Do you believe in God?

[Dotini]

Since my interest got piqued, I'd like to propose a scenario.

I know you assume we all have free will. I doubt that if someone invented time travel tomorrow that you'd change your mind. And yet if the person who invented time travel were to go forward in time 1 day, see your actions for a day, and were to travel back in time to his original starting point - he would know all of the choices you'd make for that day.

Do you have free will or not?

Dan, this is a fun question!

I agree that the default position is free will. So if someone were to invent a time machine, go a day into the future, then come back and tell me what I'm going to do, then do I still have free will? (In your scenario you said nothing about what our time traveler did to vouchsafe his knowledge.)

I would say that free will still holds. This is because time in the future has many possible branches or scenarios, of which the time traveler will have seen only one. Man's future is not ordained by the visionary; it is not set in stone.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Danoff]

Dan, this is a fun question!

I agree that the default position is free will. So if someone were to invent a time machine, go a day into the future, then come back and tell me what I'm going to do, then do I still have free will? (In your scenario you said nothing about what our time traveler did to vouchsafe his knowledge.)

I would say that free will still holds. This is because time in the future has many possible branches or scenarios, of which the time traveler will have seen only one. Man's future is not ordained by the visionary; it is not set in stone.

...but it is set in stone - provided he doesn't alter the timeline (I think we're getting into star trek territory). He goes into the future, observes your behavior, comes back, knows your behavior (doesn't have to tell anyone) - and so your actions are pre-determined. How is there any free will if all of your choices are given. Just as Famine describes below:

Bzzt. You can't decide your future if it has already been decided. Even if you're unaware of the decision, your choices aren't free as entire path from now to then is mapped out.

So how is God being able to see into the future any different than a time traveler?

 

[Dotini]

...but it is set in stone - provided he doesn't alter the timeline (I think we're getting into star trek territory). He goes into the future, observes your behavior, comes back, knows your behavior (doesn't have to tell anyone) - and so your actions are pre-determined. How is there any free will if all of your choices are given. Just as Famine describes below:



So how is God being able to see into the future any different than a time traveler?

You say THE future. I say MANY futures. Only one future was seen by the time traveler, but who's to say it was the one which eventuated?

Doubt God (if existing) knows the future any better than our noobie time traveler. The story goes that God gave Man free will in order to entertain himself with our trials and antics, and to see if we would choose him even with our free will to choose differently. It would spoil his game to set it in stone. He's certainly getting his nickel's worth!

 

[Joel]

@ Dotini

That's a valid point, however, God is described as being Omniscient, so he knows everything that ever has been, is happening, and ever will happen. If God truly is Omniscient, he already knows what we will do, so therefore, If there is a God, we do not have free will.

EDIT: I think this Free Will talk deserves it's own thread.

 

[niky]

Just because an outside observer can view our universe as a whole (with the time dimension laid out as another spatial dimension, and not as the dimension of "time" as we perceive it, does not automatically make that outside observer a "God".

Specifically if that observer cannot control the outcome of events.

Our Universe is predetermined in a sense. But only in the sense that time itself is only an illusion, and all that has happened and that will happen is built into the structure of the universe... much like the streaks of water running down your windowpane during a rainstorm. But that doesn't change the fact that your conscious decision has had an effect on the overall fabric of the Universe.

You have total control over your future. But just because it's foreseen, doesn't change the outcome.

But, and here's the big "BUT"... observation of the results of history along the time dimension... meaning the transfer of information from the future to the past... actually changes the fabric of the universe. If you alter the past, the structure of the future that follows from it will change along with it. And observation always involves a two way transfer of information. This is a basic principle of quantum theory.

Some suggest that any time travel or time viewing will spawn a new universe... but it's also just as likely that any changes to our past that can be made by time travellers have already been made, and we are living in a Universe already altered by such actions. There's the Fermi paradox... if purposeful, physical, human time travel to the past were possible, we'd have seen evidence of it already... or we could be seeding a trail of time detritus in front of us as we travel through the universe... time travellers popping out of the future in interstellar space millions of years before the Earth will ever reach that point. Maybe metallic meteors are proof of time travel?

Again, whatever happens, we will never see proof of time travel altering our personal past, because our past is an intangible part of ourselves.

In other words... if there is a God, an outside observer with the power to create and alter the Universe, then all possible outcomes of all possible actions have been considered, and he has seen fit to let millions of people die in wars, disease, famine, religious strife and natural disasters. To allow "his" religion (whichever one it is) to blossom and fade away, and has allowed "his" disciples to suffer and die. For what reasons? Unknown. Said God is then the impersonal "Omega" kind of God, not the first person "Alpha" God that many religious adherents claim he is.

Whatever happens, he lets happen. With no apparent intervention save the granting of "visions" (which you don't need to be religious to have, and which inform different religions and cultures differently) and "miraculous healing" (which don't require religion so much as the power of positive thinking). Thus, if there is a God the Omega, we still don't know "his" shape or form and probably never will. Such a God is not worth worshipping, because worship of him, statistically, does not give you any benefits at all... except in the purported afterlife... the existence of which cannot be verified... and considering there are at least two to four dozen major religions and innumerable minor sects and obscure ones... your statistical chances of picking the right one are pretty slim.

@Danoff- time travel goes against logic all together, so It's hard to say.

Time travel doesn't go against any natural law, actually. It just requires very specific circumstances to be achieved.

 

[Dotini]

@ Dotini

That's a valid point, however, God is described as being Omniscient, so he knows everything that ever has been, is happening, and ever will happen. If God truly is Omniscient, he already knows what we will do, so therefore, If there is a God, we do not have free will (if you believe in a God).

EDIT: I think this Free Will talk deserves it's own thread.

Thanks for that!

If you ask ministers or priests or others who have actually been to divinity school and have a degree from an accredited college in divinity, then I think you will find that the commonly accepted standard reference is that God is not held to be omniscient and does grant free will to Men for the reasons (more or less) as I described. Check me out on this, but I think it is true.

Edit:

This is Niky's final paragraph (whole thing brilliant, Niky 👍)
"Whatever happens, he lets happen. With no apparent intervention save the granting of "visions" (which you don't need to be religious to have, and which inform different religions and cultures differently) and "miraculous healing" (which don't require religion so much as the power of positive thinking). Thus, if there is a God the Omega, we still don't know "his" shape or form and probably never will. Such a God is not worth worshipping, because worship of him, statistically, does not give you any benefits at all... except in the purported afterlife... the existence of which cannot be verified... and considering there are at least two to four dozen major religions and innumerable minor sects and obscure ones... your statistical chances of picking the right one are pretty slim."

With respect for all,
Dotini

 

[WVUscion]

Thanks for that!

If you ask ministers or priests or others who have actually been to divinity school and have a degree from an accredited college in divinity, then I think you will find that the commonly accepted standard reference is that God is not held to be omniscient and does grant free will to Men for the reasons (more or less) as I described. Check me out on this, but I think it is true.

Yours,
Dotini

While your theory about priests and ministers may or may not be true, the classical definition of God is someone who fulfills these three premises.

God Is:
a. All Powerful (Omnipotent)
b. All Knowing (Omniscient)
c. Perfectly Good

While many people in the spectrum of the Philosophy of Religion debate the truth of some of these premises, it is always assumed that when one talks about God he is talking about the God that is classically described. Obviously a tweaking of this outlook would change many arguments about the existence of God.

 

[Dotini]

While your theory about priests and ministers may or may not be true, the classical definition of God is someone who fulfills these three premises.

God Is:
a. All Powerful (Omnipotent)
b. All Knowing (Omniscient)
c. Perfectly Good

While many people in the spectrum of the Philosophy of Religion debate the truth of some of these premises, it is always assumed that when one talks about God he is talking about the God that is classically described. Obviously a tweaking of this outlook would change many arguments about the existence of God.

Thanks for that, WVUscion. It is vital that this point be resolved.

How should we we proceed? Who is the Authority? This is pretty pickle!

What does Niky say?

Puzzled,
Dotini

 

[Public'sTwin]

Who is the Authority?
Puzzled,
Dotini

 

[Dotini]

Al Sharpton! He is sooooo funny!👍

 

[Sam48]

A common outcome from separating Identical twins at birth is that without ever knowing each other, they live almost identical lives. For example, two twins separated at birth one day meet up and discover they both drive 08' Ford Mustangs, both live in a two story condo, both have a blond haired wife named Sarah, and both have 3 kids.

This is an example of free will, and how identical minds make the same decisions.

 

[Famine]

A common outcome from separating Identical twins at birth is that without ever knowing each other, they live almost identical lives. For example, two twins separated at birth one day meet up and discover they both drive 08' Ford Mustangs, both live in a two story condo, both have a blond haired wife named Sarah, and both have 3 kids.

This is an example of free will, and how identical minds make the same decisions.

It's only an example if you can cite it. Otherwise it's a story.

And don't forget to cite all the other identical twins separated at birth who didn't live almost identical lives.

 

[Touring Mars]

My great grandfather was an identical twin, but he and his brother lived completely separate lives - so much so that most of his family didn't even know he had a brother, let alone an identical twin. But despite the minimal contact, his brother did still make it to my great grandfather's funeral, much to the shock of the gathered family and friends who thought they were seeing a ghost.

 

[Sureboss]

Also, Sarah isn't exactly an uncommon name (though I'd love to know what the name of your wife has to do with free will, did they say to their other girlfriends, "I like you, but for this to go any further I want you to change your name."?), nor is having 3 kids. How many 08 Ford Mustang's exist in the states? Not exactlly rare, are they?

 

[Denur]

@ Dotini

That's a valid point, however, God is described as being Omniscient, so he knows everything that ever has been, is happening, and ever will happen. If God truly is Omniscient, he already knows what we will do, so therefore, If there is a God, we do not have free will.

I am not so sure that being omniscient also means knowing all that will happen in the future. To me it means knowing all that has happened and that is currently going on. All throughout the Bible (as far as I know) God acts in a reactive way and those things that are foretold in the Bible still require God's action, like facing the Devil in the Last Battle (Armageddon).

If God does have knowledge about the future, then why did He let get things get so out of hand in the early days, that He saw no other option than to destroy most of the lives He had created so far (Genesis Flood)?

 

[Duke]

If God does have knowledge about the future, then why did He let get things get so out of hand in the early days, that He saw no other option than to destroy most of the lives He had created so far (Genesis Flood)?

Because we have free will. Supposedly. Even though he knows what will happen.

And don't even get me started on "predestination".

 

[Famine]

I am not so sure that being omniscient also means knowing all that will happen in the future. To me it means knowing all that has happened and that is currently going on.

Which is the same thing - reference the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

 

[Denur]

Because we have free will. Supposedly. Even though he knows what will happen.

And don't even get me started on "predestination".

Yes, we have free will, but He doesn't seem to have a clue about what will happen. He can create beautiful stuff (most of the time) and apparently knows all we do, but that's about it.

Which is the same thing - reference the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

If God is omniscient, than the HUP doesn't apply to Him, which is not so strange, Him being God and all. I still fail to see how being omniscient also means being able to know all that will happen. Please enlighten me.

 

[Dotini]

I'd also have to see some credible documentation to buy into the legitimacy of veridical experience.

Even if I did believe it, I don't see how that justifies belief in a higher power, especially if one believes, as you do, that "remote viewing", a very specific type of veridical experience, is being tested under laboratory conditions. If this is true, it puts veridical experience squarely in the sights of scientific inquiry into an as-yet unknown or misunderstood phenomenon and precludes it from forming the basis of supernatural belief.

http://www.skeptiko.com/94-jeffrey-long-near-death-experience-research/
The author of the book reviewed is medical doctor who is professional researcher of some 280 NDE cases. He honestly feels that he has proven that there is life after death; that consciousness survives the physical body. While certainly not proving that God exists, it perhaps takes us a step closer to understanding man's places in the Cosmos. It may take God out of the realm of the putatively supernatural, and "squarely into the sights of scientific inquiry", to quote Crafty.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

(article follows)


94. Dr. Jeffrey Long’s Near-Death Experience Research a “Game Changer” for Science
February 3rd, 2010 alex

The most comprehensive research into near-death experience deals a kill shot to skeptics and aims to change how science views the afterlife.

evidenceafterlife2Science has studied the near-death experience for more than 20 years. Most research has concluded NDEs are real and unexplainable, but scientists have been slow to accept consciousness beyond death. A new scientific study by Jeffrey Long, M. D. may change that. The research compiled in his new book, Evidence of the Afterlife, represents the largest, most comprehensive study of near-death experience and according to the study’s author is, “a real game-changer”.

Dr. Long explains, “we looked at nine lines of evidence that indicate the reality of near-death experiences and their consistent message of an afterlife. With each of these lines of evidence we carefully reviewed all prior scholarly research on the subject and made our contributions with our original research… from my point of view, the scientific term is compelling, but you can put it another way — the nine lines of evidence that I present is proof of the reality of near-death experiences.”

The conclusions of Dr. Long’s research are paradigm smashing for near-death experience skeptics who’ve argued that limited brain functioning may explain NDEs. “What near-death experiencers see correlates to their time of cardiac arrest and it is almost uniformly accurate in every detail. That pretty much refutes the possibility that these could be illusionary fragments, or unreal memories associated with hypoxia, chemicals, REM intrusion, anything that could cause brain dysfunction”, Dr. Long stated.

“I looked at over 280 near-death experiences that had out-of-body observations of Earthly ongoing events… If near-death experiences were just fragments of memory, unrealistic remembrances of a time approaching unconsciousness or returning from unconsciousness, there is no chance that the observations would have a high percent of completely accurate observations. They’d be dream-like or hallucinations. But 98% of them were entirely realistic… In fact, these observations of Earthly ongoing events often include observations of things that would be impossible for them to be aware of with any sensory function from their physical body. For example, they can see the tops of buildings. They can see far away. In my study over 60 of these near-death experiencers later went back and independently attempted to verify what they saw in the out-of-body state. Every single one of these over 60 near-death experiencers that reported checking or verifying their own observations found that they were absolutely correct in every detail.”, Dr. Long said.

While some near-death experience researchers have been reluctant to make the leap from NDEs to proof of the afterlife, Dr. Long is convinced by his research findings, “I’ve gone over every skeptic argument I can get my hands on. At the end of the day, I have no doubt in my mind near-death experience is for real. It’s a profound and reassuring message that we all have an afterlife. Every single one of us. And it’s wonderful. It is probably the greatest thrill of my life to be able to carry forward that important message to the world. I wouldn’t do it if I weren’t absolutely convinced that it’s correct.”

The conclusions of this research will be controversial, but Dr. Long stands ready to take on the critics, “I would be delighted to debate any near-death experience skeptic, any time, any place, on any media, as long as they’re scholarly, well informed, and as long as it can be a very high-level, intellectual debate.”

Jeffrey Long, M.D., is a physician practicing the specialty of radiation oncology (use of radiation to treat cancer) in Houma, Louisiana. Dr. Long has served on the Board of Directors of IANDS (International Association for Near-Death Studies), and is actively involved in NDE research. His book, Evidence of the Afterlife (HarperCollins), was published in 2010.

 

[Famine]

If God is omniscient, than the HUP doesn't apply to Him, which is not so strange, Him being God and all. I still fail to see how being omniscient also means being able to know all that will happen. Please enlighten me.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is quite straightforward - it's impossible to know both where a subatomic particle is and where it's going. In order to do so, you'd have to know where every subatomic particle is and where it's going - you'd literally have to know the location of every particle in the universe both now and an infinitessimal amount of time later. That is to say you'd be required to know the future as an emergent property of knowing everything now.

 

[Dotini]

http://pelicanist.blogspot.com/2010/02/brain-and-body.html

Here is a review of a book which is not favorable to the NDE thesis presented in post # 1639 above.

 

[Denur]

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is quite straightforward - it's impossible to know both where a subatomic particle is and where it's going. In order to do so, you'd have to know where every subatomic particle is and where it's going - you'd literally have to know the location of every particle in the universe both now and an infinitesimal amount of time later. That is to say you'd be required to know the future as an emergent property of knowing everything now.

The way I understood the H.U.P. is that it is impossible to exactly know where a particle is at the moment. But you're right, that also means that it is not possible to know where it is going, not without extrapolating its history (which can only be an approximation). So it is indeed safe to say that an omniscient being must be able to look into the future.
Now, if God is omniscient and therefore being able to look into the future, then I would expect that this 'gift' would be all over the Bible. But as far as I know the Bible, all his actions are just reactions (except for the initial Creation). Maybe He is not omniscient at all and His own creations lead to results that surprise even Him.....

 

[Famine]

The way I understood the H.U.P. is that it is impossible to exactly know where a particle is at the moment.

That's the easy part

You can know exactly where it is or its speed and direction, but not both. Star Trek invokes this with its transporters - transporting someone requires knowledge of where every particle in their body is and where it's going in order to take it apart and reconstitute it remotely, faithfully. Since the writers knew this was impossible, there's a bit of Trek tech which is an integral part of the transporter system called "The Heisenberg Compensators"

But you're right, that also means that it is not possible to know where it is going, not without extrapolating its history (which can only be an approximation). So it is indeed safe to say that an omniscient being must be able to look into the future.
Now, if God is omniscient and therefore being able to look into the future, then I would expect that this 'gift' would be all over the Bible. But as far as I know the Bible, all his actions are just reactions (except for the initial Creation). Maybe He is not omniscient at all and His own creations lead to results that surprise even Him.....

And this gives us (the royal "us") a problem. The Bible - and the Qu'ran for that matter - describes God as omniscient, yet it also shows God as reactionary - particularly to the "free will" supposedly granted to us. Heisenberg shows us that omniscience requires all past, present and future knowledge, denying free will.

The problem is thus if the OT/NT/Qu'ran describe events accurately - and as the infallible word of God, they ought - then they describe God inaccurately as omniscient. Conversely if they describe God accurately as omniscient - and as the infallible word of God, they ought - then they describe the events inaccurately. Either God is omniscient and every action ascribed to him is false, or God isn't omniscient and every action ascribed to him is true - but in either case the claims of the holy books that describe this as "the word of God" are optimistic at best.

Of course, for atheists, this isn't a problem. We generally think the whole thing is hogwash anyway. And for theists it's not a problem either, because they believe and any evidence that flies in the face of the belief is dismissed offhand, as a test from God or tricks by the devil.

 

[Dotini]

And this gives us (the royal "us") a problem. The Bible - and the Qu'ran for that matter - describes God as omniscient, yet it also shows God as reactionary - particularly to the "free will" supposedly granted to us. Heisenberg shows us that omniscience requires all past, present and future knowledge, denying free will.

The problem is thus if the OT/NT/Qu'ran describe events accurately - and as the infallible word of God, they ought - then they describe God inaccurately as omniscient. Conversely if they describe God accurately as omniscient - and as the infallible word of God, they ought - then they describe the events inaccurately. Either God is omniscient and every action ascribed to him is false, or God isn't omniscient and every action ascribed to him is true - but in either case the claims of the holy books that describe this as "the word of God" are optimistic at best.

Of course, for atheists, this isn't a problem. We generally think the whole thing is hogwash anyway. And for theists it's not a problem either, because they believe and any evidence that flies in the face of the belief is dismissed offhand, as a test from God or tricks by the devil.

Our poll reveals that 29% of us have made up their minds for "Yes, God exists", and 46% have decided "No, he doesn't". That leaves 25% as the battleground over which ideas, evidence and propaganda will be distributed to persuade those who are unconvinced either way.

The Bible is of course important data to consider. All Biblical scholars trained at proper universities and who have degrees readily concede that the Bible is a compendium of books written at various times and places by men. It's a red herring to set the Bible up as written by the finger of God or to impute omniscience or infallibility to God, then to knock down these straw men to make a rhetorical point. No reputable Biblical scholar endorses these views, so we should not perpetuate these errors.

I have enough confidence in the scientific method that I believe resolution of this question of God's existence is possible if enough observations are made and the requisite analysis accomplished. Our purpose is challenged by general ignorance of both religious and scientific scholarship. But it is not entirely thwarted if honest men of good will put their minds and energies to it over a long enough period of time. Hopefully I'm not being overly optimistic.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

It's a red herring to set the Bible up as written by the finger of God or to impute omniscience or infallibility to God, then to knock down these straw men to make a rhetorical point. No reputable Biblical scholar endorses these views, so we should not perpetuate these errors.

No, but billions of believers in these anthologies actually hold these views. The fundamental basis of the Qu'ran is "The Bible's nearly right, but not quite. Here's what I actually said, signed God".

 

[Denur]

No reputable Biblical scholar endorses these views, so we should not perpetuate these errors.

Define reputable. I would probably find them to be so, but orthodox religious people most likely foresee an afterlife in hell for them.

 

[NLxAROSA]

That leaves 25% as the battleground over which ideas, evidence and propaganda will be distributed to persuade those who are unconvinced either way.

I actually think the battleground will be even smaller, since "Maybe" also includes "I don't know, don't give a damn, and I sure as hell don't need any 'persuasion'!".

 

[Dotini]

No, but billions of believers in these anthologies actually hold these views. The fundamental basis of the Qu'ran is "The Bible's nearly right, but not quite. Here's what I actually said, signed God".

True. But to trample too much over this old ground is not the path to our desired solution. Religion evolves in fits and starts much like science and nature itself does. Every so often some new prophet will come along with a new vision, and it will catch hold. The prophet Joseph Smith received a vision form the angel Moroni. Lo and behold, we have the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) as yet another new data point. Islam has its scholarly and more advanced strains, much like Catholicism has its Cistercians, or whatever. I'd rather learn about the Qu'ran from a few Sufi in preference over a million Taliban.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Denur]

Allow me to quote this again.

The Bible is of course important data to consider. All Biblical scholars trained at proper universities and who have degrees readily concede that the Bible is a compendium of books written at various times and places by men. It's a red herring to set the Bible up as written by the finger of God or to impute omniscience or infallibility to God, then to knock down these straw men to make a rhetorical point. No reputable Biblical scholar endorses these views, so we should not perpetuate these errors.

I now have before me a book written by two scholars: "The Genesis Flood, the biblical record and its scientific implications." It is written by John C. Whitcomb (B.D., Th.M. and Th.D.) and Henry M. Morris (Ph.D.).

First a quote from the book's Foreword by John C. McCampbell (Ph.D), Professor and Head, Department of Geology University of SW Louisiana Lafayette:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So the Bible teaches, and so we believe, for God has given us the Bible not only to guide our faith but also to provide a framework of revelation within which to interpret the mysteries of the earth's origin and destiny.

And from the Preface to the Second Printing (by the authors themselves):

The basic argument of this volume is based upon the presupposition that the Scriptures are true (being verbally inspired by God -- II Timothy 3:16, II Peter 1:21, John 10:35, etc.).

These men are well educated and respected. I would say that they are all reputable biblical scholars and o boy, do they endorse those views.

 

[Dotini]

Allow me to quote this again.



I now have before me a book written by two scholars: "The Genesis Flood, the biblical record and its scientific implications." It is written by John C. Whitcomb (B.D., Th.M. and Th.D.) and Henry M. Morris (Ph.D.).

First a quote from the book's Foreword by John C. McCampbell (Ph.D), Professor and Head, Department of Geology University of SW Louisiana Lafayette:


And from the Preface to the Second Printing (by the authors themselves):


These men are well educated and respected. I would say that they are all reputable biblical scholars and o boy, do they endorse those views.

I have to agree that these gents are pretty "crazy", as you say. I would doubt that they are graduates of Harvard, Yale or any of the better schools offering degrees in divinity. A lot of these partisan cranks who pass themselves off as experts come from podunk bible colleges in the hick states, or even cut out their "degrees" from the back of comic books or mail order order catalogs. I put no credence in them, and neither should any of us. If we are going to go forward, it will have to be on the basis of the best evidence and best scholarship, not the worst that can be scrounged up from the gutter. Otherwise, it's pointless to continue, as the well will be hopelessly poisoned.

Yours,
Dotini