Respecting Christians

[Mycroft]

Do you know every decision she will make throughout her life?

Oh figure it out. Was I claiming to be omniscient? Or was I just giving an everyday example where my own knowledge, experience and wisdom allowed me to make a prediction that seemed amazing from the point of view of someone with less knowledge, experience and wisdom?

For the record, my daughter was amazed to find me waiting for her next to her car. "How did you know?" she asked. I shrugged, "I know everything. Now give me your keys."

Did I really know everything? Of course not, but at that time and place I knew everything that was important to know. Did my knowing she was going to make the decision she made change her free will? No. I was just able to anticipate how she would apply her free will.

I don't see the issue so much as a dilemma as much as a failure of imagination. It's easy to see how foreknowledge of one decision doesn't interfere with free will, but somehow it becomes difficult to understand when you apply the same principle to more decisions? That doesn't make sense.

 

[Tatyana]

I still don't understand what's so deplorable about it. Is it the fact that I think annihilating souls in the fires of Gehenna is a proper response to souls separating themselves from God through sin?

Unless you wait until you are dying and accept Jesus as your saviour on your death bed, as we all know that this is more important than living a good life.

 

[Rasmus]

Oh figure it out. Was I claiming to be omniscient?

No.

So you missed the point.

The claim was, specifically, that omniscience precludes free will.

We are talking about a god that is omniscient, not merely very smart.

 

[Mycroft]

No.

So you missed the point.

The claim was, specifically, that omniscience precludes free will.

Okay. So I think I've shown how foreknowledge of one decision doesn't preclude free will. Why does it create a problem if you just expand the number of decisions a hypothetical being would have foreknowledge of?

We are talking about a god that is omniscient, not merely very smart.

Yes, but we're also talking about an omniscience as described by people who are not.

 

[Rasmus]

Okay. So I think I've shown how foreknowledge of one decision doesn't preclude free will.

Wait, what?

No!

Nowhere did you demonstrate that your daughter has free will, much less that this specific decision of hers was subject to it.

Why does it create a problem if you just expand the number of decisions a hypothetical being would have foreknowledge of?

Because you had foreknowledge of your daughter's decision in very limited circumstances - and not every descision she - or in fact, everybody - makes is subject to these circumstances.

My ability to predict that that if I lift a stone and let go of it, it will fall down in no way suggests that I am able to predict next week's lottery numbers, even though both are physical processes.

Of course, the claims made about god go much further than your example: You did not know what your daughter would do on that day 3 years earlier, right? You did not know it when you didn't know you were going to have that daughter, right? Because at those times, you would have had to be omniscient to know, rather than just needing an ability observe certain behaviour patterns.

Yes, but we're also talking about an omniscience as described by people who are not.

No. If we assume that God is not actually omniscient, that he could conceivably be wrong, then his existence doesn't rule out free will.

You could have been wrong about your daughter. Maybe you would have been surprised, and maybe it would have been surprising - but your being wrong was an option.

 

[tsig]

Oh figure it out. Was I claiming to be omniscient? Or was I just giving an everyday example where my own knowledge, experience and wisdom allowed me to make a prediction that seemed amazing from the point of view of someone with less knowledge, experience and wisdom?

For the record, my daughter was amazed to find me waiting for her next to her car. "How did you know?" she asked. I shrugged, "I know everything. Now give me your keys."

Did I really know everything? Of course not, but at that time and place I knew everything that was important to know. Did my knowing she was going to make the decision she made change her free will? No. I was just able to anticipate how she would apply her free will.

I don't see the issue so much as a dilemma as much as a failure of imagination. It's easy to see how foreknowledge of one decision doesn't interfere with free will, but somehow it becomes difficult to understand when you apply the same principle to more decisions? That doesn't make sense.

God's supposed to be so your example is meaningless.

 

[Minarvia]

Exactly right, Minarvia.

Thank you for understanding my point.

Further, to be truthful, I don't dislike Christians based on their beliefs; at least not for the most part. But still, I doubt that I can truly "respect" them when not only do they believe such things, but by accepting that particular god they, at least imo, also endorse such things. They are just as atheistic as we are save for one god.

Don't people hate and/or not respect the Nazis whether they liked what was going on or not? Of course they do! So many actions were deplorable and their own personal opinions tacitly agreed with them.

I suppose hairs could be split forever on this sort of topic, but there will always be cases where I can respect believers, but only to a certain extent. I doubt, when I look deep inside myself, that I can respect them deeply and truly. And, at least to me, behaviour does not always excuse the belief or opinion stemming from it.

 

[Mycroft]

God's supposed to be so your example is meaningless.

According to whom? Calvin? And exactly how do you define omniscient?

 

[Mycroft]

Wait, what?

No!

Nowhere did you demonstrate that your daughter has free will, much less that this specific decision of hers was subject to it.

I didn't realize my daughter having free will was in doubt. Could you elaborate?

 

[Rasmus]

I didn't realize my daughter having free will was in doubt. Could you elaborate?

If her behaviour can be perfectly predicted, then that would indeed cast doubt on her having free will in that matter, does it not?

Isn't that generally the problem with free will, anyway? Can it exist at all?

I don't want to derail the discussion too much - the question is mostly academical in real life, but then, in real life nobody is going to torture me forever based on the answer of that question...

 

[tsig]

According to whom? Calvin? And exactly how do you define omniscient?

You either lack basic knowledge of the subject or you're using questions to dodge making a reasoned response, if you don't know what omniscience is you really shouldn't be taking part in this discussion.

The answers to your questions are only a google away.

 

[Rasmus]

According to whom? Calvin?

According ot the premise of the entire discussion that led to the claim

"free will is not compatible with omniscience."

You can have one, but not the other, at the same time.

If someone doesn't believe in an omniscient god, then their world view is not in conflict with the existence of free will.

And exactly how do you define omniscient?

I would have assumed this was obvious?

omniscient : knows absolutely everything about the past, present, future and hypotheticals, but unlike a teenager is never wrong about anything instead of merely thinking they are never wrong.

Do you think the usual definition is ambiguous or leaves wriggle room somewhere, somehow?

 

[bruto]

According ot the premise of the entire discussion that led to the claim

"free will is not compatible with omniscience."

You can have one, but not the other, at the same time.

If someone doesn't believe in an omniscient god, then their world view is not in conflict with the existence of free will.



I would have assumed this was obvious?

omniscient : knows absolutely everything about the past, present, future and hypotheticals, but unlike a teenager is never wrong about anything instead of merely thinking they are never wrong.

Do you think the usual definition is ambiguous or leaves wriggle room somewhere, somehow?

Although I believe omniscience, like many "omni" qualities, is a big block to theology, I must just for fairness add that yes, I think there's a little wiggle room here. Omnsicience implies that all that can be known is known, but does not necessarily imply that everything you think might be known can be, nor does the capability of using it imply necessarily that it is always used. One can at least conceive of a god leaving the full capability unrealized, in order, for example, to make free will possible. It's a stretch, and a messy one, but it's at least sort of there.

 

[sphenisc]

Although I believe omniscience, like many "omni" qualities, is a big block to theology, I must just for fairness add that yes, I think there's a little wiggle room here. Omnsicience implies that all that can be known is known, but does not necessarily imply that everything you think might be known can be, nor does the capability of using it imply necessarily that it is always used. One can at least conceive of a god leaving the full capability unrealized, in order, for example, to make free will possible. It's a stretch, and a messy one, but it's at least sort of there.

I don't get this. Either you know everything there is to be known, or you don't. It's not a capability to be exercised or not - it is a state. Can you explain your point any further?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I don't get this. Either you know everything there is to be known, or you don't. It's not a capability to be exercised or not - it is a state.

The Bible indicates that God chooses to limit His own knowledge, at least in some contexts. Particularly, Jesus didn't know everything while He was human.

 

[Rasmus]

Although I believe omniscience, like many "omni" qualities, is a big block to theology, I must just for fairness add that yes, I think there's a little wiggle room here. Omnsicience implies that all that can be known is known, but does not necessarily imply that everything you think might be known can be, nor does the capability of using it imply necessarily that it is always used. One can at least conceive of a god leaving the full capability unrealized, in order, for example, to make free will possible. It's a stretch, and a messy one, but it's at least sort of there.

That doesn't help free will.

Either things are determined, or they are not.
If they can be known, or are known, in advance, then they are determined. It doesn't matter if anyone bothers to find out - it's enough that they could.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If I may address the original topic aside from the omniscience hijack for a moment.

One thing I do think few people grasp is the concept of not making something a personal attack goes both ways to some degree in that it's also the person's holding the opinions responsibility to be able to distance themselves from their opinions on an intellectual and emotional level enough so criticism of the opinion is not seen as a personal attack.

It's not my fault if someone'e sense of self is so wrapped up and dependent upon a certain one of their opinions that they can't separate the two.

I don't have respect for the Christianity or any other religious belief. If I cannot verbalize that in anyway without it being an attack on Christians then I sorta don't really have a chance to not be rude do I?

 

[sphenisc]

The Bible indicates that God chooses to limit His own knowledge, at least in some contexts. Particularly, Jesus didn't know everything while He was human.

Does it state what the current 'context' is? Is God omniscience now?
Is it a case of, "I used to be omniscient, but now I'm not so sure"?

 

[Legend]

There's a separate conversation for the omniscience issue, guys. A lot of points about the respect issue have been abandoned and the current discussion is completely unrelated to the OP.

 

[Legend]

If I may address the original topic aside from the omniscience hijack for a moment.

One thing I do think few people grasp is the concept of not making something a personal attack goes both ways to some degree in that it's also the person's holding the opinions responsibility to be able to distance themselves from their opinions on an intellectual and emotional level enough so criticism of the opinion is not seen as a personal attack.

It's not my fault if someone'e sense of self is so wrapped up and dependent upon a certain one of their opinions that they can't separate the two.

I don't have respect for the Christianity or any other religious belief. If I cannot verbalize that in anyway without it being an attack on Christians then I sorta don't really have a chance to not be rude do I?

The genesis of this thread was a conversation I had with someone the other day who had "never met an atheist before" and he was actually "shocked" when I started explaining my position. He wasn't Australian, but I am one, and that sort of allergic reaction to a lack of faith is totally strange to me. A little condescendingly, he told me he's "trying really hard" to respect my position, and that I should try to do the same, at which point I told him it's impossible for me to respect anyone of the opinion that I am deserving of eternal torture. He wanted to quickly move on from the discussion, so I asked him to think about what I'd said. "I can't," he said.