I Have a Favor to Ask...

[joecoolfrog]

Well, if we are gospel writers years after JC's death trying to drum up support, then we check our scripture and we make sure that our version of events includes as much 'fulfilled prophecy' as possible. It's called 'creative hindsight'. Well it is in my house, and it's a barrel of laughs here I can tell you.

Nice try, but I don't think the conspiracy theory holds any water. Let's try an easier explanation; truth is often stranger than fiction. If you want a good example of this, compare the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations.

The writers of the gospels were very familiar with the law, the writings and the prophets. They would therefore be able to quote various references that even remotely sounded similiar because they saw a connection somehow. They generally were not direct prophicies, however.

Consider the reference in John to "break none of his bones." It might be a reference to that of Exodus 12:46 as to how the paschal lamb was to be prepared and eaten. It might be a reference to Psalm 34, but that applied to the generic "the just."

Nice try !
Sadly ' I dont think ' is not a very credible retort though in your instance it may be an accurate
description.

[thegreekdog]

Well, if we are gospel writers years after JC's death trying to drum up support, then we check our scripture and we make sure that our version of events includes as much 'fulfilled prophecy' as possible. It's called 'creative hindsight'. Well it is in my house, and it's a barrel of laughs here I can tell you.

Nice try, but I don't think the conspiracy theory holds any water. Let's try an easier explanation; truth is often stranger than fiction. If you want a good example of this, compare the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations.

The writers of the gospels were very familiar with the law, the writings and the prophets. They would therefore be able to quote various references that even remotely sounded similiar because they saw a connection somehow. They generally were not direct prophicies, however.

Consider the reference in John to "break none of his bones." It might be a reference to that of Exodus 12:46 as to how the paschal lamb was to be prepared and eaten. It might be a reference to Psalm 34, but that applied to the generic "the just."

Consider that saying ' I dont think ' is not a credible retort to a reasonable hypothesis.

Not trying to start trouble but don't hypotheses (especially the one offered by HC) start with the words "I think?"

[joecoolfrog]

Starting a retort with ' I dont think ' is fine,but not elaborating at all is rather underwhelming.

[thegreekdog]

Starting a retort with ' I dont think ' is fine,but not elaborating at all is rather underwhelming.

I think (uh oh) you're nitpicking (or straw-manning). Either way, this thread is way out of my comfort zone.

[john9blue]

Starting a retort with ' I dont think ' is fine,but not elaborating at all is rather underwhelming.

His post was longer than yours and heavy's combined.

[natty dread]

First of all I should say I consider myself agnostic to the whole god issue. I don't necessarily believe there is a god, but I don't see it as an impossible notion either, and either way, I look forward to dying and finding out.

I however see the concept of a god an interesting metaphysical concept. If there is a god that has created everything, can this god have a personality? If it does, what does it think? What does it feel? Could a sentient god be even possible - could such an existence be in any way bearable to any sentient being? If I were a sentient god, I would be pretty lonely. I would probably eventually destroy my own sentience. But that's just me...

Anyway, moving on. If we assume this being is omnipotent, this would imply two things: a) that it is infinite, and b) that it can have no physical body. A is because a being capable of doing anything must by definition be infinite (it has infinite potential for action, thus it must itself be infinite.) B follows from A: an infinite being cannot exist physically in our reality, since if it would there would be no physical reality - there would be no room for it.

Omniscience follows from omnipotence, since omniscience is merely the infinite capability of knowing things. Thus this being we call "god" would already know everything, and from this follows determinism - everything has already been decided because the god knows it in advance already. We really have no choice in that case, we are going to inevitably do what we inevitably are going to do.

Of course deteminisim can be cheated by assuming parallel realities, in which case, in some parallel, we have already done everything we have the potential to do. From this comes an interesting correlation to the being known as god, since as we already deduced, god has an infinite potential for action. So one could say that we humans, being non-omnipotent and non-omniscient are only facets of this god-being - or vice versa: god is merely the manifestation, or should I say idealization, of our theoretical infinite action potential. Or turning this the other way around, we are the physical/corporeal manifestation of the god-being's infinite action potential.

From this follows, that you are god, and I am god, and your uncle's pet dog is god. In a way. Metaphysically.

[Lionz]

Who says He's all powerful or all knowing? Is there not one or more thing that suggests He's had regret? What if we're in a reality that's nicely compared to a computer program and He could be nicely compared to a computer programmer who decided to make his own character to enter a game he designed? And does no one have free will if someone is outside time and able to travel back and forth through it, Natty?

[natty dread]

does no one have free will if someone is outside time and able to travel back and forth through it, Natty?

No one has free will if their actions are pre-determined by an outside force.

I don't know where you got this notion anyway. I never implied free will to be destroyed by someone traveling in time.

The only time I addressed free will in my previous post in this thread was this:

Omniscience follows from omnipotence, since omniscience is merely the infinite capability of knowing things. Thus this being we call "god" would already know everything, and from this follows determinism - everything has already been decided because the god knows it in advance already. We really have no choice in that case, we are going to inevitably do what we inevitably are going to do.

Which basically says, that any being being omniscient implies determinism which clearly implies loss of free will.

You cannot be omniscient without knowing how everything is going to happen. And if it is possible to know this, then everything must be pre-determined, because otherwise things could happen differently and that knowledge would be wrong. And if everything is pre-determined, then obviously there is no free will.

So an omnipotent or omniscient god can not exist together with free will.

Also,

Who says He's all powerful or all knowing?

Christians?

[Lionz]

Hey. I might have come across with a spirit of debate and done so in error.

What if we were in control of a space time dimension? We create conscious beings and allow them to inhabit bodies and make decisions about what they do? Would they necessarily have no free will if we were able to step in and outside of time? What if destiny and free will can exist simultaneously if there is a someone with intelligence who can step in and outside of time and use subtle things to influence outcomes?

Psalm 33:15 and Proverbs 21:2 might be things worth discussing, but does either say He's all powerful or all knowing? Is there 1,800 plus year old text that does?

[wercool]

but were disciples of Him willing to tell lies and even willing to die for those lies in order to support a religious worldview that's against lying at it's very core in the first place?

Who knows the motives of people who died centuries ago? Perhaps the bible is a work of fiction? It only takes one liar, and others to believe him, and the others don't necessarily have to be liars to repeat a lie they believe to be true.

it only takes one liar who is willing to die for the fake religion. how many religions had their leader die for it?

[john9blue]

but were disciples of Him willing to tell lies and even willing to die for those lies in order to support a religious worldview that's against lying at it's very core in the first place?

Who knows the motives of people who died centuries ago? Perhaps the bible is a work of fiction? It only takes one liar, and others to believe him, and the others don't necessarily have to be liars to repeat a lie they believe to be true.

it only takes one liar who is willing to die for the fake religion. how many religions had their leader die for it?

not to mention his personal followers who died for their faith in him. must've been a pretty damn convincing lie, eh?

[Maugena]

but were disciples of Him willing to tell lies and even willing to die for those lies in order to support a religious worldview that's against lying at it's very core in the first place?

Who knows the motives of people who died centuries ago? Perhaps the bible is a work of fiction? It only takes one liar, and others to believe him, and the others don't necessarily have to be liars to repeat a lie they believe to be true.

it only takes one liar who is willing to die for the fake religion. how many religions had their leader die for it?

All hail the Hypnotoad.
All glory to the Hypnotoad.

[natty dread]

it only takes one liar who is willing to die for the fake religion. how many religions had their leader die for it?

Umm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s ... s_group%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Solar_Temple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple

All I'm saying though is, that just because lots of people believe something doesn't necessarily make it true.

I'm not saying the things you believe in are necessarily false. You also have every right to believe in what you believe in, and for all I know you could be right. But representing your beliefs as fact is something I have a problem with.

What if we were in control of a space time dimension? We create conscious beings and allow them to inhabit bodies and make decisions about what they do? Would they necessarily have no free will if we were able to step in and outside of time?

Well, if we could travel to the future, and see what happens, then go back to present and change the future, then we wouldn't know the future again because we would have changed it. In this case, yes, we would have free will, because we would have the chance to change the future. But in this case we could also not know the future, because even if we went in the future and see it, it could always be changed.

What if destiny and free will can exist simultaneously if there is a someone with intelligence who can step in and outside of time and use subtle things to influence outcomes?

If there is someone who can see everything in time, who knows how everything is going to happen, then there must be a set future, and things must happen a certain way. So there can be no free will - otherwise, that someone could not be able to see the future, because there would be infinite possible futures.

But let's say this someone would see all those possible futures. But in case there are infinite possible futures - which is necessary for free will to exist - then this someone could not know which future is going to happen, because this would again imply determinism, which would, again, imply no free will.

So we can say, that if there is "god" and there is "free will" in that case the "god" can see all the possible futures, but even "god" cannot know which future will happen.

[daddy1gringo]

it only takes one liar who is willing to die for the fake religion. how many religions had their leader die for it?

Umm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s ... s_group%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Solar_Temple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple

All I'm saying though is, that just because lots of people believe something doesn't necessarily make it true.

I'm not saying the things you believe in are necessarily false. You also have every right to believe in what you believe in, and for all I know you could be right. But representing your beliefs as fact is something I have a problem with.

That's where things get confusing with that argument. the "Who would die for what they knew to be a lie" argument only disproves the idea that Jesus or the disciples made it up. As you point out, it doesn't prove that they weren't mistaken or anything like that. I believe there are other arguments that deal with the other possibilities, but that's a long road to travel, and we have to take it step by step.

I didn't look up the links, though I'm somewhat familiar with some of them, but I would wager that in all those cases, the people who died for the lie were deceived into believing it was true. They didn't die for something that they made up and knew was not true.

I suppose you could come up with some scenario where someone might do that, but it's extremely unlikely, and in my opinion would take more of a stretch of faith than believing that there is a personal God and he did something radical to reveal himself to us and unite us to him.

But you're right; that argument doesn't prove that the Gospel is true, it isn't meant to. It just eliminates a few of the frequently-heard alternatives.

[Lionz]

It might be that free will can be defined a million ways. What if He can see future events and influence outcomes and yet there's not a single conscious being who does not make decisions? If He perceived that someone with free will was on track to starve to death in 2010 and then He stepped in and helped them come across money for food in 2009 to prevent that from occuring, would that result in the someone losing free will?

[natty dread]

Free will cannot be defined a million ways. You either have free will, or you do not have free will. Which is it?

If "god" can see that someone is going to starve, then makes it so that he doesn't starve, then the god must a) know the future before the change and b) know the future after the change, so no, there's no free will, because the god already knows how things are going to happen, and thus this "free will" is only an illusion.

[Lionz]

Are there points in Groundhog Day when Phil is a sole character with free will?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)

Do you not have free will if you can make choices? Even if someone can see into the future and do things that can influence you?

[Frigidus]

Are there points in Groundhog Day when Phil is a sole character with free will?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)

Do you not have free will if you can make choices? Even if someone can see into the future and do things that can influence you?

This isn't just an issue of somebody that sees what is going to happen. Not only is God supposedly infinitely powerful and knowledgable, it's also supposedly the creator of the universe and everything in it. In that case people have as much will as one domino in a chain. Everything you will ever do was predetermined before the planet even existed.

I know we have already had this discussion before though...I hate to retread old ground.

[heavycola]

Are there points in Groundhog Day when Phil is a sole character with free will?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)

Do you not have free will if you can make choices? Even if someone can see into the future and do things that can influence you?

Dear Lionz

Do you ever not talk in rhetorical questions?

[jonesthecurl]

Why would he? Do you? Do I? Does God? What's for dinner? How ya doing? Hot, ain't it?

[natty dread]

Are there points in Groundhog Day when Phil is a sole character with free will?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)

Do you not have free will if you can make choices? Even if someone can see into the future and do things that can influence you?

But in groundhog day, Phil can affect the outcome of each day, and so he doesn't really know how the day will play out - it is dependent of his actions. So he doesn't really know future - after each day, he knows how the day goes if he does certain things. But he doesn't know what happens if he does something he hasn't done before.

So my theory still stands: omniscience and free will cannot coexist.

[Maugena]

Are there points in Groundhog Day when Phil is a sole character with free will?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)

Do you not have free will if you can make choices? Even if someone can see into the future and do things that can influence you?

But in groundhog day, Phil can affect the outcome of each day, and so he doesn't really know how the day will play out - it is dependent of his actions. So he doesn't really know future - after each day, he knows how the day goes if he does certain things. But he doesn't know what happens if he does something he hasn't done before.

So my theory still stands: omniscience and free will cannot coexist.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that he is the only one with free will in the movie...
He only has the knowledge of what happened in every day in the perpetual cycle.
Without that knowledge, he would have played it out exactly how he did it previously, every single time.

Just sayin' though.
I believe there are two possibilities, however, I only think one is the correct theory.
That theory being that absolutely everything is predetermined.
The main problem that arises when I think of this is the thought of whether or not matter is actually infinitely small or not.
If it isn't, I would suppose that determinism is hard fact. I'd draw a lot of other conclusions/possibilities, but I'm going to keep them to myself for now.
If it is, which is equally possible as it not being infinitely small, then I would argue that determinism is false.
I personally believe that everything is predetermined. The depth of the 'chains' are indefinite... Oh good, now I'm starting to think again... I'm going to take some time to think about that... again.
Well, there I went... rambling as usual. I'ma cut it off here though.

[2dimes]

Are there points in Groundhog Day when Phil is a sole character with free will?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)

Do you not have free will if you can make choices? Even if someone can see into the future and do things that can influence you?

But in groundhog day, Phil can affect the outcome of each day, and so he doesn't really know how the day will play out - it is dependent of his actions. So he doesn't really know future - after each day, he knows how the day goes if he does certain things. But he doesn't know what happens if he does something he hasn't done before.

So my theory still stands: omniscience and free will cannot coexist.

You're trapping the omniscience into the constraints of time. If you were not Phil and outside of his realm you could have omniscience while he had freewill. He would not know how his day would play out but you would. Phil would also not know what parts of the day were affected by his actions, what parts were affected by the actions of others and what parts were affected by you if you had the ability to affect things in his realm.

[Maugena]

I'd say the mere phenomenon of prediction is grounds enough for believing in determinism.
Think about it more in-depth.
Where do we draw the line in regards to whether or not we can predict something?
How far does it go?

[natty dread]

You're trapping the omniscience into the constraints of time. If you were not Phil and outside of his realm you could have omniscience while he had freewill. He would not know how his day would play out but you would. Phil would also not know what parts of the day were affected by his actions, what parts were affected by the actions of others and what parts were affected by you if you had the ability to affect things in his realm.

I don't see how that is relevant.

The very fact that someone or something is able to be omniscient means that the future must be pre-determined. Therefore free will cannot exist, since the actions of everyone have been pre-determined (well duh.)

Go read some of my earlier and longer posts about this, they elaborate more on the subject.