Regarding the Existence or Absence of God
- Thread starter rs7
- Start date
- Status
Is it possible to describe something as being undescribable? Can I describe your diatribes as being undescribably lame? Can you define a term (i.e. 1 divided by 0) as being undefined? Let's see if the retard can answer this. You did take some math courses at the special school didn't you?
No wonder no one can argue with you. You lack an understanding of rudimentary logic.
No wonder no one can argue with you. You lack an understanding of rudimentary logic.
ha ha
Ok...ill explain the issues here.
Finally, we can apply these several logical niceties to the problem of Epistemic Determinism. Let's recall the argument that initiated this current discussion:
ORIGINAL Version of the Argument for Epistemic Determinism
Premise 1 - If x knows that you are going to do [some action] A, then you must do A.
Here is a problem already. He is not attacking my argument
at all. So it is not relevant.
I would state premise 1 as:
Premise 1:If X knows that you are going to do [some action]A that has already occured in the future, then you will eventually
do A in the future.
Premise 2 - But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter (i.e. you will not be able to do otherwise than A).
The correct version would be:
Premise 2: But if A has already happened (in the future),
then you have no choice in that matter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus - If x knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you have no free choice (i.e. you will not be able to do otherwise than A).
This person is not even addressing the argument we are making.
Or, put another way:
Foreknowledge is incompatible with free will.
As should now be clear, the first premise - because of the way we ordinarily state necessary conditions - appears to be true. But if taken literally, at face value, as is being done in this argument, the first premise is false.
If, however, we take some care to express the first premise in a non-misleading way, so that it expresses correctly the underlying logic, then the conclusion above does not follow from the (corrected) premises.
CORRECTED Version of the Argument for Epistemic Determinism
Premise 1 - It must be that (if x knows that you are going to do [some action] A, then you will do A).
Premise 2 - But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus - If x knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A.
So here he says that the conclusion does not follow
once the premises are fixed. Which I agree with. Because
the whole argument is not even what we are debating any more.
Here is his final argument:
Premise 1 - It must be that (if x knows that you are going to do [some action] A, then you will do A).
Premise 2 - But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus - If x knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A.
Once again... not even relevant
to this discussion because what we (at least I) am saying
is actually the following:
Premise 1:If X knows that you are going to do [some action]A that has already occured in the future, then you will eventually
do A in the future.
Premise 2: But if A has already happened (in the future),
then you have no choice in that matter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus - If X knows that A has already occured in the future,
then you have no choice but to eventually do A in the future.
Another simple way to look at this is:
To an omniscient being, time is not linear.
EVERYTHING has already occured, in the past, present
and future.
If he sees that you will do A in the future, then A has
ALREADY OCCURED (to him). Only to YOU has it NOT occured.
You absolutely WILL do A in the future because A
has already happened.
Now the atheists see this, and by definition, do NOT consider
this fee will.
Tripack, see's this, and says its free will because the actor
did in fact make the choice to do A even though it has
already happened. And A was never forced.
Once again.... nothing but semantics here.
This is NOT free will to me, because by my definition,
free will can ONLY exist in a non-pre-determined universe.
peace
axeman
Finally, we can apply these several logical niceties to the problem of Epistemic Determinism. Let's recall the argument that initiated this current discussion:
ORIGINAL Version of the Argument for Epistemic Determinism
Premise 1 - If x knows that you are going to do [some action] A, then you must do A.
Here is a problem already. He is not attacking my argument
at all. So it is not relevant.
I would state premise 1 as:
Premise 1:If X knows that you are going to do [some action]A that has already occured in the future, then you will eventually
do A in the future.
Premise 2 - But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter (i.e. you will not be able to do otherwise than A).
The correct version would be:
Premise 2: But if A has already happened (in the future),
then you have no choice in that matter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus - If x knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you have no free choice (i.e. you will not be able to do otherwise than A).
This person is not even addressing the argument we are making.
Or, put another way:
Foreknowledge is incompatible with free will.
As should now be clear, the first premise - because of the way we ordinarily state necessary conditions - appears to be true. But if taken literally, at face value, as is being done in this argument, the first premise is false.
If, however, we take some care to express the first premise in a non-misleading way, so that it expresses correctly the underlying logic, then the conclusion above does not follow from the (corrected) premises.
CORRECTED Version of the Argument for Epistemic Determinism
Premise 1 - It must be that (if x knows that you are going to do [some action] A, then you will do A).
Premise 2 - But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus - If x knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A.
So here he says that the conclusion does not follow
once the premises are fixed. Which I agree with. Because
the whole argument is not even what we are debating any more.
Here is his final argument:
Premise 1 - It must be that (if x knows that you are going to do [some action] A, then you will do A).
Premise 2 - But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus - If x knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A.
Once again... not even relevant
to this discussion because what we (at least I) am saying
is actually the following:
Premise 1:If X knows that you are going to do [some action]A that has already occured in the future, then you will eventually
do A in the future.
Premise 2: But if A has already happened (in the future),
then you have no choice in that matter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus - If X knows that A has already occured in the future,
then you have no choice but to eventually do A in the future.
Another simple way to look at this is:
To an omniscient being, time is not linear.
EVERYTHING has already occured, in the past, present
and future.
If he sees that you will do A in the future, then A has
ALREADY OCCURED (to him). Only to YOU has it NOT occured.
You absolutely WILL do A in the future because A
has already happened.
Now the atheists see this, and by definition, do NOT consider
this fee will.
Tripack, see's this, and says its free will because the actor
did in fact make the choice to do A even though it has
already happened. And A was never forced.
Once again.... nothing but semantics here.
This is NOT free will to me, because by my definition,
free will can ONLY exist in a non-pre-determined universe.
peace
axeman
you would have to be one of the stupidest people i've encountered on these boards. christians normally come off as pretty stupid when trying to justify their beliefs, but you take the cake.
of course you can describe your god as undesribable. but then you must stop right there. there's nothing more you can say about something that's undescribable. but you go on to try and define him. hence the idiocy. doesn't surprise me you didn't realise it.
I have no understanding of rudimentary logic? hahahahah
what a sour grapes comment.
give it UP goldenarm! trust me you moron, if you and i engaged in a scored debate i would eat you alive boy!
a piece of goldenarm "logic".
- goldenarm, why do you believe in christianity?
- Well DUH! i was born and raised catholic!!!!
- goldenarm, you are pretty sure christianity is the "true" religion?
- well DUH! the bible tells us so!
- goldenarm, you are aware there are OTHER religions in the world, how do you know YOURS is true and the others aren't?
- well DUH! i told ya! i was born catholic! i wasn't born in new delhi or riyadh ya know!
oh, but wait - it's ME that lacks understanding of rudimentary logic.
what an extraordinary schmuk!
If you are going to conclude that (B) and (C) were never possible choices in your proof you have to show this in your proof to make it reach the conclusion that (F) is denied.
5. free will (F) is the choice of either (A) or (B) or (C)
If I'm interpreting the words in your proof correctly, your proof states that if (A) (B) or (C) is chosen then Free Will (F) exists. Under this reading (A) was chosen so (F) exists.
If you read it that the options (A) (B) and (C) must exist for (F) to exist I would say prove that they don't exist. Showing that one of the choices was selected does not prove that the choices didn't exist. That is the conclusion all the proponents of epistemic determinism keep arriving at without filling in all the blanks along the way.
I can say with absolute certainty that in every decision where there are 3 choices (and assuming an omniscient god doesn't exist) that 2 of those choices will not be chosen and one of the choices must absolutely be chosen. Does this in fact mean that I had no choice in the matter because the options not chosen were not actually choices? Not much of a jump from your logic to mine, though to save you the time of responding I will concede that the logic of the argument in this paragraph is incorrect.
That's my boy. He is so eloquent!!!
LOL, Hehehehe, LMAO!
Keep the valuable posts coming, my boy.
By the way, what has become of Thunderbolt? Is he editing a new bible? Compiling more "proof"? LOL. Hehehehe, ha ha, and LMAO.
Waiting for the resurection of Thunderbolt.
Daniel and Goldenarm, you two are such nice young boys. Why don't you stop fighting with each other and gang up on Aphie, who appreciates being a "whipping boy"? I read his latest contribution on options. He is a self proclaimed expert. Pretty funny. LMAO, hehehehehe, LOL. I am an old lady who doesn't know anything about stocks and all that confusing stuff, but even I know when a young stud like Aphie is just talking out of his ass.
Expert....hahahahahahaha. There must be a god, because such comedic foolishness could only be a divine gift.
I must say axeman that this is some very good logic and these are some good arguments that you present.
Ok let's analyze the argument above. First off on the face let me say that it appears to be a very well conceived and valid logical argument. But as we know in order for an argument to be valid each premise must be valid and the conclusion must logically flow from the premises. It appears that the conclusion does in fact flow from the premises. But are the premises valid?
Can an action already have occurred in the future? When you state something as having already occurred it is by definition in the past and not the future. Something cannot have happened in the future any more than some future event will happen in the past. The past has happened and the future will happen. The future by definition cannot have happened until it is the past.
Now you argue that (X) (god) knows that (A) has already occurred because (X) can see the future. This is an assumption of the nature of (X) and so may be accepted by definition. In other words god is omniscient in the assumption so we must conclude that god can see the future event (A).
However, even though (X) has seen (A) in advance of the actual occurrence of (A), the event (A) has not yet happened until (you) do that event (A) in the present time. Thus it is not possible for an event to have happened in the future.
In addition, no assumptions about the special powers of (you) have been made. In other words (you) cannot be expected to possess omniscience as (X) is defined to possess. Therefore it is not correct to assume that (A) has already occurred for (you), thus it is not valid to say that (A) has already occurred in the future. The rest of the proof rests upon the assumption that (A) has already occurred in the future so the proof is not valid.
If you strip away the future/past conflict in the proof above you end up words virtually identical to the modified proof provided by Professor Swartz.
Ok let's analyze the argument above. First off on the face let me say that it appears to be a very well conceived and valid logical argument. But as we know in order for an argument to be valid each premise must be valid and the conclusion must logically flow from the premises. It appears that the conclusion does in fact flow from the premises. But are the premises valid?
Can an action already have occurred in the future? When you state something as having already occurred it is by definition in the past and not the future. Something cannot have happened in the future any more than some future event will happen in the past. The past has happened and the future will happen. The future by definition cannot have happened until it is the past.
Now you argue that (X) (god) knows that (A) has already occurred because (X) can see the future. This is an assumption of the nature of (X) and so may be accepted by definition. In other words god is omniscient in the assumption so we must conclude that god can see the future event (A).
However, even though (X) has seen (A) in advance of the actual occurrence of (A), the event (A) has not yet happened until (you) do that event (A) in the present time. Thus it is not possible for an event to have happened in the future.
In addition, no assumptions about the special powers of (you) have been made. In other words (you) cannot be expected to possess omniscience as (X) is defined to possess. Therefore it is not correct to assume that (A) has already occurred for (you), thus it is not valid to say that (A) has already occurred in the future. The rest of the proof rests upon the assumption that (A) has already occurred in the future so the proof is not valid.
If you strip away the future/past conflict in the proof above you end up words virtually identical to the modified proof provided by Professor Swartz.
Let me clarify.
When I state the something has already happened in the
future it is from the point of view of the omniscient being.
This is very different from the humans point of view.
To an omniscient being that can see past, present and future,
EVERYTHING has already happened. This linear idea
of past, present and future only belongs in the human realm.
So lets keep things clear by observing one point of view at
a time.
View A - The omniscient being has already seen your action
A in the future. Action A has already occurred to the omniscient
being since linear time is only perceived by the human.
In this context, making a statement like, "your going to do A",
is pretty silly. There is no "gonna". Everything has already occurred.
Its like observing a character in a movie you have
already seen and knowing what they are going to do next.
"Next" only makes sense if you point at a frame in the movie
and say, THEN so and so will happen, since you in a sense
exist in all places in time, "outside" of the movie.
View B - the humans view.
To the human, action A has not occurred.
To the human, later in time, the human freely decides
he is going to do action A, and in fact DOES action A.
The human is convinced he has free will because HE made
the decision to do action A, and no god forced him to do A.
Mixing the two view points at the same time is what is confusing
everyone.
I will again re-state, that free will is entirely dependent on
your definition and is point of view dependent.
If YOU were the omniscient being, would you say that
the human has free will? It all depends on how you define it.
I would say he does not, because his choices are
incapable of changing the film in the HUMANS future.
The future has already occurred. It just hasn't occurred
to the human yet because he is so limited, unlike you.
Does that clear everything up?
Anyways..... although stuff like this is fairly interesting
to discuss I would just like to point out that we
are way off course here.
This thread was about the existence of god and we ran
off into epistemology, etc...
But all of these arguments are completely ARBITRARY.
We still have no evidence of an omniscient being existing.
All the atheists could throw up their hands and say YOU WIN
all side arguments and the theists still have made no progress.
We all admit that things are POSSIBLE.
Yet we get side tracked into these side arguments about
wether or not omniscient beings are POSSIBLE, and frankly
its completely unnecessary for the atheists to even ATTEMPT
to defend these side arguments.
The burden of proof is still on the theists who to this day
have failed to deliver a shred of evidence for the existence
of god or gods, etc.
The best they have done is attempting to defend
POSSIBLE attributes, like omniscience, for POSSIBLE gods.
But we might as well be discussing omniscient unicorns, due
to the lack of evidence.
peace
axeman
When I state the something has already happened in the
future it is from the point of view of the omniscient being.
This is very different from the humans point of view.
To an omniscient being that can see past, present and future,
EVERYTHING has already happened. This linear idea
of past, present and future only belongs in the human realm.
So lets keep things clear by observing one point of view at
a time.
View A - The omniscient being has already seen your action
A in the future. Action A has already occurred to the omniscient
being since linear time is only perceived by the human.
In this context, making a statement like, "your going to do A",
is pretty silly. There is no "gonna". Everything has already occurred.
Its like observing a character in a movie you have
already seen and knowing what they are going to do next.
"Next" only makes sense if you point at a frame in the movie
and say, THEN so and so will happen, since you in a sense
exist in all places in time, "outside" of the movie.
View B - the humans view.
To the human, action A has not occurred.
To the human, later in time, the human freely decides
he is going to do action A, and in fact DOES action A.
The human is convinced he has free will because HE made
the decision to do action A, and no god forced him to do A.
Mixing the two view points at the same time is what is confusing
everyone.
I will again re-state, that free will is entirely dependent on
your definition and is point of view dependent.
If YOU were the omniscient being, would you say that
the human has free will? It all depends on how you define it.
I would say he does not, because his choices are
incapable of changing the film in the HUMANS future.
The future has already occurred. It just hasn't occurred
to the human yet because he is so limited, unlike you.
Does that clear everything up?
Anyways..... although stuff like this is fairly interesting
to discuss I would just like to point out that we
are way off course here.
This thread was about the existence of god and we ran
off into epistemology, etc...
But all of these arguments are completely ARBITRARY.
We still have no evidence of an omniscient being existing.
All the atheists could throw up their hands and say YOU WIN
all side arguments and the theists still have made no progress.
We all admit that things are POSSIBLE.
Yet we get side tracked into these side arguments about
wether or not omniscient beings are POSSIBLE, and frankly
its completely unnecessary for the atheists to even ATTEMPT
to defend these side arguments.
The burden of proof is still on the theists who to this day
have failed to deliver a shred of evidence for the existence
of god or gods, etc.
The best they have done is attempting to defend
POSSIBLE attributes, like omniscience, for POSSIBLE gods.
But we might as well be discussing omniscient unicorns, due
to the lack of evidence.
peace
axeman
- Status