Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God's judgement and Determinism
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 91 of 106 (443346)
12-24-2007 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by The Agnostic
12-24-2007 12:34 PM


*bump msg 63*
Adding this:
The Agnostic writes:
The argument I'd like to make: A fair and just God cannot judge humans based on their behaviour, because all human behaviour is determined by causality, which is outside of our control. I'll elaborate on the question why this is so.
I'd agree with you. So long as the premise you pose above (and elaborate upon further) is true. There is no way to demonstrate the premise true however.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by The Agnostic, posted 12-24-2007 12:34 PM The Agnostic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Arachide, posted 12-24-2007 7:25 PM iano has replied

  
The Agnostic
Member (Idle past 5933 days)
Posts: 36
From: Netherlands
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 92 of 106 (443374)
12-24-2007 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by ringo
12-24-2007 4:23 PM


So you're using scripture to back up your idea that God is unfair? Doesn't that strike you as just a tiny bit inconsistent?
That's the whole point!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 12-24-2007 4:23 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 12-25-2007 9:01 AM The Agnostic has replied

  
Arachide
Junior Member (Idle past 5937 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 12-21-2007


Message 93 of 106 (443383)
12-24-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by iano
12-24-2007 4:32 PM


iano writes:
The Agnostic writes:
The argument I'd like to make: A fair and just God cannot judge humans based on their behaviour, because all human behaviour is determined by causality, which is outside of our control. I'll elaborate on the question why this is so.
I'd agree with you. So long as the premise you pose above (and elaborate upon further) is true. There is no way to demonstrate the premise true however.
Phew, that's what i've been trying to explain Ringo. Aside the issue IF we live in a deterministic system that would make sense indeed.
Can you explain why you think there is no way to demonstrate (genetic) determinism?
Edited by Arachide, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by iano, posted 12-24-2007 4:32 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by iano, posted 12-27-2007 8:09 PM Arachide has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 94 of 106 (443470)
12-25-2007 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by The Agnostic
12-24-2007 6:44 PM


If your whole point is to argue that scripture is inconsistent, you're wasting everybody's time. Nobody here is arguing that.
You're using one interpretation of scripture (bad guys go to hell) and mixing it with another interpretation of scripture (God is omniscient) to arrive at the conclusion that God is "unfair".
Using scripture in that way is just silly. You can come up with any conclusion you want if you pick and choose your references.
I was hoping this thread would be more than just schoolboys doing their Logic 101 exercises.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by The Agnostic, posted 12-24-2007 6:44 PM The Agnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by The Agnostic, posted 12-25-2007 9:18 AM ringo has not replied
 Message 96 by Arachide, posted 12-25-2007 9:41 AM ringo has replied

  
The Agnostic
Member (Idle past 5933 days)
Posts: 36
From: Netherlands
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 95 of 106 (443471)
12-25-2007 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by ringo
12-25-2007 9:01 AM


You're using one interpretation of scripture (bad guys go to hell) and mixing it with another interpretation of scripture (God is omniscient) to arrive at the conclusion that God is "unfair".
It's not the omniscience, it's the determinism that makes Him unfair. That's kind of what the whole thread has been about until now. The conflict between moral judgement and determinism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 12-25-2007 9:01 AM ringo has not replied

  
Arachide
Junior Member (Idle past 5937 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 12-21-2007


Message 96 of 106 (443477)
12-25-2007 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by ringo
12-25-2007 9:01 AM


These are the basics of a proposition. I can make it more complex if you want, but i doubt if that will work if you can't even agree the basics.
if "A" = true THEN "B" = false
Where "A" is the theory of determinism and "B" is the biblical concept of being judged by god.
quote:
You're using one interpretation of scripture (bad guys go to hell)
What's wrong with using one interpretation of scripture? It can be used in a proposition to prove that interpretation either true or false.
quote:
I was hoping this thread would be more than just schoolboys doing their Logic 101 exercises.
If it's not logic you use to understand things, i'm highly interested in what else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 12-25-2007 9:01 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 12-26-2007 12:18 AM Arachide has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 97 of 106 (443607)
12-26-2007 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Arachide
12-25-2007 9:41 AM


Arachide writes:
What's wrong with using one interpretation of scripture? It can be used in a proposition to prove that interpretation either true or false.
But that isn't what you're doing. "If 'A' = true THEN 'B' = false" is meaningless because you haven't demonstrated that 'A' = true or that 'A' and 'B' are mutually exclusive.
If it's not logic you use to understand things, i'm highly interested in what else.
Logic has little value if it isn't applied to reality.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Arachide, posted 12-25-2007 9:41 AM Arachide has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by The Agnostic, posted 12-26-2007 11:23 AM ringo has replied
 Message 99 by Arachide, posted 12-26-2007 11:55 AM ringo has not replied

  
The Agnostic
Member (Idle past 5933 days)
Posts: 36
From: Netherlands
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 98 of 106 (443670)
12-26-2007 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by ringo
12-26-2007 12:18 AM


I think we clearly demonstrated the fact that we don't control our actions, because we are subject to determinism.
Also, the fact that sending people to hell for something they cannot control is immoral. Though, immorality is hard to prove scientifically, I think we can just assume that to be a fact of common knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 12-26-2007 12:18 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ringo, posted 12-26-2007 6:34 PM The Agnostic has not replied

  
Arachide
Junior Member (Idle past 5937 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 12-21-2007


Message 99 of 106 (443674)
12-26-2007 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by ringo
12-26-2007 12:18 AM


quote:
you haven't demonstrated that 'A' = true
That's called an assumption.
quote:
or that 'A' and 'B' are mutually exclusive.
I think it is demonstrated, but well...let's call that a difference of opinion or a difference of interpretation. I think comes down on the last one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 12-26-2007 12:18 AM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 100 of 106 (443789)
12-26-2007 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by The Agnostic
12-26-2007 11:23 AM


The Agnostic writes:
Though, immorality is hard to prove scientifically, I think we can just assume that to be a fact of common knowledge.
Nope.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by The Agnostic, posted 12-26-2007 11:23 AM The Agnostic has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 101 of 106 (444013)
12-27-2007 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Arachide
12-24-2007 7:25 PM


iano writes:
I'd agree with you. So long as the premise you pose above (and elaborate upon further) is true. There is no way to demonstrate the premise true however.
Arachide writes:
Phew, that's what i've been trying to explain Ringo. Aside the issue IF we live in a deterministic system that would make sense indeed.
How deterministic is deterministic? Is what you say in reply to this determined. Word for word? Or your not replying at all?
quote:
Can you explain why you think there is no way to demonstrate (genetic) determinism (abe:true)?
In the sense of absolving you of responsibility for your choices before God? Simple really, no one can hold their breath that long.
Those who are philosophically bent on furrowing that path will, per definition, end up mumbling something about ever more gaps being closed. True is not arrival at "we're closing more and more gaps every day".
Gaps-yet-to-be-closed is a case of agonisingly close...but no cigar. Which would align nicely with the concept of The (biblical)God Delusion.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Arachide, posted 12-24-2007 7:25 PM Arachide has not replied

  
rstrats
Member (Idle past 103 days)
Posts: 138
Joined: 04-08-2004


Message 102 of 106 (444402)
12-29-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by The Agnostic
12-24-2007 4:03 PM


The Agnostic,
How do you define “free will” as you are using the term in this topic?
BTW, is there any particular reason for adding an “s” at the end of “Revelation” in your posts #1 and #88?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by The Agnostic, posted 12-24-2007 4:03 PM The Agnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by The Agnostic, posted 12-30-2007 7:36 AM rstrats has not replied

  
The Agnostic
Member (Idle past 5933 days)
Posts: 36
From: Netherlands
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 103 of 106 (444655)
12-30-2007 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by rstrats
12-29-2007 9:42 AM


Free will, in my opinion, is when your actions are not a result of any physical cause and effect chains, but of your own decisions.
However, since all our decisions are made in the brain, and the brain is a physical entity much like any other, our will cannot truly by free.
A free will would require a non-physical consciousness that is not bound by the laws of physics. However, no evidence of such a non-physical consciousness exists.
You can even falsify it by drinking a glass of alcohol. The chemical composition of the alcohol will influence your brain function and as a result, your thoughts and behaviour change. Clearly, the physical world determines consciousness, not the other way around. Brain damage will have a similar effect.
If I mispelled Revelation by adding an s, that's probably because the Dutch version of the Bible has that word in plural form (Openbaringen).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by rstrats, posted 12-29-2007 9:42 AM rstrats has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by iano, posted 12-30-2007 7:46 AM The Agnostic has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 104 of 106 (444656)
12-30-2007 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by The Agnostic
12-30-2007 7:36 AM


The Agnostic writes:
Free will, in my opinion, is when your actions are not a result of any physical cause and effect chains, but of your own decisions.
That's not your opinion. That was determined. There is no "you" as such.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by The Agnostic, posted 12-30-2007 7:36 AM The Agnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by The Agnostic, posted 12-30-2007 12:36 PM iano has replied

  
The Agnostic
Member (Idle past 5933 days)
Posts: 36
From: Netherlands
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 105 of 106 (444694)
12-30-2007 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by iano
12-30-2007 7:46 AM


I'm guessing that's a mock reply, although I agree that the opinion voiced in the above post was formed by deterministic processes.
Edited by The Agnostic, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by iano, posted 12-30-2007 7:46 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by iano, posted 12-30-2007 4:19 PM The Agnostic 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