| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atheod
Forum Master
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 2260
Local time: 3:05 PM
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:38 am Post subject: Re: Free Will and sundry |
  |
|
| Mr_C wrote: | | atheod wrote: | | Mr_C wrote: | | atheod wrote: |
You don't need knowledge for prophecy. You just need the power to make happen what you say will happen. That's not future knowledge, that's knowledge of your present will for the future. |
If I know with 100% certainty that X will occur at a specific time, do I know the future? Not technically, I suppose, but practically. If God knows every variable and exactly how they will interact with each other at every given moment in time, he practically knows the future even if the future hasn't "happened" yet. |
Correct, a being as powerful and knowledgeable as God could calculate the future exhaustively based on his knowledge of the present and past. However, calculating the future is an act and the Bible makes it clear God has not done this act exhaustively. The Bible says God is all knowing and all powerful, it doesn't say he's all doing. |
If He hasn't done the calculation, He isn't all-knowing since there is information that He does not know. |
If God hasn't done the calculation, your "information" doesn't exist. Just as you won't have a car unless you build it, you won't have information on the future unless you calculate it. Being all knowing doesn't mean knowing of that which doesn't exist. The Bible says God is all knowing and all powerful, it doesn't say he's all doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
stickhorse
Antichrist
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 870
Local time: 1:05 AM
Location: Tennessee
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | While I agree sin is not a thing it description of the absence of holiness (like dark is only a description of the absence of light) it does mean that God is actively controlling the regenerate and passively controlling the unregenerate by allowing them to continue to be un-holy. |
so let me get this straight.
are you saying that gods chosen do not have free will but the un-chosen do?
_________________
http://myspace.com/stickhorse
you'll never believe what i got baddogma to do for a klondike bar! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
libertarianbob01
Forum Plebian
Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 113
Local time: 11:05 AM
Location: Mesquite Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: Human Free Will is Deterministic |
|
|
Volitionally acting to do what one wishes is free will. There is no question humans have this ability. The question is why. Christians say free will is contra casual or libertarian because of several bible verses. Neuro-science says human free will is determined by our physical brain states just prior to free volitional decision making.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0606297104v1
"We found that subjects' decisions could be decoded to a high level of accuracy on the basis of both local and global signals even before they were required to make a choice, and even before they knew which physical action would be required."
This has profound implications for the free will defense of YHVH against the argument from evil. Human free will is not contra causal but is instead deterministic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
proatheism
Intern
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 54
Local time: 12:05 AM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yea if god knew everything then why did he wait till he made eve instead of making her later since he knew he would have had to make her.
_________________
Hello my name is John Smith.
Atheist for 5 years and I am free!
Please visit my site for videos, contradictions, and facts every atheist needs to back up his beliefs.
www.freewebs.com/proatheism |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 12:05 AM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| proatheism wrote: | | Yea if god knew everything then why did he wait till he made eve instead of making her later since he knew he would have had to make her. |
His plan went awry, so he had to improvise. For fuck's sake, give him some slack...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr_C
Reckoner
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 6615
Local time: 10:05 PM
Location: Pale Blue Dot
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jesusismyhero wrote: | | a quark is the smallest theyve ever split an atom into. scientists took the quark put one in New York and one in Chicago. when they spun one the other spun as well |
I'm bumping this thread because I hadn't seen this comment before.
Does anybody know wtf this guy is talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 12:05 AM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baddogma
antitheist
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 9460
Local time: 2:05 PM
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr_C wrote: | | jesusismyhero wrote: | | a quark is the smallest theyve ever split an atom into. scientists took the quark put one in New York and one in Chicago. when they spun one the other spun as well |
I'm bumping this thread because I hadn't seen this comment before.
Does anybody know wtf this guy is talking about? |
Yeah, they spun New York and Chicago spun too.
_________________
Join http://www.sefora.org/
Can omnicient god who knows the future find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
I'm ashamed of what I did for a Klondike bar....
smartmarzipan: "Debating fundies is like playing chess with pigeons. They knock over all the pieces, shit all over the board, and then fly back to the roost to declare victory." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr_C
Reckoner
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 6615
Local time: 10:05 PM
Location: Pale Blue Dot
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I take it you haven't heard of any scientists "spinning quarks" then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 12:05 AM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
uh, no.
nor have i heard of any scientists finding Noah's Ark (for real). lol...
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 12:05 AM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr_C wrote: | | jesusismyhero wrote: | a quark is the smallest theyve ever split an atom into. scientists took the quark put one in New York and one in Chicago. when they spun one the other spun as well
|
I'm bumping this thread because I hadn't seen this comment before.
Does anybody know wtf this guy is talking about? |
The first part, a quark is the smallest theyve ever split an atom into, is misleading. Though protons and neutrons are made of quarks, quarks can never split apart due to the confinement of the strong nuclear force.
The second part, scientists took the quark put one in New York and one in Chicago. when they spun one the other spun as well, might refer to quantum entanglement, which would never happen between quarks. QE can happen when such particles as a neutral pion decays into two photons, which are fired in opposite directions. QE says both particle "know" what will happen to either one, when a measurement such as spin is taken, even if that measurement would take place a galaxy away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aitm
using the thinker thingy
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 1281
Local time: 12:05 AM
Location: Melbourne, Fl
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | Mr_C wrote: | | jesusismyhero wrote: | a quark is the smallest theyve ever split an atom into. scientists took the quark put one in New York and one in Chicago. when they spun one the other spun as well
|
I'm bumping this thread because I hadn't seen this comment before.
Does anybody know wtf this guy is talking about? |
The first part, a quark is the smallest theyve ever split an atom into, is misleading. Though protons and neutrons are made of quarks, quarks can never split apart due to the confinement of the strong nuclear force.
The second part, scientists took the quark put one in New York and one in Chicago. when they spun one the other spun as well, might refer to quantum entanglement, which would never happen between quarks. QE can happen when such particles as a neutral pion decays into two photons, which are fired in opposite directions. QE says both particle "know" what will happen to either one, when a measurement such as spin is taken, even if that measurement would take place a galaxy away. |
Joe, yer gonna have to help me on that last part. Is this saying that since the particles act exactly alike that alike behaviors will be noticed or is this saying if one dance the rumba the other a galaxy away will start doing the same?
_________________
Its not that I question so much whether a god created man, but that he would admit it.- Thomas Brumfield
psst, theres a vagina on your bumper!
Knowledge: The cure for religion.
The reality is: The majority of Christians are, because they have never read the Bible, whereas the majority of Atheists are, because they have. tjb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 12:05 AM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aitm wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Mr_C wrote: | | jesusismyhero wrote: | a quark is the smallest theyve ever split an atom into. scientists took the quark put one in New York and one in Chicago. when they spun one the other spun as well
|
I'm bumping this thread because I hadn't seen this comment before.
Does anybody know wtf this guy is talking about? |
The first part, a quark is the smallest theyve ever split an atom into, is misleading. Though protons and neutrons are made of quarks, quarks can never split apart due to the confinement of the strong nuclear force.
The second part, scientists took the quark put one in New York and one in Chicago. when they spun one the other spun as well, might refer to quantum entanglement, which would never happen between quarks. QE can happen when such particles as a neutral pion decays into two photons, which are fired in opposite directions. QE says both particle "know" what will happen to either one, when a measurement such as spin is taken, even if that measurement would take place a galaxy away. |
Joe, yer gonna have to help me on that last part. Is this saying that since the particles act exactly alike that alike behaviors will be noticed or is this saying if one dance the rumba the other a galaxy away will start doing the same? |
I don't know if dancing the rumba fits the bill, but quantum entanglement is weirder than anything you will ever meet.
Consider the two dots at a center point, as particles moving out, and A and B are observers, far far away equal distance from the center:
A ← ●● → B
1) Observer A, called Alice, measures the spin of incoming particle. If it has spin, say up, then she knows that observer B, called Bob, will measure its counter-part particle’s spin to be down.This is like Alice tossing a coin, heads or tails, and say it comes down heads. Her counterpart Bob who is light years away on the other side of the galaxy, who is also tossing a coin, and now his must come out in this case as tails!
2) Not only that, but Alice can choose whatever axis, an infinity of possibilities, along which the particle spin must quantize as spin up or spin down. Now Bob’s particle, on the other side of the galaxy, must also quantize along the same axis. But how does the particle know that?!?
3) Furthermore, a third observer C, called Claude, might be moving towards either Alice or Bob. Suppose that Claude is moving towards Alice, then according to him, she is measuring first, and she decides along which axis the particle spin will quantize. However if at the same time, another observer D, called Donna, is moving towards Bob, then according to Donna, it is Bob who makes the first measurement and he decides along which axis the particle will quantize. Which is the cause and which is the effect? According to Quantum Mechanics, there is no distinction between the two cases.
Can it get any weirder??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aitm
using the thinker thingy
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 1281
Local time: 12:05 AM
Location: Melbourne, Fl
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | aitm wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Mr_C wrote: | | jesusismyhero wrote: | a quark is the smallest theyve ever split an atom into. scientists took the quark put one in New York and one in Chicago. when they spun one the other spun as well
|
I'm bumping this thread because I hadn't seen this comment before.
Does anybody know wtf this guy is talking about? |
The first part, a quark is the smallest theyve ever split an atom into, is misleading. Though protons and neutrons are made of quarks, quarks can never split apart due to the confinement of the strong nuclear force.
The second part, scientists took the quark put one in New York and one in Chicago. when they spun one the other spun as well, might refer to quantum entanglement, which would never happen between quarks. QE can happen when such particles as a neutral pion decays into two photons, which are fired in opposite directions. QE says both particle "know" what will happen to either one, when a measurement such as spin is taken, even if that measurement would take place a galaxy away. |
Joe, yer gonna have to help me on that last part. Is this saying that since the particles act exactly alike that alike behaviors will be noticed or is this saying if one dance the rumba the other a galaxy away will start doing the same? |
I don't know if dancing the rumba fits the bill, but quantum entanglement is weirder than anything you will ever meet.
Consider the two dots at a center point, as particles moving out, and A and B are observers, far far away equal distance from the center:
A ← ●● → B
1) Observer A, called Alice, measures the spin of incoming particle. If it has spin, say up, then she knows that observer B, called Bob, will measure its counter-part particle’s spin to be down.This is like Alice tossing a coin, heads or tails, and say it comes down heads. Her counterpart Bob who is light years away on the other side of the galaxy, who is also tossing a coin, and now his must come out in this case as tails!
2) Not only that, but Alice can choose whatever axis, an infinity of possibilities, along which the particle spin must quantize as spin up or spin down. Now Bob’s particle, on the other side of the galaxy, must also quantize along the same axis. But how does the particle know that?!?
3) Furthermore, a third observer C, called Claude, might be moving towards either Alice or Bob. Suppose that Claude is moving towards Alice, then according to him, she is measuring first, and she decides along which axis the particle spin will quantize. However if at the same time, another observer D, called Donna, is moving towards Bob, then according to Donna, it is Bob who makes the first measurement and he decides along which axis the particle will quantize. Which is the cause and which is the effect? According to Quantum Mechanics, there is no distinction between the two cases.
Can it get any weirder??? |
um.........i dunno.........
_________________
Its not that I question so much whether a god created man, but that he would admit it.- Thomas Brumfield
psst, theres a vagina on your bumper!
Knowledge: The cure for religion.
The reality is: The majority of Christians are, because they have never read the Bible, whereas the majority of Atheists are, because they have. tjb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LogicX
Übermensch
Joined: 10 Mar 2007
Posts: 239
Local time: 12:05 AM
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm getting into this thread kind of late but;
Romans you said that you did not choose to be christian but it was fate or w/e and now you realize you sins. Isn't part of the Christian doctrine that God is a loving God (it says so in the Bible)? How could you justify His predetermining billions of people to suffer for eternity? The only explanation is that God isn't omnibenevolent. Unless you just argue that "oh we can't understand God's love we are just human", in which case I would ask you to stop using the word love in reference to God as it is a human word with a human definition.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
