By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Why do some believe these characteristics of a Creator?

dsgrue3 on 28 January 2013
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:

Suggesting that God doesn't have knowledge of time as it relates to events is silly. You're suggesting an all-knowing being does not know something. Can't you see how completely absurd that is?

If we could do it, put concerns aside for a moment, why couldn't he? After all he is all powerful.

Silly your logic is. Silly logic is silly.

Is there an ignore button? Seriously, all you do is post nonsense in attempt to upset me so I'll call you a name and you can report me so I get banned. I'm sick of it.



Around the Network
GameOver22 on 28 January 2013
Mr Khan said:
There was once a comic i read...

ah, found it
[comic]

That's.....pretty good.    :  )



timmah on 28 January 2013
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:

?????

-birth------------------event a -> choices ->outcome-----------event b -> choices -> outcome --------------death

Show me where on this timeline is a choice?

Attempting to theorize perspective & knowledge as it would exist outside the constraints of time using only language & reasoning created from within the perspective & constraints of time is fairly difficult, which is why the best you're going to get is limited understanding and analogies.

Not relevant. Stop retarding God. He's all-knowing, it doesn't matter how he perceives information just that he has every single possible bit of information. You're saying God cannot differentiate time or order, which is completely stupid.

Not even close to what I'm saying, especially if you look at the 'frozen river' analogy. One standing outside the river would see and certainly be able to differentiate points in the river all at once ('time' as we know it), while one inside the flow of the river would only be experiencing the point where they currently are. A different perspective does not mean the inability to determine time and order.

Then you just admitted pre-knowledge.

Pre-knowledge (passive observation) =/= pre-determination (active 'forcing' of choices).

Pre-knowledge means your path is known, all outcomes are known, you are following a deterministic path = predetermined. I'm not saying God influences your decisions, I'm saying God knows them.

Ok, and I'm just saying that wouldn't by definition nullify your decisions or choices, because that knowledge exists outside your frame of reference and does not impact your decisions from your perspective inside time.



dsgrue3 on 28 January 2013
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:

Pre-knowledge means your path is known, all outcomes are known, you are following a deterministic path = predetermined. I'm not saying God influences your decisions, I'm saying God knows them.

Ok, and I'm just saying that wouldn't by definition nullify your decisions or choices, because that knowledge exists outside your frame of reference and does not impact your decisions from your perspective inside time.


Here's what you're missing.

You see a choice, God sees a deterministic outcome - in the door example A, B, C, you see 3 choices. God sees that you will choose B. No other choice can be made since god already knows you will choose B. You cannot ever choose A or C because you have already chosen B.

Free will implies nondeterminism, and I have just proven determinism; thus negating free will with omniscience.



timmah on 28 January 2013
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:

Pre-knowledge means your path is known, all outcomes are known, you are following a deterministic path = predetermined. I'm not saying God influences your decisions, I'm saying God knows them.

Ok, and I'm just saying that wouldn't by definition nullify your decisions or choices, because that knowledge exists outside your frame of reference and does not impact your decisions from your perspective inside time.


Here's what you're missing.

You see a choice, God sees a deterministic outcome - in the door example A, B, C, you see 3 choices. God sees that you will choose B. No other choice can be made since god already knows you will choose B. You cannot ever choose A or C because you have already chosen B.

Free will implies nondeterminism, and I have just proven determinism; thus negating free will with omniscience.

Only if the person who knows and the person making the choice are both constrained by time. You're still having a metaphysical discussion using only physical axioms.



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 28 January 2013
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
Here's what you're missing.

You see a choice, God sees a deterministic outcome - in the door example A, B, C, you see 3 choices. God sees that you will choose B. No other choice can be made since god already knows you will choose B. You cannot ever choose A or C because you have already chosen B.

Free will implies nondeterminism, and I have just proven determinism; thus negating free will with omniscience.

Only if the person who knows and the person making the choice are both constrained by time. You're still having a metaphysical discussion using only physical axioms.

Uh, not sure if you realize this but we live in a physical world constrained by time. Now that I have informed you of this, are you ready to admit that omniscience and free will are contradictory?



timmah on 28 January 2013
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
Here's what you're missing.

You see a choice, God sees a deterministic outcome - in the door example A, B, C, you see 3 choices. God sees that you will choose B. No other choice can be made since god already knows you will choose B. You cannot ever choose A or C because you have already chosen B.

Free will implies nondeterminism, and I have just proven determinism; thus negating free will with omniscience.

Only if the person who knows and the person making the choice are both constrained by time. You're still having a metaphysical discussion using only physical axioms.

Uh, not sure if you realize this but we live in a physical world constrained by time. Now that I have informed you of this, are you ready to admit that omniscience and free will are contradictory?

That was my point all along. That's why, by definition, your physical arguments cannot directly apply to something that is metaphysical.

To your second point, no, just the same as I wouldn't outright reject the analogous points or theories made in the field of theoretical physics based solely on studies in traditional physics. Your desire to apply logic based only on your limited physical perspective to discussions on religion and philosophy will only frustrate you.



dsgrue3 on 28 January 2013
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:

Only if the person who knows and the person making the choice are both constrained by time. You're still having a metaphysical discussion using only physical axioms.

Uh, not sure if you realize this but we live in a physical world constrained by time. Now that I have informed you of this, are you ready to admit that omniscience and free will are contradictory?

That was my point all along. That's why, by definition, your physical arguments cannot directly apply to something that is metaphysical.

To your second point, no, just the same as I wouldn't outright reject the analogous points or theories made in the field of theoretical physics based solely on studies in traditional physics. Your desire to apply logic based only on your limited physical perspective to discussions on religion and philosophy will only frustrate you.

It makes no difference, logic doesn't change between physical and metaphysical. It's simply logic.

And Free Will and determinism can't work. Sorry. If you can't understand, maybe you never will.



timmah on 28 January 2013
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:

Only if the person who knows and the person making the choice are both constrained by time. You're still having a metaphysical discussion using only physical axioms.

Uh, not sure if you realize this but we live in a physical world constrained by time. Now that I have informed you of this, are you ready to admit that omniscience and free will are contradictory?

That was my point all along. That's why, by definition, your physical arguments cannot directly apply to something that is metaphysical.

To your second point, no, just the same as I wouldn't outright reject the analogous points or theories made in the field of theoretical physics based solely on studies in traditional physics. Your desire to apply logic based only on your limited physical perspective to discussions on religion and philosophy will only frustrate you.

It makes no difference, logic doesn't change between physical and metaphysical. It's simply logic.

And Free Will and determinism can't work. Sorry. If you can't understand, maybe you never will.

Yes, yes, because your opinion is absolute truth and your logic is completely infallable. Got it.

Keep in mind, the 'frozen river' analogy is neither provable nor purely logical based on our perspective of time, but that doesn't mean the person who wrote the book is stupid or illogical.



dsgrue3 on 28 January 2013
timmah said:

Yes, yes, because your opinion is absolute truth and your logic is completely infallable. Got it.

Keep in mind, the 'frozen river' analogy is neither provable nor purely logical based on our perspective of time, but that doesn't mean the person who wrote the book is stupid or illogical.

This isn't an opinion.

Free Will implies choice. If there is a deterministic path, there is no choice. They are contradictory concepts by definition. 

This isn't as complex as you seem to think it is.