Topic: The Mighty Cop: Free Will and the Impossibility of the Christian God (Read 9282 times)

JustLiz · « **Reply #40 on:** July 28, 2008, 11:10:56 AM »

To go back to your hammer and thumb analogy...action is not will.

Choice is not will.

Desire is will.

If someone's will is to hate another person, they may go through the actions of appearing to love that person for personal gain all the while hating them in their heart.

Taking that a step further, let's say they actually develop a plot to kill them and intend - or will - to carry it out but are unsuccessful. Whether or not they succeed does not change their will.

That is why your hammer and thumb analogy falls short because it does not in any way address free will.

Copernicus · « **Reply #41 on:** July 28, 2008, 11:31:08 AM »

Quote from: End Bringer on July 28, 2008, 01:37:44 AM

God is purely a Being outside of time. He simply can interact in our temporal framework as He created it but is not bound to it. Much like someone can step in and out of a pool of water.

Stepping in and out of a pool of water makes perfect sense, and I can imagine a being who could exist in a different timeline and somehow interact with ours. For example, an author can change events in a story timeline. However, the author still thinks, plans, and acts within his own temporal framework. David was proposing that God might somehow be able to think, act, and plan "timelessly". Have you got a handy metaphor to explain that concept? BTW, to be relevant to the current discussion, an explanation needs to show that free will in the characters of a story can exist from the perspective of the "author", but that is simply not true. The author can imagine his subjects to be making free choices, but they can never make any choices that he does not determine when he writes the story. Characters in stories do not have free will any more than they have an existence as real beings.

Quote

And actually given sntjohnny's response in 'Is Christianity inherently immoral?' thread it seems like he's deferring to me. Or we simply see eye to eye on a lot of issues. I'm sure that thought fills you with dread Cop.

It fills me with sadness, EB.

End Bringer · « **Reply #42 on:** July 28, 2008, 12:21:42 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on July 28, 2008, 11:31:08 AM

Quote from: End Bringer on July 28, 2008, 01:37:44 AM
God is purely a Being outside of time. He simply can interact in our temporal framework as He created it but is not bound to it. Much like someone can step in and out of a pool of water.

Stepping in and out of a pool of water makes perfect sense, and I can imagine a being who could exist in a different timeline and somehow interact with ours.

Yes. Much of the atheist position is held up by "I can imagine it." these days. Unfortunately for you it's not a matter of being in a different timeline, but being outside of time in it's entirety. This is logically supported by the fact that space, time, and matter are all created things and thus the first causation (God) is immaterial, and not bound by space or time.

Quote

It fills me with sadness, EB.

That's even better. Let's see those tears.

Copernicus · « **Reply #43 on:** July 28, 2008, 01:44:19 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on July 28, 2008, 12:21:42 PM

Yes. Much of the atheist position is held up by "I can imagine it." these days. Unfortunately for you it's not a matter of being in a different timeline, but being outside of time in it's entirety. This is logically supported by the fact that space, time, and matter are all created things and thus the first causation (God) is immaterial, and not bound by space or time.

I don't think that one has to be Einstein to understand the meanings of words like "plan", "act", and "think". They imply temporal sequences of events, and it is meaningless to assert that they can somehow describe behavior that is timeless.

Quote

That's even better. Let's see those tears.

Ah, yes. That smell of Christian Schadenfreude. I would recognize its scent anywhere.

David · « **Reply #44 on:** July 28, 2008, 02:49:45 PM »

"I don't think that one has to be Einstein to understand the meanings of words like "plan", "act", and "think". They imply temporal sequences of events, and it is meaningless to assert that they can somehow describe behavior that is timeless."

Then think of some new words. You're the linguist.

The fact of that matter is is that God does what he does timelessly. He is not made of matter and energy and therefore is outside of time.

To say that God can't do things timelessly because doing things requires time is d--ned nonsense.

Copernicus · « **Reply #45 on:** July 28, 2008, 04:57:35 PM »

Quote from: David on July 28, 2008, 02:49:45 PM

Then think of some new words. You're the linguist.

Linguists study language use. They don't engineer it. If you cannot express your ideas in a coherent manner, then consider the possibility that they may not be coherent.

Quote

The fact of that matter is is that God does what he does timelessly. He is not made of matter and energy and therefore is outside of time.

I am willing to accept the concept of a being that exists in a different temporal framework. That does not appear to be the conception of God that many of the authors and editors of biblical text had over the centuries, but I can understand where some modern Christians might want to dispute earlier versions of God that are not compatible with the logical corners that they have painted themselves into with concepts such as omnipotence and omniscience.

Quote

To say that God can't do things timelessly because doing things requires time is d--ned nonsense.

It is not just atheists who reject the idea that God can do anything that is logically impossible. Apparently, you believe that he can, and that makes it easier to reject reason as nonsense.

David · « **Reply #46 on:** July 28, 2008, 06:42:15 PM »

"I am willing to accept the concept of a being that exists in a different temporal framework."

I don't care what you are willing to accept. That is not our God. Our God is timeless, eternal, and trancendant.

"It is not just atheists who reject the idea that God can do anything that is logically impossible."

You've got to prove that God can't do things timelessly. To say that God can't do things timelessly because doing things requires time obviously begs the question.

Copernicus · « **Reply #47 on:** July 28, 2008, 07:11:45 PM »

Quote from: David on July 28, 2008, 06:42:15 PM

I don't care what you are willing to accept. That is not our God. Our God is timeless, eternal, and trancendant.

If you say so.

Quote

You've got to prove that God can't do things timelessly. To say that God can't do things timelessly because doing things requires time obviously begs the question.

I see. The burden of proof is on me to disprove your incoherent thoughts. Is it your contention that I have to believe them if I can't disprove them? I'm having trouble figuring out just how one might go about believing an incoherent thought.

David · « **Reply #48 on:** July 28, 2008, 07:26:10 PM »

"I see."

I highly doubt it.

"The burden of proof is on me to disprove your incoherent thoughts."

You have to show how God doing something timelessly is illogical.

Copernicus · « **Reply #49 on:** July 28, 2008, 10:55:30 PM »

Quote from: David on July 28, 2008, 07:26:10 PM

You have to show how God doing something timelessly is illogical.

Note that verbs in English are inflected for time reference with respect to the context of the utterance, and they can be modified by temporal adverbs. To "do" something is to cause a change of state, which is minimally a temporal relationship between two states, the temporal relationship being defined as a "next" operator in temporal logic.

But, since you are the one making the claim that a being can do something timelessly, you have the burden to show how that is possible. I am just bending over backwards to see where you might go with this. We both know that you are making it up as you go. That is usually what happens when people set out to defend their religious opinions.

David · « **Reply #50 on:** July 29, 2008, 12:11:06 AM »

"But, since you are the one making the claim that a being can do something timelessly, you have the burden to show how that is possible."

No, I don't. Thats like saying to claim a car can drive down the road you have to show all its mechanical workings.

So...you have yet to demonstrate that an omnipotent, eternal being cannot do things timelessly.

Now I know that you've asserted it lil fellah, but you've got to demonstrate it for your 'argument' to work. You can't beg the question either. mmmkaaay?

Copernicus · « **Reply #51 on:** July 29, 2008, 02:03:37 AM »

Quote from: David on July 29, 2008, 12:11:06 AM

No, I don't. Thats like saying to claim a car can drive down the road you have to show all its mechanical workings.

Oh, don't be silly. If you make such a claim, all you have to do is drive it down the road.

Quote

So...you have yet to demonstrate that an omnipotent, eternal being cannot do things timelessly.

Actually, I explained the semantics of actions and why they are necessarily temporal in nature. You simply ignored that part of my last post. I went well beyond my burden on this subject, now it's your turn to respond. I'm not surprised that you pretended not to see it, though.

Quote

Now I know that you've asserted it lil fellah, but you've got to demonstrate it for your 'argument' to work. You can't beg the question either. mmmkaaay?

Psychological projection and condescension to boot. You made the assertion, yet you demand that I bear the burden of proving it false. I explained the problem with your timeless actions, yet you pretend that I made no reply. I don't think I'm going to hold my breath until you work up the courage to explain what we both know you cannot.

JustLiz · « **Reply #52 on:** July 29, 2008, 08:32:40 AM »

Hey Cop - did you miss my post at the top of the page?

Copernicus · « **Reply #53 on:** July 29, 2008, 09:46:19 AM »

Hi, Liz. Didn't mean to ignore you. In general, your post missed the difference between "will" and the concept of "free will", which is a bit more complex.

Quote from: JustLiz on July 28, 2008, 11:10:56 AM

To go back to your hammer and thumb analogy...action is not will.

I never equated action with will. Free will is having a genuine choice in how one will act. If only one outcome or action is possible, then "free will" does not exist in the sense that we usually understand the term. For example, a robot can perform actions in response to conditions it encounters, but it can only take actions that conform to what it is programmed to do. Hence, it is said to lack free will.

Quote

Choice is not will.

I never claimed it was. Choice is central to the concept of free will, however.

Quote

Desire is will.

But it isn't free will.

Quote

If someone's will is to hate another person, they may go through the actions of appearing to love that person for personal gain all the while hating them in their heart.

True, but I never denied this, and you have yet to establish its relevance to free will.

Quote

Taking that a step further, let's say they actually develop a plot to kill them and intend - or will - to carry it out but are unsuccessful. Whether or not they succeed does not change their will.

True, but I never denied this, and you have yet to establish its relevance to free will.

Quote

That is why your hammer and thumb analogy falls short because it does not in any way address free will.

Huh?

David · « **Reply #54 on:** July 29, 2008, 11:51:24 AM »

" If you make such a claim, all you have to do is drive it down the road."

No. This is like saying that to claim God created the universe ex nihlo I have to show you how he did it. It's a red herring.

"Actually, I explained the semantics of actions and why they are necessarily temporal in nature."

Yeah, I know. I get it, Cop. Language assumes time. But words are servants, not masters. What matters is that you understand the concept I have been explaining to you.

The concept is that of a being totally outside of time, not within his own timeframe. Existing in one huge moment, eternally.

Jesus said before Abraham was, I AM. Now for this to be gramatically correct, Jesus should have said 'before Abraham was, I was.' Because before entails the past and I was is the past tense.

So what Jesus said was grammatically incorrect, but he did this on purpose to get a concept across.

When I say 'God can do things timelessly' it is grammatically incorrect, but the concept is what matters.

Do you understand this concept?

JustLiz · « **Reply #55 on:** July 29, 2008, 12:30:37 PM »

Quote

Hi, Liz. Didn't mean to ignore you.

That's okay. I'll get over it.

Quote

In general, your post missed the difference between "will" and the concept of "free will", which is a bit more complex.

Until we agree on what "will" is, we cannot decide if it's free or not. Would you agree?

Quote

I never equated action with will. Free will is having a genuine choice in how one will act.

Agree - kind of. Bear with me here.

Quote

Quote
Desire is will.
But it isn't free will.

You do agree that desire is the word that comes the closest to defining will?

Quote

Quote
That is why your hammer and thumb analogy falls short because it does not in any way address free will.

Huh?

What was the will of the person who was holding the hammer?

Copernicus · « **Reply #56 on:** July 29, 2008, 12:45:36 PM »

Quote from: David on July 29, 2008, 11:51:24 AM

" If you make such a claim, all you have to do is drive it down the road."

No. This is like saying that to claim God created the universe ex nihlo I have to show you how he did it. It's a red herring.

No, if you claim that the car can drive down the road, then all you have to do is drive it down the road to prove the claim. Don't try to make it more complicated than it is. If you claim that God created the universe ex nihilo, and you have no evidence for such a claim, then you cannot prove it. It is just an unsupported claim--a bald assertion. I do not have to prove your claim wrong. When you make a claim, you carry the burden of proof.

Quote

"Actually, I explained the semantics of actions and why they are necessarily temporal in nature."

Yeah, I know. I get it, Cop. Language assumes time. But words are servants, not masters. What matters is that you understand the concept I have been explaining to you.

If you haven't been using grammatical language, then you haven't been doing a very good job of explaining the concept, have you? You seem to believe that you can just assert anything you please, and we are just supposed to believe your assertion even if you can't back it up or even express it properly.

Quote

The concept is that of a being totally outside of time, not within his own timeframe. Existing in one huge moment, eternally.

It makes no sense to say that a being exists outside of time in one breath and then to claim that it exists in a space of time--"one huge moment"--in the next. So your concept seems flawed, to say the least. It sounds to me like you literally don't know what you are talking about.

Quote

Jesus said before Abraham was, I AM. Now for this to be gramatically correct, Jesus should have said 'before Abraham was, I was.' Because before entails the past and I was is the past tense.

Okay. I can agree with you that his statement appears ungrammatical and therefore incoherent. (I am not sure about the original Greek, however, which may have had some idiomatic sense that we are no longer privy to.)

Quote

So what Jesus said was grammatically incorrect, but he did this on purpose to get a concept across.

Well, then, like you, he was doing a poor job of it. Being a god, he might have considered speaking a little more clearly.

Quote

When I say 'God can do things timelessly' it is grammatically incorrect, but the concept is what matters.

Do you understand this concept?

No. I thought that I had made that clear to you. I don't understand the concept. You admit that you cannot even explain it in grammatical English, so how am I supposed to understand it?

Copernicus · « **Reply #57 on:** July 29, 2008, 01:04:33 PM »

Quote from: JustLiz on July 29, 2008, 12:30:37 PM

Until we agree on what "will" is, we cannot decide if it's free or not. Would you agree?

I don't think that I have a problem in understanding what "will" is, and I have explained what I meant by "free will". You appear to be trying to make this more complicated than it is.

Quote

You do agree that desire is the word that comes the closest to defining will?

It is a necessary component of the meaning of "will" and "free will", but we can certainly do a better job of defining both expressions than just equating their meanings to "desire".

Quote

What was the will of the person who was holding the hammer?

In my scenario, that person is trying to hit a nail, and he believes that he can hit the nail. The problem is that he cannot, and his belief that he can is an illusion. In other words, a key ingredient of free will is missing--a genuine choice. He has no possibility of achieving the outcome he desires. This, I think, is where you may be having your problem. You want to claim that freedom to choose exists when such freedom is absent.

David · « **Reply #58 on:** July 29, 2008, 01:51:45 PM »

"Okay. I can agree with you that his statement appears ungrammatical and therefore incoherent."

I didn't say it was incoherent. My point was that it was very coherent even though it was ungrammatical. This is shown by the fact that everybody understood him.

"Well, then, like you, he was doing a poor job of it."

No, he did a great job of it. Everybody understood him. And thats why they tried to stone him.

"I don't understand the concept."

Then don't talk about things you don't understand.

Copernicus · « **Reply #59 on:** July 29, 2008, 02:25:03 PM »

Quote from: David on July 29, 2008, 01:51:45 PM

"Okay. I can agree with you that his statement appears ungrammatical and therefore incoherent."

I didn't say it was incoherent. My point was that it was very coherent even though it was ungrammatical. This is shown by the fact that everybody understood him.

They did? How would you know?

Quote

"Well, then, like you, he was doing a poor job of it."

No, he did a great job of it. Everybody understood him. And thats why they tried to stone him.

Sounds like a Monty Python skit.

Quote

"I don't understand the concept."

Then don't talk about things you don't understand.

Er, I wasn't. You were talking about things that you don't understand.

Author Topic: The Mighty Cop: Free Will and the Impossibility of the Christian God (Read 9282 times)