morality == religion? Sez who?

[Agathon]

Pantomime...

Next question.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Agathon
Pantomime...

Next question.

Name a panto with a burning handbag.

And Thomas Tallis's music.

'The Lamentations of Puss in Boots' ?

'Aladdin and the Magic Transubstantiation'?

Yeeeessss.

All big hits at S****horpe Hippodrome.

[Agathon]

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
Theologians don't "reinvent" God in terms of apparent human logic, only describe him in those terms.

I suggest you to get acquainted with theology. Theologians do not just decribe YHWH in logic, they need to establish a proof for such an entity.

Originally posted by Elok
Theology is mostly analogy.

What?



There's a lot more to theology than C.S. Lewis.

Originally posted by Elok
And God makes decisions not on what you do so much as who you are. What you have chosen to make of yourself. His foreknowledge of your choice does not anull its existence. Nor does it make free will irrelevant.

If God is omniscient, He knows who I am. He knows what I have chosen. In fact, He knows how I will choose. IOW, my deeds have been done and my choices have been made even before I know anything about them.

Originally posted by Elok
Even in an open-and-shut trial with an airtight case, where everybody knows the defendant is guilty, it's still important to go through the trial for its own sake. The defendant cannot say he wasn't given a chance.

Faulty analogy. No judge nor jury has perfect foreknowledge.

Originally posted by Elok
Not to mention that, again, you're all assuming determinism...the point of a living, thinking being is that it can grow beyond what it was made to be.

Unless you admit that the Judeo-Christian god is not omniscient, determinism is the only possible conclusion.

[Boris Godunov]

If god creates someone whom he has known since the dawn of time will behave badly and then suffer forever in Hell, doesn't that make god one twisted, sadistic bastard? I mean, even most Christians believe abortion is ok if it's known the baby is going to be horribly malformed and suffer in a brief life. So for god to do such a thing is really sick.

[Agathon]

If God is omniscient, He knows who I am. He knows what I have chosen. In fact, He knows how I will choose. IOW, my deeds have been done and my choices have been made even before I know anything about them.

The standard response to this is that God exists outside of time, and that talk of him knowing something "before" it happens is therefore misconceived.

But I don't see how it would follow from God's omniscience that your actions were determined. Someone might know that I will choose to go to the bank tomorrow, but does that make their knowing the cause of my going to the bank?

Similarly, someone can claim to know that tomorrow water will still boil at the same temperature it does today. Does that make their knowing this fact the cause of its doing so?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Agathon


The standard response to this is that God exists outside of time, and that talk of him knowing something "before" it happens is therefore misconceived.

But that doesn't hold water either. The act of creation is, by it's very nature, temporal. At some point, there was nothing, and then there was something. That's what time is - a continuous line of before and after. So even if God himself exists outside of time, he needs to enter into the temporal world to create anything. Additionally, humans exist within time and are utterly and completely bound by it. Presumably, God created this time if he created everything and understands how we work within it. So, for all intents and purposes, it really IS foreknowledge.

But I don't see how it would follow from God's omniscience that your actions were determined. Someone might know that I will choose to go to the bank tomorrow, but does that make their knowing the cause of my going to the bank?

Similarly, someone can claim to know that tomorrow water will still boil at the same temperature it does today. Does that make their knowing this fact the cause of its doing so?

Two issues here. First, it's important to keep in mind that it's only "determined" from God's perspective - no one elses. And, for the sake of the religious argument, that's all the matters. Absolutely infallible knowledge of forthcoming events precludes any REAL choice from God's perspective. I mean, if from God's perspective there is literally zero probability that you will not murder your best friend on July 29th, 2036, how could you not? There is no set of actions that can possibly stop that from happening if an omniscient diety knows it's going to happen.

And that segues into the second issue. The very term omniscient implies that God knows not only the choices, but also the reasons behind them. If he didn't, he wouldn't be omniscient. The water boiling analogy fails here because that someone is not omniscient. Also, they did not create the conditions under which water will boil at a certain temperature (ie: the physics behind it), so they really can't claim any superior knowledge over it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kontiki

But that doesn't hold water either. The act of creation is, by it's very nature, temporal. At some point, there was nothing, and then there was something.

Well, what about those people who think it is senseless to speak of a time before the Big Bang, time being a feature of the universe?

That's what time is - a continuous line of before and after. So even if God himself exists outside of time, he needs to enter into the temporal world to create anything.

Why? If one does not understand time this way, then why should one admit to it.

Additionally, humans exist within time and are utterly and completely bound by it. Presumably, God created this time if he created everything and understands how we work within it. So, for all intents and purposes, it really IS foreknowledge.

That would be false. If God exists outside of time, then it follows that there is no point on your timeline at which God engages a state of knowing that something will happen three days hence.

Two issues here. First, it's important to keep in mind that it's only "determined" from God's perspective - no one elses. And, for the sake of the religious argument, that's all the matters. Absolutely infallible knowledge of forthcoming events precludes any REAL choice from God's perspective.

No it doesn't because his knowledge is not the cause of your acting, in mainstream theology it is your free will that determines the choice.

I don't see any difference between this and a hypothetical example of someone having a machine that allows them to see what people are doing tomorrow. His seeing what they choose and when they choose it is not the cause of their choosing it.

I mean, if from God's perspective there is literally zero probability that you will not murder your best friend on July 29th, 2036, how could you not? There is no set of actions that can possibly stop that from happening if an omniscient diety knows it's going to happen.

But that is not incompatible with my having free will, since the causal chain of events leading up to the murder are caused by me, not by God.

And that segues into the second issue. The very term omniscient implies that God knows not only the choices, but also the reasons behind them. If he didn't, he wouldn't be omniscient. The water boiling analogy fails here because that someone is not omniscient. Also, they did not create the conditions under which water will boil at a certain temperature (ie: the physics behind it), so they really can't claim any superior knowledge over it.

But that doesn't make the slightest difference. The point here is that someone can know something will happen without their knowledge causing it to be so. God may well know your reasons for acting, but, unless you are a determinist, your choice is conditioned only by free will. If God allows creatures free will, then he can't be omnipotent because he can't stop people choosing what they wish to do, but this doesn't prevent him from knowing what people are going to do, since he sees all time as an eternal present.

You need to show why God's knowledge of my actions is the determining cause of them, otherwise your argument does not follow through. God notices what we do, he does not cause it.

[Bereta_Eder]

you can choose between moral or religion class in school so clearly they are not the same.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Agathon


Well, what about those people who think it is senseless to speak of a time before the Big Bang, time being a feature of the universe?

Dunno. Ask them. I'm only working under the traditional context of the Judeo-Christian belief. And AFAIK, that is a rather large debate topic surrounding the whole Big Bang theory.

Why? If one does not understand time this way, then why should one admit to it.

That would be false. If God exists outside of time, then it follows that there is no point on your timeline at which God engages a state of knowing that something will happen three days hence.

A. How could God not understand it if he created it and is omniscient?
B. How is it logically possible for creation events to happen the way you are implying? I'd really like to hear you explain this to me.

No it doesn't because his knowledge is not the cause of your acting, in mainstream theology it is your free will that determines the choice.

I don't see any difference between this and a hypothetical example of someone having a machine that allows them to see what people are doing tomorrow. His seeing what they choose and when they choose it is not the cause of their choosing it.

But that is not incompatible with my having free will, since the causal chain of events leading up to the murder are caused by me, not by God.

But that doesn't make the slightest difference. The point here is that someone can know something will happen without their knowledge causing it to be so. God may well know your reasons for acting, but, unless you are a determinist, your choice is conditioned only by free will. If God allows creatures free will, then he can't be omnipotent because he can't stop people choosing what they wish to do, but this doesn't prevent him from knowing what people are going to do, since he sees all time as an eternal present.

You need to show why God's knowledge of my actions is the determining cause of them, otherwise your argument does not follow through. God notices what we do, he does not cause it.

All of which misses the point. Causation in and of itself doesn't really matter. As I said before, the point of free will in the religious sense is that we can freely choose to sin or not, and our choices and actions will ultimately be judged by God. And if he knows in advance (from our perspective) how things are going to play out, then you can't deviate from that path. To you and everyone else around you, it looks like you are making choices. But since God has already seen it, there's no surprises. You can hit a point where you have a choice to sin or not. You can debate that all you want - God already knows what you are going to do. If he has seen you sin, you're going to sin. He needn't be the cause of it, but if he has seen that you will sin, you will sin. There's nothing you can do that will stop you from sinning. If there was, God would be wrong.

Go back to your machine that sees the future. If you see that at 8:00am tomorrow morning, Bob takes a left on Main Street, and there is literally zero chance that your machine is wrong, then tomorrow at 8:00am, Bob is going to take a left on Main Street. Did you cause it? No, but who cares. Bob can debate the hell out of which way to go - in the end he HAS to go left or your machine was wrong.

Perhaps you're mixing me up with UR. I think he's arguing for determinism - I'm not. I'm just saying that if God has perfect foreknowledge, then you can't surprise him.

[Agathon]

But then you are arguing for a tautology. What's the point in that?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Agathon
But then you are arguing for a tautology. What's the point in that?

How so? I'm arguing that an omniscient God with necessarily perfect foreknowledge invalidates "free-will" choices that will have an impact when we die. I'm not arguing that we don't have free will, nor am I arguing that we live in a deterministic universe. I'm just pointing out the problem with assuming both an omniscient God and a "free-will" to sin.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Agathon
The standard response to this is that God exists outside of time, and that talk of him knowing something "before" it happens is therefore misconceived.

The standard response to that is such an argument is not backed up by anything in the bible and thus even more a load of hogwash than the usual fare.

Originally posted by Agathon
But I don't see how it would follow from God's omniscience that your actions were determined. Someone might know that I will choose to go to the bank tomorrow, but does that make their knowing the cause of my going to the bank?

Your actions were determined does not mean that the knowledge of your actions caused those actions. This does not follow, Aggie. You should know better than that.

Take your example. You have your reasons to go to the bank, but you will still go to the bank nevertheless. Which means whatever you are going to do has been decided even before you make the decision, even before you are born, even before your grandparents are born, etc.

With omniscience requires determinism. Determinism is the nemesis of certain central tenets of Christianity, because we cannot be held responsible for our actions.

Originally posted by Agathon
Similarly, someone can claim to know that tomorrow water will still boil at the same temperature it does today. Does that make their knowing this fact the cause of its doing so?

See above.

[Elok]

Free will is supposed to be the one point in existence that is independent of God. A free will is unconstrained by normal physical causality-human beings have the same existential freedom as God himself in terms of emotions and beliefs. That's why it's so important in the Christian faith.

This concept seems to be eluding you people, so I'll say it flat out: what God makes us to be in terms of physical vessels does not bind our decisions. The independence we are given is true independence, not bound by the circumstances of his initial input. We were made to be more than consequences of his original action. We are quite literally in "the image and likeness" of God that way, as this freedom is the only thing distinguishing us from the rest of creation.

And theology has to be analogous by its nature. God is a cause, not an effect. Any attempts to describe the divine are at best a caricature of an inventor derived from his inventions. A theologian stupid enough to think his work is some form of absolute science is not worth reading, whether his name is C.S. Lewis or not. What I say is, to my knowledge, the understanding of the Orthodox formed over several centuries based on the various scriptures.

I've read theology outside of Lewis, by the way, but most of it was shamefully ill-guided and smug. Bunch of crap that read like a sociology report, only less aware of its own tentative nature. Making up a God as the maker would like him to be, then condescendingly wrapping him in a package marked "YHWH" or "Allah." So I went back to C.S. Lewis, and the works of Kallistos Ware, and other people who realize they're essentially talking in postulates.

Yeah, I'm opinionated and self-satisfied. So are you. So what?

[Agathon]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Urban Ranger

The standard response to that is such an argument is not backed up by anything in the bible and thus even more a load of hogwash than the usual fare.[QUOTE]

Sure, it's not in the Bible, but then again neither are many accepted Xtian doctrines. It is however a staple in Greek philosophical thinking about God. In the Timaeus time is a property of the created universe which is a "moving image of eternity".

One can get into convoluted metaphysical arguments about the nature of time if one wishes to do so, but the idea of a God existing timelessly in the manner of the Parmenidean One Being is an idea that predates Christianity by centuries and was appropriated by the latter in its cross fertilization with neoplatonist doctrines.

Your actions were determined does not mean that the knowledge of your actions caused those actions. This does not follow, Aggie. You should know better than that.

I don't quite understand your point. I don't believe in free will, nor God for that matter, but the omnisicence argument is misguided.

Determinism simply states that every action is determined by its cause. This includes human decision making and therefore human action. Standard Free Will doctrine holds that determinism is false: some actions (human decisions and actions) are not causally conditioned in this fashion, or at least do not operate according to the same physical laws as everything else.

Take your example. You have your reasons to go to the bank, but you will still go to the bank nevertheless. Which means whatever you are going to do has been decided even before you make the decision, even before you are born, even before your grandparents are born, etc.

The cause of my going to the bank is my choosing to do so. The fact that God knows about this does not change the fact of my decision. God does not exercise causal influence over our decisions, he merely perceives them. In fact he perceives every event past, present and future as an eternal present (acc. to the theory explained above). It's simply not the case that God sees what I will do before I do it.

It's not that God sees now what I will do then. It is more as if God sees now what I do now and then what I do then, but he sees these all at the same time because he is not bound by time in the way that we are. The difference is simply that God has a different mode of cognitive access to the world than we do - he sees the whole of history at once, we do not. It does not follow logically from that, that our choices are determined.

With omniscience requires determinism. Determinism is the nemesis of certain central tenets of Christianity, because we cannot be held responsible for our actions.

I agree, determinism spoils the whole thing. But, having said that, this argument is not a good one because it forces on the Xtian a particular conception of these matters that they do not have to endorse.