argument against christianity: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » argument against christianity » argument against christianity

argument against christianity
free choice, randomness, and the omni potence of god.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

argument against christianity

midnightbarber
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2005
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 11/11/05 - 02:08 PM: Subject: argument against christianity	#1
A few stipulations: 1)God is Omnipotent 2)God is Omniscience 3)God is good 4)God created everything There are 2-3 factors that decide every choice we make. The first 2, Nature (genetics) & Nuture (our environment) are ones we can all agree on. The third factor is the point of contention. Christians believe in the soul. What is the Christian soul? 1)Exists within our bodies 2)Has no matter 3)Makes choices Now if the soul is equivalent to our ability to have free choice, then the decisions the soul makes must be random because if it were not random, it would be predictable through an input of different factors. For example, one may argue that the roll of a dice is random. I would say it is not random but unpredictable because we have insufficient information. That is to say we do not possess knowledge of wind, friction, angle of release and all the other physics of the situation. God, however, is omniscience and omnipotent. Therefore, if god can predict our actions ahead of time, the action is no longer truly random. This is because an event cannot be random if there is a possiblity of it being known before the event happens. If the action is no longer random, then there can be no free choice. Some people argue that God can choose not to know. This in effect would be a logical contradiction since God cannot not be omnipotent. If God gives up omniscience and omnipotency through the issuing of free choice, then God is no longer God. It is similar to the logically incorrect question: can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift? Therefore, if free choice exists, then God cannot be omniscience.

hateloveschool
In the process of dying

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2005
Location: The middle of a cornfield
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 218

Last Blog:

Posted 11/11/05 - 02:32 PM:	#2
midnightbarber wrote: If god can predict our actions ahead of time, the action is no longer truly random. This is because an event cannot be random if there is a possiblity of it being known before the event happens. If the action is no longer random, then there can be no free choice. Some people argue that God can choose not to know. This in effect would be a logical contradiction since God cannot not be omnipotent. If God gives up omniscience and omnipotency through the issuing of free choice, then God is no longer God. It is similar to the logically incorrect question: can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift? Therefore, if free choice exists, then God cannot be omniscience. There are those of us Christians who believe in predestination and that somehow there is a free will yet God has a plan for this world, down to the very second. Nothing happens outside of his will and nothing happens outside of his knowledge. The dichotomy that free will and God's will is very complicated and takes much reading to understand. midnightbarber wrote: Now if the soul is equivalent to our ability to have free choice, then the decisions the soul makes must be random because if it were not random, it would be predictable through an input of different factors. You seem to have the assumption that everything that happens is random. Our actions aren't random. They may seem random, but they reanlly aren't. Nature is definitely not random, neither is science. Complete randomness in music destroys music. I don't see how you can say human choices are random. You said we make a choice based on nature and our environment, so it is predictable, but you say it is random. This is a contradiction. Am I reading this right?
Please don't hurt me.

philosophy
Sapiens

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2005
Location: Ivory Tower
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 283

Posted 11/11/05 - 03:07 PM:	#3
God, however, is omniscience and omnipotent. Therefore, if god can predict our actions ahead of time, the action is no longer truly random. This is because an event cannot be random if there is a possiblity of it being known before the event happens. If the action is no longer random, then there can be no free choice. I do not see how any of that follows. 4)God created everything Everything but evil
There is no more pleasant food for the soul than the knowledge of truth. - Lactantius

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4328

Posted 11/11/05 - 06:42 PM:	#4
midnightbarber wrote: Therefore, if free choice exists, then God cannot [have] omniscience. Argh. Please read the following thread carefully, if you really want to delve into this topic: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/9766 I still have nightmares when I think of it .
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

acumensch
an anti-hero

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Location: Seattle, Washington
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 31

Posted 11/15/05 - 03:06 AM:	#5
now, i have argued something similar with you, Mariner and Philosophy, remember? Which arguments would you say are commonly seen in the forums? Which ones are you tired of seeing over and over?
Man is something to be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? http://aeconomics.blogspot.com/

philosophy
Sapiens

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2005
Location: Ivory Tower
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 283

Posted 11/15/05 - 06:26 AM:	#6
that would be a good thread topic actually
There is no more pleasant food for the soul than the knowledge of truth. - Lactantius

Crazy
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 10, 2005
Location: My own little world.
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 448

Posted 11/15/05 - 07:46 AM:	#7
This is what happens when you try to explain God in human terms, and then try to say "How can this be?" It is beyond our understanding, and that is why it confuses us so. Maybe the answer is a simple one, he is God and he can do anything.He is not bound by our rules, because he created these rules. Not the other way around.
"He is useless atop the ground. He ought to be under it, inspiring the cabbages."-Mark Twain

abba
Servant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Location: Sarasota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 432

Posted 11/15/05 - 08:36 AM:	#8
I agree with Crazy (does that make me crazy?) Thinking of God as some Super-Entity is wrong-headed in that it leads us to think we can somehow define his "super-ness" or his "entity-ness", since we have so labeled him. We may have beliefs about God, or even make suppositions about him; but to make logical conclusions about God & think they have any truth-value is (how shall I say it) - - crazy.

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 4328

Posted 11/18/05 - 02:00 AM:	#9
acumensch wrote: Which arguments would you say are commonly seen in the forums? Which ones are you tired of seeing over and over? I have no idea . I miss many of the old topics (I quite enjoyed the discussion on the Creation or Evolution thread, for example, which is very "old"). I guess it depends on one's moods .
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

shmaron
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 21, 2005
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 89

Posted 11/18/05 - 03:40 AM:	#10
Mariner wrote: Argh. Please read the following thread carefully, if you really want to delve into this topic: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/9766 I still have nightmares when I think of it . Thank you for directing us to that thread, Mariner. I've spent the past several hours reading it. Very interesting! Moving Finger argued for the incompatibility of free-will and God's omniscience. Mariner/Morrandir opposed this position. This is Moving Finger's argument (PNP described at the start is just a premise used in the argument): Moving Finger wrote: Principle of the Necessity of the Past (PNP) : Let "now-necessary" designate temporal necessity, the type of necessity that the past is supposed to have just because it is past. To say that it is now-necessary that milk has been spilled yesterday is to say that nothing can be done now about the fact that milk has been spilled yesterday. In other words : The past is the past – and by virtue of the fact that it is the past it is now fixed (we have no power today to change or to affect what happened yesterday in any way). Let A = “Bush chooses to invade Iraq in March 2003” (1) We suppose that at all times God knows A. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge or omniscience] (2) We suppose the principle of the necessity of the past. (3) If B occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that B occurred. [2] (4) It is now-necessary that at all times in the past God knows A. [1,3] (5) Necessarily, if God knows A, then A. [Definition of "infallibility"] (6) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity] (7) So it is now-necessary that A. [4,5,6] (8) If it is now-necessary that A, then Bush cannot do otherwise than decide to invade Iraq in March 2003. [Definition of "necessary"] (9) Therefore, Bush cannot do otherwise than decide to invade Iraq in March 2003. [7, 8] (10) If one cannot do otherwise when one acts, one does not act freely. (11) Therefore, when Bush decides to invade Iraq in March 2003, he does not do it freely. [9, 10] Very lucid, and I agree with it. This particular exposition of the argument was given late in the thread. Mariner did not reply to it. Morrandir replied to it but did not seem to understand it. For example, in response to statements (6) and (7), Morrandir said: Morrandir wrote: You have only this far showed that if Bush has decided to invade Iraq in March 2003, it is necessary that this is so - and thus he could not have decided to invade Iraw in March 2003. Even if the Aristotelian view is bypassed, this only goes on to show that if p has happened, p cannot be undone. What this has to do with God's omniscience and man's freedom, I cannot fathom. This misunderstanding was a common theme in the thread. Moving Finger was not trying to show that p "cannot be undone". Indeed, Moving Finger even explicitly said the "necessity of the past" is an assertion in his argument. Moving Finger's point is that the necessity of the decision is what precludes Bush from exercising free-will (as is explained in the argument). I would like to see the above argument by Moving Finger given an examination in this thread. The old thread sort of died off after Moving Finger posted it and pointed out Morrandir's misunderstanding of it. Perhaps it died off because the opponents realised they had no satisfactory counter-argument. I don't know. It will be interesting to see how it is analysed in this thread. I'll also mention that it was evident to me was that the opponents of the argument (not so much Mariner, moreso Morrandir and others) seemed to have a very confused concept of free will. They seemed to think this: In God's frame of reference (i.e. he's "outside time"), our future is set and he knows what will happen (since he is omniscient). However, in our frame of reference, the future is not set and this gives us scope to exercise our free will. That is, even though our future, from God's perspective, is set and we cannot change it, we still have the choice to choose either A or B in a given situation. That is, we will choose A, say, and God knows this. But we are still free to chose B - that is, we "can" chose B, even though we necessarily won't. I believe this is a very curious position to take. From God's perspective: we will necessarily choose A (and he knows it), but we have the freedom to choose B. Interesting. But now, if we have the freedom to choose B, then we can choose B. And if we can choose B, then it is possible that we can choose B. Is this combatible with the fact that we will necessarily choose A? I don't see how. However, others do, and I would love to hear why.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.