P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
Fundamentalist Thinking here insists in “ONLYs” when “ONLYs” are not necessary.
- Status
Fundamentalist Thinking here insists in “ONLYs” when “ONLYs” are not necessary.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
No, yours is a false understanding. To be predestined to have “free will” is one thing. To be predestined to make a specific choice in a particular situation using that free will is quite different. And that is what the OP specified.
If every possible human (pair) would choose “X” in a particular situation then they would not be “free” to choose “not-X” - and as such there would be no free will. However, if there is free will then God could choose a specific pair, who would choose “not-X” (who would NOT succumb to the temptation) and there would be no “fall” - with all its ramifications.
In all the conversations I have seen so far, someone brought up this kind of reasoning: “it is impossible that every human would ALWAYS make the correct choice in every situation, some of them are bound to fail”. The answer is: “no it is not logically impossible, it is merely very improbable”. This is the problem with talking to people who use a colloquial understanding of “impossible” and not the correct, mathematically precise understanding. God’s omnipotence is only limited by “logically impossible events”, but not by highly, incredibly improbable ones.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Love requires free will.
We are eternal beings.
God created man that we might share in His glory and in the love that exists in the Triune Godhead.
We must choose to do this, as do all lovers in their intimacy.
Adam and Eve did not choose to trust and love their Father.
Those who followed shortly after were even worse.
God cannot uncreate; if something is, it cannot not be.
He did not uncreate Noah’s peers. He destroyed them in order to start over.
Our Blessed Mother could have chosen as did Eve, not trusting, not willing to sacrifice, not wishing to obey, not choosing to love God.
History and scripture would have taken a different route, onto the next round with Satan; or we may have been condemned to hell (this world without God, without love) for eternity.
That is not how it turned out.
We are eternal beings.
God created man that we might share in His glory and in the love that exists in the Triune Godhead.
We must choose to do this, as do all lovers in their intimacy.
Adam and Eve did not choose to trust and love their Father.
Those who followed shortly after were even worse.
God cannot uncreate; if something is, it cannot not be.
He did not uncreate Noah’s peers. He destroyed them in order to start over.
Our Blessed Mother could have chosen as did Eve, not trusting, not willing to sacrifice, not wishing to obey, not choosing to love God.
History and scripture would have taken a different route, onto the next round with Satan; or we may have been condemned to hell (this world without God, without love) for eternity.
That is not how it turned out.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
And it has been pointed out repeatedly that God choosing a specific pair – who would choose “not-X” – would require the creation and existence of that specific pair in time to know whether they would, indeed, always choose “not-X”
The kind of being that humans are – contingent, rational, self-determining beings with free will" logically precludes a “pre”-determination of the kind you assume. God knowing what free human agents will do logically requires the existence of those agents to make the determination.
This has been claimed repeatedly in arguments that God’s knowledge is not temporal “foreknowledge,” but eternal knowledge. He knows what you do do BECAUSE you exist to choose what you do do.
Your assumption is that God’s “foreknowledge” is some kind of magic that does not actually require the existence of the humans he is making determinations about. This, too, was pointed out by Gorgias as a misapplication on your part of the notion of counterfactuals.
Yet, you keep insisting you are right as if the existence of these rebuttals, themselves, are mere counterfactuals that you can decide simply won’t exist in much the same way that you claim God could simply ignore the existence of fallen humans in order to “non-exist” them before the fact.
You haven’t caused the rebuttals to your argument, no matter how true, to simply “not-exist” by ignoring them, although your thinking THAT is a real possibility – for you as it is for God –does give a glimpse into where your idea of “God” comes from – a projection of the way your mind works, perhaps?
No, PA, the rebuttals to your arguments do exist and pretending that you can turn them into counterfactuals by sheer force of will to make them go away just doesn’t work – at least not in the minds of those who can see through what you are seeking to do.
D
DCNBILL
Guest
Peter thank you for re,re,re,re stating the logical rebuttal to PAs false premiss. I, however do not think that it will get across this time either.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
That’s okay. For PA, I don’t exist.
Which is a rebuttal, of sorts, for his alleged argument. No matter how much he ignores me, THAT does not turn me into a counterfactual that will merely go away, unlike his view of how God works.
Fortunately, God sees things through to their finality, fully resolving what he makes real rather than carrying on some kind of elaborate mind game with himself consisting of a series of ‘what ifs.’
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Why?
Why is God totally ignorant of what “could” or “would” be/have been? You say this is logically necessary.
Wow you have assumed a heavy burden of proof. Please provide your proof.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
I would not hold my breath. After all it is ONLY the dogmas and the Bible say the opposite.Why?
Why is God totally ignorant of what “could” or “would” be/have been? You say this is logically necessary.
S
SonOfMan
Guest
To quote yourself: Evidence, please
If Baba was God, then he could take life he created too, no? He could do anything he wanted, no?
Bringing up Baba’s crimes to discredit him when you let God off the hook for a lot of atrocities, is dishonest. You may want to revise your arguments or at the very least, leave out that bit about atheists and double standards.
P
PRmerger
Guest
That the Creator of the World can take life as He sees fit?To quote yourself: Evidence, please
That is the purview of any creator. You create a work of art, you can destroy it.
You create a character on a page, you can let him go to whatever direction you desire.
You are the author. You get to make decisions.
That seems self evident, doesn’t it?
Sure.
He murdered some people, too? Can you provide evidence for this?
Absolutely not.
God, the Being of All Goodness, could never do evil.
Unless he actually did them, right?
Then it would be…true and correct and the right thing to do.
God has never done a single atrocity.
That’s already been addressed.
You keep believing things based on Faith Alone, yet object to Christians using faith…which is amusing, not to mention a double standard.You may want to revise your arguments or at the very least, leave out that bit about atheists and double standards.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
If human beings bear autonomous responsibility – i.e., have autonomous free will – then it follows, logically, that for God to know what an autonomous agent would do, the autonomous agent must carry out the acts that God would know to be the acts of that autonomous agent.Why?
Why is God totally ignorant of what “could” or “would” be/have been? You say this is logically necessary.
The agent must exercise free will – freely and autonomously – in order for God to know what the agent would do.
Now God may know that “from eternity” but the logical entailment is that free human agents must be free to determine what they do, have done or will do.
There is no getting around this, logically.
No sleight of logic or invoking retrospective determinism will unseat this requirement.
If knowledge determines outcomes, then human beings cannot have free will – it is as simple as that. If human beings freely choose outcome, then God knows the outcome because that is what human beings have freely chosen.
God cannot know what autonomous agents do without the autonomy of the agents themselves to do so.
T
tonyrey
Guest
S
SonOfMan
Guest
Any creator? So if a person creates children, he can destroy them at will?
God is morality itself. Anything God does is moral by default. So if Baba is God, then anything he does is good and holy, right?
Killing all Egyptian first born males, killing off the entire world in a flood, reducing Sodom and Gomorrah to ash…
Im not believing in anything, I am pointing out your continual and blatant contradictions. You can’t see the irony, can you?You keep believing things based on Faith Alone, yet object to Christians using faith…which is amusing, not to mention a double standard.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No person creates children. God does, Son.
We are co-creators, but there’s no way we infuse an immortal soul into an embryo.
P
PRmerger
Guest
God can take life, as He created it.
LOL!
There have been no contradictions. Each and every one of your assertions has been summarily refuted.
Yet, it still remains, that you are professing belief in some things based on Faith Alone, yet seem to object to faith.
How is it that you reserve for yourself what you object to in others?
S
SonOfMan
Guest
For that matter, anything we do is not due to our own actions. We are merely co-creators. If we do good, it all traces back to God because we owe our existenxe to him. If we do horribly evil things, it all traces back to God since we owe our existence to him.
S
SonOfMan
Guest
On which forum? Certainly not this one.
Plugging your ears and closing your eyes and repeating the same thing over and over after your statements are picked apart, does not qualify as a refutation.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Would you prefer not to
exist?
T
tonyrey
Guest
That is obvious but it has become obvious that people often overlook the obvious.
T
tonyrey
Guest
If you don’t believe anything you can’t recognise contradictions!Im not believing in anything, I am pointing out your continual and blatant contradictions. You can’t see the irony, can you?
- Status