Forgiven for what, eactly?

[SOdhner]

The mechanism for this is supernatural

Let's try it this way. First, while I think we are already on the same page here, these are the two main things I would expect you to agree to. If the answer for both of these is 'yes', you can just skip ahead. Otherwise, let me know because it would mean we have different understandings of some of the premise and this whole conversation is probably a waste of our time.

1. When god created the universe, could he have chosen to create it any other way?
2. Before god created the universe, did he know exactly how everything would happen?


Okay.


So, if I decide to eat a sandwich we could totally break it down and say that first I decided to get up, and then to go to the kitchen, and then to open the fridge, and then to get out the mayo, and then to... and so on, all the way to each individual bite and chewing and whatnot.

But we don't. We just say that I decided to eat a sandwich. What I'm saying is that in this scenario it would be most accurate to say "god made the universe and all the things and events in it". Any specific part of those things or events are still, at a fundamental level, just part of god's one decision to make the universe.

Saying that I made the choice to eat a sandwich but on bite number 32, mastication number 192, one of my molars made a choice to apply pressure to the turkey is silly. I ate the sandwich.

God's act of creation was a one-time choice, that incorperated the entire universe not only in substance but in events - especially if you don't think god is bound by time.

 

[I Ratant]

Great. Keep going.
P = Truman chooses to run for president at t1.
~P = Truman chooses not to run for president at t1.
C (P) = Truman has the capacity to choose not to run for president at t1.
C (~P) = Truman has the capacity to choose not to run for president at t1.
Premise 1: At t0<t1, God knows P.
Premise 2: At t1, C(P) and C(~P).
Premise 3: P.
...
Okay, who can fill out the rest of the premises and show me, EXPLICITLY, the contradiction?

.
Don't know the fancy stuff, but whichever way the "choice" went, it was foreknown.
By definition.
Therefore, not a choice, but a given.
A predestined action.
Etc.

 

[D'rok]

Here's a fairly hilarious solution to the problem:

Black, an evil neurosurgeon, wishes to see White dead but is unwilling to do the deed himself. Knowing that Mary Jones also despises White and will have a single good opportunity to kill him, Black inserts a mechanism into Jones's brain that enables Black to monitor and to control Jones's neurological activity. If the activity in Jones's brain suggests that she is on the verge of deciding not to kill White when the opportunity arises, Black's mechanism will intervene and cause Jones to decide to commit the murder. On the other hand, if Jones decides to murder White on her own, the mechanism will not intervene. It will merely monitor but will not affect her neurological function. Now suppose that when the occasion arises, Jones decides to kill White without any “help” from Black's mechanism. In the judgment of Frankfurt and most others, Jones is morally responsible for her act. Nonetheless, it appears that she is unable to do otherwise since if she had attempted to do so, she would have been thwarted by Black's device.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

Still no free will in this scenario. It is possible to freely choose one option or to be coerced into choosing that option. This is a distinction without a difference. Choosing one option out of set of options containing only one option is not a choice.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for quote of modded post.

I have a very hard time understanding why someone would willingly be a christian, much less a fundamental christian. Really, almost everyone I know who has thought about this issue much has left religion behind.

The fact that this christian attempts to use logic in a civil manner provides a window into thought processes that I can not fathom. I appreciate that even if I do not agree with the thoughts.

If we really are going to debate issues like this I'd just rather we not run off the few folks from the other side who know how to communicate efficiently. Would you rather someone post a wall of biblical references interspersed with colored words in all caps? I'm a bit tired of that.

 

[D'rok]

The fact that this christian attempts to use logic in a civil manner provides a window into thought processes that I can not fathom. I appreciate that even if I do not agree with the thoughts.

In this case, it all boils down to special pleading. God's foreknowledge doesn't negate free will because God can do the impossible because God is God.

 

[D'rok]

Well, unfortunately, like I said, God is atemporal and gains His knowledge through supernatural means. I believe my understanding of God violates your insistence on linear time.

Game over. No point in discussing it further. Why does logic matter if magic trumps it?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

The fact that this christian attempts to use logic in a civil manner provides a window into thought processes that I can not fathom. I appreciate that even if I do not agree with the thoughts.

First of all, I'll ignore your contention that AXQ uses logic because it's ridiculous on its face. He's a Christian, he believes in an invisible tyrant who lives in the sky, created the universe and performs magic for those who sufficiently kiss its ass. In a decent society he'd be dragged in to be lobotomized, sterilized, stuffed into a straight jacket, and locked into a rubber room to drool his life away!

Secondly, it's not about civility or making the other side "feel good", it's about the truth. Lies are still lies no matter how nicely a Christard like AXQ parses them. The truth is the truth whether it comes from the mouth of one of the "dicks" that St. Phil the Pussy babbles about.

Many have tried using logic and civility on AXQ, DOC, Radrook, 1inChrist (remember him?), and other Christians who have oozed their way onto this forum. How that working for you?

If you can't convince them, you have to contain them. You need to ridicule them, marginalize them, denigrate them, and not let up until they crawl back under their rocks where they can't spread their lies.

 

[tsig]

That is the same sort of meaningless twaddle that I got from believers at the time.Why didn't your god slide the tip on A Saturday when the school was empty? Was he so bored on that Thursday morning that he decided to amuse himself by killing a school full of children?I know the answer to the question of course.There is no god and the tip slid because it slid.I just wanted to see what sort of mealy-mouthed nonsense you would respond with.You did not disappoint me.

Looks to me like it was the Coal Board and mine managers that were at fault.

I'm sure you heard the GWIMW* more than once. It's the usual 'get out of jail free" card played by believers when all else fails.

*God Works In Mysterious Ways

 

[qayak]

Well, unfortunately, like I said, God is atemporal and gains His knowledge through supernatural means. I believe my understanding of God violates your insistence on linear time.

Translation: 2 + 2 + miracle = 3489746302952. 90843957

It's how Jesus fed the masses don't you know!

 

[Halfcentaur]

I don't want to come off as superior, but some of the logical concepts I hear Avalon alluding to amaze me. In all my life, I've met maybe only a very few Christians with the ability to even take their belief to this level of scrutiny( my sister and brother and mother actually). How he can begin to explore these avenues of reason and still believe that the one particular religion he was ( I am guessing ) indoctrinated within is the correct one, out of all the others we know of, is just amazing to me. I wonder how old he is, and I wonder if he came into his religion later in life or if he was brought up to believe it. I wonder if he has any Christian peers who even begin to understand much of what he's talking about. The few Christians I've had the opportunity to speak with that approach his level of critical thinking are all very liberal for the religion, most assuredly not young earth fundamentalists. To see a Christian not only understand the concepts he alludes to, but also entertain the most primitive ideas of his religion such as young earth creationism, is like witnessing a walking paradox. I do not mean to be insulting, but I am a little bit saddened to see a mind like his wasted on these questions in the first place. I can only imagine what sort of life could lead a person of this cognitive ability to this place, and I truly do hope he is younger than he seems and there is plenty of time for him to scrutinize what I no doubt come off as arrogantly assuming is not real. I also realize I am basically coming off as "how can you be smart and a christian too", but this is just a rare thing to see for me. I assume he feels very isolated among his fellow believers, or else enlightened. Perhaps he will end up spreading the word of his god? I truly wish this was a topic able to be logically discussed by both sides, but the idea that at some point what the bible says is true because God says so and that's all there is to it, well, that negates logic.
I can't imagine I've come off as anything but condescending to you, Avalon. I am sorry for that, I just really hope you're being honest with your scrutiny, and I hope you test your faith everyday at least. As a one time believer, I look back on the days when I was afraid of the what if's with great regret and a bit of shame. I am sorry if I am unfairly projecting my own issues on another. If I could have one last question answered, I wonder if Avalon is at the least capable of imagining the world as he sees it, hypothetically, without a need for a god in any way. Or if this scenario is just unthinkable due to perceptions of elegance?

 

[tsig]

He is still choosing. That's my point.
There is no connection between my knowledge of what he will, and whether or not he has a choice as to what to do.Many people on this thread seem to believe that in order to have a choice, there must be a nonzero chance that something else will actually happen. No. Having a choice simply means that you could have chosen something else, whether or not you did.
I simply don't agree that the definition of free will requires that nobody knows what your choice will be. There's nothing inherent in making a free choice that requires that no one else knows the outcome of that choice.

You're not god so the hilited sentence doesn't apply to this argument.

 

[bruto]

I'm sure AXQ thinks his beloved celestial tyrant's answer will be the same:

"I'm God! I can do what I want and if I say it's 'good' then it's good!"

Well, he or she has a point, sort of. If you start with the premise that there is such a god, then the answer is both consistent and inevitable. It's the premise that always stops me.

 

[tsig]

In this case, it all boils down to special pleading. God's foreknowledge doesn't negate free will because God can do the impossible because God is God.

Yes, when all the obfuscating and handwaving is done all we're left with is 'It's a miracle' sometimes followed by 'I'll pray for you' or 'You're gonna burn in hell Ha, Ha'.

 

[Resume]

You're not god so the hilited sentence doesn't apply to this argument.

You haven't been paying attention; he knows the mind of god.

 

[Tricky]

So, here's what I'd like to know: For what , exactly, are we supposed to be asking forgiveness?

Disco

 

[Elizabeth I]

Again, I don't find a conflict between perfect foreknowledge and free will. I know that others disagree.

Do you also not find a contradiction in the phrase "square circle"?

I know that Harry Truman chose to run for President. How does my knowledge of what he did, mean that he didn't have free will to choose it?

Your knowledge of what Give 'em Hell Harry chose to do doesn't mean that. The knowledge of the omniscient, omipotent god (should he exist) means that Harry, in your scenario, had no choice at all. And I'm not going to play your silly syllogism game because I don't have to construct a syllogism when the contradiction arises from your definition of the terms.

Why would Truman have to be more powerful than God to have the capacity to make a choice?

He would have to be more powerful than god to make a choice other than a choice that god already knows he will make.

Truman can choose to not run for President.
He won't, but he can.
Just because God knows what Truman will choose, doesn't mean that Truman has lost the ability to make the choice.

AH! I think I may, then, know where the disconnect is.
I DON'T believe that free will decisions are knowable based on the preexisting state of the universe. God knows the outcome of free will decisions because God is atemporal -- he has the benefit of future knowledge in the present.
I agree that if decisions are entirely deterministic (and therefore knowable by that means), then there is no free will. If determinism is your assumed method for God's knowledge, I agree that free will is incompatible with that.
But I disagree with that assumption.
Is the disconnect clearer now?

Whether god knows "atemporally" or not makes no difference. If the omniscient, omnipotent god knows what you will do, it is by definition a contradiction to say that free will exists.

And that's the difference. I believe it's possible for a being to have free will even under these circumstances -- that despite each and every one of these variables being known, the moral agent in question really does choose between two or more outcomes, and really could have chosen either. Even though God knew the choice, the choice was not forced.

We know that's what you believe - you have said so often enough - but believing something doesn't make it so. God may not force us to make one choice or another, but the fact that he knows what choice we will make, makes it impossible to make any other choice, if god has the attributes assigned to him by most Christians.

Again, the contradiction lies in your definitions.

Well, unfortunately, like I said, God is atemporal and gains His knowledge through supernatural means. I believe my understanding of God violates your insistence on linear time.

Your "understanding" of god is actually a belief about god, and you choose to believe two things that, by definition, are contradictory.

 

[qayak]

Disco

But god needs to apologize for Justin Beiber. Can't we just call it even?

 

[AvalonXQ]

P = Truman chooses to run for president at t1.
~P = Truman chooses not to run for president at t1.
C (P) = Truman has the capacity to choose not to run for president at t1.
C (~P) = Truman has the capacity to choose not to run for president at t1.
Premise 1: At t0<t1, God knows P.
Premise 2: God is infallible
Conclusion: At t1, ~(C(~P)).
Conclusion: P.

And yet again, you simply write conclusions that don't follow from your premises. Which premises are logically combined to produce those conclusions, and by what rules of logic? What you wrote makes as much sense as:
Premise 1: Albany is the capital of New York.
Premise 2: Some bananas are yellow.
Conclusion: You owe me a million dollars.
Just setting down conclusions as if they're shown by premises without any assertion of logical rules or use of logical steps isn't a syllogism, it's continuing to beg the question.
Try this:
Premise 1: At t0<t1, God knows P at t1. (God knows Truman will choose to run for President before Truman makes that decision. No dispute.)
Premise 2: For all x, if God knows x, then x. (God's knowledge is infallible. No dispute.)
Premise 3: For all x at t, if God knows x before t, then ~C(~x). (If God knows something to be true before it happens, then it does not have the capacity to not happen. THIS PREMISE IS UNTRUE, and without it, I don't know of any way to get the contradiction you want. I would love to see you do so.)
Premise 4: C(~P) (At t1, Truman has the capacity to choose not to run for president. No dispute).
Substitution on 1,3: For P at t1, because God knows P before t1, Statement 5: ~C(~P).
Conjunction on 4,5: C(~P) and ~C(~P). Contradiction.
I invite troubleshooting if I've made an "elementary logical error" in the above.
So, again, if you just assume that God's knowledge of P before t1 implies ~C(~P), then you can arrive at a contradiction. That's the whole thing we're arguing, and I don't accept that assumption. Instead, I have repeatedly asserted that God's foreknowledge does not remove the capacity for counterfactual choices from agents. God knows those choices won't be made, but that doesn't imply that those choices cannot be made. The capacity persists.
If you can actually show a logical proof that doesn't include Premise 3 or a form thereof, I would love to see it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

God may not force us to make one choice or another, but the fact that he knows what choice we will make, makes it impossible to make any other choice, if god has the attributes assigned to him by most Christians.

No, it doesn't. Knowledge doesn't constrain choice. Foreknowledge doesn't eliminate the possibility of other counterfactual choices; the possibility is not the same as the realization of it.

 

[Resume]

But god needs to apologize for Justin Beiber. Can't we just call it even?

Yeah, but disco got me laid.