philosophy about god

[Ned]

Originally posted by skywalker


I would say wrong on both counts (perfection in one situation is not perfection in another), but it is sufficient to show that the second claim is purely subjective. How is it that the laws of nature don't "need" any change?

The universe is defined by the laws of nature. Change one in even the smallest way, and the universe may cease to exist.

[Dr Strangelove]

I'd like to propose here that we all agree to stop using the word "law" to describe physical and chemical relalationships. Instead I think we should use the word "property". Newton's "law" of gravity is a formula describing gravity as a property of matter. If we all stop using the word "law" and use the word "property" we won't get bogged down in debates that are essentially semantic in nature.

[yavoon]

theology is where science is not.

luckily for theology then that it is still given some room to operate.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned


The universe is defined by the laws of nature. Change one in even the smallest way, and the universe may cease to exist.

The universe isn't defined by the laws of nature, the universe OPERATES by the laws of nature. If they are such that they allow change to themselves, then there is no conflict.

[Ben Kenobi]

If we all stop using the word "law" and use the word "property" we won't get bogged down in debates that are essentially semantic in nature.

Just use theory. Newton's theory of gravitation. That would be my preference.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Getting to that, young skywalker.

If you can chop something into little pieces that can be precisely defined, or if you can predict how everything works, you have no free will whatsover. All that you do would then be the result of your genes, or factors outside of your own control.

Yay! Finally, I can gut your argument and stomp it to the ground :evilgring:

Determinism is COMPLETELY in line with free will. If you think otherwise, free will does not exist. First, I need to point out one thing: the universe is either deterministic... or random (or more precisely, probabalistic). Either it obeys rules or it does not. In the case that it is probabilistic, free will obviously does not exist - everything is fundamentally random, though the probabilities of various things occuring may be different. Thus, if you refuse to accept that free will exists in a deterministic universe, you must accept that free will does not exist at all.

Secondly, just because I made my decision according to certain deterministic rules, that does NOT mean that I didn't make the decision. I freely made that decision - I wasn't "constrained" or anything - I merely made it according to certain rules. Are you saying someone else made the decision?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I'd like to propose here that we all agree to stop using the word "law" to describe physical and chemical relalationships. Instead I think we should use the word "property". Newton's "law" of gravity is a formula describing gravity as a property of matter. If we all stop using the word "law" and use the word "property" we won't get bogged down in debates that are essentially semantic in nature.

Actually, this isn't quite true. A property is an attribute of something. For example, mass is an property. However, gravity is a law, because it is a rule describing the behavior of objects, and it just happens that the property "mass" factors into its calculations. Gravity is not inherent to an object but rather to the universe.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by skywalker


Actually, this isn't quite true. A property is an attribute of something. For example, mass is an property. However, gravity is a law, because it is a rule describing the behavior of objects, and it just happens that the property "mass" factors into its calculations. Gravity is not inherent to an object but rather to the universe.

gravity is a property of mass. tho in general I think ur being inanely semantic.

[Kuciwalker]

Mass doesn't have properties... it itself is a property. I repeat: gravity is a rule, inherent to the universe, (partially) describing the motion of particles. It happens to factor the masses of the involved parties into its calculations.

[Kuciwalker]

tho in general I think ur being inanely semantic.

Dr Strangelove started it

[yavoon]

Originally posted by skywalker
Mass doesn't have properties... it itself is a property. I repeat: gravity is a rule, inherent to the universe, (partially) describing the motion of particles. It happens to factor the masses of the involved parties into its calculations.

all but yawningly inane. I have a hard time bothering to even reply.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

tho in general I think ur being inanely semantic.

Dr Strangelove started it

=DD

[Ben Kenobi]

First, I need to point out one thing: the universe is either deterministic... or random (or more precisely, probabalistic).

Why? What assumptions does this bely? That the material world is all that exists? Could not a better argument say that the universe is neither probabilistic, nor deterministic, but rather something else entirely?

If you say that the universe is entirely deterministic, then how do you explain quantum fuzziness, that does not follow a rigid set of rules, as does gravitation.

If you say that the universe in entirely probabilistic, how do you explain the ability of gravitational theories to make predictions about planetary motion?

Thus, if you refuse to accept that free will exists in a deterministic universe, you must accept that free will does not exist at all.

Not if I bypass your argument.

Secondly, just because I made my decision according to certain deterministic rules, that does NOT mean that I didn't make the decision. I freely made that decision - I wasn't "constrained" or anything

If the rules do not constrain you, but merely provide a guide, than those rules are not deterministic.

[Aeson]

Are you saying someone else made the decision?

The argument against free will in a deterministic system is not that you don't make choices. Obviously we all make choices. The argument is that 'choice' boils down to a single possible outcome in a deterministic system, not the commonly held definition of choice between possibilities. There is only one possibility (or rather eventuality) in a deterministic system. While you can still call the functionality that leads to that eventuality choice, it is something different than choice viewed in a system that allows for divergent outcomes.

In a deterministic system, you can consider other choices (if so determined), but can only choose the predetermined option. There is no diverging from the path. Whoever or whatever (if anything) set you on that path made the 'choice' (in the common sense noted previously) as to where you would end up, you just follow the path by operating the way you were designed to operate.

If this is your definition of free will, then everything in a deterministic system has free will. A computer has free-will, because it makes choices based on how it is programed and designed. In a more abstract sense, a rock has free will because it follows the path set before it just as anything else does.

[Ned]

Originally posted by skywalker


The universe isn't defined by the laws of nature, the universe OPERATES by the laws of nature. If they are such that they allow change to themselves, then there is no conflict.

Skywalker, I don't understand this. But to the extent I do understand what you say, do not agree.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why? What assumptions does this bely? That the material world is all that exists? Could not a better argument say that the universe is neither probabilistic, nor deterministic, but rather something else entirely?

This makes no assumptions that the material world is all that exists. There simply are no alternatives - either the universe obeys rules, or it does not.

If you say that the universe is entirely deterministic, then how do you explain quantum fuzziness, that does not follow a rigid set of rules, as does gravitation.

If you say that the universe in entirely probabilistic, how do you explain the ability of gravitational theories to make predictions about planetary motion?

You can't be "partly" deterministic or "partly" probabilistic. Quantum theory seems to imply that the universe is probabilistic, but this is NO contradiction with the ability to predict things on the level of a planet - probabilistic means that some events have certain probabilities of occuring, rather than absolute certainty. Thus, there is a VERY LARGE probability (bordering on 1) of our predictions about planetary motion being correct, just like there is a VERY LARGE probability of 10^100 coin tosses resulting in about 50% heads.

If the rules do not constrain you, but merely provide a guide, than those rules are not deterministic.

The rules aren't a "guide", but neither are the a "constraint". The rules are "obeyed" to the letter (in a deterministic universe), but such "obedience" isn't met with resistence. I have a certain mind, which reacts in certain ways to various stimuli; just because it reacts deterministically doesn't mean that it was "constrained".

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
Skywalker, I don't understand this. But to the extent I do understand what you say, do not agree.

The universe is the set of all that exists. The material "universe", which I assume we are talking about, isn't "defined" by the laws of nature. However, the things in it behave in a manner defined by the laws of nature. Understand?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aeson
The argument against free will in a deterministic system is not that you don't make choices. Obviously we all make choices. The argument is that 'choice' boils down to a single possible outcome in a deterministic system, not the commonly held definition of choice between possibilities. There is only one possibility (or rather eventuality) in a deterministic system. While you can still call the functionality that leads to that eventuality choice, it is something different than choice viewed in a system that allows for divergent outcomes.

In a deterministic system, you can consider other choices (if so determined), but can only choose the predetermined option. There is no diverging from the path. Whoever or whatever (if anything) set you on that path made the 'choice' (in the common sense noted previously) as to where you would end up, you just follow the path by operating the way you were designed to operate.

If this is your definition of free will, then everything in a deterministic system has free will. A computer has free-will, because it makes choices based on how it is programed and designed. In a more abstract sense, a rock has free will because it follows the path set before it just as anything else does.

In a deterministic situation, you DO consider multiple possibilities and you COULD choose different ones, but you DON'T.

[Ben Kenobi]

The "spiritual" world ALSO either obeys rules, or it doesn't. ANYTHING either obeys rules or it doesn't, by definition. Thus, it is not limited to the material world.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
Yup, and in doing so removes his omnipotence. So if a being is omnipotent at one time, it doesn't not mean that the being is omnipotent at a future time. There is no contradiction.

You missed the question -- or rather, tried to remove it.

If an omnipotent being removes its omnipotence, it's no longer omnipotent. This, of course, was not my question at all.

Besides, we still haven't gotten into the interesting question of "If an omnipotent being can remove his own omnipotence, is he really omnipotent?"

[Kuciwalker]

Of course he is. Why wouldn't he be?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
The universe is by definition omniscient - it possesses, in itself, all of the information about itself.

An object containing information does not great science to the object. Does a book containing information of programming in Java know how to program in Java?

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Thriller



Ah, now why would that necessarily be the case? Exactly why MUST god be omnipotent?

Ben: Still waiting for your response on this one

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
Of course he is. Why wouldn't he be?

Because if its power can be taken away, it cannot be all-powerful.

[Ben Kenobi]

Besides, we still haven't gotten into the interesting question of "If an omnipotent being can remove his own omnipotence, is he really omnipotent?"

Or the counterpoint. One could say that an omnipotent being would have to be able to set aside his own omnipotence, and then to pick it up again. A better argument would say that God has certain characteristics that cannot be put aside, such as his goodness. So it is impossible for God to remove his own omnipotence, just as it would be for God to do evil.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by HongHu
All I'm trying to say is, we can not really argue anything outside of our conciousness. Of course we can guess and debate all we like, but we have no way to verify who and what is correct, at least not until we "evolve" to something that are at similar level of the god himself.

Cetainly, if this god is unknowable, it is meaningless to argue about it. In fact, it is meaningless to assert that such an entity exists.

Originally posted by HongHu
Enjoy life when you are still not picked up by that two year old higher intelligent unit.

Unit? Played too much Civ?

[Aeson]

In a deterministic situation, you DO consider multiple possibilities and you COULD choose different ones, but you DON'T.

No.

The "could" and "don't" are incompatible with a deterministic system. They both imply that there is some manner which you can bypass determinism and instead do something that wasn't predetermined. That would mean you are changing the system from deterministic to something else. Since we are talking about a deterministic system, everything that happens in that system is predetermined.

Programming is great for examples of this nature.

int function(int a, int b)
{
if(a >= b)
return a;
else
return b;
}

Then feed the same input into that algorithm multiple times.

int result = function(1,0);

If it truely is deterministic, you will get the same output every time. In the example result would always be 1. 'Decisions' were made by the algorithm, but there was only one possibility because of the deterministic nature of the algorithm. If for some reason the code within the function remains obscure, it may seem like b could be a possible result given the input, but upon inspection and understanding of the actual code involved, a is the only possibility.

To bring it back to the level of free will, our function (if there is a defined one) is so complex, the inputs and outputs so numerous, that we have very little understanding about just how we work. We can't look at two options for ourselves and know exactly what we'd do, although we can make guesses at it.

So we see possibilities, and perhaps they are possibilities due to the system being something other than deterministic. But if we assume a deterministic system, there is only one eventuality, regardless of what guesses of possibility that eventuality leads us to.

[gamenaught]

theology is where science is not. theology is where science is not.

luckily for theology then that it is still given some room to operate.

Very eloquent.

Though often religion gets c0cky and encroaches on science. In which case it needs to be b1tch-slapped and force-fed humble pie.

[Ned]

Originally posted by skywalker


The universe is the set of all that exists. The material "universe", which I assume we are talking about, isn't "defined" by the laws of nature. However, the things in it behave in a manner defined by the laws of nature. Understand?

The way I used "defined" is consistent with this.

However, you change any law and you unravel it entire ball of wax. The laws comprise an integrated whole. All are necessary and none ever change or can be changed.