Topic has more than 25 posts. Pages: First 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Last

Barrett 385 posts 05-11-03 03:12 Reply	Ok i'll make an example if you're not smart enough to understand what "choice" is. Right now I'm looking at a CD and a floppy disc. I can pick either one. I have a choice. I pick the CD. God knew i would pick the CD but he did not have to force me to do it. he knew that I would pick it on my own free will.
Nigrud J 48 posts 05-11-03 03:19 Reply	As I have already stated, I did not make up my own definitions. I looked them up in online dictionaries, and cited which websites I used. If you don't beleive my, go to the online dictionaries yourself.
Barrett 385 posts 05-11-03 03:41 Reply	"Free will/agency is the opposite of determinism. This means that by definition, if free will/agency exist, the future is not determined, and therefore God is not omniscient." No, it's not the opposite of determinism. It did not say that in the dictionary. Free will is the opposite of whatever word means "being forced". Determined means "decided" in this context. God did not determine the future. We are currently determining it - which sounds weird, but you have to understand how incredibly powerful God is. Being able to see the future and knowing what will happen does not mean that anyone is forcing it to happen, even though it will happen - The present will play its course into the future based on our own choices. The reason it is THE future is because it WILL happen.
Barrett 385 posts 05-11-03 03:47 Reply	"free will - freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention (m-w.com)." determined in this context means "i'm telling you it will be this way". Not the same. "free agency - the capacity or power of choosing or acting freely, or without necessity or constraint upon the will (dictionary.com). " yep. "determinism - a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws (m-w.com)." yep. notice how many times the word 'or' comes up in there. You're mixing up the context, and in fact, you're using one context when you say "it has been determined that this will happen based on God's knowledge (and NOT power or will)" and then you're switching the definition to mean "it has been determined by God that this will happen, and he is forcing it to occur" You're changing the meaning of a word within your argument.
Nigrud J 48 posts 05-11-03 03:51 Reply	"There is only one possible future in God's mind. We do not know the future, so whatever we choose right now will shape it. God only knows the future because he knows how we will shape it." If each choice shapes the future, the future is not determined until the moment of choice, so god would not be able to know the future. If there is only one possible future, the future is predetermined. Our lack of knowledge of the future results in the illusion of free will, not free will. Look at the definitions of determine and free will/agency again. "I can pick either one." If it is predetermined that you will "pick" the CD, you may think about "picking" the floppy disk, but you will ultimately "pick" the CD. It is impossible for you to pick the floppy disk because doing so would be contrary to what is predetermined. If "choices" are predetermined, "free will/agency" is an illusion and does not exist. Each "choice" is like a function in that it returns one output for each input. This means it is impossible for a particular input to produce a different output, so there is only one option and therefore no choice.
Barrett 385 posts 05-11-03 04:14 Reply	"If each choice shapes the future, the future is not determined until the moment of choice, so god would not be able to know the future. If there is only one possible future, the future is predetermined. Our lack of knowledge of the future results in the illusion of free will, not free will. Look at the definitions of determine and free will/agency again." In God's mind, yes, that is right. But are we God? NO, so it doesn't matter whether or not he knows what we will CHOOSE. again, you are underestimating God's power. As far as WE are concerned, there are many possible futures. God is the only one who knows how we will shape it. ""I can pick either one." If it is predetermined that you will "pick" the CD, you may think about "picking" the floppy disk, but you will ultimately "pick" the CD. It is impossible for you to pick the floppy disk because doing so would be contrary to what is predetermined. " The only reason God was able to predetermine that I would pick the CD is because he knows me. He knows how I pick and choose. If my personality would pick the floppy, then he would have known beforehand anyway. I am not being forced to pick anything. God does not force us to pick, he just knows that we will. It is no illusion, we are the ones choosing. "If "choices" are predetermined, "free will/agency" is an illusion and does not exist. Each "choice" is like a function in that it returns one output for each input. This means it is impossible for a particular input to produce a different output, so there is only one option and therefore no choice." Look, i know you think you're smart. I understand exactly what you're saying, but you're still not thinking about it completely. I don't know how to explain this to you any better. It is not an illusion of choice. It is my choice. The choice I eventually make is what God will forsee. I will try to sum it up for you right here, and please think about it open-mindedly. (i understand the only reason you asked "do we have free agency" and "is god omiscient" is because you thought you were so smart for the argument - so you are unlikely to change your mind). God knows all of us. He knows us so well that he knows what decisions we will make. He knows what decisions WE will make. If he put us in a room, he would know exactly what would happen. He doesn't have to force anyone to act a certain way to make that happen. And that's all that's required for free-agency. No one forces anyone else to do anything. It's not an illusion of choice. Look at the method God used to figure out what would happen. He looked at each person, who he knows inside and out, and thought "hmmmm.... this kid has a temper, he will get mad" (obviously more complicated than that). It was still the kid's choice to get mad, even when the time came. He's the one who thought about it, and eventually chose to get mad. Again, this is not back to the future, there is 1 past, 1 present, and 1 future. God can see the future. It's that simple. Let me say type this sentence a few times to get it through your small brain: The reason God knows the future is because he knows what WE will CHOOSE. The reason God knows the future is because he knows what WE will CHOOSE. The reason God knows the future is because he knows what WE will CHOOSE. The reason God knows the future is because he knows what WE will CHOOSE. The reason God knows the future is because he knows what WE will CHOOSE. The reason God knows the future is because he knows what WE will CHOOSE. The reason God knows the future is because he knows what WE will CHOOSE. The reason God knows the future is because he knows what WE will CHOOSE. The reason God knows the future is because he knows what WE will CHOOSE. Choice is all that's required for free agency. Just because God knows what we will choose does not mean it's an illusion. It's a real choice. AND HOW FREAKIN' OLD ARE YOU?
Nigrud J 48 posts 05-11-03 05:02 Reply	"No, it's not the opposite of determinism. It did not say that in the dictionary. Free will is the opposite of whatever word means "being forced". Determined means "decided" in this context. God did not determine the future. We are currently determining it - which sounds weird, but you have to understand how incredibly powerful God is." In a dictionary I use that is not online, Webster's New World Dictionary, free will is defined as: 1 freedom of decision or of choice between alternatives 2 a) the freedom of the will to choose a course of action without external coercion but in accordance with the ideals or moral outlook of the individual b) the doctrine that people have such freedom (opposed to DETERMINISM) Coercion is the act of coercing, which WNWD defines as: 1 to restrain or constrain by force, esp. by legal authority; curb 2 to force or compel, as by threats, to do something 3 to bring about by using force; enforce Free will is without coercion, which is force, so free will the opposite of determinism. Free will requires the future to be uncertain, which means not determined. Decided is not the most exact word with which to equate determine in this context. More accurate words would be fix or define, which do not connote a choice. "You're mixing up the context, and in fact, you're using one context when you say "it has been determined that this will happen based on God's knowledge (and NOT power or will)" and then you're switching the definition to mean "it has been determined by God that this will happen, and he is forcing it to occur"" I was using logic of the form if A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C. The primary flaw I see in your argument is that one option is not a choice. Only being able to "choose" one option is a necessary choice and a constraint on the will, so it contradicts free agency. How is one option a "real choice"? I posted my age accurately earlier, but not in Earth-years.
Barrett 385 posts 05-11-03 05:26 Reply	WE HAVE MANY CHOICES. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU? WE ARE NOT FORCED TO DO ANYTHING, THEREFORE WE HAVE THE CHOICE. JUST BECAUSE GOD KNOWS WHAT WE WILL CHOOSE DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ARE FORCED TO CHOOSE IT. "Free will is without coercion, which is force, so free will the opposite of determinism. Free will requires the future to be uncertain, which means not determined. " HOW DO YOU ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT FREE WILL REQUIRES THE FUTURE TO BE UNCERTAIN? YOU FREAKING WENT FROM FORCE TO KNOWLEDGE THERE. YOU ARE SWITCHING YOUR DEFINITION OF DETERMINED WHENEVER YOU SEE FIT. UNCERTAINTY IS NOT THE OPPOSITE OF FORCE. IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF KNOWLEDGE, WHICH GOD HAS - AND THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF DETERMINED THAT I AM USING TO DESCRIBE HOW GOD KNOWS THE FUTURE. YOU CONTINUALLY CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF WORDS, YOU MAKE UP YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS FOR OTHER WORDS, AND YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND GOD BUT YOU THINK YOU DO. STOP BEING AN IDIOT AND THINK ABOUT THE CONCEPTS, NOT THE WORDS YOU'RE MAKING UP. I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN: GOD KNOWS THE FUTURE BECAUSE HE KNOWS HOW WE WILL CHOOSE IT. WE, CHOOSE - MAIN WORDS. HE KNOWS HOW WE WILL CHOOSE. JUST BECAUSE HE KNOWS DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE FORCED TO CHOOSE, we just will.
Barrett 385 posts 05-11-03 06:26 Reply	ok, i'll try to do this with a series of very simple questions. Is it possible for GOD to know someone so well that he can even predict how they will choose? yes. Does having God predict this effect the chooser while he/she is choosing? no. So as far as we are concerned, him knowing has zero effect on our opportunity to choose our own choices? yes. So what you're saying is that in an alternate reality where God didn't know the future, it would be identical, but in this case it's just an illusion? yes, that's what you're saying. - but your entire argument - that "it's just an illusion of choice" WOULDN'T MATTER ANYWAY. You must be 13 years old maximum because you just don't seem to understand reality. Even dexter agrees with me about the time machine example (which, by the way, you tried to counter but failed miserably because you seem to assume that if someone travels into the future twice, 2 different things might happen - which is obviously wrong because it's THE future, what happens happens, this isn't a movie). Dexter, of all people agrees with me here, and you are so full of yourself because you think you're smart that you won't think about what's going on here. Don't you think it's amazing that i knew what you were going to argue BEFORE you argued it? Obviously my level of thinking is beyond yours if i understood your "argument" before you made it. Free agency is the ability to choose. Period. Stop making up your own definitions for words when you know you're wrong. If you're trying to tell me that you're forced to choose, then I think you're an idiot. And if you try to tell me that if God knew you would choose a certain way that you would be forced to go that way, then i also think you're an idiot. How can you be forced to choose? it's an oxymoron, moron.
AcDecMan 111 posts 05-11-03 06:52 Reply	"THEN DON'T SAY THE WORD JUST GENIUS." What the hell kind of sentence is that? And also, I can't be wrong, and I told you how I can;t be wrong, so how the hell am I changing my argument "because I am wrong" if I wasn't wrong and I wasn't changing my argument? It's called USING RESOURCES. You kept telling me that god wasn't a spectator, but who says he wasn't? And then when you said that I merely meant ONLY that god was a spectator, and I answered to that by saying I started the whole argument, then how the hell does that make me wrong? Am I wrong in that I didn't start the whole "spectator" idea. I don't think so. So how am I wrong. If you do not answer that, I will throw out a few hundred "you are a moron" and "how old are you" and "I can think better than you" comments.
Mark 276 posts 05-11-03 15:18 Reply	Barrett: Please try to control yourself when responding to the posts of others. They may not agree with you, but it's generally accepted to listen and respond kindly to their posts. In general, I would like to ask for the name "God" to be capitolized. We are using a name. If we were debating things about an alien named "Bob", we'd capitolize the "B". This is a small matter, but consider that it might seem offensive to others.
Barrett 385 posts 05-11-03 17:41 Reply	"Except, I take my belief a little further and say, IF, and only IF god did exist and he is a spectator...then such does not affect my life and decisions and he is hence as good as nonexistent to me." In other words, acdecman, you said he is JUST a spectator because it does not effect your life. How is that not what you meant? "Just a spectator" means he does not interract at all. You are changing your argument.
Barrett 385 posts 05-11-03 17:47 Reply	Mark, I'm a little upset because Nigrud is using 2 or 3 DIFFERENT denotations of the word "determine" while trying to say that they have the same meaning. Determine can mean "i looked at the evidence and determined that eventually, on its own, it will blow up". It can also mean "I looked at what needs to be done, and I have determined that I want you to do this, you to do this, and this needs to happen". What God knows about the future is similar to the first definition. He didn't say "this needs to happen", he said "this is going to happen because people are going to choose this path". He's not forcing anyone to choose, so why does it matter if he knows already?
AcDecMan 111 posts 05-11-03 19:57 Reply	"Except, I take my belief a little further and say, IF, and only IF god did exist and he is a spectator...then such does not affect my life and decisions and he is hence as good as nonexistent to me." umm...there was a part in there that said "IF" god is a spectator, I NEVER said god was "JUST a spectator". And also, I said "I take my belief a little further"...such does not oppose you in any way because it is MY belief. I wasn't arguing with you, I was making a statement. So NO, I haven't changed my argument, if I wasn't even arguing with you.
AcDecMan 111 posts 05-11-03 20:00 Reply	Mark: No, I am not going to capitalize god. If that offends you, then I am sorry you can be so strongly afflicted by something so little THAT ANOTHER PERSON DOES. If you are going to take careful not of the ENTIRE FORUM, I CAN SHOW YOU VARIOUS EXAMPLES OF THE DISREGARD I HAVE OF YOUR GOD. And you bug people for not captalizing god...
Mark 276 posts 05-11-03 21:15 Reply	I didn't mean for anyone to take personal offense at my asking for God to be capitolized. I'm sorry that you did. I simply meant to point out that it was gramatically correct. Of course, you don't seem to be too worried about that.
Barrett 385 posts 05-11-03 23:22 Reply	let's break your sentence down, shall we? "Except, I take my belief a little further and say, IF, and only IF god did exist and he is a spectator" IF God exists and IF he is a spectator. "...then such does not affect my life and decisions and he is hence as good as nonexistent to me." then he does not affect my life or my decisions so he is as good as nonexistant to me. that last part, IF he is a spectator then he does not effect my life means that your only definition of spectator is only a spectator. but fine, we'll pretend that you meant "a spectator who also helps out here and there" - then nigrud is the only one who doesn't agree.
Xathien 1255 posts 05-12-03 18:46 Reply	My mom knows that I'm going to school today. Because she knows this, I have no free will (well, I don't actually, but let's just keep this in context). She knows that I will not do the dishes when I get home. This means I have no choice but to not do the dishes. Well, since my mom is omnicient, I have no free will. Tell me, does this make any sense whatsoever? Didn't think so.
Mark 276 posts 05-13-03 00:47 Reply	There's a slight problem. I'm fairly sure your mom is NOT omniscient, which basically means "all-knowing". She doesn't know everything. You can't say, "My mom KNOWS I'll go to school today," because she doesn't KNOW that you'll go to school today. She simply believes that you will. There's a major difference. God KNOWS what we will do.
Dexter345 677 posts 05-13-03 00:53 Reply	I think you guys need to give this a rest. We've all heard both sides of the argument, and it's obvious that you just don't agree with each others' opinions. That's all it is. And Barrett, stop asking people what their ages are. It's just as immature to do that. -Dexter345-
Barrett 385 posts 05-13-03 01:33 Reply	it makes a difference dexter. if i'm trying to explain something to a 14 year old i'll use smaller words than if i'm trying to explain something to a 30 year old. and mark, i realize there is a difference, but the point of his comment was this: she knows he won't do the dishes, and he won't do them anyway, so she doesn't have to force anyone to not do any dishes. God does not force us, that's all that is required for free agency.
AcDecMan 111 posts 05-13-03 22:27 Reply	Well, that is a good point about the age thing, but I say that if you do not understand what a quixotically pestiferious exasperation is and how Hamlet turns into such from the eyes of Polonius, then do not argue with me.
Barrett 385 posts 05-13-03 22:32 Reply	fine, you spelled pestiferous wrong.
Xathien 1255 posts 05-14-03 03:00 Reply	God loves me. :)
Dexter345 677 posts 05-14-03 03:34 Reply	If God loved me then he would have ended this thread by now. -Dexter345- P.S. Don't reply to this; it's meant only for comic relief.

Forum :: Religion