How does one come to believe something?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well now you're claiming the absurd...you're saying that the "future" has already happened. I can only assume that you don't understand the word "future" or you don't understand how time works

The only way he can make his confused ideas work is by invoking omnitemporality, the idea that the universe is a 4D Parminidean block of space & time, and God has access to the entire physical timeline, so He can see what is, to us, the future. The main problem with this is that it kills free will; if God can see what we will do, then from the omnitemporal view it must have already happened, it must be fixed in the timeline; we just don't know it yet. This means that, although it doesn't feel that way, we have no choice to do other than what God knows we will do because it is fixed in our future.

E.T.A. Oops! gazumped by Freodin...

 

[Freodin]

The only way he can make his confused ideas work is by invoking omnitemporality, the idea that the universe is a 4D Parminidean block of space & time, and God has access to the entire physical timeline, so He can see what is, to us, the future. The main problem with this is that it kills free will; if God can see what we will do, then from the omnitemporal view it must have already happened, it must be fixed in the timeline; we just don't know it yet. This means that, although it doesn't feel that way, we have no choice to do other than what God knows we will do because it is fixed in our future.

E.T.A. Oops! gazumped by Freodin...

Slight disagreement. I don't think that this is what kills free will. Of course, this "free will" would not exist from the "outside" of this continuum... but it could still be used as an agent within it.

The real problem arise when we assume that the "outside" (here: God) directly and deliberately caused the "inside".
In the first case, we have no choice to do other than what God knows... but we still do so because of "our" decision. In the second case, we have not choice of our own... "our" choice was already preordained by God.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Slight disagreement. I don't think that this is what kills free will. Of course, this "free will" would not exist from the "outside" of this continuum... but it could still be used as an agent within it.

Yes, there are various ways to look at it; I'm treating it from the point of view that free will entails being able to freely choose between options, and that if our future actions are set (or known), God or no God, we don't have free choice, i.e. we cannot choose other than what is set in our future timeline. From our perspective as entities moving along that timeline, it feels as if we have free choice because we are unaware that we couldn't do otherwise.

The real problem arise when we assume that the "outside" (here: God) directly and deliberately caused the "inside".
In the first case, we have no choice to do other than what God knows... but we still do so because of "our" decision. In the second case, we have not choice of our own... "our" choice was already preordained by God.

In the omnitemporal 4D block universe I don't think there is any choice - whether God effectively forces the decision or not. It's not so much a question of action, but of logical consequence - if God has foreknowledge and/or the universe is omnitemporal, there are no alternate possibilities; like a book or a movie, the action and the ending are fixed, when you're halfway through it, you may not know the ending, and you may be surprised by it, but you can't change it.

In order to freely choose to do action A it must be possible not to do action A, but if we were always going to do action A (or 'we always will have done' action A), there is no possibility of not doing it, and so no free choice. Suppose, one day, that the next day contains the event of you doing action A, but when the next day comes you decide to do action B instead; then it would not be the case on the previous day that tomorrow contained the event of you doing action A. It's logically incoherent that it could be both A and not-A, and you can't change the past by changing the future (unless you want to open up a very large barrel of worms).

Of course, this all assumes foreknowledge and/or omnitemporalism.

 

[Freodin]

Yes, there are various ways to look at it; I'm treating it from the point of view that free will entails being able to freely choose between options, and that if our future actions are set (or known), God or no God, we don't have free choice, i.e. we cannot choose other than what is set in our future timeline. From our perspective as entities moving along that timeline, it feels as if we have free choice because we are unaware that we couldn't do otherwise.

In the omnitemporal 4D block universe I don't think there is any choice - whether God effectively forces the decision or not. It's not so much a question of action, but of logical consequence - if God has foreknowledge and/or the universe is omnitemporal, there are no alternate possibilities; like a book or a movie, the action and the ending are fixed, when you're halfway through it, you may not know the ending, and you may be surprised by it, but you can't change it.

In order to freely choose to do action A it must be possible not to do action A, but if we were always going to do action A (or 'we always will have done' action A), there is no possibility of not doing it, and so no free choice. Suppose, one day, that the next day contains the event of you doing action A, but when the next day comes you decide to do action B instead; then it would not be the case on the previous day that tomorrow contained the event of you doing action A. It's logically incoherent that it could be both A and not-A, and you can't change the past by changing the future (unless you want to open up a very large barrel of worms).

Of course, this all assumes foreknowledge and/or omnitemporalism.

Yes, that is a complicated problem, worthy of a real philosophical discussion.

I always saw it under the aspect that, rather than you being limited in your choice by the "existing timeline", it is the timeline being limited to your choice.

But neither works under the assumption of an outside omniscient omnipotent creator.

 

[ScottA]

OK, we have agreed on "the rules". This is the basis for our continued discussion, this is what you demanded to be that basis. So let's talk "facts".

"The God that you describe, the very specific version of the Christian God that you describe, every version of the Christian God... does not exist.
This has been established to me, even if it has not been established to you."

Okay, that is 2 statements...great points of distinction:

1. "The God I describe." = I have told you only facts.
2. "Every version of the Christian God." = Many speak of variation that are simply due to different perspective/vantage points. Many are invented out of what the individual wants and needs, but are not factual.

 

[Freodin]

Okay, that is 2 statements...great points of distinction:

1. "The God I describe." = I have told you only facts.
2. "Every version of the Christian God." = Many speak of variation that are simply due to different perspective/vantage points. Many are invented out of what the individual wants and needs, but are not factual.

You didn't answer my question. But ok, I rephrase.

"The God you describe, of which you only tell me facts... this God does not exist. This has been established to me, even if it has not been established to you."

Fact or "mere claim"?

 

[ScottA]

You didn't answer my question. But ok, I rephrase.

"The God you describe, of which you only tell me facts... this God does not exist. This has been established to me, even if it has not been established to you."

Fact or "mere claim"?

The two parts of your statement do not agree, so in separating them #1 is a fact from me to you, while #2 is a mix of facts and mere claims, as well as outright lies.

But it is important to be clear about where and with whom a stated fact is established or unestablished...which is why I answered in terms of what I have stated to you and have called them what they are to me rather than what they are to you.

It would be good to consider this type of discussion like two pen pals, one from the east and one from the west. We would find ourselves agreeing on things like the sun sets in the west, but disagreeing perhaps on whether the sun sets over the mountains or over the sea. What would emerge (if we let it and don't simply deny the other's info as has been done thus far), is a description of what we each perhaps cannot otherwise see. But I am being generous...I have been both to the west and to the east, and so what you say I know also, and yet what I say, you will have know way of verifying...short of taking the trip.

 

[Freodin]

The two parts of your statement do not agree, so in separating them #1 is a fact from me to you, while #2 is a mix of facts and mere claims, as well as outright lies.

But it is important to be clear about where and with whom a stated fact is established or unestablished...which is why I answered in terms of what I have stated to you and have called them what they are to me rather than what they are to you.

It would be good to consider this type of discussion like two pen pals, one from the east and one from the west. We would find ourselves agreeing on things like the sun sets in the west, but disagreeing perhaps on whether the sun sets over the mountains or over the sea. What would emerge (if we let it and don't simply deny the other's info as has been done thus far), is a description of what we each perhaps cannot otherwise see. But I am being generous...I have been both to the west and to the east, and so what you say I know also, and yet what I say, you will have know way of verifying...short of taking the trip.

Ok, this is all I wanted to know.
You are allowed to call my statements "lies" instead of "facts", even if they have been established to me, but not to you. But I am not allowed to call your statements "claims" instead of "facts"... for exactly the same reason.

So your "rules" do exist only to give you an advantage in this discussion... basically a rule that declares you correct, and prohibits everyone to disagree with you.

This is not the way to have a conversation. And, yes, this is rude!

Don't bother to respond to that post. Thanks for your time.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I have told you only facts.

Or not. There doesn't seem to be any way to tell.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok, this is all I wanted to know.
You are allowed to call my statements "lies" instead of "facts", even if they have been established to me, but not to you. But I am not allowed to call your statements "claims" instead of "facts"... for exactly the same reason.

So your "rules" do exist only to give you an advantage in this discussion... basically a rule that declares you correct, and prohibits everyone to disagree with you.

This is not the way to have a conversation. And, yes, this is rude!

Don't bother to respond to that post. Thanks for your time.

Just normal operating procedure.

 

[bhsmte]

The two parts of your statement do not agree, so in separating them #1 is a fact from me to you, while #2 is a mix of facts and mere claims, as well as outright lies.

But it is important to be clear about where and with whom a stated fact is established or unestablished...which is why I answered in terms of what I have stated to you and have called them what they are to me rather than what they are to you.

It would be good to consider this type of discussion like two pen pals, one from the east and one from the west. We would find ourselves agreeing on things like the sun sets in the west, but disagreeing perhaps on whether the sun sets over the mountains or over the sea. What would emerge (if we let it and don't simply deny the other's info as has been done thus far), is a description of what we each perhaps cannot otherwise see. But I am being generous...I have been both to the west and to the east, and so what you say I know also, and yet what I say, you will have know way of verifying...short of taking the trip.

LOL

 

[HitchSlap]

Okay, that is 2 statements...great points of distinction:

1. "The God I describe." = I have told you only facts.
2. "Every version of the Christian God." = Many speak of variation that are simply due to different perspective/vantage points. Many are invented out of what the individual wants and needs, but are not factual.

Facts can be independently verified.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I always saw it under the aspect that, rather than you being limited in your choice by the "existing timeline", it is the timeline being limited to your choice.

Yes, that's another way to think of it, although it's still only an apparent choice; the appearance of choice is an abstraction, contingent on a possible world, where circumstances are different and a different decision is made. It's kind of a tacit appeal to modal realism, as if that possible alternate world has an equal ontological standing with our own. But the circumstances in our world are what they are; the appearance of choice is illusory.

E.T.A. come to think of it, modal realism seems suspiciously similar to Everettian Many Worlds...

... neither works under the assumption of an outside omniscient omnipotent creator.

Very little does

 

[Freodin]

Just normal operating procedure.

Yes, I know. I can't say I really expected anything else.

Just...

... coming in here and declaring disagreeing with him to be "rude". Making up rules that keep people from expressing doubt in his statements.

And then, when you agree to his "rules"... he cannot make TWO POSTS BEFORE BREAKING HIS OWN RULES!!!

What kind of "truth" is that?

(Sorry, rant, I am livid right now.)

 

[ScottA]

Ok, this is all I wanted to know.
You are allowed to call my statements "lies" instead of "facts", even if they have been established to me, but not to you. But I am not allowed to call your statements "claims" instead of "facts"... for exactly the same reason.

So your "rules" do exist only to give you an advantage in this discussion... basically a rule that declares you correct, and prohibits everyone to disagree with you.

This is not the way to have a conversation. And, yes, this is rude!

Don't bother to respond to that post. Thanks for your time.

That is not what I meant...but rather, that you had been lied to by certain others who have made false claims in the name of Christianity. And if you are going to let your emotions rule our discussion, indeed, we will not get far.

 

[Freodin]

That is not what I meant...but rather, that you had been lied to by certain others who have made false claims in the name of Christianity. And if you are going to let your emotions rule our discussion, indeed, we will not get far.

I know that I will regret that, but I just cannot stop my endless optimism. Ok, so I misunderstood your intentions with your post.

Let's try again then.

"The God you describe, of which you only tell me facts... this God does not exist. This has been established to me, even if it has not been established to you."

No "certain others" involved. Just you. "The God YOU describe". "Of which YOU only tell me facts". If you don't want to say that YOU lied to me by making false claims in the name of Christianity... then you should drop that argument.

I won't even go into your stating that now the "certain others" are making "lies" and "false claims"... these "certain others" are not here to assert that these things have been established to them. So you are still about safe within your "rules". (Though it is still rude to bend your rules this way.)

So, ok. My statement stands. "The God that you are talking about does not exist." This has been established to me, even if it has not been established to you.

Now, considering that "rule" that you insisted is the basis of our conversation: IS THAT A FACT OR A CLAIM?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I know that I will regret that, but I just cannot stop my endless optimism. Ok, so I misunderstood your intentions with your post.

Let's try again then.

"The God you describe, of which you only tell me facts... this God does not exist. This has been established to me, even if it has not been established to you."

No "certain others" involved. Just you. "The God YOU describe". "Of which YOU only tell me facts". If you don't want to say that YOU lied to me by making false claims in the name of Christianity... then you should drop that argument.

I won't even go into your stating that now the "certain others" are making "lies" and "false claims"... these "certain others" are not here to assert that these things have been established to them. So you are still about safe within your "rules". (Though it is still rude to bend your rules this way.)

So, ok. My statement stands. "The God that you are talking about does not exist." This has been established to me, even if it has not been established to you.

Now, considering that "rule" that you insisted is the basis of our conversation: IS THAT A FACT OR A CLAIM?

I think he's trying to get you to blow a blood vessel in your head.

 

[Freodin]

I think he's trying to get you to blow a blood vessel in your head.

No, I don't think he's trying to do that. And I am quite robust... I have lived for almost 47 years with someone who had perfected the pouting "what did I do?" position.

Though my brother had the excuse of a mental handicap...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, I know. I can't say I really expected anything else.

Just...

... coming in here and declaring disagreeing with him to be "rude". Making up rules that keep people from expressing doubt in his statements.

And then, when you agree to his "rules"... he cannot make TWO POSTS BEFORE BREAKING HIS OWN RULES!!!

What kind of "truth" is that?

(Sorry, rant, I am livid right now.)

It can be frustrating, but it's a good test of patience; in that respect you're not wasting your time.

 

[ScottA]

As I said, seeing and knowing take time. Claims like 'instantly' in such contexts are metaphorical descriptions.

The context is indeed metaphorical, as we exist within a "created" reality. As such, it is my intention to convey that all matters of time are completely contrived, and only exist on a timeline as a form of media for the sake of telling the story (history, is God's story).

My attitude in this forum is to encourage and support logical, rational argument, i.e. philosophical argument. I see no reason to change that, and I don't need your permission to continue.

That is not the reception that I have received. The fact that you find the information that I have brought to the table to be ridiculous, does not mean that it is...and you should have made exceptions, being that we are having these discussions on a Christian forum where you are guest, and for the fact that it involves the greatest mystery of all time.