Determinism is bugging me big time :-(

[quatona]

Quatona, no disrespect taken! I can't blame you for not wanting to rewrite that. I suppose letting you post twice in a row defeats the point of restricting the size of your posts. So the second might have replaced the first.

Well, in any case it´s safe to say that I did something wrong.

I'm going to have to think a bit about a definition of meaning (my definition) and get back to you. It might help if you were to explain the relationship between consciousness and meaning (your definition). Maybe you did this in part one. That was what I was most looking forward to

Yes, I did address it, but rather than giving much thought to a definition of consciousness I tried to explain that "consciousness" was not really the essential criterium of my approach and therefore a tangent that - although certainly interesting - would not really help with understanding my definition of meaning. Neither is the focus on "someone vs. something" of much relevance, imo.
I encounter things as meaningful. I encounter other persons expressing things as meaningful. Any such perception and expression of meaning is meaning, for me. Now, granted, it appears to be obvious that it requires consciousness to perceive and/or express something - but that´s not really a requirement I have determined for there to be meaning, but rather close to a synonym. If anything, I would - vice versa - define "consciousness" as the ability to attach meaning. In any case, I feel a circular definition coming our way, and this would not really be helpful, would it?

When I say meaning I mean objective meaning. I think we could even call our definitions objective meaning (mine) and subjective meaning (yours).

For me, we can do that provisionally, but until I even get an idea what a concept "objective meaning" is supposed to point to, this distinction doesn´t tell me anything.
In my use of the term subjectivity is a given when I say "meaning". "Objective meaning" to me is an oxymoron in the same way as "objective desire", "objective preference", "objective feeling" or "objective thought" would be.

You may think it scary that I require so much of meaning, but I feel that you expect so little of it that it may as well not exist.

It may come across as pedantic but I think it´s important to note that "require of meaning" is not an accurate wording and potentially misleading when it comes to my notion. I am merely talking about the definition of words, not of something I assume to be out there and from which I expect something.
The question what is required for me and you to find life worth living is may possibly be the keyquestion - but not the question "What do I require from meaning?". You have a concept that you call "meaning" and I have a concept that I call "meaning"; chances are that they don´t have much to do with each other and we just happen to use the same word for completely different concepts. That´s the problem in our communication, and it´s a mere semantics problem. If it helps any, I am willing to call the concept I am used to call "meaning" "buttermilk" in order to avoid this false equivocation issue.

The "consciousness" tangent may help with this.

I assure you that it won´t help with understanding my position. I didn´t make the statement "I demand consciousness for there to be meaning". I even think it was you who brought up the term "consciousness" when you tried to paraphrase my notions and the implications you feel can be drawn from it.

However, if you feel that understanding "consciousness (Bushwig definition)" helps with understanding "meaning (Bushwig definition)" I would be very happy to hear your definitions.

Whether or not the suffering of a hypothetical person is meaningful (my definition) depends on their free will.

Well, I have yet to see a logically sound concept attached to the term "freewill". I can´t fathom a third option besides determination and random.
Are you working from the assumption that non-human animals have "freewill"? If not so, is the sufffering of my cat "meaningless (your definition)?

For your definition it would depend only on consciousness.

No, it is basically the same as consciousness.
Suffering is when someone/something suffers, just like a desire is when someone/something desires something and a feeling is when someone/something feels something. If I were to define "consciousness" I guess these would be the criteria for calling something/someone "conscious", rather than the other way round.

I think I'm going to need this clarified before we can continue. What do you think makes an object/entity/being conscious?

The fact that it is able to attach meaning, I guess.

Also, the statement "it would be but an illusion" doesn´t make any sense in my notion of "meaning", any more than I would call a feeling, a thought or a memory "illusion", or would be disappointed if people conclude that without them being objective (whatever that might mean in this context) they would be but "illusions".
"Oh boy, this tastes good!" - "Well, but unless you can demonstrate that it objectively tastes good, this is but an illusion." - "So what?"

I'm afraid I don't have any decent recording facilities, and I think the broadband connections available here (I live in South Africa) are a bit primitive for online collaborations and such (it's quite slow and our monthly usage is capped at 3GB). This is because we have only one telecommunications company here and they have a ridiculous monopoly. But that's another story

I see. I have done a couple of recording collaborations via internet and it was fun. (Not sure it had "meaning (Buswhwig definition)", though. )

What put you off music therapy?

I don´t know. I guess it was just not sufficiently attractive to me for spending all that effort and money on a formal education.
On another note, I can´t help the impression that my lessons often are therapy rather than anything else, anyways (for both parties involved).

 

[Triad]

As for omniscience, I believe that God is never restricted to parameters.

I'm talking rather about the parameters that He knows humans are restricted to.

You say above that God isn't restricted to parameters. However, in the last response to me, you said quite the opposite:

An omniscient being... has to know everything, certain or possible.
​

So you did acknowledge that an omniscient being must know the parameters of what's possible.

I think that it is quite possible for him to know what decisions we are going to make without determining those decisions.

I would say this assessment doesn't quite characterize the condition of parameters. I agree that He can know what we're going to do without determining our decisions, but that doesn't answer the idea of parameters/possibilities. The idea of parameters isn't dependent on who the determining agent is.

If anything, I would - vice versa - define "consciousness" as the ability to attach meaning. In any case, I feel a circular definition coming our way, and this would not really be helpful, would it?

Yeah, it puts us back at square one, because the term "meaning" is just as nebulous as the term "consciousness". Likewise, what is the process of "attaching" that you're alluding to?

Maybe instead of first trying to offer a strict definition for consciousness, we could list some of its possible components. These various things could either be necessary components, or components that are optional but if present would always consist of consciousness.

Could we say that an agent that gives an internal response not based on artificial engineering is exhibiting conscious qualities?

Could we say that an agent that carries out an internal action not based on artificial engineering is exhibiting conscious qualities?

What's the most fundamental useful thing we can say about consciousness while still distinguishing it from unconsciousness?

Are consciousness and perception equivalents?

Can any of these things exist outside of consciousness: thinking, sentience, intelligence, awareness.

 

[quatona]

Yeah, it puts us back at square one, because the term "meaning" is just as nebulous as the term "consciousness". Likewise, what is the process of "attaching" that you're alluding to?

Well, I haven´t brought up the term "consciousness" and it plays no essential part for my definition of meaning.
I suspect that a great many philosophical problem stem from reification:
We observe an action or a property, we have term to label them (verbs, adjectives), and for some strange (actually merely grammatical reason), we form a noun of them, and since there´s a noun people assume there must be some sort of object that "exists".
I would keep to my initial definition "meaning" is the abstract noun for the fact that something means something to me. I have reason to assume that others encounter this, too. Something means something to them.
Sure, since I haven´t communicated with anyone/anything that wasn´t conscious, aware, sentient, feeling, intelligent etc. I naturally get such statement only from entities that have those properties (and vice versa).

Maybe instead of first trying to offer a strict definition for consciousness, we could list some of its possible components. These various things could either be necessary components, or components that are optional but if present would always consist of consciousness.

I wouldn´t know what it would help with for the actual question at hand, but sure that would be a viable approach, imo.

Could we say that an agent that gives an internal response not based on artificial engineering is exhibiting conscious qualities?

Sure we could say that. I suspect, though, that actually we determine whether an agent can be assumed to give an internal response by our preconception that they are conscious.
On another note, I don´t seem to understand "artificial engineering". Artificial engineering as opposed to what? Natural engineering?
I wouldn´t know why to a priori determine that "articificial engineering" (whatever that is) can not result in consciousness and why "natural engineering" (whatever that is) can, does, or even necessarily does.

Could we say that an agent that carries out an internal action not based on artificial engineering is exhibiting conscious qualities?

See my response above.

What's the most fundamental useful thing we can say about consciousness while still distinguishing it from unconsciousness?

I don´t know. I even doubt that drawing a clear line is useful for anything.

Are consciousness and perception equivalents?

I perceive and I am conscious, I feel and I think, things are meaningful to me. I wouldn´t know how any of this could be without the others.

Can any of these things exist outside of consciousness: thinking, sentience, intelligence, awareness.

Counterquestion:
Can any of these things exist outside of awareness: consciousnes, thinking, sentience, intelligence?
Can any of these exist outside of sentience: Thinking, awareness, consciousness, intelligence?
Etc. You get the idea.

All these terms are the helpless attempts to distinguish a state that we experience ourselves in from a state that we don´t even know and cannot fathom, and can never experience. See there, "experience" would also fit in the collection of terms above. At the point when this state ends we don´t ask these questions anymore.
Awareness is when someone experiences himself to be aware.
Consciousness is when someone experiences himself to be conscious.
Intelligence is when someone experiences himself to be intelligent.
Sentience is when someone experiences himself to be sentient.
Thoughts are when someone experiences himself as thinking.
Experience is when someone experiences himself as experiencing.
Meaning is when something means something to someone.


Whether my thoughts, feelings, experiences, premeditations are determined or randomly generated doesn´t make any difference for the fact that they are my reality.

 

[BushwigBill]

Quatona, perhaps I misunderstood you, but I said that I didn't see any meaning in the picture of an apple falling from a tree (and the implication that the apple was "acting"), and you said that if I were a conscious apple I would feel differently.

What I've been trying to get at (and you seem to agree) is that it's not easy to draw a solid line between what's conscious and what isn't. In a deterministic universe, I think that one could ascribe consciousness and cognition to a number of "inanimate" objects just as easily as to humans. For example, a river could be said to "think" when navigating a path through a valley. There is an input (terrain, obstacles etc.), cognition (its particles react, as would the electrons in our brain when we "think"), and an output (the river adjusts its course). Obstacles in its path could even have meaning (your definition) in that they affect its actions.

I see what you mean about objective meaning being an oxymoron for you. I suppose the best way to put it is that something with objective meaning would have meaning for everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not. I don't know if this helps at all.

It seems to me that if meaning is entirely subjective and relative (your definition), perhaps not only to humans but to animals, rivers, trees, rocks etc. then there is no meaning, only an infinite number of conflicting and useless fabrications. When I say useless what I mean is that this sense of what means (your definition) something does not help to guide our actions as we know that from millions of other perspectives it means (your definition) nothing at all.

But if there is something objective on which to hang all of this relativity (this could be comparable to introducing constants into an equation of variables, thus enabling one to solve the equation), suddenly it's not just relative anymore and cannot be self-contradictory. This scenario provides objective guidance and meaning (my definition) for our actions which is why I think it should be assumed.

Meaning (my definition) hinges on free will rather than consciousness, so my definition of consciousness isn't really relevant.

As for your idea of concepts being formed from hypothetical noun forms of adjectives or verbs, I don't see why anyone would use a word (never mind this word actually catching on) in a certain context unless that context existed first.

I don't believe that animals have free will as that seems to lead to a variety of moral dilemmas (in fact I'd say the collapse of morality). Without morality there is no guidance for our actions, so I like to assume it's out there in an objective sense. Your cat's suffering would have meaning (my definition) through its relation to your life in the same sense as suffering depicted in a statue or book or film.

Experience is when someone experiences himself as experiencing.
Meaning is when something means something to someone.

Are you trying to illustrate by these circular definitions that either there is no such thing as meaning or experience, or if there is you have no idea what they are? Or are you saying that because we are in a certain state it is impossible to analyze that state?

Triad, I am saying that an omniscient being should know in advance the results of any hypothetical actions in a given situation but not be restricted to these alone. He should also know which of these actions are to be taken. I don't think that I have contradicted this anywhere.

Perhaps an example would make this more clear. Say I am watching someone cross a busy street and notice a truck heading straight for them. Lets assume my options in this situation are:
a) do nothing
b) call out to this person in the hope that they notice me in time
c) leap forward and try to pull this person out of the road
Now, an omniscient observer would know the exact result of each action in advance. They would also know which action I was going to select. If I were omniscient, I would know the result of each action and would be able to make a more informed decision.

 

[quatona]

Quatona, perhaps I misunderstood you, but I said that I didn't see any meaning in the picture of an apple falling from a tree (and the implication that the apple was "acting"), and you said that if I were a conscious apple I would feel differently.

Ok, I went back to the post in question, and indeed I was the one using the term "conscious" first. Thus, my apologies for the confusion.
I wasn´t expecting the Spanish Inquisition, though.
I used it loosely and as a synonym for "perceiving/creating meaning". I could as well have written: "If you were an apple that perceives/creates meaning I´m sure you would find your falling off the tree meaningful".
Hope that clears it up. Sorry again for being unprecise.

What I've been trying to get at (and you seem to agree) is that it's not easy to draw a solid line between what's conscious and what isn't.

This is true for most every definition of "conscious" I have heard. Categories and distinctions are made to serve a certain purpose (and the definitions of words used can be dramatically different depending on the purpose). Most categories and distinctions are sufficiently clear in the context of the given purpose, but tend to loose any usability if taken out of any context.
Typically, we have no problems communicating sufficiently successully when using the term "red". However, the entirely philosophical, academic and contextless questions "Where does red end and yellow begin? Where´s the clear line between red and yellow?" can not be answered, unless we are willing to draw an arbitrary line for practical purposes.

In a deterministic universe, I think that one could ascribe consciousness and cognition to a number of "inanimate" objects just as easily as to humans. For example, a river could be said to "think" when navigating a path through a valley. There is an input (terrain, obstacles etc.), cognition (its particles react, as would the electrons in our brain when we "think"), and an output (the river adjusts its course). Obstacles in its path could even have meaning (your definition) in that they affect its actions.

Well, sure you can do that. On the other hand, in a "freewill" (and I´m still wondering what that might be) universe we could as well ascribe "freewill" to this river, unless our premise is that rivers don´t have "freewill" (premise=conclusion).
Anyways, I´ll be the first one to admit that we can´t entirely exclude that a river experiences, perceives, thinks, feels, premeditates whathaveyou in a similar way that I do.

I see what you mean about objective meaning being an oxymoron for you. I suppose the best way to put it is that something with objective meaning would have meaning for everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not. I don't know if this helps at all.

No, sorry, that´s confusing me rather than anything else. It implies that meaning can have meaning (I can´t make sense out of this). Maybe you can give me an example for a meaning that has meaning for me without me acknowledging it as meaningful?

In order to give you an idea what my problem is in even understanding what you say here, allow me to give a similarly structured statement:
In order for something to objectively taste good it would have to taste good for everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not.

It seems to me that if meaning is entirely subjective and relative (your definition), perhaps not only to humans but to animals, rivers, trees, rocks etc. then there is no meaning,

Hang on, I need to understand this: You actually mean "If meaning is entirely subjective then there is no space for meaning (Bushwig definition)", right?

only an infinite number of conflicting and useless fabrications.
When I say useless what I mean is that this sense of what means (your definition) something does not help to guide our actions as we know that from millions of other perspectives it means (your definition) nothing at all.

I don´t know that. I have no major problems with finding criteria the help me guiding my actions. The fact that others may have other criteria doesn´t pose a problem for the fact that my premeditations appear to by and large go smoothly.
On another note, why would there have to be such thing as a guide in a determined universe? It would be entirely useless, wouldn´t it? (See, I can impose the paradigms of my view on yours just the way you impose yours on mine - I don´t think this leads anywhere, though).

But if there is something objective on which to hang all of this relativity (this could be comparable to introducing constants into an equation of variables, thus enabling one to solve the equation), suddenly it's not just relative anymore and cannot be self-contradictory.

I´m sorry, Bushwig, but as long as you haven´t properly defined "objective" I have serious problems even knowing what you are talking about and following your line of reasoning. Since "objective" is the keyterm of your entire approach I think I am justified in asking for a proper definition.

This scenario provides objective guidance and meaning (my definition) for our actions which is why I think it should be assumed.

Well, here´s my take on it: If there were such an "objective guidance and meaning" (whatever that might meaning out there - I am still struggling with understanding what concepts these terms might possibly refer to) out there, and it would turn out to be contrary to my experiences (E.g. everything that´s meaningful to me is not "objectively meaningful" and vice versa) I wouldn´t give a rat´s butt for this "objective guidance and meaning" in the same way that I would remain indifferent to the hypothetical fact that garlic tastes "objectively" good. It still would taste bad to me, and that´s that.

Meaning (my definition) hinges on free will rather than consciousness, so my definition of consciousness isn't really relevant.

Neither does mine, that´s why I suggested to drop this irrelevant tangent altogether.
However, a lot in your arguments hinges on your definition of "meaning" and "freewill", and if you want me to understand you, I´d urge you to provide me with those soon. Without them contemplating on your elaborations is sort of a blind flight for me, and that´s beginning to frustrate me.

As for your idea of concepts being formed from hypothetical noun forms of adjectives or verbs, I don't see why anyone would use a word (never mind this word actually catching on) in a certain context unless that context existed first.

I´m not sure I understand what you are saying here, sorry, nor how it relates to what I said.
Anyway, it´s safe to assume that people usually have a certain context in mind, but often they don´t mention it, and on top aren´t aware how their conclusions depend on the given context. Recent example: Over in GA a guy asked "What´s more important: happiness or truth?". It´s safe to assume that he is working from a certain context, but he doesn´t communicate this context and the way the question is worded suggests that it can be anwered without a context or frame of reference.

I don't believe that animals have free will as that seems to lead to a variety of moral dilemmas (in fact I'd say the collapse of morality).
Without morality there is no guidance for our actions, so I like to assume it's out there in an objective sense. Your cat's suffering would have meaning (my definition) through its relation to your life in the same sense as suffering depicted in a statue or book or film.

I don´t seem to understand how the assumption that cats have "freewill" would have any impact on your idea of morality. (But seeing that I haven´t even grasped your concept "freewill", in the first place, I guess that might be the problem.)

Are you trying to illustrate by these circular definitions that either there is no such thing as meaning or experience, or if there is you have no idea what they are? Or are you saying that because we are in a certain state it is impossible to analyze that state?

I tried to show how juggling with these terms is circular, to begin with.
Another thing I tried to communicate: I know what experience and meaning are - however, seeing that this is a result of my experiences and my habit to give meaning, I fail to see any way of extrapolating from this which remains in the context of my mind/experience/meaning/thoughts/... (no matter how many synonyms or near-synonyms I introduce) on a hypothetical equivalent outside the context or frame of reference of my mind/experience/thoughts/...

 

[Triad]

Whether my thoughts, feelings, experiences, premeditations are determined or randomly generated doesn´t make any difference for the fact that they are my reality.

But wouldn't that affect how you approach them? If you considered them to be random, then that would give you no responsibility for the outcomes, correct? If you considered them to be determined, then that would mean you would apply greater significance to them, correct? It's like the difference between playing a child's game that is pure chance (like Chutes and Ladders) vs. playing an adult's game that is based on skill (like chess). If life is merely a game of Chutes and Ladders where we have no control over it, then what's the point of trying to affect anything? But instead, if it's a game of chess where we are heavily involved in affecting the outcome, then this opens up a myriad of possibilities, and life is rich. It's the difference between being a passenger on a bus vs. being the bus driver. It's a world of difference.

Another apropos analogy would be the difference between a child being given $100 by their parents vs. working to earn it. When they work to earn it, it means more to them, and is more fulfilling.

On another note, I don´t seem to understand "artificial engineering". Artificial engineering as opposed to what? Natural engineering?
I wouldn´t know why to a priori determine that "articificial engineering" (whatever that is) can not result in consciousness and why "natural engineering" (whatever that is) can, does, or even necessarily does.

I'm guessing some sort of delineation could be made. A river is artificially influenced by gravity. A computer is artificially influenced by a programmer, and only responds as formatted or doesn't respond.

All these terms are the helpless attempts to distinguish a state that we experience ourselves in from a state that we don´t even know and cannot fathom, and can never experience. See there, "experience" would also fit in the collection of terms above. At the point when this state ends we don´t ask these questions anymore.

Thus it would appear to become merely a cyclical endeavor. Is that what our conclusion is?

I don't see why anyone would use a word (never mind this word actually catching on) in a certain context unless that context existed first.

I think it's a misnomer to say that context exists. Secondly, words are merely reflections of our perception. They don't represent any reality. They only have as much reality that we can assign to them, which is totally arbitrary. The words are no more than a description of something through our lens, that's all.

But if there is something objective on which to hang all of this relativity (this could be comparable to introducing constants into an equation of variables, thus enabling one to solve the equation), suddenly it's not just relative anymore and cannot be self-contradictory. This scenario provides objective guidance and meaning (my definition) for our actions which is why I think it should be assumed.

I think intellectually, we as humans have no objectivity on anything, and thus no objective meaning. However, spiritually or philosophically, I think the objectivity can be found, although still not effectively described. It cannot be put into a formula. It can only be reached on an individual level.

Forgive me if I missed any examples earlier, but can you offer anything in life from an intellectual standpoint that we as humans know objectively?

 

[quatona]

But wouldn't that affect how you approach them?

No, I don´t think so. Why would I?

If you considered them to be random, then that would give you no responsibility for the outcomes, correct?

I find "responsibility" to be a buzzword. I am doing the things I do, my actions have consequences and people respond and react to the things I do, and I have to live with the consequences and the response and reaction of the people. I have no idea what "responsibility" might possibly mean, beyond that.

If you considered them to be determined, then that would mean you would apply greater significance to them, correct?

No, I don´t think so. The only logically possible alternative to them being determined would be them being random, and I wouldn´t know why that would give them more significance.
These feelings and thoughts etc. affect me and are significant the way they do, no matter what their cause is. They are my world, my reality, after all.

It's like the difference between playing a child's game that is pure chance (like Chutes and Ladders) vs. playing an adult's game that is based on skill (like chess).

There´s a problem with such analogies: They are taken from a context in which they are comparable alternatives. They are taken from within our reality in which there exist adult and children games and in which they can be compared. There is no such alternative human condition to the human condition that is there. It is what it is. Wishing it were different, demanding certain properties from it is nonsense. It´s not like with different games - there is only one game and that game we play, nolens volens.

If life is merely a game of Chutes and Ladders where we have no control over it, then what's the point of trying to affect anything?

What do you mean "what´s the point"? In determinism everything is determined. If and when I am determined to try to affect anything I will do it. If I am not determined to try, I won´t.
On another note: "Control over" what? I have control - I am a determining factor just like everthing else is.
The idea that "I could have control over myself" is a logical impossibility. What in me controls what? What in me controls my decisions, and what again controls that which controls my decisions? How do I control my wants, and how do I control that instance that controls my wants and how do I control whether and how I want to control my wants? This is an infinite regression of ever more assumed instances of "me".

But instead, if it's a game of chess where we are heavily involved in affecting the outcome, then this opens up a myriad of possibilities, and life is rich.

I don´t know what sort of game Chutes and Ladders is (sorry, I am from Germany), but unless it is a game based on pure random - in which the analogy would fall flat on its face because I am not postulating random) I of course affect the outcome.

It's the difference between being a passenger on a bus vs. being the bus driver. It's a world of difference.

In a world where there are passengers and drivers this might be a good comparison. But there is only one human condition. We are either drivers whose driving is determined or drivers whose driving is random. There is only one of these options, and nothing to compare.
I am driving, I am premeditating where I will drive, I do everything that a driver does. The question whether these premeditations (and everything else he does) is determined or not makes no difference to this fact.

Another apropos analogy would be the difference between a child being given $100 by their parents vs. working to earn it. When they work to earn it, it means more to them, and is more fulfilling.

Except that you are again comparing the only option there is to a situation in which two options exist and can be compared.

Thus it would appear to become merely a cyclical endeavor. Is that what our conclusion is?

Yes, that´s about what I am trying to say.

Guys, tomorrow morning I´ll be off to a four week bicycle trip. So this discussion ends here for me, unfortunately. Thank you, Triad and Bushwig, the conversation was very enjoyable!

 

[Triad]

There is no such alternative human condition to the human condition that is there. It is what it is. Wishing it were different, demanding certain properties from it is nonsense. It´s not like with different games - there is only one game and that game we play, nolens volens.

Wasn't it you who suggested the dichotomy of determined vs. random?

On another note: "Control over" what? I have control - I am a determining factor just like everthing else is.

Control over which street the bus will turn at. The passengers are just along for the ride, and it's all random to them. (We're talking about a truly renegade bus driver, by the way, who makes his own rules.

Guys, tomorrow morning I´ll be off to a four week bicycle trip. So this discussion ends here for me, unfortunately. Thank you, Triad and Bushwig, the conversation was very enjoyable!

See, I knew it was a cyclical endeavor...

 

[BushwigBill]

Enjoy the trip Quatona. It's been good. Triad, I of course agree with you that free will should be assumed as there is no point in a deterministic universe. Obviously purpose and meaning are relative terms with no set definitions which I admit leaves room for debate here. In modern science as well as philosophical contemplations of existence we are often forced to consider counterintuitive explanations and I think this is one of those cases. For my will to be its own cause is far from a logical impossibility.

Thanks for the talk!

 

[The Madcap]

Before I start, I used to think Determinism was pretty reasonable to believe. Quantum Mechanics, which has been so very influential in Physics and Cosmology, basically tells determinism to go **** itself, however.

I'm a Christian. Always have been. But I've always liked to think of myself as pretty free-thinking.

Lately I've been wondering, if God knows everything, He must have known when he created Lucifer that he would rebel against Him. And when He created mankind and gave us free will, He knew that the fall of man would follow.

Lets define "God". In this case, I assume you're referring to the Christian god. All powerful and all knowing. This arguments firstly assumes God exists. If the god you're referring to "all-knowing" exists, and did something you do not understand, if this God is all-knowing, then he is more intelligent than us in every conceivable way. A cat cannot understand our far superior ability to reason because he is less intelligent. We might not be able to understand all of God's reasoning, because we are not of that kind of intelligence.

So my question to everyone is: Why does a loving God create a person, knowing that they will reject Him and go to Hell? And do we really have a choice in whether we accept or reject God, or does it all just come down to the way He chose to create us?

If anyone could shed some light on this for me I would greatly appreciate it.

Can't really say for sure. I'm not that intelligent to say for sure. Nor do I think anybody here is...

 

[funyun]

I'm a Christian. Always have been. But I've always liked to think of myself as pretty free-thinking.

Lately I've been wondering, if God knows everything, He must have known when he created Lucifer that he would rebel against Him. And when He created mankind and gave us free will, He knew that the fall of man would follow.

So my question to everyone is: Why does a loving God create a person, knowing that they will reject Him and go to Hell? And do we really have a choice in whether we accept or reject God, or does it all just come down to the way He chose to create us?

If anyone could shed some light on this for me I would greatly appreciate it.

I think the standard apologist answer is that yes, God does create you even though he knows what you will do, but that it is better to exist and have free will than to not have existed at all.

 

[Triad]

I think the standard apologist answer is that yes, God does create you even though he knows what you will do, but that it is better to exist and have free will than to not have existed at all.

funyun, this raises the question: How could God know about you before you existed?

It seems rather antithetical to me to be suggesting that it's possible to have knowledge of a thing that does not exist!

Please explain.

I don't see how even an omniscient being could know anything about something until and unless it exists.

 

[funyun]

funyun, this raises the question: How could God know about you before you existed?

It seems rather antithetical to me to be suggesting that it's possible to have knowledge of a thing that does not exist!

Please explain.

I don't see how even an omniscient being could know anything about something until and unless it exists.

Um, there's no real explanation for that. God's omniscient, according to theology. To a Christian it's all just magic.

 

[Triad]

Um, there's no real explanation for that. God's omniscient, according to theology. To a Christian it's all just magic.

But we're discussing it in a philosophical context in the Philosophy forum. We're not looking at it here from a theological perspective. It strikes me as completely illogical to say that there could be any knowledge available to something which does not exist — indeed it is not even a thing, nor is it a specific idea. So then, how could there be any knowledge of a non-thing? Completely antithetical. If one takes such a tack, then they're espousing the untenable and bizarre position that God knows about everything that does and everything that doesn't exist. It makes no sense. Unless you've got some other explanation.

 

[TeddyKGB]

But we're discussing it in a philosophical context in the Philosophy forum. We're not looking at it here from a theological perspective. It strikes me as completely illogical to say that there could be any knowledge available to something which does not exist — indeed it is not even a thing, nor is it a specific idea. So then, how could there be any knowledge of a non-thing? Completely antithetical. If one takes such a tack, then they're espousing the untenable and bizarre position that God knows about everything that does and everything that doesn't exist. It makes no sense. Unless you've got some other explanation.

As soon as you remove God from time and space, premises that depend in some way on either of those no longer obtain.

 

[funyun]

But we're discussing it in a philosophical context in the Philosophy forum. We're not looking at it here from a theological perspective. It strikes me as completely illogical to say that there could be any knowledge available to something which does not exist — indeed it is not even a thing, nor is it a specific idea. So then, how could there be any knowledge of a non-thing? Completely antithetical. If one takes such a tack, then they're espousing the untenable and bizarre position that God knows about everything that does and everything that doesn't exist. It makes no sense. Unless you've got some other explanation.

I'm not defending the apologetics, I was merely stating what the standard version is, to my knowledge.

That said, I don't think what you're saying really holds as a valid logical criticism. Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean we can't have some knowledge of that thing. Unicorns don't exist, yet we clearly have knowledge of them; because we created them. A Christian no doubt would say "Just as God created us." I mean, I know what the table I'm building is going to look like, because I'm the one designing and building it. A sly Christian might apply the same to God and your "soul." Of course that sort of brings us right back around to determinism: does God design souls? I'm not sure Scholastic theology argued that; they'd sure have a tough time defending free will as an ontological certainty if so. But even so, if God didn't design and build your soul, I see no reason why that would preclude him from omniscience. Omniscience is, physically, ridiculous, but is not logically incoherent. Theists typically do not see what is physically impossible as a limitation on their mystical, supernatural deities. Heck, sometimes they don't even see what is logically impossible as a limitation.

As Teddy KGB said, standard Christian theology likes to say stuff like "God is apart from space and time," which I think is the real culprit you should be annoyed by here. Just because something makes no sense doesn't mean people aren't going to stop defending it. In fact, many apologists are proud of the very nonsensical nature of their faith.

 

[Triad]

I'm not defending the apologetics, I was merely stating what the standard version is, to my knowledge.

OK, gotcha.

That said, I don't think what you're saying really holds as a valid logical criticism. Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean we can't have some knowledge of that thing.

It's not a thing if it doesn't exist. You can't have knowledge of a hypothetical, because hypothetical has the property of being unknown.

Unicorns don't exist, yet we clearly have knowledge of them; because we created them.

I don't accept such an example. You're equating conceptualization with knowledge. How are they the same?

Knowledge of a non-entity, eh? Very curious. Can you substantiate this better?

As Teddy KGB said, standard Christian theology likes to say stuff like "God is apart from space and time," which I think is the real culprit you should be annoyed by here. Just because something makes no sense doesn't mean people aren't going to stop defending it. In fact, many apologists are proud of the very nonsensical nature of their faith.

I'm not arguing it theologically though, but philosophically. The discussion here revolves around the philosophical aspect.

 

[morningstar2651]

I'm a Christian. Always have been. But I've always liked to think of myself as pretty free-thinking.

Lately I've been wondering, if God knows everything, He must have known when he created Lucifer that he would rebel against Him. And when He created mankind and gave us free will, He knew that the fall of man would follow.

So my question to everyone is: Why does a loving God create a person, knowing that they will reject Him and go to Hell? And do we really have a choice in whether we accept or reject God, or does it all just come down to the way He chose to create us?

If anyone could shed some light on this for me I would greatly appreciate it.

Excellent question. Omniscience and Omnibenevolence do have a bit of a conflict. They don't really work together all that well.

There are a ton of verses of the Bible that suggest that God is not omniscient.

Genesis 3:8 And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord, amongst the trees of the garden.

Genesis 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid.

Genesis 11:5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the town.

Genesis 18:9 And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.

Genesis 18:20-21 And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and, if not, I will know.

Genesis 22:12 For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Genesis 32:27 And he [God] said unto him [Jacob], What is thy name?

Numbers 22:9 And God came unto Balaam, and said, What men are these with thee?

Deuteronomy 8:2 God led thee these forty years in the wilderness ... to know what what in thine heart.

Deuteronomy 13:3 The Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God.

2 Chronicles 32:31 God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart.

Job 1:7, 2:2 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Hosea 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not.

 

[Washington]

Excellent question. Omniscience and Omnibenevolence do have a bit of a conflict. They don't really work together all that well.

There are a ton of verses of the Bible that suggest that God is not omniscient.

While Christians contend otherwise.

1 Sam. 2:3
God is the God of knowledge. He knows everything.

"Omniscient" means the state of knowing everything.

1 Sam. 16:7; Acts 1:24; 15:8; Rom. 8:27; 1 Cor. 3:20
God knows a man's heart (cf. 1 Ki. 8:39; 2 Ch. 6:30).

1 Ch. 28:9
God searches the heart and understands all the intent of the thoughts (cf. 2 Ch. 16:9; Heb. 4:12).

Matt. 6:4, 18
God sees the things done in secret.

Heb. 4:13
There is no creature hidden from God's sight.

Matt. 6:32
God knows all our needs.

Matt. 10:29
Nothing happens apart from God's will (cf. Ja. 4:13-16).

Acts 2:23
Jesus was delivered to the Jews to be crucified by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God.

Matt. 24:36
No one but God knows the day and hour of judgment.

source

​

Other's suggest:

Psalm 139:2-6;
You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.
3 You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.
4 Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.
5 You hem me in—behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.


Isaiah 40:13-14
13 Who has understood the mind [a] of the LORD,
or instructed him as his counselor?
14 Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him,
and who taught him the right way?
Who was it that taught him knowledge
or showed him the path of understanding?
​

 

[TeddyKGB]

I'm not arguing it theologically though, but philosophically. The discussion here revolves around the philosophical aspect.

You're saying something "makes no sense," but our sense-making faculties are systematic. The "God is outside of time and space" apologetic takes our systematic understanding of the world and says forget about all that cause-and-effect piffle when discussing this god thing.

You've already posited a God beyond our ability to make sense of it; you can't now go back into our system of sense-making system to look for answers about God.