what is the origin of sin/evil?

[Abulafia]

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.

When he to whom one speaks does not understand, and he who speaks himself does not understand, that is metaphysics.
-Voltaire

Really? And then we enter metaphysics....observation nihilo.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Really? And then we enter metaphysics....observation nihilo.

Why do you posit the existence of the metaphysical?

 

[Abulafia]

My proof that an omniscient God makes choice impossible:

Ahhhh...finally, an ultimatum....

A choice is a selection from more than one possible option. (not disputed by Mestemia)

Yes. Yes it is.

God knows everything including every action every human being will ever take (not disputed by Mestemia)

I don't like the word "will", insinuative of precognition, which has been successfully refuted, yet he has the knowledge of every action a human takes, for he is the agent that observes, distributed in his omnipresent manifestations across space/time, rendering perspectively the single, instantaneous observation. There is no moment of precognition, yet a distributed observance....he observes you in moment A contemplating X, Y, and Z; in moment B, enacting X; and moment C as you are effected by your rationale, X, measuring the distance from himself.

In any given situation, you will either do what God knew you would do or you will not (not disputed by Mestemia)

The same. Do not try to apply time-oriented verbs to God's observances. Look to my reply above.

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)

"that did not already" (sic.) That what? God? You apply again, a syntactical flaw, would. God knows everything (hence the omni).....yet does not broach upon free will because he doesn't stem his conciousness from the past, rather outside of time itself...thus, he kneows (knew and knows combined, another neologism). That is the flaw in your argument.In fact, that is the premise of your argument. The perception of time by human occupants, is ludricious...I sit down in a room. Three screens are buzzing in front of me. The first screen shows a biker riding down a path to a fork in the road, the second shows the biker on 2nd option of the fork, and the last shows him putting away his bicycle. I observed all of them, while a narrator (Morgan Freeman) narrated the cyclist's thoughts above me. Does that negate the bikers free will? Because I kneow what he was/is/already did before he knew himself? No. In fact, the mortal encased in the "flow" or "circumnavigation" of time, his perception is not a contributing factor, because of the opposite disposition towards time, expressed by God....the one constructing a barrier towards the cogitation, must be the factor, otherwise, it would be left to the perceiver to construct his own barrier out of nothing.

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)

I'm not Mestemia. I refuted this above.

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

I just did.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I don't like the word "will", insinuative of precognition, which has been successfully refuted

You have in no way refuted the fact that you as a time-bound creature have not done things yet and that at this moment in your life there is a being who knows what will happen in your future. YOUR future, not God's. IT DOES NOT MATTER how God gets this knowledge. What matters is how you experience that knowledge. It is your, time-bound experience of that knowledge that limits you.

I'm not Mestemia. I refuted this above.

This is hardly refutation. You keep focusing on how God sees things when it is how WE see things that matters in this proof. Perhaps this will help illustrate.

Let's say I was out driving and came to a bridge and it was collapsed and impassable. Would you tell me that it is not really collapsed because that is not how God sees it? He sees the bridge before it failed, as it was failing and after it was rebuilt so to God it is not collapsed at all and because it is not collapsed to God it is not collapsed to me? Or would you realize that how God experiences things is not important here? It is how I experience time that makes the bridge impassable, just as it is how I experience the fact of God's foreknowledge that makes choice impossible.

 

[Abulafia]

You have in no way refuted the fact that you as a time-bound creature have not done things yet and that at this moment in your life there is a being who knows what will happen in your future. YOUR future, not God's. IT DOES NOT MATTER how God gets this knowledge. What matters is how you experience that knowledge. It is your, time-bound experience of that knowledge that limits you.

This is hardly refutation. You keep focusing on how God sees things when it is how WE see things that matters in this proof. Perhaps this will help illustrate.

Let's say I was out driving and came to a bridge and it was collapsed and impassable. Would you tell me that it is not really collapsed because that is not how God sees it? He sees the bridge before it failed, as it was failing and after it was rebuilt so to God it is not collapsed at all and because it is not collapsed to God it is not collapsed to me? Or would you realize that how God experiences things is not important here? It is how I experience time that makes the bridge impassable, just as it is how I experience the fact of God's foreknowledge that makes choice impossible.

Did you even read my post?

This is what I wrote:

"that did not already" (sic.) That what? God? You apply again, a syntactical flaw, would. God knows everything (hence the omni).....yet does not broach upon free will because he doesn't stem his conciousness from the past, rather outside of time itself...thus, he kneows (knew and knows combined, another neologism). That is the flaw in your argument.In fact, that is the premise of your argument. The perception of time by human occupants, is ludricious...I sit down in a room. Three screens are buzzing in front of me. The first screen shows a biker riding down a path to a fork in the road, the second shows the biker on 2nd option of the fork, and the last shows him putting away his bicycle. I observed all of them, while a narrator (Morgan Freeman) narrated the cyclist's thoughts above me. Does that negate the bikers free will? Because I kneow what he was/is/already did before he knew himself? No. In fact, the mortal encased in the "flow" or "circumnavigation" of time, his perception is not a contributing factor, because of the opposite disposition towards time, expressed by God....the one constructing a barrier towards the cogitation, must be the factor, otherwise, it would be left to the perceiver to construct his own barrier out of nothing.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Did you even read my post?

Yeah, I read it. I found it off the mark as usual. My response was a refutation of your logic. Did you even read it? Here it is again. It is a direct commentary on your post. Perhaps you would like to comment on what I wrote? It's kind of how this discussion forum thing works.

You have in no way refuted the fact that you as a time-bound creature have not done things yet and that at this moment in your life there is a being who knows what will happen in your future. YOUR future, not God's. IT DOES NOT MATTER how God gets this knowledge. What matters is how you experience that knowledge. It is your, time-bound experience of that knowledge that limits you.

This is hardly refutation. You keep focusing on how God sees things when it is how WE see things that matters in this proof. Perhaps this will help illustrate.

Let's say I was out driving and came to a bridge and it was collapsed and impassable. Would you tell me that it is not really collapsed because that is not how God sees it? He sees the bridge before it failed, as it was failing and after it was rebuilt so to God it is not collapsed at all and because it is not collapsed to God it is not collapsed to me? Or would you realize that how God experiences things is not important here? It is how I experience time that makes the bridge impassable, just as it is how I experience the fact of God's foreknowledge that makes choice impossible.

 

[Abulafia]

Yeah, I read it. I found it off the mark as usual. My response was a refutation of your logic. Did you even read it? Here it is again. It is a direct commentary on your post. Perhaps you would like to comment on what I wrote? It's kind of how this discussion forum thing works.

I did. I found it to be evasive as usual. :sarcastic

Let's say I was out driving and came to a bridge and it was collapsed and impassable. Would you tell me that it is not really collapsed because that is not how God sees it? He sees the bridge before it failed, as it was failing and after it was rebuilt so to God it is not collapsed at all and because it is not collapsed to God it is not collapsed to me?

No, it remains impassable, passable, and nonexistent in the eyes of God. It of course, is impassable to you, but what your point is is beyond me.

Or would you realize that how God experiences things is not important here? It is how I experience time that makes the bridge impassable, just as it is how I experience the fact of God's foreknowledge that makes choice impossible.

Foreknowledge? Honestly? Have I done NOTHING here? You have said nothing of my own analogy. I don't see how your scenario pertains to the matter of free will...rather, you seem to be focused on the state of a bridge...now if you were in a quandary over the bridge, perhaps I could understand what you are attempting to say.:sorry1:

Here is what I have said:

That what? God? You apply again, a syntactical flaw, would. God knows everything (hence the omni).....yet does not broach upon free will because he doesn't stem his conciousness from the past, rather outside of time itself...thus, he kneows (knew and knows combined, another neologism). That is the flaw in your argument.In fact, that is the premise of your argument. The perception of time by human occupants, is ludricious...I sit down in a room. Three screens are buzzing in front of me. The first screen shows a biker riding down a path to a fork in the road, the second shows the biker on 2nd option of the fork, and the last shows him putting away his bicycle. I observed all of them, while a narrator (Morgan Freeman) narrated the cyclist's thoughts above me. Does that negate the bikers free will? Because I kneow what he was/is/already did before he knew himself? No. In fact, the mortal encased in the "flow" or "circumnavigation" of time, his perception is not a contributing factor, because of the opposite disposition towards time, expressed by God....the one constructing a barrier towards the cogitation, must be the factor, otherwise, it would be left to the perceiver to construct his own barrier out of nothing.

 

[Beaudreaux]

No, it remains impassable, passable, and nonexistent in the eyes of God. It of course, is impassable to you, but what your point is is beyond me

I know. We're working on correcting that.

My point is that, when it comes to how humans experience reality, how God sees time makes no difference. Rather, how WE see time is what affects us. You freely admit this with the bridge, but some how think that God's knowledge of our future is different. To me, the bridge is impassable even though it is not so to God. Likewise, to me God knows the future even though to him it is not foreknowledge. In both situations, it is my experience of the situation that affects me. God's experience of the situation is not relevant.

 

[Abulafia]

I know. We're working on correcting that.

My point is that, when it comes to how humans experience reality, how God sees time makes no difference. Rather, how WE see time is what affects us. You freely admit this with the bridge, but some how think that God's knowledge of our future is different. To me, the bridge is impassable even though it is not so to God. Likewise, to me God knows the future even though to him it is not foreknowledge. In both situations, it is my experience of the situation that affects me. God's experience of the situation is not relevant.

I assert the opposite. I assert that God, as he does not excercise foreknowledge, but experiences things simultaneously, does not negate freewill, because he is in no way barring your choice by nonaction. The perception of time by yourself, is notwithstanding, accurate pertaining to what obeys it similarly. God does not. God cannot affect your choice, by nonaction, which is foreknowledge, and the reason because it is not foreknowledge is because God is not affected by the "flow" of time.

What of my analogy?

 

[Beaudreaux]

I assert the opposite. I assert that God, as he does not excercise foreknowledge, but experiences things simultaneously, does not negate freewill, because he is in no way barring your choice by nonaction. The perception of time by yourself, is notwithstanding, accurate pertaining to what obeys it similarly. God does not. God cannot affect your choice, by nonaction, which is foreknowledge, and the reason because it is not foreknowledge is because God is not affected by the "flow" of time.

What of my analogy?

You must know by know that I think your analogy that illustrates how God experiences time is completely irrelevant to my proof.

What do you think of my analogy? Why does God's experience of the collapsed bridge not affect how I experience it, but his perception of time affects how I experience time?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Let's try this. Please define "choice" for me.

 

[Abulafia]

You must know by know that I think your analogy that illustrates how God experiences time is completely irrelevant to my proof.

Proof? :sarcastic I think not.

What do you think of my analogy? Why does God's experience of the collapsed bridge not affect how I experience it, but his perception of time affects how I experience time?

I think that the bridge analogy has little to do with "choice" as we see it, and I think that the choice is all yours.

 

[Abulafia]

Let's try this. Please define "choice" for me.

A) A choice is between choice 1, 2, 3 etc. executed by the person contemplating it. You must a: weigh the choice and juxtapose them according to rationale; b: select that which you see fit; and c: carry it through

B) You must do the above of your own accord.

C) God does not affect your choice, execept as a precept you wish to consider.

D) God's knowledge of how and what you choose does not affect your ability to choose, no matter your conception of time, since the perpetrator of the observance must be the one to hinder the choice. Since God does not exercise foreknowledge, you are in no way hindered in your ability to rationalize and choose. Your observance on the "flow" of time.......has nothing to do with the inherent fact that God allows and commands free will. Since God does not exist inside time, time is irrelevant.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Proof? :sarcastic I think not.



I think that the bridge analogy has little to do with "choice" as we see it, and I think that the choice is all yours.

[sigh...]. Ok, let's try this. Is it possible for God to speak to me today and tell me what shirt you will wear tomorrow?

 

[Abulafia]

[sigh...]. Ok, let's try this. Is it possible for God to speak to me today and tell me what shirt you will wear tomorrow?

Why God would want to converse with a Leprechaunist is beyond me D), but God, if he so chose, could talk to you, at this moment and tell you what shirt I am wearing tomorrow.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Why God would want to converse with a Leprechaunist is beyond me D), but God, if he so chose, could talk to you, at this moment and tell you what shirt I am wearing tomorrow.

So, in that case, I would now also know what choice you are going to make tomorrow. Would you agree in THAT case that you could only do what God and I know you will do?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Why God would want to converse with a Leprechaunist is beyond me D),

I'm an Aleprechaunist thank you very much!

 

[Abulafia]

So, in that case, I would now also know what choice you are going to make tomorrow. Would you agree in THAT case that you could only do what God and I know you will do?

God knows nothing of what I plan to do. He knows what I am doing. He knows it at every instant. If he were to tell you what he observed, in compactium momentum, you would not know what I will do, but what I (since the knowledge has been derived from a timeless entity, and thus, in the present tense) have already decided to do.

 

[Abulafia]

I'm an Aleprechaunist thank you very much!

Phaw! Everyone knows that the original, orthodox sect of the so-called "Leprechaunists" was undermined by a sociopolitial network. The common "mastermind" was Richelieu, claiming the sect to be "..a neopagan offshoot, a heretical cache, dedicated to worshipping, not our Lord Christ, but the offspring of his Adversary...". The real reason was for a theological idea claiming something akin to anarchism. The "Aleprechaunists" formed about a cetury later, having lost most of their predecessors religious ideals.

 

[Beaudreaux]

God knows nothing of what I plan to do. He knows what I am doing. He knows it at every instant. If he were to tell you what he observed, in compactium momentum, you would not know what I will do, but what I (since the knowledge has been derived from a timeless entity, and thus, in the present tense) have already decided to do.

But I did not get the knowledge "in compactium momentum". I got it the same way I get all the knowledge I get, at a specific point in time; in this case, when God told me. Remember how you said it was important that God knows things differently than you and I do? Well, in this example:

• I am the one with the knowledge
• It is not in compactium momentum, but normally acquired, time bound, human knowledge
• It is knowledge of an event that will happen in the future

You cannot say that you already decided because to you and I it hasn't happened yet.