For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Read the essay, uwot, because this is clearly explained in it. If you then don't get it come back and ask me again.uwot wrote:How does driving passed each other 'entangle' cars? Why are the Earth and, for example, Voyager not similarly entangled?
Fatalism and pre-determinism are synonymous constructs and both are also synonymous with eternalism, which is the metaphysical underpinning of Special Relativity. In SR no meaningful metaphysical distinction can be made between past, present and future because all of physical reality simply unwinds like a gigantic Newtonian clock. Fortunately the universe we live in does not conform to this Laplacian nightmare which defines a sentient being as a mindless automaton. Eternalism is bollocks because the real world exists only in the moment NOW and it is a world which is continuously re-making itself. The events of the past have been the causal agents for the events of the present and the events of the present will be the causal agents for the events of the future. The sentient being then becomes both ACTOR and ACTED UPON in the eternal dance of reality.Jaded Sage wrote:It is certainly compatible with fatalism. Once your fate is certain (predeterminism) it seems free will is rendered rather irrelevant so why not consider it nonexistent? I met a very devout Christian who claims there is no mention of free will in the bible.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?
Cheerful Charlie wrote:The question is, how does one square all of this with God's supposed goodness. All is predestined by God, who will be saved, and who is to be damned. One answer is to fall back on original sin, but then the question is why God grant's some grace to overcome original sin and denies it to others. Again, Paul's theology from Romans. Original sin then is not an explanation. God's arbitrary acts here are. Why are some given a working sensus divinitus and others saddled with a broken sense due to original sin? People like WCL don't seem to notice this problem.
.
I recognised this problem when I was 13, and a budding determinist. Trapped as I was in a poor family, bad school, and eating a poor diet, whilst all around me privalege and elitism was running the country. I could not help but wonder how a fair minded god with all that power could expect people come with equamimity to 'open the door to Jesus'.
My growing sketicism of religion was guided by my personal experience and about causal factors over which I had no control. Given the sort of person that god had made me, how was I to suspend my disbelief to accept a dogma that was utterly bereft of reason and evidence. And since an all powerful god, omniscient, and omnipresent, must have known from the beginning of time how I would turn out, and with that knoweldge created me, I could only conclude that he had made me one of the damned.
This was either true and god was unfair OR God was a figment of man's poorly constructed imagination. Either way I wanted no part of God or religion and so my atheism was born.
The problem with your reasoning is that "first" you gave their version of what the creator was/is far too much credence, in believing that it was necessarily true. Then "second," when you saw the obvious holes in their story, (their version of a creator), you deduce that it means that there can't be a creator, as if there can only ever be two options, i.e., that their version of a creator is correct, or there is no creator! In fact, when their version of a creator fell flat on it's face, it could "only ever" have "meant" that it's their version of a creator that is wrong, not necessarily that there is definitely no creator. When I see such testimony as yours, at least I see that you, nor anyone else can actually know whether or not there is a creator, only that their version of a creator is illogical, thus improbable. You and many other atheist's have jumped to the very same potentially false conclusion, for the very same illogical reason.
And no, to say what I have said, is neither insinuating that there is, or is not a creator. I'm agnostic, believing no man can "know" which is true, because no man can "prove" which is true.
As for sensus divinus, I had felt it very strongly when faithful, but then so had Torquemada, Ivan the Terrible, Alexander the Great, and Ghengis Khan too. And when Joshua blew his horn and killed thousands when the walls of Jericho fell on them we can only assume that the sense of the divine was running hot in his veins.
Does this feeling hold water for evidence for God? I think not. When I asked how is this different from any other sort of delusion I was at theat time reflecting on the Trance Dance of the Bushmen of the Kalahari, who in a state of emotionally charged collapse think themselves capable of healing. Whatever "IT" is, it is likley that the sensus is not 'divine' at all.
Your first mistake was that you read what I wrote.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Hobbes' Choice wrote:Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?
Cheerful Charlie wrote:The question is, how does one square all of this with God's supposed goodness. All is predestined by God, who will be saved, and who is to be damned. One answer is to fall back on original sin, but then the question is why God grant's some grace to overcome original sin and denies it to others. Again, Paul's theology from Romans. Original sin then is not an explanation. God's arbitrary acts here are. Why are some given a working sensus divinitus and others saddled with a broken sense due to original sin? People like WCL don't seem to notice this problem.
.
I recognised this problem when I was 13, and a budding determinist. Trapped as I was in a poor family, bad school, and eating a poor diet, whilst all around me privalege and elitism was running the country. I could not help but wonder how a fair minded god with all that power could expect people come with equamimity to 'open the door to Jesus'.
My growing sketicism of religion was guided by my personal experience and about causal factors over which I had no control. Given the sort of person that god had made me, how was I to suspend my disbelief to accept a dogma that was utterly bereft of reason and evidence. And since an all powerful god, omniscient, and omnipresent, must have known from the beginning of time how I would turn out, and with that knoweldge created me, I could only conclude that he had made me one of the damned.
This was either true and god was unfair OR God was a figment of man's poorly constructed imagination. Either way I wanted no part of God or religion and so my atheism was born.
The problem with your reasoning is that "first" you gave their version of what the creator was/is far too much credence, in believing that it was necessarily true. Then "second," when you saw the obvious holes in their story, (their version of a creator), you deduce that it means that there can't be a creator, as if there can only ever be two options, i.e., that their version of a creator is correct, or there is no creator! In fact, when their version of a creator fell flat on it's face, it could "only ever" have "meant" that it's their version of a creator that is wrong, not necessarily that there is definitely no creator. When I see such testimony as yours, at least I see that you, nor anyone else can actually know whether or not there is a creator, only that their version of a creator is illogical, thus improbable. You and many other atheist's have jumped to the very same potentially false conclusion, for the very same illogical reason.
And no, to say what I have said, is neither insinuating that there is, or is not a creator. I'm agnostic, believing no man can "know" which is true, because no man can "prove" which is true.
As for sensus divinus, I had felt it very strongly when faithful, but then so had Torquemada, Ivan the Terrible, Alexander the Great, and Ghengis Khan too. And when Joshua blew his horn and killed thousands when the walls of Jericho fell on them we can only assume that the sense of the divine was running hot in his veins.
Does this feeling hold water for evidence for God? I think not. When I asked how is this different from any other sort of delusion I was at theat time reflecting on the Trance Dance of the Bushmen of the Kalahari, who in a state of emotionally charged collapse think themselves capable of healing. Whatever "IT" is, it is likley that the sensus is not 'divine' at all.
SO THEN...SpheresOfBalance wrote:Hobbes' Choice wrote:Is Christianity compatible with Determinism?
Cheerful Charlie wrote:The question is, how does one square all of this with God's supposed goodness. All is predestined by God, who will be saved, and who is to be damned. One answer is to fall back on original sin, but then the question is why God grant's some grace to overcome original sin and denies it to others. Again, Paul's theology from Romans. Original sin then is not an explanation. God's arbitrary acts here are. Why are some given a working sensus divinitus and others saddled with a broken sense due to original sin? People like WCL don't seem to notice this problem.
.
I recognised this problem when I was 13, and a budding determinist. Trapped as I was in a poor family, bad school, and eating a poor diet, whilst all around me privalege and elitism was running the country. I could not help but wonder how a fair minded god with all that power could expect people come with equamimity to 'open the door to Jesus'.
My growing sketicism of religion was guided by my personal experience and about causal factors over which I had no control. Given the sort of person that god had made me, how was I to suspend my disbelief to accept a dogma that was utterly bereft of reason and evidence. And since an all powerful god, omniscient, and omnipresent, must have known from the beginning of time how I would turn out, and with that knoweldge created me, I could only conclude that he had made me one of the damned.
This was either true and god was unfair OR God was a figment of man's poorly constructed imagination. Either way I wanted no part of God or religion and so my atheism was born.
The problem with your reasoning is that "first" you gave their version of what the creator was/is far too much credence, in believing that it was necessarily true. Then "second," when you saw the obvious holes in their story, (their version of a creator), you deduce that it means that there can't be a creator, as if there can only ever be two options, i.e., that their version of a creator is correct, or there is no creator! In fact, when their version of a creator fell flat on it's face, it could "only ever" have "meant" that it's their version of a creator that is wrong, not necessarily that there is definitely no creator. When I see such testimony as yours, at least I see that you, nor anyone else can actually know whether or not there is a creator, only that their version of a creator is illogical, thus improbable. You and many other atheist's have jumped to the very same potentially false conclusion, for the very same illogical reason.
And no, to say what I have said, is neither insinuating that there is, or is not a creator. I'm agnostic, believing no man can "know" which is true, because no man can "prove" which is true.
As for sensus divinus, I had felt it very strongly when faithful, but then so had Torquemada, Ivan the Terrible, Alexander the Great, and Ghengis Khan too. And when Joshua blew his horn and killed thousands when the walls of Jericho fell on them we can only assume that the sense of the divine was running hot in his veins.
Does this feeling hold water for evidence for God? I think not. When I asked how is this different from any other sort of delusion I was at theat time reflecting on the Trance Dance of the Bushmen of the Kalahari, who in a state of emotionally charged collapse think themselves capable of healing. Whatever "IT" is, it is likley that the sensus is not 'divine' at all.
SO THEN SOB WROTE:Hobbes' Choice wrote:Your first mistake was that you read what I wrote.
Your second mistake was that you think I give a fuck what you think
And your third is that you wasted your time writing something I did not bother to read, till the end.
You are a worthless piece of shit.
As if it actually has any meaningful content, that anyone other than a child might take seriously.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Please refer to the message I wrote above
I realize I'm resurrecting an old thread, but I'm new here, and I coincidently bumped into this forum based on this thread. Also since you're still an active member on this forum, it might not be entirely futile to resurrect the discussion.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2016 8:47 pmWell, I hesitate to point it out, but that's actually a non-sequitur. God might fully know what you would do. It wouldn't automatically mean He made you do it. Foreknowledge isn't determinism. That's the kind of distinction that even the Calvinists recognize. However, they think that both determinism and foreknowledge are true, even though they can see that the latter doesn't entail the former in any necessary way. They fully recognize what non-Calvinists are saying: that God foreknows which choices will be made, but does not force us to make them. They just think that's wrong.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Wrong. Being all powerful is also the power to know. Knowing what character a person is in the act of creation, necessitates foreknowledge of their success or failure as "Christians", or whatever religion you wish to saddle them with. If god has made me the way I am then he will have know since the beginning of time that I shall die a sinner.
To illustrate, I'm sure when you saw a reply from me, you already knew I would disagree. We have had sufficient prior conversations to give you foreknowledge of that. But did your knowing make me disagree? Or did the fact that you were clearly able to predict my future action constitute any cause of why I did it? Clearly not, as I'm sure you recognize.
That's a bit of a non-sequitur again, I'm afraid. Like Foreknowledge alone, the formula Foreknowledge + Creation is also insufficient to establish Determinism as a necessary fact.I think the point you raised about foreknowledge is interesting. At least enough to warrant why omniscience doesn't indicate determinism.
But I think God being an Omniscient creator does. God had foreknowledge even before our universe was conceived, even before we ever existed. That foreknowledge and creation go hand in hand. God literally created a story, and we're characters in that story, conceived long before it was penned.
The author determined the outcomes and choices of his character, so it seems to me determinism is unavoidable from a Christian perspective.
You keep asserting this but we haven't established it have we, as all that is logically entailed, if we assume that your 'God' has infalible 'foreknowledge'(which I presume you'd wish), is that 'it' may not be the determiner but a determiner there must be if this 'foreknowledge' is to be true as if it isn't then your 'God' is falible which I presume you'd not wish? So which is it? No determiner and a fallible 'God' with respect to this foreknowledge or an infallible 'God' but one that depends upon some determiner to make things turn out in accord with 'its' 'foreknowledge'.Immanuel Can wrote:... Now, we have already established that foreknowledge does not logically entail Determinism. ...
Well, the very act of our creation is determined. At least not by us. Once that is determined, it's determined we must do something, as opposed to nothing, even if it's just to die. I would have chosen the path of least resistance, if the original decision was left to me. One small determination by the determiner, creates a lifetime of forced choices, which otherwise needn't have been.Immanuel Can wrote:We could put it this way: God made us, and God knows what we will choose to do (Foreknowledge and Creation). But this is not the same as to say, "We are constituted by Him as mere robots, and then God makes us do whatever it is we do" (Determinism).
Absolutely. Your height, weight, intelligence, potential athleticism and artistic ability, susceptibility to genetic diseases and so on were all set by factors over which you had no ultimate control. And really, nobody denies that SOME factors are set in just this way; even the most ardent proponent of free will can easily concede that.Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:26 amWell, the very act of our creation is determined. At least not by us.Immanuel Can wrote:We could put it this way: God made us, and God knows what we will choose to do (Foreknowledge and Creation). But this is not the same as to say, "We are constituted by Him as mere robots, and then God makes us do whatever it is we do" (Determinism).
No, that doesn't follow. Non-sequitur.One small determination by the determiner, creates a lifetime of forced choices, which otherwise needn't have been.
Well, by definition, God could have "foreknowledge" of events He did not "predetermine" to happen. So, for example, if I "foreknow" that this statement will be questioned, that does not mean I would be determining you or anyone else to question it. It would be your choice whether you did or not, and my foreknowing wouldn't impinge on that choice even one bit.Also makes me wonder on God's lack of foreknowledge concerning my opinion on his decision.
Actually, the free will argument says He GAVE you the ability to make that choice or another; so it would be certain He did, in fact "care for" your free will. He lets you actualize it...just as you are right now, when you are discussing this with me.But at some point, God made the original decision for creation, which led to this decision by others, and had foreknowledge of it. Even at the creation of all. And he didn't give an ounce of care for my free will or choice.
You mistake the case. If God had predetermined you to be resentful, then it would no longer be you who was resentful. You would have no say. But your rhetorical question at the end suggests quite strongly that you personally don't act in your own life as though you're predetermined. Instead, you pass a value judgment on the situation, and feel that you can withhold "being grateful." But if you were predetermined, how could you do that? Your gratitude would be automatic, or your inability to be grateful would be ironclad. But I think you want to tell me about how you see things, not about how God has "fated" you to think, no?And this? This is my beef with God. And he knows it already. And he's already determined my judgment for being at odds over this. And I'm supposed to be grateful?
