So far, the best argument you made was about a misspelled word. :D For your records, I speak three languages fluently, and can communicate in two others. No reason to feel intimidated. ;)
Keine Sorge.... :lol:
Printable View
So far, the best argument you made was about a misspelled word. :D For your records, I speak three languages fluently, and can communicate in two others. No reason to feel intimidated. ;)
Keine Sorge.... :lol:
We as humans are always asking "when?". We asked when you woke up and when you ate and what time various things happened. We like to celebrate time events. How long a couple has been dating. How long a couple has been married. Birthdays and significant events are other things we humans like to set a date too. It's not nessassarily that the religion was set at THAT time. It is a time to go by to celebrate blank years that religion has been in existance. Besides who knows?, how long was a day that long ago? We have been changing our calendars for centuries, trying to perfect it...how do we know that it was the same back that long ago?
Also, as the others were saying, it has a lot to do with written language. We all know that spoken words get jumbled and confused. The religion could have been around millions of years before.
But, I am very curious, just wondering, why is it you believe that religion is a human invention. Is it because as humans gained knowledge we invented gods to display it?
I have another question. We as humans have a thirst for power, do we not? People are constantly fighting for more power, that's why we have wars, we don't agree and people don't want to give in to other people views so we've tried to kill off their beliefs...right? So, if we are in a constant power struggle why would we even care to invent gods? We would want ourselves as a god or choose a person here on earth as one, as many groups have done.
I am just wondering to hear other people's views on these things.
VLADIMIR: Dumb! Since when?Quote:
Originally Posted by RemiAnn
POZZO: (suddenly furious.) Have you not done tormenting me with your accursed time! It's abominable! When! When! One day, is that not enough for you, one day he went dumb, one day I went blind, one day we'll go deaf, one day we were born, one day we shall die, the same day, the same second, is that not enough for you? (Calmer.) They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
Waiting for Godot Samuel Beckett
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
Gotta love it.
:D Let's get back to the discussion, because ad hominem arguments are not my thing.
That is pretty much the definition of an argument. It is not my suggestion, but rather an overall concensus amongt people as to what an argumet is.Quote:
This is nonsense. You are trying to suggest that an argument must consist of premises, inferences and conclusions.
from Webster dictionary...
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : ARGUMENTATION b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion
WE don't have to be in a seminar to use logical ways of proving an argument. Every somewhat educated person is familiar with the ways of arguing an opinion, and what a productive discussion should have. If we are merely stating opinions, then there is no need to discuss, because you would state your opinon, and I would state mine, and that would be the end of it. If you are claiming this, then we can just stop here. However, if you are stating an argument, but then fail to support it, then there is an inconsistency. You cannot call something an argument and at the same time refuse to provide any support for it. It is misleading to the people who read this, because you claim something that we should accept as true fact, but then refuse to give the reasoning behind it. If there is no reasoning, then what you have is an opinion and not an argument.Quote:
If we were in a seminar comprising part of an undergraduate philosophy course, I would agree. But we are not.
I did...and here is what I found on the first glance....Quote:
No, I don’t believe the future is known. Read my posts attentively and you will see why.
:confused:Quote:
I am saying that if the future is known, I cannot change it.
If the future is known? Is that your premise? What if I say, if the future is not known, I can change it. That would be equally true then, because future is not known to us. I mean, it is really up to you to decide what your argument is and what you base it on. Here are some questions that you should ask yourself that would provide some clarification on what your argument really is.
Is the future known or not known? Is the knowledge of future same as predestination? Does influence exist or not? Does knowledge of future by God equate influence on our free will?
Are you admitting here that there is knowledge of the future? Whatever I call it? I call it knowledge of future by God. What do you want to call it. Decide and then tell me whether or not it exists or not.Quote:
The existence of a knowledge of the future (whatever you call it) means that I can do nothing to deviate from that future
No, I didn't imply that we cannot discuss concepts we don't believe in. I just stated that if you decide to argue something, you have to base that on some premises that you accept to be true/logical to that argument as valid. If you say that you think we don't have a free will because God is influencing us, then I would assume you have some premises that you are basing this belief on that you accept as valid and logical to that argument. You can't just state this but when someone asks you to provide proof with premises that make sense in this argument, you state that you don't believe in the premises. :confused: You don't have to believe in them per se, but you have to believe that a certain concept fits into this argument, and that is why you accept it as true to that argument.Quote:
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.
You don't have an argument. That is my statement. What I offered above was my assumption of your argument, because I had to do so to be able to lead a somewhat logical discussion. So I proceeded to state an argument on your behalf, because you have failed to do so, but as you can imagine, that task is pretty hard when the person keeps contradicting himself.Quote:
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.
Please enlighten me, and tell me what your argument is and what it is based on. Is there a premise in the argument that I have provided that you don't agree with? Does is just not fit what you want your conclusion to be? I don't know. You tell me.Quote:
Besides, that isn’t my argument. It’s a bastardisation of what you want to be seen as my argument.
When you make your assumptions, they should be logical and acceptable to the argument that you are making. It is irrelevant what you believe in reality, but when you make an argument that is based on faulty assumptions, then your conclusion will not be correct. It's very simple. However, when you confuse reality with hypothetical premises and conclusions, that's when the problem arises. I don't care what you believe in reality, it is totally irrelevant, what I care about is whether or not you have a valid argument, and whether or not your premises make sense in the argument. If you assumed that future is known, you would assume that God influences us, it would be equally incorrect as saying that you do believe the future is known, and because of it, you believe that God influences us. Hypothetical or not, it is simply not a valid argument.Quote:
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:
That is why I used argument in quotation marks, which seemed to offend you in the end. :) You didn't make an argument, you gave an opinion. When I use argument referring to what you are stating, I should use either opinion, or "argument". I will try to do so in the future to avoid confusion.Quote:
First of all, I offered no premise, inference and conclusion, so by your own definitions you cannot call what I said an argument.
Then you are agreeing that predestination and knowledge of future are one and the same thing?Quote:
‘Money’ and ‘Cash’ are not identical. However, in this case, they are sufficiently similar as to amount to the same thing.
Lol. Well, then, your assumption is incorrect. Whether or not your assumption is correct or not has nothing to do with what you in reality believe. The assumption has to make sense to the argument you are making, not necessarily be something you accept and believe in outside of the argument.Quote:
– I don’t believe it has already happened. I was again making the assumption if X, then Y.
I haven't read that article nor have I googled anything since we started this conversation except the definiton of an argument that I took from the online webster dictionary. What I am stating here are my beliefs, not based on a quick read of an article, but arisen from long term research and convictions that I have come to hold as true.Quote:
think I’ve found where the problem lies. I assume you’ve had a google and found this:
How do you draw a line between knowledge and influence? You are always missing that one link to connect and make a valid argument.Quote:
What He ‘knows’ cannot be altered. An omniscient God would know absolutely; we can’t.
Man, all I gotta say is you guys are ruthless!
21733 - This is the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Easily arrived at by multiplying the number of psalms by the number of tribes of Israel by the first number that you happen to find in the Apocalypse of St John the Divine, take away 4 (for the Archangels who are too important to dance) and 7 (for the angels who are carefully holding the vials of plagues.)
.
Whifflingpin...are you okay?......
hullo sdr4jc, welcome.(sorry, I have been away)
Of course Whiffling is okay, he's more than okay, he's perfect and wonderful, and he dances with the angels and he is one.
I’ve said all I want to, thank you. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Der Klügere gibt nach. You had your chance! :lol:
Lieber breit grinsen als schmal denken. :brow:
H.L. Mencken wrote: "The chief contribution of Protestantism to human thought is its massive proof that God is a bore;''
You have provided me with the same service. :D
By all objective standards, that didn't amount to much. ;) I couldn't even get one simple logical argument out of you.Quote:
I’ve said all I want to, thank you.
Lol. This made me laugh in many ways. :lol:Quote:
Der Klügere gibt nach. You had your chance!
There was another quote you used, but you seem to have forgotten it, although you applied it to the same situation. ;)
“When defeat is inevitable, it is wisest to yield.” - Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (Quintilian) ;)
Logical discussions are not for everyone, and many find them cumbersome and hard to follow, so you are not alone. :DQuote:
You have provided me with the same service.
"Whifflingpin...are you okay?......"
:banana: Yes, thank you for asking - I just thought I'd inject a serious note into this thread, and maybe a bit of sound reasoning, as a change from the frivolous blather that has been going on for a while. :banana:
:angel: Thank you too Rachel malachi :angel:
Amra,
If The Unnamable's style of argument is not to your taste. Please allow me to offer mine.
You claim:
A. God has always existed. Presumably, this includes the time prior to the creation of the universe (and I am only assuming your idea of a creation for the sake of argument).
B. God knows everything, past, present and future in infinite detail.
C. God created the universe and everything in it.
D. God is all-powerful. Nothing is beyond his ability.
Please feel free to correct me if any of these do not agree with your definition of God. I'd hate to base my argument on an uncertain base.
You further claim:
E. There is no predestination. Humans have complete free-will and choice in their actions (with the obvious proviso that their choice of action is physically capable of being applied).
I will show that these beliefs lead to a contradiction. I am not stating that I personally believe in any of them except the last.
1. Now, if A and B are true, this implies that God knew the precise details of the life of every creature in the universe prior to creating it.
2. If D is true, God could have chosen any universe, with any set of rules and possible futures to create.
3. And if C is true, God created the universe exactly as it is, in full knowledge of the fate of every creature in it.
4. 1, 2 & 3 imply that the exact details of the minutest part of this universe were known and chosen by God when he created it. In other words, He chose a universe where I am an atheist and you are a muslim.
This is utterly incompatible with premise E, which clearly states that I could have chosen to be a muslim at any time.
Reductio ad absurdum therefore states that at least one of the original assumptions A, B, C, D, & E must be false.
Is that argument logical enough for you? I know that the language is not as stylish as my learned colleague, The Unnamable, and that it is certainly not nearly amusing enough for his taste. I trust though, that what it lacks in style and wit, it makes up for in the solidity of the logical process.
Feel free to be as rigourous in your counter-argument. I look forward to it.
The Unnamable,Quote:
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.
Your post is deleted not because it contained a link to The Daily Telegraph but because the contents of the articles you linked were directly related to current political events. As I suggested in my PM, please do feel free to PM them to those who are interested.
To All,
Once again, please do not personalise your arguments.
And
any off-topic post will be deleted.
"B. God knows everything, past, present and future in infinite detail."
Not that I care whether there is free will or not (we have to live as if there is free will, because we do not know what, if anything, is fore-ordained.)
Your careful argument, Xamonas, depends on whether this statement B is true, and in what sense it may be true. Your argument is valid if time is linear to God as it appears to the created universe. If, however, God's view of time be not linear, then, amongst the infinite options which you allow to the Creator is the option to create a universe in which some, or all, of the creatures have free will to act within their natures, and the Creator's knowledge may, in linear time, come after the free action but still, in God's view be known by Him, though not determined by Him, at the moment of creation.
I think that if you do not allow this possibility, then you do not get as far as considering predetermination, in your terms, because your clause D does not hold.
.
"E. There is no predestination. Humans have complete free-will and choice in their actions (with the obvious proviso that their choice of action is physically capable of being applied).
... I am not stating that I personally believe in any of them except the last."
Interestingly, it is, if I understood and remember him correctly, the atheist Stephen Hawking who demonstrates clearly that the universe and everything in it is totally preordained, and that had there been a Creator, He would have had no free will in the way in which he created the universe.
.
On the contrary, I laughed out very loudly when I read it. I think we can safely assume that google has been red-hot since that appeared. :D At the moment however, you appeared to have frightened off some people with the solidity of your logic. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
I agree with all those premises.Quote:
You claim:
A. God has always existed. Presumably, this includes the time prior to the creation of the universe (and I am only assuming your idea of a creation for the sake of argument).
B. God knows everything, past, present and future in infinite detail.
C. God created the universe and everything in it.
D. God is all-powerful. Nothing is beyond his ability.
Just to be clear in this, God did decide certain things, such as the Judgment Day, the laws of this universe, the revelations of His message to the Prophets, but He didn't influence us to make the choices we made, meaning that our free will is indeed not influenced by Him directly, but is only limited by the laws of the nature we live in, as you already stated above.Quote:
E. There is no predestination. Humans have complete free-will and choice in their actions (with the obvious proviso that their choice of action is physically capable of being applied).
I think that the main problem arises because we want to limit God to time. Time is a very important concept in this issue, because God created time as well, and is not limited by it, whereas we are. If we try to put those boundaries on God, then we negate your premise D. God created the laws of this nature, the universe, decided when the Judgment Day will be, gave us Prophets to guide us, and gave us free will to decide for ourselves. For us, everything that is still ahead is future and unknown, but for God, that restriction doesn't apply. He already knows everything that will happen, but He let it happen because we have free will. If He wanted to influence that in any way, wouldn't He have created all of us to be believers? Stating that God influences us in the decisions we make would imply that God is evil and unjust, that Judgment Day exists merely for His entertainment, and that human beings are programmed robots. All of these are incompatible with the view of God we have, and the characteristics He has. When you read the Qur'an, you can see that on many occasions God talks about the future as if it had already happened.Quote:
1. Now, if A and B are true, this implies that God knew the precise details of the life of every creature in the universe prior to creating it.
2. If D is true, God could have chosen any universe, with any set of rules and possible futures to create.
3. And if C is true, God created the universe exactly as it is, in full knowledge of the fate of every creature in it.
4. 1, 2 & 3 imply that the exact details of the minutest part of this universe were known and chosen by God when he created it. In other words, He chose a universe where I am an atheist and you are a muslim.
044.010
YUSUFALI: Then watch thou for the Day that the sky will bring forth a kind of smoke (or mist) plainly visible,
044.011
YUSUFALI: Enveloping the people: this will be a Penalty Grievous.
044.012
YUSUFALI: (They will say:) "Our Lord! remove the Penalty from us, for we do really believe!"
044.013
YUSUFALI: How shall the message be (effectual) for them, seeing that an Messenger explaining things clearly has (already) come to them
044.014
YUSUFALI: Yet they turn away from him and say: "Tutored (by others), a man possessed!"
Notice that in one of the verses God tell us what the people will say when Judgment Day comes:"Our Lord! remove the Penalty from us, for we do really believe!". Did God influence them to not believe, or to say this? No. He simply tell us what will happen, because He knows it. To Him it has already happened.
It shows that for God time is linear, and therefore everything that would happen, or that has happened, and that which is happening is known to him. However, there is a difference between influence and knowledge. His mere knowledge of things that are future for us, but known to him because He is not limited by time, does not imply that He influences our free will. It simply means that, as He knows everything else, He knows our free wills as well.
I would like you to explain more, if you could, how you draw the line between knowledge and influence, because if we assume that we cannot do anything because we are predestined to what God had already decided, then that implies influence. Right?
By the way, thank you for engaging in this discussion. Your imput is very refreshing.... :nod:
Here are some more verses from the Qur'an, and you can see how God narrates future as something that has already happened.
10. The Unbelievers will be addressed: "Greater was the aversion of Allah to you than (is) your aversion to yourselves, seeing that ye were called to the Faith and ye used to refuse."
11. They will say: "Our Lord! twice hast Thou made us without life, and twice hast Thou given us Life! Now have we recognised our sins: Is there any way out (of this)?"
12. (The answer will be:) "This is because, when Allah was invoked as the Only (object of worship), ye did reject Faith, but when partners were joined to Him, ye believed! the Command is with Allah, Most High, Most Great!"
....
83. For when their apostles came to them with Clear Signs, they exulted in such knowledge (and skill) as they had; but that very (Wrath) at which they were wont to scoff hemmed them in.
84. But when they saw Our Punishment, they said: "We believe in Allah,- the one Allah - and we reject the partners we used to join with Him."
Again, verses telling us of future events as if they had already happend confirming God's unlimited knowledge not bounded by time constraints.
I don't follow your logic Amra. Why does it make a difference whether God is inside or outside of time.
In your view, He created a universe (this one, to be precise) with absolute prior knowledge of every act that would be commited in it. This is what postulates A, B, C & D imply.
If they are true, which you say you believe, then everything that occurs in this world is the pre-ordained will of God. He could have made the world a different way but he didn't.
This means that he chose a world in which you will (presumably) be saved and I will go to hell.
He chose a world with malaria, genocide, tsunamis, murder in the name of religion, and even atheism.
Whether he chose this world before what we perceive as the present, or from outside of time altogether, is irrelevant. It was his choice; according to the 4 statements that you believe in, it had to be. As you say, this implies that God is evil and unjust, that Judgment Day exists merely for His entertainment, and that human beings are programmed robots.
Personally, I take a different view, I say that it makes the idea of a loving God possessing all of those properties absurd. Alternatively, it means that using any logic at all to explain God's actions is absurd, in which case, why did you start it?
Rely on faith, if you like. But try to rely on logic and (unless your arguments are flawed and you willfully ignore those flaws) the God that you believe in can not exist.
Yes.Quote:
In your view, He created a universe (this one, to be precise) with absolute prior knowledge of every act that would be commited in it. This is what postulates A, B, C & D imply.
How do you link knowledge with preordination? The first statment asserts His knowledge of what will happen. In the second you state that because He knows what will happen, He must have predestined it. Why?Quote:
If they are true, which you say you believe, then everything that occurs in this world is the pre-ordained will of God. He could have made the world a different way but he didn't.
Can we assume that God knows what will happen even though He didn't influence it?
He created the world with certain natural laws, gave us free will, and let us do whatever we did knowing what we will do. If you imagine the God as a psychic (may He forgive me for this) who sees the future and merely lets it happen, how do you ascribe influence to Him simply because He knows what will happen?
This discussion is absurd, in that whatever may be postulated, no creature could know what is in the mind of the creator. Of course, for any believer there is an act of faith, and a point beyond which logic is of no help. This is, if I may again misrember and misquote the atheist Hawking, analogous to Hawking's statements that questions about conditions prior to the start of the universe, and post end-of-universe are, for us, meaningless non-questions. (Edited bit: "God has always existed. Presumably, this includes the time prior to the creation of the universe" The second, at least, of these two statements is without meaning - "always," "time prior" are concepts that have meaning within the framework of time, but they are non-terms outside such a framework. )
Assuming that God exists, we have not the slightest idea or concept how he operates or what he knows in his own sphere. In terms of the created universe, our free will may be consistent with his total knowledge, because what, to us appears infinite time is to him an instant. In his terms, not that I can know anything about them, the created universe has no before, during and after, it just is and is not; his knowledge of all its being and its end is instantaneous with the moment of creation, because its beginning and end are not separated.
I think that Amra's arguments are consistent with the paragraph above.
Christians, on the other hand, have an additional non-logical item of faith, which is that the creator has, at one point in history, entered into his creation and experienced what it is like to suffer time, and known what creatures suffer, as one of them, rather than as an onlooker. For Christians, this is sufficient answer to Xamonas' accusation of callousness on the part of God, namely, that whatever we (all creation) suffer, he suffers.
For me, that concept of God's incarnation, though wonderful, is both insufficient and too complicated. But, to me, the world seems too full of the divine for atheism to offer a sufficient description, and too full of evil for a single loving creator - hence, I think that any theory that attempts to describe this universe must be dualistic at least. I appreciate that this view is scarcely fashionable just now, but it is exactly the conditions that make Xamonas decide that there is no divine power make me conclude that there are two.
I have answered this already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
1. He knows everything.
2. Everything includes every single occurence in every possible universe.
3. He could have created any universe, but chose to create this one.
4. Every single occurence is already known and cucially, already determined, because this particular universe out of all possible universe has been chosen.
If 1 or 2 is not true, God is not omniscient.
If 3 is not true, God himself is either not omnipotent, did not create the universe or did not Himself have free will!
4 follows logically from 2 and 3.
Tell me which of these logical statements you are unhappy with.
Quote:
I have answered this already.
1. He knows everything.
2. Everything includes every single occurence in every possible universe.
3. He could have created any universe, but chose to create this one.
4. Every single occurence is already known and cucially, already determined, because this particular universe out of all possible universe has been chosen.
One and two are true.Quote:
If 1 or 2 is not true, God is not omniscient.
I don't see how the negation of 3 would mean that God didn't have a free will. Also, when you say He chose to create this universe and not some other, what do you mean specifically? I would agree to the extent that HE chose to create the laws of nature in this universe, death, Judgment Day and set certain limits upon us, but free will has nothing to do with that. We have the free will to choose how we want to live within those limits. He didn't choose how we would exercise our free will, He simply knew what will happen. Are you suggesting that after seeing how we would end up, He should have set other laws? Wouldn't that actually be influence, rather than letting it play out as it has? Are you suggesting that HE wasn't mercifull enough; that the universe He created for us and the laws that we operate under were not fair enough, and therefore you blame Him for the things that happen? We could debate these things, but if you are suggesting that He predestined everything to happen a certain way, then that is simply not true, and your argument doesn't prove that, because you never link knowledge to influence in any logical way. He did let things happen as they did, and they happened with His approval.. He approved us to have a free will and do as we please.Quote:
If 3 is not true, God himself is either not omnipotent, did not create the universe or did not Himself have free will!
This is how I imagine it to be: God created the universe, and He created the laws within it, then He created the first human beings, gave them free will, sent the Prophets to guide them, and let it all play out. He saw what would happen, and decided to let it be, believing that His laws and the universe He created were just and that everyone had a fair chance.
Not really. 1 and 2 talk about His knowledge. 3 is not clear enough, and I have explained above why. 4 simply concludes something that is not logically linked to 2, and because 3 appears to be faulty, it is not possible to make 4 valid based on it. Where do you get the impression that God chose this universe? Doesn't that imply that He actually didn't influence anything, because if He had chosen something else, that would actually mean that He intervened in the natural procession of things. I wouldn't use choose in this context because it is confusing and doesn't really describe the reality. If we assume that He only LET things happen in their natural procession, than your argument doesn't stand. You never linked knowledge with predestination, but simply stated in 1 and 2 that He had knowledge of everything, and then you concluded that because He had knowledge that means He predestined it. There is no link between those two.Quote:
4 follows logically from 2 and 3.
Also, Wifflingpin perfectly explains what my argument is. Using descriptive words for time such as "before", "after", "prior" when we talk about God is not correct, because God is not limited by time, and we are doing just that by expressing ourselves in that way.
Perfectly stated. :nod:Quote:
Assuming that God exists, we have not the slightest idea or concept how he operates or what he knows in his own sphere. In terms of the created universe, our free will may be consistent with his total knowledge, because what, to us appears infinite time is to him an instant. In his terms, not that I can know anything about them, the created universe has no before, during and after, it just is and is not; his knowledge of all its being and its end is instantaneous with the moment of creation, because its beginning and end are not separated.
I didn't say that. I presented that as one of three possible implications of statement 3. You are arguing that I implied one of these specifically - which is untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
In the above group of statements:Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
(a) You ask what I mean by him choosing a particular universe and then agree that he DID choose a particular universe.
(b) You agree that he set certain limits on us yet deny that this affects our free will.
This is a shaky foundation for your subsequent arguments.
This is a rephrasing of the question I just addressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
You still haven't put forward any argument to explain the difference that you see between
(a) choosing to create a particular universe where he knows in advance the minutest detail of all of our actions
and
(b) creating a universe where all of our actions are fixed in advance
I am asserting (not suggesting) that, according to the definition of God to which you subscribe, he could have - not should have; could have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
I have stated many times that it is 'influence' or rather pre-destination either way. This is merely one of an infinite number of possible universes which a God such as you believe in could have created. He chose the one that plays out exactly as it does, not some other. The pre-destination is implicit in his ability to choose how he creates his universe, his ability to see the future of all possible universes and the choice of universe that he makes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
I am not going to be drawn into a debate about God's personality - I don't believe in him, let alone blame him - and you consider him 'unknowable' so this is a dead end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Oh yes I do. What has not happened is you using the same logic to refute me. Your arguments are nothing but a statement that you believe me wrong but are not certain exactly how.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Again you reword your original premise. Repetition is not a valid logical argument technique.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Use use an awful lot of 'then's in describing the actions of a God that is outside of time. You also imply here that he only 'saw what would happen' after sending the prophets. You also imply some knowledge of what God himself believes in the last sentence - naughty!Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Where have you explained why? You have muddied the water and denied it - that is by no means the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
3 'appears' to be faulty? Is it or isn't it? You have not disproved it to my satisfaction as I have stated above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Are you denying that he could have chosen a different one? And if you are, why not? Because he is not all-powerful enough? or because he himself has no free will in the matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Why would choosing a different universe than this one imply influence, yet choosing this one does not? What is the difference between this universe and any other, except for the simple fact that this is the one that God chose to create?Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Think about what you wrote here. It is your assertion that God created the universe, yet now you ask me to assume that he 'let it happen in it's natural procession'. Did he create it or not? Did he create the universe but not the laws of the universe perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Again you retread the same old ground. I have shown why I believe there is a causal link between these two statements. You have merely stated, without logical argument, that you don't agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
My argument does not rely on God's existence in time. It is purely based on the definition of God that is held by believers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
Amra,
I am quite happy for you to believe in your God. But it is a matter of your faith and nothing else.
Many logical arguments for the existence of God have been proposed over the centuries; and they have been far more rigourous and internally consistent than your own. Not one has stood up to scrutiny.
Believe what you will (you will anyway), but using logic in such an inconsistent way as you have is not constructive. All it serves to do is convince those that already agree with you, based on the fact that they don't read your words carefully and want them to be true.
Let us agree to differ on God's existence, free will and prior knowledge. None of these can be proven logically. I do not claim to have disproven God's existence; all I claim is that I have shown that there are logical inconsistencies in the idea of God that you present. That you refute that is up to you, of course. You can deny anything you like; just as you can believe anything you like.
But logic is too sharp a tool to apply on something that is based on faith alone.
Peace,
XC
"But logic is too sharp a tool to apply on something that is based on faith alone."
Xamonas, you could have a go at the game I used to play when I was bored at work. There were trees on the other side of the car park, and the game was simply to describe a leaf that I could see so that, out of all the leaves on the tree, a person next to me could recognise the leaf I was describing. Mere location, like "third leaf on the third branch up on the third tree from the left" was not permitted.
Of course, there were a few leaves that could be described, but, although I could see thousands of leaves, and knew that each leaf was unique, the task of describing more than half a dozen quickly became impossible. Logic can take no part in this task, and language fails almost from the outset.
If logic and language cannot even enable us to describe something so common and physical as a leaf, why do you think that either can be used to describe things beyond the universe? They are just two very crude and inadequate tools.
I agree that we differ on God's existence, free will and prior knowledge. We simply look at them and understand them in different ways. I have never had a problem believing that God's knowledge has no effect on our free will, and was actually quite surprised to see that others didn't see it that way.Quote:
Let us agree to differ on God's existence, free will and prior knowledge. None of these can be proven logically. I do not claim to have disproven God's existence; all I claim is that I have shown that there are logical inconsistencies in the idea of God that you present. That you refute that is up to you, of course. You can deny anything you like; just as you can believe anything you like.
When you say God chose this universe, I stated that I only agree as far as the fact that He chose the natural laws of this universe, death, Judgment Day, and that our free will operates within those limits. However, I do not agree that He chose what we will do within those limits. If there wasn't enough room for us to make the right choice, and if every human being was an atheist, then I would say, God didn't give us a fair chance to believe in him. But, this is simply not true. I believe that His mercy is far above what we deserve, and that He set the laws of the universe so that we all have a fair chance of being believers. I do not believe that His knowledge had anything to do with predestination, as those are two very seperate concepts. If you woud try to make an argument saying that God doesn't know the future, then it would simply be not acceptable since we think of him as the All-Knowing. How would you reconcile God's ignorance of future and his All-Knowing nature? You couldn't. He has to be the One who knows everything, from our thoughts, act, hidden feelings, to the laws of the universe. However, knowing something and influening it are not one and the same. As I asked before, why is it not possible to assume that God knew what will happen, but instead of intervening, He let it play out as it has?
I agreed only to the extent that He chose the limits of this universe, the natural laws, death, Judgment day, but that He doesn't effect every single thing we do within those limits. As far as I can tell, you are not simply stating that, but you go further to say that He predestined EVERYTHING we do, think, feel. That is not what I agreed with. I think that we are affected in the sense that we cannot go outside of the limits God set for us, but we can do whatever we like within those limits. Since I also do not believe that these limits are unfair to any single group, I do not see why we should even bother with them. Why do you believe that by setting limits God influences our free will in every day life? Don't you think if that was true, then all of us would act the same way, because we were somehow trapped by God? HOw can that be reconciled with the fact that some people believe and others don't?Quote:
In the above group of statements:
(a) You ask what I mean by him choosing a particular universe and then agree that he DID choose a particular universe.
(b) You agree that he set certain limits on us yet deny that this affects our free will.
This is a shaky foundation for your subsequent arguments
Quote:
You still haven't put forward any argument to explain the difference that you see between
There is a big difference between choosing certain natural laws and setting limits in an environment, and influencing our free will that operates within those limits. As I stated before, we are limited as to what we can do within those limits (we can't live forever, we can't change our nature etc.) , and our free will operates within those limitis. However, there is a difference between letting the free will operate within those limits, and affecting the free will in other ways. Which one do you support?Quote:
(a) choosing to create a particular universe where he knows in advance the minutest detail of all of our actions
and
(b) creating a universe where all of our actions are fixed in advance
In b) you state something that I don't agree with, because our actions are not fixed because He influenced them, they are only fixed in the sense that He knows what will happen.
I am not denying that He could have done anything. He is All-Powerful. However, I would like you to tell me whether you believe that the limits He set for us are unfair, whether or not you think that setting the limits and influencing our free will is one and the same, and whether or not you think that by setting the limits He influenced our free will as well, not simply because we are limited by the laws of nature, but in a more specific way. (i.e He predestined that you will be an atheist and that I will believe in Him)Quote:
Are you denying that he could have chosen a different one? And if you are, why not? Because he is not all-powerful enough? or because he himself has no free will in the matter?
Again, the question is what you mean by "he chose this universe". Do you simply agree with me that He chose the laws of this universe, death, Judgment Day, or that He chose everything else as well, such as what we will do every single day, what we will say, what we will believe in, etc?Quote:
Why would choosing a different universe than this one imply influence, yet choosing this one does not? What is the difference between this universe and any other, except for the simple fact that this is the one that God chose to create?
Here you confuse things again. Choosing the universe to me means that He chose certain laws of nature within we operate. It means that our free will is LIMITED by those laws of nature. It doesn't mean that we don't have ANY free will, but simply that it operates under certain conditions. Is your argument based on this, or do you go further to say that BECAUSE our free will is conditioned, we don't have it at all? That would not be true, because if there was no free will, and if we all had the same conditions and limitations, wouldn't we ALL choose the same things? Wouldn't the fact that we all choose the same things imply that we simply didn't have any other choice, or any other path? But it is not like that. WE have the same conditions and same limitations, but you see people operate in different ways. Isn't that proof of free will in itself?Quote:
Think about what you wrote here. It is your assertion that God created the universe, yet now you ask me to assume that he 'let it happen in it's natural procession'. Did he create it or not? Did he create the universe but not the laws of the universe perhaps
Sorry Amra, but it is you that is confusing things. I have made my position abundantly plain. Reread my earlier posts; they contain everything I have to say on the matter.
And I will not be drawn into arguments about how 'fair' things are. The world isn't fair and that is nothing to do with God as far as I am convinced. I do not believe in God, so logically nothing is anything to do with God. My belief is that all religion is a human construct and that there are no such things as gods or prophets.
Free will exists. We are free to do whatever we wish; however perverse, ridiculous, illogical and bizarrre. The only constraints upon us are those imposed by the nature of the universe; we cannot transform anthills into mountains of gold, walk through walls, turn invisible, etc. These rules are a necessary part of the way the universe is; not part of the grand design of some all-powerful being.
As I already said, have faith if you will, that is your prerogative. But please stop mixing logic and rhetoric as if that justifies your position.
I agree...Quote:
Free will exists. We are free to do whatever we wish; however perverse, ridiculous, illogical and bizarrre. The only constraints upon us are those imposed by the nature of the universe; we cannot transform anthills into mountains of gold, walk through walls, turn invisible, etc. These rules are a necessary part of the way the universe is;
I don't agree. The rules of nature are only necessary IF there is a God who has a greater plan for all this. If there was no grand design, then the rules don't make sense. For example, why should it be more necessary to die than not to die? Why have rules if there is no puropose to them? They just happen to exist?Quote:
not part of the grand design of some all-powerful being.
The rules of the universe are a necessary result of the only way that the universe can exist. It is based on precise physical and mathematical relationships (albeit ones which are not yet fully understood). The universe could no more function in a different manner, than 2 + 2 could equal 5. This is how I see it.
You may well believe that God could make 2 + 2 = 5 if he wished. I think this is beyond even him.
See, here's my thing with God...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
God could make the Universe such that 2+2=4, AND 2+2=5. 'Cause S/He's God, man... since when is S/He bounded by logic or feeble human knowledge of any sort?
So, God could make the Universe such that both were true, or neither, or one at one time and another at a different time. S/He could make the Universe such that some believed that 2+2=4 and some, that 2+2=5; S/He could make it such that people switched beliefs all the time.
Heck, maybe he's made the Universe in all of these ways, or none of them, we just don't know it. And that's the thing-- we can't know it, because in some ways, God's not knowable. Any attempt to say one knows God is limiting His/Her magnificence, and that just doesn't ring right to me.
That's what's so cool, and so frustrating, about God!
So, given that we can't know God, I'm all for sticking to what we do know, or at least what seems to work-- i.e., math and science.
Yup. That's my two cents. For now.
hi all, :wave:
this thread is the reason i registered. last night i read all of the posts in this thread. And allow me to say, Unnamable and Amra, u both have incredible energies. :thumbs_up
I read many interesting opinions at the beginning. However, i think we've diverted just a tiny bit from our original subject "what was before God?"
Free will or predestination is an idea representing part of the core beliefs in chirstianity, Islam, judaism AND atheism. It is a fundamental AND controversial concept that some believers do not agree to entirely. :argue:
concerning our main topic "what was before God?" I would like to raise a question: What was before Us??? Believers agree that God has always existed and will always exist. He was around since the creatin of man and is around now and will be until the judgement day.
But what happened before that? before man was created? and what will happen after people are judged?
:brickwall
can anyone help on that?
"Men esteem truth remote, in the outskirts of the system, behind the farthest star, before Adam and after the last man. In eternity there is indeed something true and sublime. But all these times and places and occasions are now and here. God himself culminates in the present moment, and will never be more divine in the lapse of all the ages." Thoreau.
I've just read that, and it may even be relevant, but I've just discovered Thoreau, thanks to Chmpman, and I've got to share him.
.
[QUOTE=The Unnamable]Because he doesn’t exist.
He doesn't exist? Then it contradicts your view that, you only chooses what God has already known what you will do?meaning you have the freewill....He won't be a God after all if His existence is known among his creation He has no creator coz He is the creator...
[QUOTE=tiny explorer]:confused: :confused: :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
Sorry. You lost me there. Some grammar might help. Nice use of smilies though. :nod:
You may well believe that God could make 2 + 2 = 5 if he wished. I think this is beyond even him.[/QUOTE]
If I may make a comment here...absolutely NOTHING is beyond God's abilities. It is quite disturbing to me that you believe God incapable of such a simple feat. He raised people from the dead and walked on water. Why would this be a challenge to Him? ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrane
The Bible speaks of three kinds of knowledge that God has given us: the first being His Word (the Bible) in print for deliberate education. The second is in our hearts, how He speaks to us through the Holy Spirit, and the general consensus on this is that it is equivalent to our conscience. The third is through evidence of the creation, this world, the animals, our bodies, food and water, everything tangible by which God's love and existence was proven.
But then there's a passage in the Bible that speaks of our limited capacity to fully understand God, and it even goes on to say that if we saw God in His full glory, we could not live to tell of it, as He is just too much for us. In this same context, we cannot know the full extent of His knowledge. And with regards to "What came before us" I am likewise very curious. But I feel as though it's one of those questions I'll have to ask Him when I get there. In the meantime, it just takes a small amount of faith, thus the cornerstone of Christianity. In all those shady areas like that, I just give it over to God and I just accept that I won't know until He reveals it. And I may theorize and debate and rationalize, but when it comes down to it, I just have faith that it will be made known to me. And I am content.
I don't have to have all the answers in order to be secure. Not saying you all do, but stuff like that doesn't cost me any sleep. However, it does make for good discussions. :nod:
You believe that - I don't think he did either of those - I don't think there is a 'he' in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by sdr4jc
Well if God is a figment of man's imagination and wants, He can do ANYTHING. Or nothing. Whichever suits the worshiper.
My use of the equation 2 + 2 = 5 was chosen precisely because it is a direct, logical result of Euclid's postulates. This being untrue, would imply that logic itself was invalid.
Since Amra was attempting to use logic to argue that we could have free-will in a world where God knew the results of every action in advance, I threw this into the mix.
If logic can be over-ruled by God, then it is pointless to use logic to argue any facts about God (whether one believes in the big fellah, or not). This was the crux of my argument - it all comes down to faith; to what you believe.
Belief in God is illogical - you can only believe by abandonning logical thought and accepting that belief without question and without logical examination - something I am psychologically and intellectually unable to do. As I have said repeatedly, I have no beef with belief, just with attempts to justify it through faulty logic.