what is the origin of sin/evil?

[Beaudreaux]

I admit: That was a mistake...you of the clever phrasings. :cover:

If that was a mistake, did you mean to say that, if God knows I will do C, it is NOT possible for me to do A or B?

 

[Abulafia]

If that was a mistake, did you mean to say that, if God knows I will do C, it is NOT possible for me to do A or B?

I cannot in reality, tell if you are being deliberately recalcitrant to the idea, of not precognition, but observation. I tire of explaining this, and the semantical labyrinths do not prove anything, but your reluctance to reply in a nonSocratic fashion.

God observes, in His omnipresence, he does not precogitate or utilize foreknowlegde, he is omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, omniscient, and thus, the most perfect being conceivable....This, obviously, denotes the perfection of modality, his adroitness at simultaneously preserving free will...and holding omniscience....

He does this by His exemption from the linear time, physics, and products of Himself, spun from the navel, so to speak...

He knows you as you mull over A, B, and C...observes and watches, knowing as you rationalize your quandary...

He knows you as you execute the choice C, product of your rationale, and knows how it relates to Himself...

He knows you as you feel the reverberations from your choice, the nefarious C, a product of bad rationale....

Omnipresence denotes throughout time, a piece in the macrocosmic form of himself, an Ein Sof, if you like, manifested everywhere, in all time....

He thus, preserves your free-will by not foreknowing something, but observing something...simultaneously, outside time, as a compactium momentum....how then, does this remove your free will?

Instead of countering with a question, please point out what fallacy you observe in this argument.

 

[Abulafia]

The very thing you have as yet to show...the impedance......

See, what did I tell you?

 

[Beaudreaux]

I cannot in reality, tell if you are being deliberately recalcitrant to the idea, of not precognition, but observation. I tire of explaining this, and the semantical labyrinths do not prove anything, but your reluctance to reply in a nonSocratic fashion.

God observes, in His omnipresence, he does not precogitate or utilize foreknowlegde, he is omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, omniscient, and thus, the most perfect being conceivable....This, obviously, denotes the perfection of modality, his adroitness at simultaneously preserving free will...and holding omniscience....

He does this by His exemption from the linear time, physics, and products of Himself, spun from the navel, so to speak...

He knows you as you mull over A, B, and C...observes and watches, knowing as you rationalize your quandry...

He knows you as you execute the choice C, product of your rationale, and knows how it relates to Himself...

He knows you as you feel the reverberations from your choice, the nefarious C, a product of bad rationale....

Omnipresence denotes throughout time, a piece in the macrocosmic form of himself, an Ein Sof, if you like, manifested everywhere, in all time....

He thus, preserves your free-will by not foreknowing something, but observing something...simultaneously, outside time, as a compactium momentum....how then, does this remove your free will?

Instead of countering with a question, please point out what fallacy you observe in this argument.

Sure thing.

Your argument does not address the problem of omniscience and free will. The problem exists NOT BECAUSE OF HOW GOD EXPERIENCES TIME, but because of how WE experience time. Maybe it does not seem like foreknowledge to God, but it absolutely IS foreknowledge to US because, for us, God knows what we will do before we do it. It is because we do not experience time as a "compactium momentum" that your refutation fails.

Humans experience time, and from our perspective, at this moment, God has knowledge of every action we will take for the rest of our lives. That means that, as WE FLOW THROUGH TIME as we must, we can only do what God has knowledge that we will do.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Perhaps you'd like to comment on how humans experience time here. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/102432-human-beings-time.html

 

[Beaudreaux]

Oh. So because the teacher knows all of the mulitple choice answers, she knows your score?

Staying non-Socratic here as requested.

That is a completely invalid analogy. A teacher knows all the correct answers on a test, yet he/she does not know what answers I will select. God, as you very well know, knows every test answer I will ever select in my life. I do not know why you brought this comparison up, but it is not relevant.

 

[Abulafia]

Staying non-Socratic here as requested.

That is a completely invalid analogy. A teacher knows all the correct answers on a test, yet he/she does not know what answers I will select. God, as you very well know, knows every test answer I will ever select in my life. I do not know why you brought this comparison up, but it is not relevant.

I know that, that's why I deleted it...sorry....I was posting something else when I screwed up the whole thing with rearranging your quotes.

 

[Abulafia]

Humans experience time, and from our perspective, at this moment, God has knowledge of every action we will take for the rest of our lives. That means that, as WE FLOW THROUGH TIME as we must, we can only do what God has knowledge that we will do.

Oh? Really? Erm...uhuh....Why is that? I have explained this....God does NOT exercise foreknowledge, so the human's delusional concept of time is not impeding their free will. The entity compromising the actions must exercise it in a way that does so, whereas the one experiencing time, cannot be compromised by a nonaction. A hallucinating epileptic doesn't make her delusions real by perceiving them as that way.

"compactium momentum"

Do you like my neologism?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Oh? Really? Erm...uhuh....Why is that? I have explained this....God does NOT exercise foreknowledge

You have explained that it is not foreknowledge TO HIM. You have not explained how it is not foreknowledge TO US.

so the human's delusional concept of time...A hallucinating epileptic doesn't make her delusions real by perceiving them as that way.

Your position that time is a delusional concept or hallucination is ludicrous and can be easily disproved by any grade school child who has learned to read a clock. Time is observable and measurable. To claim that it does not exist to justify the coexistence of an omniscient God and free will is absurd and I suspect somewhat disingenuous. Do you own an alarm clock? Do you need to get up at a certain time each day? Do have a schedule you follow? Appointments? Do you have a ready answernwhen people ask you how,old you are? Or do you tell people that time does not really exist?

 

[Abulafia]

You have explained that it is not foreknowledge TO HIM. You have not explained how it is not foreknowledge TO US.


Your position that time is a delusional concept or hallucination is ludicrous and can be easily disproved by any grade school child who has learned to read a clock. Time is observable and measurable. To claim that it does not exist to justify the coexistence of an omniscient God and free will is absurd and I suspect somewhat disingenuous. Do you own an alarm clock? Do you need to get up at a certain time each day? Do have a schedule you follow? Appointments? Do you have a ready answernwhen people ask you how,old you are? Or do you tell people that time does not really exist?

First off, there is nothing I said that purports that "time" does not exist. I suggested that time (as we perceive it), is not its true manifestation. We regard it as an unreconciling line, extending forward to the horizon, never swaying form its rigid form. How are we to say what time is? Can it not be cylical, singularly operating, or even tesseracting? We cannot assign an abstract concept so rigid of strictures.

 

[Abulafia]

You have explained that it is not foreknowledge TO HIM. You have not explained how it is not foreknowledge TO US.

I did:

God does NOT exercise foreknowledge, so the human's delusional concept of time is not impeding their free will. The entity compromising the actions must exercise it in a way that does so, whereas the one experiencing time, cannot be compromised by a nonaction.

 

[Beaudreaux]

First off, there is nothing I said that purports that "time" does not exist. I suggested that time (as we perceive it), is not its true manifestation. We regard it as an unreconciling line, extending forward to the horizon, never swaying form its rigid form. How are we to say what time is? Can it not be cylical, singularly operating, or even tesseracting? We cannot assign an abstract concept so rigid of strictures.

What of our perception of time is a hallucination? Not being Socratic here. I jus need more information about your position.

 

[Abulafia]

What of our perception of time is a hallucination? Not being Socratic here. I jus more information about your position.

(sic.)

No hallucination, that was an analogy, showing that perception doesn't constitute reality (in rebuttal to "The way we perceive time limits us....." etc.). My view of time is that it is observed in one way, but can be another. Sort of a time-agnostic. But...it most definitely exists... It might even be quantumized, such as if there was no one to observe it, it could work different ways at once...

 

[Beaudreaux]

(sic.)

No hallucination, that was an analogy, showing that perception doesn't constitute reality (in rebuttal to "The way we perceive time limits us....." etc.). My view of time is that it is observed in one way, but can be another. Sort of a time-agnostic. But...it most definitely exists... It might even be quantumized, such as if there was no one to observe it, it could work different ways at once...

How do you account for the fact that time appears to follow the same set of basic rules for everyone? Is there anyone for whom any of the following rules does not apply?

• Actions cannot happen before they happen.
• Once an action is done it cannot be undone.
• We can remember past actions, but not future ones.
  

 

[SpiritualSon]

God did not create evil. "Evil does not exist, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God in a person. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love, that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.

Harry
Love and charity to all.

 

[McBell]

The impossibility of free will with an omniscient God has been shown to you multiple times. You still have not refuted a single part of the argument. You cannot just say I haven't shown it to be true. I have. Do you have a problem with anything about my proof?

NO, you have merely repeatedly made the CLAIM that an all knowing deity knowing what you will choose negates your ability to choose.
You have as yet to show the how of it.

So how can I "refute" something that you have as yet to present?

 

[Abulafia]

How do you account for the fact that time appears to follow the same set of basic rules for everyone? Is there anyone for whom any of the following rules does not apply?

• Actions cannot happen before they happen.
• Once an action is done it cannot be undone.
• We can remember past actions, but not future ones.
  

The cylicality of time is a reference to the theory, that as space contracts, in the theoretical Big Crunch, the entropical arrow of time will also....:thud:

Your post demands that observation is infallible, and that the true form of time exists as the observations deems it to be....I don't think that you are wanting to continue the debate about free will, rather to pursue a tangential time thread....Count me out....

Supermassive gravity warps time, so does incredible speed. Sure, the size of the gravitational pull would have to herculanean, yet some observed singularities correspond to a massivity almost unimaginable....

Quantum theory suggests that objects appear in multiple states at once, until observed, so...a car exists as:

A) Pure metal
B)Sheet metal
C) A car
D)A junkyard fragment

Until under observation....

Thus, if God is independent of the viewer effect, he would be able to observe things in their multiple states....:rainbow1:

 

[Beaudreaux]

The cylicality of time is a reference to the theory, that as space contracts, in the theoretical Big Crunch, the entropical arrow of time will also....:thud:

Your post demands that observation is infallible, and that the true form of time exists as the observations deems it to be....I

Oh, you have some information about the nature of time that does not come from your observations?

Oops. Sorry, I do love Socrates. Let me rephrase.

You have nothing upon which to base judgements of the nature of time other than your observations.

don't think that you are wanting to continue the debate about free will, rather to pursue a tangential time thread....Count me out....

Not so at all. The fact that human beings are bound by time is what makes omniscience a free will killer. YOU keep bringing up the tangential time stuff. Let's just agree humans are subject to time and we won't have to discuss black holes and quantum theory anymore.

 

[Beaudreaux]

NO, you have merely repeatedly made the CLAIM that an all knowing deity knowing what you will choose negates your ability to choose.
You have as yet to show the how of it.

So how can I "refute" something that you have as yet to present?

Mestemia, you are being dishonest here. Multiple times, with both words and illustrations, I have shown you a logical proof that omniscience rules out choice. Through all of those posts you have not disagreed with a single part of the proof, nor have you disputed the logical construct. All you say is "you still haven't offered proof". Either tear down the proof or let it stand. It is not enough to deny it exists.

 

[Beaudreaux]

My proof that an omniscient God makes choice impossible:

1. A choice is a selection from more than one possible option. (not disputed by Mestemia)
2. God knows everything including every action every human being will ever take (not disputed by Mestemia)
3. In any given situation, you will either do what God knew you would do or you will not (not disputed by Mestemia)
4. It is not possible for anyone to do something that did not already know they would do (actually affirmed by Mestemia in an earlier post)
5. Thus, in any given situation, there is only one thing any person can do which, by definition, means that choice can never occur (disputed by Mestemia with no reason given)

If you do not dispute 1-4, how then can you dispute 5?