• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
This is exactly the creation God chose to create, exactly this one, no uncertainy, nothing random.
If it could be demonstrated that there is indeed uncertainty and randomness in the universe, would you be forced to give up belief in God entirely, or just that particular belief in God?

Then how do you know a truly spontaneous and random universe is unknowable or otherwise incompatible with an absolutely sovereign deity?

God has infinitely the right to do with his creation whatever He will.
Why? I've always had an issue with this.
 
Upvote 0

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I'm aware of the inherent limitations on epistemology; nothing can be proven outside of mathematics, etc. But that doesn't answer my question: if true randomness were proven, would you then give up this conception of deity?
My point is to probe what comes first: your particular theology, which then precludes any belief in randomness, or your disbelief in randomness, which allows for this particular theology. That is, is your theology based on your current understanding of things taken as is, or is your theology taken a priori?

I believe that to be a non sequitur. 'Random' does not mean 'unknowable', it means 'unpredictable', which, as theists are so fond of reminding we hethens, are not the same thing for a temporally-transcendent being.

In other words, even if radioactive decay is a truly random and spontaneous and unpredictable event, that doesn't mean God can't 'fast forward' and see the results, thereby knowing in advance (from the perspective of temporally linear beings) what it will do.

That doesn't preclude the decay event's randomness, and, thus, it doesn't preclude human free will.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
If random is defined as unknowable by man, I will concede to the existence of the random.
If it is definded as unknowable, I do not.
True randomness would indeed be unknowable to humanity, but 'unknowable to humanity' is not a sufficient condition for something to be deemed truly random. There could be many things we cannot know which might well not be truly random.

A truly random event is one which does not require a pre-existing event to occur in order to happen; thus, it is unpredictable to temporally linear agents.

This doesn't mean a temporally non-linear agent can't look ahead, of course, which is my point.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟182,802.00
Faith
Seeker
God has infinitely the right to do with his creation whatever He will.
Please explain what " a right" means when it comes to god. Who has allowed god his rights? Or is this just a "might makes right" thing?

I simply do not believe that's what's going on around us. I believe in a sovereign God, and everything falls into place quite nicely, nothing random, no chaos, no fear, no worrys.
I don´t know. "Falls into place quite nicely" seems to be totally a matter of perspective. I don´t believe that spending eternity in hell gives you the feeling that everything has "fallen into place quite nicely".
You know, I just can´t seem to manage find comfort in things "falling into place quite nicely" from a perspective that isn´t mine. Like, say, I wouldn´t expect a laboratory rat to endure its suffering confidently because it´s told that the experiments will help make everything "fall in place quite nicely" for the researchers and humanity.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

The problem with arguing with people like him or AV is that there's no common ground between us. In fact, it's like we're not even in the same universe. For instance, it doesn't automatically follow that a creator always has absolute power over his creations. However, the special pleading comes into play as in "but it's different because he's God." You might ask "Why is it different with God? Why are the same standards of morality, good, etc, not applicable to God?" And the key to why we'll never see eye to eye comes out: Because the Bible says so. For people like AV and Bricklayer, their reality is PRESCRIBED by a book. This book trumps anything and everything that can ever exist, be seen, felt, heard, or otherwise detected. AV has gone so far as to assure us that if Jesus himself came down and told him that Bible isn't all true, that he wouldn't believe him and that, in fact, he'd have to assume that it wasn't Jesus but the devil.

Unfortunately, this realization has made me start losing disinterest in debating people like this. We're completely desynchronized from what reality means to one another and in the end, it all boils down to the question that AV has never answered for me: "Why do you believe your interpretation of the Bible over everything else?"
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟182,802.00
Faith
Seeker
The problem with arguing with people like him or AV is that there's no common ground between us.
I defnitely see your point (although I must say that in my view there´s still a huge difference between AV and bricklayer).
Yet, I find it interesting to track down the difference of the paradigms. The purpose of discussion, as far as I am concerned, is not to convince them.
E.g., when bricklayer says that "God has a right" I am interested in what that means in his conceptualization and language (I would imagine that his actual point is that God doesn´t even need to have any right to do as God wishes - yet he is using a the wording "God has the right" - as though this were a meaningful statement within his own conceptualization).

I don´t think that would be my question. My question would rather be: "If we are so infinitely different from God - why would we be expected to conform with God´s paradigms, morality etc.? Why would I be expected to accept something as meaningful that doesn´t and - according to the very infinite difference between God and me that´s the keypoint of the argument - can´t make sense to me?

Well, yes, that´s an interesting point, anyway, that I have been pondering for quite a while here: When God can do anything God wishes to do with God´s creation, we don´t even have criteria to tell whether the author is God or the devil.

I guess one thing that keeps striking me as contradictory:
First people tell you that without God´s "objective" morality "everything (Hitler/Stalin/youname it) would be permitted", and in the next step they tell me that because God is objective and sovereing everything (even though it may not differ from those things that they point out as being the threat in the absence of God) is permitted.
(E.g.
1. Without God genocide would be permitted.
2. Because God is God genocide is permitted (or at least could be - in God´s morality which is beyond questioning and discussion).)
 
Upvote 0

bricklayer

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2009
3,928
328
the rust belt
✟5,120.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

We agree.
 
Upvote 0

freereason

Reasonable Atheist
Jul 2, 2010
34
1
✟22,665.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married

Great. Now the physicist believes in magic. I might as well convert and start praying for a Steeler victory this weekend.

However, while I too would agree with the idea of a being not bound in time also not being bound by randomness, I dont think we'll be getting any predictions from them anytime soon.
 
Upvote 0

jonmichael818

Newbie
Nov 28, 2010
287
4
43
united states
✟15,469.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So, would you say you are something along the lines of a compatibilist?
If yes, do you agree that compatibilism can be reduced to complex determinism?
 
Upvote 0

jonmichael818

Newbie
Nov 28, 2010
287
4
43
united states
✟15,469.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I agree with the point you are making here. This is exactly why I don't think religion should be a guide or a standard for anything, it can lead you down a path of illogical nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

Tielec

Organisational Psychologist
Feb 26, 2010
214
17
Perth
✟22,942.00
Faith
Atheist
So, would you say you are something along the lines of a compatibilist?
If yes, do you agree that compatibilism can be reduced to complex determinism?

I remember you asking a similar question of Daniel Dennet's position further back in the thread. I somewhat remember him responding to such a question in one of his seminars. He basically responds by saying that yes his position could be referred to as complex determinism.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SithDoughnut

The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
Jan 2, 2010
9,118
306
The Death Starbucks
✟25,974.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So, would you say you are something along the lines of a compatibilist?

After looking it up, I'd say that I'm a compatibilist. Sort of. My view is that we have free will, we just can't really exercise it.

If yes, do you agree that compatibilism can be reduced to complex determinism?

Not really, because free will and determinism are separate, at least the way I see it.
 
Upvote 0