Do you believe in God?

[Dotini]

The usual way is that if a god is omniscient, that god knows all of your choices before you're even created... so how can you even make one? You're created, and you go forth and perform according to how that god knew you would perform based on how it created you.

If you are going to discuss free will, you should at least have the benefit of the basics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

My own view is that determinism is incompatible with free will.

 

[Danoff]

If you are going to discuss free will, you should at least have the benefit of the basics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

I have no idea what that means.

 

[Denur]

god knows all of your choices before you're even created... so how can you even make one?

To me, knowing it all (what was, what is and what will be) can still be just an onlooker's trade.

 

[Danoff]

To me, knowing it all (what was, what is and what will be) can still be just an onlooker's trade.

You're going to have to elaborate. If it can be known, how is choice possible? If I can know what the future will be, how can I make a choice about it?

 

[Dotini]

IMHO, evolution is a science fact. Once the laws are determined and Big Bang is set off, the process of natural selection creates novelty. There is no need for God to microengineer the characteristics of lifeforms. Instead of acting as puppeteer who pulls the strings, God relinquishes control (omnipotence) so that novelty, innovation, different experiences arise, and free will is not interfered with. Your potential is actualized.

 

[huskeR32]

IMHO, evolution is a science fact. Once the laws are determined and Big Bang is set off, the process of natural selection creates novelty. There is no need for God to microengineer the characteristics of lifeforms. Instead of acting as puppeteer who pulls the strings, God relinquishes control (omnipotence) so that novelty, innovation, different experiences arise, and free will is not interfered with. Your potential is actualized.

So God is not omniscient then?

 

[Dotini]

So God is not omniscient then?

IMHO God is not omnipotent. The point of creation is the novel experiences of physical reality, evolving creatures, their choices, emotions etc that were lacking to the universal consciousness we refer to as God.

 

[Denur]

If I can know what the future will be, how can I make a choice about it?

You're not omniscient (as far as I know), so that is irrelevant.

If it can be known, how is choice possible?

Choice would still be possible, when the knowing party has no influence on how the Universe develops, when it is merely an observer.

The only entity that doesn't have free choice, is an omniscient being.

 

[Danoff]

IMHO God is not omnipotent.

Clearly... because of this next part.

The point of creation is the novel experiences of physical reality, evolving creatures, their choices, emotions etc that were lacking to the universal consciousness we refer to as God.

This is not what people generally mean when they use the word "God". Omniscience and Omnipotence usually go hand in hand with the word "God". I'll grant that it has not always been the case. Thor, for example, would be a god who was not attributed those qualities. He was the god of silky hair. The idea of a "lesser" god, who is defined by a lack of all-encompassing-power is not really consistent with modern use of the word.

I'm not going to say it's incompatible with the thread, but it's bound to cause confusion, and you should be upfront that you don't mean it in the commonly used sense.

You're not omniscient (as far as I know), so that is irrelevant.

Can you answer the question instead of incorrectly declaring it irrelevant? If the future can be known, how is choice possible?

Choice would still be possible, when the knowing party has no influence on how the Universe develops, when it is merely an observer.

Explain how. If an observer knows the future, before it happens, how can choice occur?

 

[Dotini]

the commonly used sense.

IMHO the "commonly used sense" is a bit old-fashioned. "God" to me refers to the universal consciousness that created laws and the Big Bang so that the universe could evolve on its own. The purpose was to create physical reality, novel lifeforms and conscious experiences that could otherwise never occur. It is a great gift to both enjoy and suffer.

 

[Danoff]

IMHO the "commonly used sense" is a bit old-fashioned. "God" to me refers to the universal consciousness that created laws and the Big Bang so that the universe could evolve on its own. The purpose was to create physical reality, novel lifeforms and conscious experiences that could otherwise never occur. It is a great gift to both enjoy and suffer.

Can you explain how this "consciousness" experiences the universe "through us" and why it would "want" to do that? And can you explain what evidence would look like which would differentiate this "God" from a natural process?

 

[Denur]

Explain how. If an observer knows the future, before it happens, how can choice occur?

I'm afraid that I have to turn the question around for now: If there is at least one observer who knows the future, but cannot influence this future, why would that limit the choices we make?

 

[Dotini]

Can you explain how this "consciousness" experiences the universe "through us" and why it would "want" to do that? And can you explain what evidence would look like which would differentiate this "God" from a natural process?

IMHO you are starting to ask the right questions. I can answer them, but now so can you.

 

[Danoff]

I'm afraid that I have to turn the question around for now: If there is at least one observer who knows the future, but cannot influence this future, why would that limit the choices we make?

Because the outcome is already determined (since someone knows it). That's an easy question to answer. Can you try answering mine?

You are starting to ask the right questions. I can answer them, but now so can you.

You're not interested in having a discussion apparently.

 

[Dotini]

You're not interested in having a discussion apparently.

I've stated my distinctive beliefs quite simply, firmly and clearly. Now I would like to hear yours.

 

[Danoff]

I've stated my distinctive beliefs quite simply, firmly and clearly. Now I would like to hear yours.

My belief is that you are hiding the details of your beliefs either because they are not fully formed or you know that they will not withstand scrutiny. What you're describing is "the god of the gaps" combined with "deism", specifically a Thomas Payne version of deism where nature is "god" and to know nature is to know god. It adds a layer of complexity that is wholly unnecessary, only creating questions, answering nothing. And providing no greater understanding or truth.

I suppose you were asking for my beliefs on God. I'll summarize it like this. When it comes to the known religions of the world, I think of them the way you might think of the tales of Zeus. Zeus apparently poisoned his father causing his father to vomit his siblings (who had previously been eaten). I regard all of the religions of the world (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.) in the same way that you probably regard that story.

When it comes to the existence of reality, I don't profess belief. Logically, the answer seems to require that reality must be consistent with a lack of reality. It must represent less information than complete absence of existence. Like if we didn't exist, it would be posing a constraint which would require creation of the constraint. But that's just a deduction from what evidence I have at hand, not a belief.

 

[Denur]

Can you try answering mine?

Yes, and you are right: If everything is known, then that includes every tiny bit that influences the choices we make. Or rather, the choices we think we make.

 

[Dotini]

My belief is that you are hiding the details of your beliefs either because they are not fully formed or you know that they will not withstand scrutiny. What you're describing is "the god of the gaps" combined with "deism", specifically a Thomas Payne version of deism where nature is "god" and to know nature is to know god. It adds a layer of complexity that is wholly unnecessary, only creating questions, answering nothing. And providing no greater understanding or truth.

I suppose you were asking for my beliefs on God. I'll summarize it like this. When it comes to the known religions of the world, I think of them the way you might think of the tales of Zeus. Zeus apparently poisoned his father causing his father to vomit his siblings (who had previously been eaten). I regard all of the religions of the world (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.) in the same way that you probably regard that story.

When it comes to the existence of reality, I don't profess belief. Logically, the answer seems to require that reality must be consistent with a lack of reality. It must represent less information than complete absence of existence. Like if we didn't exist, it would be posing a constraint which would require creation of the constraint. But that's just a deduction from what evidence I have at hand, not a belief.

I deny "the god of the gaps". I deny that nature is "god" and I deny that to know nature is to know "god". We cannot know. God may no longer exist.

It's interesting to know that you are not sure reality exists.

What is it that prevents you from driving head-on into the logging truck in the oncoming lane?

 

[Danoff]

It's interesting to know that you are not sure reality exists.

I deny "not sure reality exists".

What is it that prevents you from driving head-on into the logging truck in the oncoming lane?

The fact that I like living.

Yes, and you are right: If everything is known, then that includes every tiny bit that influences the choices we make. Or rather, the choices we think we make.

"Everything is known" is not required. If you know that tomorrow I will brush my teeth, then I cannot choose to not brush my teeth tomorrow. What you know about my future actions determines a corresponding lack of free will.

 

[mistamontiel]

Bonkkkkkers

 

[ryzno]

Because the outcome is already determined (since someone knows it).

Sounds like the movie Back to the Future...
/s

 

[BobK]

lesser god

Christians call them "saints", don't they?

 

[Imari]

If God didn't care, then why make the universe?

Because He's omnipotent and it's literally no effort at all?

 

[Dotini]

I'm not a philosopher or theologian or scientist. I'm a nobody, but with an opinion.

I do not know how much effort it took to do all the work necessary to create the universe. A few laws, a few constants and a big explosion doesn't sound like much, I grant you, especially if you are omnipotent. But in my humble opinion, the creator was not omniscient, being only a discarnate intelligence with a lot of theoretical physics know-how but no "real-life", i.e., physical experience. I assume the creator wanted to experience physical reality and particularly all the struggles, thoughts and concerns of conscious physical beings trying to deal with it. Possibly the creator was bored, lonely or in some way felt deficient in the omniscience or experience department. I make no claim this is really the case. But I do think it's an interesting story.

 

[Imari]

I'm not a philosopher or theologian or scientist. I'm a nobody, but with an opinion.

I do not know how much effort it took to do all the work necessary to create the universe. A few laws, a few constants and a big explosion doesn't sound like much, I grant you, especially if you are omnipotent. But in my humble opinion, the creator was not omniscient, being only a discarnate intelligence with a lot of theoretical physics know-how but no "real-life", i.e., physical experience. I assume the creator wanted to experience physical reality and particularly all the struggles, thoughts and concerns of conscious physical beings trying to deal with it. Possibly the creator was bored, lonely or in some way felt deficient in the omniscience or experience department. I make no claim this is really the case. But I do think it's an interesting story.

You should start yourself a "cool fairy stories" thread.

 

[Dotini]

There is an inherent problem in having an omniscient deity.

From the lyrics of Santa Claus is Coming to Town:
https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jump5/santaclausiscomingtotown.html

He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good​

 

[Imari]

There is an inherent problem in having an omniscient deity.

From the lyrics of Santa Claus is Coming to Town:
https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jump5/santaclausiscomingtotown.html

He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good​

Why is this a problem? That's a natural consequence of omniscience. Are you afraid he'll see you in the nuddy?

 

[Dotini]

Why is this a problem? That's a natural consequence of omniscience. Are you afraid he'll see you in the nuddy?

Leaving behind the rather creepy Santa Claus lyrics, there are implications of omniscience - or universal consciousness - for us to consider that may inform and guide our daily lives in the ways we affect and are perceived by others. Or not. Since we have free will, human rights, democratic institutions, a strictly materialistic paradigm, loads of money, access to insurance, guns and lawyers, it's easy enough to ignore the passing thought that someday there may be a reckoning for the harm we have done to others, as seen through their eyes.

 

[Imari]

Leaving behind the rather creepy Santa Claus lyrics, there are implications of omniscience - or universal consciousness - for us to consider that may inform and guide our daily lives in the ways we affect and are perceived by others. Or not. Since we have free will, human rights, democratic institutions, a strictly materialistic paradigm, loads of money, access to insurance, guns and lawyers, it's easy enough to ignore the passing thought that someday there may be a reckoning for the harm we have done to others, as seen through their eyes.

This strikes me as an extension of the thought that people need the idea of a Sky Daddy to police them into moral behaviour.

I have murdered exactly as many people as I want to. I don't find the idea of some omniscient being judging me to be particularly frightening. If you do find that frightening, it's probably worth applying some introspection as to why rather than painting the omniscient being as the problem. An omniscient being has all context for any actions, including your own thoughts and feelings. There is no danger of your actions or intentions being misrepresented, no personal bias or prejudice, only an accurate judgement in the truest sense of the word.

What have you done that you fear such a being judging you?

 

[UKMikey]

This strikes me as an extension of the thought that people need the idea of a Sky Daddy to police them into moral behaviour.

I have murdered exactly as many people as I want to. I don't find the idea of some omniscient being judging me to be particularly frightening. If you do find that frightening, it's probably worth applying some introspection as to why rather than painting the omniscient being as the problem. An omniscient being has all context for any actions, including your own thoughts and feelings. There is no danger of your actions or intentions being misrepresented, no personal bias or prejudice, only an accurate judgement in the truest sense of the word.

What have you done that you fear such a being judging you?

I guess when some Christians say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions they mean that unless you conform to the moral code they impose you're bound for the other place whether or not your actions are justified in your own eyes.

According to this retired priest, hell was invented by the church to scare people into behaving the way it wants them to.

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2015/1...ed-by-the-church-to-control-people-with-fear/