 |
|
|
|
January 16th, 2014
11:29 AM ET
Supreme Court skeptical of abortion clinic buffer zonesBy Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer (CNN) - The Supreme Court waded cautiously back into the larger debate over abortion on Wednesday. A number of justices raised concerns about a Massachusetts state law preventing activists from crossing a 35-foot buffer zone around reproductive health clinics. During an intense hour of oral arguments, Massachusetts officials said the issue was more about public safety and pedestrian access on local sidewalks. Anti-abortion supporters countered their free speech rights were being violated. What the high court decides in coming months could affect a broader range of free speech arenas - over issues such as war, taxes, corporate bailouts and elections - where the location of the message is often key. FULL STORY
« Previous entrySupreme Court to hear abortion clinic case
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
The issue from another angle:
"On its Grand Challenges website, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is offering a $100,000 startup grant to the person who designs "the next generation condom that significantly preserves or enh-ances pleasure" and pr-omotes "regular use."
It may sound like the setup for a joke, but the goal is deadly serious. While researchers call condoms one of the best ways to stop the spread of H-IV, the virus that causes AI-DS, getting people to use them is another story.” (ditto that in stopping the spread and horror of abortions).
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/25/health/bill-gates-condom-challenge
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Those blue links from around the web Vic – you might learn something !
01
BBC Two – Origins of Us | Homepage
http://learni.st/users/jesse.parent/boards/34206-origins-of-us-bbc-special-on-human-evolution?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=paid_cpc&utm_campaign=education
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn_cW5DWsCQ
Vic is this what the soul looks like ?
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=what+does+my+soul+look+like&sa=X&noj=1&tbm=isch&source=iu&imgil=jUd_Uo_dxSy55M%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcTYGkgdLFeHb2ddv8N7HmRTF3o5PCIIdI3nsgf5v8wdj7juBza2Gg%253B850%253B700%253BPRW1ALZ8cLlP0M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.fotocommunity.com%25252Fpc%25252Fpc%25252Fdisplay%25252F19864078&ei=uXLcUpGkJYGGhQe_vYGQDA&ved=0CDoQ9QEwBw&biw=1600&bih=774#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=KhRjwd-rYnj1BM%253A%3B1QkZN6EwhMDozM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.shortoftheweek.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2009%252F09%252Fwhos-gonna-save-my-soul-chris-milk.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.shortoftheweek.com%252F2009%252F09%252F19%252Fwhos-gonna-save-my-soul%252F%3B640%3B360
It just needs a dash of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q3CZNKgnNE
Oh, my...one of the worst songs EVER!!
Feelings ?
lol – sorry -I could not resist temptation.
I thought you might have felt the soul after viewing ?
Science, your link had quite a few to choose from; the bloody smiling heart thingy was quite...er...frightening..,
The one with the arms right on – but what does Vic say ?
Capt.
This is one of those "chicken/eggs", which came first scenarios. Admittedly, as a christian, I cannot divorce my thoughts from what I find in scripture, so I acknowledge the fact that our presuppositions will differ.
I find in the bible this notion that God exists outside of space/time/history, past/present/future. Somehow he dwells within a continuous " now". I won't pretend to begin to understand fully what this means, but it does tell me that we are trying to understand this concept of foreknowledge from a human dimensional perspective, obviously the only one we can. But the question is still " How could things play out differently"? My answer is, they cannot. But why does this lead you to the conclusion that God therefore must have caused it? Back to my H itler example. Was God responsible for this der an ged lu na tics at roc ities? Did God author the e vil that was in Hi tler's mind and cause him to robotically " do His will". Is it not possible that the man acted of his own independent sin ful nature? That God has the foreknowledge of Hi tler's choices does not mean he has made those choices for him. Have you yourself ever done anything wrong ( for ease of argument here I won't call it sin because that seems to effect peoples blood pressure here).? If you're anything like me, I usually don't go an hour without doing so. Who made you do that "wrong", even though you had an alternative choice? Why does the existence of a being who has omniscience negate your responsibility?
Sorry Captain, I intended this reply to go in our previous post.
devin, in consideraton of your statement "I cannot divorce my thoughts from what I find in scripture", would you argue that all Christians subscribe to the notion that God has foreknowledge?
In that 30% of the world's population ( 2 billion people) consider themselves christians, I would imagine not all do. However, I would think the vast majority believe it.
I'm guessing this is a loaded question?
Was just reading below and saw you used the term " predestination" . Not sure where you were headed with your question to me, but just thought I'd let you know the terms foreknowledge and predestination are distinctly separate in meaning, both in English and Biblical N.T. Greek.
No, I don't think it's loaded. I was just wondering if you thought it was a majority. I would think also a majority for foreknowledge, but yes, predestination would be another issue.
devin, you're horrible at operating Occam's razor. See "On Free Will"'s post below. It cuts to the heart of the matter without all the extra mechanics you need to invoke to maintain a belief in free will and an omniscient being.
Funny you should invoke Occam's razor. I find it is the singular principle which atheists abandon in the "existence of God" debate. Even a cursory look around the planet should cause reasonable people to conclude that a designer, infinitely more intelligent than ourselves, is the cause. This is born out by the reality that 95% of the world's population has concluded God exists.
You need to familiarize yourself with the differences in the terms foreknowledge and predestination ( I use predestination in the general sense, not soteriologically). On Free Will states, " how can you possibly choose anything other than what he set up way back in the beginning"? And herein lies the issue. He didn't "set it up way back in the beginning" he simply knew how it was going to turn out. There really are no " extra mechanics' involved, it's pretty straight forward
The majority of the world's people believe in a god because religion has traditionally has been embedded in society's power structure. A god is no longer required as an explanation for phenomena such as eclipses, earthquakes, drought, floods, etc.
But a god is certainly not the simplest answer now. We understand what cause those phenomena and more and if a god exists it is before the big bang where none of us can know for certain.
God created a plan and set it in motion, knowing absolutely everything that would ever happen. He knew everything you will ever do way back at the beginning. With that in mind, how can you possibly choose anything other than what he set up way back in the beginning. You just plain can't. Because God keeps himself hidden, then you can have the illusion of choice, but not the reality of it.
If God is omniscient, then there is just no way you can have free will.
I will skip the discussions of how how much of your choices is actually subconscious and how monumentally pointless it would be for God to even bother with creation when he already knows the outcome of absolutely everything.
Ever wonder why God gets so mad in the Old Testament when he already knows what will happen?
"So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” Genesis 6:7
"I already know exactly what will happen and it's going to go all wrong but I'm going to do it anyway and regret doing it. Yeah, that sounds pretty damn Godly of me..." – God
Yeah, I know what you mean I think. I always was wondering why God was PO's at Adam and Eve if he was all omnificent about the whole thing from the start. I'll have to go to confession and ask about that. Only thing is, I'm already confessed way into the future since I've been going to mass so much. I still haven't seen any of that breast feeding frenzy they were talking about.
I'll volunteer if Scarlett Johansson is available.
So, how does knowing the outcome eliminate the free will of others? It's not like say a parent would ever let their children learn from making their own mistakes because that parent would know the kid would make those mistakes, but since the parent would know the outcome, that in of itself takes away the free will of the child and that would also take away the learning experiences of the child?
It also bears the question does the reason behind God knowing the outcome comes from despite a person's free will or is it because of that person's free will is how God will know the outcome? After all it if it never happened can one truly be made accountable for their actions?
Explain to me how you can choose anything other than what God set in motion way back at the beginning and already knows you will do.
The big thing is not whether God knows your outcome it's whether or not you know your outcome. Since none of us know our outcome the free will is constantly made available to us to utilize. Otherwise, what would even be the point God requiring us to have faith in the first place and what would even be the purpose of us going through this life in the first place? Also, once again this still brings up the question does God know our outcome despite our free will or is it because of our free will?
That is the illusion of free will, not the reality of it. If I can only choose what God knew since the beginning of time, then all I have is the illusion of choice based on the fact that the only being who really was able to choose remains hidden.
Omniscient omnipotent God sets forward a plan at the beginning of time, and knows exactly absolutely everything that will come of that plan. That means no being in the expanse of the universe can choose other than what God chose. ANd it also means they cannot be responsible, because they cannot truly choose.
And that is the paradox of free will. For there to be responsibility, beings must be able to choose. But they cannot choose anything other than what God chose, so they cannot be responsible. And if you are not responsible, then punishment such as hell is perfectly unjust. And thus the only being that deserves hell for all the sins and evils is God, because he made it and had perfect understanding of what his creation would do.
Pure paradox.
Johnny,
If that only option that God has presented to us in which we have no choice in the matter is for us to have our own free agency then what is our only option to follow?
Would you tell me where in the Bible God says you have free will?
I guess you do have a point . It's not like anybody was ever requested in the Bible to repent or to choose which god to follow, or to choose this day whom ye will serve or anything like that.
Sam,
You haven't actually proven that they are not choices.
i believe i have.
now, answer this.....if i apparently have two choices, A or B, and god KNOWS that i am going to choose B, what are the chances this omniscient god is going to be shown incorrect by me choosing A?
A or B is the illusion of choice, but it is not a free choice as B is the outcome that cannot be changed
Sam,
The problem is that you haven't shown how God knowing the answer in advance makes it so that you can only choose A over B .
Kev: "The problem is that you haven't shown how God knowing the answer in advance makes it so that you can only choose A over B ."
Well, you're making it sound more and more like free will is just an illusion – that people, unlike God, are merely blind to the choice that they will ultimately make, the choice that God knows is the only outcome.
Doris,
How is not providing proof that God's foreknowledge automatically equating to lack of choice make it sound like God's foreknowledge does equate to lack of choice?
Not sure what you meant by that last reply, Kev, but in the other thread below with virtually the same argument, poster "Hope this helps" helped me to understand your position, I believe. None of this really coincides with my own lack of belief of the Abrahamic God, but at least I find the example that "Hope this helps" posted sensible – that is, if one believes in this omnipotent God, then I think the argument that such a god can both have foreknowledge and grant free will can be a reasonable argument.
Your parental example is bogus because parents are not omniscient
the parents are unlikely to let their kids learn from any type of mistake – like walking back into a burning building...
If you know the outcome of that particular situation you know it. You don't have to be all knowing to know if you doe certain things certain things will result. So, the parent analogy is quite valid.
So, your saying that a parent never lets their own child make their own mistakes from time to time?
Why are you reducing God to a mortal parent? Parents are not omniscient, nor do they know exactly everything that will happen right out to the end of time. Nor are they the authors of the whole plan of existence.
And at least parents step in when something bad might happen, but God lets the bad happen. Not much of a parent, is he?
You must not be a parent if you think parents know what kids will chose.
So, your saying that the best parents never let their children be free to make their own mistakes from time to time? Also are you saying that a parent never knows what child decides upon may actually be a mistake?
We can discuss parenting if you like. It has nothing to do with theological free will.
So Johnny,
How does parenting have nothing to do with free will?
nonsense, kev. the parental example is only valid if the parents are omniscient, parents are not. therefore, your example is bogus.
parents may have a very strong feeling about the outcome of a child's choice. they may be right, but they do not have absolute knowledge.
i don't recall whether you said you were a believer or not, but often believers have an issue confusing belief with knowledge
So Sam,
You are saying that the parent example is only applicable if the parent was all knowing. So, in your point of view if there is a all knowing parent like say God, then god letting us have the power to make our own choices and make our own mistakes is applicable?
Also, if you happen to know if something is a mistake, you really don't know it is a mistake unless you happen to be all knowing?
@Kev – Again, the reason the parent analogy fails is that parents don't possess infallible foreknowledge whereas god allegedly does. Infallible foreknowledge (i.e. omniscience) provides only a single course of events, including but not limited to each and every human "decision." As the alleged first cause creator, even prior to the act of creation, god perfectly knew every possible permutation of eventual events, but more importantly, god perfectly and infallibly knew the one single course of events which would actually transpire. If a mortal could make a decision which deviates from the single, perfectly known course of events which would actually transpire, then the course of events wasn't perfectly known and there was no omniscience. Regarding the relationship between omniscience and causation, they intersect at the moment god acted as the first cause creator where every event which would invariably follow was already perfectly and infallibly known. In acting to create, this single immutable course of events was caused, including every "choice" to be made by every mortal.
redoza,
" Again, the reason the parent analogy fails is that parents don't possess infallible foreknowledge whereas god allegedly does."
Again we are talking about God being the parent with the Infallible foreknowledge (i.e. omniscience).
"If a mortal could make a decision which deviates from the single, perfectly known course of events which would actually transpire, then the course of events wasn't perfectly known and there was no omniscience."
How is being able to alter events actually effect God knowing the outcome. By your POV an all knowing God becomes all knowing by setting up a specific sequence of events. What makes you think that is how God could become all knowing?
In my belief I do believe that God does know of various outcomes for each of us and what would have been the result if some decisions each of us had made were different, and yet also knows what decisions each of us will actually make. However the thing is does God then make the decision on our fate by just simply knowing our outcome, or is that God knows our outcome and decides our fate because God lets us make our choices and has always intended it that way. After all, can one truly be accountable for their actions if they didn't actually do those actions of their own free will? Again it is the wise parent teaching their child by letting that child make their own mistakes even though the parent knows that is making a mistake.
"Regarding the relationship between omniscience and causation, they intersect at the moment god acted as the first cause creator where every event which would invariably follow was already perfectly and infallibly known. In acting to create, this single immutable course of events was caused, including every "choice" to be made by every mortal."
You realize that including "every choice to be made by every mortal" means that free agency was included into God's plan and that simply knowing what one decides doesn't mean that the ability for us to choose is meaningless because it is all a part of God's plan after all, and that plan includes us facing our own accountability by the decisions we have made. Besides, could one be properly judged for something that that was committed if not for that act to have actually been committed in the first place as well as for that act to have been committed under free will?
@Kev – "yet also knows what decisions each of us will actually make."
This really isn't that complicated, but I'll try again.
If:
1) god knows what decisions each of us will actually make;
2) god had this knowledge since the moment of creation; and
3) god cannot be wrong in this foreknowledge;
then
4) no event can contradict this perfect foreknowledge.
Because no event can contradict god's perfect foreknowledge, a human cannot "choose" to deviate from the perfect foreknowledge, i.e. a human cannot choose an option contrary to the one single course of events god infallibly knew would transpire. Because a human cannot actually choose an option contrary to the one single course of events god infallibly knew would transpire, human choice is constrained in any particular scenario to only that single option which aligns with god's infallible foreknowledge. Whether the human knows it or not, this constraint eliminates the possibility of actually choosing any option contrary to god's infallible foreknowledge and thereby, effectively eliminates free will.
Suppose you arrive at a "T" intersection and your choices are to turn left or to turn right. From before the moment of creation, god infallibly knew you would turn right. Can you actually turn left and contradict god's perfect foreknowledge?
If you answer no, you cannot contradict god's perfect foreknowledge, then you didn't actually have free will to make the choice to turn left. If you answer yes, you can contradict god's foreknowledge by turning left, then god's foreknowledge is not perfect. If you see a third option here, please feel free to explain in light of the above premises and conclusion.
"How is being able to alter events actually effect God knowing the outcome. By your POV an all knowing God becomes all knowing by setting up a specific sequence of events. What makes you think that is how God could become all knowing?"
The point is, that there is no alteration that could affect god knowing the outcome, because of the infinite possible alterations, god already knew how things would play out, he knew this perfectly, and he knew this prior to getting the ball rolling. In other words, there are no actual alterations to god's plan, and because we cannot actually alter god's plan, we don't possess free will. You can argue that god becomes all-knowing as events transpire, but this is distinctly different from omniscience (i.e. knowing everything throughout all time) and distinctly different from a perfect foreknowledge.
Your next two paragraphs are simply restatements of your preferred theology, i.e. judgment based on free will. However, free will cannot exist if we cannot actually alter god's plan (i.e. an immutable, perfectly known course of events) by our own independent volition. God could not have included free agency in the plan, because free agency requires the ability to make a choice contrary to god's plan. If I offer you choices A, B, and C, but you cannot actually choose B, or C, I've not offered you an actual choice. That you don't know you can't choose B, or C is immaterial. If you really want to preserve free will, then you must allow for choices that god can't foresee.
"You are saying that the parent example is only applicable if the parent was all knowing. So, in your point of view if there is a all knowing parent like say God, then god letting us have the power to make our own choices and make our own mistakes is applicable?"
First of all, Kev, do not attempt to restate my position, because you will invariably do it incorrectly
What i am saying is that god's foreknowledge means i have only one real choice (i.e. the one god knows i am going to do before i do it)
if that is too tough for you to grasp, then too bad. consider a logic class
Redoza,
1) god knows what decisions each of us will actually make;
2) god had this knowledge since the moment of creation; and
3) god cannot be wrong in this foreknowledge;
then
4) no event can contradict this perfect foreknowledge.
What makes you think that if an alternate event took place it could change the perfect foreknowledge? After all what you might think as being an alternate event actually is an alternate event that God could not have foreseen? Also, if God did foresee this "alternate event" did God foresee it because you really had no choice in the matter or is it because God knew you would change your mind and let you change your mind? And if God let you change your mind, how could then free will have no bearing?
Because no event can contradict god's perfect foreknowledge, a human cannot "choose" to deviate from the perfect foreknowledge, i.e. a human cannot choose an option contrary to the one single course of events god infallibly knew would transpire. "
Again was it because God really gave you no choice in the matter or is it because God did let you choose and that God knew what choice you would make? And if God let you choose then how could it be that free will could not be important?
You still didn't answer how God could actually pass judgement on us by our actions if we didn't if we didn't have any free will?
"Because a human cannot actually choose an option contrary to the one single course of events god..."
Again how is it that the single course of events cannot include the factor of free agency?
"Suppose you arrive at a "T" intersection and your choices are to turn left or to turn right. From before the moment of creation, god infallibly knew you would turn right. Can you actually turn left and contradict god's perfect foreknowledge?"
The problem with that analogy is that the T intersection is there in the first place. If there really is no choice in the matter , why would God have the T intersection there in the first place? What would be the point?
"If you answer no, you cannot contradict god's perfect foreknowledge..."
So how does not being able to contradict God's foreknowledge automatically dismiss the point of free will since God can foresee the outcome because God knew what choice you would make and let you make that choice anyway and because you actually made your choice you could then be held accountable for the choice you had made?
"The point is, that there is no alteration that could affect god knowing the outcome, because of the infinite possible alterations, god already knew how things would play out, he knew this perfectly, and he knew this prior to getting the ball rolling. In other words, there are no actual alterations to god's plan,..." Again how could free agency not play a role or be a factor in God's plan in the first place or that God knew the outcome because free will played a part in that outcome?
"If I offer you choices A, B, and C, but you cannot actually choose B, or C, I've not offered you an actual choice. That you don't know you can't choose B, or C is immaterial. If you really want to preserve free will, then you must allow for choices that god can't foresee."
What makes you think that offering choices B and C could not possibly be truly offered? If God has perfect foreknowledge why would God have to hedge his bet to make sure you would choose A over B or C. And again if you had really no choice but to follow A then why would God present choices B and C in the first place? Just because God knows in advanced what choices you would make doesn't mean that there was no choice there to begin with. In fact, God can know the outcome and therefore can truly make a proper judgement because the choice was freely given, just like a parent would know the outcome if their child were given the chance make certain decision, but figuring that it was in the best interest let the child make that decision anyway.
Just tell me how to chose anything other than what god already knows I will chose, for that is the only possible free will. Otherwise, I am just enacting the plan he made at the beginning by God. I am an actor in his play saying and doing what the playwright wrote.
Just tell me how to chose anything other than what God chose when he set this all up at the beginning of time.
Sam,
You're the one who said that the parent analogy wouldn't work because the parent wasn't all knowing, not I. Second of all how does simply foreknowing something automatically takes free will out of the equation instead of actually playing an essential role in the equation? In other words God knew the outcome because the ability to choose was given and therefore accountability actually applies.
@ Johnny,
"Just tell me how to chose anything other than what god already knows I will chose, for that is the only possible free will. Otherwise, I am just enacting the plan he made at the beginning by God. I am an actor in his play saying and doing what the playwright wrote."
How is it that the only way for you to really choose cannot include God knowing the outcome as opposed to God knowing the outcome by letting you choose because the ability to choose was part of the plan to begin with?
"how does simply foreknowing something automatically takes free will out of the equation"
because of omniscience. if god knows what i am going to do before i do it, there is no free will
"In other words God knew the outcome because the ability to choose was given and therefore accountability actually applies."
If god knows the outcome, there is only one real choice, that being what god already knows
You have a remarkable failure to grasp the obvious. If I cannot choose anything other than what God chose for me to choose at the beginning of time, then I have no real choice or free will.
Johnny,
The problem is that neither you nor Sam explained how simply foreknowing something eliminates someone else's ability to choose. All you're doing is assuming that if God foreknows something that just fore knowing something eliminates our ability to choose. You keep failing to explain why that is the case, especially since if God does know in advance then why does God present choices in the first place?
Theologically speaking, they aren't real choices since I cannot actually choose them. I can only choose what God already chose for me to choose. Which isn't choice. And those are nothing but the illusion of options, since I cannot choose them.
You can go around and around all you like, but the fact remains, I cannot choose other than what omniscient god chose back when he set his plan in motion. I have no way of choosing other than what he always knew I would choose.
Johnny,
If theoretically they are not choices then why would God offer these theoretically non choices? What would be the point?
The pointlessness of it is exactly the point. If God is omniscient and set a plan in motion knowing everything that would ever happen, as the Bible says he did, it negates almost everything taught in the Bible. Why instruct when you cannot change anything? How can God punish when what God created can do nothing other than what God designed at the beginning?
And why would God even bother doing it if he knows everything that will ever happen? It's like seeing a movie for the hundredth time.
It's just one of many paradoxes that discredit the Bible. And that is the point. Whoever wrote the Bible blew it by making God omniscient.
There are two problems that redzoa doesn't choose to go into- one is that knowledge can't compel anything to happen (redzoa might want to have a look a a modal logic treatment of his argument). Another is that a statement that an event will happen can't be true. Basic epistemology has it that can only know things that are true, so foreknowledge is impossible.
But why even try to make arguments that involve God's properties? You'd have to reach into God's ability to do impossible things, even logically impossible things. God's knowledge may be able to compel things to happen. God may have justified true belief in future events.
Johnny,
You still haven't pointed out that if you know the outcome that there really is no choice, which brings up the whole point of the all knowing parent letting the child choose even though the parent knows what choice that child would make. If the choice wasn't offered the not letting a choice to be made could just as well throw a monkey wrench into the works if God incorporated free will as part of the plan in the first place. If a parent intends to teach a lesson by letting their kid make choices that could negatively effect them that there is a lesson to be learned for that child by that child actually choosing and making those mistakes, and just because the parent would know that their child would make a certain choice and therefore make the mistake, it does not negate the point that the child was in fact given choice, that the child freely made that choice, and that the child becomes accountable for choices the child had made.
"The problem is that neither you nor Sam explained how simply foreknowing something eliminates someone else's ability to choose. "
Because it limits the available choices to one
Sam,
You haven't actually proven that they are not choices.
Sam,
I don't have to. You're the one who is claiming that there is no choice.
kev: if god knows the future, my choice is limited to what god already knows
i cannot believe that it is this hard for you to grasp, so i must conclude that you are being intentionally obtuse
This is like the Argument Clinic Sketch. I'm outta here.
i agree.
kev is either being intentionally obtuse, or he is too stupid to grasp simple logic
in either case, i am finished with him
Sam,
The problem is that you haven't proven that all knowing automatically equates to lack of choice. Just how obtuse can you get?
Kev – if the mortals choosing do have choices (at least to them), and assuming that God's foreknowledge would indicate that only one choice can be made at any point where there are "choices" that would coincide with God's knowledge, then how is the "free will" not really an illusion of free will?
Foreknowledge is more likely to be bogus than freewill.
Doris,
" if the mortals choosing do have choices (at least to them), and assuming that God's foreknowledge would indicate that only one choice can be made at any point where there are "choices" that would coincide with God's knowledge, then how is the "free will" not really an illusion of free will?"
What makes you think that there can be only one choice to be made? Just because God knows what choice you would make doesn't mean that you are not actually given the choice in the first place. All it means is that when it comes to God knowing in advance that it just happens that God knows in advance. There is no proof that simply foreknowledge automatically equates lack of choice and that it cannot equate to anything else but a lack of choice.
When you assume that God's foreknowledge equates to a lack of choice, that is all you are doing...assuming.
Sorry, Kev, but I think you misread my reply. I didn't say the apparent choices were limited. My focus was on free will versus the illusion of free will.
assuming that God's foreknowledge would indicate that only one choice can be made at any point where there are "choices" that would coincide with God's knowledge, then how is the "free will" not really an illusion of free will?
The same way your foreknowledge will let you know who will win the 1980 presidential election, world series and superbowl. And I don't think you would claim your foreknowledge, relative to 1980, had any impact in 1980. Same theory except God is outside of 1980, 2014 and til the end of time.
Doris,
Well okay, there is the point that if one does assume that God's foreknowledge of things equates to lack of choice that one sees it that free will is just an illusion, but the problem is that the assumption of illusion is just an assumption, so I'm still trying to understand what your point is.
@Hope this helps
Yes – thank you – even though it's not something for which I hold a belief, that does help rationalize the position that, for some, the Abrahamic God has foreknowledge yet grants free will. As others have pointed out, I think the more important issue is with the ethics of such an omnipotent god that possesses such foreknowledge.
i have, kev. it is you who refuses to answer direct questions
Sam,
Did you realize that you hardly gave any questions whatsoever? All your posts on this were just accusations. So, just what questions were you referring to?
@TTTO – I don't pretend to be a student of formal logic, and so if you find error in my premise/conclusion structure, I'm sure you're correct (it was more for illustration I guess). You'd have to clue me in to what you mean by modal logic. Regarding compulsion/foreknowledge, again, this is prefaced on the claim of omniscience and first cause creator. A first cause creator who infallibly knows exactly how the creation will unfold is effectively imposing that foreknowledge on the creation, i.e. compelling all of the intermediate/final outcomes in the initial act of creation. I'm not attempting to argue properties of god, just attempting to point out what I view as conflicting claimed properties of god.
@Kev – It appears you are trying to figure out why god would leave no actual choice and then demand accountability which is exactly the point. The two are incompatible. Again, the first key point is that god cannot be wrong in his foreknowledge and because god cannot be wrong, a mortal can't make a decision contrary to god's foreknowledge. The second point is that god already knew every outcome from the beginning. Taken together, the act of creation caused the manifestation of god's foreknowledge and we in the midst of this manifestation are constrained by that foreknowledge.
"What makes you think that offering choices B and C could not possibly be truly offered? If God has perfect foreknowledge why would God have to hedge his bet to make sure you would choose A over B or C."
B and C might be right in front of you, but you cannot actually choose them because that would contradict what god already knew. It just doesn't matter that you don't know you must choose A and it doesn't matter that you believe you can choose B or C. You simply can't contradict what god already knew; you cannot actually choose B or C, you must choose A. Again, because god perfectly knew how every event would transpire before the moment of creation, the one single actual course of events was an inevitability with no possibility of any alternative. Your second sentence indicates that you are stuck trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. God's intent was effected at the moment of creation and there's no hedging bets. God simply knew that you would chose A. That was god's preference, otherwise, you would have chosen B or C according to god's preference. The alternative is that god doesn't know which among A, B or C you will choose and that god doesn't possess perfect foreknowledge/lacks omniscience.
At this point, I agree with some of the other posters that you're not really considering the nature of omniscience and whether free will is compatible, rather, it appears you're simply declaring that god wouldn't set up such a system without really addressing the underlying conflict. Nonetheless, I appreciate the civil discourse. Cheers . . .
Redoza,
You still haven't pointed out that if you know the outcome that there really is no choice, which brings up the whole point of the all knowing parent letting the child choose even though the parent knows what choice that child would make. If the choice wasn't offered the not letting a choice to be made could just as well throw a monkey wrench into the works if God incorporated free will as part of the plan in the first place. If a parent intends to teach a lesson by letting their kid make choices that could negatively effect them that there is a lesson to be learned for that child by that child actually choosing and making those mistakes, and just because the parent would know that their child would make a certain choice and therefore make the mistake, it does not negate the point that the child was in fact given choice, that the child freely made that choice, and that the child becomes accountable for choices the child had made.
Kev,
Your parent/child analogy fails. Here's why. A parent doesn't KNOW what choices his child will make, we only GUESS. Often we guess right. It's a prediction, but it's certainly not knowledge.
If God is "All-Knowing", as Christians persistently claim, then God doesn't merely guess or predict. He KNOWS. And in fact he knows every single "choice"–every single thought, every single action, att-itude, behavior–everything, of each and every human being who ever will live. If you're not even alive yet, and it's already determined, there's no possibility of free will. Free will is only possible if it's possible for God to be wrong–a possibility that most Christians are not prepared to admit.
I don't think most Christians truly grasp the absolute nature of your claims, and what must necessarily follow if such an absolute claim were true.
You would actually be on much more solid philosophical and logical grounds if you were to lose the absolute, and just say, very powerful, very knowledgeable, very good, but not ALL-powerful, ALL-knowing, ALL-good. After all, the Greeks never cast their gods in terms of absolutes. But Christians cannot let go of the absolute in terms of how they describe God.
Redoza,
Since there is our daily lives along with what has been given in scripture that choices are and have been given to us as to what kind of person we become and since you are claiming that an all knowing God cannot allow free will , guess who needs to provide proof that an all knowing all powerful deity cannot allow free will in order to still be all knowing and all powerful? In other words knowing what it is to be God 101 as well as 201, 301, and 401.
I have certainly asked questions, and you have ducked them
Since your reading comprehension is poor, i will ask again
If I APPARENTLY have two choice, A or B, and god (being omniscient and unable to be wrong) KNOWS i am going to choose B, what are the chance that I am going to choose A?
Answer the direct question, directly, Kev.
Do not dance around it
Actually Sam,
I did answer the question in that I kept on saying that God knows what choice you are going to make. I kept saying that overy and over again. I also kept on saying that even though God knows what decision you would make that does not mean that no real decision was ever placed before you. I kept on saying that over and over again as well. Where did you ever ever get the idea that I never answered that question?
Oh, and by the way Sam that was only one question in the singular, not questions.
"You just plain can't. " – I'm not sure what argument that hides, but what someone knows can't compel what someone else does, so arguments that free will can't exist on the basis of God's knowledge are non-starters unless you've come up with something new.
That was almost nonsensical. Are you saying god is just a "someone"? I am discussing the core theological problem about Free Will. What the heck are you talking about? Is condescention the only thing you have to offer?
You are free to explain how what someone knows can compel what someone else does.
Omniscience
Omniscience and omnipotence. And it is all his plan and design. Knowing everything that will ever happen means no other options are possible.
You haven't addressed the problem. If I know something, how can that reach out and make it so?
That's a false analogy. Are you omniscient? Are you omnipotent? Did you create everything, already knowing exactly what will happen including how people will choose?
Like Kev, you are reducing God to a human. God kinda has other abilities.
Apparently God is able to do whatever it needs to do to suit your understanding of it, even logically impossible things.
So God can magically make you have choice even though you really can't choose to change what he has already chosen.
I'm going to get a headache trying to make sense of Christianity, but you are indeed right: if you can say "God magicked it", then there is absolutely no impossible situation paradox that cannot exist. Like omnipotent God losing a wrestling match with Jacob.
It surprises you that the God people imagine up has flaws – even flaws of definition?
Nope. It only surprises me that people can actually believe in a totally unevidenced, contradictory, and illogical thing.
I have the same response to the Tea Party.
there are some christians who do not believe in predestination (except maybe for concepts, like 'if you are good and do this, then you are predestined for...'); once you remove that aspect from their definition of omniscience, then i think it's difficult to argue that free will is a paradox. also, even with those that do believe in predestination, ala Tom it can all fall under the God's magic category, which i imagine might also include God's "amendments" that mere mortals are supposedly blind to.
They can deny predestination all they want, but if you have an omniscient omnipotent being who created everything knowing exactly what would happen, then you necessarily have predestination.
JN: " It only surprises me that people can actually believe in a totally unevidenced, contradictory, and illogical thing. "
yes. that such differing "rationalization" has been attached to ancient scrolls and oral folklore, to me, just reveals evidence if anything of church "fathers" performing mental gymnastics across the millennia to get out of tight spots.
JN: "knowing exactly what would happen"
well but I do believe there are some who do not have that as part of their definition of omniscience of their God. their God sees here and backward and has ultimate, discretionary power, but does not know the future in the way that other Christians ala Calvin, etc. would hold.
So if their definition contradicts what the Bible says about God's abilities and his doings, how is that legitimate?
i would imagine for them, like everything else, it comes down to interpretation.
Is foreknowledge possible? It's basic epistemology that to know something means, among other things, that it is true. Is it ever true that a future event will happen?
The Bible says God knows.
That's not really a good endorsement.
Are we speaking theologically or scientifically?
is the question of God's ethics, if it exists. if the god of abraham exists, and has veto power in people's lives (as many claim which is contrary to the Deist god), then who or what is the authority by which we can reference to determine God's ethics? what evidence do we have that if this God exists, it is not just playing a sick little game with its creation? (outside of some folklore of course)
clarification: " (evidence outside of some folklore of course)
I see.....you cannot refute the argument so you call it a "canard"
In terms of thinking for yourself, perhaps you should pull the iron age comic book out of your behind before start talking like a mouthy little gash
I just noticed this thread, I am joggling many things at once.
I answered this below earlier with this:
"The chances of choosing A, or B for that matter, lie in your "Free Will" AND NOT in God's Foreknowledge!
That's what you are missing."
@Vic,,
If the choice is already known then how can there be any chance?
So, what you are saying is that god does not know what we are going to do before we do it?
A theological question for Christians:
Does the soul include your body, or is it free of all physical elements?
No takers? I was just curious as to how an incorporeal entity such as a show can feel the fires of hell.
Some scientists have speculated that if you factor in fertilized eggs that don't implant along with pregnancies that end in miscarriage, around 70-75% of conceptions end up miscarrying.
SInce our resident Christians tend to say that the soul enters at conception, and since those souls never hear of much less accept Jesus, those souls are hell-bound. Spiffy.
many of those same Christians who claim the soul enters the body at conception are born again, right?
and being born again is symbolic of a new soul, right?
So either it is a soul at birth, or there are many conceived-again christians running around.
........................$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 🙂 🙂 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..............................
Hearties,
You keep making the same RIDICULOUS statement over and over that "the Supreme Court doesn't know sin".
Here's an example of a SIN from the Bible:
(Exodus 21:17) “He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.”
Here is an example of something that is NOT a sin:
(Ex. 21:7-8) “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. "
Obviously, the Supreme Court understands that the Bible's definition of sin can be TOTALLY WRONG when it comes to defining good or bad.
Hearties just doesn't get the concept that it is not the SCOTUS's job to establish law, only interpret the existing ones that may conflict with the USCon.
sigh
hearties doesn't get many concepts.
I am beginning to see that.
Right at the start of the USA, founding fathers said:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Recently, a person, 21 weeks old, held the finger of a doctor while still within the womb. When two people are holding hands, in the USA, and the one is helping the other, that is happiness, both are considered living people in the USA.
If the doctor had been aborting the baby, that is not happiness, because the one person is ending the life of another person.
And right at the start of the USA, they drafted a thing called the Constitution, which calls for separation of church and state; also, where does it say anything about 1) fetuses, and 2) how do you reconcile that at the beginning of the United States, that line of life liberty, etc. didn't apply to blacks?
And your answer doesn't address the fact that the SCOTUS does not make laws, so to repeatedly bring up that the SCOTUS somehow dropped the ball because they don't define something that is religious in construct is absurd.
It is beyond the scope of their function.
I always find it interesting that a god would EVER find those rules a good idea and a basis for morality. Then replace them with the notion that the only unbreakable rule is that you must be in his fan club.
God sure is a nasty evil being. Good thing he doesn't exist.
They are not supreme if they don't have the will to say what sin is, and at the same time tell others not to say what sin is. Instead of trying to curb sin themselves, or allowing others to curb it, they enable sin it to flourish unchecked. They might as well not even show up if they won't defend the most helpless, or speak up about it.
When did America become a theocracy ? SCOTUS' job has nothing to do with your comment, and no one's right to free speech has been abridged. Are you ever going to identify someone whose 1st Amendment rights have been denied ?
The baby was never allowed to speak. And how the baby dies, they wouldn't even consider doing to a serial killer on death row.
Please do peti-tion the court on that point. When your claim is dismissed as laughable, will you finally identify the party (besides the baby) that you claim has had their 1st Amendment rights denied ?? Or do you retract the assertion ?
It's similar to putting your arm into a blender, or a tree limb shredder. Try to get serial killers executed in that manner, it's "too inhumane" even for them... fine for your own baby though.
"Anti-abortion supporters countered their free speech rights were being violated."
hearties.
Since the baby is unborn, it is not a citizen. The unborn child does NOT have any of the rights a citizen has until it is born.
The mother does. It doesn't matter at what point you think it is a child, from conception, to first heart beat, first alpha waves...doesn't matter. No rights as a citizen...but you would take away the mothers rights.Slippery slope to be sure, but you are arguing from false assertions.
Also, you want SCOTUS to address sin? Sin is a man made construct of religion and SCOTUS has nothing to do with ( or shouldn't) your religion and the sin that comes along with it.
"Anti-abortion supporters countered their free speech rights were being violated."
Claiming and proving are two separate matters.
"Anti-abortion supporters countered their free speech rights were being violated"
That is a lie. They still can say what they want. The right they feel was violated, which is no right at all, is the right to be heard, which does not exist. They are free to shout their point of view from outside the zone, so their rights are not being violated....they want the ability to get in peoples faces, and they do not have that right.
The unborn baby is a person, his or her DNA is the same inside or outside the womb, blood flowing, brain functioning, and premature babies do in fact cry and feel pain. Twins have fought in the womb. One baby in the womb, was brought out some, operated on and put back in the womb. While out, the baby held the doctor's finger, a living baby at 21 weeks, held the doctor's finger, and went back into the womb, alive, and was born later. Denial doesn't change reality, the babies are alive in the womb, if you don't kill them there.
hearties
I believe that life begins at conception...that does not change the FACT that an unborn child is not a citizen, and has no rights of a citizen.
You can argue your point all day long, there are equal voices from the two main sides of the issue. You BELIVE you are right, they BELIVE they are right. Likely this issue will be knocked back and forth for decades to come.
The problem is they are not right, and you are not right, but neither are wrong either. That is why there will never be concensus.some will always feel as you do, some will always feel contrary to your view.
Well igaftr, if you think the baby not being a citizen yet makes it all better, an illegal alien is not a citizen yet either, and you can't drop them into a tree shredder without potentially ending up on death row yourself. But you can kill you own baby in a like manner and not be asked anything other than how you'll pay for it.
hearties
Why am I not surprised you keep missing the point. An illegal immegrant has rights in our country as a citizen of another country. An unbron baby is NOT a citizen.
You keep trying to argue from a rights perspective and it is an invalid argument since an unbron baby is not a coitizen.
Your argument is invalid if you try to argue from a rights perspective. The unborn are NOT citizens.
stop trying to make an argument from a rights point of view...not a valid argument.
Just as invalid as an argument based on the bible.
You are arguing for a definition. I am arguing for a person.
No, you are arguing for what YOU BELIEVE to be a person...others disagree.
You are trying to argue from a rights perspective, invalid argument.
As far as YOUR rights...do you have the right to tell others what to do with their bodies? Do i have the right to tell you what to do with YOUR body?
from the womb is impossible; womb-dwellers have no rights.
Well voting,
At least after the first trimester, if it's in the womb that unborn does have rights if that unborn happens to be in the U.S., even if that unborn is not at the time a born U.S. Citizen.
kev
that is what is accepted now, but that can change.
“Anti-abortion supporters countered their free speech rights were being violated.”
You keep repeating this without articulating exactly HOW.
Really don't care if pro-lifers call an embryo/fetus a "person" because it's still true that both morally and legally, no "person" is enti-tled to the direct use of another individual's body to sustain their own life. When will pro-lifers start lobbying for government-mandated donation of blood and kidneys to save the lives of those numerous innocents who will invariably die absent a transfusion/transplant? Of course many pro-lifers would reject such government invasion of personal bodily autonomy, to which I respond: "exactly."
A little history on the 1st !
Larry Flint and Jerry Farewell a fonder of the moral majority .
And Farewell/god lost when it went to the supreme court !
It's not likely that will ever get what you want, which is apparently special protections for something that is not yet a person and not yet even an independent living thing. Your energy would be better spent looking after the rights of actual children.
Should a woman be able to claim her unborn as a dependent in utero?
On her taxes? No.
They interpret the laws of the Consti.turion. The do not make the laws; they make sure that the laws passed do not violate the USC.
Really, study up on our three branches of government sometime.
And move to a place that is theocratically ruled; the US is a SECULAR country, and if you are dissatisfied with the notion that religion may not legislate our laws, feel free to move to a country where your ideas are more warmly embraced.
The entire universe was created by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God owns it all. If you don't like it, move.
God also sent his only begotten son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth to die for others sins, if they repent of their sins, believe him, and do the will of God.
You live in a society. I return for that privilege you are expected to obey the laws of that society. If you put the laws of your imaginary God ahead of those of society, you should, and probably will, be removed from society.
hearties
It is your opinion that your god made everything. nothing to inidicate that is true.
There are over 100 creator gods men have worshipped. Various stories, all have the same nothing to verify it.
@hearties,
"The entire universe was created by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God owns it all. "
Unfounded assertion.
Society did not create the universe, God did. I have the right to love God, as does anyone else, including the unborn. If society kills someone God had planned to love him, those leading society to do such, will have to explain that to God later.
hearties
"Society did not create the universe, God did"
Belief once again. Nothing to indicate any gods, and nothing to indicate any gods created anything.
I live in the United States, and as such, obey the laws thereof.
Your argument that the entire universe is ruled by some weird laws is absurd.
I trust you are about 12 years old; you debate like a child would.
As the Bibke has no authority over the entire world, much less the US, you're entire point is moot.
Please do not forget that the God of Abraham is worshipped by Myslins; are you suggesting we in the US should be held to the Quran, as well? No?
As I said. Your entire premise is moot. Thankfully.
*Bible. *Muslims.
You cannot seriously be talking for God, now, are you, hearties? For that would be a grievous sin in itself.
The bible contents were compiled by authors living up to and including Jesus's death and resurrection. The bible is the truth, written by men that often went to their deaths for their belief in God. Many other Christians also were persecuted and died for their not denying Jesus Christ of Nazareth is who he said he is, the Son of God. If they had denied Jesus, they likely could have lived, but they didn't. Horrible deaths, and they still believed him.
Muslims believe a book whose source is a liar calling himself Mohammed, who lived about 600 years after Jesus's death and resurrection. Mohammed said that Jesus didn't die on the cross or raise again and that the bible contents were plagued with lies start to finish. Mohammed is worshipped by his followers, and Jesus is said by them to be insignificant in comparison to him. While Jesus spoke of peace, love, turning the other cheek... Mohammed spoke of peace through killing enemies, and that Jesus didn't die for other sins. Muslims do not believe, what Christians believe.
Jesus did die for others sins, and raised again the third day of being in the hands of sinful men. God knew it would happen, before he sent his only begotten son, Jesus.
"You cannot seriously be talking for God, now, are you, hearties? For that would be a grievous sin in itself."
Did the apostles sin by telling others about Jesus?
You fervent belief aside, the Bible isn't the authority of the United States; the Constitution is.
I'm sorry you don't want to accept that; the laws of your Bible are wholly irrelevant, and the SCOTUS is in place to make sure state laws do not violate that Constitution.
It is not their place to define sin, nor is it their place to write legislation regarding what is defined as sin by a Bible that is expressly forbidden to have a place in our legislation, as it would violate that very same Constitution. (The SCOTUS doesn't write the laws. You've been told this.)
I am unsure of whatever point you are making at this juncture; you believe abortion is a sin, and many, including the SCOTUS, disagree; this is a secular society, with secular laws.
I suggest to remain sin-free, you abstain from having an abortion. You may also tell others that you feel abortion is a sin; that's free speech. You may not, however, prevent others from excercising their rights to do as they wish, as guaranteed by the same Constitution that guarantees yours.
"You may also tell others that you feel abortion is a sin; that's free speech."
The supremes have that same right, and they decide the laws concerning it.
Lax laws through lost will, allows the sin to grow.
SINS are whatever Christians PICK AND CHOOSE to agree with in the Bible. All the other SINS in the Bible that are ridiculous can be IGNORED by them.
"... they decide the laws concerning it. "
NO, they do NOT. Good grief, you have been told this repeatedly.
lhc is unreal
A HUMAN LIFE, aka PERSON, consists of Spirit, Body and Soul.
A spermatozoon/sperm cell and an ovum/egg are living organisms but are not human life. The body naturally purges itself from unused spermatozoon/sperm or ovum/egg cells.
Although most Pro-Life advocates believe life begins at conception, the definition of conception differs from one group to another. Some groups consider conception the fertilization of the ovum/egg into a zygote during the first day or two. Others consider conception is when pregnancy begins. In medical science, pregnancy begins with implantation—the attachment of the zygote onto the wall of the uterus—eight to nine days after insemination.
Whatever the case may be, medical science establishes that the first HEARTBEAT occurs somewhere during the first 21 to 28 days. I have no doubt in my mind, at that stage at least, that is a HUMAN/PERSON.
Now, the question is: What is a PERSON?
Genesis 2:7
"7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (NASB)
In the order stated:
Dust of the ground....Body
Breath of Life...........Spirit
Living Soul...............Soul
I believe a PERSON is when all three are combined.
Therefore, I believe the first HEARTBEAT is a definite indication of all three combined, hence a PERSON.
p.s. I find it compelling that the human being one of three—Spirit, Body and Soul—reminiscent to God Being One Of Three—Father, Son and Holy Spirit, hence the "Image Of God" in Genesis 1:26,27.
"breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" = first breath = after birth
plus, it was a lot harder in those days to clean up the after birth
The "Breath of Life" is from God—aka spirit—and is different from the breath—inhale/exhale—that a creature takes.
@Vic,
So it could be well after birth, say 2 or 3 years old, right?
Vic
You believe that breath and spirit are the same, but not so at the time the bible was written...they beieved that the breath was the spirit, as one and the same.
On death, the final exhale was thought to be the spirit leaving the body...we know it is just the diaphragm relaxing, forcing exhale. That incorrect belief was written into your bible.
We know breath exists...not so with "spirits"
Vic
"The "Breath of Life" is from God—aka spirit—and is different from the breath—inhale/exhale—that a creature takes."
As USUAL, words don't mean what we all know them to mean. "Breath" doesn't mean "breath" as in BREATHING.
Of course, God "breathes spirit" in through NOSTRILS. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
I believe that life begins when a fetus is capable of surviving outside of the womb. My opinion is based on logic, not an old book of myths.
A truly tenuous and disturbing position.
As is the idea of a omniscient god who would punish people for what he KNEW they were going to do before they were born
Sam
What you are failing to grasp is the very basic principle that knowledge does not mandate cause. A man does not send millions to their death by having them inhale noxious gas because an omniscient God made him do it. Neither does someone on an internet blog call another person a st upid sh&t head Jeebus follower because that same omniscient God caused him to do so. In both cases, it is a direct result of the intrinsic character and depravity that resides within the individual. That fact that this omniscient God knows this far ahead of time is meaningless in terms of culpability
"That fact that this omniscient God knows this"
False...not a fact. Belief. There is nothing showing any gods exist, so you cannot say anything related to the existance of any gods is fact.
iga
Stay in the context of what was being said. The point we were discussing had nothing to do with God's existence but rather His omniscience, even if it were hypothetical.
What you fail to recognize is that for an omniscient being, foreknowledge IS cause
devin
Even assuming there is a god or gods, you still have nothing to indicate the abilities of htose gods, so all you are doing is arguing from wild speculation.
when you use the word fact, when there are no known facts, it needs to be pointed out.
I have asked this before, and no one who believes the opposite have provided me a direct answer
if i APPARENTLY have two choices, A or B, and the omniscient god KNOWS i am going to choose B, what are the chances I am going to choose A?
Not really, Devin. It is a logical position because it makes sense. If something cannot exist without borrowing the means to survive from another living creature, then it is either a parasite or not it's own life.
Personally, I believe that abortion should always be the absolute last recourse, but we live in a nation where some people actually lobby against the teaching and implementing of birth control. Strangely enough, these seem to be the same people who most fiercely oppose abortion. Not terribly logical, is it?
devin: are you going to answer my question?
sam stone,
devin usually won't answer questions that raise issues about what he says.
apparently not
that seems to be the case
The premise of your A & B logical question is misleading.
Whatever choice you make is at "Free Well" and God happens to know it in advance.
nonsense, vic. how is it free will when the answer is already written in stone (i.e. god's foreknowledge)?
also, vic, god's foreknowledge is not happenstance, it is by design, no?
come on, vic, come out and play
if you want to engage in discussion, let's do it
if you want to come on and preach how "jeebus is lard"
then you will be challenged
do you have the tes-i-t-cular fort-i-t-ude, unlike your pious bretheren?
It is a matter of perception. Never dwell on ready-made atheist apologies.
Foreknowledge of God and Causality of choices by the human "Free Well" are totally independent. I am not of the school of thought that God foreordained human choices, hence predestination. I believe that God only foreordained who you are and what you look like and gave you "Free Well" to make life choices.
"Never dwell on ready-made atheist apologies"
I am presenting a logical argument. You are the one dancing around with apologies
"Foreknowledge of God and Causality of choices by the human "Free Well" are totally independent."
No, they are not. I illustrated this with the A or B question and you danced around it
Your so-called logical argument is but a canard. Think for yourself.
vic
In what way is Sam Stone's question a canard.
A canard is either front mounted control surfaces for an aircraft ( clearly does not apply) or an unfounded rumor or story ( which also does not apply)
He posted a question.
Correction of a pet peeve typo:
"Free Will"
I see.....you cannot refute the argument so you call it a "canard"
In terms of thinking for yourself, perhaps you should pull the iron age comic book out of your behind before start talking like a mouthy little gash
If my logic is faulty, Vic, point out where
Otherwise, punk, go home and get your fvcking shinebox
The chances of choosing A, or be for that matter, lie in your "Free Will" AND NOT in God's Foreknowledge!
That's what you are missing.
The chances of choosing A, or B for that matter, lie in your "Free Will" AND NOT in God's Foreknowledge!
That's what you are missing.
Time to dispel a little b&ll s h *t here. Sorry for the v u l garity but it is what it is.
" devin usually wont answer questions that raise issues about what he says" Here we have an out and out lie in which the individual is fully aware even as he is typing that it is a lie. I have never intentionally not answered any question in response to what I have stated. The problem is. you do not accept my response and are apparently incapable of countering intelligent questions. This isn't rocket science fellows, I'm here because I enjoy the banter. It would serve no purpose for me to avoid questioning.
Observer. I have been an Observer of your content and style. You are all about de r ision, with little interest in mutually respective conversation. I value my time and don't wish to spend it on nonsense, which is why we will no longer en gage in dialogue.
Sam., now to your b *ll sh&t. "devin are you going to answer my question " " Apparently not" Do you even begin to see how illogical your thought is here. You make the implication that because I have not responded within your time frame, I am somehow avoiding your question. I'll let you in on a little secret: I have a life outside of my computer. The first I saw your question was 20 minutes ago. Seriously, do you fail to see how irrational your reasoning is here?
As for your question on freewill. I fully answered it, at length, in a previous post. I used description and analogy. You chose not to agree with my conclusion. That is your prerogative. The question was answered.
Vic
Given a choice A or B, and there is no way of changing the chosen outcome, IE god knows ahead of time which I will choose...if I cannot choose otherwise, and the future is predetermined, it is not really a choice, and there is no free will.
Free will could only happen if I could change the outcome, by choosing differently than was pre-destined.
Vic, you have not shown where sam's logic is faulty.
" Vic, you have not shown where sam's logic is faulty. "
Nor will he. He will merely keep repeating the apologist's mantra, as if that somehow makes it true.
devin, sam and Observer made the only comments they could since god's foreknowledge made it impossible for them to do differently. God's foreknowledge means there's never any purpose in asking "why."
But like I said, God's foreknowledge does not mandate nonsensical thinking.
Of course it does, exactly as it demands sensical thinking. God foreknew it; therefore, there was no other option available. God's foreknowledge means never having to ask "why?"
devin,
"Observer. I have been an Observer of your content and style. You are all about de r ision, with little interest in mutually respective conversation. I value my time and don't wish to spend it on nonsense, which is why we will no longer en gage in dialogue."
The TRUTH really hurts, doesn't it? My comments are FACTUAL in that I am ACCURATELY quoting what the Bible says. When asked about the Bible, you either lack knowledge of what the Bible says or are afraid to answer.
If you could find and PROVE one thing that I have said that is wrong, you would do it. Instead you run away and call me a LIAR. Don't forget that God HATES people who tell lies, so YOU might keep that in mind.
Cpt.
I'm trying to understand your conclusion, but I cannot. I just don't see the difficulty here. This whole freewill/determinism debate gets very difficult in other areas, but in general day to day events, I fail to see why you would think foreknowledge necessitates causation.
Going for a bike ride before it gets dark. If you reply and I don't respond immediately, don't mistake that for avoidance 🙂
I wouldn't assume that, devin. However, I'd like to hear you explain how god could has foreknowledge of an event that COULD play out differently. If god already knows I'm going to give a stupid reply, I don't have any choice but to give the stupid reply that he already knows I'm going to give. If you god has the power of foreknowledge, then I can't choose anything other than what he foreknows. Simple.
"I fail to see why you would think foreknowledge necessitates causation."
Because of omniscience. If god knew my choice would be B before I made that "choice", then there is no way it could be A
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
tal
" If something cannot exist without borrowing the means to survive from another living creature, then it is either a parasite or not its own life" Then GOD HELP US ALL.
To the best of my knowledge, from the time I came out of the womb and was dependent upon my mother's te at, up until some years later when I was no longer dependent on my parents to provide food and shelter, I could not have "existed."
devin, don't be silly. Babies require nutrition, not their own mother's milk.
Vic,
" I find it compelling that the human being one of three—Spirit, Body and Soul—reminiscent to God Being One Of Three—Father, Son and Holy Spirit,"
It's only compelling to *you* because you made up that little anatomical scenario to fill the bill. Gawlee!
Besides, you left out the 'heart', which is so often mentioned in your book. Or are you going to nudge that into being part of the 'spirit'? or the body? or the 'soul'?
vic,
"Sometimes when you Think of Things, you find that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.” A. A. Milne
throughout my life experience, I have discovered that there is some telling that ONLY comes through practice no matter how much theory is proliferated. A prime example of such is experience.
"A HUMAN LIFE, aka PERSON, consists of Spirit, Body and Soul."
Pure conjecture
You cannot prove a soul or a spirit exists
God does that.
hearties
MAYBE god does that...first show god exists, then show how god does that...as if you know.
u have seen the evidence and u r unable 2 refute it
i would 4bid pharisees from being around children and owning firearms
i would 4bid pharisees from being around children and owning f i r e a rms
u can't prove the n.t. isn't true, u dumb dodo bird
stay close to ur phone
u no the answer donkey
Because of omniscience. If god knew my choice would be B before I made that "choice", then there is no way it could be A
if ur answer was a, he'd no that u moron.
and u wonder y u r an idiot?
we no dodo is a demon dying of lung cancer
Vic
A living soul does that mean I have a physical organ somewhere inside of me ?
Vic and if so where is it and what does IT look like ?
Well, to answer all in short:
Christians are the best suited to explain what science cannot possibly explain, hence the "metaphysical" nature of the spirit & soul—which encompass consciousnesses, mind, heart, etc.
We are aware of all the science behind the physical world and what's behind the physical, that is the "metaphysical."
"Christians are the best suited to explain what science cannot possibly explain"
Christian supremacist. ( Buddhism gives better life lessons...no wonder most of what Jesus taught came from the Buddha)
If no one can explain something, then NO ONE CAN EXPLAIN IT, and if science cannot explain something, we will continue to try, not accept any goddidit explainations unless god did it can be proven.....are you even reading what you post?
Metaphysics has NOTHING to do with physics. Physics is science...metaphysics is philosopy based on what MIGHT be.
HUGE difference.
One of the monolithic mistakes the scientific community has ever made is dismissing metaphysics. That way, science locked itself out of explaining what it cannot empirically prove—e.g. consciousness, mind, sentience, etc., let alone the "First Cause." Empirical Science can only venture into the physical but cannot venture into the metaphysical.
Vic
That is because the "metaphysical" has nothing to do with reality. As soon as something can be shown to exist, it falls out of metaphysical into reality and is then subject to scrutiny.
Metaphysical is nothing but the study of things that cannot be shown to exist.
And stop bringing up that first cause crap unless you want it applied to your god as well.
Vic since you brought it up – seems like it is in the neurons !
A review and update of a controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness published in Physics of Life Reviews claims that consciousness derives from deeper level, finer scale activities inside brain neurons. (Credit: © James Steidl / Fotolia)
There have been honest secular Quantum Physics scientists who admitted that science cannot determine what "consciousnesses" is AND that it is above and beyond the discipline of science. They were extremely humbled by it.
Jan. 16, 2014 — was the article review Vic.
interesting and always has been a stickler for religion/gods
By the way that still does not answer what a LIVING soul looks like ?
vic
"honest secular Quantum Physics scientists who admitted that science cannot determine what "consciousnesses" is AND that it is above and beyond the discipline of science."
You forgot the key word "yet". They haven't determined yet....
We are getting there though.
Funny you should ask.
Those same scientists suggested that such a cause—for science and Quantum Physics to determine what consciousness is—is but futile.
Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in 'Microtubules' Inside Brain Neurons Supports Controversial Theory of Consciousness
Vic
But since they don't know, that is opinion.
They said man can't make heavier than ait flying vehicles. They also said it was physically impossible for a man to runa 4 minute mile.
They do not know it is impossible, so do not attempt to forward a scientists OPINION as if it were accepted fact.
We are much closer to knowing than we were before....perhaps these men's opinions are based on them not knowing what questions to ask in the first place.
Eventually, we will figure it out, or not, either way, it won't be because of the OPINIONS of anyone.
I see that you have a very enthused opinion. LOL.
@Science Works,
Interesting (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm), but needs more research I think. Will be interesting to follow.
yes...very strong opinions indeed, but well trained to separate opinion from data.
I know when we do not know, and will try to devise ways for further discovery.
I also know that just because we do not know now, does not mean that we will not know with certainty in the future.
One, at this point, can only speculate as to what the future holds.
But I do know, we are getting closer to knowing.
ME II
Very much so !
Think about it simply this way:
All the complexity science is noticing and studying is simply the manifestation of the metaphysical over the physical—like in "Mind over Matter" for example—and vice versa.
When our souls and spirits will, feel and/or command things, they manifest in our physically complex bodies. Likewise, when our physically complex bodies detect something from this physical world—like in senses, etc.—they translate back to our metaphyscal spirits and souls. It is a two-way street.
vic
Possibly, if the "spirit" exists....as far as the metaphysical....you are literally trying to argue froma standpoint of the not shown to exist, as if it exists.
Hypothetically you may be right? Likely not since it is requiring a lot of thing you suppose actually exist.
As far as knowledge and sentience is concerned, all of the evidence we have currently, shows that life only exists where chemicals are. For example, you die and leave your body...you body is the center of thought and it is where all of your sensory apparati are...can you see, hear, taste smell, love? Why would you be able to have any of those, or conscious thought, if you are not connected to that which does all of that for you. Could you perceive anything without perceptors?Your position would only be correct, by our current understanding, if there is metaphysical matter as well.
On a side question. If I go to heaven, and my idea of heaven is to be with a certain individual, and that persons idea of heaven is to never be around me again, which one wins, and whichever loses, could it really be called heaven?
Vic you should watch the Bill Moyers and Company show on PBS today and see and hear what Neil has to say about it – the myth of the bible .
Yeah ME II
i sort of was hoping Vic would figure that out too – but looks like his FOREKNOWLEDGE was lacking.
Hey Vic looks like GENESIS took a knock right to the chin in Texas by the way !
Texas Textbooks: A Case Study for Creationism’s Staying Power
by Molly Worthen posted on January 15, 2014 10:34PM GMT
The Texas textbook wars have finally yielded a win for the Enlightenment. In November, the state school board delayed final approval of a biology textbook that explains evolution as fact, but last month an expert committee overruled all objections and gave the book the green light for sale to the state’s public schools.
http://religionandpolitics.org/2014/01/14/texas-textbooks-a-case-study-for-creationisms-staying-power/
Unfortunately the offending pages can be ripped out and evolution can go unmentioned.
Now class, skip to page 232 and totally ignore pages 193-231. You won't be tested on those.
Welcome to the Heart of Darkness.
but the enlightenment will march on !
Tex, Christian high school Biology teacher
Gets an F !
Vic,
What makes you say a heartbeat must be present for a PERSON to be present? What about if a person's heart is stopped, but they are still conscious and rational, and their blood flow is being accomplished with a mechanical device? Will they no longer be a person then?
Why not draw the line at personhood for when there are measurable brain waves? This makes much more sense. When someone is brain dead, there is a pretty broad consensus in our culture and many others that such a person is basically dead, even if their heart beat and respiration are kept going. Even Texas Senator Tom Delay, so famously pro-life, didn't hesitate to "pull the plug" when his own father became brain-dead and was in a vegetative state.
So why not apply the same logic to the beginning of life? If the fetus's brain does not have measurable brain waves, it does not quality as a PERSON subject to protection under the law.
This is a rational, scientific compromise, preserving the reproductive rights and freedom of women on the one hand, and the right to life for PERSONS on the other hand.
Celibacy kills the baby too.
Give us a break !!!!
Thats' one step too far. Explain how a non child can be murderd when it never existed and was not concieved>
Because "God knew you before you were born" ?
The woman has a choice,
the baby has none!
If you want to call something that can't be separated from its mother's body (non-viable) and is entirely unable to be aware that it is alive ( no "self") a baby then it's still right that the choices for it all be made by the mother.
And once again, starting at the beginning to eradicate the horrors of abortions and STDs: Go to page one and read again, "The Brutal Effects of Stupidity".
Regarding our growing womb babies:
Hmmm, so a growing womb baby is considered by some to be nothing more than an infection? Talk about having no respect for human life!!!!!
And Nature or Nature's God is the #1 taker of everyone's life. That gives some rationale for killing the unborn or those suffering from de-mentia, mental disease or Alzheimer's or anyone who might inconvenience your life???
We constantly battle the forces of nature. We do not succ-umb to these forces by eliminating defenseless children!!!!!
Reality, you're an idiot. Since you've never apparently looked up the definition of child, here it is.
child
CHīld/
noun
1.
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
No children are are being eliminated, bozo.
The brutal affects of stupidity is you thinking you have anything to add to the conversation, since you are apparently too stupid to know what a child IS.
Not your fight, old man. It's a woman thing, yanno?
Good points by Reality # 2
Too right, Tom and ?.
And It is very disturbing that we give legal protection to the fer-tilized eggs and the developing young of protected animal and ins-ect spe-cies but give no legal protection to our own growing young ones.
I was unaware that that humans were an endangered species. Oh, that's right. We can't take care of the humans already on this earth, let's completely strip away women's rights so we can keep Reality's alternate view of reality intact.
? is right. You're an idiot.
So we are now into genocide to save Mother Earth? Give us a break !!!
Once again, go back to page one are reread The Brutal Effects of Stupidity.
Did he say that? No. But the point remains that humans are not and endangered species, so your point about saving fertilized eggs OF endangered species doesn't apply, and you were just going hyperbolic on everyone.
Don't want an abortion? Don't get one.
The issue from another angle:
"On its Grand Challenges website, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is offering a $100,000 startup grant to the person who designs "the next generation condom that significantly preserves or enh-ances pleasure" and pr-omotes "regular use."
It may sound like the setup for a joke, but the goal is deadly serious. While researchers call condoms one of the best ways to stop the spread of H-IV, the virus that causes AI-DS, getting people to use them is another story.” (ditto that in stopping the spread and horror of abortions).
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/25/health/bill-gates-condom-challenge
Your omniscient and omnipotent God has murdered children and allows infants and children to die all the time from illness and accidents. Do you think he really gives a crap about abortion?
Babies don't get to choose the womb , do they? Some wombs are just unsafe for the unborn!
Those are not wombs, they are tombs!!!!
Sure. So if you're against abortion, don't have one.
An interesting time for sure and not expected. The supremes can't tell someone what sin is, but can tell others not to say what sin is. It's like paying twice and still not having what you paid for.
Nonsense. No one is being denied the right to speak.
The supremes fear to tell someone not to kill their baby alive and growing within them, when we all know that's the case and their baby has just as much right to life as they had. It's how we all got here. And they also fear to tell people that saying such is normal, anywhere.
We pay twice, for nothing.
Once again, please show where anyone's right to speak is being denied. You haven't done that yet.
The baby's right to speak is also being denied.
"...also being denied. "
The use of also implies someone else's right to speak has been denied. Who would that be ??
Having no answer to the question, hearties does a Houdini. Wanna bet s/he resurfaces with the same assertions later ?
"right to speak" near the killing zone is granted only for those supporting it. That is not a balanced approach in that zone. The supremes fear to say:
1. what the truth is about sin
2. that someone can say what the truth is about sin
That is a lost will
hearties
"The supremes fear to say what the truth is about sin"
Wrong. They know what "non-sins" are WRONG in the Bible. The Supreme Court decided that God was wrong to support slavery and discrimination against women, gays and the handicapped.
hearties, would a gay fetus still have a right to life, according to your holy book?
Hearties, you can articulate what you think is sin quite freely. What you cannot do is legislate your beliefs into law. Because sin is a religious concept, and there exists the separation between church and state.
There's a reason for this. The framers were very specific as to why this country was founded secular.
"Sin" is whatever believers think is bad at the time. Obviously, it changed as the Bible stories went along.
The Supreme Court decides what CRIMES are.
God defined what sin is. The supreme court bends to whatever people want. Brilliance was right, lost will does that.
hearties,
The Supreme Court decided that God was wrong to support slavery and discrimination against women, gays and the handicapped. Wonder who is right?
I think what hearties and other believers really want to say is that to abort a newly fertilized egg would be stepping into Gods shoes because that is Gods job. He is the one that gets to kill the babies he doesn't want. Some scientists have speculated that if you factor in fertilized eggs that don't implant along with pregnancies that end in miscarriage, around 70-75% of conceptions end up miscarrying. God must be very busy...
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
:)......................: 🙂 .............................. 🙂
Says the most prolific liar on these boards. Anything for the cause, right lol?? ?
Hoard stamps? W t h? Somebody forgot to take their meds today. The voices in their head are speaking nonsense.
http://www.Hear-The-Truth.com
HearTheTruth.imgur.com