So here's a question for the believers...

[slow06]

Sorry. The two scenarios are not analogous due to the one making the prediction.

When god, being omniscient, knows how everything is going to play out until the end of time, then all these events are predetermined. If things were to not play out the way god knows, then god would be wrong and therefore not omniscient. This means that, ultimately, there is no choice, as things can only play out one way.

When you, not being omniscient, believe a situation will play out in a certain way you can be wrong. Many factors affect the outcome of your hypothetical. If your grandson were to not notice the cookie, he would not eat it. If he was not in the mood for a cookie, he would not eat it. If he began to fear punishment for taking the cookie, he would not eat it. If he was caught in the attempt to take the cookie by his parents, they could stop him from taking the cookie and eating it.

You are only making a prediction about future events based on how things have played out in the past, and are subject to being wrong.

God, on the other hand, cannot be wrong, due his omniscience. If god cannot be wrong, then we are not truly making a choice, but merely playing the part the only way it could be played.

So, if god is omniscient, we have no free will.

What if we look at it like a movie:

You go and watch a move, say 100 times, and memorize the outcome. The next time you watch that movie you know what is going to happen. You know that when x does something, y is going to happen. Your knowledge doesn't effect the choices or the outcome, they stay just as you knew they would.

Just because God knows something is going to happen doesn't necessarily mean it is what he wanted to happen. Even his omnipotence allows for this. He can want a certain thing to happen, and he can have the power to make it happen, while still choosing not to force it to happen.

I have always thought of it in this way. The analogy may not be perfect, and I'm not 100% clear on the issue becasue I have seen things that seem to support both ideas, but I think this description allows for the potential of omniscience and free will.

(Just throwing that out there. Everything I believe is predicated on the fact that the bible is true an inerrant. I don't think you believe that, so coming to the same conclusion is unlikely, but it doesn't mean we can't talk about it.)

[racrguy]

What if we look at it like a movie:

You go and watch a move, say 100 times, and memorize the outcome. The next time you watch that movie you know what is going to happen. You know that when x does something, y is going to happen. Your knowledge doesn't effect the choices or the outcome, they stay just as you knew they would.

Just because God knows something is going to happen doesn't necessarily mean it is what he wanted to happen. Even his omnipotence allows for this. He can want a certain thing to happen, and he can have the power to make it happen, while still choosing not to force it to happen.

I have always thought of it in this way. The analogy may not be perfect, and I'm not 100% clear on the issue becasue I have seen things that seem to support both ideas, but I think this description allows for the potential of omniscience and free will.

(Just throwing that out there. Everything I believe is predicated on the fact that the bible is true an inerrant. I don't think you believe that, so coming to the same conclusion is unlikely, but it doesn't mean we can't talk about it.)

You think the bible is true and inerrant? You're a fool and I can prove it. You may not accept the proof, but that's the great thing about proof, it's true whether you believe it or not.

As far as your analogy goes: it's nowhere near perfect, it's pretty flawed.

[Maddhattter]

What if we look at it like a movie:

You go and watch a move, say 100 times, and memorize the outcome. The next time you watch that movie you know what is going to happen. You know that when x does something, y is going to happen. Your knowledge doesn't effect the choices or the outcome, they stay just as you knew they would.

Just because God knows something is going to happen doesn't necessarily mean it is what he wanted to happen. Even his omnipotence allows for this. He can want a certain thing to happen, and he can have the power to make it happen, while still choosing not to force it to happen.

I have always thought of it in this way. The analogy may not be perfect, and I'm not 100% clear on the issue becasue I have seen things that seem to support both ideas, but I think this description allows for the potential of omniscience and free will.

(Just throwing that out there. Everything I believe is predicated on the fact that the bible is true an inerrant. I don't think you believe that, so coming to the same conclusion is unlikely, but it doesn't mean we can't talk about it.)

Seems like you're getting the wrong idea of what I'm saying. It's not that we are being made to do what we do by god(or any other conscious force), nor is it relevant whether or not that god wants things to turn out as they are. It's that, if god is omniscient, choice is an illusion because we can't do anything other than what we're going to do.

What you're implying is that the movie has a choice in how it's going to play out. The actors/actresses are going to say the same lines and die the same deaths every single time. Not because they choose to, but because the result is set in stone. It's designed to appear that choices are being made, but that is the illusion.

Honestly, I mostly agree with your analogy. If god is omniscient, it's is watching a movie that already has an ending written. Nothing can change that ending, nor the events leading up to it. We play the part, not because we choose to, but because we have no other alternative. We will play the part we always have. John Connor will always kill the Terminator at the end of the movie because John, nor his friends and family, or the Terminator have any other choice. The characters believe they have free will, but their paths are predetermined. They are not making a choice, they are doing what they always have done and will always do to achieve the ending that is already determined.

The next problem with your analogy is you've given god the ability to intervene and change events. This introduces the the problem of evil. This also creates the issue of not having free will, but being given the options we're allowed to have. This is like stating that a slave has free will because you allow it to make choices. You just reserve the power to remove that ability at your whim. That is not free will, as you are only allowed to take the approved options because god can, at its whim, remove that choice and force an option upon you.

[BlackSnake]

Sorry. The two scenarios are not analogous due to the one making the prediction.

When god, being omniscient, knows how everything is going to play out until the end of time, then all these events are predetermined. If things were to not play out the way god knows, then god would be wrong and therefore not omniscient. This means that, ultimately, there is no choice, as things can only play out one way.

When you, not being omniscient, believe a situation will play out in a certain way you can be wrong. Many factors affect the outcome of your hypothetical. If your grandson were to not notice the cookie, he would not eat it. If he was not in the mood for a cookie, he would not eat it. If he began to fear punishment for taking the cookie, he would not eat it. If he was caught in the attempt to take the cookie by his parents, they could stop him from taking the cookie and eating it.

You are only making a prediction about future events based on how things have played out in the past, and are subject to being wrong.

God, on the other hand, cannot be wrong, due his omniscience. If god cannot be wrong, then we are not truly making a choice, but merely playing the part the only way it could be played.

So, if god is omniscient, we have no free will.




You've failed to support this claim.

I hope I do not misrepresent, but its my understanding that the word omnipotent spoken in the Bible comes from a Greek word "pantokrator" which means Almighty which is saying that he is the authority of creation.

Edit: In Christian iconography, Christ Pantocrator refers to a specific depiction of Christ. Pantocrator or Pantokrator (from the Greek Παντοκράτωρ) is a translation of one of many Names of God in Judaism. When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek as the Septuagint, Pantokrator was used both for YHWH Tzevaot "Lord of Hosts" and for El Shaddai "God Almighty".
The primary transference of the title "Pantokrator" to refer to Christ rather than the Creator was a result of the Christological shift that occurred during the fourth century, reflected through iconography; Christ Pantocrator has come to suggest Christ as a mild but stern, all-powerful judge of humanity.

This perfectly illustrates my point about believing something despite the evidence. In science, evolution is one of the best supported theories there is. All modern branches of biology accept and support evolution. That doesn't even touch on psychology and sociology. There is no branch of actual science that refutes or even argues the validity of evolution. The only thing that argues against evolution is religion. You have to ignore, or be ignorant of, the mountain of demonstrable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence to claim that evolution is false.

Maybe you can inlighten me, but I do not think that there is one fact known to man that supports evalution.
""One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City

Incorrect on both counts. He claimed that most atheists were believers, this is true. Very few atheists grow up in atheistic families. Most are raised in theism. Of those raised in theism, a majority of them in America are former Christians. They stopped being believers when they started to question their belief and found only faith.

You see, you can believe something and question that belief. These are not mutually exclusive. You must believe to have faith, as faith is belief without evidence. If you question that belief, you still have faith, you still believe, you are just unsure as to whether you should believe.

Pretty sure he said that he was once a believer and that his friend shook him by the shoulders and gave him some bad advice about the feelings that he was feeling. And with him saying that he was once a believer would say that he was a believer in faith. Saved as we say. Fact is that he said, "When I had my own conversion to born again Christian faith"

Now you are the one making unqualified assertions. How did one half sound like he researched and the other half not? What were the differences between the halves?

I guess it would have been better said that he was show boating at times with "much words" blirting out thing half thought out. Just a abservation I felt.

You've not refuted any of his arguments. So, to say that his main argument was is only good one is a little disingenuous.

Good catch. I did this intentionally thinking someone would point out a point or two that they think was valid in his interview.

Misrepresenting the argument doesn't help prove he's wrong. He stated that it is apparent that christians used to believe that Satan is a woman. He never stated that they currently do. He also explained his stance in which "pictures/drawings of serpents with breast" was one of a few things he used to support his stance.

Mind you, I cannot agree with him on this point as I do not know where is is getting is information from with regards to the pictures and drawings of serpents with breasts. They may or may not exists for all I know. I cannot, however, state that he is wrong for all the same reasons.

You have to admit that to summarize Christians in believing such a thing based on pics is out there. I mean, we have snake charmers in the "Christian" faith. lol It doesnt have anything to do with theology of the word, (Bible). There are a host of misrepresentations of the Christian faith, as there is in any belief.

Can you first demonstrate that he is incorrect and is, in fact, an idiot?

lol, you are just picking on me now.

[Maddhattter]

I hope I do not misrepresent, but its my understanding that the word omnipotent spoken in the Bible comes from a Greek word "pantokrator" which means Almighty which is saying that he is the authority of creation.

Edit: In Christian iconography, Christ Pantocrator refers to a specific depiction of Christ. Pantocrator or Pantokrator (from the Greek Παντοκράτωρ) is a translation of one of many Names of God in Judaism. When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek as the Septuagint, Pantokrator was used both for YHWH Tzevaot "Lord of Hosts" and for El Shaddai "God Almighty".
The primary transference of the title "Pantokrator" to refer to Christ rather than the Creator was a result of the Christological shift that occurred during the fourth century, reflected through iconography; Christ Pantocrator has come to suggest Christ as a mild but stern, all-powerful judge of humanity.

This does not support the claim that people can have free will while a god has omniscience. Never once did I mention omnipotence in the point you are countering. So, I fail to see the relevance of this.

Maybe you can inlighten me, but I do not think that there is one fact known to man that supports evalution.

I'm going to assume you meant evolution and move one.

""One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City

Research is key when attempting to use a quote. Take the time to do some research and discover whether or not a quote you pull from a creationist website, or anything from any website, is valid before you post.

He states himself that he was discussing systematics, otherwise known as taxonomy. Not evolution itself. As stated before, every branch of biology supports evolution, as well as several other fields including, but not limited to, psychology, sociology, and paleontology. How to organize and classify the discoveries is what he is discussing.

I feel that it's also worth pointing out that this quote-mine is from 1981. I'm confident, while not positive, that science has learned a few things in the last 30 years.

Pretty sure he said that he was once a believer and that his friend shook him by the shoulders and gave him some bad advice about the feelings that he was feeling.

He did say that he was once a believer. He also stated that his friend took him by the shoulders and gave him the exact same advice you've attempted to give me. Essentially, "Believe and you'll believe! The bible says so!".

And with him saying that he was once a believer would say that he was a believer in faith. Saved as we say. Fact is that he said, "When I had my own conversion to born again Christian faith"

Right. So, he said that he converted to christian faith. This means that he had a different faith before. As faith is believing without evidence, you were wrong on both counts. He had both faith and belief.

I guess it would have been better said that he was show boating at times with "much words" blirting out thing half thought out. Just a abservation I felt.

While I disagree with you, I can understand the appearance. When debating off the cuff, with no prepackaged materiel on hand, it's quite often that people will appear to be show boating and just blurting things out.

Good catch. I did this intentionally thinking someone would point out a point or two that they think was valid in his interview.

Well, given that racrguy posted the interview, I'd suppose that he felt a majority, if not all, of the points in the interview were valid. So, are you agreeing that you were being disingenuous?

You have to admit that to summarize Christians in believing such a thing based on pics is out there. I mean, we have snake charmers in the "Christian" faith. lol It doesnt have anything to do with theology of the word, (Bible).

If he had just limited his support to the pictures, I would agree. He, however, did not. He listed several points to support his claim aside from the pictures.

There are a host of misrepresentations of the Christian faith, as there is in any belief.

You've not given any way to determine fact from fantasy concerning christian religion. So, you really have no way of supporting this statement. This goes back to why an objective means of demonstrating reality so that it can be determined not to be fantasy is required.

Since you quoted someone to support your claim, I will as well. Without using a quote that is pulled out of context and used to dishonestly demonstrated something that it is not claiming(I'm not saying that you are using the quote dishonestly. I assume that you did not know it's original context. You just believed the website you pulled it from.)

No theologian has shown me a way to distinguish between the parts of the Bible that are true and the parts of the Bible that are metaphors. And this is another difference between science and religion. In science we have lots of falsifiable claims, like cold fusion for example. When a claim is falsified in science and everyone agrees it's bogus, it's discarded, it's put in the trash bin of bad ideas. When a claim of religion is falsified, it becomes a metaphor.

lol, you are just picking on me now.

I am. However, I am, at the same time, trying to point out that it's a little silly to demand evidence to support claims from others without providing any for your own.

[Maddhattter]

It just dawned on me that I never did provide one of the things you asked me for...

Maybe you can inlighten me, but I do not think that there is one fact known to man that supports evalution.

I had fully intended to try and help your understanding and just spaced before I made my post.

So, seeing as I'm not a teacher, I'm probably not the best to try and educate you on a subject you apparently know nothing about. So, I went in search of a teacher.

Fortunately, there is a little unknown school that has decided to try and better the world by releasing their lecture series on video for free! While you are unable to obtain college credit for the course without paying tuition, they do kindly give you every lecture on video and the supporting documentation and tests that the teacher would provide if you were a student in their class.

[slow06]

Seems like you're getting the wrong idea of what I'm saying. It's not that we are being made to do what we do by god(or any other conscious force), nor is it relevant whether or not that god wants things to turn out as they are. It's that, if god is omniscient, choice is an illusion because we can't do anything other than what we're going to do.

What you're implying is that the movie has a choice in how it's going to play out. The actors/actresses are going to say the same lines and die the same deaths every single time. Not because they choose to, but because the result is set in stone. It's designed to appear that choices are being made, but that is the illusion.

Honestly, I mostly agree with your analogy. If god is omniscient, it's is watching a movie that already has an ending written. Nothing can change that ending, nor the events leading up to it. We play the part, not because we choose to, but because we have no other alternative. We will play the part we always have. John Connor will always kill the Terminator at the end of the movie because John, nor his friends and family, or the Terminator have any other choice. The characters believe they have free will, but their paths are predetermined. They are not making a choice, they are doing what they always have done and will always do to achieve the ending that is already determined.

The next problem with your analogy is you've given god the ability to intervene and change events. This introduces the the problem of evil. This also creates the issue of not having free will, but being given the options we're allowed to have. This is like stating that a slave has free will because you allow it to make choices. You just reserve the power to remove that ability at your whim. That is not free will, as you are only allowed to take the approved options because god can, at its whim, remove that choice and force an option upon you.

Sounds like we agree on the premise, but not what it means. I can see why you would call the movie analogy predestination. In the end I'm not sure it matters a whole lot anyway. Either we have free will or we are predestined and some have the illusion of free will. If we never know in our lifetime is there really a difference?

Problem of Evil, that's another can of worms. In Philosophy class in college I had to argue against the existence of God using the problem of evil. It was interesting to say the least.

[BlackSnake]

This does not support the claim that people can have free will while a god has omniscience. Never once did I mention omnipotence in the point you are countering. So, I fail to see the relevance of this.

Where do you find omniscience quoted in the Bible? I find no record of the word ever used till somewhere in the 1500's.

He did say that he was once a believer. He also stated that his friend took him by the shoulders and gave him the exact same advice you've attempted to give me. Essentially, "Believe and you'll believe! The bible says so!".

I have never given you or any other that kind of advice. Complete ludicrous.

Right. So, he said that he converted to christian faith. This means that he had a different faith before. As faith is believing without evidence, you were wrong on both counts. He had both faith and belief.

Converted to Christianity in most cases just means that you were converted from a nonbeliever to a believer. From unsaved to saved.
Are you sure you are responding to my quotes? I do not recall disagreeing that faith and belief doesnt go hand in hand.

Well, given that racrguy posted the interview, I'd suppose that he felt a majority, if not all, of the points in the interview were valid. So, are you agreeing that you were being disingenuous?

lol, not at all. The interview was too long for me to sit here and diagnose every point he made. Fact is it would take up more characters than allowed. I figured if racrguy saw some validity in certain points, he would point them out.

[BlackSnake]

It just dawned on me that I never did provide one of the things you asked me for...



I had fully intended to try and help your understanding and just spaced before I made my post.

So, seeing as I'm not a teacher, I'm probably not the best to try and educate you on a subject you apparently know nothing about. So, I went in search of a teacher.

Fortunately, there is a little unknown school that has decided to try and better the world by releasing their lecture series on video for free! While you are unable to obtain college credit for the course without paying tuition, they do kindly give you every lecture on video and the supporting documentation and tests that the teacher would provide if you were a student in their class.

If you choose to believe that its the closest explanation out there, don't you have some personal thoughts on the subject. I really don't have the want to take a college course on a subject that has such an insane theology as my ancestors being apes.

Excuse me, but I have a sudden urge for potassium.

[Maddhattter]

Where do you find omniscience quoted in the Bible? I find no record of the word ever used till somewhere in the 1500's.

1. It doesn’t matter what the bible says. As per Yale's statement of "Technically, if your god exists, there is no free will." and "An omnipotent god would by definition mean an omniscient god, meaning he could see all your future actions ahead of time, before you even knew how you'd act. Choice would be illusory." you argued the point by means of a false analogy. I never stated that your god, or any god, is omniscient, only that your analogy is flawed because it was attributed to your god within the context of your conversation. What you still haven't countered is omniscience's incompatibility with free will. So, I’m under no burden to provide anything from any holy book.

2. Are you implying that the Christian god is not omniscient? If you are, I can understand the point of the question, but I would refer you to #1 above. Otherwise, your question is irrelevant.

I have never given you or any other that kind of advice. Complete ludicrous.

You’ve done so here. Implied agreement that “The bible will become true after you already believe it.” was true here. Then, defended the advice here. Then repeated that the bible proves it here, here, and here.

All of that states, essentially, "Believe and you'll believe! The bible says so!".

Converted to Christianity in most cases just means that you were converted from a nonbeliever to a believer. From unsaved to saved.

Converted from a nonbeliever to a believer in Christianity. This does not preclude, nor even indicate, that he did not come from having faith in another deity. In fact, given the number of options, it is far more likely that he converted from another faith than from atheism.

Are you sure you are responding to my quotes? I do not recall disagreeing that faith and belief doesnt go hand in hand.

I am responding directly to you. You stated that, based on his statement of believing and questioning his belief, that he did not have faith or belief.

Here is the original quote from you…

he claimed to be a "believer" at one time but in the same sentence said that he questioned his belief. Thats not faith or belief.

I replied stating that you were incorrect on both. Then explained how he did, in fact, have both faith and belief. That is two counts. Your response to my statement had little or nothing to do with my counter. So, you are still wrong that he did not have faith or belief.

lol, not at all. The interview was too long for me to sit here and diagnose every point he made. Fact is it would take up more characters than allowed. I figured if racrguy saw some validity in certain points, he would point them out.

So, you knew that racrguy probably felt that most of the points in the video were valid, as he wouldn’t have posted it otherwise. You do not refute any of the arguments made in the video stating that you didn’t in an attempt to get people to point out the points they thought were valid?

This makes no sense. I put the entire video up. So, there is no reason to assume that he didn’t feel that a majority of the points are valid. So, to claim that he should point them out is redundant as he did point them out by posting the video initially.

If you choose to believe that its the closest explanation out there, don't you have some personal thoughts on the subject.

Do I have thoughts about evolution? Of course I do. What I think about it is irrelevant. Science does not require, nor concern itself, with opinion. This is why nearly every scientific field of study that involves biology support and verify evolution. The only field of science that I know of, that involves biology and does not both support and verify evolution is biogenesis. The only reason it doesn’t is because biogenesis a precursor to evolution. It must happen first.

That is wonderful thing about science. It doesn’t matter what you, or I, believe on the subject. The evidence stands objectively on its own. You are not required to believe first, nor are you required to take someone’s word on it. Experiments are documented, falsifiable, and repeatable.

I really don't have the want to take a college course on a subject that has such an insane theology as my ancestors being apes.

This is irrelevant. Evolution is not a theology due to it being wholly independent of any religion. Evolution is also not the study of anything. Evolution is a scientific theory. So, you statement here has absolutely no bearing on the videos and supporting material provided to you. Unless you intend to imply that science is a religion.

Excuse me, but I have a sudden urge for potassium.

Is there a reason you feel that you need to be excused for having the urge for potassium? Do you feel this urge is wrong? Please, have a seat on my couch and we can discuss this…

[Maddhattter]

Sounds like we agree on the premise, but not what it means. I can see why you would call the movie analogy predestination. In the end I'm not sure it matters a whole lot anyway. Either we have free will or we are predestined and some have the illusion of free will. If we never know in our lifetime is there really a difference?

From a practical standpoint, there is no difference. If we don’t have free will, it doesn’t matter if we know that we don’t.

The question of free will does play heavily on responsibility. If my actions are predetermined, I’m no longer responsible for my actions, nor are you or anyone else. This lack of responsibility creates a new set of problems. So, from a theological perspective it’s terribly important.

I mean, how worthy of worship is a being that would punish me for a choice that I had no choice but to make?

Problem of Evil, that's another can of worms. In Philosophy class in college I had to argue against the existence of God using the problem of evil. It was interesting to say the least.

Agreed. That’s why I spent little of the post discussing it. It’s not to terribly relevant to the discussion of free will vs. predestination. I just pointed it out since it directly related to your analogy.

[jasone]

I am really enjoying this debate.

[BlackSnake]

I am really enjoying this debate.

Maddhattter really does his homework. He never makes it easy for you.

[racrguy]

Maddhattter really does his homework. He never makes it easy for you.

Homework? I imagine the most difficult part of this whole conversation for him was gathering up the OpenYale links. But I will wait for him to confirm/deny that part.

As far as the bible inerrancy, I'll prove my statement as true as soon as I get to a computer.

Edit: I lack the drive to prove anything at this point in time. It will just fall on deaf ears anyway. I'll give you a start though, look into Noah's Ark.