(August 22, 2012 at 9:32 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 22, 2012 at 7:24 am)spockrates Wrote: Please tell me, Rythm:

Am i understanding you correctly? Are you saying that a precognitive being who sees the future (if such were possible) would make the outcomes to become static, rather than dynamic, and so freewill would become an illusion?

Both of you are barking up the same godamned tree. The precog need have no effect. The precog need have no other ability than to observe. It is the ability to observe the future itself that creates this problem, not the precog who has the ability. They do not have to "force" events to conform to their visions, nor do their visions have to "force" time to become static. Their experiences must be accurate, or they are not precogntive. For a precognitive to have knowledge of the future, it must be possible to have knowledge of the future. It is not possible to have knowledge of what is not yet determined.

Since you both seem to be having immense amounts of trouble with this simple concept lets try an example that does not involve a precog:

I have in my hands, right now, a glass filled with water. I am going to turn this glass upside down. What do you think will happen? Predict the future for me.

Yes, I think I understand. If you our I were to hop in a time machine like Doctor Who and travel to the future, our seeing the future would make the time of the current present and the future prior to the point in time observed static, rather than dynamic. Our seeing the outcome to come would forever prevent time from changing the outcome to something different than what we have seen. You, or I would not have to do anything to cause this change in time. All we would have to do is observer the future and time would change itself to something that cannot be changed, and any freedom of choice would become an illusion. Is this what you are saying?

No, again you are assuming that time "changes" when it is observed (an effect of the observer or of being observed). You are ignoring that time may already be static, for example.

I'm simply stating that however the events came to be predestined is irrelevant, that they -are- predestined is a requirement for precognition.

(August 22, 2012 at 1:44 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(August 21, 2012 at 1:26 pm)Undeceived Wrote: In order for love to exist, God had to grant Adam and Eve perfect free will. He knew they would fail, but determined He'd rather have a world of sin and love than a world of stoic robots. Can you explain to me what X% more resistance actually looks like?

It looks like saying no to a snake trying to get you to eat a magic fruit.

So this is what you think perfect free will is: Create two people without the knowledge of good or evil and put that knowledge in a magic fruit. Tell the people they can eat anything but magic fruit, but if they eat the magic fruit, they'll die that day. Pretend to leave them alone (assuming you're an omnipresent deity) with a talking snake that's going to try to get people who don't know right from wrong to eat the magic fruit. The snake sells it (by being truthful, but that's another story). One of them tries it and is so blown away that she wants to share it with the other one, who also tries it. Suddenly they've got guilt and shame. You pretend to come back and pretend not to know what they've been up to; like a parent who asks a question they already know the answer to, to see if their kid will lie about it. Yep, they DID eat the fruit, and get exiled and cursed for doing something they couldn't know was wrong before they did it, along with all their descendants, whose first crime is being born human.

If there was ever a story in the Bible that begs to be taken metaphorically, it's this one.

If you knowingly leave two toddlers alone with a shotgun and a psychotic killer, who is ultimately to blame if the kids shoot each other? Are you off the hook if you told them they could play with anything but the shotgun?

---

(August 22, 2012 at 7:24 am)spockrates Wrote: Whether Adam and Eve were actual people, or symbolic of the human condition, I think you are assuming that God (if he exists) tried to make a race that would never turn against him, or against one another. You aren't asking a question, so I suppose you don't mind if I go back to asking them: If God's purpose is believed to be to create a race capable of love, is such love possible while eliminating the possibility of hate? Is it possible to create beings who are capable of loving God, or others and who are (at the same time) incapable of hating God, or others? (I am asking the question in the context of definition (3) of omnipotence, which was suggested previously in this discussion.)

I'm inclined to think that the people who wrote the story didn't mean for it to be taken literally. Clearly if Yahweh created humans and has something anywhere near close to the attributes ascribed to him, he was definitely NOT trying to make a race that would never turn against him or one another. That was clearly not his goal in making angels, either, given how that turned out. Yahweh would get the race he wanted, clearly one capable of not loving him or others.

Now it is logically possible to create people with free will who choose to love God and others, while not creating people with free will who choose not to love God and others, if it makes any logical sense for a precognitive being with such creative powers to create beings with free will at all. We might have a much lower population today if Yahweh arranged things that way, but it wouldn't be a logically impossible world.

'God really loves free will' is offered as an ad hoc explanation for the Problem of Evil, but it's got problem, the greatest of which is the implication that God really tried but this was the best he could do.

You might be right about the story, Mister. But please let me ask you this: How can freewill be free if it excludes the possibility of choice? You are saying it is possible to create people who will freely choose to love God and others, but who (at the same time) are not free to not love God and others. Or are you?

I'd say that the God described in the scriptures is one who loves love, whose goal is that we love, and who will love those who want his love and want to love him and others more. Freewill is not the end, but a means to the end of love. Freewill is necessary for love. Without it, love is not love, for love is an absolutely free choice to have concern for someone, affection for someone, and a desire to see the needs, or desires of someone met. To have the freedom to choose love is to have the equal freedom to choose hate, or indifference, or selfishness, or malice of some kind.

Do you think I'm right when I suggest that without freewill and the possibility of hate, love cannot possibly be love? If not, then please tell me what you believe love is.

I can't honestly claim to have ever felt that I had much choice in those whom I loved (or did not) Spock....just throwing that out there.

(August 22, 2012 at 3:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No, again you are assuming that time "changes" when it is observed (an effect of the observer or of being observed). You are ignoring that time may already be static, for example.

I'm simply stating that however the events came to be predestined is irrelevant, that they -are- predestined is a requirement for precognition.

So you are thinking time is already static, and nothing anyone decides to do and does will change time. You might be right. Time might be like a stained-glass window with an outcome that is as changeless as Calvin said God was changeless.

Then again, time might be constantly changing. Rather than like stained-glass, it might be more of a kaleidoscope. If you, or I were to travel to the future, and return to the past, the outcome we witnessed ahead of time might not be the outcome that actually turns out to be when the future arrives again. The outcome we saw in our time-traveling holiday might have been only one of many possible outcomes.

But I've asked myself, "What if Rythm is correct and time is changeless and free choice is merely an illusion? Would this be proof that God does not exist?" The reason why I asked myself is because Calvinists and others who hold to the tenets of Reformed Theology would agree with you and say freewill is unreal, and all that we say, think and do, all that was and is and is to come, is predetermined by God. (Yes, I understand you disagree that anyone or anything caused time to be static, but I'm wondering how time being static and freewill being an illusion is any proof that God cannot possibly exist, since this is exactly what Calvinists believe.)

---

(August 22, 2012 at 3:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I can't honestly claim to have ever felt that I had much choice in those whom I loved (or did not) Spock....just throwing that out there.

Of course not, for choice is an illusion and as unreal as God! But don't you mean you cannot honestly say you had any choice at all? If someone asks why you don't love them, I suppose you can sincerely say, "It's not I who chose to hate you; Time made me do it!"

(August 22, 2012 at 3:30 pm)spockrates Wrote: You might be right about the story, Mister. But please let me ask you this: How can freewill be free if it excludes the possibility of choice? You are saying it is possible to create people who will freely choose to love God and others, but who (at the same time) are not free to not love God and others. Or are you?

That's a good question if precognition is involved, but I'm ignoring that for the moment. Say you're going to be saved and I'm not, I exist in 'possibility-space' as a sinner whose going to go to hell if I'm instantiated in reality. So God makes sure you are born and I am not. You freely make all the choices that will lead you to becoming saved, while I, who would be doomed to hell if I lived, just don't live in the first place. You still get to make choices freely and will make the ones that land you in heaven. Why instantiate possible people who will freely get themselves thrown in hell when you know that's what is going to happen to them? They're not needed. If I'm needed as a prop for your journey to salvation, Yahweh could just make a predestined robot with no soul in the first place to play that role for you. Granting Yahweh, this is a possible world. Granting Yahweh, it could be the ACTUAL world.

(August 22, 2012 at 3:30 pm)spockrates Wrote: I'd say that the God described in the scriptures is one who loves love, whose goal is that we love, and who will love those who want his love and want to love him and others more.

It's hard to believe you've read the Bible and can still claim this with a straight face. The God of the OT who allowed Satan to plague Job, orders Hebrew soldiers to slaughter children, tests Abraham's willingness to butcher his own son, arranges for the eternal torment of those who don't love him, and drowns the world when it doesn't turn out the way he always knew it would; is all about love? I hear there's a Christian church that jettisons the OT, it may suit you better than the RCC.

(August 22, 2012 at 3:30 pm)spockrates Wrote: Freewill is not the end, but a means to the end of love. Freewill is necessary for love. Without it, love is not love, for love is an absolutely free choice to have concern for someone, affection for someone, and a desire to see the needs, or desires of someone met.

You define love as requiring free will to justify God giving us the free will not to love. Have you not been in love? 'Absolutely free choice' is not the phrase that first comes to mind. There's a reason why we use words like 'blind' and 'chemistry' and 'falling' to describe the process. There's a reason why your friends can see that you've made a bad choice in whom to love and you can't. Much of what influences who we love happens at an unconscious level. To make an absolutely free choice we have to know our options and be able to evaluate them dispassionately. That doesn't sound like any love I've witnessed.

(August 22, 2012 at 3:30 pm)spockrates Wrote: To have the freedom to choose love is to have the equal freedom to choose hate, or indifference, or selfishness, or malice of some kind.

If I were a benevolent deity who really was all about love, I'd have stopped at indifference as an alternative to love. Fear would still generate all the human evil I would need for my divine plan.

(August 22, 2012 at 3:30 pm)spockrates Wrote: Do you think I'm right when I suggest that without freewill, love cannot possibly be love? If not, then please tell me what you believe love is.

Love is an emotion. We are very likely not the only species to have the capacity for that emotion. The only thing needed for a feeling to be genuine is for you to really be feeling it. What the God you're describing wants is love PLUS the feeling of being chosen. That's a very human desire, indiscriminate love isn't worth much to us, it doesn't make us special to think the person who loves us loves everyone else just as much...we might admire such a person's capacity for universal love, but it would be a bit...impersonal. For the same reason, it would not be very satisfying to have someone love us because we slipped them some kind of love potion: they would be loving us because of the potion and not because of 'us'. Our egos lead us to be dissatisfied with love that is forced or indiscriminate. We might enjoy it for awhile, but eventually it will turn sour. If the God you describe exists, apparently he has the same emotional need for people to 'love him for himself'. And the power to throw anyone who doesn't into eternal torment. One of the problems with hell is not only that it is unjust on the face of it, it gives the lie to the notion that God values free will. If he really wanted us to choose freely, he wouldn't use the carrot and the stick to influence our choice, would he? 'Son, you can live with me or your mother, the choice is entirely yours, it's all up to you, but if you pick me, we're going to Disneyland'.

---

(August 22, 2012 at 3:49 pm)spockrates Wrote: So you are thinking time is already static, and nothing anyone decides to do and does will change time. You might be right. Time might be like a stained-glass window with an outcome that is as changeless as Calvin said God was changeless.

You seem to be misrepresenting Rhythm. I doubt this is his belief. He is merely pointing out the logical consequence of believing in precognition. Since he doesn't believe in precognition, no need for him to believe the future is static.

(August 22, 2012 at 3:30 pm)spockrates Wrote: Then again, time might be constantly changing. Rather than like stained-glass, it might be more of a kaleidoscope. If you, or I were to travel to the future, and return to the past, the outcome we witnessed ahead of time might not be the outcome that actually turns out to be when the future arrives. The outcome we see in our time traveling holiday might be only one of many possible outcomes.

Then precognition is impossible.

(August 22, 2012 at 3:30 pm)spockrates Wrote: But I've asked myself, "What if Rythm is correct and time is changeless and free choice is merely an illusion?

I don't recall Rythm claiming that time is changeless and free choice is an illusion. I recall Rythm arguing against precognition because of these implications. You are the one who believes in precognition.

(August 22, 2012 at 3:30 pm)spockrates Wrote: Would this be proof that God does not exist?

Depends on the God.

(August 22, 2012 at 3:30 pm)spockrates Wrote: The reason why I ask is because Calvinists and others who hold to the tenets of Reformed Theology would agree with you and say freewill is false, and all that we say, think and do, all that was, is and is to come, is predetermined by God. (Yes, I understand you disagree that anyone or anything caused time to be static, but I'm wondering how time being static and freewill being an illusion is any proof that God cannot possibly exist, since this is exactly what Calvinists believe.)

So become a Calvinist.

Simply because of this: You have one life,most people think about after life and they forget to really enjoy this one.

Keep in mind,you have only one life,dont spend it on learning about some guy who was put on a cross because he said how nice would it be if everyone would love and respect each other.

(August 22, 2012 at 4:09 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(August 22, 2012 at 3:30 pm)spockrates Wrote: You might be right about the story, Mister. But please let me ask you this: How can freewill be free if it excludes the possibility of choice? You are saying it is possible to create people who will freely choose to love God and others, but who (at the same time) are not free to not love God and others. Or are you?

That's a good question if precognition is involved, but I'm ignoring that for the moment. Say you're going to be saved and I'm not, I exist in 'possibility-space' as a sinner whose going to go to hell if I'm instantiated in reality. So God makes sure you are born and I am not. You freely make all the choices that will lead you to becoming saved, while I, who would be doomed to hell if I lived, just don't live in the first place. You still get to make choices freely and will make the ones that land you in heaven. Why instantiate possible people who will freely get themselves thrown in hell when you know that's what is going to happen to them? They're not needed. If I'm needed as a prop for your journey to salvation, Yahweh could just make a predestined robot with no soul in the first place to play that role for you. Granting Yahweh, this is a possible world. Granting Yahweh, it could be the ACTUAL world.

But who is to say the future to God (if he exists) is not dynamic, rather than static? Since we've never been to the future, how do we know what it is like? It's entirely possible that God, watching heaven in the future, would see me appear in heaven, then disappear, then reappear again, as I in the present make choices that affect my final future outcome. As time progresses in the present, the outcome in the future might constantly change. I might, like a light bulb, flicker on and then off and then on again and off again and finally stay on (or off) when I breath my last breath in the present. Those who no longer disappear from the future in heaven might be those who are no longer living in the present, and so have no chance to change their future. In this case, God's precognition of the future (or omniscience, or all-knowingness, or whatever you want to call it) would always be contingent on what you, or I, or anyone chooses to do in the present. Rather than something set in stone, the future would be alive, and moving and constantly evolving before God's eyes.

It is entirely possible that your mother fucked a goat and through a never observed or reproduced process gave you birth. Should we based our world view on the entirely possible but entirely improbable that you so happen out of sheer idiocy want to believe to be true?

(August 22, 2012 at 4:26 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(August 22, 2012 at 4:09 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: That's a good question if precognition is involved, but I'm ignoring that for the moment. Say you're going to be saved and I'm not, I exist in 'possibility-space' as a sinner whose going to go to hell if I'm instantiated in reality. So God makes sure you are born and I am not. You freely make all the choices that will lead you to becoming saved, while I, who would be doomed to hell if I lived, just don't live in the first place. You still get to make choices freely and will make the ones that land you in heaven. Why instantiate possible people who will freely get themselves thrown in hell when you know that's what is going to happen to them? They're not needed. If I'm needed as a prop for your journey to salvation, Yahweh could just make a predestined robot with no soul in the first place to play that role for you. Granting Yahweh, this is a possible world. Granting Yahweh, it could be the ACTUAL world.

But who is to say the future to God (if he exists) is not dynamic, rather than static? Since we've never been to the future, how do we know what it is like? It's entirely possible that God, watching heaven in the future, would see me appear in heaven, then disappear, then reappear again, as I in the present make choices that affect my final future outcome. As time progresses in the present, the outcome in the future might constantly change. I might, like a light bulb, flicker on and then off and then on again and off again and finally stay on (or off) when I breath my last breath in the present. Those who no longer disappear from the future in heaven might be those who are no longer living in the present, and so have no chance to change their future. In this case, God's precognition of the future (or omniscience, or all-knowingness, or whatever you want to call it) would always be contingent on what you, or I, or anyone chooses to do in the present. Rather than something set in stone, the future would be alive, and moving and constantly evolving before God's eyes.

i will disprove your stupid theory: When our bodies die,afterlife isnt possible,posthumously mental life REQUIRES to restart the biological and physical life. If we would like to live again we would need our bodies.

So when we die our bodies rot,we dont fly to another magical place. It isnt possible.

Also when you were born,you were an atheist,until your parents started to fill your immature head with religious lies.