God is responsible for all the bad stuff that happens

[numinus]

Are you familiar with the concept of Predestination?

What I am saying is that it is not clear whether or not we have free Will in the classical sense of the word, and that it may not be posible to determine whether or not we do have free will anytime soon at the present state of human scientific knowledge. Many other people besides myself consider that to be an open question.

I believe that we, as a society, purely for the self-protection of the members of our society, have no choice but to hold people responsible for their actions. Free Will or not. That much is straightforward prudence.

John nash proves this entire line of argument wrong.

 

[Dr.Who]

I suppose when it has gotten to the point where a person's arguments are reaching so far that they necessitate the denial of the concept that people decide what to do for themselves and would instead embrace a purely mechanistic universe that one should rethink what has brought the arguments to this place.

 

[MichaelB]

I suppose when it has gotten to the point where a person's arguments are reaching so far that they necessitate the denial of the concept that people decide what to do for themselves and would instead embrace a purely mechanistic universe that one should rethink what has brought the arguments to this place.

I agree and everyone has gone way out on a limb to stay on topic ... maybe we have exhausted ourselves on this topic ... what do you think?

 

[samsara15]

I suppose when it has gotten to the point where a person's arguments are reaching so far that they necessitate the denial of the concept that people decide what to do for themselves and would instead embrace a purely mechanistic universe that one should rethink what has brought the arguments to this place.

What I think is most obvious, Dr Who, is that the dichotomy between Free Will and Determinism is not at all as clear as is commonly supposed. Quantum mechanics makes that clear. What is most likely is the whole debate over Free Will or not is an argument over a non-issue that is not revelant to the reality.

If God exists and knows the future, however, there is no Free Will.

 

[numinus]

If God exists and knows the future, however, there is no Free Will.

I'm sorry but saying this over and over will not make it any more true.

For example, in a presidential election, there are ways to know which candidate is leading at any given time during the campaign and within limits of error that can be made as negligible as possible. That is a sort of foreknowledge based on scientific principles.

However, just because candidates make population cross-section surveys does not make the entire exercise of suffrage any more or less free, now, does it? And if such a thing can be done fairly accurately, what is the point of voting? Can't we just accept the results of gallup polls in lieu of a costly and highly divisive elections?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I suppose if one accepts that some "god" made everything, then by definition this "god" is responsible for everything that happens.

The concept of "original sin" is nonsense. The idea that this "god" made us all bad so that we need to be saved is another piece of nonsense. There is not a shred of proof of either of these ideas.

It's always amazing to me how little faith people have in their "God".

Faith??!!!

Hell.....the "moralists" insistence (especially, in the U.S.) that "god" is responsible for everything is merely their excuse for doing NOTHING, to improve Life....here, on Earth....especially when it comes to helping those of lesser-means.

When they insist "It's God's will!", they're merely justifying their LAZINESS!!! (....to help others.....especially if it's those-people; outside the U.S. & non-White)​

 

[samsara15]

I'm sorry but saying this over and over will not make it any more true.

For example, in a presidential election, there are ways to know which candidate is leading at any given time during the campaign and within limits of error that can be made as negligible as possible. That is a sort of foreknowledge based on scientific principles.

However, just because candidates make population cross-section surveys does not make the entire exercise of suffrage any more or less free, now, does it? And if such a thing can be done fairly accurately, what is the point of voting? Can't we just accept the results of gallup polls in lieu of a costly and highly divisive elections?

If the future is known, without any doubt, then we live in a deterministic universe, and there is no free will. Are you trying to say the future is forseeable, but not determined? In which case, there is no omnipotence, nor omniscience, but an option that does allow theorizing a limited, but compassionate God. Which is where Dr Who goes, and an option that is not self-contradictory.

 

[numinus]

If the future is known, without any doubt, then we live in a deterministic universe, and there is no free will.

I have given you ample reasons to demonstrate the defect in this line of thinking.

God's foreknowledge of your choices does not make these choices any less free. The only way your choices are not free is if some external influence coerces you otherwise.

Are you trying to say the future is forseeable, but not determined?

It is foreseeable, not determined. There are also numerous examples of a non-deterministic reality -- the uncertainty principle and the whole of quantum field theory, to be exact.

In which case, there is no omnipotence,

Again, I have already stated the solution for the omnipotence paradox in my argument with lagboltz.

The paradox is based on the vacuous truth of a null proposition (god can create a rock he cannot lift). And what you are forgetting about the properties of a null set is that no set conditions and all set conditions apply. That particular property of the null set is an axiom of set theory hence applicable to first-order predicate logic.

So you see, there is no need to qualify absolute and limited omnipotence. God can create a rock he cannot lift and then proceeds to lift it anyway.

nor omniscience,

The same argument against the omnipotence paradox applies.

but an option that does allow theorizing a limited, but compassionate God. Which is where Dr Who goes, and an option that is not self-contradictory.

This bears on epistemology, particularly, the nature of fallacy.

Granted that the human mind can conjure a fallacious argument, does fallacy have an objective existence?

Like the null set, a fallacy, at best, has a vacuous truth. Personally, I think it has no objective existence.

 

[samsara15]

I do not think the issue is quite as clear cut as you seem to, numinus, and I find many other threads on other boards where people better qualitified to argue the issue than myself spend lots of time and words tossing the Free Will issue around, without ever reaching any clear conclusions. As lagbolz and yourself did.

I'm open to listening and learning, on this issue, but my inclinations go with lagbolz, arrogant though he be, on this issue.

 

[Dr.Who]

If God exists and knows the future, however, there is no Free Will.

As stated, that is not proven.

 

[samsara15]

Very little is provable about religion, Dr Who. It's all just our opinions and beliefs, which are obviously very fallible, or humans would be more in agreement with each other over the issue.

 

[numinus]

Very little is provable about religion, Dr Who. It's all just our opinions and beliefs, which are obviously very fallible, or humans would be more in agreement with each other over the issue.

Nobody is doubting this.

If you recall, christians are criticized for believing in something that result in an apparent paradox, the same line of argument you are proposing here. But the thing is, this paradox has a solution within first-order predicate logic and axiomatic set theory -- hence is not actually a paradox.

Believing in an omnipotent, omniscient and perfect god is as logical as believing that the null set is a member of any set, that the null set is the complement of the universal set or whatever set-theoretic operation is attendant to it.

Is it possible that an omnipotent, omniscient and perfect god does not exist? As possible as first-order predicate logic is wrong, I should say. But then again, if fopl is wrong, then what the hell can one assert with any degree of certainty, hmmm?

 

[numinus]

I do not think the issue is quite as clear cut as you seem to, numinus, and I find many other threads on other boards where people better qualitified to argue the issue than myself spend lots of time and words tossing the Free Will issue around, without ever reaching any clear conclusions. As lagbolz and yourself did.

I'm open to listening and learning, on this issue, but my inclinations go with lagbolz, arrogant though he be, on this issue.

It would have been better had lagboltz backed his arrogance with a measure of logic. Sadly, he didn't.

As I recall, his argument went something like this:

O is the set of things god can do.
F is the non-empty set of things god can't do.
F is the complement of O, therefore, god is not omnipotent.

The defect is clear. If F is the non-empty set not in O, then O is not a universal set (by definition of the universal set), hence does not contain 'everything conceivable' (as omnipotence is naively defined), hence he merely assumed the thing he was trying to prove.

However erroneous, you are still free to believe his argument. How's that for an argument for free will?

 

[samsara15]

Then, numninus, Perhaps we should say that one thing God cannot do is to stop people from disagreeing about what the limits might be to omnipotence, omniscience, and Infinite compassion, assuming that people have Free Will?

 

[numinus]

Then, numninus, Perhaps we should say that one thing God cannot do is to stop people from disagreeing about what the limits might be to omnipotence, omniscience, and Infinite compassion, assuming that people have Free Will?

LOL.

Of course you can say that -- although I fail to see how your own limitation is somehow god's fault.