You should pity your readers because they have to read this rambling.
who’s will?
would this be another analogy? if so, you committed the same mistake as last time. WHAT IN YOUR ANALOGY POSSESSES THE SAME ATTRIBUTES AS GOD?>???
so, what god-like attributes are you possessing in this analogy? are you omniscient? are you a creator-god? etc. etc.
The fact that God is omniscient: That fact alone is not a paradox or a contradiction. it is perfectly understandable alone. Alone, it has nothing to contradict, nothing to be paradoxical when associated with.
Each paragraph represents a point, and I’ve given my posts to another to look over before I post them to ensure clarity. If you can’t follow it, I’ll do my best to make it easier, but you’ll have to point out the specific parts you’re not understanding.
Ok, you didn’t understand my original point then, which is fine. I’ll try a more detailed approach here and see if it helps.
In this case it’s the actors will, as my following example illustrates. Knowledge of an action does not preclude the actors free will.
I don’t see how. I think perhaps you are confusing “Creator of All” with “Willer of All”, which are two completely different things.
I don’t know where you get the idea that for an analogy to work it must possess all of the same attributes. In fact, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard an analogy that meets your criteria. The point of an analogy is to make a comparison of certain aspects of two things, not necessarily all of them. Here’s the dictionary definition of analogy. To highlight one portion of the definition:
Knowledge of an action that was freely taken, and has a set outcome.
The paradox is not in what you quoted, but in what preceded it:
The paradox is this: Knowledge of an action and its outcome in no way violates the freedom of the actor.
So, to paraphrase, perfection of kind is the idea that creation is the closest possible perfection to God, but is “within the limits of its nature…” What do the limits mean? How does this help your argument?
This fails the test. Suppose humans were one IQ point smarter on average, then this would be closer to perfection. Thus, we are not “perfect of kind”. Who says it’s not within our capacity to be one IQ point smarter on average?
We are perfect because we resemble God?
This is superfluous. I am not saying that creation is the uncaused cause. I am not saying that humans creating God is possible either.
we are not as close to absolute perfection as we could possibly approach. But this doesn’t matter. How does this even help your argument?
:yawn:
In this bit you’re just juggling “creator of all” and you’ve dropped “omniscience.”
the first part establishes that there is no freedom of the will, which to demonstrate only requires an examination of the two attributes “omniscience” and “creator of all.” the second part establishes that the absence of free will is not compatible with both “wrath” and “benevolent” together. But since we haven’t understood the first part, we shouldn’t discuss the second part just yet. But we will soon.However,
I explained what the limits mean, namely things that the creation can’t be without being a contradiction. A creation can’t create it’s creator, for example.
Well, first you’d have to assume that high IQ has anything to do with perfection, and it’s not in your list anywhere. Furthermore, you’re glossing over the fact that my formulation takes into account the turning away of Creation from God, the turning away from perfection. If the Creation is not “perfect in kind” it is due to its own free choice, and I demonstrated why this free choice is absolutely necessary given the components you listed.
You don’t follow sequential thought well, eh? Read the paragraph from the beginning. In particular, this part:
If you can’t follow a sequential paragraph logically, I don’t know how to help you.
I didn’t say you did. I was explaining what I meant by uncaused cause, and illustrating what I mean by “limits according to nature”. Again, perfectly sequential, as it follows from you asking what “perfect in kind” means.
I didn’t say we were. In fact, I showed it as necessary that Creation have the ability to abandon perfection, and also that it did so. Now you’re just picking apart elaborations and explainations without actually going back and reading the original.
First off, you’re assuming that “Creator of All” means “Willer of Everything”, which is a fallacy, specifically the fallacy of pressuming that which doesn’t logically follow. God can create that which has a free will used contrary to His own; nothing in the act of creating necessitates the fact of dominating the creation’s will. You are assuming that the cause is the person, and not the choice of the person. In fact, it’s the choice of the person that causes the alarm to go off, and simply creating the person that makes the choice does not cause them to make the choice.
See, you’ve already begun “begging the question”, because in order to conclude that there is no freedom of will you’ve already assumed “no free will” as a component of “Creator of All”. Not only is this assertion not agreed upon by both of us, but it doesn’t follow from the actual act of creating. As I’ve shown, being willed into existance does not indicate a later lack of will on the part of the creature, and knowing the future decision of a creature does not necessitate that the decision is willed from the outside. Therefore, these factors in the creator do not suffice to show an absence of will on the part of the creature.
Then in the case of the mother and God, it sufficed to say that both brought forth their creation/child, because in the context of their given “universes”, they were the “Creators of All”, i.e. I assumed the pre-existance of both, and both created the only other things in their respective sides of the analogy. The purpose of the analogy was not to deal with the other characteristics, and they weren’t necessary; the attribute in question was “Creator of All”.
see below.
It doesn’t matter whether it was on my list. But it actually is on my list: if humans were one IQ point smarter, they’d be closer to the attribute “omniscient”
If you didn’t say I did, you don’t need to remind me that “creation cannot create the creator.” Don’t create any more tangents. I will not respond to them.
It is necessary that creation have to ability to abandon perfection/ have free will? For what is it necessary for? What premises does it necessarily follow from? Obviously not mine.
You think you understand my argument but you do not!
time and time again, you’re not holding “omniscience” constant.
very simply:
But in fact I know what the outcome will be, as I’ve already said.
Nope - just because you know something will happen doesn’t mean you will it to happen. Free will is the key here.
There is one atheist and dozens of Catholics. I am not going to respond to all of your posts. If you demonstrate that you understand the argument, succinctly, and can show us all where the alleged mistake is, then i will respond. Otherwise, i will not repsond, for there are too many posters that have not and do not understand the argument well enough to make an intelligent response.
Actually, IQ has nothing to do with omniscience. IQ has little to do with knowledge to begin with, and the attribute of omniscience doesn’t require a better ability to process information in an intelligent manner, but only that one has all that information in your brain. Regardless, you’re still glossing over the fact that this turning away from “perfection in kind” has already been accounted for. Even assuming wrongly that higher IQ = nearer to perfection, you’re leaving out the fact that the creature willingly becoming less perfect is perfectly acceptable in this model, and that the fact that creation doesn’t have a “perfect IQ” now doesn’t mean that before the turning away it didn’t. To put it simply, your point has no point.
My clarification didn’t demand a response! You asked me what I meant by “perfection in kind”, and I explained it. You didn’t need to respond to that at all.
No. Possesing free will, which is part of perfection in kind, necessitates the ability to turn away from said perfection. Go back and re-read what I wrote, because me re-writing everything isn’t helping anything.
You’ve assumed this point, not proven it.
You like logical fallacies, don’t you? This would be “post hoc, ergo propter hoc”, or “after this, therefore because of this”. In this case, after the creation of the person they hit the red button, therefore because of the creation of the person the red button was hit. This is one of the most basic logical errors one can make, and incidently it completely undermines one’s philosophical propositions. As a philosophy major, I recommend working on this a bit.
I agree with this definition, but your conclusion still doesn’t follow. Furthermore, it’s based on a fundamental misrepresentation of free will from the get go. You are presuming that in order for an action to be free, it must be a suprise. The problem with this is that one can never suprise oneself with a choice, so every free action is foreknown by SOMEONE. If one does something that comes as a suprise to oneself, we actually say that they DIDN’T freely will it, because they didn’t actively make a choice. Presuming suprise as a necessity of free will actually negates free will without even bringing up omniscience. Free will requires not being suprised. There’s nothing about God creating us, and sharing in our complete lack of suprise at our choices, that negates those choices being freely made.
The bold is where your logic falls apart. Allowing something to be done does NOT mean you WANT it to be done. Accepting the outcome does not mean willing it. Even willing into existance the actor does not indicate willing the action. We’re back to “post hoc, ergo propter hoc.” You’re leaving out crucial steps in logic needed to support your premise.
Nothing in these attributes, when added together, removes free will. All of your claims to the contrary are based on logical fallacies.
Actually, for the sake of this discussion they ARE the only attributes, that’s the whole point. Regardless, the analogy was for the purpose of illustrating one attribute, and that analogy has since been superceded by much more clear and elaborate illustrations, so we can just drop it now.
And you have nothing to do with IQ.
So you’ve assumed free will as a part of your “perfection in kind” scheme. You are the one who is begging the question.
I don’t know how else to explain it to you. Perhaps you do not understand it?
Your responses are maddeningly stupid. What, if any, philosophy background do you have anyway?
Sometimes things are caused by things which come before them. So the “propter hoc” fallacy is not simply a one-line-slogan yo use against any causal argument you happen to dislike.
I was pointing out that an omniscient God cannot be surprised at anything. period. You misunderstand everything i say. I can usually finger someone who is new at thinking philosophically, because they will try to treat all sentences as if they were syllogisms, and blurt names of fallacies that don’t apply. This is you.
Why should God be forced to accept any old outcome that comes along? He created it, it’s his spectacle, he knew the outcomes before he created it. Why would he not have created it exactly the way he wanted it? Why would God have created something he didn’t want? Hence Mackie’s comments.
We’re not back to post hoc. There was no post hoc.:nope:
Pssh. I eat logical fallacies for breakfast.:whacky:
The reason why you prefer to illustrate one attribute at a time is precisely because either a) you do not understand how to think about more than one at a time or b) you think you’ll understand the argument if you think about more than one at a time. (tongue in cheek, although it’s somewhat true i think)