(June 24, 2021 at 9:20 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:  You don't seem to have some adequate justification why all revelations are human inventions.

My justification: The total lack of empirical evidence for any actual gods. Revelation is just human imagination run amok.

Quote:If you're still insisting on defending a false claim based on personal incredulity (time is a necessary requirement for existence [sic])...

Show me the post where I supposedly said "Time is a necessary requirement for existence." I'm certain that I didn't say that. What I did say was that time and action are related. Read the first sentence in this Wikipedia article - it supports my claim.

As much as I would like your unqualified apology for misquoting me, I'm not optimistic. I don't think you have what it takes to apologize.

(June 24, 2021 at 11:27 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Rejecting theism is even easier than understanding the incompatibility between foreknowledge and free will.  A person doesn't need to know that to know that they think your stories are ridiculous.  Here again, it makes no sense to call what you cannot but do a free anything.  

For the umpteenth time, what you can and cannot do is contingent upon time, the moment of taking action/choosing, and also upon the circumstances. One obviously has no free will if they are dead, drugged, unconscious, etc. One can clearly make the distinction between consciously and willingly moving the knee forward and having a knee jerk reaction. Why doesn't it make sense to call the first instance free will ? Add an entity who has foreknowledge and nothing changes - you yourself repeat this line of thought quite frequently, proving existence of a deity doesn't change people's ability, well, neither does the deity who has foreknowledge.

And I don't think you have solid proof disproving theistic belief systems like Islam, or Judaism. People much smarter than you and me tried to disprove these religious beliefs unsuccessfully, the best thing thay can do is to be an agnostic and ask for proof.

(June 24, 2021 at 11:27 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: See, I had a suspicion it would be something completely derp, like this.  There's no reason why that's clear, and..in fact, a significant number of abrahamic cultists don't believe that man has a free will.  There isn't any literature about reconciling foreknowledge and free will.  You need it to be true because you believe it imperils your god...even though it doesn't.  Meanwhile, it is fairly clear that and why foreknowledge precludes free will, as you notice...by definition.  Seems to me that a god breathed truth ought to stand up to more scrutiny than that.

If we truly have no free will, the deity would definitely be unjust punishing us for any action we undertake. This is clearly against the most basic articles of faith in Islam. Muslims who endorse this idea are known as Jabriyah' (fatalists)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabriyah

But this group are a minority. A leading Muslim theologian defending this doctrine (Jahm bin Safwan) was even considered as a disbeliever by many Muslim scholars contemporary to him.

---

(June 25, 2021 at 12:27 am)Astreja Wrote: My justification:  The total lack of empirical evidence for any actual gods.  Revelation is just human imagination run amok.

This just means revelations could or couldn't be from a deity. It doesn't support you initial assertion. See, you're throwing non sequiturs again, all over the place.

And your rejection of non-empirical evidence (inferential arguments, deductive arguments, analogical arguments, etc.) is a sheer display of your dishonesty towards the religious case.

(June 25, 2021 at 12:27 am)Astreja Wrote: Show me the post where I supposedly said "Time is a necessary requirement for existence."  I'm certain that I didn't say that.  What I did say was that time and action are related.  Read the first sentence in this Wikipedia article - it supports my claim.

As much as I would like your unqualified apology for misquoting me, I'm not optimistic.  I don't think you have what it takes to apologize.

You didn't say that verbatim -of course, I just mentioned the underlying assumption you're too cowardly to tell us more about, because you know it's unevidenced. If time and action are related, this entails action cannot take place without time, and this is something not even the most seasoned philosopher can dream to establish.

(June 25, 2021 at 3:30 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(June 24, 2021 at 11:27 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Rejecting theism is even easier than understanding the incompatibility between foreknowledge and free will.  A person doesn't need to know that to know that they think your stories are ridiculous.  Here again, it makes no sense to call what you cannot but do a free anything.  

For the umpteenth time, what you can and cannot do is contingent upon time, the moment of taking action/choosing, and also upon the circumstances. One obviously has no free will if they are dead, drugged, unconscious, etc. One can clearly make the distinction between consciously and willingly moving the knee forward and having a knee jerk reaction. Why doesn't it make sense to call the first instance free will ? Add an entity who has foreknowledge and nothing changes - you yourself repeat this line of thought quite frequently, proving existence of a deity doesn't change people's ability, well, neither does the deity who has foreknowledge.

And I don't think you have solid proof disproving theistic belief systems like Islam, or Judaism. People much smarter than you and me tried to disprove these religious beliefs unsuccessfully, the best thing thay can do is to be an agnostic and ask for proof.

The logical incompatibility between free will and foreknowledge has absolutely nothing to do with me, or my time contingency.  Like force, you don't understand the issue, so you argue a non issue. You and I may be in some time contingent relationship, but the fore-knower isn't...foreknowledge itself, absent any actual fore-knower, isn't. You've asserted a state of affairs in which free will is impossible, and then declared, nevertheless, that we have it.

One of the two things you believe is flatly false by reference to the other, by definition, no less......  That's all there is.  I don't care which of the two you feel is important enough to save vs which you have to jettison for the good of the other.  I assume you would protect god's abilities over your own...but, hey, anything could happen.

Quote:

(June 24, 2021 at 11:27 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: See, I had a suspicion it would be something completely derp, like this.  There's no reason why that's clear, and..in fact, a significant number of abrahamic cultists don't believe that man has a free will.  There isn't any literature about reconciling foreknowledge and free will.  You need it to be true because you believe it imperils your god...even though it doesn't.  Meanwhile, it is fairly clear that and why foreknowledge precludes free will, as you notice...by definition.  Seems to me that a god breathed truth ought to stand up to more scrutiny than that.

If we truly have no free will, the deity would definitely be unjust punishing us for any action we undertake. This is clearly against the most basic articles of faith in Islam. Muslims who endorse this idea are known as Jabriyah' (fatalists)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabriyah

But this group are a minority. A leading Muslim theologian defending this doctrine (Jahm bin Safwan) was even considered as a disbeliever by many Muslim scholars contemporary to him.

So?  So what if a god unjustly punished us for actions we take.  It would still be a god. If we had no free will, that's what a god would be doing.  It's hilarious that you would argue that we had free will to avoid that negatively valued consequence after asserting it as a matter of your faith. You call other people who believe this fatalists and insist that they are in the minority. What do you think that makes you?

I really don't know what to tell you. You insist that god is doing exactly that, but can't be satisfied with your own silly god, imagining a superpower that we possess, which you then explicitly reject. in order to save your gods character.

Your god is filth. Why would I care whether trashgod existed? Do you? Do you worship trashgod....?

Hey kpop, when was the last time you had an original thought, and not just the same lame regurgitated meaningless camel shit you've been force fed?

(June 25, 2021 at 3:59 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The logical incompatibility between free will and foreknowledge has absolutely nothing to do with me, or my time contingency.  Like force, you don't understand the issue, so you argue a non issue.  You and I may be in some time contingent relationship, but the fore-knower isn't...foreknowledge itself, absent any actual fore-knower, isn't.  You've asserted a state of affairs in which free will is impossible, and then declared, nevertheless, that we have it.

One of the two things you believe is flatly false by reference to the other, by definition, no less......  That's all there is.  I don't care which of the two you feel is important enough to save vs which you have to jettison for the good of the other.  I assume you would protect god's abilities over your own...but, hey, anything could happen.

Assert all you want that they are incompatible.. I already told you they are not; you admitted before that the existence of a god (even if he is a foreknower) doesn't change the state of affairs in this world, if he knows my future actions.. he just knows my future actions. Let me clarify further, let's take two propositions :

P1 : Daughter D is going to choose flavor F of her ice cream today
P2 : Ten years ago, P1 was true.

Do you think P1 and P2 are inconsistent - absent a god - ??? They are not obviously, a true proposition like P1 is a true proposition even before D existed. Now what about:

P3 : God knows (at all times) that P1 is true.

P2 and P3 are logically equivalent simply because God existed ten years ago. If P2 is true, then an omniscient being knows P2. And if an omniscient being knows that P2 is true, P2 is true. So P2 implies P3, and P3 implies P2. QED

If P2 and P3 are equivalent, then P3 and P1 are logically consistent. In other words we can have a fore knower and free will. QED.

(June 25, 2021 at 3:59 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: So?  So what if a god unjustly punished us for actions we take.  It would still be a god.  If we had no free will, that's what a god would be doing.  It's hilarious that you would argue that we had free will to avoid that negatively valued consequence after asserting it as a matter of your faith.  You call other people who believe this fatalists and insist that they are in the minority.  What do you think that makes you?

I agree there could be an unjust God. There is no contradiction between omniscience/omnipotence and unjustness. But it's futile to inquire about such a deity because it doesn't matter if we worship it/follow its instructions or not. It could punish us arbitrarly no matter what we do. But all this is just meaningless chatter unless you actually go ahead an prove P1 and P3 above are logically inconsistent.

(June 25, 2021 at 4:53 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(June 25, 2021 at 3:59 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The logical incompatibility between free will and foreknowledge has absolutely nothing to do with me, or my time contingency.  Like force, you don't understand the issue, so you argue a non issue.  You and I may be in some time contingent relationship, but the fore-knower isn't...foreknowledge itself, absent any actual fore-knower, isn't.  You've asserted a state of affairs in which free will is impossible, and then declared, nevertheless, that we have it.

One of the two things you believe is flatly false by reference to the other, by definition, no less......  That's all there is.  I don't care which of the two you feel is important enough to save vs which you have to jettison for the good of the other.  I assume you would protect god's abilities over your own...but, hey, anything could happen.

Assert all you want that they are incompatible.. I already told you they are not; you admitted before that the existence of a god (even if he is a foreknower) doesn't change the state of affairs in this world, if he knows my future actions.. he just knows my future actions. Let me clarify further, let's take two propositions :

P1 : Daughter D is going to choose flavor F of her ice cream today
P2 : Ten years ago, P1 was true.

Do you think P1 and P2 are inconsistent - absent a god - ??? They are not obviously, a true proposition like P1 is a true proposition even before D existed. Now what about:

P3 : God knows (at all times) that P1 is true.

P2 and P3 are logically equivalent simply because God existed ten years ago. If P2 is true, then an omniscient being knows P2. And if an omniscient being knows that P2 is true, P2 is true. So P2 implies P3, and P3 implies P2. QED

If P2 and P3 are equivalent, then P3 and P1 are logically consistent. In other words we can have a fore knower and free will. QED.

None of this says anything about free will. You've created an irrelevant argument about nothing. P1 being true doesn't mean daughter D has free will. Nor does P1 and P3 being consistent.

(June 25, 2021 at 5:16 pm)Angrboda Wrote: None of this says anything about free will.  You've created an irrelevant argument about nothing.  P1 being true doesn't mean daughter D has free will.  Nor does P1 and P3 being consistent.

It does. P1 is a sufficient condition for free will. An agent has free will == he's able to choose (at least once in his life) from a set of actions. 

P1 means D freely chose her flavor of ice cream today, therefore, by definition, D has free will.

This is something that I've honestly never understood about abrahamic faith. A person who strongly believes that we have a fate, is equally compelled to argue for our free will.

Will call other fatalists fatalists as though it were an insult rather than a shared position of the nature of reality.

WTF is that....?

By the by.... we all fail by your own absurd criteria above - we never once..in our lives, choose. You've asserted that god writes our will to what we would want. Wrong..and wrong by your own description. Your faith is weak. Have you ever considered that satan may have you? That any and every verse from a magic book you might choose to quote...referred to you...and not to me?

That it was a message, for you...and not for anyone else?

(June 25, 2021 at 5:21 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: This is something that I've honestly never understood about abrahamic faith.  A person who strongly believes that we have a fate, is equally compelled to argue for our free will.

Will call other fatalists fatalists as though it were an insult rather than a shared position of the nature of reality.

WTF is that....?

By the by.... we all fail by your own absurd criteria above - we never once..in our lives, choose.  You've asserted that god writes our will to what we would want.  Wrong..and wrong by your own description.  Your faith is weak.  Have you ever considered that satan may have you?  That any and every verse from a magic book you might choose to quote...referred to you...and not to me?

That it was a message, for you...and not for anyone else?

I see you didn't try to refute the argument above. So my argument is correct so far and a foreknower can coexist with free will.

Again : we choose what the foreknower knows. not really that hard for me... nor is it equivalent to fatalism 

(June 25, 2021 at 5:31 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(June 25, 2021 at 5:21 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: This is something that I've honestly never understood about abrahamic faith.  A person who strongly believes that we have a fate, is equally compelled to argue for our free will.

Will call other fatalists fatalists as though it were an insult rather than a shared position of the nature of reality.

WTF is that....?

By the by.... we all fail by your own absurd criteria above - we never once..in our lives, choose.  You've asserted that god writes our will to what we would want.  Wrong..and wrong by your own description.  Your faith is weak.  Have you ever considered that satan may have you?  That any and every verse from a magic book you might choose to quote...referred to you...and not to me?

That it was a message, for you...and not for anyone else?

I see you didn't try to refute the argument above. So my argument is correct so far and a foreknower can coexist with free will.

Again : we choose what the foreknower knows. not really that hard for me... nor is it equivalent to fatalism 

I don't feel the need to repeat a simple explanation for how free will and foreknowledge are, by definition, mutually exclusive.  

If you believe in the author of creation, and you've said that you do - you believe in fate.  You may have negative ideations about "fatalists" - as your shaman tells you they are, but by expressing such a position you have identified yourself as a fatalist no matter how much you think fatalist heretics deserve the sword.  

Know thyself.

In truth, whether we have free will or there is some author or knower of creation is unimportant to me. Neither state of affairs has anything to say about why I don't bend the knee to your trashgod.

If we don't have free will...I just can't worship trashgod, because I'm not enough of a garbage person to do so.
If we do have free will, and even if I were a garbage person, I still have the constitutional volition to say no to at least one bad thing.