|
Post by Admin on Feb 15, 2024 0:37:26 GMT
You misunderstood. It's that simple. No, you definitely said this was a written discussion. And I certainly don't understand the irony of your image both in and out of context. Context, man. Context. You know... that thing you lose when you quote chop? Later.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 15, 2024 0:54:40 GMT
No, you definitely said this was a written discussion. And I certainly understand the irony of your image both in and out of context. Context, man. Context. You know... that thing you lose when you quote chop? Later. What, back to this thing now? That's all you have? Run out of amusing pics? (I have changed my words you quote above and in my last post as the negative was not meant.)
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Mar 25, 2024 2:19:00 GMT
About free will, one thing I do not get Film Flaneur, is how you could be oblivious to it, not pretending that is. Even an automated copilot gets at it, but not you ? (Fascinating chat, btw : Ah, **Robert A. Heinlein** and his fascinating storytelling! "All You Zombies" is a science fiction short story published in 1959. Heinlein is known for his bold ideas and explorations of temporal paradoxes. Here's a brief overview of this intriguing story:
- **Plot**: - The story follows a time traveler, a secret agent, who finds himself caught in a complex time loop. - This agent discovers that he is both his own father and mother, the result of a series of strange events and temporal manipulations.
- The Self-Engendering Paradox**: - In "All You Zombies", Heinlein explores the concept of self-engendering. The protagonist is both creator and creature, parent and child. - Events unfold in a non-linear fashion, and each revelation adds a new layer of complexity.
- Reflections on Identity and Time**: - The story raises profound questions about identity, free will and the nature of time. - Heinlein invites us to question our certainties and consider the strangest possibilities.
All in all, "All You Zombies" is a captivating example of how science fiction can push us to rethink our understanding of the world and ourselves. Thanks for sharing this reference! 😊🚀) ...
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 25, 2024 21:25:07 GMT
About free will, one thing I do not get Film Flaneur, is how you could be oblivious to it, not pretending that is. Please show where I am "oblivious of free will". In fact I would argue this thread indicates quite the opposite. It is true though that elsewhere I usually tend to avoid general discussions of free will as they tend to vanish down a rabbit hole. But it is certainly hard to reconcile a deity who supposedly values free will and yet at times, as I have noted, goes out of His way to "harden the hearts" of men to suit His preference. Or a God who supposedly knows everything and yet at times has nevertheless has cause to "repent". And can we consider God has free will Himself if, being omniscient, by definition He has always known what He does before He decides to do it? In other words, if things only happen because God wills it, then God can only will what will happen. Here you appear to be thanking yourself?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 26, 2024 0:14:54 GMT
Or a God who supposedly knows everything and yet at times has nevertheless has cause to "repent". And can we consider God has free will Himself if, being omniscient, by definition He has always known what He does before He decides to do it? In other words, if things only happen because God wills it, then God can only will what will happen. There you go again, imposing limits on what you presume to be unlimited.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Mar 26, 2024 0:59:26 GMT
About free will, one thing I do not get Film Flaneur, is how you could be oblivious to it, not pretending that is. Please show where I am "oblivious of free will". In fact I would argue this thread indicates quite the opposite. It is true though that elsewhere I usually tend to avoid general discussions of free will as they tend to vanish down a rabbit hole. But it is certainly hard to reconcile a deity who supposedly values free will and yet at times, as I have noted, goes out of His way to "harden the hearts" of men to suit His preference. Or a God who supposedly knows everything and yet at times has nevertheless has cause to "repent". And can we consider God has free will Himself if, being omniscient, by definition He has always known what He does before He decides to do it? In other words, if things only happen because God wills it, then God can only will what will happen. Here you appear to be thanking yourself? Definitely not. You butchered the copilot’s words. Poor copilot. I chatted with it about something I ’d like to write down in fanfic, and it did say my plan was interesting such and such. So I fed it the reference and it was ”pleased”and thankfull.The brave little thing was on the verge of wagging her cyber tail! And maybe you’ve read the short story. If you don’t do rabbit holes, how can you pretend discussing leap of faith ? Or religion.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 26, 2024 20:17:56 GMT
. If you don’t do rabbit holes, how can you pretend discussing leap of faith ? Or religion. I have no idea what you are on about for most of your reply. All I know is what I have seen, the 'death spiral' of most free will discussions where nothing can be proved and the same tired old arguments are rehearsed.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 26, 2024 20:42:53 GMT
Or a God who supposedly knows everything and yet at times has nevertheless has cause to "repent". And can we consider God has free will Himself if, being omniscient, by definition He has always known what He does before He decides to do it? In other words, if things only happen because God wills it, then God can only will what will happen. There you go again, imposing limits on what you presume to be unlimited. Actually I have more sympathy for sensible and realistic Christian thinkers like Yujin Nagasawa www.amazon.co.uk/Maximal-God-Defence-Perfect-Theism/dp/0198758685 who argues for a Maximal God theology: that is, whereas perfect being (more traditional) theists typically maintain that God is an utterly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being, according to Maximal God thinking, God should be understood rather as a being that has the maximal consistent set of knowledge, power, and benevolence. (i.e. the deity can only ever do what it is logically coherent and possible for Him to do) I think I have explained this before and perhaps you have forgotten. As for that example of apparent contradiction in scripture (God "repenting", several times) by implication it does any limiting of the Almighty on its own account, without my help. I just pointed it out. If a deity can know all in advance and do all to shape events, then why would it end up regretting the way things turn out if they are ultimately down to its actions? The last example was a simple contradiction depending on the traditional notion on God being absolutely omniscient in that, to be strictly true without limiting His knowledge, He necessarily must therefore know what He does before He decides to. Here, surely saying He does not would be the 'limiting God' you talk of?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 26, 2024 22:25:11 GMT
There you go again, imposing limits on what you presume to be unlimited. Actually I have more sympathy for sensible and realistic Christian thinkers like Yujin Nagasawa www.amazon.co.uk/Maximal-God-Defence-Perfect-Theism/dp/0198758685 who argues for a Maximal God theology: that is, whereas perfect being (more traditional) theists typically maintain that God is an utterly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being, according to Maximal God thinking, God should be understood rather as a being that has the maximal consistent set of knowledge, power, and benevolence. (i.e. the deity can only ever do what it is logically coherent and possible for Him to do) I think I have explained this before and perhaps you have forgotten. As for that example of apparent contradiction in scripture (God "repenting", several times) by implication it does any limiting of the Almighty on its own account, without my help. I just pointed it out. If a deity can know all in advance and do all to shape events, then why would it end up regretting the way things turn out if they are ultimately down to its actions? The last example was a simple contradiction depending on the traditional notion on God being absolutely omniscient in that, to be strictly true without limiting His knowledge, He necessarily must therefore know what He does before He decides to. Here, surely saying He does not would be the 'limiting God' you talk of? You're backpedaling now, which is actually better than doubling down. Problem is, you didn't address your bookends.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 26, 2024 23:07:22 GMT
Actually I have more sympathy for sensible and realistic Christian thinkers like Yujin Nagasawa www.amazon.co.uk/Maximal-God-Defence-Perfect-Theism/dp/0198758685 who argues for a Maximal God theology: that is, whereas perfect being (more traditional) theists typically maintain that God is an utterly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being, according to Maximal God thinking, God should be understood rather as a being that has the maximal consistent set of knowledge, power, and benevolence. (i.e. the deity can only ever do what it is logically coherent and possible for Him to do) I think I have explained this before and perhaps you have forgotten. As for that example of apparent contradiction in scripture (God "repenting", several times) by implication it does any limiting of the Almighty on its own account, without my help. I just pointed it out. If a deity can know all in advance and do all to shape events, then why would it end up regretting the way things turn out if they are ultimately down to its actions? The last example was a simple contradiction depending on the traditional notion on God being absolutely omniscient in that, to be strictly true without limiting His knowledge, He necessarily must therefore know what He does before He decides to. Here, surely saying He does not would be the 'limiting God' you talk of? You're backpedaling now, which is actually better than doubling down. Problem is, you didn't address your bookends. No, I was just explaining which view of God's supposed powers I think more sensible, whilst raising a couple of potential problems most acute for those who might support the notion of a perfectly powerful deity. Just because I posit an instance does not mean I necessarily assume it myself. Indeed as a soft atheist, any type of God is moot, I just relish the contradictions and inconsistencies. Glad to help.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 26, 2024 23:52:26 GMT
You're backpedaling now, which is actually better than doubling down. Problem is, you didn't address your bookends. No, I was just explaining which view of God's supposed powers I think more sensible, whilst raising a couple of potential problems most acute for those who might support the notion of a perfectly powerful deity. Just because I posit an instance does not mean I necessarily assume it myself. Indeed as a soft atheist, any type of God is moot, I just relish the contradictions and inconsistencies. Glad to help. There are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the idea of a perfectly powerful deity, only an admitted lack of understanding. If there's nothing said deity can't do, then it's erroneous to conclude that there's something it can't do. I know I've explained this many times before, but perhaps you have forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Mar 27, 2024 0:43:49 GMT
. If you don’t do rabbit holes, how can you pretend discussing leap of faith ? Or religion. I have no idea what you are on about for most of your reply. All I know is what I have seen, the 'death spiral' of most free will discussions where nothing can be proved and the same tired old arguments are rehearsed. But you are welcome to bring new ones of your own. St Augustin was not Einstein, even I read about his ideas in the political field, why not you... And again, it’s only the guilt one can prove. If you need to know, I completed a full law cursus in the hope of learning how to know truth for sure. (Told you, real silly, I am!) I can understand you don’t want to get lost or waste you time, though. But in order to avoid rabbit holes, maybe you should stick to history or the science board. You would be missed.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Mar 27, 2024 1:34:21 GMT
It is true though that elsewhere I usually tend to avoid general discussions of free will as they tend to vanish down a rabbit hole. But it is certainly hard to reconcile a deity who supposedly values free will and yet at times, as I have noted, goes out of His way to "harden the hearts" of men to suit His preference. Or a God who supposedly knows everything and yet at times has nevertheless has cause to "repent". And can we consider God has free will Himself if, being omniscient, by definition He has always known what He does before He decides to do it? In other words, if things only happen because God wills it, then God can only will what will happen. To reconcile with what ? Science, repentence, that’s entirely appart as objects of intellection. No, free will is not about god, it’s about man. Definitely.(typically) I fed the last one through deep L. It did not made more sense in my langage, I’m afraid. If then, invalid. Does not compute. Things only happen because god wants it. (God, first cause) God can only will what will happen. (Really ?) __________________________________________________________ X 1God can only will (really? And even when god’s will could be restricted, what’s the point ? Men talk about the will of God when something goes wrong. Do they see god’s will in sweetness,fairness, equity, justice ?- Granted, it’s not easy to find the occurrence of justice)Did they saw god’s will in the science feat that was written untill present day ? When Fizeau finds a way to find the actual speed of light, his founding, his brilliance, is that god’s will ? 2Hm, no, that’s not free will, that business of only being able to will what will happen. It is St augustin. But the point is time, not free will. There is no reconciliation , but to begin with, there wasn’t an opposition. It’s two different points. Where does it say that god has got the same schedule man has ? First, will, than bam, something occurs for god is god ? Can’t god create just by luck ?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 27, 2024 10:46:57 GMT
in order to avoid rabbit holes, maybe you should stick to history or the science board. No, to just avoid threads on free will works for me.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 27, 2024 10:59:38 GMT
There are no [my emphasis] contradictions or inconsistencies in the idea of a perfectly powerful deity, only an admitted lack of understanding. Others would disagree with you, right back to Aquinas ("He can 'do all things which are absolutely possible.'But God cannot do something when'the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject.' "- Summa Theologica) and beyond. But then perhaps that great thinker just lacked your understanding? The idea of a Maximal God - one only able to do that which it can do - I think is a more realistic idea of the Almighty. It is certainly true that scripture does not offer such a sophisticated and reasonable view eg “With God all things are possible.” (Mark 10:27) but then again we learn there also that God can be limited: for instance in Hebrews 6:13 & 18 that apparently He cannot lie or swear by a being higher than Himself.. out of such contradictions an atheist's fun can be had. For sure we always have those believers who ignore textual and logical inconsistencies and insist on their literal, traditional view. But that does not mean that, while recognising a sincerely held view, it can't be flawed and obvious questions asked. Above, whether aligned with them or not, you appear to think that a Perfect God position is above any such criticism. Hence the contradiction, and why some great thinkers have had to reconsider that absolute premise as subject to necessarily qualification. The typical ripostes to such unsophisticated notions is to ask whether then God can create a boulder He cannot lift? Change His nature? Create a circle which is a triangle ? Can He make a being greater than Himself? Commit suicide? Oh but that's right, "There are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the idea", right?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2024 1:09:59 GMT
There are no [my emphasis] contradictions or inconsistencies in the idea of a perfectly powerful deity, only an admitted lack of understanding. Others would disagree with you, right back to Aquinas ("He can 'do all things which are absolutely possible.'But God cannot do something when'the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject.' "- Summa Theologica) and beyond. But then perhaps that great thinker just lacked your understanding? The idea of a Maximal God - one only able to do that which it can do - I think is a more realistic idea of the Almighty. It is certainly true that scripture does not offer such a sophisticated and reasonable view eg “With God all things are possible.” (Mark 10:27) but then again we learn there also that God can be limited: for instance in Hebrews 6:13 & 18 that apparently He cannot lie or swear by a being higher than Himself.. out of such contradictions an atheist's fun can be had. For sure we always have those believers who ignore textual and logical inconsistencies and insist on their literal, traditional view. But that does not mean that, while recognising a sincerely held view, it can't be flawed and obvious questions asked. Above, whether aligned with them or not, you appear to think that a Perfect God position is above any such criticism. Hence the contradiction, and why some great thinkers have had to reconsider that absolute premise as subject to necessarily qualification. The typical ripostes to such unsophisticated notions is to ask whether then God can create a boulder He cannot lift? Change His nature? Create a circle which is a triangle ? Can He make a being greater than Himself? Commit suicide? Oh but that's right, "There are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the idea", right? Unless it's your contention that there must be something God can't do if there's nothing God can't do, everything you just wrote is circular, convoluted nonsense unworthy of response.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 28, 2024 20:52:35 GMT
Unless it's your contention that there must be something God can't do if there's nothing God can't do, everything you just wrote is circular, convoluted nonsense unworthy of response. As it is not my contention (Note I only talked of a supposed God, not one necessarily supposed by me, an atheist) then you can stop chewing that particular bone. My contention instead is those who do suppose such a deity face, I think, unanswerable logical contradictions. It is perfectly legitimate to take a supposition and to point out why it won't work. Here one notes your sweeping claim, made without sensible hedging, that "there are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the idea of a perfectly powerful deity". Oddly, even with your level of 'understanding', you did not find time to address or answer glaring paradoxes and contradictions such as I pointed out. I wonder why? But then again, it is probably best to offer no response, nonsense or otherwise, in such circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2024 23:54:21 GMT
Unless it's your contention that there must be something God can't do if there's nothing God can't do, everything you just wrote is circular, convoluted nonsense unworthy of response. As it is not my contention (Note I only talked of a supposed God, not one necessarily supposed by me, as an atheist) and even you say " If there's nothing said deity can't do.. " then you stop chewing that particular bone. For all the reasons and examples I gave earlier, those who do suppose such a deity face, I think, unanswerable logical contradictions. It is legitimate to take a supposition and to point out why it won't work. We have your sweeping claim, without sensible hedging, that "there are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the idea of a perfectly powerful deity". Oddly, you did not find time address or answer some of the more glaring paradoxes and contradictions such a notion of idea brings on. I wonder why? But then again, it is probably best to offer no response, nonsense or otherwise, in such circumstances. When you presume that God has unlimited knowledge and power while at the same time asserting that God has limited knowledge and power, the logical contradiction is all yours. Here it is again in elementary fashion: "If God can do anything, can he..." Yes. No matter what follows "can he," and no matter how paradoxical or contradictory it may seem to you, my non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, non-omnipresent friend, the answer is yes.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 29, 2024 18:51:49 GMT
When you presume that God has unlimited knowledge and power while at the same time asserting that God has limited knowledge and power, the logical contradiction is all yours. I think you are little confused. I have not both presumed and then asserted that. I merely talked of what is supposed by some, and then mentioned the doubts by thinkers like Aquinas - a little different to your misrepresentation. It is quite reasonable to go on and point out when sweeping presumptions lead to obvious logical problems - examples of which you still have not addressed - even though you claim "there are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the idea of a perfectly powerful deity". (So, now evasion is noted as well as misrepresentation.) In fact such inevitable paradoxes rather indicate that a Perfect God cannot exist over a Maximal one.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2024 19:39:17 GMT
|
|