective. |
Okay. But Newton, Kepler, Leibniz, and many other of science's giants were all extremely religious. Still objective, though. No, it was enlightenment clap-trap like you're selling that prejudices those who might be to a better degree objective.
| Quote: |
| A scientist may be religious and practice science, granted. But this requires a kind of compartmentalization. Sometimes, it requires that the scientist hold contradictory beliefs. |
How? How is the acceptance of the miracle of salvation contradictory with, as an example, designing a better drug for Merck? Its not.
| Quote: |
| The politicalization of, for example, the evolutionary debate, is but one area in which the religious mindset is preventing--once again--the movement of knowledge. |
Give me a concrete example of how the so-called 'religious mindset' has 'prevented the movement of knowledge.'
Until you do, I will accuse anti-theists of counter-politicization in a needless culture war.
| Omkara wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I find the absolutism here very creepy. Nobody is stopping scientists from their endeavours. Why do you (note: not scientists, most of them are too busy to bring this debate into Dave's threads) insist on scheduling their priorities? |
I also don't see dave's posters trying to pass legislation demanding that we give up precious time in the classroom to teach unproven and unestablished "theories.' |
One state among fifty had legislation like this: Kansas. It hasn't passed. This is not a real threat.
I want concrete examples of the threat and anti-scientific attitude of religion. I want links. I want evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, so now you want evidence, ey? 
I'm tired right now, and've eaten too much, have had a beer, so. . .I'll see if I feel like taking it on after I've showered. I will take it on, soon, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JustJohn wrote: |
| Well I'll give you credit for an elegant attempt at sidestepping your error. I couldn't have done it better myself. |
Well, I'll give you credit for an inelegant attempt at sidestepping the issue.
| JustJohn wrote: |
However, the fact remains that "your definition" is
1. simple nonsense unless we drop logic and
2. useless to your argument if you DO drop it |
I used a dictionary to define the terms under discussion.
The fact remains that "your definition" is:
1. an arbitrary reformulation of the original definition in order to account for the paradox, and, therefore;
2. useless to our argument.
| JustJohn wrote: |
| Game over, man. Game over. |
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
