(June 16, 2021 at 12:03 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Having had this conversation with you many times, I'm beginning to worry you won't ever understand no matter how plainly and how often I express myself.

Tell me that the sources your religion cribbed from are garbage, and I think you have a problem...but..... honestly, you could save your breath entirely with me   I don't care whether or not your silly god exists, because it's a garbage god.  I won't join your club because you're bad people with bad beliefs.  Do you understand?

If you are that careless about God's existence and religions, I guess you are in the wrong thread, then.

(June 16, 2021 at 12:03 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's not your word against mine, it's the one word against the other.  If it can be known that you will do x, you cannot do other than x  

Once again, you're not taking the time parameter into account. Now you just look like this bad, stubborn student who keeps forgetting to draw the z-axis, because everything is simple in an XY-plane.

What God knows, exactly, is this : "You will choose, at a given moment t, to do X". Notice how choice is a temporary possibility. Past the moment t, choice and free will cease to have meaning. And because you drop the time parameter, you allow yourself to assess the agent's free will past the moment where he could have free will. I see what you did there captain. 

And frankly, to think that all these philosophers of Islam out there - including those who were considered heretics -who discussed free will lengthily missed your point, and went on discussing possible reconciliations without noticing what you think are mutually exclusive concepts........

(June 16, 2021 at 12:03 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Still babbling about intervention.  It's knowing that presents a problem for free will.  Not force, as I've explained every time you've argued against force.  

Yeah it clearly presents a problem for free will, for you. Because your definition of free will is flawed in the first place, namely, you speak of it as if it were some timeless ability of an individual.

---

(June 16, 2021 at 6:29 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: And the best and most universal way to simplify gods is to anthropomorphize them, which is what the Quran does.

Boru

The Qur'an says, verbatim, that : "There is nothing like Him. He is the Hearing, the Seeing." (42:11). 

Describing the deity in a manner that is comprehensible to humans is a necessity inherent to the limitations of our languages. If we define that as anthropomorphism, then any utterance about God is anthropomorphism, and the latter word becomes empty of meaning.

In short, foreknowledge is a timeless property of a timeless being. Free will is the property of a being bounded by time. Evaluating the latter based on the former is a category mistake.

(June 17, 2021 at 11:32 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(June 16, 2021 at 12:03 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Having had this conversation with you many times, I'm beginning to worry you won't ever understand no matter how plainly and how often I express myself.

Tell me that the sources your religion cribbed from are garbage, and I think you have a problem...but..... honestly, you could save your breath entirely with me   I don't care whether or not your silly god exists, because it's a garbage god.  I won't join your club because you're bad people with bad beliefs.  Do you understand?

If you are that careless about God's existence and religions, I guess you are in the wrong thread, then.

(June 16, 2021 at 12:03 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's not your word against mine, it's the one word against the other.  If it can be known that you will do x, you cannot do other than x  

Once again, you're not taking the time parameter into account. Now you just look like this bad, stubborn student who keeps forgetting to draw the z-axis, because everything is simple in an XY-plane.

What God knows, exactly, is this : "You will choose, at a given moment t, to do X". Notice how choice is a temporary possibility. Past the moment t, choice and free will cease to have meaning. And because you drop the time parameter, you allow yourself to assess the agent's free will past the moment where he could have free will. I see what you did there captain. 

And frankly, to think that all these philosophers of Islam out there - including those who were considered heretics -who discussed free will lengthily missed your point, and went on discussing possible reconciliations without noticing what you think are mutually exclusive concepts........

(June 16, 2021 at 12:03 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Still babbling about intervention.  It's knowing that presents a problem for free will.  Not force, as I've explained every time you've argued against force.  

Yeah it clearly presents a problem for free will, for you. Because your definition of free will is flawed in the first place, namely, you speak of it as if it were some timeless ability of an individual.

---

(June 16, 2021 at 6:29 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: And the best and most universal way to simplify gods is to anthropomorphize them, which is what the Quran does.

Boru

The Qur'an says, verbatim, that : "There is nothing like Him. He is the Hearing, the Seeing." (42:11). 

Describing the deity in a manner that is comprehensible to humans is a necessity inherent to the limitations of our languages. If we define that as anthropomorphism, then any utterance about God is anthropomorphism, and the latter word becomes empty of meaning.

No, what it does is to clarify that it is incoherent to talk about (or even think about) god without at least some degree of anthropomorphism. To say ‘God loves us’ or ‘God is merciful’ is anthropomorphizing. 

To be clear, I don’t object to that. My objection is to Winter’s claim that the Quran doesn’t do this, or that it’s somehow bad for people to do it.


Boru

(June 17, 2021 at 12:43 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: In short, foreknowledge is a timeless property of a timeless being. Free will is the property of a being bounded by time. Evaluating the latter based on the former is a category mistake.

I'm not even going to refute this -- I'm just going to point out the logical conclusion.

A being outside of time can't do anything.

(June 17, 2021 at 12:48 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote:

(June 17, 2021 at 12:43 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: In short, foreknowledge is a timeless property of a timeless being. Free will is the property of a being bounded by time. Evaluating the latter based on the former is a category mistake.

I'm not even going to refute this -- I'm just going to point out the logical conclusion.

A being outside of time can't do anything.

(June 17, 2021 at 12:48 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: I'm not even going to refute this -- I'm just going to point out the logical conclusion.

A being outside of time can't do anything.

You only saw this one world and spacetime, it's rather comprehensible that you think time is a necessary condition to do something... So, argument from personal incredulity 

---

(June 17, 2021 at 12:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: No, what it does is to clarify that it is incoherent to talk about (or even think about) god without at least some degree of anthropomorphism. To say ‘God loves us’ or ‘God is merciful’ is anthropomorphizing. 

To be clear, I don’t object to that. My objection is to Winter’s claim that the Quran doesn’t do this, or that it’s somehow bad for people to do it.


Boru

Well, if this is how you define anthropomorphism, I must agree.

(June 17, 2021 at 12:43 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: In short, foreknowledge is a timeless property of a timeless being. Free will is the property of a being bounded by time. Evaluating the latter based on the former is a category mistake.

Step one:  Demonstrate that a "timeless being" actually exists - empirically, not philosophically.

Step two:  Demonstrate that it does indeed have foreknowledge.

Unless you can do that, all you're doing is spouting unsubstantiated conjectures about something that might be there.

(June 17, 2021 at 1:06 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(June 17, 2021 at 12:48 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: I'm not even going to refute this -- I'm just going to point out the logical conclusion.

A being outside of time can't do anything.

You only saw this one world and spacetime, it's rather comprehensible that you think time is a necessary condition to do something... So, argument from personal incredulity 

---

(June 17, 2021 at 12:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: No, what it does is to clarify that it is incoherent to talk about (or even think about) god without at least some degree of anthropomorphism. To say ‘God loves us’ or ‘God is merciful’ is anthropomorphizing. 

To be clear, I don’t object to that. My objection is to Winter’s claim that the Quran doesn’t do this, or that it’s somehow bad for people to do it.


Boru

Well, if this is how you define anthropomorphism, I must agree.

It was how Winter defined it.

Boru

(June 17, 2021 at 11:32 am)Klorophyll Wrote: If you are that careless about God's existence and religions, I guess you are in the wrong thread, then.

Actually, Kloro, it's probably you, that has come to the wrong place.  Food for thought.  

Quote:Once again, you're not taking the time parameter into account. Now you just look like this bad, stubborn student who keeps forgetting to draw the z-axis, because everything is simple in an XY-plane.

What God knows, exactly, is this : "You will choose, at a given moment t, to do X". Notice how choice is a temporary possibility. Past the moment t, choice and free will cease to have meaning. And because you drop the time parameter, you allow yourself to assess the agent's free will past the moment where he could have free will. I see what you did there captain. 

And frankly, to think that all these philosophers of Islam out there - including those who were considered heretics -who discussed free will lengthily missed your point, and went on discussing possible reconciliations without noticing what you think are mutually exclusive concepts........

There is no time gate to a pre-knower. "Philosophers of islam" just makes me laugh. The term you're looking for is shaman, witchdoctor.

Quote:Yeah it clearly presents a problem for free will, for you. Because your definition of free will is flawed in the first place, namely, you speak of it as if it were some timeless ability of an individual.

Not at all.  Whether a god can force our hand is irrelevant to me.  It doesn't take a god to zero out free will.  People can do it to each other in any manner of ways.  I'm only telling you that you appear to have the situation entirely backwards..because your beliefs palpably depend on you getting it wrong.

The issue between free will and preknowledge, for the umpteenth time. Is that -if it can be known...even if it isn't known, even if no one knows it, even if no one -makes- it happen, that you will select x..... You cannot do otherwise. You do not, in fact, have any choice in the matter. Preknowledge is fatalism. No matter what happens from this moment to the next, no matter what you want, no matter who you are, what you will do..not might do, could do, are inclined to do...a dad could guess about his daughters doing....will do is set. There is no room in this universe for free will. You, Kloro, and not me, insist that we live in such a universe.

Should I believe the one thing you believe, or the other? Which is true, since you believe you have a strong commitment to truth? Which of you two assholes is right? Has a god set my every decision, or known my every decision, from before the moment I was ever born, from before my mother was born, and here mother, so on and so forth, and regardless of all of that change and variance in between...or, to put it plainly, do I have a free will in any way shape sense or form? You may be able to hold directly contradictory beliefs...but you are broken, and I am not. You have to decide what's more important to you. The claimed abilities of a god, or the abilities you claim for yourself.

...and remember, when you're done with all of that, cleaning up your own shitty mess...I'll remind you that your god is filth, and your beliefs are worthy of contempt. GLHF

(June 17, 2021 at 1:06 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: You only saw this one world and spacetime, it's rather comprehensible that you think time is a necessary condition to do something... So, argument from personal incredulity 

No, it's a reasonable interpretation of the laws of physics. Action and time are related.

You have no credible evidence for your god in this universe, so you use the pathetic excuse that your god is hiding in some other place that human science can't detect.

The problem with this is that it renders your god impotent, incapable of interacting in any way with our universe unless it steps into our space-time sphere (where it should then become detectable). We can detect light from billions of years ago. We can detect exoplanets orbiting nearby stars. We can detect the Cosmic Background Radiation, the electromagnetic "echo" of the Big Bang.

But even a single trace of a being allegedly so powerful that it created the universe?

The silence is deafening.

You're alone, Klorophyll. You're worshipping a character in a storybook.