Creation has a beginning, necessarily. God might be eternal, but his creation is not, because creation has a beginning (even if it has no end). Therefore, the creations of god exist on a linear time scale, a time scale that an omniscient god would comprehend and understand.
Yup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
And because this omniscient god is the creator as well, the choices he made in creation restricted our own.
Sure. I'm not sure where you're going with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
Your argument is absolutely nothing more than, "Because I said so!"
Well, that's the point.
It's an assumption that God exists, that he gave us free will, that's he all-knowing, all powerful, etc. You have to buy into those first, which was always my problem with theology. But if you do, there are ways of reconciling those assumptions. (Frankly, this whole determination/free will debate has a rich history)
If that's the assumption that one is expected to make, why be involved in a discussion about its logical feasibility? Is your purpose merely to state the obvious (that believers do not use logic)?
Grove the reasoning that time exists in the manner only as you experience it is profoundly flawed. Time as a concept is still being refined and understood. We do know it is very much a function of space as well. We know time is affected by how you fast you travel through space or better still your relationship to the space around you.
It isn't illogical or unfeasible at all to suggest that an entity that experiences a very different relationship to space than we do would have a very different relationship with time as well.
You are completely ignoring the "creator" part of the "omniscient creator".
What on earth does "creator" mean to you? Anything at all?
Well I am ignoring it, but only because "the creator" has no direct bearing on things that happen once "creation" is complete. Of course there is an indirect connection because the created things are the actors, but that doesn't compel anything, it just sets the parameters around the choices available.
Keep things simple and loosely coupled. Tightly coupled systems nearly always collapse from needless cross dependencies. Godel pretty much proved that categorically.
<tangent on tightly coupled systems>Godel's his Second Theorem proves no system of mathematics or logic can be both complete and consistent simultaneously. Thus, the only possible solution that works in the real world is a loosely coupled systems that sacrifices a single consistent statement (accepts/ignores one particular carefully crafted inconsistent statement) to maintain the systems completeness.
What is the result of accepting/ignoring that sacrificed statement - acceptance of "faith". No way around that. You can eliminate Godel's hole mathematically by making the negation of the sacrificed statement an axiom, but that is just codifying the faith, AND it leaves a hole where the next recursive layer of the onion suddenly appears with a new contradictory statement. So if adding axioms on faith doesn't help, you are left with just accepting an imperfect system on faith that is will work perfectly as long as you maintain your faith in it's completeness.</tangent>
Once we decouple the act of creation from directly impinging on non-creation events we can safely set aside the creator in the creation role while discussing non-creation events. Even if the creator happens to be the omniscient observer, once the creation work is finished on a particular object/entity, the creator in the creation role has no more direct influence on events, just left over detritus indirectly present in the form of existing parameters to the mortal's set of choices.
It isn't illogical or unfeasible at all to suggest that an entity that experiences a very different relationship to space than we do would have a very different relationship with time as well.
How god experiences time is meaningless. If god is omniscient, then god has all knowledge at all times.
Hiro:
Quote:
Well I am ignoring it, but only because "the creator" has no direct bearing on things that happen once "creation" is complete. Of course there is an indirect connection because the created things are the actors, but that doesn't compel anything, it just sets the parameters around the choices available.
How is the absolute creation of all possible things in any sense "indirect"? I make decisions because my brain works a certain way (or my soul works a certain way). God created my brain (God created my soul). God created everyone else's brain (soul). God created all chemicals and neutrons and atoms and molecules and soot and jam and toast. If I choose to give a homeless guy $1, then I made that decision with the brain (soul) God designed. If I choose to sleep with a prostitute, then I made that decision with the brain (soul) God designed. God could have designed for me a brain (soul) that would have done the opposite, but he made that choice while knowing the consequences. I had no say in the creation of my brain (soul), because I am nothing but a creation myself.
If god is an omniscient creator then there is nothing extant that was not made by god and there is nothing knowable that is not known by god, throughout all time. Else god is not omniscient or not the creator.
Quote:
Once we decouple the act of creation from directly impinging on non-creation events we can safely set aside the creator in the creation role while discussing non-creation events.
What is a "non-creative event" and how is it divorced from the creation?
If something can happen that god did not design for then god is not omniscient. If god did not design all things then god is not the creator. This is extremely simple.
Grove you are missing the point. God having knowledge of your choice through his experience of time does not deny you the ideal that your have free will within your experience of time.
Grove you are missing the point. God having knowledge of your choice through his experience of time does not deny you the ideal that your have free will within your experience of time.
Nick
So free will isn't really free will but we think it is?
Grove you are missing the point. God having knowledge of your choice through his experience of time does not deny you the ideal that your have free will within your experience of time.
If that's the assumption that one is expected to make, why be involved in a discussion about its logical feasibility? Is your purpose merely to state the obvious (that believers do not use logic)?
Just to be sure we're on the same page, I'm talking about assumptions about the nature of God.
All powerful, all knowing, grants free will, etc.
So I don't see how making those assumptions precludes discussing whether they are logically consistent...
How is the absolute creation of all possible things in any sense "indirect"? I make decisions because my brain works a certain way (or my soul works a certain way). God created my brain (God created my soul). God created everyone else's brain (soul). God created all chemicals and neutrons and atoms and molecules and soot and jam and toast. If I choose to give a homeless guy $1, then I made that decision with the brain (soul) God designed. If I choose to sleep with a prostitute, then I made that decision with the brain (soul) God designed. God could have designed for me a brain (soul) that would have done the opposite, but he made that choice while knowing the consequences. I had no say in the creation of my brain (soul), because I am nothing but a creation myself.
If god is an omniscient creator then there is nothing extant that was not made by god and there is nothing knowable that is not known by god, throughout all time. Else god is not omniscient or not the creator.
What is a "non-creative event" and how is it divorced from the creation?
If something can happen that god did not design for then god is not omniscient. If god did not design all things then god is not the creator. This is extremely simple.
Now you are intentionally entering the realm of our former president in dancing around the definitions of straight forward words. Sorry, but nobody is convinced or confused on the meaning of those points, not even you. At this point I'm convinced you just want to argue regardless of anything.
<bows out unless someone says something galactically stupid>
So I don't see how making those assumptions precludes discussing whether they are logically consistent...
Because if people are supposed to merely accept those assumptions then what is the purpose of discussion but an opportunity to say, "Well I know it makes no sense, but it's true anyway."?
Discussion of logic requires logical conclusions or, at least, proceedings. Throwing out something illogical and saying, "well that's the way it is, get over it," is not how one participates in a logical discussion. That is what church houses are for.
You can see this perfectly in Hiro's post below, "You're wrong because you are wrong, and you know it but you're just being stubborn."
Hiro:
Quote:
Now you are intentionally entering the realm of our former president in dancing around the definitions of straight forward words.
"Non-creative events" is not a "straight forward word". All I have asked for is an explanation, and I do not know why that should be so difficult to provide.
You have not even attempted to explain how all events cannot be linked back to creation when, in reality, all things happen for a reason. Causation exists, even if our minds cannot comprehend the seemingly-incomprehensible number of associated factors. What you are advocating is a world of nothing but complete randomness.
Because if people are supposed to merely accept those assumptions then what is the purpose of discussion but an opportunity to say, "Well I know it makes no sense, but it's true anyway."?
Discussion of logic requires logical conclusions or, at least, proceedings. Throwing out something illogical and saying, "well that's the way it is, get over it," is not how one participates in a logical discussion. That is what church houses are for.
I think you're confused.
Accepting assumptions about the nature of God merely establishes the groundrules.
Our question, and the question pondered by philosophers and theologians for centuries, is whether those groundrules are logically reconcilable.
The only thing that confuses me is an intelligent person's willingness (and enthusiasm, even) to abandon reason for superstition.
Quote:
Accepting assumptions about the nature of God merely establishes the groundrules.
As midwinter has already helpfully pointed out, saying that logical nonsense should be accepted as truth going into a logical argument is the very definition of begging the question. You have a pre-determined answer and you are looking for backfill. That is not how logical discussion works, that is how sermons work.
I think the real problem here is that superstition cults have been given some kind of respected status, so they are free to spout absolute garbage and disguise it as intellect while nice liberal minds pat them condescendingly on the head and say, "Well, that's their faith."
It might be faith, but it is also complete bullshit of absolutely no real value.
Comments
Creation has a beginning, necessarily. God might be eternal, but his creation is not, because creation has a beginning (even if it has no end). Therefore, the creations of god exist on a linear time scale, a time scale that an omniscient god would comprehend and understand.
Yup.
And because this omniscient god is the creator as well, the choices he made in creation restricted our own.
Sure. I'm not sure where you're going with that.
Your argument is absolutely nothing more than, "Because I said so!"
Well, that's the point.
It's an assumption that God exists, that he gave us free will, that's he all-knowing, all powerful, etc. You have to buy into those first, which was always my problem with theology. But if you do, there are ways of reconciling those assumptions. (Frankly, this whole determination/free will debate has a rich history)
It isn't illogical or unfeasible at all to suggest that an entity that experiences a very different relationship to space than we do would have a very different relationship with time as well.
Nick
Interesting link related to the discussion.
Nick
Hiro:
You are completely ignoring the "creator" part of the "omniscient creator".
What on earth does "creator" mean to you? Anything at all?
Well I am ignoring it, but only because "the creator" has no direct bearing on things that happen once "creation" is complete. Of course there is an indirect connection because the created things are the actors, but that doesn't compel anything, it just sets the parameters around the choices available.
Keep things simple and loosely coupled. Tightly coupled systems nearly always collapse from needless cross dependencies. Godel pretty much proved that categorically.
<tangent on tightly coupled systems>Godel's his Second Theorem proves no system of mathematics or logic can be both complete and consistent simultaneously. Thus, the only possible solution that works in the real world is a loosely coupled systems that sacrifices a single consistent statement (accepts/ignores one particular carefully crafted inconsistent statement) to maintain the systems completeness.
What is the result of accepting/ignoring that sacrificed statement - acceptance of "faith". No way around that. You can eliminate Godel's hole mathematically by making the negation of the sacrificed statement an axiom, but that is just codifying the faith, AND it leaves a hole where the next recursive layer of the onion suddenly appears with a new contradictory statement. So if adding axioms on faith doesn't help, you are left with just accepting an imperfect system on faith that is will work perfectly as long as you maintain your faith in it's completeness.</tangent>
Once we decouple the act of creation from directly impinging on non-creation events we can safely set aside the creator in the creation role while discussing non-creation events. Even if the creator happens to be the omniscient observer, once the creation work is finished on a particular object/entity, the creator in the creation role has no more direct influence on events, just left over detritus indirectly present in the form of existing parameters to the mortal's set of choices.
It isn't illogical or unfeasible at all to suggest that an entity that experiences a very different relationship to space than we do would have a very different relationship with time as well.
How god experiences time is meaningless. If god is omniscient, then god has all knowledge at all times.
Hiro:
Well I am ignoring it, but only because "the creator" has no direct bearing on things that happen once "creation" is complete. Of course there is an indirect connection because the created things are the actors, but that doesn't compel anything, it just sets the parameters around the choices available.
How is the absolute creation of all possible things in any sense "indirect"? I make decisions because my brain works a certain way (or my soul works a certain way). God created my brain (God created my soul). God created everyone else's brain (soul). God created all chemicals and neutrons and atoms and molecules and soot and jam and toast. If I choose to give a homeless guy $1, then I made that decision with the brain (soul) God designed. If I choose to sleep with a prostitute, then I made that decision with the brain (soul) God designed. God could have designed for me a brain (soul) that would have done the opposite, but he made that choice while knowing the consequences. I had no say in the creation of my brain (soul), because I am nothing but a creation myself.
If god is an omniscient creator then there is nothing extant that was not made by god and there is nothing knowable that is not known by god, throughout all time. Else god is not omniscient or not the creator.
Once we decouple the act of creation from directly impinging on non-creation events we can safely set aside the creator in the creation role while discussing non-creation events.
What is a "non-creative event" and how is it divorced from the creation?
If something can happen that god did not design for then god is not omniscient. If god did not design all things then god is not the creator. This is extremely simple.
Nick
Grove you are missing the point. God having knowledge of your choice through his experience of time does not deny you the ideal that your have free will within your experience of time.
Nick
So free will isn't really free will but we think it is?
Grove you are missing the point. God having knowledge of your choice through his experience of time does not deny you the ideal that your have free will within your experience of time.
I have never argued against that.
If that's the assumption that one is expected to make, why be involved in a discussion about its logical feasibility? Is your purpose merely to state the obvious (that believers do not use logic)?
Just to be sure we're on the same page, I'm talking about assumptions about the nature of God.
All powerful, all knowing, grants free will, etc.
So I don't see how making those assumptions precludes discussing whether they are logically consistent...
Hiro:
How is the absolute creation of all possible things in any sense "indirect"? I make decisions because my brain works a certain way (or my soul works a certain way). God created my brain (God created my soul). God created everyone else's brain (soul). God created all chemicals and neutrons and atoms and molecules and soot and jam and toast. If I choose to give a homeless guy $1, then I made that decision with the brain (soul) God designed. If I choose to sleep with a prostitute, then I made that decision with the brain (soul) God designed. God could have designed for me a brain (soul) that would have done the opposite, but he made that choice while knowing the consequences. I had no say in the creation of my brain (soul), because I am nothing but a creation myself.
If god is an omniscient creator then there is nothing extant that was not made by god and there is nothing knowable that is not known by god, throughout all time. Else god is not omniscient or not the creator.
What is a "non-creative event" and how is it divorced from the creation?
If something can happen that god did not design for then god is not omniscient. If god did not design all things then god is not the creator. This is extremely simple.
Now you are intentionally entering the realm of our former president in dancing around the definitions of straight forward words. Sorry, but nobody is convinced or confused on the meaning of those points, not even you. At this point I'm convinced you just want to argue regardless of anything.
<bows out unless someone says something galactically stupid>
So I don't see how making those assumptions precludes discussing whether they are logically consistent...
Because if people are supposed to merely accept those assumptions then what is the purpose of discussion but an opportunity to say, "Well I know it makes no sense, but it's true anyway."?
Discussion of logic requires logical conclusions or, at least, proceedings. Throwing out something illogical and saying, "well that's the way it is, get over it," is not how one participates in a logical discussion. That is what church houses are for.
You can see this perfectly in Hiro's post below, "You're wrong because you are wrong, and you know it but you're just being stubborn."
Hiro:
Now you are intentionally entering the realm of our former president in dancing around the definitions of straight forward words.
"Non-creative events" is not a "straight forward word". All I have asked for is an explanation, and I do not know why that should be so difficult to provide.
You have not even attempted to explain how all events cannot be linked back to creation when, in reality, all things happen for a reason. Causation exists, even if our minds cannot comprehend the seemingly-incomprehensible number of associated factors. What you are advocating is a world of nothing but complete randomness.
ShawnJ:
Because if people are supposed to merely accept those assumptions then what is the purpose of discussion but an opportunity to say, "Well I know it makes no sense, but it's true anyway."?
Discussion of logic requires logical conclusions or, at least, proceedings. Throwing out something illogical and saying, "well that's the way it is, get over it," is not how one participates in a logical discussion. That is what church houses are for.
I think you're confused.
Accepting assumptions about the nature of God merely establishes the groundrules.
Our question, and the question pondered by philosophers and theologians for centuries, is whether those groundrules are logically reconcilable.
I think you're confused.
Accepting assumptions about the nature of God merely establishes the groundrules.
Our question, and the question pondered by philosophers and theologians for centuries, is whether those groundrules are logically reconcilable.
Those groundrules are also called "begging the question."
I don't think they *require* logical consistency-- they would only if you argue that reconciling them is beyond the grasp of human knowledge.
Philosophers and theologians have disagreed for a long time.
Or faith.
Indeed.
I think you're confused.
The only thing that confuses me is an intelligent person's willingness (and enthusiasm, even) to abandon reason for superstition.
Accepting assumptions about the nature of God merely establishes the groundrules.
As midwinter has already helpfully pointed out, saying that logical nonsense should be accepted as truth going into a logical argument is the very definition of begging the question. You have a pre-determined answer and you are looking for backfill. That is not how logical discussion works, that is how sermons work.
I think the real problem here is that superstition cults have been given some kind of respected status, so they are free to spout absolute garbage and disguise it as intellect while nice liberal minds pat them condescendingly on the head and say, "Well, that's their faith."
It might be faith, but it is also complete bullshit of absolutely no real value.