Predestination vs. Freewill
if there infact is an all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful god (AGAPAK God) than which is right? Predestination or Freewill?
If God is all-knowing, then freewill is a paradox
if there is no freewill, then what is the point of living a preordained life? Pretty depressing if nothing you do is actually your own decision...
If God is all-good, and God created everything, then there is no evil and every action will eventually turn out to of been for good
etc... etc...
If God is all-knowing, then freewill is a paradox
if there is no freewill, then what is the point of living a preordained life? Pretty depressing if nothing you do is actually your own decision...
If God is all-good, and God created everything, then there is no evil and every action will eventually turn out to of been for good
etc... etc...
Comments
if there infact is an all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful god (AGAPAK God) than which is right? Predestination or Freewill?
If God is all-knowing, then freewill is a paradox
Not necessarily true. There is a lot about the universe that we don't really understand. Until the early 20th century, scientists and philosophers pretty much thought that we had figured out everything. And then quantum physics popped up. Oops.
Quantum physics has had a tremendous impact on philosophy, but it's still too new, and perhaps too abstract, to have been absorbed much by the generic world of the liberal-arts-educated literati. The main point here is that an observable event with a seemingly predictable outcome could actually be the sum result of an infinite number of statistically motivated yet ultimately unpredictable interactions. With this understanding, your paradox is not actually a paradox at all.
lawyer, but good try
Haha sorry I was just thinking back to Philosophy 101 four years ago...
if there infact is an all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful god (AGAPAK God) than which is right? Predestination or Freewill?
If God is all-knowing, then freewill is a paradox
etc... etc...
The statement that "God is all-knowing" is a paradox in itself and thus can not be reasoned using logic.
Nice try, play again. :-)
The statement that "God is all-knowing" is a paradox in itself and thus can not be reasoned using logic.
Nice try, play again. :-)
elaborate with reason please
An omniscient creator god precludes human free will.
Those don't seem mutually exclusive?
Really nothing in our scientific knowledge precludes predestination, or even allows for free will. However I'm pretty sure I have it.
Nothing in classical physics. For everything beyond classical physics, we can observe stochastics that lead to statistics, but there aren't the same causal relationships that include traditional, western philosophical thought, or for that matter the absence of freewill.
The bottom line is that our universe may well be ergodic, but it is probably not causal. By "probably not" I mean that there are scientific theories that demonstrate non-causality, and by "theory" I mean work that's pretty much canon (not the incorrect, colloquial usage of "theory"). Thus it's not a major leap to understand that all philosophies that do take the universe to be causal are inept to demonstrate features of a non-causal universe.
Those don't seem mutually exclusive?
I am unsure as to how to answer this question.
As far as why an omniscient creator and free will are mutually exclusive, it is fairly simple. If the god that created everything knew everything before the creation, then obviously everything that would happen was predetermined before it was even created. For free will to exist, man would have to have spirits or moral centers that were formed (or merely existed) independent of the creator god.
If god created everything and had perfect knowledge before that creation, how would free will exist for man?
This isn't a semantic argument, because it does not hinge on definitions. It is a discussion of basic logic.
I am unsure as to how to answer this question.
As far as why an omniscient creator and free will are mutually exclusive, it is fairly simple. If the god that created everything knew everything before the creation, then obviously everything that would happen was predetermined before it was even created. For free will to exist, man would have to have spirits or moral centers that were formed (or merely existed) independent of the creator god.
If god created everything and had perfect knowledge before that creation, how would free will exist for man?
freewill would exist for man because if God is all powerful, then how can paradoxes exist to him? They cant.
A paradox is simply something that man created to explain things their mind cannot grasp. If there truely is an AGAPAK God (refer to first post) than surely freewill can exist without paradox
This isn't a semantic argument, because it does not hinge on definitions. It is a discussion of basic logic.
. . .
If god created everything and had perfect knowledge before that creation, how would free will exist for man?
There are so, so many explanations that allow for the existence of a creator AND a universe with some modicum of freewill. As I mentioned, none allow for causality, so basic logic is ill-equipped to handle them.
A paradox is simply something that man created to explain things their mind cannot grasp. If there truely is an AGAPAK God (refer to first post) than surely freewill can exist without paradox
Ah, so the "it is because I said so" line of argument.
Splinemodel:
There are so, so many explanations that allow for the existence of a creator AND a universe with some modicum of freewill.
I didn't address your first post because of this astoundingly false statement:
Until the early 20th century, scientists and philosophers pretty much thought that we had figured out everything.
You talk about quantum mechanics theory as if it is an organism that burst onto the scene of its own accord. Scientists formulated the theory and researched it eagerly, so much for their ivory tower complacence.
Someone who so condescendingly dismisses the "liberal-arts-educated literati" should not make such a rookie logical mistake.
The main point here is that an observable event with a seemingly predictable outcome could actually be the sum result of an infinite number of statistically motivated yet ultimately unpredictable interactions. With this understanding, your paradox is not actually a paradox at all.
You use "unpredictable", which nullifies to "all-knowing" part of the god.
"So if you ignore the basic premise of the argument and change it to suit a desired outcome, there is no paradox at all!"
If there is an all-knowing creator god, the only free will we have is our own ignorance of the future.
There are so, so many explanations that allow for the existence of a creator AND a universe with some modicum of freewill.
I basically remember using "foreknowledge" about 50 times in the explanation and then it kinda made sense....
This isn't a semantic argument, because it does not hinge on definitions. It is a discussion of basic logic.
Did you just try to tie together logic and religion?
By it's very nature, a religion relies on your submission to it's tenets, logical or not.
How about a discussion of "Predestination vs. Freewill" that does not rely on religious arguments?
An omniscient creator god precludes human free will.
Not at all. Omniscient means knowing all the possible facts and all the possible outcomes of choices that result from those facts, not necessarily knowing which particular choice will be executed. Even omnipotence does not preclude allowing choices to be made.
Another way to think about it is omniscience is the infinite knowledge of what can happen in infinite choices in the face of infinite possibilities. Not merely knowing the path of a single unchanging thread through existence. The latter is a pretty weak knowledge, the former is infinitely powerful. If you were choosing your God, which would you choose?
The statement that "God is all-knowing" is a paradox in itself and thus can not be reasoned using logic.
Nice try, play again. :-)
"God is all-knowing" is not a paradox, just not supportable via basic logical arguments. It is the equivalent of a mathematical axiom. Axioms are not logically supportable either, they are just taken on faith to be true and the basis for other truths to be derived.