A What If Scenario: If America Became A Theocracy - Page 3

Dumpy Dooby · 10-02-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Yes. Now can YOU tell me how they are incompatible. I could post books on here about how great theologians give reasons why they work with each other. But that doesn't matter. I'm asking what you think about it, and I will respond with what I think about it.

That IS what I think of it. wtf?

Since you seem to be against bullets and numbers, I'll just quote myself not using bullets and numbers:

Simply put ... if God knows it will happen, then it is not a prediction, it is knowledge, and there is most certainly no free will. However, the opposition attempts to resolve this by asserting that God knows everything that can be known. That is, if something has not happened yet, then God does not know it. This would, of course, be incompatible with a perfect being, however, since it would be putting a time constraint on the being's knowledge. A constraint or limitation of any sort would be a type of conceptual imperfection. Henceforth, God's knowledge must be timeless if God is supposed to be perfect.

I say there is "most certainly no free will" because it's absolutely impossible to do something besides what God already knows will happen. God is the only one with the power to change the future, and by not doing so, he is controlling my life. You might say, "Just because he knows which path you will take, it doesn't mean he's making you take that path," but that's wrong. That's exactly what he's doing. I am constrained to do only the things that God already knows I will do. Hence, I am only acting in accordance to God's knowledge.

That's pretty much what I said before ... but I guess little round circles and sequential numbers can be frightening or whatever.

lew · 10-02-2006, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That IS what I think of it. wtf?

sigh

Can you please explain to me how God knowing the future is at odds with free will?

God knowing the outcome doesn't mean that He influenced the outcome.

Dumpy Dooby · 10-02-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by lew

sigh

Can you please explain to me how God knowing the future is at odds with free will?

God knowing the outcome doesn't mean that He influenced the outcome.

Check my edit.

Also, read this:
A What If Scenario: If America Became A Theocracy

I explain EXACTLY what you're asking. I don't know what else to tell you big guy.

lew · 10-02-2006, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Check my edit.

Also, read this:
A What If Scenario: If America Became A Theocracy

I explain EXACTLY what you're asking. I don't know what else to tell you big guy.

quoted by you: "if God knows it will happen, then it is not a prediction, it is knowledge, and there is most certainly no free will."

You're assuming that's true, but it's not. I want to know why you think that is a factual statement.

motivez · 10-02-2006, 04:46 PM

I think if you already know the outcome of something, there's no way for a person to change their actions to change that outcome

Unless your knowledge of that outcome changes and somehow updates instantly with every new action that is taken.

lew · 10-02-2006, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I think if you already know the outcome of something, there's no way for a person to change their actions to change that outcome

Unless your knowledge of that outcome changes and somehow updates instantly with every new action that is taken.

So let's say there is no God. Let's say that we continue to evolve technologically. Most scientists have agreed that time is the 4th dimension, and that, like the other 3, one can move foward and reverse in it. So, if time travel becomes possible sometime in the future, and I can travel into your future and see what you did, that invalidates free will?

motivez · 10-02-2006, 04:49 PM

Depends whether or not that future still exists if I make a decision that's different than the one in the future timeline you've visited.

If we're essentially playing out a 'script' that's already been 'written', then yes.

lew · 10-02-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Depends whether or not that future still exists if I make a decision that's different than the one in the future timeline you've visited.

If we're essentially playing out a 'script' that's already been 'written', then yes.

How?

If you choose to eat at Burger King tommorow, then you chose to do that. If I went through time to tommorow and saw you ate there, then I would know the choice you will make. It doesn't do away with the choice. You still had a choice. I just knew what you were going to pick. That doesn't do away with free will.

Dumpy Dooby · 10-02-2006, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by lew

So let's say there is no God. Let's say that we continue to evolve technologically. Most scientists have agreed that time is the 4th dimension, and that, like the other 3, one can move foward and reverse in it. So, if time travel becomes possible sometime in the future, and I can travel into your future and see what you did, that invalidates free will?

Science also says that time is a physical process and can therefore be altered. So it sounds like you just might be making vacuous implications.

motivez · 10-02-2006, 04:54 PM

It's different if it's God because he would have created us -- knowing all of these things.

lew · 10-02-2006, 04:59 PM

Why is it different?

Diamond Cross · 10-02-2006, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Maybe he should have said rational thought, since it applies better and is more specific.

Not neccessarily, because Some Christians can be very rational about their religion and doctrine. These are called teleological arguments which dates back at least to St Augustine in the 12t5h century c.e.

An example of this kind of rational thinking goes li8ke this:

Beauty can only be created on purpose, never randomly

A better example of these kinds of arguments xan be read in the writings of John Locke. For example, John Lock was and influence on American politics, and one of his arguments is that religion has no place in government for it is not up to government to government salvation. His exact words are:

First, because the care of souls is not committed to the civil magistrate, any more than to other men. It is not committed unto him, I say, by God; because it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one man over another as to compel anyone to his religion. Nor can any such power be vested in the magistrate by the consent of the people, because no man can so far abandon the care of his own salvation as blindly to leave to the choice of any other, whether prince or subject, to prescribe to him what faith or worship he shall embrace. For no man can, if he would, conform his faith to the dictates of another.

All the life and power of true religion consist in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith without believing. Whatever profession we make, to whatever outward worship we conform, if we are not fully satisfied in our own mind that the one is true and the other well pleasing unto God, such profession and such practice, far from being any furtherance, are indeed great obstacles to our salvation. For in this manner, instead of expiating other sins by the exercise of religion, I say, in offering thus unto God Almighty such a worship as we esteem to be displeasing unto Him, we add unto the number of our other sins those also of hypocrisy and contempt of His Divine Majesty.

‑‑In the second place, the care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because his power consists only in outward force; but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is the nature of the understanding, that it cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force. Confiscation of estate, imprisonment, torments, nothing of that nature can have any such efficacy as to make men change the inward judgement that they have framed of things.

From:

A LETTER CONCERNING TOLERATION

by John Locke

1689
Link:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke-t/locke_toleration.html

Ther modern equivalent is Intelligent Design, which is nothing more thn an argument of logic based on the logic of the First Cause.

Dumpy Dooby · 10-02-2006, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Ther modern equivalent is Intelligent Design, which is nothing more thn an argument of logic based on the logic of the First Cause.

What the fuck?!

Intelligent Design has nothing to do with the Cosmological Argument.

Diamond Cross · 10-02-2006, 08:40 PM

I didn't say it did, I said it was the modern equivalent of a teleological argument.

I've never heard of the cosmological argument.

SICKGUY · 10-02-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

And what are you basing your common sense, morals and manners on ? Society ? Your personal beliefs ?

dont lie, cheat, steal, kill. treat others the way you want to be treated, never say things out of anger, and try to help out your fellow man if ever given the opportunity, and are able. pretty simple.

i wasnt raised with any sort of religion growing up, so these are basic rules that arent hard to figure out.

lew · 10-02-2006, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

dont lie, cheat, steal, kill. treat others the way you want to be treated, never say things out of anger, and try to help out your fellow man if ever given the opportunity, and are able. pretty simple.

i wasnt raised with any sort of religion growing up, so these are basic rules that arent hard to figure out.

All of that is summed up in the Golden Rule, which is what Jesus advocated. So, yeah, you have no more higher or moral ground than we.

Dumpy Dooby · 10-02-2006, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I didn't say it did, I said it was the modern equivalent of a teleological argument.

I've never heard of the cosmological argument.

You said, "...argument of logic based on the logic of the First Cause."

The Cosmological Argument is the "logic of the First Cause." Just Google it.

Dumpy Dooby · 10-02-2006, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by lew

All of that is summed up in the Golden Rule, which is what Jesus advocated. So, yeah, you have no more higher or moral ground than we.

Moses also advocated the Golden Rule long before Jesus. So did Confucious.

That's irrelevent, though, since the Golden Rule is evolutionary. Non-religious people tend (since I know I'm going to be crucifide for this) to have the moral high-ground because they assume greater responsibility for their actions, rather than passing it on to God or fate or whatever.

Diamond Cross · 10-03-2006, 12:53 AM

Then Intelligent Design is very similar to the cosmological argument:

Every effect has a cause(s).
Nothing can cause itself.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.

And Intelligent Design is highly similar because it deals with the complexity of life, and that complexity of life can not just randomly appear and is too complex to have developed without a creator.

Therefore my argument stands correct since there cannot be an Intelligent Design without the first cause.