Iain's Perfect God Paradox

[HarryW]

This is primarily for Iain17 so I'll address him if the rest of you don't mind...

Well, I put your ideas to somebody who likes to think about these kinds of things.

The gist of what I suggested was:

If God is perfect, then we as His creations must be exactly as He intended. In this case, our actions are pre-set, and any sins are what He intended.

I think this is pretty close to what your point was, if there's abig difference that isn't covered by their response I'm sure you'll point it out

Their response:

This is an interesting take on the poe. So I'm guessing their arguing "so you could say God sinned". They are starting off with an incorrect theology. There are different approaches to the question "Does God know and do all things". Some have said God does not know and do all things, they are taking the extreme at the other side and saying it is God doing all things. There is the middle knowledge approach that is taken by Ockham and Molina (and William Lane Craig, more recently). God knows all possible 'free choices' of all free creatures in all possible situations and in all possible worlds. He cannot be surprised, but what actual choice gets made is still the creature's actual choice.

Allow me to give an anology that expresses my theology of creation and God's will.

A man (God) puts a child (man) inside a room (garden of eden). The man put's a piece of candy (tree of knowledge of good and evil) in the room. The man knows that if the child it's it he will get sick. -----

This is where theology diverges. The atheists are saying "God made/forced us to eat the fruit...it is God who sinned." which is incorrect. Let us continue:

The man knows that if the child eats the fruit he will get sick (sin enters world) and the man knows the child loves candy and will eat the candy. BUT if the man doesn't give put the candy in the room then the man isn't giving the child free will to do what he wants.-----

If God didn't give us the fruit and the free will to decide for ourselves, then God would have forced us to worship and love him, which is simply wrong. Even though God desperately didn't want us to eat the fruit, if he didn't give us the free will, then it would basically be slavery and we would all be robots.

Yet God knew in advance that since we were going to eat the fruit, he had the "paramedics" on the phone waiting. God knew we would sin (he still allowed us the free choice), and had predestined Jesus to sacrifice himself so that we might be made perfect in God's sight.

CONCLUSION

God does not do all things, he "intended" for us to do good, by creating us in his image, but he gave us the freewill to decide for ourselves, we are making our own decisions.
---------
This is a large issue, I could probably get into a greater detail if needed.

I can't guarantee they got exactly the right impression of what you were proposing, but what they say is thought-provoking nonetheless. I'm not saying this is necessarily my opinion btw.

So, Iain and others, any comments? I'm sure there are one or two of you who won't be able to resist

[Iain17]

All

So I'm guessing their arguing "so you could say God sinned". They are starting off with an incorrect theology

I can’t remember ever saying that, and I am not arguing from that point whatsoever. If God exists then I agree with your friends thinking on the whole free will issue. I believe that God knows what all of the possible outcomes could be, but does not know which one will occur until after the event.

If however you believe in pre-determinism, then yes, God can be blamed for all our sins.


So it looks like I am going to have to clarify my point in light of the free will subject. It basically boils down to the same argument, stated in yet another different light. I will however state the other assumptions that I forgot to mention.

• Assumption 1 : God Exists
• Assumption 2 : God created mankind
• Assumption 3 : God is perfect

God is perfect
Now I am assuming that a completely perfect being can do nothing wrong. Everything this being does is perfect. Everything they create is perfect.

Conclusion
Let us break up the creation called mankind into two separate creations. Our physical body, and our mind (free will). Now seeing that whatever God does must be perfect, each of these creations is perfect. Our body is perfect, and out free will is perfect.

What we choose to do with our free will however is another matter. Our actions and choices will not always be perfect. That is the whole point of free will.

My choices in life my not be seen as perfect, but as a creation I must be perfect in God’s eyes. I have been created exactly as God intended. Just remember that God intended us to have free will. So yet again, I am a perfect imperfect being.


For anyone who wants a good example of single-mindedness, I suggest you browse through these.
Bible Answers
How did they come up with this one? That fox analogy keeps popping up?

[Gen-X]

Harry

Actually I disagree with the reply you received... I think it was very well worded but it also quite nicely directed everything it could overlook the "obsticles" of having to actually answer the question.

Regarding the story of the man and the child.

It wasn't a case of the man "knowing" the child liked candy... it was the case of the man MAKING the child like candy... It was also the case of the man CREATING the child to like candy "enough" to overlook any possible consequences of making a "free choice".

Its like saying someone addicted on heroine has a "free choice" as to whether to take more or not.

With that in mind the entire rebuttal from your friend falls completely to pieces and returns us directly back to our starting point of the fact that God purposely placed within us not just the ability but the "desire" to do sinful things... and placed enough attraction in those things to lure even the most chaste person into committing them (Catholic Priests and boys, Tele Avangelists, etc, etc)

Please give this little morsel to your friends... I would be interested to hear how he can twist this to avoid the question and answer something else that keeps his belief in tact.

[Iain17]

All

While pondering my reply to this new thread last night, i bounced some ideas off my brother. As a sounding board you couldn't ask for more. I just hope he doesn't get involved in the thread, he is very hard to argue against. Anyway, we were discussing logic and its use in philosophy, and he reminded me of a nice use of logic in The Hitch Hikers Guide to The Galaxy.

We couldn't remember which character had this conversation, and it may be slightly wrong, but it is quite funny anyway. Before i start i had better clarify a point for those of you have not read it, or have forgotten what a "Babble Fish" is. It is a small creature that you place in your ear that allows you to understand any language spoken by any race in the universe.

....
[God] I am not going to reveal my existence to anyone.
[Bloke] So no one can prove you exist then.
[God] That's right
[Bloke] What about the babble fish then?
[God] What?
[Bloke] The babble fish is very complicated and it could not possibly have evolved by itself, so it must have taken a God to create it.
[God] So?
[Bloke] So by the babble fishes very existence, your existence is proven. Yet you say you will never reveal that you actually exist to anyone.

It is at this point God disappears in a puff of logic.

On a more serious note. We were also discussing the fact that Man was created in God's image. I was just interested to know if anyone knew if this is a correct translation from Hebrew. I would also like to hear your thoughts on what is meant by the phrase.

[Gen-X]

Harry

You understand very little about drug addiction do you?

Most people get off Heroine either by taking a substitute and weening themselves off (Methadone) or by having other people physically restrain them to stop them from doing it.

Free Will? More like leather restraints

Then again as the person I asked said (well almost), if we were indeed perfect then following His path would be meaningless since it would be more like a coincidence than a choice.

So in other words, without people like me who are NOT walking his path, people like you who ARE walking his path would not be doing anything big?

You don't know what light is unless there is darkness, or heat unless there is cold... Without one there cannot be the other and so God must have created both.

That means God created murder, destruction, abuse, terror, greed, glutony... he CREATED the sins so that the virtues would look as good as they do... because as you said... if everything was perfect then it would be meaningless to be virtuous.

So now we have a God that purposely created destructive forces that rip and tear through our world like plagues, killing and maiming as it goes... all for the purpose of making some religious believers feel the warm and fuzzies that the "virtues" they are supporting have some meaning?

I know I have dramatized it but that is only in the hope of you realising what your comment actually means.

Nobody seemed interested in providing Iain with some ideas/answers

Funny that... People will only argue when they feel they have a case to argue for... then suddenly they disappear when they don't have an answer... as if they don't have the decency to say "I don't have an answer" for fear it may give validity to what is being asked.

*Sigh*... its a pity people think the virtue of honesty only applies to what you DO say... and not to what you refuse to say when you know its true

[HarryW]

If every time somebody read a message on this forum and didn't know the answer it would be full of the same "I don't know" messages. People tend to only post when they feel they have something to contribute or have a point they want to make.

If you're going to tell me that free choice is not involved, tell me that all heroin addicts who give it up do it without their free will. Lets not make this become a point to prove, this is not about drug addiction. (Although I don't expect you to sit down and shut up on the subject, just lets not both start making a big deal out of it)

Please stop telling me about my beliefs. We go over this time and again. You say you are open minded yes? Yet you argue solely from the POV of an atheist. Well I am open minded on this subject too, but I am arguing for the possible existence of God. I do not think that this is a winnable argument, I don't think anyone can prove themselves right, and so I am defending the position which I feel is currently under attack.

Your dark/light thing you said is a bit strange. The way I suggested it, there is choice as to whether you do good or evil, and God wants you to love Him and do good. What He created (yes assuming He exists) was the opportunity to do evil, not the evil itself. That is not making people do evil.

I am sitting here wondering why I have to say this. I am sure if you can come up with some of the things you say that you can think of most of the things I say too. If you do think of them why don't you just post your whole train of thought? That is what a scientific paper author would do, if the writer was truly objective.

[Gen-X]

Harry

If you're going to tell me that free choice is not involved

There is a difference between what you would "like" to do and what you can actually do. Heroin addicts can certainly seek help or to go somewhere they can be helped... but the actual addiction themselves they can rarely if ever stop.

The free will is so overcome with the addition it is non-existant. That is what I am saying about the Garden of Eden... Adam and Eve were given a curious nature, they were told to go and explore.. and then told not to touch one SPECIFIC thing.

I think any human being on the face of the earth in that position would have done exactly the same thing... Which tells me God intended for Man to fail and intended to cast him out.

You say you are open minded yes? Yet you argue solely from the POV of an atheist

Now who is closed minded

If I argue solely from an "athiest" point of view would I constantly use phrasology that implies the existance of a God? Would I use phrases like "Then He would be a sadistic so-and-so"? Read the comment just above your quote.. does that sound Athiestic to you?

I think you are failing to understand I am arguing from a point of reason not a point of atheism. At the moment there is no proof nor evidence that would suggest God's existance but even so I accept the possibility and argue within the framework of that possible existance to ask people to explain why certain things happened (such as this discussion)

If I was talking solely from an Atheists point of view would I even bother constantly bringing up points of where I see the Bible being wrong?

Well I am open minded on this subject too, but I am arguing for the possible existence of God

Yet I can't remember a time when I heard you argue the opposite.

there is choice as to whether you do good or evil

Which is more important? The choice of doing good or evil or actually DOING good or evil?

Some people do what they "think" is good when in fact it is not... so which matters more? The intention or the action?

Was Adam and Eve "evil" for disobeying God? They had never seen nor experienced anything bad in their short existances... so how could they possibly KNOW they were doing evil? Yet they were punished for their actions...

Which suggests that even if you "think" you are doing good, its the end result (which you may not know anything about) that is more important.

So people who accidentally cause the deaths of others are purely evil.

What He created (yes assuming He exists) was the opportunity to do evil, not the evil itself. That is not making people do evil

Nice to see you at least adding the ()

I disagree with your use of the word "opportunity"... that implies that the "ability" to do evil was already in man and God just made the "opportunity".

In fact God actually made not only the opportunity, but also gave man the ability and instilled in him everything from selfishness to greed to lust and everything else...

So he stacked the deck to a point where he made it impossible for poor frail little humans to do anything other than commit these acts of evil.


Here is an example....

I buy a puppy. I love the puppy and I teach it, the puppy grows up and one day it meets a man and the dog wags his tail and greets the man nicely.

OR

I buy a puppy. I instill within the puppy the ability to rip and tear a man to shreds, I teach it anger and how to attack... one day the puppy grows up and it meets a man... The dog tears the man to pieces...

Do I say the Dog had "free will" in choosing whether to use that which it had been told how to do? Or was the Dog simply following that which it knew?

Why is man any different? God taught him how to be greeds and lustful and angry and jealous.. he put all of these things inside of them, made them alluring, made it the "hard" road to do good... and then turns around and says we had "free will" to decide not to do them.


I am really interested to hear how you explain that one away... while being open minded of course

That is what a scientific paper author would do, if the writer was truly objective.

But we are not publishing scientific papers, and while I might be able to see what you are going to say, allowing you to say it and then pointing out its flaws is a way of learning...

If I was to lay it all out in the beginning you would realise what you were going to say (and what you believe) would be full of holes and thus either ignore replying or simply find something else to say... never admitting your original belief had major flaws.

In a sense you could say I am giving you the "free will" to choose the direction you wish to take with the argument without making that decision for you by explaining my entire train of thought from beginning to end

[HarryW]

Hahaha Hmm, I'm not really sure that I believe what you've just said there. (I can only assume you're joking... please be joking)

From now on, please insert your own "(assuming He exists)" string into my posts on this subject wherever you feel appropriate. I have explained my views on this before so I didn't think it was necessary.

Anyway, okay, addressing you points one at a time:

Heroin addicts: I have not undertaken a great deal of research into this kind of thing. It's not a particular area of interest for me. If I'm wrong, I aplogise, but I think free choice is involved in giving it up.

Garden of Eden/forbidden fruit: This has been explained before. Although it was more or less foretold that they would eat it the opportunity had to be there. The free choice to eat it or not also had to be there. What supposedly actually happened was not exactly intended, just expected.

Your beliefs: I am sorry if I got your attitude wrong. Do you have any religious beliefs then? I mean... if you think God doesn't exist, then that would sort of make you an Atheist, sort of. Just not a devout one. A devout one would believe God does not exist, not just think it. You do only argue from an anti-religious (or at least anti-Christian and anti-Hindu) point of view, I have never read a word of acknowledgement of a good point about a pro-religious post from you.

Proof/evidence: I don't think you or anyone is ever going to find any evidence that God exists, unless you have some kind of personal experience in that kind of way. I know that may sound like a point for non-religion, and it is in some ways. The fact that there is no evidence for it does not preclude its truth though. Personally I don't expect to ever see any strong evidence either way.

My arguments: I have not argued for a non-religious point in a big way because I really don't think there is any need. There are already more arguments put forward for the non-existance of God than for His existance, and I feel that it cannot be proved either way. I am therefore looking for errors in the arguments put forward that say they can prove it either way. I have seen only kedaman, a while ago, make a post inferring that there was a proof for the existance of God, and that was swiftly quashed I have actually acknowledged some of the point made against the existance of God. See my earlier post. I have said to Iain "Then again, if you go back to the argument that Man is a reflection of God, that puts a rather different light on it and it's not one I'd consider myself able to comment on with any confidence." That is me not only acknowledging a point he has brought up but suggesting a problem from a Theist point of view. I have also replied to you saying "It is an interesting point about God creating Man to have these desires. That certainly does change things a little." If you cannot see me making any non-Theist comments at all maybe you are not looking hard enough.

Evil intention/evil effect: I am not quite sure why you think you can define whether intention or effect is more important in the eyes of God. I don't think anybody can know. As far as Adam and Eve not knowing of the concept of good/evil goes - I thought that they had been explicitly told not to eat the fruit. If they were too immature to acknowledge this as a reason not to eat it then punishment is a way of teaching somebody what they have done is wrong. Parents do it all the time.

Opportunity/ability for evildoing: Again I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. The whole point, in the above theory, is that Man can both do evil and has a free choice to do that evil. If man did not have the ability, only the opportunity, there would actually be no choice at all. That's like saying "I give you the opportunity to walk across the atlantic ocean".

Gen-X's new puppy, Mini-Gen-X: The dog in either case is following its basic moral structure that you have taught it is what you want it to do. Dogs see their owners as pack leader, and want to make them happy. They are doing what they think will make you happy. As far as the dog is concerned it is doing good either way. What God has done in relation to your example is put those feelings in place, and then gone on to say that's the wrong thing to do. The puppy is quite happy doing what its owner wants. Man on the other hand knows what The Big Guy wants, but has free choice whether or not he complies. It requires effort to do what God wants, that was the point brought forward, otherwise the compliance is valueless. I think that was open minded enough don't you? (I can already hear you saying "NO" )

Back to your last point: You seem to know it all - is it really 42?

[Gen-X]

Harry

Heroin Addicts: You have to love someone who says "I have absolutely no idea whatsoever... but I think X and Y happens". Mmmmm....

Garden of Eden: If God expected something to happen... and God is never wrong, then that means it was ALWAYS going to happen, so there really was never a choice.

Now while you may say "God CAN be wrong" which allows the above to happen, most other religious people won't agree with this and so they therefor hit the problem of no free-will. That is what I talk about it, because they seem to want to have both sides in existance at the same time and don't see the contradictions.

My Beliefs: I believe in truth and in that which is logical, reasonable and common sense, and I argue from THAT side. If the fact all of my arguments have been anti-religious it means that the logic and common sense points to this fact not that I have a predesposed idea of which answer I want to be right.

You yourself said you argue for the side that seems to have the lesser number of contributors and that this is your motivating factor for that "side".... well mine is what I consider evidence (the repeatable kind, not the personal kind).

Proof/Evidence: Oh I think they will and do... but what I don't think will happen is those who believe will ever look with any open-mindedness... Its the Mr No 7 all over again... you can't see what you have been conditioned NOT to see (even if that conditioning is done by yourself)

Evil Intention: Punishments befit the crime... the theft of an apple doesn't result in the eternal banishment of them and every other child they ever bear. Yes God told them not to eat the fruit but he never explained what the outcome would be if they did... That would have been the proper thing to do "No listen Adam & Eve, if you eat the fruit I will banish mankind from the garden of eden for the rest of eternity"... At least then their decision would have been based on that knowledge. Instead God tells them "No" but never explains why and when they do what HE gave them to do, he punished them.

Its like giving a child a fork and telling them not to put it into a power point and then walking away... Of COURSE the child is going to put it into the power point because they were given an instrument to do it with and were told to focus on this thing without any idea of the results.


I really would like you to comment on this bit more than anything else.


Opportunity: Harry, I think you are missing the point. How can it be "free choice" when given different weightings on things? Good is hard to do... Evil is easy. Its easier to destroy than create... Now I understand that doing Good means more because you are taking the harder road but that doesn't mean its free choice... its personal choice but not free choice.

Does an animal use "free choice" to decide whether to eat you or not? Nope... it is hungry and it does what it has been programmed to do. Human's are no different.... we do what we were programmed to do.. and God (If HE exists) programmed us to kill, maim, harm, steal, covet and destroy

What God has done in relation to your example is put those feelings in place, and then gone on to say that's the wrong thing to do

What happens to a dog that is trained to kill and then told its wrong? It is confused... it doesn't know whether its first training was the right one or the second one. Why would a master give the dog an ability if not to use it? isn't that useless? To give someone something and then strictly forbid them to use it?

If a person did that to me I would doubt their intentions in giving it to me in the first place almost as if they MEANT for me to use it... otherwise if they were so strongly against it they wouldn't have given it to me.

Man on the other hand knows what The Big Guy wants, but has free choice whether or not he complies

Do we!?!?!??!?!
We know what the purpetrators of religion tell us the Big Guy wants...we know what those who controlled the texts and have translated and picked pieces out of them in their own fashion want... but we have absolutely no "proof" that this is what is actually wanted.

To bring this back to our puppy scenario that is like the master never making it quite clear whether he exists or not and only other puppies (who want more food) telling us the master wants this not that.

I think that was open minded enough don't you?

Then if you knew I was going to say no why bother

I think you are looking at it from a certain point of view and I can see where you are coming from and understand it... ****, I do more good in my life than 2-3 people put together so I certainly understand the concept of doing something that isn't directly easy and I value the results of doing something that is harder to achieve... but I think if you just credited the "possibility" of this instead of what I feel are your fingers in your ears it could become clearer.

Back to your last point: You seem to know it all - is it really 42?

Actually its 41.23124239235245

God hasn't upgraded from the first Pentium yet

[HarryW]

*Chuckle*

(Don't worry I'll get to the point you put in bold in a sec)

Well, I have to say I think this is just a difference of opinions. You have said that you think I am missong the point. I think you are missing the point too.

If God expected something to happen... and God is never wrong, then that means it was ALWAYS going to happen, so there really was never a choice.

Now this is the basic difference in our views I think. I think this implies choice, you don't. I am extending the view that was presented to me, to say that even though God could not be surprised at what was going to happen, He had to give the choice. This is the bit you have disagreed with, you have said it wasn't a choice because God knew what would happen. I disagree, knowledge is not the critical factor in choice.

Anyway, that over with:

Which bit was the bit that was important to you, before or after your bold comments?

I don't feel I'm at liberty to say what was the just outcome of the Adam & Eve scenario, so I won't.

Now where is your distinction between free choice and 'personal choice' as you call it? It seems you see free choice as a range of options none of which is weighted differently to any others, in which case almost nothing we ever do involves free choice.

I prefer to use what I was thinking of as free choice, which is any situation where there exists a choice which an individual must make.

I don't know what makes you so sure that an animal that eats someone/something is not faced with choice. There are instincts there, and if the animal is hungry then it has no real motivation not to eat its prey, other than personal risk. If it feared what it was considering eating it might well run away - this is probably an instinctive reaction to fear, but I think you can interpret this in some crude way as free choice.

What happens to a dog that is trained to kill and then told its wrong? It is confused... it doesn't know whether its first training was the right one or the second one. Why would a master give the dog an ability if not to use it? isn't that useless? To give someone something and then strictly forbid them to use it?

This goes back to what I have been saying about some kind of concious effort being needed so that you are deliberately following God's path rather than just doing it because you might as well. It's not useless in this case, it's a sort of a test of willpower and devotion. In the dog's case it does what it thinks it's master wants it to do, but if it's been trained to kill it will think that's what is wanted of it. If the dog is aware that this is not what the master wants it will try to please.

May I ask what you see an closed minded in this? It does make assumptions about kanine behaviour and of course God's motives, but it is only a theory, and it's not even my theory. I have no reason to defend it other than the fact that I think your reasons for its dismissal are flawed.

On your comments on heroin - That's not what I said, don't be juvenile. I have had personal experience with drug culture (not in my recent past though) and I would consider myself to have good general knowledge on it. I have not, however, gone into a great deal of detail in the subject of giving up an addiction such as heroin. I am quite aware of the aids such as methadone which can be used to help reduce addiction.

On the subject of your beliefs - you explain how you think you reach your decisions on what your beliefs are, but you have not explicitly stated what they are. From what you have said there, your supposed (not to say it's wrong) common sense and reasoning have led you to believe that there is no God. Is this not so? Or do you just not believe that there is a God? Please be specific.

A lot of your comments display a great cynicism for the religious establishment, which I can perfectly understand. Proof that this establishment stands to gain from the teachings they promote does not, however, prove the non-existance of God.

Please understand that I am not discounting your comments, you make some good points, but I think you concentrate more on finding ways of dismissing the things I say than you do on considering their implications. Considering some of the circumstances it does sometimes seem unlikely that God exists, but that doesn't mean you can say for sure.

[Gen-X]

Harry

I have just one question...

If Man truely had equal ability to choose 2 possible paths... then God would not have been able to see only 1 future. He would have seen 2 futures... one where a man picked the first option and one where he picked the second.

The fact God already knows the entire outcome of all history shows that there never WAS any alternate, no choice... its already set in stone.

I really wish you could see how simple this is... but it does require you to take your hands off of your eyes

[HarryW]

Oh my gosh! Is this really Gen-X? Just one opinion!?

Okay, I really have to say that I think you are being very hypocritical here. I have already explained that this is a difference of opinion yet you cling to your belief for dear life. I quite clearly understand this concept you are underlining, in fact I honestly don't need you to tell me about it - I've thought of it myself. I am not running away from this, I even explicitly dealt with it before anything else in my last post.

This is hypocritical in 2 ways. Firstly, you have accused many many 'believers' of being closed minded, and of saying "if you don't agree you're not really listening." This is basically what you are saying now. Believe me, I am listening to what you say very carefully.

The other way this is hypocritical is that you have, in other threads, heavily opposed the idea of randomness and have basically said you think that the universe is predetermined. In that case, given your idea of what counts as a choice noone ever makes a choice. Is this what you believe? I certainly don't.

The point is (and if you've forgotten it I suggest you read the first paragraph of the reply I received again) that although God knows every possible outcome of every possible choice, the creature is free to make its own choice. You could extend this (as you you have done) to say that God knows the result of every single choice, and the universe is predetermined and, to God, deterministic. This I can understand. Now it is at this point you have said that free choice cannot exist because God knows the outcome. So what? What has what God knows got to do with your choice? To you, you are making a free choice.

Okay so if we now assume God doesn't exist for a minute, and that the universe is predetermined, is there free choice? Does a predetermined universe imply lack of free choice, and a non-predetermined universe imply free choice?

As I have quite clearly stated this is a difference of opinions. If you had taken removed your hands from your eyes while reading that maybe you would understand this simple concept.

Now that I have responded to the direct question in your post, I am going to ask yourself to acquit yourself of further hypocrisy by this time not dodging my questions, something you often complain about. Particularly, where do you feel I was being closed-minded, and what are your beliefs? Please address the questions asked in my previous post, they were more fully explained there.

Thankyou and I hope you have something interesting to say (preferably not "you're a moron", that would be beneath you, wouldn't it?)

[Iain17]

Interesting. I think you both may be right though. I think it is time we actually take into account our concept of God. This i fell is where all our problems are arising.

As has been said countless times before, if God exists, then he probably resides outside of our universe. Now if god lives outside of our universe, then it follows that he is not governed by the physical laws of our universe, ie Time. Now if God is not governed by Time, then Time is just another dimension that God can travel along as he so chooses.

If this is the case, then God can, and does, know all that has happened. This does not take away our free will though. It is just that God can see what we have already chosen, as he can see all that has already happened. This means that we still have the choice, and it is not predetermined, but because God can see all of time, he can see which choice we made.

[HarryW]

Gen-X:

If we go to a microscopic level (quantum level) everything is deterministic, there is no randomness because everything moves as a result of the cause and effect of what it interacts with. There is no "force" that alters its course or changes its original intention... it oscillates in a perfectly explainable way.

Who cares if a billion atomic processes went into my decision to pick Chocolate over Strawberry... to us its random because nobody (not even the person saying it) knew before hand what they were going to say... So this is what we call "random".

Do I believe in free will? Of course I do, I always HAVE!!!!

Right, now first of all, this is your opinion, and I think you should really make that clear. If anybody reads one of the threads on quantum mechanics, they will see that your view on randomness is getting to be outdated. Not necessarily wrong.

Secondly, you have just redefined the word 'random'. You are using it in your own little context here, you have removed it from the realm of objective science and have stuck it into your little subjective point of view. What you call 'random' is not what everyone else calls 'random', in fact you have gone on at length in other posts about the meaning of the word and have said something different.

Thirdly, having established that you believe the universe is predetermined you have said that you believe in free choice. This is immediately after saying that God knowing what would happen makes the world predetermined, so there can be no free choice. How are you managing to confuse yourself in this way? I am beginning to think discussing this with you is a waste of time, you cannot keep saying contradictory things just for the sake of proving yourself right.

What you are failing to see is that if our choice is already known to ANYONE then it wasn't a choice was it? That I didn't know doesn't make a difference because everything that will ever happen is already KNOWN and unchangable.

If God knows the future, and God is never wrong, then the future is already set and if the future is already set then we had no choice in the decisions that were made.

I know you cannot see this (or refuse to see this) but that is the simple fact. Free will means the future is NOT set, it is NOT predetermined and it doesn't exist yet.

This bit in particular is the crux of your statement:

Free will means the future is NOT set, it is NOT predetermined

Now compare that with your belief that the universe is both predetermined and that you have free choice.

Where do you stand Gen-X? What are you trying to say here? Have you just lost your faculties in your attempts to put down a religious theory? Hmm.. maybe the reason you think I don't understand is because nobody could possibly understand how a totally contradictory, half-arsed idea such as this could be true.

Is it really being closed minded to refuse to accept that something as absurd as that is true, given your definition of free choice? Maybe it's just sane minded.

Now, as far as my pointing out that there was a slightly different understanding of the word 'faith' in a religious context, I really don't think I pointed anything out that wasn't pretty bloody obvious already. In fact I'm surprised that with all these bible group studies you tell us you've been to, and all the contact with the church you say you've had, that you didn't pick up on it yourself.

For my next point, when are you going to explicitly say what your beliefs are? Saying 'I believe in the TRUTH' is meaningless unless you say what you think the truth is. Which is it? God exists? God doesn't exist? You don't believe He exists but you don't believe He doesn't? Tell us, we're all dying to hear.

In case you're intending at this point to tell me I'm being closed minded, by your own definition I am open-minded. I used to think that the universe was entirely non-random, but in light of the things I have learnt about quantum mechanics my opinion has chaged.

Now I'm giving you a second (or is it third or fourth or fifth...?) chance to prove yourself not to be a hypocrit, all you have to do is answer the questions: What are your beliefs? How am I being closed-minded?

[Gen-X]

Harry

Go back and read.

"Predetermined" and "Deterministic" are 2 different things.

I have NEVER said it is predetermined, I did indicate that *if* God exists it would HAVE to be predetermined and thus free will wouldn't exist (So the contradiction you think I am making is actually the contradiction I have been saying they are making all along).

You just really aren't seeing it at all... I'm sorry but every time you keep coming back to the same spot and no matter how I re-word it you keep saying the same thing and using the wrong words and being totally confused about what I said and what I mean.

Iain

Perhaps talking with you I can have some reason

I understand you saying that if God is outside of Time it is possible for him to look upon time in its entirety and see it from beginning to end.

The thing I think you may be missing here however is that if time has already happened (ie If God can actually SEE all of time then it has already happened but just not to us yet), then it was "pre-determined" (Harry, don't confuse this with random and determistic) and thus already having been done before we do it we wouldn't have free will would we?

That is like saying :

"I know you will jump up and down on one foot, and even if I told you you would STILL do it because I have seen the immutable future and it says so.... But its still your free choice to do as you like... you just wont do anything but what I said you would"

Can't you see how contradictory that is? I'll write it in code for you

If GodSeesAllTime = True Then
  Universe = "Predetermined"
  FreeWill = True
Else
  Universe = "Unset"
  FreeWill = True
End If

So when is FreeWill = False?

[V(ery) Basic]

Garden of Edenmy interpretation)

Serpent: God's a right bastard. He was just lying about that apple ****. Eat it, it's quite tasty.

Eve: Alright, then. (chomp, chomp, chomp)

Adam: What's that your eating, bebe?

Eve: I belong to me, so don't call me Baby.

Adam: Yeah, whatever. So give us a taste.

Eve: Alright.

Adam: Chomp. Chomp. Chomp

Eve: So how was it?

Adam: Mmmmm. Tasty.

Eve: What's that worm hanging out from your pelvis?

Adam: What's that piece of fur doing on your pelvis?

Eve: Oh. It's my reproductive area. I didn't know I had one.

Adam: Oh. It's my dong. I didn't know I had one

Eve: That's probably because it's so sma...

Adam: Yeah, I'd better get that covered up.

Eve: Why?

Adam: 'Cos I'm the mpst famous man ever. What are people going to think if the see me with a 2" peapod?

Eve: See your point. My breasts aren't that big either.

Adam: Right, so to save our embarrassment, lets cover our self up with some leaves.

Eve: How about this?

Adam: Nah, nettles might sting

Eve: Or this?

Adam: Yeah, a fig leaf's a good idea.

God (taking a leisurely walk): Toodle, toodle do. 'Ello, 'Ello, 'ello. What have we 'ere?

Adam: Hello, Sir.

(God is naked. His dong is tiny as well)

God: Why h-is it that you h-appen to h-ave a f-h-ig leave on your Little Soldier?

Adam: Well it's so small, I'm embarrassed.

God: Small Penises are a gift.

Adam: I would prefer a big one.

God: But then you would be in competetion with me, and we all know that I am perfect.

Adam: Can't you growit a bit.

God: Well, being a Jew, I was circumsized, and if I grew it a bit it might hurt.

Adam: Ah right.

God: And the woman. What's her name again.

Adam: Eve, sir.

God: Oh, yes, Eve.

Eve: What is it, sir?

God: Why have you covered up your rather petty bust?

Eve: Because it's too small.

God: But it only grows big when you have a baby.

Eve: And how would you have a baby?

God: Oh. I haven't explained yet, have I?

Eve: No.

God: Well, you see that worm Adam has on his pelvis.

Adam: Yes?

God: Well you have to try go fit that into a hole under Eve's muff.

Adam: Ah right.

God (blushing): The middle one.

Adam: the middle what?

God: The middle hole.

Adam: Ok.

God: And Adam has to be <ahem> sexually excited <ahem> at the time.

Adam: Yeah, I've had that before.

God: Ok, I'll leave you love birds to it, then.

Adam: Bye!

God: Oh, Adam.

Adam: Yes?

God: You'll need to go to sleep afterwards.

Adam: You're not going to take another rib out again are you?

God: No, no. Don't worry.

God leaves

Adam: Right then, Eve.

Eve: Ok then.

Adam: I'd better get started then.

Eve: You do that, I'll take a quick nap.

Adam: Right.


Time passes.


Eve: Are you ready yet?

Adam: Yep.

Eve: Ok, then let's get this over and done with.

Adam: Uh. Uh. Aah. Uh. Uh. Aah...

Eve: You can shut up. I was more turned on when a sat on a tree.

Adam: Oh yes. Oh yes. Come on. <gurgle gurgle>. Aaaaahh.

Eve: Good. Now we can talk

Adam is already asleep.

Eve: Men.

Time passes again. Adam wakes up.

Adam: So, how was it for you?

Eve: How was what for me?

Adam: That sex?

Eve: What sex?

Adam: The sex we had.

Eve: Oh, that. I don't really remember.

Adam: Ok.

God Enters the garden.

God: I've been watching from that cloud over there.

Adam: So how was I?

God: Eve got more excited when she sat on a tree.

Adam: Oh. Well I'll change my technique next time.

God: What technique did you use this time?

Adam: The ... Adam position.

God: Lame.

God: In fact it was so bad, I never want to see two people have it again.

Eve: Thanks.

Adam: oh.

God: I'll make man work so hard that he'll be too tired to do it. I'll make childbirth painful so women don't want to do it. And I'll make contraception illegal so neither of you will want to do it.

Adam: Bugger.

Eve: Cheers.

God: And I will make the woman a slave to the man.

Eve: Why the hell should you do that?

Adam: Please, listen to what the good man says.

God: Well, if women are in charge of the world, there will be a huge conflict every time they have menustrations.

Eve: Well why the hell do you make us cranky when we have PMT?

God: It's kinda fun.

Eve: You bastard.

God: Well, what's keeping you?

Eve: From what?

God: From leaving.

Eve: Why should we leave?

God: This is private property. Trespassers will be prosecuted.

Adam and Eve: NO.

God gives them a hard stare.

Adam: I'd better go and work in the fields.

Eve: And I'd better cook dinner.




Trust me.

that's how it all began

[Ben.Stappleton]

Nice.

But,

The only way you could know that was what happened would be...

If you were God!

[V(ery) Basic]

Damn. Foiled me.

[HarryW]

*Chuckle* Hehehe

Weeellll, after that short break, back to the big match (although it's getting smaller all the time now; Gen-X is looking beaten and bewildered)

Gen-X:

I do wonder about you sometimes. I have had the definitions of deterministic and predetermined very firmly in mind all along. Let me spell it out for you:

Predetermined: Everything is set out already, whether we know it or not. The future is set. It's like one really really long and detailed novel.

Deterministic: What happens in the universe is predictable ie. we could predict it. There is no randomness because we can predict the results of every event from here to eternity.


If you can't figure out from that that anything that's deterministic is also predetermined (deterministic => predetermined) then you're even dumber than I thought. You have said that the universe is deterministic, which incidentally I strongly disagree with, and by saying that you have also implied that the universe is predetermined.

I took a mental note of what Sam said when the difference was first brought up, because I could see it was going to become one of those petty little things that alter the meaning of a sentence. If at this point you'd like to say you don't think the universe is predetermined, now's your chance.

You just really aren't seeing it at all... I'm sorry but every time you keep coming back to the same spot and no matter how I re-word it you keep saying the same thing and using the wrong words and being totally confused about what I said and what I mean.

I am seeing it quite clearly, I have brought forward the theory 'lent' to me and so far have not heard anything from you that can properly dismiss it. What has happened in this thread so far, apart from the amusing sideshow along the way is Iain has altered his theory in light of it and you have got your knickers in a twist trying to prove it wrong, and only made yourself look foolish in the process. Most people would have said 'fair enough' at some point along there, but you seem to have a big ego problem about admitting where you might have been mistaken.

I think you're confused about what you're saying, the predetermined/deterministic thing is a case in point. If you're going to start floundering around throwing up things like that, which prove nothing except your own misunderstanding of the terms, then I wonder if it's worth listening to your opinion at all. I shall give you the benefit of the doubt however, if only because I find it slightly amusing when you try to turn things around and just fall flat on your face doing it


Anyway, to address the issue you brought up against Iain, I think you're misunderstanding this as well. Iain is suggesting that God has seen it all so he knows what will happen. To God it is the past, present and future all at the same time. If He knows what will happen it's because He's seen it before.

Now, I ask you, looking back into the past, do you now consider that your choices were not free, since they are set in stone?

Iain's suggestion is how I see things actually, although I haven't been able to express it properly. The fact that God knows what will happen does not mean there's no free choice. If we were to assume God exists again, and somebody rolled a fair die, so that the result was entirely random, say affected at a quantum level to be truly random (make this assumption also), would you consider it outside of God's powers to predict the outcome of that roll?

[Iain17]

Actually i think we are all getting confused. I am not saying the universe is predetermined. I was just pointing out that if God can see all time, then he knows what choices were made. We still have the free-will to make the choice in the first place however. A better word for it is Post-Determined, as from where God is viewing it from, the event has already happened.

The real problems arise when we talk about determinism and free-will. If the universe is truly deterministic, then we do not actually have a free-will. It may appear that we are free to make out own choices, but when you get down to the crunch, all our choices are caused by interactions of particles as well. This means that our choices should be able to be determined if we have enough information.

If we started with a new-born baby, and monitored all of its experiences, and knew how the brain worked, would we be able to predict which choice that person would make in any given situation. If our choices are just interactions of particles, then our choices are most likely made on previous experiences.

Now this is where i go off on one, please take the rest of this post as wild speculation. The brain stores all of our experiences somehow, so when we come up against a choice, the brain sends out a signal. Depending on previous experiences and memories, this signal takes a certain route. Depending on the route the signal took a choice is made. This all boils down to interactions between particles. So, do we have free will after all, or are just creatures of physics ?


It seems free will is a ***** after all.

[HarryW]

That's what I meant

I kinda see what you mean. Personally I don't tend to dwell on whether we have free choice or no. I honestly don't think it matters, it will make absolutely no difference to my life either way. As far as I am concerned, my choices are free, whether or not I was always going to make them. Even if I knew what my choices would be in advance, that knowledge would affect the outcome because the factors involved in determining my actions initially would have changed, making the result invalid.

So basically I don't think it matters, and I don't have any kind of problem with the universe being predetermined if it is. Or post-determined

[Gen-X]

Harry

Harry, harry, harry...


If those are your definitions for predtermined and deterministic then I can fully understand why you are so utterly and compeltely confused.

Is english your first language???


Predetermined
Can be determined IN ADVANCE (Hence the word pre).

Deterministic
Has the possibility of being determined.

Now both of them have the word "determine" in them, which means "To decide or settle (a dispute, for example) conclusively and authoritatively".

In General the additive of "pre" indicates that the effect in question can apply before the event which causes it, while the additive of the "ic" at the end indicates that the item in question lends itself to the concept of the word it is appended to.


When you have taken a few weeks to let this sink in and get your definitions straight, come back and we can start talking on a level playing field.

[HarryW]

Don't patronise me, I know what the words mean, I even looked them up in a dictionary to make sure. You can make generalisations about what the prefixes and suffixes mean if you want but that won't affect what the words actually mean. Deterministic means that you can determine the outcome. Predetermined means that the outcome is set and unavoidable. These are the meanings and you can try to deny them but you will always be wrong. If you don't believe me then look in a dictionary yourself, I am sure you will find that deterministic => predetermined, the only thing I am confused about is why you can't understand the meanings of these simple words.

I expect it will take you a couple of weeks to think of some way of ignoring anything I've said and just picking holes and twisting something I've said to make it sound wrong, that's all you've done so far. If you don't have anything valuable to say don't say anything. Better to be silent and appear a fool than open your mouth and prove it.

[Gen-X]

No that is NOT what the words mean Harry!!!!

And I will patronise you for as long as you keep f*#king the definitions up

Deterministic means that you can determine the outcome

No, No, NO!!!

It means the outcome is determinable and NOT that it CAN be determined. There is a gigantic difference.

If I got a supercomputer that produced an encryption key that nobody could "determine"... does that mean it is not deterministic because you can't determine the outcome????

Of course not... Get it straight

Predetermined means that the outcome is set and unavoidable

No, No, and double NO!!!

That is SO WRONG!!!!

It certainly is NOT unavoidable and it definately is NOT set. In fact the world contradicts completely what you just defined it as.

If I "predetermine" my car is about to hit another one, I can swerve and change the future. The whole point of "predetermined" means I can determine something before the event occurs. Its only this concept of "God" who sits back and does NOTHING that makes it set and unavoidable.

These are the meanings and you can try to deny them but you will always be wrong

I have looked in the dictionary and it spells it out clear and loud... Of course there is a correlation (=> this is a CORRELATION not a direct EQUALS) because they both use the word "determine" and one CAN lead to the other.

But they are by no means the same.


I really wish you would open your eyes Harry.... you seem to so focused on just sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring this its almost funny. They even discussed the difference in a post previously but obviously you missed this one as well.

[HarryW]

=> is the mathematical symbol for 'implies', I thought you had some experience with maths?

Okay, so I will accept that there is a possibility that I am wrong. Would you care to provide a link back to the thread in which the terms were defined so that I can check?