The joy of religion - part xxxxxxxxx

[Cerpin Taxt]

I've proven to you that being fixed doesn't mean you don't have free will.

You've proven no such thing. You've asserted it, but I've explained why that assertion is false. It is completely ridiculous to suggest that free will is possible in a totally deterministic universe.

Ergo, the future being fixed doesn't entail that you don't have free will in future choices.

What choices are there if the future is fixed? Even if it appears that I have a choice between A and B, if the future is fixed on B, then I do not have the ability to "choose" A, and therefore it is no choice at all.

 

[Moonbeam]

So can an omniscient god use his omnipotence to create a universe so complex that even he can't know its future.and are we living in a simulation where he's attempting to see?

 

[disappoint]

So can an omniscient god use his omnipotence to create a universe so complex that even he can't know its future.and are we living in a simulation where he's attempting to see?

Well you can create a random number generator right? Well I know I can. And look I'm not even omniscient.

But then, if He does, my dear Moonbeam, is he still omniscient or has he taken his own omniscience away like the proverbial animal caught in a bear trap that chews it's own leg in two leaving his foot behind in order to survive?

 

[WHAMPOM]

I can't conceive of a GOD imperfect enough to create inferior beings in the need to garner worship. Or a GOD control freak enough to direct everything. Eternal and boored, "Let me make something that surprises me" seems more likely, with a "these poor saps think I make them do what they do?" thrown in for laughs. "Humans LOL, humans ROTFLMAF!!!!"

 

[buckshot24]

Well you can create a random number generator right? Well I know I can. And look I'm not even omniscient.

But then, if He does, my dear Moonbeam, is he still omniscient or has he taken his own omniscience away like the proverbial animal caught in a bear trap that chews it's own leg in two leaving his foot behind in order to survive?

It's like the "can God create a boulder large enough where He can't lift it" absurdity.

 

[WelshBloke]

You can't change the rules in the middle of the conversation. You've been arguing that if God knows the future then its fixed. I've proven to you that being fixed doesn't mean you don't have free will. Ergo, the future being fixed doesn't entail that you don't have free will in future choices.

You missed out the bit about me not believing in god so I avoid all those impossibilities. The idea is if god (as recognized by mainstream Christians) exists then free will does not exist, if free will does not exist then man cant be judged for his actions, which means that either god doesnt exist and everything before point in this statement is bullshit or that god is a giant douchbag.

You havent proved that you can have free will if the the future is fixed at all, if anything this conversation has shown the opposite.

Where in the bible is that stated? It isn't. It's just as likely he knows the method, based on probability, but it's one of many based on your actions.

No idea, I've not heard many (any) Christians say that god is just guessing based on probability though.

the only thing that's stated with 100% certainty is you will die.

Thats a particularly low bar for omnipotence.

 

[WelshBloke]

It's like the "can God create a boulder large enough where He can't lift it" absurdity.

The burrito one is better.

 

[FelixDeCat]

It's like the "can God create a boulder large enough where He can't lift it" absurdity.

Chicken Text doesn't get it.

You have proven your assertions but Chicken Text chooses to deny it, using his free will.

In fact, all Chicken Text's denials of God are predetermined!!!!

 

[buckshot24]

You missed out the bit about me not believing in god so I avoid all those impossibilities.

I know you're an athiest, so what? That doesn't address my arguments. Instead of addressing the argument you retreat into your lack of belief. I find this to be completely dishonest and disingenuous. This is the behavior of a hack, and I didn't think you were a hack.

If we're going to discuss what God can or can't do you have to grant some assumptions, at least for the sake of discussion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Chicken Text doesn't get it.

You have proven your assertions but Chicken Text chooses to deny it, using his free will.

In fact, all Chicken Text's denials of God are predetermined!!!!

It should suprise no one that god-believers are adept at inventing their own false realities.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I know you're an athiest, so what? That doesn't address my arguments.

Yeah, the rest of his post that you deleted addressed your arguments.

Fuck's sake, you are shameless.

 

[soulcougher73]

Let's say I know that you will die in one of 435 possible ways, I can see all the lines of probability (with some ways of dying being more probable than others), how does that diminish your free will?

Not even close bud lol so much fail

 

[buckshot24]

More insults?

 

[soulcougher73]

You can't change the rules in the middle of the conversation. You've been arguing that if God knows the future then its fixed. I've proven to you that being fixed doesn't mean you don't have free will. Ergo, the future being fixed doesn't entail that you don't have free will in future choices.

You've not proven shit numbnuts.

 

[buckshot24]

You havent proved that you can have free will if the the future is fixed at all, if anything this conversation has shown the opposite.

I have proven to you that choices can be free and fixed.

 

[FelixDeCat]

It should suprise no one that god-believers are adept at inventing their own false realities.

What is false about it? I have correctly characterized your denials as predetermined despite your false will to do otherwise.

Stop being so closed-minded.

 

[buckshot24]

What is false about it? I have correctly characterized your denials as predetermined despite your false will to do otherwise.

Stop being so closed-minded.

I wonder if he realizes how much of a hack he is.

 

[fskimospy]

I wonder if he realizes how much of a hack he is.

You still haven't been able to effectively counter his argument. This isn't your fault, it's because it's impossible to do.

If God creates all the inputs to a system that affect someone's choice and does so with perfect knowledge of how they will react to them, choice is by definition impossible.

It's like saying a computer that you program to add 2+2 has free will to calculate whatever it wants because the CPU can technically perform other calculations.

 

[MongGrel]

You can't change the rules in the middle of the conversation. You've been arguing that if God knows the future then its fixed. I've proven to you that being fixed doesn't mean you don't have free will. Ergo, the future being fixed doesn't entail that you don't have free will in future choices.

I've never seen you prove a damned thing personally.

You've not proven shit numbnuts.

You've proven no such thing. You've asserted it, but I've explained why that assertion is false. It is completely ridiculous to suggest that free will is possible in a totally deterministic universe.


What choices are there if the future is fixed? Even if it appears that I have a choice between A and B, if the future is fixed on B, then I do not have the ability to "choose" A, and therefore it is no choice at all.

The burrito one is better.

+1

 

[WelshBloke]

I know you're an athiest, so what? That doesn't address my arguments. Instead of addressing the argument you retreat into your lack of belief. I find this to be completely dishonest and disingenuous.

Not at all, I'm pointing out that the logical conclusion to all these discussions is that god (as described in this thread) cant exist. It isnt a retreat into a lack of belief, its that a lack of belief is the only logical position in this discussion.

If we're going to discuss what God can or can't do you have to grant some assumptions, at least for the sake of discussion.

If we are playing assumptions lets go this way.

If we assume that god exists and is omnipotent then we end up having to jump through all sorts of hoops to make a logistically sound framework, and even then it all falls apart if you look at it too hard.

If we assume that god doesnt exist then we are presented with no logical problems and can spend time working out exactly how things work.

Now if I had to chose between those two assumptions which one sounds more likely? :hmm:

I have proven to you that choices can be free and fixed.

I must have missed that, care to reiterate?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I have proven to you that choices can be free and fixed.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What is false about it? I have correctly characterized your denials as predetermined despite your false will to do otherwise.

Stop being so closed-minded.

I wonder if he realizes how much of a hack he is.

I wonder if either of you realize how ridiculous you make religion look.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well you can create a random number generator right? Well I know I can. And look I'm not even omniscient.

But then, if He does, my dear Moonbeam, is he still omniscient or has he taken his own omniscience away like the proverbial animal caught in a bear trap that chews it's own leg in two leaving his foot behind in order to survive?

He's only omniscient on Mondays Wednesdays and Friday because he's omnipotent on Tuesdays Thursdays and Saturdays creating the universe so complex he can't see where it will end on those days, The answer to your first question is obvious, he rests on that day.

 

[buckshot24]

Not at all, I'm pointing out that the logical conclusion to all these discussions is that god (as described in this thread) cant exist. It isnt a retreat into a lack of belief, its that a lack of belief is the only logical position in this discussion.

Non sequitur. If I am wrong then free will doesn't exist, that's it. We're not even arguing about the existence of God so I have no idea how you can say this. Explain.

If we are playing assumptions lets go this way.

We ARE assuming things, how else are we even able to discuss this?

If we assume that god exists and is omnipotent then we end up having to jump through all sorts of hoops to make a logistically sound framework, and even then it all falls apart if you look at it too hard.

You'd have to believe having the power to do something is a sufficient reason to do it. Which is a ridiculous position to hold. How many things that you have the power to accomplish do you actually do on a daily basis?

I must have missed that, care to reiterate?

Past events are fixed and the choices made were free.

 

[WelshBloke]

Non sequitur. If I am wrong then free will doesn't exist, that's it. We're not even arguing about the existence of God so I have no idea how you can say this. Explain.

If theres free will there can be no entity that has knowledge of future events. If theres an entity that has knowledge of future events there can be no free will.

We ARE assuming things, how else are we even able to discuss this?

Indeed, and assumptions work both ways. If youre asking us to assume that god exists for an argument I can ask you to assume that there is no god to explore a hypothesis.

You'd have to believe having the power to do something is a sufficient reason to do it. Which is a ridiculous position to hold. How many things that you have the power to accomplish do you actually do on a daily basis?

To do what? Just the fact that there is knowledge (in fact just the ability to have that knowledge) would preclude free will. No action needs to be taken.

Past events are fixed and the choices made were free.

But they weren't past events when the choices were made. Thats the fundamental difference between the past and the future.

We have the past, where choices have been made and now things are fixed (you dont get to chose again what you did yesterday).
We have the present, where we make the decisions (but the present is ephemeral)
We have the future, where all possibilities are open because nothing has been chosen yet.