Determinism.

[LilBee91]

I believe God created us so we could be truly happy and become like Him. I think that there may some purposes/goals for our lives that we planned with Him, but we are the ones who make the choices to achieve them. He knew before we came here what we could and would do, but, like hive king said,

there's a difference between knowing what someone is going to do, and making it happen.

[Fish Tank]

How can there be original thought if all of our ideas are from God? If God knows everything all our of thoughts and inventions are just the ideas of God.

Could a human have an idea or thought that God has not?

[Matty]

Responding to the original question. The best resolution I've heard of the perfect knowlege/free will paradox comes from C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. It goes like this:

First, an observation. If God did not know the future, there would be no problem, because he could only watch us as we acted. And to watch someone do something is not the same as making someone do it. But God has perfect knowlege of the past, present and future, which essentially means that from God's perspective, time is spacelike. That is, the whole of the life of the universe can viewed by God at once, like a mural. So from God's perspective, all the actions of your entire life occur in his "present." But the first observation says that observations in the present do not affect free will. QED.

The problem arises because we imagine God moving through time along with us, and looking into the future. But God's omniscience implies that he does not experience time sequentially, so the problem goes away.

[Rei]

To be honest, I fail to see why it matters if a human can think of something that God hasn't. Just because someone else has thought something before does not mean that they forced you to think it. All it means is that humans are not able to be perfectly original.

[Fish Tank]

Matty that's good and all but it has no conclusive evidence to be that way. God has to experience time sequentially. How else could he have created the world in 7 days? Surely he understands and experiences time the same as we do.

Doesn't mean they didn't force you to think it either Rei.

[Matty]

Matty that's good and all but it has no conclusive evidence to be that way. God has to experience time sequentially. How else could he have created the world in 7 days? Surely he understands and experiences time the same as we do.

No. If you assume that God is omniscient and omnipotent, then him experiencing time non-sequentially follows logically. If you could see all of the history of the universe at once, and do anything to the universe at any time in its history whenever you wanted, then time is simply another dimension you can move around in at will. In other words, it's spacelike.

Our perception of time comes from the fact that we remember but can't affect the past, and don't remember but can affect the future. But God knows everything and can affect everything, so there can be no distinction.

Now, any action you take in the universe may extend across a certain amount of space and time, and so might have duration from the perspective of those inside the universe. But to you, the universe is all one frozen instant.

Again, I get this only from assuming that God is omniscient and omnipotent, generally accepted properties of the monotheistic God. Polytheistic gods are obviously another story.

[Fish Tank]

How can it be "our" conception of time when God must have created it? It is God's conception of time that we live in. God must at least be able to exist in time as we do and experience it. If he is omniscient.

There is a past and there will be a future. If God can see the past then it must still exist in time. As the future must exist before it happens if God can see it.

[LilBee91]

The future won't exist until it happens. God knows us so well that he can accurately predict what we will do. The objects in the universe (except humans) obey Him, so whatever He commands will happen. With the universe in His control, and knowing us like He does, He can see how future events will unfold. He knows all the possible consequences of every choice, and knows what decisions we will make.

[Rei]

How can it be "our" conception of time when God must have created it? It is God's conception of time that we live in. God must at least be able to exist in time as we do and experience it. If he is omniscient.

There is a past and there will be a future. If God can see the past then it must still exist in time. As the future must exist before it happens if God can see it.

Enter the Trinity. God exists at all points of time as a single being and can see all these moments simultaneously. And He has also entered linear time as we know it, and He did this when He sent Jesus to be with us. And even today, the Holy Spirit lives with us, and I suppose that He, too, might be aware of linear time. And all of this happens while God the Father is seeing all of time at once.

[Boothby]

A number of people here believe in a non-standard, Judeo/Christian-like God. Their view of God is similar in many ways to the standard J/C tracts, but varies in certain critical aspects.

The JCSG (Judeo Christian Standard God) is both omniscient and omnipotent. He (He's male, too, FWIW) can see across time, is not bound by time, and can do whatever it is that He sees fit to do.

Any talk of God watching the world unfold, or only able to "predict" human's actions (or any object's actions) are contradictory to the JCSG model. Also, any talk of God having a slightly cherry after-taste are similarly personal.

God (presuming that He exists, and presuming that the JCSG model is correct) knows what has happened, what is happening and what will happen. That's because He transcends time. He CAN change things at his will, but does not HAVE to (after all--who would MAKE him?!?). Your actions are your own--you have free will (see later note). God's ability to know what you have done throughout your life does not violate your supposed free-will. If you were to watch a couple talking from a distance, and then (Primer-like) scrub back and forth through time, it would not put you in control of their actions.

But here's something no one has asked...

What IS free will? Where does this "free will" come from? One assumes that it is the ability for a person to act in a way unique and special to themselves, based on what it is they want. But how do you know what you want? Isn't what you want based on who you are? Isn't who you are based on *DETERMINISTIC* aspects of you? Your physiology? Your history? How you interpret sensations (again, based on who and what you are?). So, if you had a smart enough "computer", you COULD figure out a person's next move. But your next move is also based on all the seemingly random interactions you've experienced as a unique human being throughout your entire life. So you've incorporated lessons learned through seemingly random interactions into your sense of free will.

You are, I propose, the sum of your parts. And if, for some reason, you make a decision and take action based on NOTHING from your past...then how is that an actual CHOICE, and not just a decidedly random act on your part. And I think that it would be safe to say that purely random acts have very little to do with free will.

[Fish Tank]

We aren't the "sum of our parts". We are a piece, a very very small piece of God. God's idea. If God created everything... then we aren't even a blip on the radar.

Anything we create, we control. Hell we control everything. Or at least try to. If God has infinite power and the ability control every action we do; what's stopping him? He obviously must control some aspects of our life through prayer. The answering of prayers contradicts free will. Prayers can change someone else's life without their consent.

God himself must have doubted his own existence. If us lowly humans can doubt ours.


Also Rei, the Trinity is not based on scripture. It is "interpreted" through scripture. Which to me is just human BS. Not God's word. "He" hasn't told us what he/she/it is and never will.

[Boothby]

Fish Tank,

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Until and unless proven otherwise, there is no God.

"We are a [small] piece of God" WTH does that mean?

[Fish Tank]

I am saying that we are an idea of God. A creation.

[Boothby]

Fish Tank,

First, God ideated us (thought us up), and then he created us. That is, of course, if you believe in such stuff. And as far as being not even a blip on the radar---according to the Old Testament, WE are the reason he created the universe. It's just us. We are the pinnacle.

And we *are* the sum of our parts. What else could we be? Theists assume that one of those parts is a "piece" of God that is our self-aware "spirit" (the part that is capable of "free will," whatever that means). In other words, a part of God that is capable of independent thought and action from God. The soul He supposedly breathed into us.

Why do I understand theology better than you, what with me being an atheist and all? It's like someone from Japan asking me to translate...

[Fish Tank]

I am an atheist....


An idea is a creation.

According to the old testament God created the stars, Earth, moon and the Sun. Apparently he didn't create the other planets. No mention of them in Genesis.. but thats a whole different argument.

It is never stated that he created the heavens and the Earth just for Man. Go read genesis again.

How can "we" be the sum of "our" parts in "we" are someone else's creation?

In other words, a part of God that is capable of independent thought and action from God.

That is an assumption that cannot be proven. First you would have to prove we have free will. Which you cannot do.

[Boothby]

I thought you were an atheist...there were just some concepts you appeared to support earlier that didn't jibe with that (I guess you were posing straw man arguments...)

Back in the time Genesis was written, the other planets (I assume) were thought to be a type of star (wandering star). Comets were blasphemy.

All His creation led to the creation of man. Then He rested. He certainly didn't create it for anyone or anything else...

When I design a mechanism, it is the sum of its parts. Even though it is my creation. I don't understand the issue you have with this.

[Eaquae Legit]

That's pretty correct Steve, about the planets.

In Latin the word for them is stella. Same word for star. If you got into a serious theological debate or wanted to be specific, you would call them stella errata, wandering stars.

Also Rei, the Trinity is not based on scripture. It is "interpreted" through scripture. Which to me is just human BS. Not God's word. "He" hasn't told us what he/she/it is and never will.

So we should just sit around on our asses and wonder what God is? That's what a lot of people have done through the years and the Trinity is what they came up with. It makes a lot of sense to them and fits with scripture, so a lot of people believe it to be true. Not to mention that you have no idea what God will never do - presumptuous much?

[Fish Tank]

That's pretty correct Steve, about the planets.

In Latin the word for them is stella. Same word for star. If you got into a serious theological debate or wanted to be specific, you would call them stella errata, wandering stars.

Also Rei, the Trinity is not based on scripture. It is "interpreted" through scripture. Which to me is just human BS. Not God's word. "He" hasn't told us what he/she/it is and never will.

So we should just sit around on our asses and wonder what God is? That's what a lot of people have done through the years and the Trinity is what they came up with. It makes a lot of sense to them and fits with scripture, so a lot of people believe it to be true. Not to mention that you have no idea what God will never do - presumptuous much?

You would not use latin you would use Hebrew or Aramaic. Which the old testament was written in. And the hebrew word for "star" and "planet" are different.

We cannot possibly comprehend what God is. I can guarantee you God himself will never come down to Earth and cut my head off with a lightning bolt. If it happens I'll give you a million dollars.

[Boothby]

"We cannot possibly comprehend what God is"

I don 't get it. This is not language I would expect from an atheist...


"We cannot possibly comprehend what an invisible pink unicorn is"


They are statements that appear to presume the existence of the thing that cannot be comprehended.

[Eaquae Legit]

Man, even people who share your beliefs can't figure out what you're saying. That's talent.

If I were an ancient Hebrew, I would likely use Hebrew. But I'm not and I don't know ancient Hebrew. I do know Latin, and I know that it is indicative of the astronomical perceptions of the time. I know the Greeks before them held the same belief. Tell me, are you looking at ancient Hebrew of modern Hebrew, because I'd be surprised if they didn't have different words now.

You'll guarantee me that God won't ever come down to earth, and that's because you don't believe God even exists. There's a fair number of Christian denominations which take the book of Revelations very seriously and literally who will say God most definitely come down to Earth again and there will be a lot of smiting going on. So... am I going to be told that isn't in scripture either?

[Rei]

"star" -- כוכב
"walking star" or "planet" -- כוכב-לבת

Doesn't it look just a little bit like they're related words? Perhaps it might not be as clear-cut as you're trying to make it. I'd post the etymology, but there don't appear to be any free online etymological dictionarys for Hebrew. Either way, they are related closely enough that, first, "planet" came later (as it's a compound word, which necessitates it coming at least a little later) and, second, it could still be translated as "walking star" or "wandering star".

[Fish Tank]

If there is a God we cannot claim to know God. If we create something does it know us? Can it relate to us?

How can we comprehend something that could create an invisible pink unicorn if it had the desire?

I never said God wouldn't come to Earth ever. Read what I said again.

"I can guarantee you God himself will never come down to Earth and cut my head off with a lightning bolt. If it happens I'll give you a million dollars."


There are many interpretations of the Book of Revelation. There's a fair number of Christian denominations who don't take it seriously or literally. Some think it already happened.

[Fish Tank]

"star" -- כוכב
"walking star" or "planet" -- כוכב-לבת

Doesn't it look just a little bit like they're related words? Perhaps it might not be as clear-cut as you're trying to make it. I'd post the etymology, but there don't appear to be any free online etymological dictionarys for Hebrew. Either way, they are related closely enough that, first, "planet" came later (as it's a compound word, which necessitates it coming at least a little later) and, second, it could still be translated as "walking star" or "wandering star".

Walking star does not mean planet. At the time "walking star" was used to describe stars that moved in the sky. Only later was it known that what we called "walking star" were actually other planets. Then the meaning of the word changed.

Same goes for "shooting stars". We thought they were stars moving fast across the sky. Turns out they're just meteoroids. Yet we still call them shooting stars even though the meaning of the word, "shooting star" has changed.

[Boothby]

FT,

You sound like a frikkin' Turing language 'bot.

If there is a God we cannot claim to know God. (Sure...but that's such a big IF)

If we create something does it know us? (So far, none of Man's creations have shown themselves to be self-aware. If we created God in our image...then it's just a verbal construct, and meaningless in a practical sense. Getting millions of people to believe in an all-powerful God does not somehow actually create that all-powerful God)

Can it relate to us? (See previous answer...No)



EL,

What's in scripture and what's real are two different, totally unrelated things.

[Eaquae Legit]

I know that, Steve. That comment sprung mostly from an argument on a different thread about interpreting the Bible.

[Eaquae Legit]

"star" -- כוכב
"walking star" or "planet" -- כוכב-לבת

Doesn't it look just a little bit like they're related words? Perhaps it might not be as clear-cut as you're trying to make it. I'd post the etymology, but there don't appear to be any free online etymological dictionarys for Hebrew. Either way, they are related closely enough that, first, "planet" came later (as it's a compound word, which necessitates it coming at least a little later) and, second, it could still be translated as "walking star" or "wandering star".

Walking star does not mean planet. At the time "walking star" was used to describe stars that moved in the sky. Only later was it known that what we called "walking star" were actually other planets. Then the meaning of the word changed.

Same goes for "shooting stars". We thought they were stars moving fast across the sky. Turns out they're just meteoroids. Yet we still call them shooting stars even though the meaning of the word, "shooting star" has changed.

Except... we were talking about ancient Hebrew beliefs. And the ancient Hebrews didn't have the modern understanding of planets.

Steve said "Back in the time Genesis was written, the other planets (I assume) were thought to be a type of star (wandering star)." I agreed, giving evidence of ancient astronomical beliefs. You wanted the Hewbrew words. Rei provided them. Then you say that those words don't apply.

God, how I hate it when people who don't know what they're talking about start mucking about in ancient history. I'm out of here. Call me when you decide to have something resembling a rational discussion.

[Fish Tank]

That's my entire POINT. Jesus.

the ancient Hebrews didn't have the modern understanding of planets.

Man you are thick-headed.

The words do not apply to planets as we know them today.

[Rei]

FT: ...

I have no idea what you're talking about. You're the one who said that planets weren't mentioned in Genesis and you're also the one who has confirmed the notion of semantic shift. Make up your mind already.

[Fish Tank]

Planets aren't mentioned in Genesis.

[Rei]

And you already knew that the language reflected their inclusive understanding of planets. Congratulations. You brought this up why?

[Dr. Mobius]

Fishy, maybe you should quit while you're behind.

[Fish Tank]

I was simply responding to Boothby's comment. Why did you respond to me?

[Dr. Mobius]

This is a web forum, responding to the people above you is one if their basic functions.

[Fish Tank]

Indeed.

[Fish Tank]

You guys are, Bashing, Ridiculing, or degradating my system of beliefs

Specifically the belief that if God exists determinism must. And my belief that God does not exist.