Religion: Real or Fake

[Lonestar]

You were clear. I could see, all along, that you were operating under the assumption of an omniscient god. I was suggesting that that free will does not preclude the existence of an omniscient god. I am suggesting that even if a god knew what I was going to do then I could still choose my actions.

I think you have countered that if this god "knew" what I was going to do then my actions are pre-ordained. I presume we agree that free will and pre-ordination are mutually exclusive? It seems the point of difference between our positions is whether or not divine omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive? (I have not touched on any other points which you have been discussing with others).

Possibly the main point. I'd say they are.

For my part, I could not continue this discussion without getting into rather long and pointless discussion of definitions of free will and determinism and the extent to which we do have free will. I think we act in accordance with what we perceive to our own self interest with regard to trrade offs between long term and short term interest and empathy plays a part. Yeah, that is a bit vague and one could argue about how much of that is free will and how much is determinism. It would be a tedious and pointless discussion.

Agree to disagree?

You're trying to make it a relative amount of predetermination and free-will. I say that if a diety is all-knowing, then everything is predetermined(even if not by that diety). If the diety in question isn't omniscient then it means that the argument made by Christians(or Moslems) that there is only "one way" is quite a bit less convincing.

So yeah, I'm not going to get into a "scale-o-determination" argument with you.

[Egbert]

It was refreshing to have had a debate without any exchanges of insults and then amicably dropping it when it was pointless to continue.

Thanks.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He also said that he didn't come to DESTROY the Law. In other words, all the horrible things(and less horrible things) in the Books of Moses are still on the table. When are you going to be converting to an all-Kosher lifestyle and keeping slaves?

What does fulfilling a contract mean?

Nonsense, if he knows what you are going to do(and he is if he is all-knowing), then that means there is no free will. Everything is preordained. Yahweh is a dude who gets his shiggles tormenting people.

How is knowledge of future activity the same as controlling the future activity?

Besides, no one (except God) really knows exactly what happens after death. According to the Bible, there is a new Earth and bodily resurrection of the dead, but as for the specifics, we are guessing. This is why there is different theories (Universalism, Annihilationism, being able to accept God's love after death, etc.).

[rah]

Yeah, I also don't see how being all knowing invalidates the concept of free will.

[Kidlicious]

I think that's all we've been asking for: evidence.

Over the course of 1,275 those on the religious side have ducked repeated requests for even the smallest evidence of the existence of any number of gods - let's face it, there's hundreds to choose from!

This is the perfect example of idiocy. It's the idiots that keep demanding evidence.

[giblets]

Who's more stupid, the people who want proof or the people who won't provide it

[Kidlicious]

Since I moved to a apartment complex without a gate I've had Christians of various stripes(Mormons, JWs, Baptists) solicit at unlikely hours. Would you care to guess how many secularist organizations I've had solicit? None, zero, zilch. By and large secularist groups don't go "you know what? We need to go get into peoples personal lives!".

If only you didn't have that darn free will. Then maybe there would be no need for God to send you a messenger.

[Kidlicious]

Who's more stupid, the people who want proof or the people who won't provide it

The stupidity is not in wanting proof. The stupidity is in continuing to demand it when others keep stating that you are suppose to believe in the face of the lack of proof, and in denying that somethings are true when there is no truth.

[MikeH]

Believing in the face of lack of proof seems stupid to me. Or at best pointless.

[Jon Miller]

But everyone does it*. From physicists to plumbers to rock stars.

*Maybe not nihlists + a few other minor philosophical schools

Making religious beliefs require more proof than all other beliefs is a bit odd considering that more hold to religious beliefs (classified as) than a belief in reductionism (for example).

JM

[Kidlicious]

Believing in the face of lack of proof seems stupid to me. Or at best pointless.

Do you have hope for anything? Is that stupid?

[MikeH]

I don't understand. Lots of people doing it doesn't make it any less stupid?

[MikeH]

Do you have hope for anything? Is that stupid?

Huh?

Hope != Belief

eg.

I don't have any proof either way but I hope x will happen.

vs.

I don't have any proof either way but I believe x will happen.

Are very different things.

[Jon Miller]

I don't understand. Lots of people doing it doesn't make it any less stupid?

I would argue that it is stupid to require proof to have a belief. We certainly wouldn't have had the achievements of science we have had if this was true.

Likely there would be no democracies either.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Slavery would be common....

JM