Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 31 (23384)
11-20-2002 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John
11-20-2002 9:31 AM


^^^ thx john... i'm reminded yet again how there's nothing new under the sun, even thoughts we might have that *seem* new or original heheheh... i like that particular thought tho, think i'll work on developing it... and i'll do a search now for 'kabbalists' and 'bishop berkeley'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John, posted 11-20-2002 9:31 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by John, posted 11-20-2002 1:02 PM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 31 (23388)
11-20-2002 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by forgiven
11-20-2002 12:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
and i'll do a search now for 'kabbalists'
If you are willing to buy books, Aryeh Kaplin is the man to read. I also suggest you avoid the new-age watered-down kabbalah.
quote:
and 'bishop berkeley'
Bishop George Berkeley... a funny sort of empiricistic idealist.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by forgiven, posted 11-20-2002 12:42 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by forgiven, posted 11-20-2002 4:56 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 31 (23404)
11-20-2002 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by John
11-20-2002 1:02 PM


^^^^ buy a book? BUY a book? surely you jest... i found both of 'em... berkeley was no dummy... course none of the philosophers were... still, i like the thought.. let's develop it, eh?
we have this singularity that i'm calling the thought(s) of God... whew, this could get complicated... anyway, God planned the universe, all of creation... he foresaw all potentialities *and* all actualities of every possible universe he might create... that alone would show how awesome a SUPREME being would be, since he'd have to (using me as an example) know the destiny of me in any possible creation, no matter "when" or "where" he decided i should be born
not only would he have to know that, he'd have to know how my intereaction with everyone else would end up should he foresee creating *them* in all possible universes.. oh, i'll say for the heck of it that a "possible" universe is one which doesn't conflict with God's attributes, his very nature... meaning, it'd be logical by definition, etc... no absence of the ole law of non-contradiction in his universe
granting free will (a given if we're to accept being created in his image, since to me that entails all attributes he possesses, just on a vastly smaller scale), he'd want to create a universe in which all who could be "saved" (a term i'll define to mean, all who would inhabit eternity in his presence) would be saved... any who spend eternity apart from him (my definition of hell) would do so in any possible universe... (craig calls these people the "trans-worldly damned")...
he would, being omnibenevolent, finally create a universe (explode the singularity, his thought, by willing it to be) in which those whose destiny is to be eternally apart from him are the fewest possible, given his goals... so his foreknowledge and our predestination don't negate free will, since nobody who has ever been born and who finally spends eternity apart from God would have chosen differently in any possible universe he *might* have created
why create any of those trans-worldly damned at all? in order to maximize the ones who would be with him eternally (some of whom *may* have not chosen to believe him in all but one possible universe).. why not just create us with the knowledge that we'd all choose him? that takes away even the semblance of free will *and* it means we wouldn't be "in his image" (given free will as one of his attributes)
the above isn't new (except for the singularity thingy, but even that isn't new as you pointed out), i believe it was first formulated by the spanish monk molina and championed by wm. lane craig... it's called "God's middle knowledge" and simply means he knew all that could be and all that would be... fascinating study
there's more to it, but i'll admit the singularity as the thought of God is brand new to me... sigh, here i thought i had an original thought... alas, it's never been thus, never will be

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by John, posted 11-20-2002 1:02 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by joz, posted 11-20-2002 10:45 PM forgiven has replied
 Message 22 by John, posted 11-21-2002 12:25 AM forgiven has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 31 (23437)
11-20-2002 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by forgiven
11-20-2002 4:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
sigh, here i thought i had an original thought... alas, it's never been thus, never will be
Sorry to bear the bad news bud but its worse than that your concept of innate ideas over on the "Knowledge" thread reads pretty similarly to Descartes....
Nice to see you and John playing nice with each other BTW, isn`t it far more productive...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by forgiven, posted 11-20-2002 4:56 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by forgiven, posted 11-20-2002 11:10 PM joz has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 31 (23441)
11-20-2002 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by joz
11-20-2002 10:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
sigh, here i thought i had an original thought... alas, it's never been thus, never will be
Sorry to bear the bad news bud but its worse than that your concept of innate ideas over on the "Knowledge" thread reads pretty similarly to Descartes....
Nice to see you and John playing nice with each other BTW, isn`t it far more productive...

oh well, mack... i guess i'll sit back and await your original thoughts... and yes, john and i seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot... this is more productive, for both i hope

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by joz, posted 11-20-2002 10:45 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by joz, posted 11-21-2002 12:05 AM forgiven has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 31 (23453)
11-21-2002 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by forgiven
11-20-2002 11:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
oh well, mack... i guess i'll sit back and await your original thoughts... and yes, john and i seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot... this is more productive, for both i hope
Don`t hold your breath I readily acknowledge that most of what I`m putting forward against innate ideas is a(n) (inferior? probably) reworking of Locke....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by forgiven, posted 11-20-2002 11:10 PM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 31 (23454)
11-21-2002 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by forgiven
11-20-2002 4:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
^^^^ buy a book? BUY a book? surely you jest...
I know. I know. But Kaplin is worth the effort.
quote:
berkeley was no dummy...
I rather like Berkeley, actually.
quote:
oh, i'll say for the heck of it that a "possible" universe is one which doesn't conflict with God's attributes, his very nature... meaning, it'd be logical by definition, etc... no absence of the ole law of non-contradiction in his universe
How do you know this? Rather, how do you know the attributes of God? How do you know God is logical?
quote:
granting free will
What you outlined in you first paragraph is of a God who knows precisely what will happen before he creates. There is no free will in that universe. It is all locked in from the get-go.
quote:
he'd want to create a universe in which all who could be "saved" (a term i'll define to mean, all who would inhabit eternity in his presence) would be saved... any who spend eternity apart from him (my definition of hell) would do so in any possible universe... (craig calls these people the "trans-worldly damned")...
As you outline this creation, God knows precisely what will happen. Therefore, we are damned or we are saved right from the beginning. Salvation is meaningless in this context. It is simply part of the script.
Craig?
quote:
he would, being omnibenevolent, finally create a universe (explode the singularity, his thought, by willing it to be) in which those whose destiny is to be eternally apart from him are the fewest possible, given his goals...
Apparently something is limiting God's ability to create. What is that something? Why not just write a script where we all die and go to heaven? Surely God can do that?
quote:
so his foreknowledge and our predestination don't negate free will
Yeah it does. You argue that it simply doesn't matter that we have no free will, since the damned would have been damned in any possible world.
quote:
why create any of those trans-worldly damned at all? in order to maximize the ones who would be with him eternally (some of whom *may* have not chosen to believe him in all but one possible universe)..
This doesn't follow from anything that I can tell.
quote:
why not just create us with the knowledge that we'd all choose him? that takes away even the semblance of free will *and* it means we wouldn't be "in his image" (given free will as one of his attributes)
What does the semblance matter when the actuallity in this scenario is that free will does not exist? Creating the illusion seem a bit misleading really.
We are like God and have free will, yet God knows precisely what will happen when from the beginning to the end? It doesn't make sense.
quote:
sigh, here i thought i had an original thought... alas, it's never been thus, never will be
Well, maybe you at least had an original sentence. Isn't that the same thing?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by forgiven, posted 11-20-2002 4:56 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by joz, posted 11-21-2002 8:03 AM John has replied
 Message 25 by forgiven, posted 11-21-2002 12:47 PM John has not replied
 Message 28 by zipzip, posted 12-05-2002 3:40 AM John has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 31 (23471)
11-21-2002 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by John
11-21-2002 12:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
Craig?
William Lane Craig....
(I assume from the context)....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John, posted 11-21-2002 12:25 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by John, posted 11-21-2002 8:45 AM joz has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 31 (23482)
11-21-2002 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by joz
11-21-2002 8:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
quote:
Originally posted by John:
Craig?
William Lane Craig....
(I assume from the context)....

Yeah, I noticed that too much further down the post, but didn't delete the question. You know, lazy...
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by joz, posted 11-21-2002 8:03 AM joz has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 31 (23506)
11-21-2002 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by John
11-21-2002 12:25 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:
oh, i'll say for the heck of it that a "possible" universe is one which doesn't conflict with God's attributes, his very nature... meaning, it'd be logical by definition, etc... no absence of the ole law of non-contradiction in his universe
How do you know this? Rather, how do you know the attributes of God? How do you know God is logical?
i guess any idea or definition or concept of God has to start somewhere, has to ascribe certain attributes... we're all free, i guess, to choose what we know (or think we know) from the sources we choose to trust... it's all a matter of choice... so given that, i believe that all transcendental entities, all things that exist but are not suspended in space and time, do exist because they're a part of God's character or nature...
we can point to logic as one of those things... yeah i know it can be argued that the law of non-contradiction isn't really a law, but i'd hate to argue that point myself... but if it *is* real, if it does exist, it doesn't exist in space and time... the *results* of the law do exist materially, usually, but not the law itself... same goes for most anything one can point to as existing yet which has no materiality... i guess love would be one of those things... metaphysical, transcendental, i think those words describe the entities i'm speaking of
quote:
quote:
granting free will
What you outlined in you first paragraph is of a God who knows precisely what will happen before he creates. There is no free will in that universe. It is all locked in from the get-go.
ok, let's examine that... it might be better if you do a google for 'william lane craig middle knowledge', i'm sure he's far more understandable than i am... but here's an attempt at a synopsis
assuming the singularity as God's thoughts (my non-original thought doncha know), we can say that the universe was thought out, planned... not only that, all possible worlds in which i might live, at all possible times, was seen by God... all possible interactions with all possible people... God, knowing that he wanted to create us in his image, with all the attributes he himself has, would take that into account in his plans
let's use a number for the sake of clarity.. let's say God saw 100 possible universes he *might* create me in, at 100 different locations and 100 different eras... remember, this has to be done for each and every person who both *might* exist and who finally *did* exist... imagine that God saw in 99 of those universes that i'd choose not to believe what he had to say, no matter when or where i was born and no matter who surrounded me... but in *one* universe, he foresaw that i'd freely choose to believe his words... he'd have to compare that universe to all others, inhabiting it with people for whom the very same thing had been done
this is before he said 'let it be'... the universe is still in his thoughts only... now, the fact that he *knew*, before he actually created, the world in which i'd of my own free will choose to believe him in no way negates that free will... yes, he might have still chosen not to create that particular universe, and yes once he did create it all that he foresaw concerning it was destined to happen...
so 'predestination' did occur at the moment God, by his will alone, allowed his thought to become material... foreknowledge has to be a given when we're talking about God, omniscience and omnipotence being two attributes most people are willing to grant as making up God's nature...
even we have the ability, tho not perfectly, to "know" what another will do in certain situations... i might *know* what my child will do in a certain situation, given certain circumstances... but that knowledge doesn't mean my child wasn't free to choose differently... but we aren't God, so our knowledge of the choices a person will make aren't perfect.. then again, none of the attributes we possess which come because of being created in his image are perfect
assuming things were as i wrote above, we might argue that God had no right to create a universe in which he chose to know what would happen... we might want to argue that it was wrong of him to create a universe in which he *knew* that some would freely choose to disbelieve him... but such arguments assume, for one thing, that God isn't really God... that he isn't all wise, all loving, that he isn't worthy of our trust... that's ultimately a choice we each have to make
quote:
quote:
he'd want to create a universe in which all who could be "saved" (a term i'll define to mean, all who would inhabit eternity in his presence) would be saved... any who spend eternity apart from him (my definition of hell) would do so in any possible universe... (craig calls these people the "trans-worldly damned")...
As you outline this creation, God knows precisely what will happen. Therefore, we are damned or we are saved right from the beginning. Salvation is meaningless in this context. It is simply part of the script.
as i said, the "damned" are so because they chose to be so... to argue that such a person might, when speaking with God about it, say "well had i known that i'd have wanted you not even to create me" misses the point too... i believe that thruout history there are the very minimum number of trans-worldly damned necessary in order to maximize the ones who choose God... not one of them could *not* have been created without sacrificing many more who would choose God... arguing against his judgment is simply a sign of not trusting him...
quote:
quote:
he would, being omnibenevolent, finally create a universe (explode the singularity, his thought, by willing it to be) in which those whose destiny is to be eternally apart from him are the fewest possible, given his goals...
Apparently something is limiting God's ability to create. What is that something? Why not just write a script where we all die and go to heaven? Surely God can do that?
absolutely he can do that... i believe that was one of the possible universes he could have chosen, or that he thought about... but maybe no such universe is possible... maybe, given free will as a criteria, without creating exactly the number of trans-worldly damned needed *nobody* would be in eternity with God.. again we might argue that this was better, and again we set ourselves in a position of having the knowledge God has of all things
quote:
We are like God and have free will, yet God knows precisely what will happen when from the beginning to the end? It doesn't make sense.
he can't *not* know, john... but knowing and forcing us to choose aren't the same thing.. [quote]
quote:
sigh, here i thought i had an original thought... alas, it's never been thus, never will be
Well, maybe you at least had an original sentence. Isn't that the same thing? [/B][/QUOTE]
i'm not sure if it is or not, but i'll hold onto that thought and pretend it's the same thing lol

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John, posted 11-21-2002 12:25 AM John has not replied

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 31 (25398)
12-04-2002 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
11-17-2002 12:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by robinrohan:
My subject is nothing. I don't understand it. I always think of "nothing" as empty space, but space as it turns out is something (what I don't know). What is on the "other side" of the universe? "Nothing" is the answer. This is incomprehensible to me.
An infinite universe makes more sense but does not fit with Big Bang Theory.

You have nothing to worry about. It's just human intuition playing tricks on you, which usually leads to confusion. "Nothing" is a negative, and they only exist as contructs of the mind. If it confuses you to think about it, try using another negative. What if I said No Santa lives on the North Pole? Would you conclude some entity called Nosanta lives up north? Or would you assume the Nosanta is empty space? Of course there is no such thing as a non entity, and this includes "nothing".
Likewise, the statement "there is nothing outside the universe" can be taken to mean, there is a void called nothing outside the universe. But the actual meaning is, there is NOT anything outside the universe. Which means there is no outside.
Of course it's still impossible to imagine how a universe could have an end (finite, but with no edge) but that's just intuition again. If it helps, you should know big bang cosmology is compatible with an infinite universe. In fact, our universe appears to have an omega value of less than 1, which suggests an open an infinite cosmos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 11-17-2002 12:48 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-04-2002 10:46 PM Beercules has not replied

  
Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 31 (25505)
12-04-2002 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Beercules
12-04-2002 1:12 AM


BLAM!!!!!
That wasa the sound of my head imploding and exploding simultaneously while in a vacuum of high pressure virtual particles that existed just long enought to say they didn't exist.....
------------------
When all else fails, check the manual

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Beercules, posted 12-04-2002 1:12 AM Beercules has not replied

  
zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 31 (25527)
12-05-2002 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by John
11-21-2002 12:25 AM


This part of the thread strikes on the paradox of free will, which of course is only a paradox if God experiences time. A key idea in Christian theology is that God, who is acknowledged to be separate from the created order, is outside of time ("a thousand years is as a day and a day is as a thousand years" comes to mind, but there are a number of verses supporting this theology).
So a particular person is really a 4-dimensional static object to God, who is viewing from outside of time. A sculpture that (to us, paradoxically) determines its own shape through free will. If you wrap your mind around this, you will see that God can know every decision we "will" make "after" we make it at the same "instant" he makes us (and actually at the same "instant" he create"d" the universe). We make the decision, but he does not know what it is until after we make it. There is no violation of free will.
But as to why God created a universe in which so many would reject him... is it not equally plausible that the universe is teeming with planets devoted to him and we are the only race that has turned its back? Perhaps. But does it change the fact that we are the ones who are to blame for making our own choices? After all, anyone on this site knows what it takes to be saved, and yet many ignore the message, treat it with derision, mock the God who brings it, and even blame him for their own rejection of his message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John, posted 11-21-2002 12:25 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-05-2002 7:50 AM zipzip has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 31 (25545)
12-05-2002 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by zipzip
12-05-2002 3:40 AM


Hi zipzip
quote:
We make the decision, but he does not know what it is until after we make it
Not sure I follow this. Are you saying that she (G) doesn't know what we're going to do in advance?
PE
------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by zipzip, posted 12-05-2002 3:40 AM zipzip has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 31 (25546)
12-05-2002 8:03 AM


For God, there is no "in advance". God is not locked into the linear experience of time that we are.

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-05-2002 8:51 AM Karl has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024