philosophy about god

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why? What assumptions does this bely? That the material world is all that exists? Could not a better argument say that the universe is neither probabilistic, nor deterministic, but rather something else entirely?

This makes no assumptions that the material world is all that exists. There simply are no alternatives - either the universe obeys rules, or it does not.

If you say that the universe is entirely deterministic, then how do you explain quantum fuzziness, that does not follow a rigid set of rules, as does gravitation.

If you say that the universe in entirely probabilistic, how do you explain the ability of gravitational theories to make predictions about planetary motion?

You can't be "partly" deterministic or "partly" probabilistic. Quantum theory seems to imply that the universe is probabilistic, but this is NO contradiction with the ability to predict things on the level of a planet - probabilistic means that some events have certain probabilities of occuring, rather than absolute certainty. Thus, there is a VERY LARGE probability (bordering on 1) of our predictions about planetary motion being correct, just like there is a VERY LARGE probability of 10^100 coin tosses resulting in about 50% heads.

If the rules do not constrain you, but merely provide a guide, than those rules are not deterministic.

The rules aren't a "guide", but neither are the a "constraint". The rules are "obeyed" to the letter (in a deterministic universe), but such "obedience" isn't met with resistence. I have a certain mind, which reacts in certain ways to various stimuli; just because it reacts deterministically doesn't mean that it was "constrained".

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
Skywalker, I don't understand this. But to the extent I do understand what you say, do not agree.

The universe is the set of all that exists. The material "universe", which I assume we are talking about, isn't "defined" by the laws of nature. However, the things in it behave in a manner defined by the laws of nature. Understand?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aeson
The argument against free will in a deterministic system is not that you don't make choices. Obviously we all make choices. The argument is that 'choice' boils down to a single possible outcome in a deterministic system, not the commonly held definition of choice between possibilities. There is only one possibility (or rather eventuality) in a deterministic system. While you can still call the functionality that leads to that eventuality choice, it is something different than choice viewed in a system that allows for divergent outcomes.

In a deterministic system, you can consider other choices (if so determined), but can only choose the predetermined option. There is no diverging from the path. Whoever or whatever (if anything) set you on that path made the 'choice' (in the common sense noted previously) as to where you would end up, you just follow the path by operating the way you were designed to operate.

If this is your definition of free will, then everything in a deterministic system has free will. A computer has free-will, because it makes choices based on how it is programed and designed. In a more abstract sense, a rock has free will because it follows the path set before it just as anything else does.

In a deterministic situation, you DO consider multiple possibilities and you COULD choose different ones, but you DON'T.

[Ben Kenobi]

This makes no assumptions that the material world is all that exists.

Sure it does. It makes no attempt to ascertain how things work in a spiritual sense, something science does not talk about.

What sense does it make to say that the spiritual world is deterministic, in allow chance as the operator?

[Kuciwalker]

The "spiritual" world ALSO either obeys rules, or it doesn't. ANYTHING either obeys rules or it doesn't, by definition. Thus, it is not limited to the material world.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
Yup, and in doing so removes his omnipotence. So if a being is omnipotent at one time, it doesn't not mean that the being is omnipotent at a future time. There is no contradiction.

You missed the question -- or rather, tried to remove it.

If an omnipotent being removes its omnipotence, it's no longer omnipotent. This, of course, was not my question at all.

Besides, we still haven't gotten into the interesting question of "If an omnipotent being can remove his own omnipotence, is he really omnipotent?"

[Kuciwalker]

Of course he is. Why wouldn't he be?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
The universe is by definition omniscient - it possesses, in itself, all of the information about itself.

An object containing information does not great science to the object. Does a book containing information of programming in Java know how to program in Java?

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Thriller



Ah, now why would that necessarily be the case? Exactly why MUST god be omnipotent?

Ben: Still waiting for your response on this one

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
Of course he is. Why wouldn't he be?

Because if its power can be taken away, it cannot be all-powerful.

[Ben Kenobi]

Besides, we still haven't gotten into the interesting question of "If an omnipotent being can remove his own omnipotence, is he really omnipotent?"

Or the counterpoint. One could say that an omnipotent being would have to be able to set aside his own omnipotence, and then to pick it up again. A better argument would say that God has certain characteristics that cannot be put aside, such as his goodness. So it is impossible for God to remove his own omnipotence, just as it would be for God to do evil.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by HongHu
All I'm trying to say is, we can not really argue anything outside of our conciousness. Of course we can guess and debate all we like, but we have no way to verify who and what is correct, at least not until we "evolve" to something that are at similar level of the god himself.

Cetainly, if this god is unknowable, it is meaningless to argue about it. In fact, it is meaningless to assert that such an entity exists.

Originally posted by HongHu
Enjoy life when you are still not picked up by that two year old higher intelligent unit.

Unit? Played too much Civ?

[Aeson]

In a deterministic situation, you DO consider multiple possibilities and you COULD choose different ones, but you DON'T.

No.

The "could" and "don't" are incompatible with a deterministic system. They both imply that there is some manner which you can bypass determinism and instead do something that wasn't predetermined. That would mean you are changing the system from deterministic to something else. Since we are talking about a deterministic system, everything that happens in that system is predetermined.

Programming is great for examples of this nature.

int function(int a, int b)
{
if(a >= b)
return a;
else
return b;
}

Then feed the same input into that algorithm multiple times.

int result = function(1,0);

If it truely is deterministic, you will get the same output every time. In the example result would always be 1. 'Decisions' were made by the algorithm, but there was only one possibility because of the deterministic nature of the algorithm. If for some reason the code within the function remains obscure, it may seem like b could be a possible result given the input, but upon inspection and understanding of the actual code involved, a is the only possibility.

To bring it back to the level of free will, our function (if there is a defined one) is so complex, the inputs and outputs so numerous, that we have very little understanding about just how we work. We can't look at two options for ourselves and know exactly what we'd do, although we can make guesses at it.

So we see possibilities, and perhaps they are possibilities due to the system being something other than deterministic. But if we assume a deterministic system, there is only one eventuality, regardless of what guesses of possibility that eventuality leads us to.

[gamenaught]

theology is where science is not. theology is where science is not.

luckily for theology then that it is still given some room to operate.

Very eloquent.

Though often religion gets c0cky and encroaches on science. In which case it needs to be b1tch-slapped and force-fed humble pie.

[Ned]

Originally posted by skywalker


The universe is the set of all that exists. The material "universe", which I assume we are talking about, isn't "defined" by the laws of nature. However, the things in it behave in a manner defined by the laws of nature. Understand?

The way I used "defined" is consistent with this.

However, you change any law and you unravel it entire ball of wax. The laws comprise an integrated whole. All are necessary and none ever change or can be changed.