Question about common Christian belief

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Literati

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Flawed argument, based on a faulty view of time. You can't travel to the future, without knowing the result of every decision ever made to that point. Just travelling to the future assumes predetermined actions.

I don't even know what you're talking about honestly. I was saying that in theory.

"You can't travel to the future, without knowing the result of every decision ever made to that point."

I'm not sure what that means.

That means that to travel to the future, you need to know every decision made in the world between the present and the time you travel to. If you don't, how can you know the state of the world in the future? You have to know the events that happened to know the consequences.

 

[Linflas]

I may be wrong but I don't think this is something that all Christians necessarily believe. I think that it is a common belief of churches based on Calvinism.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: eigen

I appreciate your response.Care to take back your comment about not " putting in hardowork"...Hmm

Thanks for being done with me...Fvck GOD in the FACE.

Ya know what...
whatever your personal struggles... whatever shortcomings you have in your faith or lack thereof...

that really was not very nice.

This was a discussion, a debate and a bantering back and forth of differeing idea, ideals and principals. That was really uncalled for.

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: eigen

I appreciate your response.Care to take back your comment about not " putting in hardowork"...Hmm

Yes. I would care if I were to take that back.

You were not contributing to the arguement at the time, rather sitting back and throwing stones from a distance.

So no, you were not putting in the work needed to take part in the discussion at the time of me saying that, rather, you were sitting back lazily throwing comments in the background of the discussion as opposed to taking part in it. Thus, not putting in real work towards the current discussion. Which is exactly what you were doing at the time.

Or did you think that your first comment actually contributed to the debate?

Where was I wrong?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

That means that to travel to the future, you need to know every decision made in the world between the present and the time you travel to. If you don't, how can you know the state of the world in the future? You have to know the events that happened to know the consequences.

I don't believe that to be true.

Just as when we're born, we grown up in a world where all we know are the consequences of the past. We don't learn about history until later. As we grow older, we see things form and evolve.

If you were a time traveler, you would not need to know the every decision made in the world between the present and the time you travel to ahead of time. You would simply arrive at that time and be a bit confused for a while until you learn how things came to be.

If you froze yourself and woke up 200 years from now, you'd awake in a world that you are no longer familiar with. But you'd eventually learn how things got to the present state. You can't predict the future, but you can learn about the past.

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

That means that to travel to the future, you need to know every decision made in the world between the present and the time you travel to. If you don't, how can you know the state of the world in the future? You have to know the events that happened to know the consequences.

I never though of that. But I still think my idea applies that just because you know the future doesn't mean you influenced it to the point it is currently at.

Anyways, just my beliefs. Nothing for anyone to get all emotional over.

I'm going to go get a haircut now, which is of my own freewill. Although I can choose not to go, I know I am, and 15 minutes from now I will be in the barbershop, even though I know this, it is still an excersize of my freewill.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Literati

Although I can choose not to go, I know I am, and 15 minutes from now I will be in the barbershop, even though I know this, it is still an excersize of my freewill.

You don't actually know that. You're going to TRY to go to the barbershop, but you cannot say for sure that you'll be there in 15 minutes. The place may have closed down, your car may not start, etc. As long as there are other possibilities, nothing is a given.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: joshsquall

That means that to travel to the future, you need to know every decision made in the world between the present and the time you travel to. If you don't, how can you know the state of the world in the future? You have to know the events that happened to know the consequences.

I don't believe that to be true.

Just as when we're born, we grown up in a world where all we know are the consequences of the past. We don't learn about history until later. As we grow older, we see things form and evolve.

If you were a time traveler, you would not need to know the every decision made in the world between the present and the time you travel to. You would simply arrive at that time and be a bit confused for a while until you learn how things came to be.

If you froze yourself and woke up 200 years from now, you'd awake in a world that you are no longer familiar with. But you'd eventually lear how things got to the present state.

In order for forward time travel to be possible, you have to know the result of every decision made between now and then. Assuming you are in the present, you don't need to know every decision, because you are in the current time and can reach around and touch the present. You can't touch the future. To see the future, you have to know how to get there. You can't jump from 2005 to 2006 without everything happening in between. Time is not digital. If you're a programmer, think about it this way: You can't reach node 57 of a linked list from node 32 without going through 33 to 56. You have to know the outcomes of each of these nodes to reach 57. If you're currently at 32, you don't need to know the outcomes of 1 through 31, because you're already at your destination.

 

[FoBoT]

i believe we have freedom of choice

we make decisions that shape how we live out lives

we have to live with the consequences of our choices

to me life is more of a "sand box" that God puts us in to see what we can do/how much we can learn

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Literati
These are said on depending situations.

For instance, if a man is going downhill, by free will of course, doing drugs etc. and he meets a girl, whom he cleans up for and lives a better life because of, then someone might say that she was a Godsend.

So in fact, the person is and still can excersize free will, first by being put into that situation by choice, while also excersizing freewill to change for that person, or in some cases, not to change.

These "God sent" situations or people are not infact infringing upon a persons freewill, but put there in so doing so as to give the person an opportunity to excersize his or hers freewill to change accordingly. Regardless the person remains in control throughout any of those ordeals.

Great. So, the guy had freewill. Now, who sent the girl again??

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Kipper

Originally posted by: Amused
Folks, if the supposed god/s is omnipotent, he is, by default, omniscient.

This means he is all knowing. He knows what your entire life will be, including all "decisions" you'll make before he even creates you.

This completely and totally negates free will.

This is so plainly obvious, yet people maintain that omniscience and free will are compatible.

But, people can pray to God and then, he'll change his mind, and their life will change. "Oh, please God, let my favorite team win the superbowl this weekend." God may have already decided the 49'ers are going to win in overtime, but Billy's prayer touched his heart and he changed his mind.

I hope those who are religious don't argue that point. Otherwise, what would be the point of praying?

Wait a second. God would know that you were going to pray. If he already knew that, then why would it make a difference?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Literati

Originally posted by: Amused
Folks, if the supposed god/s is omnipotent, he is, by default, omniscient.

This means he is all knowing. He knows what your entire life will be, including all "decisions" you'll make before he even creates you.

This completely and totally negates free will.

No it doesn't, knowing what is going to happen, and forcing someone to take those actions so as to fulfill your expectations are two different things.

Say if we could go to the future and see a man commit suicide.

Now we rewind back into present day, the man commits suicide and you knew he was going to, it was still his choice to do so, and our knowledge of what was going to happen has no effect on that mans decision to do so.

Thus we did not impede or hinder his freewill at all, we just knew what his decision was going to be beforehand, all while not influencing or even remotely changing the course of his chosen actions.

I agree completely with that. However, God didn't just show up and know the future of everything in the universe. He created it. Thus, from the beginning of time, into the future, everything was predetermined by him. If I place a ball in the top of a vertical pipe and drop it. It's going to go down until it reaches the bottom. Saying the ball has free-will to determine its path is no different than saying a person has free-will.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Amused
Folks, if the supposed god/s is omnipotent, he is, by default, omniscient.

This means he is all knowing. He knows what your entire life will be, including all "decisions" you'll make before he even creates you.

This completely and totally negates free will.

No, it doesn't. That's the fallacy of theological fatalism. Knowledge is not action.

Amused, let me ask you... if you thought you had a fatal, uncurable disease, would you go to the doctor?
Believing that you wouldn't/shouldn't is called fatalism. Believing that God's omniscience interferes with human free will is called theological fatalism. Do you see the connection? What is happening is that you are confusing God's omniscience with His omnipotence. Like I said, knowledge is not power.

Originally posted by: Linflas
I may be wrong but I don't think this is something that all Christians necessarily believe. I think that it is a common belief of churches based on Calvinism.

You are correct. And Calvinism is a particular brand of Christianity that does not believe in Free Will, while almost all other Christian sects do believe in Free Will.
Shocking as this may be to some people here, not all religious people believe the same thing, even ones that claim to be of the same faith.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I agree completely with that. However, God didn't just show up and know the future of everything in the universe. He created it. Thus, from the beginning of time, into the future, everything was predetermined by him. If I place a ball in the top of a vertical pipe and drop it. It's going to go down until it reaches the bottom. Saying the ball has free-will to determine its path is no different than saying a person has free-will.

There are at least 2 flaws to the ball analogy.
First, humans are animate and sentient. The ball is not.
Second, you're assuming that God exists in and experiences time in the same manner that humans do.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Amused
Folks, if the supposed god/s is omnipotent, he is, by default, omniscient.

This means he is all knowing. He knows what your entire life will be, including all "decisions" you'll make before he even creates you.

This completely and totally negates free will.

No, it doesn't. That's the fallacy of theological fatalism. Knowledge is not action.

Amused, let me ask you... if you thought you had a fatal, uncurable disease, would you go to the doctor?
Believing that you wouldn't/shouldn't is called fatalism. Believing that God's omniscience interferes with human free will is called theological fatalism. Do you see the connection?

Nope. I am not omniptoent.

There is no other logical conculsion than: if the god/s are omnipotent and created everything, freewill is impossible.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: eigen

Originally posted by: Literati

Originally posted by: eigen

Originally posted by: Literati

Originally posted by: eigen
fairy tales dont have to be consistent.Only comforting.

Ahh yes, always easier to throw stones at something which you don't understand and ignorantly remain in the same comfortable and unchanged frame of mind instead of actually lending yourself to the terrible hard work in which someone would have to endure to actually try to understand.

Ahh yes, better to sit in the back of the room and criticize the point of contention from a comfortable distance as opposed to actually having to put in the effort needed to take part in it.

I understand.Thats what I believe.Did you attend a private religous academy.Did you take 4 years of theology classes taught by a former Jesuit priest.Did you ask these questions for 4 years and not get a single straight answer.Don't give me that crap about hardwork.How do you think it feels for a 14yr to lose his faith.Do you think I had a jolly good time realizing that all the people around me were DELUSIONAL.I came to my conclusion through reading about human psychology,evolutionary history and politics.But thats okay.Because between you an me there exist a gulf, A gulf of reason which neither of us can ever cross.


But Oh yes you understand.You realize from your point of view it is Blasphemey.How can you even claim to understand gods plan and vision and ablities.In other words shove your high horse up your ass.

Here come the inevitable personal insults used to gain some type of ground regardless of how it is gained in order to strengthen the rest of your position.

For the record, I never claimed to understand Gods plan and vision and abilities. In fact, let me quote myself and be done with you.

"I am not saying this is the way it is, I'm simply saying this is how I think this works. "

I appreciate your response.Care to take back your comment about not " putting in hardowork"...Hmm

Thanks for being done with me...Fvck GOD in the FACE.

I like this guy.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Amused
Folks, if the supposed god/s is omnipotent, he is, by default, omniscient.

This means he is all knowing. He knows what your entire life will be, including all "decisions" you'll make before he even creates you.

This completely and totally negates free will.

No, it doesn't. That's the fallacy of theological fatalism. Knowledge is not action.

Amused, let me ask you... if you thought you had a fatal, uncurable disease, would you go to the doctor?
Believing that you wouldn't/shouldn't is called fatalism. Believing that God's omniscience interferes with human free will is called theological fatalism. Do you see the connection?

Nope. I am not omniptoent.

There is no other logical conculsion than: if the god/s are omnipotent and created everything, freewill is impossible.

Exactly.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Amused
Nope. I am not omniptoent.

There is no other logical conculsion than: if the god/s are omnipotent and created everything, freewill is impossible.

Omniscience != omnipotence. Your "logical conclusion" is a logical fallacy, Amused.

 

[GreatBarracuda]

This topic has been discussed and the question, answered, twice in P&N.

Can Free Will and God exsist?

Christianity and free will

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Great. So, the guy had freewill. Now, who sent the girl again??

I already addressed this.

Get that goat out of your teeth.

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Literati

Although I can choose not to go, I know I am, and 15 minutes from now I will be in the barbershop, even though I know this, it is still an excersize of my freewill.

You don't actually know that. You're going to TRY to go to the barbershop, but you cannot say for sure that you'll be there in 15 minutes. The place may have closed down, your car may not start, etc. As long as there are other possibilities, nothing is a given.

Well I am back from the barbershop.

Thus my "prophecy" came true, so at the time of writing that I did indeed know the future, because what I said has happened, yet it still remained my decision to do go.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Well I bounty hunt!
For jabba the hutt!
To finance!
My vette!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Amused
Nope. I am not omniptoent.

There is no other logical conculsion than: if the god/s are omnipotent and created everything, freewill is impossible.

Omniscience != omnipotence. Your "logical conclusion" is a logical fallacy, Amused.

Omnipotence implies, nay, demands omniscience by it's very definition.

Are we going to start arguing over what the word "it" means?

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: Nik
Well I bounty hunt!
For jabba the hutt!
To finance!
My vette!

Fvck JABBA right in the HUTT.

 

[Literati]

What I don't understand, is the willingness to be so scorned towards the possibility of there being a God.

When we die, if there isn't one, than I am just going to die, that's it, end of the line, finito. No better off than the next man.

Now if there is a God, I will die in his good graces, thus securing my extremely comfortable position in the after life. All while trying to live a good and honest life on the strength of my religeon. Which is what makes me happy.

But, if you decide to demean and disrespect and downright defy his existance, you're fvcked.

That's a pretty big gamble, so good luck with that.

[edit]

My arms are growing tired from beating this dead horse.

There's enough of this very same debate all over the internet to allow myself to comfortably discontinue this unless I am directly questioned.