Question for the Religious Types

[vtmarik]

Why can't God know the free future choices of free beings?

OK, say you have a 6-sided dice and roll it. If you *know* that it's definitely going to land on 3, it's not a random event per se - as you already know the outcome. The dice cannot land on any other number if you know for certain that it will land on 3. So it's not a random event.

If you correctly predict the outcome of a random selection, does that mean that the selection isn't random, that you can conceive of all of the random possibilities being equally possible, or that you can merely predict the outcome?

It's a variation of the "Was Jesus Lord Liar or Lunatic?" paradox, to which the answer is yes.

The answer to the first question in this post is also yes.

[luns101]

The reformation had very little to do with scripture my friend,it was about freedom of expression and the desire to wrest power away from big brother.

Actually, it had a lot to do with scripture. That was the crux of the disagreement between the Church and we "separated brethren/Protestants". OnlyAmbrose and I have debated this in the JF Forum..."sola scriptura".

[AlgyTaylor]

If you correctly predict the outcome of a random selection, does that mean that the selection isn't random, that you can conceive of all of the random possibilities being equally possible, or that you can merely predict the outcome?

Stop trying to change the issue.


1) God knows (can predict with 100% accuracy) everything that is going to happen
2) Adam took the apple out of choice
3) God punished Adam for taking the apple

Do you have any problem with those three assertions?


I would then use (1) and (2) to imply that:
4) God knew that Adam would take the apple BEFORE he created Adam

(3) and (4) imply:
5) God knew that he would punish Adam before he created him


Making him a bit of an arsehole to say the least ....

I'd be interested to hear if you actually disagreed with any of that (the last statement excluded)

[vtmarik]

Who's changing the issue? I'm trying to build a bridge over the cognitive gap to help explain it in a more philosophical angle.

The non-religious peoples don't think in a religious way, so I was explaining it in a less-faith-based manner.

You missed the part where I said that the answer to that question was yes.

[b.k. barunt]

OR, God is both, and allows us to make the decisions we want to for the sake of those who will chose Him. Why do you keep trying to blame God for the choices other free beings make, simply because He didn't squash their free will?

The only way he can know everything that will be is if free choice doesn't exist; if choice was indeterminable he couldn't know the future.

So you can't know the future without manipulating it? That has to be the most ignorant statement i have heard on this site, and you say it so absolutely. Amazing.

[vtmarik]

OR, God is both, and allows us to make the decisions we want to for the sake of those who will chose Him. Why do you keep trying to blame God for the choices other free beings make, simply because He didn't squash their free will?

The only way he can know everything that will be is if free choice doesn't exist; if choice was indeterminable he couldn't know the future.

So you can't know the future without manipulating it? That has to be the most ignorant statement i have heard on this site, and you say it so absolutely. Amazing.

Agreed, a being above the constraints of space and time can see all of infinity at once, including the infinite number of variations and shifts that have, will, and could happen.

In other words, this theoretical being can see all of the possible choices, so nothing surprises him. He may not know which one you'll choose, but he knows you'll pick one.

[unriggable]

So you can't know the future without manipulating it? That has to be the most ignorant statement i have heard on this site, and you say it so absolutely. Amazing.

How is that ignorant? It's entirely true. If you know something bad is going to happen, like you get mugged at 43rd and Broadway in NYC for example, you're going to avoid that place altogether, and it will never happen.

[MR. Nate]

Agreed, a being above the constraints of space and time can see all of infinity at once, including the infinite number of variations and shifts that have, will, and could happen.

In other words, this theoretical being can see all of the possible choices, so nothing surprises him. He may not know which one you'll choose, but he knows you'll pick one.

Despite your skepticism, you have excellent insights into perfect being theology, vt. I would add one thing though. If your theoretical being (who happens to be very similar to God) could also know ones thoughts, he could not only accurately see all the options, but undoubtedly accurately predict them, since he would know all the variables in the decision process (including things you don't consciously know) and could figure it out before you.

How is that ignorant? It's entirely true. If you know something bad is going to happen, like you get mugged at 43rd and Broadway in NYC for example, you're going to avoid that place altogether, and it will never happen.

Your saying that is what you would do. But you aren't God, so to assume HE would do the same thing you would is a little arrogant. Keep in mind that Christ offered himself to be tortured to death, knowing full well all that that would entail.

[vtmarik]

Despite your skepticism, you have excellent insights into perfect being theology, vt. I would add one thing though. If your theoretical being (who happens to be very similar to God) could also know ones thoughts, he could not only accurately see all the options, but undoubtedly accurately predict them, since he would know all the variables in the decision process (including things you don't consciously know) and could figure it out before you.

True, and such a being would be quite capable of understanding and hearing each individual's thought across the infinite stretches of creation.

That also doesn't negate free will.

If someone knows you'll do something and has figured out what you'll do before you do, you're still making a choice to do something.

If you always take 5th street to go to work, and someone figures this out, you're still making the choice to take 5th street even if it seems preordained in some way. I think it was Hume who said that you cannot say what will happen in the future merely based on what has always happened in the past.

[comic boy]

The reformation had very little to do with scripture my friend,it was about freedom of expression and the desire to wrest power away from big brother.

Actually, it had a lot to do with scripture. That was the crux of the disagreement between the Church and we "separated brethren/Protestants". OnlyAmbrose and I have debated this in the JF Forum..."sola scriptura".

Yes but Luther viewed the Catholic church as being corrupt and manipulating scripture to its own ends, so many would not have broken away simply because of a disagreement amongst scholars.

[luns101]

The reformation had very little to do with scripture my friend,it was about freedom of expression and the desire to wrest power away from big brother.

Actually, it had a lot to do with scripture. That was the crux of the disagreement between the Church and we "separated brethren/Protestants". OnlyAmbrose and I have debated this in the JF Forum..."sola scriptura".

Yes but Luther viewed the Catholic church as being corrupt and manipulating scripture to its own ends, so many would not have broken away simply because of a disagreement amongst scholars.

So, do you agree with me that it had much to do about scripture then? The reason that Luther disagreed with the Catholic Church was based on...the scriptures (as well as other reformers).

[luns101]

I wonder how the actions of the Catholic church in our time will be viewed in 200 years?

For example the refusal of the Papacy to allow the use of condoms as a prevention of aids is one thing, but deliberately lying to a congregation of millions, telling them condoms can never prevent HIV infection due to invisible holes in the rubber, is effectively not only sanctioning but taking a direct hand in the deaths of millions of people - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0, ... 68,00.html

Is this evil? More or less evil than contraception? Which I assume was originally outlawed by the Catholic church to ensure steady growth of their followers rather than through any real concern over its sinful status.

Hi Bertros,

You and I have discussed some of this before in the BROKEBACK MT. thread. I'm no fan of the Catholic Church, as OnlyAmbrose will tell you, but I can't let this go.

There is nothing factually incorrect in the Catholic Church's assertion that the AIDS virus is smaller than a standard latex hole in a condom. It is true that the chances of contracting the AIDS virus can be significantly reduced by the proper use of a latex condom. Different health organizations disagree on the exact rate of reduction.

It is up to each individual to determine whether or not they wish to take the chance of possibly contracting the AIDS virus by either using/not using a condom. I don't know (and neither does the Catholic Church) whether people use condoms because they think it is a fullproof way to protect themselves from contracting AIDS. It is possible that people become more promiscuous because they think a latex condom will protect them...so that's a possibility to consider.

Skittles...you're statement that the Catholic Church doesn't care about peoples' health is just plain wrong. They aren't being "selfish" (as you put it). They are standing up and warning people that there is a possibility that they could contract a life-ending disease, even by using condoms. That is compassionate.

I think I'm seeing a theme here in your posts, Skittles. It seems like you believe that Christianity only exists to put out a bunch of religious regulations meant to control & repress people. I would ask you to look at religious rules [and rules in general] in a different light...as a way/warning to protect people from engaging in activities which could do them harm.

[Bertros Bertros]

Hey luns

Yes our difference in opinion on HIV have been well documented in these forums already I know. The point here is not whether the assertion that HIV virus is smaller than holes in condom is true or not, but that the Church has actively attempted to undermine their effectiveness as method of preventing HIV infection.

If the WHO, who I am sure you must agree are a far more authoratative medical body and in a position to provide much greater impartiality on the matter of contraception than the Catholic church, are condemning the claims stating that condoms, properly used, are 90% effective in preventing transmission of the virus, then these statements are at the best deliberately misleading.

A later quote in that article shows other medical bodies clearly backing the WHO's position

Scientific research by a group including the US National Institutes of Health and the WHO found "intact condoms... are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus... condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses".

And then towards the bottom something even more disturbing, though not directly connected to the Papacy

In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: "Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids."

I know I am a cynic of the worst sort in many respects, but I personally still see the original motive in banning contraception being to grow the flock wether it is dressed up as "breaking the connection between sex and procreation" or otherwise.

As for the motive for continuing to oppose contraception this bewilders me. 20 million, I think that is worth repeating, 20 million, already dead and 42 million infected. How many children born with HIV or growing up as orphans because of an out of touch religious authority whose influence is greatest amongst the most vulnerable?

[luns101]

The point here is not whether the assertion that HIV virus is smaller than holes in condom is true or not, but that the Church has actively attempted to undermine their effectiveness as method of preventing HIV infection.

This is a crucial point of the argument though. If someone/organization says something that is factually true, how could that be construed to mean they are actively attempting to undermine something? They are just saying something that is factually correct. They're telling the truth.

If the WHO, who I am sure you must agree are a far more authoratative medical body and in a position to provide much greater impartiality on the matter of contraception than the Catholic church, are condemning the claims stating that condoms, properly used, are 90% effective in preventing transmission of the virus, then these statements are at the best deliberately misleading.

Authoritative - yes. But I don't agree that doctors & scientists are any more objective/impartial than any other group of people. We all have biases involved in how we view data. Remember, there's a whole lot of business to be made by distributing condoms to 3rd world countries. When a major church begins to criticize their effectiveness, don't think that those who can benefit financially aren't going to fight back with allegations of their own.

I read the quotes in the story about "intact condoms... are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus". I found information to the contrary from other organizations. I guess it's just a matter of who you want to believe. I've read the Gordon Wambi quote...I wonder how the Catholic Church responded to his allegations. Proper condom use does reduce the chance of contracting AIDS, but it's not fullproof.

I know I am a cynic of the worst sort in many respects, but I personally still see the original motive in banning contraception being to grow the flock wether it is dressed up as "breaking the connection between sex and procreation" or otherwise.

It's good to be cynical up to a certain point. I am as well whenever listening to Serbia tell me that the Lions will eventually be a decent team . I wrote a paper when I was an undergraduate on 2 events that I felt discouraged people from trusting Christians. (1) Catholic & Protestant stubborness to accept the heliocentric theory, and (2) The Donation of Constantine fraud which Lorenzo Valla uncovered. I think that it is natural to be cynical against Christian arguments on other subjects due to these historical events.

As for the motive for continuing to oppose contraception this bewilders me. 20 million, I think that is worth repeating, 20 million, already dead and 42 million infected. How many children born with HIV or growing up as orphans because of an out of touch religious authority whose influence is greatest amongst the most vulnerable?

The Biblical position as I understand it is that nobody should be having sex until they are united in marriage and make a commitment to their spouse. If everyone did this, AIDS would be significantly reduced. I don't think it will ever become reality as the natural tendency of mankind is to yell, "hey, it's my body and you can't tell me what to do with it". So people go out and act promiscuously, but at their own peril.

[MR. Nate]

The Biblical position as I understand it is that nobody should be having sex until they are united in marriage and make a commitment to their spouse. If everyone did this, AIDS would be significantly reduced. I don't think it will ever become reality as the natural tendency of mankind is to yell, "hey, it's my body and you can't tell me what to do with it". So people go out and act promiscuously, but at their own peril.

so . . . wait, your telling me God's laws might have a reason, and aren't just randomly there to take away our fun?????

[CrazyAnglican]

Proper condom use does reduce the chance of contracting AIDS, but it's not fullproof.

Condoms....not fullproof. Dude that was a seriously funny typo.

As for the motive for continuing to oppose contraception this bewilders me. 20 million, I think that is worth repeating, 20 million, already dead and 42 million infected. How many children born with HIV or growing up as orphans because of an out of touch religious authority whose influence is greatest amongst the most vulnerable?

You've gone so far, in other posts, as to intimate that the Roman Catholic stance is evil in this regard. Something doesn't add up with your assertion. The Catholic church isn't encouraging risky behavior. That Church requires monogamy or celebacy. These are the safest habits with regard to HIV. Condom use isn't perfect; nobody states that it is. Celebacy is the only true way to know that you haven't contracted the disease through sex. An uninfected monogamous couple will not contract the disease either. The Catholic Church's stance is actually the safer option.

1) Basically the safest method is to follow the Church's teaching. That is
be monogamous or celibate.

2) If you choose to ignore the Catholic Church's teaching then the second
safest method is to use a condom, correctly, the whole time. That's
kind of like taking a bath with your socks on; I think more people don't
use them because they don't want to rather than because of the
Roman Catholic Church's teachings.

3) Then the worst thing to do is think "Well, I know I'm committing a sin
by having sex outside of marriage, but I'm sure not going to
commit the sin of wearing a condom!".

[b.k. barunt]

Sorry, i just can't let this one go. Do Catholic priests wear condoms when they cavort with the altar boys? The answer to this should actually give us a more accurate indication of just how selfish or unselfish the church is.

[luns101]

Condoms....not fullproof. Dude that was a seriously funny typo.

Gah!

[Bertros Bertros]

Authoritative - yes. But I don't agree that doctors & scientists are any more objective/impartial than any other group of people. We all have biases involved in how we view data. Remember, there's a whole lot of business to be made by distributing condoms to 3rd world countries.

The WHO is part of the UN, so not really in the business of making money from distributing condoms. They may not be impartial in all matters, but unlike the Church they have no vested interest in this matter one way or the other, so in this case certainly have their integrity less compromised.

You've gone so far, in other posts, as to intimate that the Roman Catholic stance is evil in this regard. Something doesn't add up with your assertion. The Catholic church isn't encouraging risky behavior. That Church requires monogamy or celebacy. These are the safest habits with regard to HIV. Condom use isn't perfect; nobody states that it is. Celebacy is the only true way to know that you haven't contracted the disease through sex. An uninfected monogamous couple will not contract the disease either. The Catholic Church's stance is actually the safer option.

This is a bit like saying we told you that driving was dangerous so don't do it, but as your doing it anyway don't bother wearing a seatbelt.

This is a crucial point of the argument though. If someone/organization says something that is factually true, how could that be construed to mean they are actively attempting to undermine something? They are just saying something that is factually correct. They're telling the truth.

What both of you say, taken in isolation is true but in both cases is not looking at the heart of the matter. Step aside from any religious debate for a moment and pretend its not the Catholic church we're talking about. We all agree that condom use significantly reduces the risk of transmission of STDs. If any other organisation whose influence was wide and at its greatest in the places where people were least educated and most at risk from infection, would you still condone their actions in this regard?

It was AD 195 when Clement said - "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" - things have moved on a bit now. As a loving father would you not have modified your position on this based on the suffering maintaining it is causing?

[AlgyTaylor]

OR, God is both, and allows us to make the decisions we want to for the sake of those who will chose Him. Why do you keep trying to blame God for the choices other free beings make, simply because He didn't squash their free will?

The only way he can know everything that will be is if free choice doesn't exist; if choice was indeterminable he couldn't know the future.

So you can't know the future without manipulating it? That has to be the most ignorant statement i have heard on this site, and you say it so absolutely. Amazing.

Not exactly. What I'm saying is that you can't know the future if it's not pre-determined. If there was an element of chance, how would you know which would happen? Surely, if it were chance, either situation could occur.

So if God can see in to the future, things must happen with an absolute certainty. So there's no real 'free choice'.

Still waiting for someone to be able to refute ...

1) God knows (can predict with 100% accuracy) everything that is going to happen
2) Adam took the apple out of choice
3) God punished Adam for taking the apple

Do you have any problem with those three assertions?


I would then use (1) and (2) to imply that:
4) God knew that Adam would take the apple BEFORE he created Adam

(3) and (4) imply:
5) God knew that he would punish Adam before he created him

Why would God create something that he knew he would need to punish?

Say I have a wife, and she has 5 babies. Upon birth, I say that unless they can recite the entire English-Swedish dictionary backwards within 3 minutes of being born and without being prompted, I will shoot them.

That's a hell of a lot fairer 'test' than the one you propose God has made, since he knows with 100% certainty that Adam will take the apple. There's always a chance that purely by coincidence the baby will say it all. God knows that his test definitely will 'go bad'.

(btw I'm not advocating shooting babies here )

[MR. Nate]

God said "Don't do this, it's not good for you." Adam did it anyway. God punished him. Unless your children are going to lead perfect lives (doubtful) or you plan on not punishing them when they do disobey you (less doubtful) than you will have had children with the intent to punish them.

And why, in your mind, does free will only count if NO one knows the choice that you will make? If no one forces you to make a choice, but you choose on your own, how does the fact that they know what you will choose impact it's freedom? That things are going to happen a certain way in no way changes the fact that YOU still FREELY CHOSE to do them that way.

[AlgyTaylor]

God said "Don't do this, it's not good for you." Adam did it anyway. God punished him.

But if God can predict the future with 100% certainty, he must've known before he created Adam that Adam was going to do it. So God punished him for something that, essentially, he had designed Adam to do! Because before he created Adam, he must've predicted (with 100% accuracy) that Adam would take the apple.

[vtmarik]

God said "Don't do this, it's not good for you." Adam did it anyway. God punished him.

But if God can predict the future with 100% certainty, he must've known before he created Adam that Adam was going to do it. So God punished him for something that, essentially, he had designed Adam to do! Because before he created Adam, he must've predicted (with 100% accuracy) that Adam would take the apple.

This is assuming that the whole thing wasn't psychodrama designed to test free will. Man was the first creature God had created with free will, so we can assume that it was an experiment.

Why is it so hard to assume that the Tree of Knowledge was the test of free will: To see if Man could use this tool and thus live on his own without God's needing to intervene all of the time.

Sure, it is percieved as some kind of crime against God, and for some reason this crime against God became a sin that spelled mankind's downward spiral. I hate to break it to you but stealing an apple and munching it does not lead to adultery, theft, and murder which are also sins punished the same way.

Isn't mankind supposed to be able to defy the word of God? That's what free will is. Why would God give mankind free will and then tell them not to use it or they'll burn in hellfire for all eternity? Sounds kind of petty and fallible, not like God at all.

[AlgyTaylor]

Why is it so hard to assume that the Tree of Knowledge was the test of free will: To see if Man could use this tool and thus live on his own without God's needing to intervene all of the time.

But why does God need to do experiments if he can see the future anyway?

Sure, it is percieved as some kind of crime against God, and for some reason this crime against God became a sin that spelled mankind's downward spiral. I hate to break it to you but stealing an apple and munching it does not lead to adultery, theft, and murder which are also sins punished the same way.

Well, today it's eating apples that you're not supposed to .... tomorrow it'll be injecting heroin, and by the end of the week they'll be robbing cars to feed their addiction. Everybody knows that

Isn't mankind supposed to be able to defy the word of God? That's what free will is. Why would God give mankind free will and then tell them not to use it or they'll burn in hellfire for all eternity? Sounds kind of petty and fallible, not like God at all.

Quite. Very fallible indeed.

[Blastshot]

God said "Don't do this, it's not good for you." Adam did it anyway. God punished him.

But if God can predict the future with 100% certainty, he must've known before he created Adam that Adam was going to do it. So God punished him for something that, essentially, he had designed Adam to do! Because before he created Adam, he must've predicted (with 100% accuracy) that Adam would take the apple.

This is assuming that the whole thing wasn't psychodrama designed to test free will. Man was the first creature God had created with free will, so we can assume that it was an experiment.

Why is it so hard to assume that the Tree of Knowledge was the test of free will: To see if Man could use this tool and thus live on his own without God's needing to intervene all of the time.

Sure, it is percieved as some kind of crime against God, and for some reason this crime against God became a sin that spelled mankind's downward spiral. I hate to break it to you but stealing an apple and munching it does not lead to adultery, theft, and murder which are also sins punished the same way.

Isn't mankind supposed to be able to defy the word of God? That's what free will is. Why would God give mankind free will and then tell them not to use it or they'll burn in hellfire for all eternity? Sounds kind of petty and fallible, not like God at all.

God is all seeing, he can see the future. Why would he need to have an expiriment. It was a test for adam and eve. They failed it.
Bingo
Uh,yeah it does. If those apples,which you even said were from the tree of knowledge or whatever, then ya, you would know HOW to do all that, whereas B4 they wouldnt.
Isnt that kinda like the guy givin another person a cheeseburger? That if sum1 gives you sumtin you wanna be nice to them? So lets look at it this way.

Yur on one side of a war, a dude from the other side saved your life on purpose by diving on a grenade. Are you going to go shoot him?(If hes still alive)
or
Your aa hot chick, a fattass walks up to you and buys u a drink. Yur broke and got time to spare so you take the drink. Are you gunna drink it and walk off, whihtout saying anything to him? Or r u gunna say Thanks a chat wit him. Then walk off.with or without him whatever you want.
It comes down to a simple thank you.