(December 26, 2016 at 4:17 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(December 22, 2016 at 11:49 am)robvalue Wrote: Sure, you are just a self-aware cause and effect machine.

Why do you say that there is a self to be self-aware?

If you program a computer to run seemingly self-aware words through its processor, that doesn't make it self-aware.

Quote:Have no rights? What does that mean, and how does it follow?

The overall argument is that, if we don't have free will, then it is unjust of god to judge us. But, we don't give that right to anything and everything. What are the determining factors that give something the right to fair judgment? I can run words through my laptop's processor then smash it with a hammer. I can't smash a person with a hammer. What's the difference between the two?

I'm saying I appear to have a self. In fact, it's the only thing I'm sure of, that "I" am experiencing something. I'm not sure what "I" am, or whether anything I'm experiencing is real.

I pragmatically assume that others who are similar to me also have genuine experiences, rather than just being "philosophical zombies". Especially because evidence suggests that they probably do. I can never be sure of this however. Do you have experiences? We're dealing with actual reality here, not a hypothetical. Also, computers could be self-aware for all I know.

You're asking what the difference is between smashing a computer and a person with a hammer? Well, a person appears to have feelings and will suffer, and most of us put a much higher value on human life than other things. That's the gist of it. There's nothing physically stopping you from doing it anyway though. Whether your actions are "just" is simply a matter of opinion. If we have no genuine choices to make, then I personally find God judging us to be insane rather than just unfair. It would be like me casting a spell on my toy so that it "feels", moving it around how I wish, then getting angry with what I've done with it and putting it in a furnace. Or, like you say, getting angry at your computer that you just programmed.

Rights are simply what we allow others to do, nothing more. We don't give people "the right" to smash each other with hammers, in that we will actively stop them from doing it and punish people who do, in civilized countries at least.

We have no rights as far as God is concerned, since we have no say in it. He does whatever he wants and no one can stop him. We can simply have opinions about it.

Why exactly don't you smash people with hammers, by the way? I'd be interested to know.

(December 27, 2016 at 4:15 am)robvalue Wrote: I'm saying I appear to have a self. In fact, it's the only thing I'm sure of, that "I" am experiencing something. I'm not sure what "I" am, or whether anything I'm experiencing is real.

That's a cop out. We also appear to make free choices. People argue that we really don't, on both theological and materialist grounds. Determinism doesn't get shot down in a serious discussion because someone just says I appear to have free will.

Quote:I pragmatically assume that others who are similar to me also have genuine experiences, rather than just being "philosophical zombies". Especially because evidence suggests that they probably do. I can never be sure of this however. Do you have experiences? We're dealing with actual reality here, not a hypothetical. Also, computers could be self-aware for all I know.

I like I think, therefore I am. However, with your interpretation of omniscience, given an omniscient god, I don't think. Therefore I am not, and I don't have any rights.

You previously said that with omniscience we're like characters in a movie or book. People don't judge the author of the book for the treatment of the characters in the book...because they're just characters in a book, and so don't have rights.

Quote:You're asking what the difference is between smashing a computer and a person with a hammer? Well, a person

We haven't established that a thing such as a person really exists.

Quote:appears to have feelings and will suffer,

There you go with appearances again. If a theist says that the universe appears to be created, or their prayers appear to be answered, that's probably not good enough for you. It's special pleading to allow yourself to just trust appearances if you don't allow others to do so.

Quote:and most of us put a much higher value on human life than other things.

NSS. I'm asking why that is.

Quote:That's the gist of it. There's nothing physically stopping you from doing it anyway though. Whether your actions are "just" is simply a matter of opinion. If we have no genuine choices to make, then I personally find God judging us to be insane rather than just unfair.

In that situation, it's strange to think of god as judging us, rather than just as an author of a very detailed book.

It would be like me casting a spell on my toy so that it "feels", moving it around how I wish, then getting angry with what I've done with it and putting it in a furnace. Or, like you say, getting angry at your computer that you just programmed.

(December 22, 2016 at 6:47 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(December 21, 2016 at 6:29 pm)Asmodee Wrote: So, let's say I build a time machine and then I let it sit for 1 hour before using it.  During that time I leave it in a locked room, completely unobserved.  When the hour is up I open the room, get into the machine and immediately go back in time 1/2 hour and destroy the past time machine I left sitting unobserved.  Would I still win the Nobel?

I'd say you'd be in line for the Nobel in Economics. Except there's no Nobel in Economics.

Really?  You don't think building a frigging time machine would warrant at least a nomination for the Nobel in physics?  I build a frigging time machine and other discoveries are STILL more impressive?  That's actually a little intimidating.  Like, "Don't piss off a physicist or he'll explode your head with his mind" intimidating.  Now I'm going to have dreams about presenting my time machine to the physics world only to have people laugh and tell me how "cute" my invention is.  Then I realize I'm not wearing pants...

(December 26, 2016 at 4:17 pm)alpha male Wrote: The overall argument is that, if we don't have free will, then it is unjust of god to judge us. But, we don't give that right to anything and everything. What are the determining factors that give something the right to fair judgment? I can run words through my laptop's processor then smash it with a hammer. I can't smash a person with a hammer. What's the difference between the two?

Philosophically, nothing.  But practicality is in play for every individual who has a biological urge to not be smashed with a hammer.

(December 28, 2016 at 1:16 am)wallym Wrote: Philosophically, nothing.  But practicality is in play for every individual who has a biological urge to not be smashed with a hammer.

Nope. In this scenario, thoughts aren't the result of biological urges, they're 100% predetermined by God. It's no different from running I don't want to be smashed with a hammer through the computer's processor.

(December 27, 2016 at 11:48 am)Asmodee Wrote:

(December 22, 2016 at 6:47 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote: I'd say you'd be in line for the Nobel in Economics. Except there's no Nobel in Economics.

Really?  You don't think building a frigging time machine would warrant at least a nomination for the Nobel in physics?  I build a frigging time machine and other discoveries are STILL more impressive?  That's actually a little intimidating.  Like, "Don't piss off a physicist or he'll explode your head with his mind" intimidating.  Now I'm going to have dreams about presenting my time machine to the physics world only to have people laugh and tell me how "cute" my invention is.  Then I realize I'm not wearing pants...

But you're asserting withoit evidence you built a time machine (you smashed the bugger, remember), thus making economics the perfect discipline.

(December 28, 2016 at 1:39 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(December 28, 2016 at 1:16 am)wallym Wrote: Philosophically, nothing.  But practicality is in play for every individual who has a biological urge to not be smashed with a hammer.

Nope. In this scenario, thoughts aren't the result of biological urges, they're 100% predetermined by God. It's no different from running I don't want to be smashed with a hammer through the computer's processor.

We look at a computer chess program.   We know that the pieces don't have any real value, and the game is ultimately devoid of meaning.  But the program is still going to run, and try to win the game.

I know there is no difference between a human not wanting to be smashed with a hammer, and a computer not wanting to be smashed with a hammer.  But my not wanting to be smashed with a hammer trumps the knowledge that the two are the same philisophically.

We assign the right to fair judgment as our programming dictates.  Just like everything else.

(December 28, 2016 at 6:14 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(December 27, 2016 at 11:48 am)Asmodee Wrote: Really?  You don't think building a frigging time machine would warrant at least a nomination for the Nobel in physics?  I build a frigging time machine and other discoveries are STILL more impressive?  That's actually a little intimidating.  Like, "Don't piss off a physicist or he'll explode your head with his mind" intimidating.  Now I'm going to have dreams about presenting my time machine to the physics world only to have people laugh and tell me how "cute" my invention is.  Then I realize I'm not wearing pants...

But you're asserting withoit evidence you built a time machine (you smashed the bugger, remember), thus making economics the perfect discipline.

And therein lies the conundrum, my friend!  That is the very reason for the question.  I get in the time machine, travel back in time and smash it BEFORE I got in it.  So do I still have the one I came in and, thus, win the Nobel?  Or am I stuck a half hour in the past, trying to fit in like I still belonged in that bygone era, hoping to find appropriate attire before someone notices my strange, futuristic fashion from a half hour into the future?

I did not have time to read this entire thread, but here are some answers.
You present a lot of ambiguous ideas; like fate, predetermination, choice, free will, etc. 
Here is a logical look at the question of how human free will and god knowledge can co-exist.

Omnipotence and omniscience are two separate characteristics of a god.
Having knowledge of an event does not equate to having power over the event.
They are not the same thing, one is not a subset of the other.
That is one of god's choices: to know and/or to control. 
God know all things and can choose when to affect or not to affect anything.

God can know the choice you will make without forcing a decision upon you.
There is no contradiction within that statement.
  
Furthermore, it does not really make sense to say that god controls an event simply by knowing of the event before it occurs.
God's knowledge doesn't exist as a "before" thing, or "during" thing or "after" thing.
God's knowledge of all events exists at all times.

God controls it in as much as he set everything up in the first place. He made all this stuff. And he knew what route it would all go down before any of it started, making any other "possibilities" redundant; and meaning he chose which choices get "picked". Every single one.

He set up a domino rally, essentially. He made some of the dominos feel like they had some choice, when really they didn't. If there are genuine choices to be made, you cannot know the outcomes in advance. That's just a logical absurdity. The information is not available. Saying God is magic or whatever doesn't cover it, if you're just going to ignore logic.