What was before God? (or, Why did He wait so long?)

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

02-21-2006, 07:28 PM
Ryduce

I just don't understand why all you people feel so compelled to prove that there is no God.Some people need thier faith because that's all they have.If faith is not a neccessity to you,then you should just leave it at that.Because your not going to enlighten anyone with information that is ultimately irrelevant.People will believe what they want,thus this entire discussion is impertinent and insignificant.There are no answers,and I don't need any,nor do you.Because I have faith,and you don't.That's all this discussion will ever be.
02-21-2006, 07:58 PM
Xamonas Chegwe

Oh, but I do have faith, Ryduce. I have faith in many things. It's just that none of them are gods.

The true difference is that I question my faiths; I constantly question them. I believe, as did Socrates, that the unexamined life is not worth living. I prefer to be awake, rather than slumber on, hoping for some vague promise of a better life to come. I prefer to look for my better world here; in this world.

Am I wrong to hope to share that vision? Or, at the very least, to show others that it is there to be seen, should they wish to look?

Those of religious belief are to be free to prosyletise and evangelise, I suppose; while we rationalists and atheists must zip our mouths? That is not my opinion.

When the faithful can happily wallow in their beliefs, without pressing them on others, I will do likewise. Until that day, my friend, I consider it my duty to show the world that there is another point of view. While one poor benighted soul stands in a shopping mall, bible, qu'ran, or baghavad gita in hand, preaching to the uncaring, I will preach back.

We both have a right to our beliefs; and we both have a right to expound them.
02-21-2006, 08:30 PM
emily655321

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

Those of religious belief are to be free to prosyletise and evangelise, I suppose; while we rationalists and atheists must zip our mouths?

In the real world, perhaps this is an issue worth taking up. Evangelizing for either side is against the Forum rules, though. :)
I think it's possible that we heretics have done a bit more than our share of that.
02-21-2006, 09:17 PM
jon1jt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Unless you have something constructive to offer to the ongoing arguments, please don't post. Using cliche, 'put down' remarks do nothing in the way of moving the argument forward.

You're right Scheherazade, what was I thinking -- I'll think long and hard about the ideas above and hopefully contribute to this "ongoing argument" as you have. Sorry about that.
02-21-2006, 09:26 PM
Scheherazade

jon1jt,

My post was not to participate in the discussion but to remind certain things as a Moderator. If you have any issues with the way I moderate, please feel free to PM me.

Oh, by the way, your apology has been accepted!

:p
02-21-2006, 09:31 PM
jon1jt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

Oh, but I do have faith, Ryduce. I have faith in many things. It's just that none of them are gods.

The true difference is that I question my faiths; I constantly question them. I believe, as did Socrates, that the unexamined life is not worth living. I prefer to be awake, rather than slumber on, hoping for some vague promise of a better life to come. I prefer to look for my better world here; in this world.

Am I wrong to hope to share that vision? Or, at the very least, to show others that it is there to be seen, should they wish to look?

Those of religious belief are to be free to prosyletise and evangelise, I suppose; while we rationalists and atheists must zip our mouths? That is not my opinion.

When the faithful can happily wallow in their beliefs, without pressing them on others, I will do likewise. Until that day, my friend, I consider it my duty to show the world that there is another point of view. While one poor benighted soul stands in a shopping mall, bible, qu'ran, or baghavad gita in hand, preaching to the uncaring, I will preach back.

We both have a right to our beliefs; and we both have a right to expound them.

This is THE most profound statement here.. It reads like poetry, full of all that's life-sustaining and -affirming, the hope to fight these Titans of Truth and Justice and to do so without a book in hand, but with humility - a socratic understanding - that we don't know it all. Thanks for the refreshing remark, wrested between the folds of the self-righteous and pious, to which it reacts like a thunderclap. :banana:
02-21-2006, 11:57 PM
Amra

Quote:

Amra,

If god is unknowable, as you repeatedly say, how do you know that he is neither male, female nor neuter? How do you know that he doesn't influence our choices? How, indeed, can you claim to know anything at all about this god?

1. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;

2. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;

3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;

4. And there is none like unto Him. (Surah 112)

This surah in the holy Qur'an is considered worth 1/3 of the Qur'an, because it contains the most important message, namely that God is ONE, that no one is equal to Him, and that nothing is like Him. Besides, as God calls himself in Qur'an with the noun Allah, we gather that He doesn't assign Himself a gender, because the noun Allah doesn't have a gender. Everything I said about Allah s.v.t is based on the revelation He gave to Prophet Mohammed a.s. However, you are right that we should be careful about making any claims about God, since we really can never know Him, except through those things He revealed about Himself in the Qur'an.

Quote:

"Probably wouldn't"? In many islamic countries, preaching christian religion to muslims is punishable, let alone preaching atheism. I think you are guilty of portraying shariah law as a little more tolerant than it actually is.

There is no country in the world today that is implementing shariah law. What we have are muslim countries that mostly live under dictatorships, who implement very perverted versions of Islamic law, and that only in certain circumstances. If you want to look into shariah law more deeply, you would have to go back in history a couple of hundred years ago to see what a true shariah ruled society looks like.

Quote:

And I can quite openly 'preach communism' in my democratic society thank you. I wouldn't, but that is because I find it as flawed and ultimately ridiculous as any other dogmatic philosophy, islam included.

I guess it depends how you would define "quite openly". Why do you suppose those who preach communism openly do not get any media coverage in the USA? How can it be that we don't see any communists offering their point of view on Fox News? Or claiming that democracy as such is not fulfilling the needs of the working class, and communism could do that? Could you form a party and promote communism as the better alternative to democracy? Could I form a party and promote shariah law as the best alternative to democracy? I think not. Democracy is tolerant only then when there is no real threat. Every right is relative, and can be given or taken away depending on the interests of the ruling party. I guess, I should stop here since we are not allowed to discuss politics, but I am sure you get my point.

Quote:

The true difference is that I question my faiths; I constantly question them. I believe, as did Socrates, that the unexamined life is not worth living. I prefer to be awake, rather than slumber on, hoping for some vague promise of a better life to come. I prefer to look for my better world here; in this world

Why do you think that others don't question their faiths? I mean, most of the people I know were not born muslims, and even if they were born muslims, they didn't practice it. So, most of them chose to practice it after they have evaluated other teachings and ideas, believing Islam to be the right choice for them. I have been born into an atheist family living under communism, and I have become a muslim through my own questioning of different ideas and beliefs. No one can force you to accept an idea, and simply because you defend an idea and believe it to be true at this point, doesn't necessarily mean that it was always like that. Mostly, you go through the stage of questioning it before you accept it. However, once you accept it, the need of questioning it all the time decreases, because you have done most of the research before you accepted that idea.
02-22-2006, 01:49 AM
Sami

Xamonas, I thought your last post was very well written and I respect the view you’re expressing.

I wonder though if you’re being completely sincere since I think you probably accept that some things aren’t fully amenable to the type of logical or rational explanations that you seem to be pressing for. Personally I do believe in God even though I cannot justify this belief to you in terms that would qualify by the standards of Socratic argument. The more important thing is that even if you were able to show me why my belief is illogical, this probably wouldn’t change my mind on this issue; I’d continue to believe in any case even if atheism could be demonstrated as the rational option.

Does this mean that I am simply dogmatic, or maybe a bit stupid? Possibly it does. However, I happen to think that there are some things that, despite failing by the bar of reason will continue to be important precisely because they cannot be fully explained or justified. Isn’t it part of the definition of faith that it cannot be proved? I would also perhaps put hope in this category – it continues even in circumstances where all reasonable factors point to the contrary conclusion.

If a fully “examined life” means that all aspects of belief and thought are to be exposed to continual interrogation and rational examination then I would tend to think this could also be inflexible and dogmatic, as well as being a very partial view of life. I think you probably already know this in any case, so I am not sure what it is that you are trying to get the religiously minded participants of this discussion to admit? Is it that you see yourself as the forum “gadfly”?
02-22-2006, 03:01 AM
The Unnamable

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

It is illogical simply because you claim so? That's not an argument; it is simply an opinion.

If I say that “All poets are blonde. Mary is blonde so she must be a gardener,” is that logical? If it is or isn’t, is it just my opinion or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

You need to differentiate certain simple concepts before you make an argument. God is either influencing you, or He is not. He is either influencing your free will, or not. It can't be both.

What if I say that my God is not limited to such logic and that for Him it can be both? My God is beyond human comprehension and can simultaneously influence and not influence. It makes argument a little difficult, doesn’t it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Simply by knowing the future, He is not influencing it in any way. You didn't answer my question regarding this knowledge of future.

I did. I pointed out that I am not a God so I can have no knowledge of the future. Had I created the universe and everything in it, including ‘future history’, then I would not only be influencing people’s choices but defining what is and isn’t possible. Your statement “Simply by knowing the future, He is not influencing it in any way,” is not an argument – merely a repeated opinion. Explain to me, in rational/logical terms how God can know the future if people are free to deviate from it. This is a question you have failed to answer. How can I pick up the other pen? If I can, God is not God: if I can’t, I have no free will. Telling me that God knows my free will avoids the issue by creating a dimension beyond the human and rational. I see a contradiction within the two positions outlined and no one has yet explained how this can be resolved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

If you could know the future and would be able to see everything that will happen, do you at the same time have the ability to change it? Does your knowledge of the future affect it in any way? Are the people around you going to act differently simply because you have seen the future?

Why are you asking me this? I’m not God. I am not omniscient and omnipotent, so the analogy is irrelevant. If I were, I assume that I would have the ability to change it. However, for the sake of argument, I’ll play along for a moment. Person X is driving along and comes to a fork in the road. Road A leads to a safe route and road B leads to a sheer drop from a cliff. If I know (in the way that God knows) that the driver will take road B and die, then nothing he or she does will make any difference to that outcome. He or she might think he or she has free will but the outcome is unavoidable. In this sense I am not only influencing the future but also setting it in stone. Also, you suggest that having knowledge of the future does not mean that we can influence it. Are you saying that God does not have the ability to influence things? I thought He was omnipotent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

However, you confuse predestination with knowledge.

It’s not that I confuse predestination with knowledge but that I believe knowledge of the future is indistinguishable from predestination and certainly incompatible with the idea of individual free will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Our free will is not affected by His knowledge. He simply KNOWS what will happen,

Again, you simply restate the same opinion. As I said, in the final analysis, you resort to the claim that your God is beyond human rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

because He is not limited by time. He looks at the past, and the present, and the future as one, not seperate entities. I can see that this may be confusing to you, but if you try to seperate influence from knowledge, you will understand it.

Yes, difficult concepts always confuse me, which is why I don’t mind being patronised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

He KNOWS the future, we create it. Whatever choices in our lives we make, are because of our free will. God simply knows the future, and hence, knows our decisions.

This is the crux. If God knows the future, in what sense can we be said to be free to create it? We cannot do anything that is inconsistent with that future. All decisions we make cannot alter anything. I presume that God knew my actions and decisions before I was even born. A whole lifetime of history precedes me and when I come along, nothing I do will change it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Because they are not alike. God and humans are not alike, therefore, the comparison cannot be between equals.

Exactly, so what use is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Well, they can only be irreconcilable if there is influence. If there is no influence, then they can coexist without any problems. You need to decide whether or not He influences our free will or not. If He doesn't, then tell me why free will and omniscience are irreconcilable?

Okay, I don’t believe in any God so he/she/it exerts no explicit influence over me because he/she/it doesn’t exist. However, if there is an omniscient being that knows the future, I, as an individual, cannot do anything about that future because it’s already decided. It’s not that I see God as standing on the sidelines, urging me to do what I might or might not have decided to do anyway. It’s simply that if the future is written in stone then I can have no free will to change it. Surely that highlights why the two concepts are irreconcilable?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Because we have been taught by the society to use He for God, even though nothing in Islam suggests that. As I stated before, it is an unfortunate linguistic limitation. To avoid that as much as possible, we use Allah s.v.t to refer to God, because that noun doesn't have a gender, or pluarility.

Although I think the question of why “we have been taught by the society to use He for God” is revealing and worth considering, I won’t do so here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

The idea of the original sin is not known in Islam. Human beings are born sinless. People do not die because of sin. They die because death is just another part of life. It doesn't happen because of sin, nor does sin influence it. Those who die as children enter paradise without being questioned, because they are considered sinless.

Now we move into a different realm – I am no longer concerned with the philosophical aspects but the moral ones. I want justice and fairness in the here and now, not in some unproven, supernatural other world where everything is lovely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

There is no compulsion into the religion. You can practice whatever you like. However, as it is in every society, certain things would be regulated to allow the possibility of life among different people of different beliefs. For example, if you would live in an islamic country, based on shariah, you probably wouldn't be allowed to openly preach about atheism, just like you are not openely allowed to preach about communism in a democratic society.

Firstly, I’m from the UK, a supposedly democratic country. There is no law against openly preaching communism. I believe this is true for most democracies. Secondly, you say that I can practise whatever faith I like but that certain ideas would not be tolerated. I can’t practise what I choose then, can I?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

If you consider that intolerance, then that is your right, but every society is intolerant in some way to certain groups.

So a bit of good old intolerance is okay then and justified on the basis that intolerance is everywhere? I know that intolerance is everywhere – which is why I think those beliefs need challenging. I can only say that I am glad that I do not live in a society that enshrines its religious dogma in law.
02-22-2006, 03:03 AM
The Unnamable

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryduce

I just don't understand why all you people feel so compelled to prove that there is no God.Some people need thier faith because that's all they have.If faith is not a neccessity to you,then you should just leave it at that.Because your not going to enlighten anyone with information that is ultimately irrelevant.People will believe what they want,thus this entire discussion is impertinent and insignificant.There are no answers,and I don't need any,nor do you.Because I have faith,and you don't.That's all this discussion will ever be.

While I understand your frustration with having heartfelt beliefs challenged, I disagree that it’s irrelevant to question those beliefs. I am not trying to take away your faith, I am simply explaining my views. Given that a great many of our laws have some basis in the teachings of various faiths, it matters what those beliefs are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Ryduce”

Because your not going to enlighten anyone with information that is ultimately irrelevant.People will believe what they want,thus this entire discussion is impertinent and insignificant.

Isn’t this what Cardinal Bellarmine said to Galileo?

Quote:

Because I have faith,and you don't.That's all this discussion will ever be.

To an extent, this is true. However, I am offering reasoned argument and explanations for why I think the way I do. If you choose to ignore these, then perhaps that is why the discussion goes no further.
02-22-2006, 03:07 AM
jon1jt

TO SAMI:
That's why I think it's a waste of time for we atheists and you bible-wielding types to engage in a serious dialogue; it's just not possible. We athiests have an acute sensitivity to the rhythms of nature, to what's here, to what's accessible, which is vastly limited. I think it was Whitehead who said one of the fundamental problems of life is that our creator just didn't give us enough information. We atheists acknowledge a shut-off valve, humility, when our mind has gone full-circle, where the analytical needle hits Zero, the Nothing, God, the One; we choose not to be pulled down the drain by biblical hyperbole and metaphysical illusion to substantiate that which is unavailable, and accept having a "very partial view of life" because we live in a 3-dimensional world. Reason recognizes those limits and accepts it. That is the great and joyous gift of "Being There" (Da-sein). Heidegger rightly said the gods of history have retreated, the modern age has done "violence to metaphysics," the chains are off, and while we sway over the infinite abyss, we hear an echo, those mystic rhthyms Socrates once heard and for which he followed his speculative mind to the height of the Sun and where he allowed it to rain down on us. This was the light of Reason. You say we're dogmatic? Surely ye jest. Faith is as empty a concept as the Old/New Testaments and Koran.

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton ushered in a new science that sought material and efficient causes and deemed irrelevant Aristotle's formal and final causes (i.e. purpose). You bible types ascended to a fourth dimension, from a perspective that today speaks down to Galileo, Newton, and the rest of us, because you are the universal voice, you are god incarnate, who speaks down and comes down to chastise those who are endlessly searching, wondering. We accept our own mortality; we accept tragedy (begrudgingly so); we call on no god for recompense, we suffer, and somehow conjure meaning from the absurd; we are Sissyphus; we don't discriminate, we "live free, love free, court destruction with taunts..." We invite change, divergent lifestyles - from the moral to the profane; you cast aspersions against the Will to life (amor fate!); we jump into the eye of the storm and dance to earthy incantations; we accept human beings with all their imperfections; we are, above all, discoverers and not followers.

You say, "Where all reasonable factors point to the contrary conclusion," we say, however seductive the pull of this notion, we wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and ask, "I wonder if its true."
__________________
02-22-2006, 03:14 AM
The Unnamable

Xamonas, you carry on being a gadfly. As soon as anyone on this forum asks awkward or probing questions, there is a chorus of disapproval activated. Liberal sentiment takes over and thinking is marginalized. Thank God the writers we are supposedly on here to discuss didn’t take the same anaemic approach. I am not threatened by thought and often find your posts interesting and provocative. They make me think and/or laugh – either one is fine by me, although some of your humour does need to be a bit funnier. :brow:
02-22-2006, 10:00 AM
Amra

.

Quote:

It’s not that I confuse predestination with knowledge but that I believe knowledge of the future is indistinguishable from predestination and certainly incompatible with the idea of individual free wil

This is where we differ, and because we start of from different postulates, we are not going to go anywhere with this discussion. So, I'll leave it at this, because I can't reconcile the idea that mere knowledge of the future is indistinguishable from predestination, and that it somehow has an affect on free will, whereas you don't have a problem with that.

Quote:

Firstly, I’m from the UK, a supposedly democratic country. There is no law against openly preaching communism. I believe this is true for most democracies. Secondly, you say that I can practise whatever faith I like but that certain ideas would not be tolerated. I can’t practise what I choose then, can I?

Practice and preaching is different. You can practice whatever you like, but preaching it openly to the public would certainly be regulated in a way it is in every society. There may not be a law against communism per se, but let's say we redefine communism to mean terrorism, as we can so easily do nowdays, and all of a sudden we have no problems not tolerating that idea anymore? Funny, how democracy works to protect itself from any possible threat. What if someone came with the idea to abolish democracy and started preaching against it? What if someone formed a party that calls for an shariah based law in the UK? How do you think your tolerant UK country would react?

Quote:

So a bit of good old intolerance is okay then and justified on the basis that intolerance is everywhere? I know that intolerance is everywhere – which is why I think those beliefs need challenging. I can only say that I am glad that I do not live in a society that enshrines its religious dogma in law.

WEll, intolerance is a very relative and subjective phenomena. Perceived intolerance is what I was referring to, and not actual, because we would have to have an objective standard if we wanted to decide upon an objective (in)tolerance level. Since we don't have that, every society would be PERCEIVED as intolerant by one or the other group, and it is impossible to get away from that. Who on Earth can set a law that would satisfy everyone? For example, every society that doesn't implement shariah law is intolerant in my eyes, whereas you will certainly think otherwise. Do you think that this can every be reconciled? Certainly not.
02-22-2006, 10:20 AM
Sami

Just to clarify: I was not trying to suggest that we ought not to question faith or belief. Faith could be opposed to reasoned argument, and historically and politically speaking religious faith has, of course, been used as a means to suppress debate. However, I don’t think that this necessarily has to be the case, and the point I was trying to make is that a commitment to non-belief could also become dogmatic if this meant that we were always required to provide a rational account of ourselves. Is such an account always possible?

I have really struggled with the question of atheism, but tend towards the conclusion that it would be very dishonest of me not to admit that I do have faith in God. An atheist might rationally convince me that this is incorrect, but I don’t happen to think that we always live according to the rules of reasoned discourse. For me, this is what makes life interesting, surprising and basically worthwhile.

I suspect that Xamonas knows this since he too claims to have faith. I also think he knows that Socrates might agree with the idea that reasoned knowledge has limits (didn’t Socrates have “hopes” about death despite the fact that he could not possess any certainty about the afterlife?)

Unnameable: I tend to think of the free speech and open debate that you seem to favour as very liberal assertions, so I am not sure that it’s a liberal “chorus of disapproval” that worries you?

Jon1jt: Your post contains a lot of assumptions. In particular you seem to assume that faith is always closed to debate and, once again, for me this is not necessarily the case. If I did not wish to debate with you, then I would not have posted my view. I am sorry that you think it’s a “waste of time” to discuss matters with people who believe in God. I wish you every success in finding a more interesting and constructive way of passing the day. Also, is someone who believes in God necessarily a “Bible type”?
02-22-2006, 10:36 AM
The Unnamable

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amra

This is where we differ, and because we start of from different postulates, we are not going to go anywhere with this discussion. So, I'll leave it at this, because I can't reconcile the idea that mere knowledge of the future is indistinguishable from predestination, and that it somehow has an affect on free will, whereas you don't have a problem with that.

I’m happy with that but I would like to point out that you are being disingenuous. My whole argument does not rely on the fact that I see predestination and knowledge of the future as the same thing. I gave perfectly adequate examples of how free will and knowledge of the future are irreconcilable. You have simply ignored them, citing the above as your reason for so doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amra

Practice and preaching is different. You can practice whatever you like, but preaching it openly to the public would certainly be regulated in a way it is in every society.

I was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain when I was a callow youth. I used to preach my beliefs. I wasn’t once arrested, nor was I the victim of a Press smear campaign.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amra

There may not be a law against communism per se, but let's say we redefine communism to mean terrorism,

What kind of argument is that?! Let’s say we redefine Stamp Collecting as Terrorism and see what happens?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amra

as we can so easily do nowdays, and all of a sudden we have no problems not tolerating that idea anymore?

I think you’ll find that it’s easier to redefine some activities as terrorism than others. It usually involves large numbers of innocent dead people. I never once killed anyone when I was a member of the Communist Party, nor do I remember any of my fellow members doing so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amra

Funny, how democracy works to protect itself from any possible threat.

You find it funny; I find it reassuring. Democracy, for all its faults, is my culture and I want to preserve it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amra

What if someone came with the idea to abolish democracy and started preaching against it?

I would not have a problem with that. I believe in free speech.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amra

What if someone formed a party that calls for an shariah based law in the UK? How do you think your tolerant UK country would react?

I don’t know but I hope it would argue as strongly as possible against it. I know I would. I don’t wish to live under shariah law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amra

WEll, intolerance is a very relative and subjective phenomena. Perceived intolerance is what I was referring to, and not actual, because we would have to have an objective standard if we wanted to decide upon an objective (in)tolerance level. Since we don't have that, every society would be PERCEIVED as intolerant by one or the other group, and it is impossible to get away from that. Who on Earth can set a law that would satisfy everyone? For example, every society that doesn't implement shariah law is intolerant in my eyes, whereas you will certainly think otherwise. Do you think that this can every be reconciled? Certainly not.

I agree, which is why I would never live in a country that implemented shariah law. I will promote and defend my values and western style democracy will allow me to do this (within limits, of course). The same would not be true if I lived under shariah law.
02-22-2006, 10:54 AM
The Unnamable

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sami

Unnameable: I tend to think of the free speech and open debate that you seem to favour as very liberal assertions, so I am not sure that it’s a liberal “chorus of disapproval” that worries you?

I don't understand your point.

My interest in the contradiction I mentioned comes from Milton’s Paradise Lost. It bothered Milton sufficiently for him to consider it at length throughout his works. Here is a passage from Paradise Lost, Book 3 (‘his’ in the first line refers to Satan)

For man will hearken to his glozing lies,
And easily transgress the sole command,
Sole pledge of his obedience: So will fall
He and his faithless progeny: Whose fault?
Whose but his own? ingrate, he had of me
All he could have; I made him just and right,
Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.
Such I created all the ethereal Powers
And Spirits, both them who stood, and them who fail'd;
Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell.
Not free, what proof could they have given sincere
Of true allegiance, constant faith or love,
Where only what they needs must do appear'd,
Not what they would? what praise could they receive?
What pleasure I from such obedience paid,
When will and reason (reason also is choice)
Useless and vain, of freedom both despoil'd,
Made passive both, had serv'd necessity,
Not me? they therefore, as to right belong'd,
So were created, nor can justly accuse
Their Maker, or their making, or their fate,
As if predestination over-rul'd
Their will dispos'd by absolute decree
Or high foreknowledge they themselves decreed
Their own revolt, not I; if I foreknew,
Foreknowledge had no influence on their fault,
Which had no less proved certain unforeknown.
So without least impulse or shadow of fate,
Or aught by me immutably foreseen,
They trespass, authors to themselves in all
Both what they judge, and what they choose; for so
I form'd them free: and free they must remain,
Till they enthrall themselves; I else must change
Their nature, and revoke the high decree
Unchangeable, eternal, which ordain'd
Their freedom: they themselves ordain'd their fall.
The first sort by their own suggestion fell,
Self-tempted, self-deprav'd: Man falls, deceiv'd
By the other first: Man therefore shall find grace,
The other none: In mercy and justice both,
Through Heaven and Earth, so shall my glory excel;
But Mercy, first and last, shall brightest shine.

God uses the same sophistry that has been offered here. Milton also discusses the problem of free will and censorship in Areopagitica. He has to offer some comment on the problem and, fabulous though his verse is, its power to persuade rests more on that than on rational thought. The fact that Milton has felt it necessary to address the issue is itself significant.

The emboldened type is an example of where Milton’s epigrammatic terseness serves to persuade us by rhetorical rather than logical means.
02-22-2006, 11:37 AM
rachel

what was before God?(or,why did He wait so long?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Not if God is a She. ;)

oh go ahead and make fun! Say you don't write material for the comedians at Yuk Yuks in your spare time now do you? :D
02-22-2006, 11:54 AM
rachel

what was before God? (or, why did He wait so long?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Xamonas, you carry on being a gadfly. As soon as anyone on this forum asks awkward or probing questions, there is a chorus of disapproval activated. Liberal sentiment takes over and thinking is marginalized. Thank God the writers we are supposedly on here to discuss didn’t take the same anaemic approach. I am not threatened by thought and often find your posts interesting and provocative. They make me think and/or laugh – either one is fine by me, although some of your humour does need to be a bit funnier. :brow:

I am a little, just a little shocked that you said this dear Unnameable, but at any rate since you are a teacher and since I don't get the opportunity to be in you class and learn, I at least looked up good old gadfly in the online dictionary. When visiting the farm of course I know what one is , but i never thought about the use any other way(you know how simple I am and yet you are kind to me.....very telling wouldn't you say?)
At any rate I hope by calling XC a gadfly you were referring to the second meaning. I really hope that is what you meant. Or I shall defend him to the death. And you will see Mary as you have never seen her before.! :D
02-22-2006, 11:54 AM
Sami

Quote:

I don't understand your point.

That’s completely understandable :) I probably shouldn’t be posting on this topic since I am all too aware that I am muddled on these questions.

I think what I was trying to say about free speech was that your concern with religious views limiting debate seems to be an anti-liberal position to me. The chorus of disapproval that you mentioned did not seem to be motivated by a “liberal sentiment”, but by less tolerant positions that reject the possibility of debate and plurality.

I know next to nothing about Milton so it is interesting to read your post – thanks! I think that the relationship between logical argument on the one hand, and rhetorical persuasion on the other, is a very difficult one. Is there necessarily always going to be a tension between the two sides, or as you put it, a “contradiction”?
02-22-2006, 12:12 PM
Amra

..

:D

Quote:

I’m happy with that but I would like to point out that you are being disingenuous. My whole argument does not rely on the fact that I see predestination and knowledge of the future as the same thing. I gave perfectly adequate examples of how free will and knowledge of the future are irreconcilable. You have simply ignored them, citing the above as your reason for so doing.

Well, you cannot argue that it is not one and the same thing, because then you don't have an argument to support the idea that free will and knowledge of the future are irreconcilable. They can only be irreconcilable if there is predestination, or influence from God, or both, since they can be seen as one and the same thing. Since you have expressed your opinion that none of those are present, I don't know what your argument is then based on. (?)
It can go three ways:

1. Knowledge of future and free will are irrencilable because there is predestination.

2. Knowledge of future and free will are irreconcilable because there is influence from God.

3. Knowledge of future and free will are irreconcilable because knowledge of future is indistinguishable from predestination, and predestination implies influence, which implies no free will.

4. you can add something, if I have missed it....

I can even make an argument on this..
1. Knowledge of future is predestination.
2. Predestination means influence.
3. Influence implies no free will.
4. Free will and knowledge of future are irreconcilable.

:) However, if you don't accept the first two premises, I dare you to make a logical argument to support your theory.

Quote:

I was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain when I was a callow youth. I used to preach my beliefs. I wasn’t once arrested, nor was I the victim of a Press smear campaign.

I stated that preaching to the public openly about a belief that is fundamentally different from the constitution of the country would be regulated, as it is in every society. Your one example doesn't not prove anything because there are million of others that I could state to offer another perspective. I mean, this subject is very broad, and we can go into it if you'd like, but I thought it was a very general statement that you would agree on without going into it deeper. Your own experience of something is not enough to disprove my statement, so we can't really take it into consideration. My point was that every society will regulate things that it perceives as a threat in one way or the other. I mean, it makes me wonder why Noam Chomsky, for example, does not get ANY media coverage in the USA. I have NEVER seen him giving an interview on Fox News, and in his books he claims that his views are purposefully cenzored because they do not agree with the mainstream (if you want to call it that) views. Would that be considered censorship? Why is the Austrian historian sentenced to three years in prison for denying the Holocaust? Why don't we have a free access to Al-Jazeera in the USA? Why did the USA bomb the Al-Jazeera headquarters in Qatar? Cenzorship? And so on... I should stop... ;)

Quote:

I would not have a problem with that. I believe in free speech

The issue here is not what YOU would think, but what the society as whole would tolerate.

Quote:

I agree, which is why I would never live in a country that implemented shariah law. I will promote and defend my values and western style democracy will allow me to do this (within limits, of course). The same would not be true if I lived under shariah law.

Well, that goes only in as much your values are in line with democratic values. If they would be different from that, democracy would cenzor and supress them.

Let's restate your above statement from my perspective...

I will promote and defend the values of shariah law(my values) and Islam will allow me to do this. The same would not be true if I lived under democracy. :D

Quote:

What kind of argument is that?! Let’s say we redefine Stamp Collecting as Terrorism and see what happens?

You didn't get my point. I merely stated the way society is able to justify its own actions by redefining things. It is hard to talk about this subject on this forum because we are not allowed to talk about current politics, but Big Brother and Patriot Act are to me one and the same; in principle that is. Simply by giving a certain name to an idea doesn't necessarily change that idea, but it does affect how people look at it. Isn't it interesting that both Big Brother and Patriot Act carry such names, targeting your emotions? Why wasn't the Patriot Act called Allowed Spying Act? Would that change the essence of the law? NO. But it surely changes how people look at it. Attacking a free, sovereign country is certainly not democratic, nor can it be supported by ANY international law, but if we call the country a terrorist country and its leader a dictator, that would surely justify our actions. Create an evil and a threat, and our actions will appear democratic. Every society can do that, and then the question of tolerance and justice comes to mind. It is easy to be tolerant and just when there is no real opposition, but every society has its own interests that it will harbor and protect in ways that it can. To say that one is more tolerant than another is simply not true. They just mask their intolerance in different ways.
02-22-2006, 01:44 PM
The Unnamable

Quote:

Originally Posted by rachel

I am a little, just a little shocked that you said this dear Unnameable, but at any rate since you are a teacher and since I don't get the opportunity to be in you class and learn, I at least looked up good old gadfly in the online dictionary. When visiting the farm of course I know what one is , but i never thought about the use any other way(you know how simple I am and yet you are kind to me.....very telling wouldn't you say?)
At any rate I hope by calling XC a gadfly you were referring to the second meaning. I really hope that is what you meant. Or I shall defend him to the death. And you will see Mary as you have never seen her before.! :D

I don’t think I’d like that but before you summon up some wrath for me, please note that I was using the word ‘gadfly’ because Sami had used it of XC. I don’t consider XC a gadfly (it’s far too Shakespearean a word for someone so humble) and was offering my support for the boy.

As for ‘very telling’ ….you are still seeing those incredible sunsets, aren’t you, Mary? :D
02-22-2006, 01:48 PM
The Unnamable

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sami

I think what I was trying to say about free speech was that your concern with religious views limiting debate seems to be an anti-liberal position to me. The chorus of disapproval that you mentioned did not seem to be motivated by a “liberal sentiment”, but by less tolerant positions that reject the possibility of debate and plurality.

To be honest, that didn’t help much. Perhaps I should say that the ‘chorus of disapproval’ did not refer to anyone of a religious disposition. I meant those who complain that certain views are challenged when they should be respected. ‘Liberal sentiment’ was used in a pejorative sense - from Goethe’s remark that liberals have no ideas, they only have sentiments.
02-22-2006, 02:04 PM
The Unnamable

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Well, you cannot argue that it is not one and the same thing, because then you don't have an argument to support the idea that free will and knowledge of the future are irreconcilable.

They differ somewhat but my point was simply that it amounts to the same thing. If the future already exists in God’s perception then all I can do is act it out. I’m not bothered whether or not this can be termed ‘predestination’ – I’m not interested in the label, just the contradiction. Again, I ask you, how can we be said to be free agents if we can do nothing that will change what is already decided? I don’t even care who decided it (although, in the strictest sense, it must be God.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

They can only be irreconcilable if there is predestination, or influence from God, or both, since they can be seen as one and the same thing. Since you have expressed your opinion that none of those are present, I don't know what your argument is then based on. (?)

None of those is present to me because I have no faith.
Would anything exist without God? - No
Is God omnipotent and omniscient? - Yes
So everything that ever has been or ever shall be must have emanated from God. God created it all. He knows what will happen to me next week and nothing I do can change that. That limits my freedom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

It can go three ways:

1. Knowledge of future and free will are irrencilable because there is predestination.

2. Knowledge of future and free will are irreconcilable because there is influence from God.

3. Knowledge of future and free will are irreconcilable because knowledge of future is indistinguishable from predestination, and predestination implies influence, which implies no free will.

4. you can add something, if I have missed it....

4. Knowledge of the future and free will are irreconcilable because if the future already exists in God’s mind, no human subject can deviate from that path.
According to your views, I have already made every decision of my entire life. It’s like a movie playing out frame by frame, a movie that God has directed or at least seen. Are movie characters endowed with free will?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

I stated that preaching to the public openly about a belief that is fundamentally different from the constitution of the country would be regulated, as it is in every society.

I disagree. Not everything will. Besides, ‘regulated’ is a nice cuddly word and much nicer than the words that could be used legitimately to describe what happens in some countries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Your one example doesn't not prove anything

Of course it doesn’t. I was being facetious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

My point was that every society will regulate things that it perceives as a threat in one way or the other.

Of course it does and I am in favour of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

I mean, it makes me wonder why Noam Chomsky, for example, does not get ANY media coverage in the USA. I have NEVER seen him giving an interview on Fox News, and in his books he claims that his views are purposefully cenzored because they do not agree with the mainstream (if you want to call it that) views. Would that be considered censorship? Why don't we have a free access to Al-Jazeera in the USA? Why did the USA bomb the Al-Jazeera headquarters in Qatar? Cenzorship? And so on... I should stop...

Does Chomsky appear much on Al-Jazeera, then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

The issue here is not what YOU would think, but what the society as whole would tolerate.

I can only speak for myself, sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Well, that goes only in as much your values are in line with democratic values. If they would be different from that, democracy would cenzor and supress them.

I believe it’s a matter of degree. I simply do not accept that Western democracy is no less repressive than the kind of ideologies you endorse. I know where I will be tolerated most and I’m not even female.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Let's restate your above statement from my perspective...

I will promote and defend the values of shariah law(my values) and Islam will allow me to do this. The same would not be true if I lived under democracy.

I totally agree – and my solution to the problem is to live in a democracy. If I wanted to embrace other values, I would live in a country that promotes them. As a white, heterosexual, able-bodied male, I appear to belong to the only group who are not allowed to celebrate their culture in these wonderful times of rich cultural diversity. I was shocked to see that the Luge event at The Winter Olympics contained no members of the Tamil community, and that Aztecs were under-represented in The Grand National. Time for another Royal Commission.

Actually, I am an ex-pat but I don’t expect my host country to change its culture to accommodate my values. If the country in which I am living implements shariah law, I will leave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

You didn't get my point.

I did, which is why I said “I think you’ll find that it’s easier to redefine some activities as terrorism than others.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

I merely stated the way society is able to justify its own actions by redefining things. It is hard to talk about this subject on this forum because we are not allowed to talk about current politics, but Big Brother and Patriot Act are to me one and the same; in principle that is. Simply by giving a certain name to an idea doesn't necessarily change that idea, but it does affect how people look at it. Isn't it interesting that both Big Brother and Patriot Act carry such names, targeting your emotions? Why wasn't the Patriot Act called Allowed Spying Act?

To a degree, I can sympathise with your points (see the ‘Language as Power’ thread). However, I still choose western democracy with all its flaws over Islam and its (for me, far greater) flaws.
02-22-2006, 02:14 PM
Xamonas Chegwe

I think I stirred something up here. It's just taken me the best part of an hour to read the new posts in this thread - and that's just in the last 18 hours. There's far too much to respond to all the points. I'll just nip back in and post when I think of something.

But if 'gadfly' is too Shakespearean, what of 'Puck'? ;)
02-22-2006, 02:24 PM
Sami

I think I am causing more confusion than anything else here...

About the “gadfly” – I used this because XC mentioned the “Examined Life” from Plato’s “Apology”. In this text Socrates refers to himself as the “gadfly” on the noble horse of Athens. I wasn’t trying to insult anyone – honest!
02-22-2006, 02:24 PM
Xamonas Chegwe

Quote:

Originally Posted by amra

I mean, it makes me wonder why Noam Chomsky, for example, does not get ANY media coverage in the USA.

Quote:

Noam Chomsky has received many honorary degrees from the most prestigious universities around the world, including the following: University of London, University of Chicago, Loyola University of Chicago, Swarthmore College, Delhi University, Bard College, University of Massachusetts, University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown University, Amherst College, Cambridge University, University of Buenos Aires, McGill University, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Columbia University, University of Connecticut, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, University of Western Ontario, University of Toronto, Harvard University, University of Calcutta, and Universidad Nacional De Colombia. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Science. In addition, he is a member of other professional and learned societies in the United States and abroad, and is a recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association, the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award, the Ben Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and others. He is twice winner of The Orwell Award, granted by The National Council of Teachers of English for "Distinguished Contributions to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language."

A lot of American universities in that list - he can't be that heavily censored.
02-22-2006, 02:27 PM
Xamonas Chegwe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sami

I think I am causing more confusion than anything else here...

About the “gadfly” – I used this because XC mentioned the “Examined Life” from Plato’s “Apology”. In this text Socrates refers to himself as the “gadfly” on the noble horse of Athens. I wasn’t trying to insult anyone – honest!

I am extremely humbled to be compared to Socrates. I took it as a complement anyway; I will take it as a far greater one now. (bows)
02-22-2006, 02:40 PM
Sami

Dear oh dear…I wasn’t actually drawing the comparison myself. I was asking whether you were aiming to perform a Socratic role in the forum. I take it that you do? Do you really feel flattered to be thought of as a Socrates character? He was a pretty annoying bloke really – I’m sure you’re far nicer than he was. Plus, he came to a bad end you know.
02-22-2006, 02:54 PM
Whifflingpin

Amra: My point was that every society will regulate things that it perceives as a threat in one way or the other.
Unnamable: Of course it does and I am in favour of that.
Sami: he (Socrates) came to a bad end you know.

Hmmm
02-22-2006, 02:59 PM
Amra

...

Quote:

They differ somewhat but my point was simply that it amounts to the same thing.

They either differ, or they are the same thing. You keep contradicting yourself.

Quote:

If the future already exists in God’s perception then all I can do is act it out. I’m not bothered whether or not this can be termed ‘predestination’ – I’m not interested in the label, just the contradiction. Again, I ask you, how can we be said to be free agents if we can do nothing that will change what is already decided? I don’t even care who decided it (although, in the strictest sense, it must be God.)

If future exists already in God's perception, it doesn't mean that it is predestined, but you imply that everything is predestined, and that the existence of it in God's perception(knowledge) is the same as predestination. I mean, you have to decide what your argument is based on. Is the future predestined or not? Are we influenced by God or not. You keep evading to make a logical argument although I have challenged you to do so, and to use your own premises and conclusions. You say it is not the same, but then you go on and give an example that implies it is the same. :confused:

here is an argument...

1. God knows the future.
2. Our free will is future.
3. God knows our free will.

another..

1. God knows everything.
2. Our thoughts are something.
3. God knows our thoughts.

Can you tell me a logical argument that will prove your point without saying that we are influenced by God, or that future is predestined, because you claim that is not the case? God knows about the future because He sees it. He didn't influence it. It has happened. Imagine that you look back into the history and narrate to people what has happened in the history. Does that mean that you changed the free will of the people whose stories you are narrating? I hope not. :) Well, for God, future is history, because He knows it. We are limited by time, and we only know the past, and the present. He knows everything. However, knowledge of something doesn't mean influence nor predestination. Or it does? You decide.

Quote:

.He knows what will happen to me next week and nothing I do can change that. That limits my freedom.

So, knowledge of future equals predestination?

Quote:

Besides, ‘regulated’ is a nice cuddly word and much nicer than the words that could be used legitimately to describe what happens in some countries.

I agree. "Sentencing to prison" for three years for expressing a historical opinion would do it more justice.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
I stated that preaching to the public openly about a belief that is fundamentally different from the constitution of the country would be regulated, as it is in every society.

I disagree. Not everything will

and then...

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
My point was that every society will regulate things that it perceives as a threat in one way or the other.

Of course it does and I am in favour of that.

You agree or you disagree?

Quote:

Does Chomsky appear much on Al-Jazeera, then?

How would I know? Democracy in the USA decided that Al-Jazeera is not promoting its values, I suppose. ;)

Quote:

However, I still choose western democracy with all its flaws over Islam and its (for me, far greater) flaws.

Again, a personal choice and a statement that agrees with what I have been saying all along. You prefer democracy, I prefer shariah law. However, isn't it funny that democratic societies want to impose their values on everyone else, and don't let people decide themselves how they want to be ruled? Contradiction? Surely so. I guess, you would be much more bothered if muslim countries were all over the world trying to impose shariah to everyone else, but since the case is reversed, and democratic values are imposed on others, no one is complaining. As long as democracy is portrayed in the cuddly :) terms of tolerance, love, and peace and every other idea "dehumanized" and equated to evil, there is no need to follow any principle, and it will be easy to justify any action that the West coins as necessary. The only choice we have is to merely allow oneself to be ruled by the superior, as it has been in the most barbarian times....When you think about it, taken away the technological advances, we have not changed one bit from the primitive cave man fighting his competition in the eternal game of survival of the fittest.
02-22-2006, 03:09 PM
Amra

..

Quote:

A lot of American universities in that list - he can't be that heavily censored.

Heavily or not, that is for each one of us to decide, but the point is that he is being censored by the mainstream public/media. Most of the awards that you named come from universities that are considered liberal, and as far as I can tell, all of the awards are based on his conbritubions to the study of language, not for his political thoughts and critisism.
02-22-2006, 03:54 PM
Xamonas Chegwe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amra

Heavily or not, that is for each one of us to decide, but the point is that he is being censored by the mainstream public/media. Most of the awards that you named come from universities that are considered liberal, and as far as I can tell, all of the awards are based on his conbritubions to the study of language, not for his political thoughts and critisism.

There are a lot of people that don't figure heavily in the mainstream media - usually because they are considered too 'highbrow' for the average reader or are not 'newsworthy' enough (whatever that means!) This doesn't imply censorship, just editorial bias. I have certainly heard of, and have easy access to, Chomsky's political views; even in my poor, benighted, democratic country. They are also freely available on the internet, where there is no censorship whatsoever - except in certain countries, none of which happen to be democratic and several of which are muslim (Tunisia, for example).
02-22-2006, 07:47 PM
The Unnamable

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

They either differ, or they are the same thing. You keep contradicting yourself.

I take it you have decided that you cannot answer the argument and will therefore take issue with semantics and focus on the appropriate form for philosophical enquiry. A king and an emperor are not the same things. They differ. However, for the purposes of a discussion about say, power, they amount to the same thing. I do not believe in God. I do not believe in predestination. Where is the contradiction?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

If future exists already in God's perception, it doesn't mean that it is predestined, but you imply that everything is predestined,

No, I don’t. I am saying that if the future is known, I cannot change it. I don’t care whether you call that ‘predestination’ or ‘cosmic toffee theory’. My point still stands. If I cannot change things, I have no free will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Is the future predestined or not? Are we influenced by God or not.

I don’t care. That is not my point – you are merely using it to avoid answering the question I have asked a number of times. How can I believe that a non-existent being influences us?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

You keep evading to make a logical argument although I have challenged you to do so, and to use your own premises and conclusions. You say it is not the same, but then you go on and give an example that implies it is the same.

No, I gave an argument that stated (not ‘implied’) that “it amounts to the same thing”. You even quoted this yourself, above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

here is an argument...

1. God knows the future.
2. Our free will is future.
3. God knows our free will.

What does 2 mean? If you wish to teach me how to argue, perhaps you should give an example that makes sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Can you tell me a logical argument that will prove your point without saying that we are influenced by God, or that future is predestined, because you claim that is not the case?

I can’t follow you here. Also, you want me to reduce my argument to a 1-2-3 structure because it suits you?
1. The future has already happened.
2. What has already happened cannot be changed.
3. The future cannot be changed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

God knows about the future because He sees it. He didn't influence it. It has happened. Imagine that you look back into the history and narrate to people what has happened in the history. Does that mean that you changed the free will of the people whose stories you are narrating? I hope not.

I thought you had already conceded that it is unfair to compare things that are unalike. History is the past. Knowing the past is not the same as knowing the future. My narrating history is not the same as God narrating the future. The analogy is worthless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Well, for God, future is history, because He knows it.

And I must simply accept this fact, I assume. If He knows it, then he knows which shoe I will put on first tomorrow. I cannot change that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

We are limited by time, and we only know the past, and the present. He knows everything. However, knowledge of something doesn't mean influence nor predestination. Or it does? You decide.

As I pointed out earlier, you introduced the word ‘influence’ and I am unconcerned with the label you apply. By deciding that these two alternatives are the only ones possible, you are simply attempting to define the issue as you wish it to be. I don’t accept this. Also, again, I don’t care. The existence of a knowledge of the future (whatever you call it) means that I can do nothing to deviate from that future. That’s what matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

So, knowledge of future equals predestination?

What does it matter? Deal with the issue. If I cannot change the future, how can I be a free agent?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Quote:
Quote:Originally Posted by “Amra”I stated that preaching to the public openly about a belief that is fundamentally different from the constitution of the country would be regulated, as it is in every society. I disagree. Not everything will

and then...
Quote:
Quote:Originally Posted by “Amra”My point was that every society will regulate things that it perceives as a threat in one way or the other. Of course it does and I am in favour of that.

You agree or you disagree?

With which point? They are different, if you hadn’t realised. In the first one I say that I disagree with your claim that “a belief that is fundamentally different from the constitution of the country would be regulated, as it is in every society.” I disagreed because there are beliefs that will simply be ignored, hence my saying, “Not everything will”. Notice also that I do not support or oppose the idea of regulation. In the second I say that I am in favour of regulation. There is no contradiction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

How would I know? Democracy in the USA decided that Al-Jazeera is not promoting its values, I suppose.

If it means that much to you, you could always live in a country that does not deny you your freedoms. Or you could use the Internet, something you would not be able to do in many of the countries served by Al-Jazeera.
02-22-2006, 10:40 PM
Amra

Quote:

No, I gave an argument that stated (not ‘implied’) that “it amounts to the same thing”. You even quoted this yourself, above.

There is no argument to answer. That is my problem. You are merely repeating your opinion, without stating what it is based on, without giving premises on which the argument is based. What is there to answer? I wish you would make a logical argument so I can reply to it. This way it is pointless to discuss anything, because I have to guess what your argument is, and then assume your premises, and then try to make sense of it.

Quote:

I do not believe in God. I do not believe in predestination. Where is the contradiction?

You believe the future is known without believing in God and predestination. :confused: You are confusing me more and more. If you don't believe in these concepts, why are we even discussing this? You should have just stated this in the beginning and saved us all three pages of repetition. Even if you don't believe in them in reality, because you are an atheist, if you decided to engage in an argument, then we can assume that you believe in these concepts, but then we have to assume you believe in all of them, or none of them. I mean, you can't pick and chose what suits you and ignore other things.

Quote:

No, I don’t. I am saying that if the future is known, I cannot change it. I don’t care whether you call that ‘predestination’ or ‘cosmic toffee theory’. My point still stands. If I cannot change things, I have no free will.

I don't really think that you are reading what I am writing to you. That is very unfortunate, because it seems like you are leading a monologe and repeating the same thing, without making an argument, ignoring important concepts, and showing a great inability to actually defend what you are stating. This is your argument.

1. Future is known.
2. Known means predestined.
2. Future is predestined.

But then you claim that it is not predestined, and when I ask you what you mean, you say you don't believe in any of this. :goof: :confused: What you are doing is basically stating one premise, and making a conclusion. It doesn't work like that. I am not calling it predestined just to give it a name, but to explain what it means. It is a verb, not a simple noun needed to give a name to something. I am not giving it a name, but using it to explain what you are stating. There is a huge difference.

Quote:

I don’t care. That is not my point – you are merely using it to avoid answering the question I have asked a number of times. How can I believe that a non-existent being influences us?

LOL. This is actually your belief. :D You are the one who believes that God doesn't exist, and at the same time believe that He influences your free will. You actually stated exactly what I have a problem with the whole time. :D

I am the one who believes that an EXISTING being DOESN'T influence our free will. :nod:

Quote:

No, I gave an argument that stated (not ‘implied’) that “it amounts to the same thing”. You even quoted this yourself, above.

The problem with it is that you CLAIMED it is NOT the same thing, but then gave an argument that stated/implied it is the same thing. The problem is that you didn't believe it is the same, but then you argue it is. :confused: That is why I reacted, and as far as I can see you still haven't figured out whether it is the same or not.

Quote:

What does 2 mean? If you wish to teach me how to argue, perhaps you should give an example that makes sense.

2. Free will is part of future.

I thought it was clear in the first argument...well, there is the clarification.

Quote:

1. The future has already happened.

This is a faulty premise. Future has not already happened. It is merely known to an All-Knowing being that is not limited by time. Knowledge and influence are not one and the same.

Quote:

I thought you had already conceded that it is unfair to compare things that are unalike. History is the past. Knowing the past is not the same as knowing the future. My narrating history is not the same as God narrating the future. The analogy is worthless.

LOL. You make an argument above this statement that says:

1. The future has already happened.

..which means it is in the past, but then you claim here that history and future are not the same. :confused: another contradiction....

Anyways, you didn't answer why your narrating of history is not the same as God's narrating the future. ? Simply stating that the analogy is worthless is again your opinion that is not supported by anything else. If we are limited by time, God is not. If we only know the past, He knows the future as well. For the lack of better explaining it, to Him everything is history, or everything is the present, whichever you like. But, wouldn't be ridiculus to think that God was waiting for future to happen without knowing it? :D To imagine a being that created EVERYTHING to be limited by time and space?

Quote:

And I must simply accept this fact, I assume. If He knows it, then he knows which shoe I will put on first tomorrow. I cannot change that

Knowledge and influence are not one and the same.

Quote:

As I pointed out earlier, you introduced the word ‘influence’ and I am unconcerned with the label you apply. By deciding that these two alternatives are the only ones possible, you are simply attempting to define the issue as you wish it to be. I don’t accept this. Also, again, I don’t care. The existence of a knowledge of the future (whatever you call it) means that I can do nothing to deviate from that future. That’s what matters.

YOu haven't intruduced any other concept, so I had to resort to the only thing that makes sense in this, which is influence. There is either influence or there isn't one. If there is influence, then there is not free will, if there is no influence, then there is no free will. You cannot make an argument stating that there is no influence, BUT there is no free will. However, I haven't said that you can't intruduce another concpet that would make your argument logical, but so far you have failed to do so.

Quote:

What does it matter? Deal with the issue. If I cannot change the future, how can I be a free agent

You look at it incorrectly. There is nothing to change, because for human beings, future HAS NOT happened.

Quote:

With which point? They are different, if you hadn’t realised. In the first one I say that I disagree with your claim that “a belief that is fundamentally different from the constitution of the country would be regulated, as it is in every society.” I disagreed because there are beliefs that will simply be ignored, hence my saying, “Not everything will”. Notice also that I do not support or oppose the idea of regulation. In the second I say that I am in favour of regulation. There is no contradiction

I never stated that EVERYTHING will be regulated, so your statement didn't make sense. I simply stated that things that are perceived as threat will be regulated. I didn't say all things, so there was no reason to even make a statement like that.

Quote:

If it means that much to you, you could always live in a country that does not deny you your freedoms. Or you could use the Internet, something you would not be able to do in many of the countries served by Al-Jazeera

I could if the western countries would let people decide for themselves how they want to be ruled without imposing their values on them.
02-23-2006, 05:45 AM
The Unnamable

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

There is no argument to answer. That is my problem. You are merely repeating your opinion, without stating what it is based on, without giving premises on which the argument is based. What is there to answer? I wish you would make a logical argument so I can reply to it. This way it is pointless to discuss anything, because I have to guess what your argument is, and then assume your premises, and then try to make sense of it.

This is nonsense. You are trying to suggest that an argument must consist of premises, inferences and conclusions. If we were in a seminar comprising part of an undergraduate philosophy course, I would agree. But we are not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

You believe the future is known without believing in God and predestination.

No, I don’t believe the future is known. Read my posts attentively and you will see why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

You are confusing me more and more. If you don't believe in these concepts, why are we even discussing this? You should have just stated this in the beginning and saved us all three pages of repetition. Even if you don't believe in them in reality, because you are an atheist, if you decided to engage in an argument, then we can assume that you believe in these concepts, but then we have to assume you believe in all of them, or none of them. I mean, you can't pick and chose what suits you and ignore other things.

This is more nonsense – you imply that we can only discuss concepts we believe in! Then you had better not discuss atheism or western democracy. :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

I don't really think that you are reading what I am writing to you.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

That is very unfortunate, because it seems like you are leading a monologe and repeating the same thing, without making an argument, ignoring important concepts, and showing a great inability to actually defend what you are stating.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

This is your argument.

Above you said “There is no argument to answer”, now you outline what that argument is. Which is it? Am I offering an argument or not? It’s you who appear to be contradicting yourself. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

1. Future is known.
2. Known means predestined.
2. Future is predestined.

Besides, that isn’t my argument. It’s a bastardisation of what you want to be seen as my argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

LOL. This is actually your belief. You are the one who believes that God doesn't exist, and at the same time believe that He influences your free will.

Of course I do – I’m an extremely stupid person. No, it isn’t my belief. I think your imperfect command of English is letting you down. Most of what I said was with the assumption IF I believed X, then I would find Y problematic. I didn’t realise that you don’t believe in adopting a hypothetical stance. The odd thing is though, this is an approach you yourself have used:
“If you had the ability to look into the future and you saw everything that will happen …” Here you are asking me to assume X so that I can consider Y. More confusion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

The problem with it is that you CLAIMED it is NOT the same thing, but then gave an argument that stated/implied it is the same thing.

First of all, I offered no premise, inference and conclusion, so by your own definitions you cannot call what I said an argument. Please make up your mind. Have I offered an argument or not?
Do you understand the concept that two things can be very similar but not the same? Take the following two questions:
“Do you have any money on you?”
“Do you have any cash on you?”
‘Money’ and ‘Cash’ are not identical. However, in this case, they are sufficiently similar as to amount to the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

The problem is that you didn't believe it is the same, but then you argue it is. That is why I reacted, and as far as I can see you still haven't figured out whether it is the same or not.

Yes, the problem is my own lack of understanding. I can’t figure it out. It’s not that, as I said earlier, I am not interested in the label itself, it’s because I’m stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

2. Free will is part of future.

I thought it was clear in the first argument...well, there is the clarification.

Perhaps the reason it isn’t clear is that it’s not even correct English usage. For someone who is such a stickler for the appropriate forms of logical enquiry, I am surprised you aren’t more careful. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

This is a faulty premise.

:brickwall – I don’t believe it has already happened. I was again making the assumption if X, then Y.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Future has not already happened. It is merely known to an All-Knowing being that is not limited by time. Knowledge and influence are not one and the same.

I think I’ve found where the problem lies. I assume you’ve had a google and found this:
http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi038.asp
A lot of what you have written is a kind of garbled version of that article. It explains why you used a child in your analogy.
Anyway, the problem lies in what is understood by ‘know’. Do you remember the following?
“let's say you have a child who says "you are welcome" every time someone says "thank you" to him/her. Does you child not have a free will simply because you know the child will say "you are welcome" after you thank him/her? Of course not.”
The flaw in this is that the parent cannot ‘know’ in absolute terms that the child will do what is expected. He or she might assume and be correct in that assumption the vast majority of the time. However, even if that is how the child responds most of the time, it is not an absolute certainty. One time he might simply cough instead. God’s knowledge, on the other hand, is absolute. What He ‘knows’ cannot be altered. An omniscient God would know absolutely; we can’t.

The only reason that you can say they are not the same is because you support the existence of a supernatural being that is not bound by any laws. All you are telling me is that you do not know how to reconcile the two but you are sure your God does and there’s an end to the matter. What happened to the rigour of philosophical enquiry?

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Anyways, you didn't answer why your narrating of history is not the same as God's narrating the future.

Really? I thought I did. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

But, wouldn't be ridiculus to think that God was waiting for future to happen without knowing it?

No more ridiculous than any belief in a God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

Knowledge and influence are not one and the same.

I’m sorry, now I’m getting confused. Is this an argument or an opinion? :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

YOu haven't intruduced any other concept, so I had to resort to the only thing that makes sense in this, which is influence.

The only thing that makes sense to you, you mean. So I must be constrained by the definitions you choose? That’s handy – for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

You look at it incorrectly. There is nothing to change, because for human beings, future HAS NOT happened.

:brickwall

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

I never stated that EVERYTHING will be regulated, so your statement didn't make sense. I simply stated that things that are perceived as threat will be regulated. I didn't say all things, so there was no reason to even make a statement like that.

:brickwall
You said, “a belief that is fundamentally different”. I believe that there are views that are “fundamentally different” that would not be regulated. You did not use the words ‘perceived as a threat’ in the sentence I quoted above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by “Amra”

I could if the western countries would let people decide for themselves how they want to be ruled without imposing their values on them.

I don’t understand. Are you saying that if countries like America allowed other countries to decide their own systems of government, then you would like to live in those countries? Yet you live in America. Is living in America for some reason less objectionable than living in countries where you feel it exerts an unwelcome influence? It strikes me that this is similar to saying, “I would like to live in Cuba but the Russians exert a negative influence there and promote an ideology of which I disapprove, so I’ll live in Moscow instead.”

I did post more than this, including the website addresses of four articles from The Daily Telegraph (the UK’s top-selling broadsheet newspaper). They have been removed. So now, even providing links to a major British newspaper is banned. The Daily Telegraph banned on a Literature Forum! They will be pleased.
02-23-2006, 09:02 AM
Amra

..

I give up.... :D
02-23-2006, 09:58 AM
The Unnamable

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amra

I give up.... :D

“When defeat is inevitable, it is wisest to yield.” - Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (Quintilian) :D
02-23-2006, 10:50 AM
Amra

Quote:

“When defeat is inevitable, it is wisest to yield.” - Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (Quintilian)

LOL. This can hardly be applied in this case... :nod: but if it makes you feel better..you can choose to believe it.... ;)

if I get some more time, maybe I'll demonstrate ALL the contradictions and faulty reasoning in your "arguments".... It will take me some time though to go through all of them and make some sense out of it without being condensending....
02-23-2006, 11:19 AM
The Unnamable

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amra

LOL. This can hardly be applied in this case... :nod: but if it makes you feel better..you can choose to believe it.... ;)

if I get some more time, maybe I'll demonstrate ALL the contradictions and faulty reasoning in your "arguments".... It will take me some time though to go through all of them and make some sense out of it without being condensending....

Now I deserve inverted commas! I’ll settle for you being able to spell ‘condescending’ correctly. :D
02-23-2006, 11:27 AM
The Unnamable

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amra

if I get some more time, maybe I'll demonstrate ALL the contradictions and faulty reasoning in your "arguments".... It will take me some time though to go through all of them and make some sense out of it without being condensending....

Please don’t make any undue effort for my sake – of course, if it’s for your own sake, feel free. :D

Have you read Milton’s Samson Agonistes? You remind me of Harapha of Gath. (You might need google again). :D

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page