Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: anil dahar
Post Volume: Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will vs Omniscience
Stile
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 301 of 1444 (765521)
07-30-2015 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by MrHambre
07-30-2015 12:07 PM


Re: Rant In One Hand
MrHambre writes:
Sure we do. Do you really think only other people are prone to cognitive biases and self-validating modes of thinking?
I didn't say we never do such things.
I said we "don't always" do such things.
You said we "always" do such things. This is easily shown to be false, like my 2 apples example. Where am I dismissing information about counting the 2 apples on the table when I count them and my result is 2?
You're saying peoples "always" dismiss information.
I'm saying it's possible not to do this, to limit yourself to the evidence, see what the evidence says, and accept the conclusion (or non-conclusion if there's not enough information available for the question you have) and that if you do this, there's always only 1 result.
It can happen.
It does happen with counting 2 apples on the table.
Therefore, you saying "we always dismiss information..." is incorrect.
I mentioned the abortion debate, in which two facts are always brought up: the fetal heartbeat and that the fetus gestates inside a woman's body.
Correct, that's factual evidence.
But pro-lifers emphasize the fetal heartbeat and make it seem all-important in the matter.
...
Pro-choicers emphasize the second fact, and stress that the personhood and responsibility of the woman are of utmost importance;
Yes, these are 2 different interpretations. But are they based on the evidence? They both seem to be based on "importance." You don't mention anything about "importance" in your 2 listed facts. Therefore, "importance" is not based on the evidence... it is extrapolated. It is dishonest to say that this "importance" is based on the evidence for either side.
From here, you can go to reality and find evidence that shows "importance" (may require a specified and agreed definition)... or you can accept that going into "importance" is not based on the evidence.
Two facts, at least two interpretations.
No. There is only 1 honest interpretation of the evidence from these 2 facts: there is no conclusion to say that one side or the other is "more important."
Anything else is extrapolation, or being dishonest.
What you've provided is two "interpretations" that extrapolate the evidence into a third subject: "importance"... but there is no "importance" listed in the evidence.
Therefore, both these "interpretations" (again, more "possibilities" at this point) are not based on the evidence. They are based on an extrapolation into "importance."
I hope that shows you what I'm trying to explain.
If you still do not understand my point, however, feel free to try again for the fourth time. I am open to being wrong (I won't ever stop you from trying to show that I'm wrong... I'd like to know if I'm wrong, I could update my ideas). But I'm not open to letting you base the "interpretation" on something that is not based on the evidence, and then say that it actually is all, entirely, "based on the evidence."
That's either wrong, or being dishonest. Both of which can and should be corrected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by MrHambre, posted 07-30-2015 12:07 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by MrHambre, posted 07-30-2015 1:57 PM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 302 of 1444 (765522)
07-30-2015 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by MrHambre
07-30-2015 12:11 PM


Re: Rant In One Hand
MrHambre writes:
Every person individually has beliefs and assumptions through which he or she defines what constitutes "evidence," and what the "evidence" means.
That's why decisions on what "is" evidence are made collectively. One of the most common phrases in the English language is, "Did you see that?" We don't trust ourselves to determine unilaterally what is "evident".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by MrHambre, posted 07-30-2015 12:11 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1654 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 303 of 1444 (765528)
07-30-2015 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Stile
07-30-2015 12:24 PM


Re: Rant In One Hand
Stile writes:
It can happen.
It does happen with counting 2 apples on the table.
Since you're determined to handwave away anything I present, let me use your example. What if the apples are wax apples instead of real ones? What if they're pears that look like apples? What if there are more than two apples, but from the vantage point of the viewers there appear to be only two? What if they are holograms?
Wouldn't it be possible for there to be different interpretations of the "brute facts" in these instances?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Stile, posted 07-30-2015 12:24 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Stile, posted 07-30-2015 2:25 PM MrHambre has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 304 of 1444 (765529)
07-30-2015 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by MrHambre
07-30-2015 1:57 PM


Re: Rant In One Hand
MrHambre writes:
What if the apples are wax apples instead of real ones? What if they're pears that look like apples? What if there are more than two apples, but from the vantage point of the viewers there appear to be only two? What if they are holograms?
Doesn't matter.
Still only 1 honest interpretation based on the evidence.
The honest interpretation doesn't necessarily have to reflect reality (How can we ever know when we have "the real" reality?). It could certainly be wrong and shown to be so by additional information at any time.
Then, when that additional information gets validated and added to "the evidence"... the resulting 1 honest interpretation based on the evidence is also updated.
This is kind of how science works. Are you sure you didn't know this already?
Wouldn't it be possible for there to be different interpretations of the "brute facts" in these instances?
No.
Unless you think you can prove me wrong?
Again, feel free.
Explain the evidence.
Explain 2 or more honest interpretations based on the evidence.
If some unintentional extrapolations that are not based on the evidence sneak in... don't worry, I'll inform you. I've spent my career identifying "the evidence" and working out solutions that are based on "the evidence." I'm very good at it. Been doing it for almost 2 decades now. Extrapolations are rarely correct when troubleshooting (note: not "always," it's just rare-er)
If I say something's extrapolated and you don't think it is... let me know. Like I said, there's only ever 1 honest interpretation. Therefore, if you're right... I'll have to see it or be dishonest myself (or, possibly, too stupid to understand your explanation).
But whenever anyone else has ever tried... they always do what you did with your abortion example... think of interpretations that are somewhat-based-on-the-evidence-but-also-include-a-few-details-that-are-extrapolated-but-don't-think-about-those-because-other-parts-are-based-on-the-evidence.
But, those are not entirely "based on the evidence."
I agree that if you add other details not based on the evidence... then you can have multiple possibilities.
But if you can restrict yourself to the evidence... I have never, ever seen 2 different honest interpretations that are both entirely based on the evidence.
I certainly have not experienced everything though, and a part of me is rooting for you... being proved wrong is the pathway to learning more. And I like to learn more.
Feel free to move forward with your 5th attempt to prove me wrong. I'm looking forward to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by MrHambre, posted 07-30-2015 1:57 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by MrHambre, posted 07-30-2015 2:48 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1654 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 305 of 1444 (765530)
07-30-2015 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Stile
07-30-2015 2:25 PM


Then Jump Through More Hoops
Stile writes:
Feel free to move forward with your 5th attempt to prove me wrong. I'm looking forward to it.
Oh, so you're still pretending this is some kind of serious, fair-minded challenge and not just a crackpot shell game?
That's priceless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Stile, posted 07-30-2015 2:25 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-30-2015 5:52 PM MrHambre has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 306 of 1444 (765533)
07-30-2015 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by MrHambre
07-30-2015 2:48 PM


Re: Then Jump Through More Hoops
So you're not going to try? That's a shame, it might have been interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by MrHambre, posted 07-30-2015 2:48 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by MrHambre, posted 07-30-2015 7:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1654 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 307 of 1444 (765536)
07-30-2015 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Dr Adequate
07-30-2015 5:52 PM


Sorry, Charlie
The bait's a little stale. Best of luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-30-2015 5:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-30-2015 11:11 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 308 of 1444 (765538)
07-30-2015 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by MrHambre
07-30-2015 7:38 PM


Re: Sorry, Charlie
That's an unusual collection of words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by MrHambre, posted 07-30-2015 7:38 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18656
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 309 of 1444 (765551)
08-01-2015 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by jar
07-16-2015 1:47 PM


Re: Foreknowledge and Free Will
What business is it of ours to know what GOD knows?
Of course, Open Theism would assert that its no business of GOD what we choose.
Does Open Theism make much sense to you?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 07-16-2015 1:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by jar, posted 08-01-2015 8:28 AM Phat has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 310 of 1444 (765559)
08-01-2015 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Phat
08-01-2015 1:51 AM


Re: Foreknowledge and Free Will
Phat writes:
What business is it of ours to know what GOD knows?
What we know has nothing to do with whether or not a God that has foreknowledge yet creates beings known to be doomed is evil.
Phat writes:
Of course, Open Theism would assert that its no business of GOD what we choose.
Does Open Theism make much sense to you?
Open Theism is just another Carny sideshow, "Come see the Tattooed Lady, the two headed snake and the Man from Borneo". It is certainly less evil than Calvinism but still totally misses the Gospel which is really simple; "Do your best."

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Phat, posted 08-01-2015 1:51 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Phat, posted 08-01-2015 12:30 PM jar has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18656
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 311 of 1444 (765577)
08-01-2015 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Stile
07-30-2015 9:52 AM


Re: Rant In One Hand
Attempting to steer this ship back on topic.....
Mr.Hambre writes:
I've long thought that "evidence" is the secular equivalent of "God's will," in that what we already believe defines what we accept as evidence.
To a degree I agree with this statement. Because i believe that GOD is alive through Jesus Christ,(His human conduit) I will tend to accept certain dreams as personal evidence. Granted i will admit that anything I label as "evidence" is subjective in relation to my personal beliefs.
Stile writes:
The difficult thing with the will of God, though, is that God Himself is seldom (never?) around to clarify what His will actually is when 2 or more people disagree. This leaves the single interpretation so vague that it becomes useless and unknowable. Therefore, all specific interpretations rely on heresy and are entirely dependent on each individual who reviews the available information.
Like I said...my evidence is subjective. I cannot as of yet produce any objective evidence for Gods foreknowledge or whether or not I actually have free will. Others have thoughts on these issues:
quote:
...free will does not mean one will, but many wills conflicting in one man. Freedom cannot be conceived simply. ― Flannery O'Connor, Wise Blood

quote:
If there was no free will in men, then there is no sins. When sins happened, it was 'free will' that made them doable. This is true, unless God has predestined human to do and to have sins. ― Toba Beta

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Stile, posted 07-30-2015 9:52 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Omnivorous, posted 08-01-2015 1:49 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18656
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 312 of 1444 (765579)
08-01-2015 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by jar
08-01-2015 8:28 AM


Re: Foreknowledge and Free Will
quote:
I once heard it said that there are two religions in the world: 1) human attainment and 2) Divine accomplishment.
So I type "What Is The Gospel into the google search engine. 30+ sights all say that the Gospel is about Divine Accomplishment.
Only jar from Texas says its about doing your best.
But you probably never cared much for popularity contests anyway.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by jar, posted 08-01-2015 8:28 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by jar, posted 08-01-2015 5:44 PM Phat has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 136 days)
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


(2)
Message 313 of 1444 (765582)
08-01-2015 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Phat
08-01-2015 11:59 AM


Re: Rant In One Hand
Phat writes:
Like I said...my evidence is subjective. I cannot as of yet produce any objective evidence for Gods foreknowledge or whether or not I actually have free will. Others have thoughts on these issues:
Are you a bot? That sounds like an early conversation engine.
What do you call it when a human fails the Turing test?

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Phat, posted 08-01-2015 11:59 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by nwr, posted 08-01-2015 2:37 PM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6484
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(3)
Message 314 of 1444 (765586)
08-01-2015 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Omnivorous
08-01-2015 1:49 PM


Re: Rant In One Hand
What do you call it when a human fails the Turing test?
Republican.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Omnivorous, posted 08-01-2015 1:49 PM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 315 of 1444 (765590)
08-01-2015 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Phat
08-01-2015 12:30 PM


Re: Foreknowledge and Free Will
Phat writes:
Only jar from Texas says its about doing your best.
There was someone else, I think his name was Jesus. It is recorded in a book called the Bible. Maybe you should read it sometime.
Jesus in John 21:16 writes:
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Jesus in Matthew 22:37-40 writes:
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Shall I go on Phat?
Jesus says we should try to feed the hungry, comfort the sorrowful, cloth the naked, teach the children, heal the sick.
Granted the version you like is certainly easier and a much easier thing to sell the gullible.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Phat, posted 08-01-2015 12:30 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by GDR, posted 08-02-2015 9:31 PM jar has replied
 Message 317 by Phat, posted 08-03-2015 1:58 AM jar 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