The Logical Premise?

[lesliedellow]

But if God knows everything for a fact, then only one option is possible. If there can only ever be one outcome, how can it be considered a choice?

If the Newtonian picture of how the universe works on a macroscopic scale is anything like accurate, as it very obviously is, th

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you could have spared yourself all the forgoing paragraphs, and simply said, "I object to the very notion of predestination." Unfortunately, from a Calvinist's point of view, the Bible seems to be full of passages which explicitly, or implicitly, speak of predestination. We can kick against that as much as we like, but God doesn't consult us about the proper manner in which he should govern his creation.

I think you misunderstood me.

I never made any claims about what I think about predestination.

My only point is that both predestination / pre-ordaining of events can not exist in the same universe as free will.

They are mutually exclusive.
Either your future decisions are set in stone, or they aren't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

edit: double post

 

[lesliedellow]

Isn't this just special pleading?

No. If the Christian God exists at all, he is creator of all things and Lord of all things.

 

[lesliedellow]

I think you misunderstood me.

I never made any claims about what I think about predestination.

My only point is that both predestination / pre-ordaining of events can not exist in the same universe as free will.

They are mutually exclusive.
Either your future decisions are set in stone, or they aren't.

There is little point in arguing about the nature of free will. Philosophers can't agree about it, and there is no objective way of settling upon one definition rather than another.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is little point in arguing about the nature of free will. Philosophers can't agree about it, and there is no objective way of settling upon one definition rather than another.

I'm not talking about the nature of it either.
I'm talking about the concept.

Hence why I said that the underlying mechanisms don't really matter.

After all... what does "free will" mean, if not freedom of decision making.
And what does pre-ordaining / predestination mean, if not "not free of decision making, but rather compulsory decision making"?

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm not talking about the nature of it either.
I'm talking about the concept.

Hence why I said that the underlying mechanisms don't really matter.

After all... what does "free will" mean, if not freedom of decision making.
And what does pre-ordaining / predestination mean, if not "not free of decision making, but rather compulsory decision making"?

Free will, as much as anything else, is a way of giving expression to the fact that we are not subjectively aware of anything causing us to choose one way, rather than another.

Given the causal nature of physical laws, at a macroscopic level, a completely autonomous will is already a problematic idea, even before you get into theology.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Culpability implies that there is some authority, whose code of conduct you are obligated to obey. There is no authority higher than God, and therefore he cannot be held culpable. QED.

And that is merely restating what I said. It is a case of special pleading in that it arbitrarily defines God as the highest authority. God can do no wrong because He's God.

And, yet again, I am merely noting that this dispenses with Euthyphro by arbitrarily ignoring the other horn of the dilemma.

ERGO: it is not "rational", it is simply by caveat. QED.

 

[Obliquinaut]

If the Newtonian picture of how the universe works on a macroscopic scale is anything likeaccurate, as it very obviously is, then there would appear to be only one option anyway.

But on the microscopic scale that isn't how it works. Quantum deals in probabilities and when you open the can of worms over the whole Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum indeterminance you travel through the looking glass.

Macro-scale and Micro-scale behaviors are on a continuum.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Can't you get dressed without making it a philosophical/theological shouting issue?

Only those unencumbered by deeper thought can do that. Life is so much easier when it is undertaken without thought or introspection!

 

[lesliedellow]

But on the microscopic scale that isn't how it works. Quantum deals in probabilities and when you open the can of worms over the whole Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum indeterminance you travel through the looking glass.

Macro-scale and Micro-scale behaviors are on a continuum.

What happens on a microscopic scale is irrelevant to what happens on the scale of even individual neurons.

 

[lesliedellow]

And that is merely restating what I said. It is a case of special pleading in that it arbitrarily defines God as the highest authority. God can do no wrong because He's God.

And, yet again, I am merely noting that this dispenses with Euthyphro by arbitrarily ignoring the other horn of the dilemma.

ERGO: it is not "rational", it is simply by caveat. QED.

Either the Christian God exists or he doesn't. If he does, then he must have those attributes which Christian theology traditionally ascribes to him - by definition.

 

[Obliquinaut]

What happens on a microscopic scale is irrelevant to what happens on the scale of even individual neurons.

Why? Neurons are functional chemicals, chemicals made up of atoms etc.

I understand that idea that there is some disjunct between the world of General Relativity and that of Quantum, but indeed, if any event anywhere in the universe can be indeterminant, it kind of destroys the idea of some form of macro-determinancy. It certainly renders it a "special case" and NOT the rule.

 

[lesliedellow]

Why? Neurons are functional chemicals, chemicals made up of atoms etc.

I understand that idea that there is some disjunct between the world of General Relativity and that of Quantum, but indeed, if any event anywhere in the universe can be indeterminant, it kind of destroys the idea of some form of macro-determinancy. It certainly renders it a "special case" and NOT the rule.

Whenever somebody does a calculation as to how much time would need to elapse, on average, before a macroscopic body exhibited quantum like behaviour, the number which pops out is always many times the age of the universe.

All things considered, that is probably just as well.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Either the Christian God exists or he doesn't. If he does, then he must have those attributes which Christian theology traditionally ascribes to him - by definition.

Here's the point: these dilemma exist precisely because the Christian God is granted a variety of mutually exclusive features. That's the history you are stuck with in developing the concept of God. What I'm raising here is nothing particularly "new" to the faith, and to my knowledge has never been "solved" other than by simple decree of the faithful.

Remember waaaay back in this thread where I stated that God is larded with a wide variety of philosophical conundra? Well, this is it. This is the red meat of philosophy classes since the advent of time.

Anselm's definition of God as "that being than which none greater can be conceived" is obviously the most expansive and, unfortunately, the most fraught with these issues. How can God be ALL MERCIFUL and ALL JUST? Justice is tempered by Mercy. Can God create an unmovable object and toss an unstoppable force at it? Etc. YOU are simply choosing to wipe various of these away by merely decreeing that you don't wish to consider them. This is the specific problems related only to God.

And, I totally understand! Philosophical dilemma exist precisely because they cannot be solved. God is defined in such a way as to be beyond logic. (And, at that point, I question: how does one "worship" or "love" that which cannot be understood at any level? But I'm no longer a believer, so it isn't important what I ask).

But to simply state that God is thus while ignoring the implications of that position is not a solution to the dilemma.

If you claim God as the arbiter of all Good and Evil then you are claiming good and evil are merely arbitrarily defined (albeit arbitrarily defined by God). It is not a solution to the dilemma, it is merely selectively ignoring the other half of the dilemma.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Whenever somebody does a calculation as to how much time would need to elapse, on average, before a macroscopic body exhibited quantum like behaviour, the number which pops out is always many times the age of the universe.

All things considered, that is probably just as well.

I understand that, and indeed it is unlikely you, personally, could ever "tunnel" through a wall in the quantum manner because you are an ensemble of zillions of particles.

BUT that does not change one whit the concept I outlined that if anything in the universe is indeterminant then you cannot say that determinance is the rule.

For all you know a given choice you make today was set in motion because a radioactive element decayed at a certain point in time billions of years ago causing a crystal lattice to change which led to a rock being formed in a certain way which....add in all the steps over a billion years and you wind up making the decision you did. However it was predicated on a random event.

 

[lesliedellow]

Anselm's definition of God as "that being than which none greater can be conceived" is obviously the most expansive and, unfortunately, the most fraught with these issues. How can God be ALL MERCIFUL and ALL JUST? Justice is tempered by Mercy. Can God create an unmovable object and toss an unstoppable force at it? Etc. YOU are simply choosing to wipe various of these away by merely decreeing that you don't wish to consider them. This is the specific problems related only to God.

Anselm was offering his own personal definition, and I would like to have seen him derive it from the Bible. In theology, just as much as in physics, the data has to come from somewhere, and out of your own head is not a particularly good source.

As to that other so called paradox, we will, for the moment, pass over the fact that imagines God to be a being equipped with muscles, and with gravity to contend with. It can be rephrased as:

Can an omnipotent being create a rock which an omnipotent being cannot lift?

Since "a rock which an omnipotent being cannot lift" is a self contradictory concept, the above question, although syntactically correct, is semantically meaningless. It is an abuse of language, along the lines of a square circle.

 

[lesliedellow]

I understand that, and indeed it is unlikely you, personally, could ever "tunnel" through a wall in the quantum manner because you are an ensemble of zillions of particles.

BUT that does not change one whit the concept I outlined that if anything in the universe is indeterminant then you cannot say that determinance is the rule.

For all you know a given choice you make today was set in motion because a radioactive element decayed at a certain point in time billions of years ago causing a crystal lattice to change which led to a rock being formed in a certain way which....add in all the steps over a billion years and you wind up making the decision you did. However it was predicated on a random event.

If we are not enslaved to a Newtonian or Einsteinian type universe, we are enslaved to random events. Either way, that does not bode well for self determinancy.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Anselm was offering his own personal definition, and I would like to have seen him derive it from the Bible. In theology, just as much as in physics, the data has to come from somewhere, and out of your own head is not a particularly good source.

I don't believe I've ever heard anyone say Anselm had come up with a non-Biblical conception of God before. Interesting. I thought I had seen all the standard critiques of The Ontological argument (eg Guanilo, etc.) but this is new to me. Considering how your position seems to also use such a relatively straightforward God I am confused why you would argue against it.

Since "a rock which an omnipotent being cannot lift" is a self contradictory concept, the above question, although syntactically correct, is semantically meaningless. It is an abuse of language, along the lines of a square circle.

You are getting lost in the weeds on this. I merely pointed out that God as even you have conceived (the ultimate authority and ultimate power) has logical problems that are not easily solved and that is precisely because He is God, the ultimate power.

In a very real sense you are using Anselm's Ontological God in your debate. You have simply opted that that being than which none greater can be conceived is so great as to not be bothered by logic. Another ex cathedra statement. Simply decreeing God beyond logic in this special case or that special case so it doesn't upset the applecart of a particular theology.

Don't worry, I'm not holding it against you. Even I, a professional chemist, ignore the implications of the really heavy ends of quantum mechanics so I can do my job. I don't worry about Heissenberg Uncertainty when I'm mixing two chemicals together. I don't worry about the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum when I do my quotidian work in the lab. But it doesn't mean it isn't there. It doesn't mean I'm free to simply wave it away on the larger stage.

My approach would be: Yeah those weird things exist and may be insoluble to me, but I can function. NOT that I simply decree that they don't exist.

 

[Obliquinaut]

If we are not enslaved to a Newtonian or Einsteinian type universe, we are enslaved to random events. Either way, that does not bode well for self determinancy.

And again, you seem to ignore my point. Regardless of my perceptions or desires, my larger point is "indeterminancy" is inherent in the universe per quantum. ERGO you cannot simply decree that the world is determinant.

I even gave a simple example of indeterminance leading to your choices.

I am attempting to model the system holistically rather than merely "effectively" (vide supra my earlier comments on "effective free will")

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't believe I've ever heard anyone say Anselm had come up with a non-Biblical conception of God before. Interesting. I thought I had seen all the standard critiques of The Ontological argument (eg Guanilo, etc.) but this is new to me. Considering how your position seems to also use such a relatively straightforward God I am confused why you would argue against it.

The critiques you have read are presumably philosophical critiques, rather than theological critiques.

So far as I can see, the rest of your post is waffle. As I have said before, the notion of God as, "luv, luv and nothing but luv" strikes me as a typical piece of twenty first century sentimentality. From the same generation that managed to come up with the so called "Prosperity Gospel."