Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Free Will with Omniscient God?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Free Will with Omniscient God?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Thiuda

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:36 am Post subject:

JustJohn wrote:

I however, happen to be a scientist and am quite able to do my job and philosophize about religion at the same time.

You're a scientist? I thought you were an English teacher! But, I guess it's all a matter of definition.

JustJohn

Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:36 am Post subject:

Again, good try but you still don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if you say that God is not omnipotent by "your definition" because "your definition" is nonsense in a world where the rules of logic hold true. It doesn't matter if it's possible to interpret the dictionary your way. It doesn't change the laws of logic and make it any less nonsense. I doubt it, but perhaps one last example will help: If someone added the word squarecle to the dictionary and defined it as a shape that is perfectly round and has exactly 4 corners, would you take a geometrist who studied squarecles seriously? You are the geometrist studying squarecles, my friend. It doesn't matter if you can construe the dictionary to be on your side or not. It is nonsensical gibberish and absolutely nothing can change that.

JustJohn

Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:40 am Post subject:

Thiuda wrote:

JustJohn wrote:

I however, happen to be a scientist and am quite able to do my job and philosophize about religion at the same time.

You're a scientist? I thought you were an English teacher! But, I guess it's all a matter of definition.

Very true, but in this case we have the good fortune to be unable to construe either definition into a nonsensical mess. Very Happy

P.S.
On the odd chance that anyone was actually curious: I just happen to be teaching English between grad school.

Thiuda

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:20 pm Post subject:

JustJohn wrote:

Again, good try but you still don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if it's possible to interpret the dictionary your way. It doesn't change the laws of logic and make it any less nonsense.

I did not interpret what the dictionary states, I quoted it. I used a dictionary to define the terms as it provides an objective starting point for our discussion. You can't redefine the terms arbitrarily to suit yourself, that's poor sportsmanship.

JustJohn wrote:

I doubt it, but perhaps one last example will help:
If someone added the word squarecle to the dictionary and defined it as a shape that is perfectly round and has exactly 4 corners, would you take a geometrist who studied squarecles seriously?

If the terms squarecle and geometrist were to be added to the dictionary, it would be because lexicographers agreed that the terms referred to a concept/idea in existence. Lexicography is a scholarly discipline; you're suggesting that anyone can add any word to a dictionary, which is ridiculous.

JustJohn wrote:

You are the geometrist studying squarecles, my friend. It doesn't matter if you can construe the dictionary to be on your side or not. It is nonsensical gibberish and absolutely nothing can change that.

No, I'm an English teacher interested in lexical semantics. I do not construe the dictionary to be on my side or not, the dictionary merely provides me with definitions that are more objective than my own would be.

JustJohn wrote:

It doesn't matter if you say that God is not omnipotent by "your definition" because "your definition" is nonsense in a world where the rules of logic hold true.

You speak of a deity and invoke a world in which the rules of logic hold true. I do hope the irony isn't lost on you.

Thiuda

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:36 pm Post subject:

Czarjorge wrote:

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.

Yes, I see. It's easy to get around if one defines it using the current Christian bible. What about if one defines it using previous or alternative Christian bibles?

Before we can have a discussion regarding your original question, you have to define your terms. You neglected to do so, so I did. You don't like my definition, because it leads to an outcome you find unacceptable.

Next time, instead of asking for a discussion, simply define your terms in such a manner that agreement will be automatic. The religious have been doing so in one form or another for centuries, "Did we say geocentric? No, no. You misunderstood us, we meant Heliocentric. Burn him."

Omkara

Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject:

I Wrote:

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.

Kuros Wrote: Th

Quote:

ere 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.

The assumptions of science and those of religion are very different. Christianity begins by assuming that Jesus is God. It relies on so-called revelation and testimony. If Christianity amends this simple statement, that Jesus and the Father are one, everything collapses. Islam begins with the creed, "There is no God but The God and Mohammed is His final prophet." Neither of these two statements can be challenged within the tradition. You must accept them on faith.

Science, on the other hand, actively tries to falsify its assumptions. Hence, knowledge progresses therefrom.

Kuros Wrote:

Quote:

How does hypothetical postulation on the nature of God prevent real science? It doesn't.

The activities of science and those of religion are antithetical. Insofar as one is religious, there are categories of phenomena which cannot be challenged lest the foundations of the creed itself be challenged.

Insofar as one challenges the foundations of the creed, that practice is not religious, for the whole of the religious practice seeks to affirm, not falsify. To do so is heresy.

If the religious community is tolerant, some science may be practiced. . .but only to a line. To the extent that the religion is powerful, however, this criticism will be countered. It threatens the power of the religion. Only to the extent that the creed is affirmed is the religion powerful. Therefore, the process of falsification fundamentally challenges the authority of religion and is therefore fundamentally dangerous to the religion.

Quote:

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.

These men were brilliant, and lived in a time where the evidential, theoretical and political environment was quite different than it is today.

Kant, for example, made an important distinction that set God outside of the realm of knowledge. Insofar as he was able to put claims about the reality of God in a secondary position in his epistemological system, he maintained objectivity. But, he was an extraordinary man. Moreover, he was able to do this in his particular political climate in such a way--a very careful way--that he did not offend the power structure.

Spinoza failed to do so, so was excommunicated.

Descartes had to ask that his reader would read quickly through his meditations before entering into detailed criticism in order that he not be jailed. You'll remember, he had to have God guarantee his system. His particular genius was that he managed to build a bridge between the religious world view and modernism. But this resulted in a split that was untenable--which was where Spinoza took him up.

Leibnitz was just a dick-head.

I wrote:

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.

Quote:

How? How is the acceptance of the miracle of salvation contradictory with, as an example, designing a better drug for Merck? Its not.

The claim of miracle--that God could violate the laws of nature and is not subject to them--does in fact contradict the scientific view of nature: that, all the laws of nature a ubiquitous and cannot be violated. As Einstein put it, "Either nothing is a miracle, or everything is."

Miracle is a special category of event which holds steadfast to the dualism which is at the heart of Descartes antiquated philosophy: that, two things, having nothing in common (spirit and matter) can have a causal relationship.

To hold this dualism and yet practice science requires one hold two contradictory world views at once, either consciously or unconsciously.

I Wrote:

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.

Kuros Responded:

Quote:

Give me a concrete example of how the so-called 'religious mindset' has 'prevented the movement of knowledge.'

Some cultures produce more scientists than others.

I worked for some time with Saudi Arabian students. They were bright guys (for, they were mostly guys who were allowed to travel to America), and a good example of the religious mindset. I came to realize that, in the biological sciences, this culture has little hope of producing great sciences. Though they may produce great engineers, their religious education made them reject any world view which contradicted the story of Adam in the Garden of Eden.

There were many bright guys among my many students. When I had them read an essay which used a biological metaphor of the unity of life, which at once contradicted the story of Adam and affirmed Darwin, the responses confirmed for me that the culture would have much trouble producing great scientists of biology.

There are many young boys and girls in America who are denied a proper scientific education. Many a bright child has gone into other fields as a result.

During the Dover Trial, the many professionals were amazed at how much the scientists had to share. They asked, why haven't we learned these things? The answer? The controversy kept the subject out of our public schools for more than half a century.

JustJohn

Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:41 am Post subject:

Well as I said before, it doesn't matter if you think the word was intended to include logical fallacies. Your argument is screwed either way. If you still can't see that you're beyond my help. I suggest you submit your argument to a philosophy or logic professor and see how they think it holds up.

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:46 am Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

fiveeagles wrote:

Underwaterbob wrote:

fiveeagles wrote:

Underwaterbob wrote:

OK, how about this.

I make a robot with chainsaws for arms and program it to have a strong desire to kill everything in sight.

How am I not responsible for it's actions when it goes and slaughters a school bus full of kids?

According to Christianity God creates us knowing full well exactly what we'll do in life yet we're punished for doing it. Akin to punishing my robot for something that's entirely my fault.

If you are trusting in this type of logic; I would be scared. Wink

It amazes me that many people are believing in things like this and trusting their eternity to this. Bono says that people who don't believe in God are the most courageous people in the world. haha.

Instead of pathetically mocking me why don't you point out where my logic is faulty? You like to say I'm wrong but have yet to prove me as such. So put up or shut up.

Or what, will you get your robot after me? Can't take teasing either? You can diss it out, but you can't take it. Crap, another insecure atheist...what a surprise.

What a surprise, another bible-thumper who resorts to insults when they can't think of a response. Why don't you point out where my logic was faulty? Or were you just "teasing"? When did I say I was an atheist? That's a pretty drastic assumption.

Exactly...it was an assumption. Don't you hate it when people get the wrong assumptions or judgments? Have you ever made the wrong judgment of someone or have you been perfect in all your ways?

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:54 am Post subject:

Omkara wrote:

fiveeagles wrote:

Omkara wrote:

Fiveeagles,

Give me one good reason to believe that God exists. Just one. Not two. One. Give me evidence. Clear evidence. Rational evidence. Why should I believe?

If not that, give me one good reason why I should respect your way of thinking.

This is a brilliant question. Why didn't I think of it?

Jesus said my burden is light and my yoke is easy. Invite Jesus into your life and ask him to remove your sins. See if you don't feel better. When i came to Christ I felt a hundred pounds lighter. It felt like I was walking on air.

Test the most important evidence of the bible:invite Jesus into your heart and life.

Fair enough, FiveEagles. There is a practical reason for inviting Jesus into my life. I do not dispute that Jesus can work wonders. I'm sure he does, and have witnessed as much.

However, that one feels much better for having invited Jesus into his or her life does not imply the ontological reality of Christ. Muslims use the same argument.

That someone feels better for accepting Jesus may be owing to an actual Christ, or it may not. This reason is not sufficient for the conclusion. There may be other explanations for the reality which you experience.

One thing we may conclude from this. There may be sufficient evidence for a particular individual to choose to believe in this way; but the evidence is insufficient to demand that others would conform with all that would follow from the confirmation of the ontological reality of Jesus.

Therefore, evangelicals have no right to demand that others follow God's law.

Moreover, the weight of the evidence against the evangelical position (and other christian positions) has been building and building, making it quite a rational choice to reject the proposition of Christ's reality. None of the evidence has built up for the other side.

Yours is the strongest argument. And that is an insufficient argument.

Can you understand where I am coming from? I'm not trying to be a jerk. Just asking if you get my point or not.

Muslims may use the same answer, but they don't have the overwhelming evidence on their side. History, creation, sign and miracles, science all point to the existence of a all powerful and loving God.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:54 am Post subject:

fiveeagles wrote:

Exactly...it was an assumption. Don't you hate it when people get the wrong assumptions or judgments? Have you ever made the wrong judgment of someone or have you been perfect in all your ways?

Of course not.

Your question is entirely irrelevant. In fact, you've answered every one of my questions with irrelevancy. I might as well be asking a brick wall. At least there's the chance I would find some enlightenment in silence.

Czarjorge

Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:25 am Post subject:

Thiuda wrote:

Czarjorge wrote:

I'm not sure how much you know about Christianity, and religion in general, so I'll let some of this slide...

As for changing the definition, it's always remained the same. An omniscient God who supposedly allows free will. Since others decided to presume omnipotence, it entered the discussion and is a logical output as that is the currently accepted Christian God and has been for the last hundred years. I didn't think it needed to be stated outright, clearly I was wrong and I clarified as such. It's a rhetorical game you're playing, and it adds nothing to the discussion.

The question is, regardless of what religion provides the source God or, as I would prefer lets treat this as a thought experiment rather than a discussion of the value of the concept of God, if there existed an omniscient God, could there also exist free will? My response was to the attempt to argue away the existence of God. The discussion of whether or not God exists is useless as far as the purpose of this thread is concerned, but as with all threads on religion on this board there are a number of anti-religion types (who for the record I agree with on a number of issues) who lose all ability to discussion and fly off into rhetorical masturbation. The willful obtusity (or obtuseness?-lexicographer?) of the posters who would rather argue about the effect of religion than religious ideas.

(Those of you who rail against your religion, given your clearly limited understanding of it as you seem to be dismissing it without giving it any consideration, are no different than the people who tried Socrates or refused to admit the world was round. Scientists should be, by definition, open to any outcome and any possibility. And I hope most people who would bother to spend hours debating on a forum would be geek enough to at least aspire to scientific ideals.)

As far as disliking your definition, it's not a matter of like, your definition doesn't work. Rather than engage in a discussion you are supporting an idea, you are the white night of atheism, and that doesn't work in a philosophical discussion.

Thiuda

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject:

Czarjorge wrote:

It's a rhetorical game you're playing, and it adds nothing to the discussion.

Rhetoric and discussion are inextricably bound up with one another; one does not exist without the other.

Czarjorge wrote:

The question is, regardless of what religion provides the source God or, as I would prefer lets treat this as a thought experiment rather than a discussion of the value of the concept of God, if there existed an omniscient God, could there also exist free will?

There are two possible answers to this question; an omniscient deity does not negate free will, or, an omniscient deity precludes free will. If we define omniscient your way, free will is possible, if we define it my way, it ain't.

Czarjorge wrote:

The willful obtusity (or obtuseness?-lexicographer?) of the posters who would rather argue about the effect of religion than religious ideas.

You have at your fingertips the most comprehensive dictionary in the history of humanity and you call me obtuse for using words such as lexicographer? First you tell me I should cut the rhetoric, then you ask me to simplify my vocabulary. What's next? Should I start using Newspeak?

Czarjorge wrote:

(Those of you who rail against your religion, given your clearly limited understanding of it as you seem to be dismissing it without giving it any consideration, are no different than the people who tried Socrates or refused to admit the world was round. Scientists should be, by definition, open to any outcome and any possibility. And I hope most people who would bother to spend hours debating on a forum would be geek enough to at least aspire to scientific ideals.)

Scientists are not open to any outcome and possibility, that's absurd. As has been pointed out by other posters, scientists, too, work based on assumptions. One of the principle assumptions made by science is Occam's razor; the simplest explanation tends to be the best. If we apply the scientific method to religion then, we are forced to conclude that a deity is unlikely.

Czarjorge wrote:

As far as disliking your definition, it's not a matter of like, your definition doesn't work. Rather than engage in a discussion you are supporting an idea, you are the white night of atheism, and that doesn't work in a philosophical discussion.

I prefer the title "White Knight of Humanism." Atheism, just like faith, is indefensible. Just as it is impossible to prove the existence of a deity, it is impossible to disprove it. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that there is an equal chance that a deity exists or not, so you can call me "White Knight of 99.9...9% Atheism," if you prefer.

Omkara

Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject:

FiveEagles Wrote:

Quote:

Muslim evidence is on a par with Christian evidence. They are absolutely equivalent epistemologically.

Secondly, what do you mean by "Science?" Tarot cards?

Show me one piece of evidence that indicates the existence on a loving God. Just one. We'll look at it in detail to see if it in fact is science.

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:27 pm Post subject:

Underwaterbob wrote:

fiveeagles wrote:

Exactly...it was an assumption. Don't you hate it when people get the wrong assumptions or judgments? Have you ever made the wrong judgment of someone or have you been perfect in all your ways?

Of course they aren't...to you. If you don't want to answer...enjoy your wall and robots in silence. Rolling Eyes

Imagine the relationships and friendships you have entered and I am sure that some haven't been the greatest of choices. Do your mistakes stop being? Do you have a choice to stop your mistakes from being a part of your life existence? No, but if you want to learn from your mistakes then you improve upon them and make your mistakes into something better.

Likewise, God takes the mistakes caused in the world and causes good things to come out of them. This is called redemption and prevents evil from overcoming good.

Like I have previously said Judas for called to enter into Heaven with Jesus, rather he took the place as a betrayer. While this wasn't God's call on his life, God still was able to use it to complete the mission.

Now, lets look at this way; In the absence of good, there is evil. So in actuality, anyone who hasn't accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior has failed to exist in the sight of God. You, as a person, are only created when you accept the life of Christ.

fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject:

Omkara wrote:

FiveEagles Wrote:

Quote:

Muslim evidence is on a par with Christian evidence. They are absolutely equivalent epistemologically.

It obviously isn't since one say Jesus was a prophet while the other says He was the son of God.

Quote:

Secondly, what do you mean by "Science?" Tarot cards?

Show me one piece of evidence that indicates the existence on a loving God. Just one. We'll look at it in detail to see if it in fact is science

Actually, the onus lies on you. Show me evidence that there isn't a God.

Quote:

Christians are the ones usually accused of 'blind faith', and of refusing to face facts. How ironic that many sceptical scientists demand that God show Himself to their measuring instruments before they will believe, yet they accept the unproven, unscientific idea of 'abiogenesis' without a qualm!

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 7 of 8

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe