CrashMan said: ^ So you are saying that if you know the chances of all possible outcomes, but not which will be the actual outcome, you know everything? That is obviously wrong.   That's like saying "I go up to a roulette table. I know if I bet my money on X I know the chances of each of the possible outcomes (the odds) and what will happen to my money with each one of those outcomes (the payoffs) Therefore I know exactly what the ball will land on. Not to mention in your example above, god couldn't SEE that x y or z was happening, as he would have known a billion years prior to those events which would occur, if he was all knowing. Your example in programming is COMPLETELY invalid. The error checking catches for events you DON'T expect, or MIGHT happen but you aren't sure. If you knew everything that would happen, there would be no need for exception handling, because there would be no exceptions to what you know would occur.

See, this is you're problem, you're taking the "not knowing" as something that is random. A ball on a roulett table is too complex for a human to calculate, but it is not random. AS someone who would be all knowing. As soon as the ball started moving I would know exactly where it would go by calculating rotations of the wheel vs the direction the ball is moving.

That part is NOT what I mean when I say possibilities. the only possibiliities that god would not knwo teh outcome of already are those which involve the choice of a human, THOSE are the only points at which probablity comes into play.

And you are both right and wrong about the error checking deal. After all, if you didn't expect it to be able to happen, you would you include exceptions handlers at all?

Either way, the point is still that safety triggers can still be set up ahead of time in order to keep things from going too far off track no matter what random numbers are thrown out(ei. choices made by people with free will)

CrashMan said: Andir said: @crash: Exception handling has become more commonplace with programmers lately, and it does get used for program flow. I'm not going to say I haven't thrown exceptions to bail out of deeply nested algorithms because it was easier than creating events for each subclass, but I'd be lying. No, I am aware (professional programmer myself, that's why I enjoy c++, can't really cheat that way too easily ;) ) but in the context he was refering to thats the purpose of exception handling. Let me give you an example. Say you have a program that opens a file. You may add an Exception handler (try/catch block) to make sure the file exists and fails gracefully if it doesn't. You as the programmer DON'T KNOW if the file exists or not, hence the exception handling in case it doesn't. If you KNEW the file would always exist, then you wouldn't need the try catch block. If you knew the file will never exist, then there is no point in running the program. If you know when the file will be there and when it doesn't then you would know when to run the program and when not to, making the exception handling pointless.

And this is exactly what I was talking about, because he created humans with free will. in other words, we're random number generators, however he still knows what range of values the random numbers we generate will fall within.

And because there are random numbers, part of the purpose of the program is to let it do the work, hence the program would be able to attempt ot access files on it's own. But while god will know wether or not the file is there, teh program doesn't neccesarily know, hence the reason hed use exception handling or some variant therof.

 

 

 

How can there be randomness if god knows everything? You keep ignoring that fact that if god is all knowing then there is no probability. To him one is 100% likely to happen, because he knows it WILL happen. If he didn't know it WILL happen, he doesn't know everything.

How is knowledge of the physics of a roulette table and the knowledge of what a human WILL do (not may do, WILL do) any different to god?  If god does NOT know what a person WILL (as in, not a chance fo anything else) then he is not all knowing, because, well, that's something he DOES NOT KNOW.

CrashMan said: How can there be randomness if god knows everything? You keep ignoring that fact that if god is all knowing then there is no probability. To him one is 100% likely to happen, because he knows it WILL happen. If he didn't know it WILL happen, he doesn't know everything. How is knowledge of the physics of a roulette table and the knowledge of what a human WILL do (not may do, WILL do) any different to god? If god does NOT know what a person WILL (as in, not a chance fo anything else) then he is not all knowing, because, well, that's something he DOES NOT KNOW.

Okay, I'm going to assume you understand the schrödinger's cat supposition, a visual concept used to describe quantum theory. A cat in a box is either alive or dead, when the cat is not being watched, it exists in both states simultaneously.

Same thing for free will. Until the choice is made, God knows of all possible choices that can be made because until that choice is made, all possibilities are simultaneously happening and not happening. Hence god can know everything without knowing what choice you will actually make.

Grey Acumen said: Final-Fan said: What you fail to grasp, Grey Acumen, is that for your God there can be no probablities, only absolute knowledge. If God looked at something and said, "hmm, there's a 64% chance of this happening and 36% chance that it won't and I don't know which way it will go beforehand" then he is not all-knowing. Therefore he knows everything in advance including having known everybody's sins before creating the Universe in such a way that those sins would happen. Therefore all sin is his fault, QED. Why can't there be probabilities? If I know every possible event that can take place and all variances, then i know all. I can put plans in motion ahead of time when I see that certain events have the possibility of taking place. If I see the universe heading down paths that can lead to X happening, Y happening, or Z happening, then since i'm all powerful, I can have things set up ahead of time with safety catches to put the universe back on a reasonable track. Haven't you ever written a program with error catching? java or C++ try catch and throw. I'm all knowing, so I can write it into the code to have safety catches for every possible contingency while still allowing the program to throw whatever random numbers it wants. Also, what the heck is the point of "therefor all sin is his fault, QED"? Are you saying that God can't exist because bad things happen on earth? Helloooo, this is earth, we have to die before we have a shot at heaven.

In addition to CrashMan's excellent post, you AGAIN show a complete failure of reading comprehension.  I never said that God didn't exist, I said that if he is all-knowing and all-powerful and created the entire universe then he is responsible for all sin.  Maybe that means that YOUR conception of God would not exist (because you don't think he would do that) but that is not the same as God not existing. 

Did the abbreviation "Q.E.D." break your mind or something?  It only means quod erat demonstrandum -- "which was to be demonstrated" i.e. "I am done with my argument because I've achieved my goal". 

Grey Acumen said: CrashMan said: ^ So you are saying that if you know the chances of all possible outcomes, but not which will be the actual outcome, you know everything? That is obviously wrong. That's like saying "I go up to a roulette table. I know if I bet my money on X I know the chances of each of the possible outcomes (the odds) and what will happen to my money with each one of those outcomes (the payoffs) Therefore I know exactly what the ball will land on. Not to mention in your example above, god couldn't SEE that x y or z was happening, as he would have known a billion years prior to those events which would occur, if he was all knowing. Your example in programming is COMPLETELY invalid. The error checking catches for events you DON'T expect, or MIGHT happen but you aren't sure. If you knew everything that would happen, there would be no need for exception handling, because there would be no exceptions to what you know would occur. See, this is you're problem, you're taking the "not knowing" as something that is random. A ball on a roulett table is too complex for a human to calculate, but it is not random. AS someone who would be all knowing. As soon as the ball started moving I would know exactly where it would go by calculating rotations of the wheel vs the direction the ball is moving. That part is NOT what I mean when I say possibilities. the only possibiliities that god would not knwo teh outcome of already are those which involve the choice of a human, THOSE are the only points at which probablity comes into play. And you are both right and wrong about the error checking deal. After all, if you didn't expect it to be able to happen, you would you include exceptions handlers at all? Either way, the point is still that safety triggers can still be set up ahead of time in order to keep things from going too far off track no matter what random numbers are thrown out(ei. choices made by people with free will)

I would like to remind you of an earlier post in which I stated: 
God knows everything that happens to you, affecting your life and giving you input for your decisions. He knows exactly how you think, so He knows what those decisions will be. He knew the same about your parents, and their parents, etc. etc. back to the beginning of the universe, and His foresight NEVER EVER gets blurry no matter how far into the future you go from the moment of creation because He had perfect control over His actions (so there is no chance that anything happened unintentionally).

God can predict what every single person on the planet will be doing AND THINKING a million years from now, or a billion years from now, more easily than you can predict that a ball you drop on a paved hillside will roll downhill, and He could also see that at the moment of creation. And He did, because God sees everything.
Either God knows what you're going to do, or he doesn't.  If he doesn't know what you're going to do, then his knowledge or ability to predict has limitations.  Therefore not omniscient/omnipotent.  And if he DOES know -- see above posts. 

Grey Acumen said: CrashMan said: How can there be randomness if god knows everything? You keep ignoring that fact that if god is all knowing then there is no probability. To him one is 100% likely to happen, because he knows it WILL happen. If he didn't know it WILL happen, he doesn't know everything. How is knowledge of the physics of a roulette table and the knowledge of what a human WILL do (not may do, WILL do) any different to god? If god does NOT know what a person WILL (as in, not a chance fo anything else) then he is not all knowing, because, well, that's something he DOES NOT KNOW. Okay, I'm going to assume you understand the schrödinger's cat supposition, a visual concept used to describe quantum theory. A cat is either alive or dead, when the cat is not being watched, it exists in both states simultaneously. Same thing for free will. Until the choice is made, God knows of all possible choices that can be made because until that choice is made, all possibilities are simultaneously happening and not happening. Hence god can know everything without knowing what choice you will actually make.

ONLY GOD IS NOT SUBJECT TO THESE RULES. He is supernatural, see my discussion with Kasz216. He can put the beatdown on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle by observing the exact location and trajectory of a particle. He can create matter, or destroy it. (And has, according to you.) Et cetera et cetera. The Bible is FULL of this stuff, even if none of it is couched in even remotely scientific terms. What are you trying to say here?

For that matter, isn't God supposed to be all-PRESENT as well? So Scroedinger's cat wouldn't be able to exist at all because all quantum states would immediately resolve as soon as they were created. If God was subject to the rules of quantum theory. Which He's not.

Final-Fan said: Kasz216 said: Final-Fan said: Kasz216 said: If thousands of sceintists created this world, i'd say they were all "gods" with the head god being the head of the project. Kinda like [Poly]theism. If this is a computer simulation, the religions may be for naught... or the researchers... or even some bored 17 year old who uses this world as Sim God and could answer peoples prayers, or cause them torment. Much how one of us might intentionally cause a tornado to our Sim City town. This unvierse might be someones cell phone game for all we know. Or a RTS game where everyone created their own religion and now they're trying to see who wins. Who knows. That's really unimportant. Heck we could be a cellphone game, of a virtual person who is part of a universe that's a hand held game, that's a cellphone game or a reality thats an MMORPG. Who knows. Even if another fake virtual person created this universe. I'd think he would in fact be god. I don't think your example makes sense. Etiher you look at it from our perspective -- in which case you have said they are supernatural -- or you look at it from their perspective -- in which case they are ordinary people, not gods. The point is that I would say that the definition of a "god" includes not being held to the same natural laws that we mortals are subject to, which is by definition supernatural. How does your definition differ? Really I just don't get your point that if our world was a comuter program that created that person wouldn't be supernatural. They would be supernatural to us... but not to them. If got exists... i'd guess he wouldn't be supernatural to himself... and would know how he does what he does. I don't see how this is any different. In other words God is supernatural to us. But I wouldn't say he was inherently supernatural. Supernatural is basically just a word we use for "something we don't have a firm grip on." Were someone to prove that god created everything and be able to show how he did it. Through say... a Math problem or some expierement. God really wouldn't be supernatural anymore. Though how one would prove this is the real trick, since it would likely take a level of complexity that we don't have because we can't see out of the program so to speak. Or out of the dimension. Which is the problem we have of time vs "real time" That's exactly what I said. What I meant was that in terms of OUR UNIVERSE they would be supernatural. And if they're supernatural to our universe but natural in some other universe ... well, they're still supernatural in the universe they're gods of. They're not gods in any universe where they don't have supernatural powers. WE AGREE ON THIS according to your own example. So I think that the argument that they can be gods and yet not supernatural is just sophistry. supernatural 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil 2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit) So the word actually is a PERFECT match for my contentions, namely that it (1) refers specifically to godlike properties; (2) refers to beings or forces operating beyond the constraints of natural law. Even if we could prove the existence of a God or Gods, if they can still create or destroy matter, simultaneously know the exact location and trajectory of a particle, etc. etc. they can still obviously be supernatural.

 

But Tombi is suggesting that if they are natural in their own world they can't be god. My point is that it doesn't matter if they are supernatural in their own world.

My point is that god does not have to be "universally" supernatural. Which is a bad word for it
since he would be supernatural in our universe. But you get my meaning. If he created are universe (a supernatural act in of itself) then he is god.

If got defys the laws of our world by keystroke.  It's no different then if he does by pointing and saying alakazam. 

Final-Fan said: Grey Acumen said: CrashMan said: How can there be randomness if god knows everything? You keep ignoring that fact that if god is all knowing then there is no probability. To him one is 100% likely to happen, because he knows it WILL happen. If he didn't know it WILL happen, he doesn't know everything. How is knowledge of the physics of a roulette table and the knowledge of what a human WILL do (not may do, WILL do) any different to god? If god does NOT know what a person WILL (as in, not a chance fo anything else) then he is not all knowing, because, well, that's something he DOES NOT KNOW. Okay, I'm going to assume you understand the schrödinger's cat supposition, a visual concept used to describe quantum theory. A cat is either alive or dead, when the cat is not being watched, it exists in both states simultaneously. Same thing for free will. Until the choice is made, God knows of all possible choices that can be made because until that choice is made, all possibilities are simultaneously happening and not happening. Hence god can know everything without knowing what choice you will actually make. ONLY GOD IS NOT SUBJECT TO THESE RULES. He is supernatural, see my discussion with Kasz216. He can put the beatdown on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle by observing the exact location and trajectory of a particle. He can create matter, or destroy it. (And has, according to you.) Et cetera et cetera. The Bible is FULL of this stuff, even if none of it is couched in even remotely scientific terms. What are you trying to say here?

I'm pointing out that the existence of god does not negate free will. Actually, if you want to look at it in that direction, which actually is far more reasonable, God exists outside of time, hence every choice that we'll ever make has both already happened and not happened within the same observable point by god. So to him, he already knows what choices we will make, but that doesn't negate free will because we still exist INSIDE of time.

And I didn't misinterprete you at all on your last comment, I simply didn't understand your point at all, hence all the question marks as I asked what point you were trying to make.

Kasz216 said:   But Tombi is suggesting that if they are natural in their own world they can't be god. My point is that it doesn't matter if they are supernatural in their own world. My point is that god does not have to be "universally" supernatural. Which is a bad word for it since he would be supernatural in our universe. But you get my meaning. If he created are universe (a supernatural act in of itself) then he is god. If got defys the laws of our world by keystroke. It's no different then if he does by pointing and saying alakazam.

Personally, I would consider God to be hypernatural or ultranatural, because really, he's the source of all laws of nature, so of course he's natural. Or maybe more accurately would be natural is god?

 

Ahh, theological discussions.....
Look, no one can PROVE that God exists and no one can PROVE he doesn't. I personally believe there is a God because I have never seen conclusive evidence to the contrary (and I have seen much evidence that imho supports the existance of God), but the fact remains that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a god or some form of higher being.

Retrasado said: Ahh, theological discussions..... Look, no one can PROVE that God exists and no one can PROVE he doesn't. I personally believe there is a God because I have never seen conclusive evidence to the contrary (and I have seen much evidence that imho supports the existance of God), but the fact remains that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a god or some form of higher being.

I think everyone here knows that. Or at least I hope they do. The issue really is more the levels of evidence for and against.

I think it's actually gotten to the point where it's really more of a logical testing method as we try to find flaws in the logic of each other's arguments while simultaneously putting our own logical weavings up for examination.

 

Retrasado said: Ahh, theological discussions..... Look, no one can PROVE that God exists and no one can PROVE he doesn't. I personally believe there is a God because I have never seen conclusive evidence to the contrary (and I have seen much evidence that imho supports the existance of God), but the fact remains that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a god or some form of higher being.

I still don't see why anyone has to PROVE god doesn't exist considering it was never PROVEN in the first place that he does. Period.