Science Can Answer Moral Questions...

[Sundance]

My argument is based on the believers understanding of God and his attributes not on my own.

Atheists like to do that.

You have cherry picked what you think are the believers understanding of God.
I, for one, disagree with that understanding.
You, at best, are attempting to disprove one particular statement about God (and that it is being debated).

Sundance

[seer]

How many times do I need to say that Gods knowledge itself is not the cause of the future? God is the cause, the fact of his eternal knowledge, his omniscience, is only the logical evidence of his being the cause. In your world Seer, logic is not necessary, you believe that the entire history of creation can exist eternally in the mind of God as knowledge before he actually creates it and yet you believe that once that knowledge goes from the mind of God to actual existence, it is the creation itself rather than God that is the cause of its own entire history. That is absurd, but these are the kind of logical absurdities that theists are willing to accept in order to hang on to their beliefs. Where do you come from Seer? According to your point of view you come from nothing, you come from out of the mind of God, you are no more than Gods knowledge come into actual material being. Well then, your future also is no more than Gods knowledge come into actual being, so please explain how Gods knowledge is contingent on your existence as well as on your future actions rather than the other way around?

Actually Jim in my world logic is universal, immutable and objective - since it is how God thinks, in your world you have no such assurance. There is nothing absurd about the idea of God creating morally free creatures and that He could know (though not cause) their actions. Your whole argument comes down the proposition that God could not create free creatures, and if He did, He could not know their future free acts. By why should we accept this limit on God’s ability? How do you know this limitation exists? You have not made a logical case against it, you only have asserted that it could not be true, which only means that you can not get your mind around the possibility. If you have a logical case against it please spell it out in a syllogism (deductively).This way here we can examine your premises.

[JimL]

Actually Jim in my world logic is universal, immutable and objective - since it is how God thinks, in your world you have no such assurance.

I disagree Seer, It is no more logical to say that God could eternally know the future of his creation and not be the cause of that future than it is to say that God can create matter from out of nothing, or to say that he could create a square the triangle of which is equal to its side. There is nothing logical in these beliefs?

There is nothing absurd about the idea of God creating morally free creatures and that He could know (though not cause) their actions.

But it is absurd if you look at it from a logical standpoint, you can in no logical way defend your point of view, all you can do is argue by assertion and say it isn't absurd to believe what you believe.

Your whole argument comes down the proposition that God could not create free creatures, and if He did, He could not know their future free acts. By why should we accept this limit on God’s ability?

Because we have brains by which we interpret the reality of existence and if our interpretation is supported by logic and we have no empirical knowledge to the contrary then it is absurd to believe in that which is contrary to that logic.

How do you know this limitation exists? You have not made a logical case against it, you only have asserted that it could not be true, which only means that you can not get your mind around the possibility. If you have a logical case against it please spell it out in a syllogism (deductively).This way here we can examine your premises.

Wrong, I have made a logical case against it, it is just as I said previously, you do not concern yourself, as far as your belief in God goes, with logic. That God can create matter out of nothing is not logical, and that he can possess eternal knowledge of the entire history of creation and not be the cause of it is not logical. These are logical inferences and when you argue to the contrary, there is no logic in your argument, it is merely an assertion that states "you can't prove that God can't do these things even if they are illogical". Well, sure I can't prove it to someone to whom logic is of no concern.

[seer]

I disagree Seer, It is no more logical to say that God could eternally know the future of his creation and not be the cause of that future than it is to say that God can create matter from out of nothing, or to say that he could create a square the triangle of which is equal to its side. There is nothing logical in these beliefs?

Well of course I would say that God could not do what is logically impossible, since that would violate His nature - like creating a square circle. The question is - what is logically impossible and how do we know?

But it is absurd if you look at it from a logical standpoint, you can in no logical way defend your point of view, all you can do is argue by assertion and say it isn't absurd to believe what you believe.

Because we have brains by which we interpret the reality of existence and if our interpretation is supported by logic and we have no empirical knowledge to the contrary then it is absurd to believe in that which is contrary to that logic.

Wrong, I have made a logical case against it, it is just as I said previously, you do not concern yourself, as far as your belief in God goes, with logic. That God can create matter out of nothing is not logical, and that he can possess eternal knowledge of the entire history of creation and not be the cause of it is not logical. These are logical inferences and when you argue to the contrary, there is no logic in your argument, it is merely an assertion that states "you can't prove that God can't do these things even if they are illogical". Well, sure I can't prove it to someone to whom logic is of no concern.

Then Jim, this should be easy for you. Present a deductive syllogism that proves your point. You after all are the one appealing to logic, claiming that foreknowledge and free will can not exist simultaneously .Then we can examine your premises and conclusion.

[JimL]

Well of course I would say that God could not do what is logically impossible, since that would violate His nature - like creating a square circle. The question is - what is logically impossible and how do we know?

Well, logically of course. We determine by logic/reason that a square can not be in the form of a circle, or that something can not be created out of nothing, that the cause is in the effect and vice versa. If it is your determination that the verifiable facts of your observations are wrong and that it is possible to create a square in the form of a circle, that material things do not exist in their cause, or that a man can be formed out of mud or a rib, then logic demands a proof. Your perspective on the other hand, is that logic needs to prove your unverifiable claims false.

Then Jim, this should be easy for you. Present a deductive syllogism that proves your point. You after all are the one appealing to logic, claiming that foreknowledge and free will can not exist simultaneously .Then we can examine your premises and conclusion.

Eternal and infinite knowledge of existence is fixed knowledge.
finite existence is bounded by the infinite.
ergo finite existence is fixed.

[Tassman]

Sorry Tass, but you did not answer the question. What exactly prevented me from choosing coffee over tea - my own choice/will or God's knowledge? If you believe that God's knowledge prevented me from choosing coffee it is on you to show the physical connection. Because knowledge in itself offers no physical compulsion.

I answered the question. Nothing physically prevented you from choosing coffee over tea other than god’s eternal knowledge that you didn’t. Your ‘free will’ was an illusion. You could have done no other. If you had chosen coffee, for the sake of argument, then god’s omniscience would not be such because his ‘eternal knowledge’ would have been wrong.

[JimL]

Atheists like to do that.

Yes, its called debate, theists like to do that to.

You have cherry picked what you think are the believers understanding of God.
I, for one, disagree with that understanding.
You, at best, are attempting to disprove one particular statement about God (and that it is being debated).

Well, you haven't presented your alternative understanding of God and unless you do so, we can not debate the issue.

[Sundance]

Yes, its called debate, theists like to do that to.

Well, you haven't presented your alternative understanding of God and unless you do so, we can not debate the issue.

Your strawman and I have to make an alternate strawman?

O.K. but it seems silly and just arguing for the sake of it.

God gives us free will and allows us to chose what we will do in this time-space continuum. Since God exists outside of time and space, he can observe what we have done. That in no way says that he predestined it to be so.

I repeat the analogy to a computer program wherein a simple soul like me can construct a stochastic simulation and observe statistical results. By observing these, and indeed I can subsequently change the simulation, I did not preselect the output.

Sundance

[JimL]

Your strawman and I have to make an alternate strawman?

O.K. but it seems silly and just arguing for the sake of it.

God gives us free will and allows us to chose what we will do in this time-space continuum. Since God exists outside of time and space, he can observe what we have done. That in no way says that he predestined it to be so.

I repeat the analogy to a computer program wherein a simple soul like me can construct a stochastic simulation and observe statistical results. By observing these, and indeed I can subsequently change the simulation, I did not preselect the output.

Sundance

But in such a case you are not creating but rather you are constructing out of existing matter a random system in which you are not omniscient as to its future events. You could if you wished change the simulation, but if you change it to where you know its future then it is no longer random but determined. Also a random system is not itself indicative of free will.

[seer]

1.Eternal and infinite knowledge of existence is fixed knowledge.

2.finite existence is bounded by the infinite.

3.ergo finite existence is fixed.

Ok, this is good. Premise one: why can't this fixed knowledge be contingent on the free act of the individual? Be specific please.

[Sundance]

But in such a case you are not creating but rather you are constructing out of existing matter a random system in which you are not omniscient as to its future events.

Ah but I could be in principle. All I need do is spend more time examining my random number generator just as a creator might be able to figure out instead of allowing free will. It is buried in your assumptions.

You could if you wished change the simulation, but if you change it to where you know its future then it is no longer random but determined.

The same applies to the Creator.

Also a random system is not itself indicative of free will.

Why not? It is free from a predetermined output of the programmer. Do we know if the creator has "foreknowledge" given the uncertainties of Quantum Mechanics in this universe which he created? Your God's properties are merely what you have elected to assign to "him" and may not be realistic at all. They certainly are not a basis for rejecting the assumptions of another person.

[JimL]

Ok, this is good. Premise one: why can't this fixed knowledge be contingent on the free act of the individual? Be specific please.

Because that which is only possible is dependent on that which is and not the other way around.
Preexisting knowledge of a future event can't be contingent upon that future event being that the knowledge precedes the actual existence of the event.

[JimL]

Ah but I could be in principle. All I need do is spend more time examining my random number generator just as a creator might be able to figure out instead of allowing free will. It is buried in your assumptions.

But again, if the creator after creating the system can determine its future then it was never random to begin with. You can only determine the future of a system if that future is fixed no matter how random it may seem.

The same applies to the Creator. Why not? It is free from a predetermined output of the programmer.

Even if as you suggest that it is free from a predetermined output from the programmer, that in itself doesn't make the system itself free, it just makes its determined future unknown to the programmer, and being that he is the programmer whether he has knowledge of its future or not he still determined it.

Do we know if the creator has "foreknowledge" given the uncertainties of Quantum Mechanics in this universe which he created? Your God's properties are merely what you have elected to assign to "him" and may not be realistic at all. They certainly are not a basis for rejecting the assumptions of another person.

The assumptions of those that I contend with is that God is eternally omniscient and that we have free will. It is not I who assigns these properties to God. I understand that this is not realistic at all, but they disagree, thus the debate.

[Sundance]

But again, if the creator after creating the system can determine its future then it was never random to begin with. You can only determine the future of a system if that future is fixed no matter how random it may seem.



Even if as you suggest that it is free from a predetermined output from the programmer, that in itself doesn't make the system itself free, it just makes its determined future unknown to the programmer, and being that he is the programmer whether he has knowledge of its future or not he still determined it.


The assumptions of those that I contend with is that God is eternally omniscient and that we have free will. It is not I who assigns these properties to God.

reference?

I understand that this is not realistic at all, but they disagree, thus the debate.

It depends upon what you mean by "eternally omniscient". If, like the programmer, he finds out the result after the fact (which may be before the fact to us in this space-time continuum), then free will can still exist.

IMHO

Sundance

[seer]

Because that which is only possible is dependent on that which is and not the other way around.
Preexisting knowledge of a future event can't be contingent upon that future event being that the knowledge precedes the actual existence of the event.

Well no Jim, why can't God see the future? I mean that is at the bottom of this. I believe God can "see" our future free acts, you do not.