Sermon On Fine Tune Argument

[BrotherJosh]

I cited Davies as evidence for fine tuning, which he details quite extensively in the first half of Cosmic Jackpot, although I don't really agree with the conclusions he comes to in this book. So, to deny fine tuning, one has to ignore the evidence that is easy to find. In regard to the paper, a couple of thoughts. First, although stars are necessary for the output of the heavy metals necessary for life, they are not the only necessary condition, so if the chances of star formation are 25% as you seem to indicate, then that wouldn't translate to a 25% chance for higher life to evolve. Second, I question the 25% odds of star formation at the outset of the universe. When we look at just one factor, the expansion rate of the universe. Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time, "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size." (p. 128) In other words, there would have been no star formation, because there would have been no universe. But then we can look at changes in either the weak energy force or gravitation by one part in 10^100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Or, Roger Penrose calculated the odds of the special low entropy condition of the universe as one in 10^10^123. Given just these three factors, and there are many more to consider, I see no way that one could arrive at 1 in 4 odds of star formation occurring by chance alone.

 

I thought if I read his book, “all my questions would be answered”? So, to argue in favor of fine tuning is to ignore the evidence which is easy to find, and to also to be in search of evidence outside of that which bolsters your own biases. In regards to the paper, I did not state that stars are the only requirement for life, mainly that they are the most important requirement for life. I do not see fine-tuning as being anything other than an updated argument from design put forth originally by Paley. It's interesting to note you used that particular Hawking quote (page 121 in my book at least).However, you ignore Hawking a few pages later.. “The rate of expansion of the universe [in the inflationary model] would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined bythe energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen.” Cherry picking that quote is often a favorite of William Lane Craig. In regards to a universe with weak interactions I posted an article earlier, which I believe you missed.http://arxiv.org/PS_...4/0604027v1.pdf

 

I have made no presuppositions within my argument, so that assertion is false. Second, the question is not whether factors could be tweaked, as I'm sure a few of them could be, but how we account for the factors that we have that have no wiggle room. We also have to account for all of them as they are all necessary conditions. Again, apart from some outliers, there really isn't debate on this issue of fine-tuning. Of course, we can find skeptics to any theory if we look hard enough. However, when you say that the conditions can be accounted for by law and chance, you have to provide evidence that each and every one of them can be accounted for, and just the few that I've mentioned certainly cannot be accounted for by chance as they are outside those bounds. As for laws, we have none to account for the four foundational interactions(strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravitation, and electromagnetism), that is why scientist are pursuing a theory of everything (TOE). Many, however, believe it will never be discovered. I guess we will see whether CERN can produce the Higgs boson and whether we move in that direction. You are incorrect, however, in your claim that law can account for fine-tuning, if that were the case, then the LHC would be a giant waste of time and money, but apparently people like my friend who is a physicist and who does research at places like CERN and Fermi Lab, don't think that is the case.

Now, you ask the question as to how we would know what the God who created the universe would be like. Would God be like the God the Deists believe in? Would God be like the one the Muslims believe in? Would he be like any number of other beliefs, or would he be what the Christians believe in? I think we have to look beyond the fine-tuning argument to make that determination. We can look to issues like morality, ontology, and even the resurrection of Jesus to make that determination. However, when all factors are considered, I think the Judeo-Christian understanding of God fits the evidence. Still, what it boils down to is that all of existence simply popped into existence uncaused by chance, or that it is the result of an intelligent agent who pre-existed the universe. I find the first option to be philosophically untenable, not to mention scientifically problematic. You seem to hold to that metaphysical model and want to clothe it with non-existent scientific duds. In the end, you still are sitting on a metaphysical model, not a scientific one.

 

No, there is a debate on the issue of “fine-tuning”, in that whether or not this universe was fine-tuned by a pre-existing cosmic deity. To say there is no debate is fallacious and is merely a way that you are trying to bolster your own opinion. We do in fact have wiggle room in these parameters (which often times are arbitrary constants just set to establish a system of units.) The fact that these constants can be tweaked and the resulting universes are very much like our own are evidence that life as we see it here on Earth, evolved within these parameters. To state whether or not there is a debate over fine tuning is immensely wrong. Why do you think many scientists argue over various versions of the Anthropic principle (see Martin Rees or Ernan Mcmullin), why is the current cosmic inflationary model being presented and tested? All of this debate is geared on figuring out how the laws of our universe came about, (such as as inflation and the flatness problem). And you are incorrect to inject your own version of a God into current gaps within scientific knowledge, you can say you are not doing this as much as you want, however, from I what I have read of your thoughts, your current opinions are based on gaps of knowledge and filling these gaps with your own metaphysical definitions of a deity, essentially imposing the supernatural on the natural. Investigations within the four fundamental interactions are rather riveting, I am interested to see how they progress. However, because they cannot be explained, yet, does not mean I will impose my own deity onto them. If we do move beyond fine tuning and into the realm of theodicy, morality, ontology, exegesis, and basic philosophy, the Judeo-Christian God does not fit the evidence as you say. To rattle off these fields of metaphysical or philosophical study as if they somehow support your position is incorrect on your part, and is making the assumption that all of these fields, and their own respective adherents, agree with you. It boils down to competing testable scientific theories vs a cosmic deity who comes with a mountain of logical, moral and philosophical baggage. Cumulative evidence for God is rather lacking. Either the universe “popped” into existence as you seem to understand it or a pre-existing deity who is bound to only create within natural, since if a being were all powerful it could create life in any possible circumstance leaving these creations to think their circumstances are in fact fine tuned. But if this God is bound by natural laws and can only create within these laws, what sets this God apart from the natural?

 

What is the rule to which you are referring? I know of no rule that says that something can pop into existence uncaused from nothing. We can define nothing negatively, not positively. For example, I can define a chair positively as a piece of furniture on which a person sits. However, I cannot define darkness positively since it has no metaphysical existence, it is the absence of light (a negative definition). So, we define nothing negatively as the absence of something/anything. We can define it, just not positively (as something), but rather negatively (as a lack). I hope that clears up the definitional problem and makes clear that although we can define it, it doesn't give it a metaphysical reality.

 

I am referring to your oft-cited rule of uncaused causes and the need for a final cause apparently. The definitional problem of nothing is an interesting point of inquiry, how do we deal with defining it since most use it as an indefinite pronoun. Take for example this: Nothing is beyond the universe. Joe is beyond nothing. Therefore, Joe is beyond the universe.

 

When you posit the existence of anything, it requires an explanation (per Leibniz). So, if you posit a black hole, quantum foam, the law of gravity, or anything else with a metaphysical reality, it begs for an explanation, especially material reality. If you want to posit the idea that matter always existed, you have some huge philosophical hurdles to cross. For example, how do you explain today, for example, given a past infinite universe? IOW, how much time passed to reach today? Answer, an infinite amount of time. Yet, time continues, so we have not had an infinite amount of time pass yet, but here we are at this terminus called today. It is a form of Zeno's paradox. There are a host of philosophical problems that come about if you want to posit that the universe has always existed. There are also problems with basic physics like the existence of a universe that isn't in a state of complete entropy given laws of entropy and the laws of conservation. I don't think we should stop investigating the universe. I'm all in favor of places like CERN, Fermi Lab and other sites for investigating these phenomena. In fact, it was mainly Christians that motivated the study of science in the early days so that we could think God's thoughts after him. Still, I believe that many scientists of our day should take clues from their early predecessors and study philosophy along with science, it would help us to avoid chasing rabbit trails that won't pan out in the longer run.

 

To explain why something exists, we usually appeal to the existence of something else. The Rocky Mountains on Earth exist because there are plates below the surface that slowly collide against each other. This mode of explanation is not possible for ‘Why is there something rather than nothing’. For instance, if you answer ‘There is something because the Judeo-Christian God wanted there to be something’, then the explanation takes for granted the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. Someone who poses the question in a comprehensive way will not grant the existence of the Judeo-ChristianGod as a starting point. So, according to Leibnez, you are positing the existence of something "God", yet with no explanation (though I have seen you attempt explanations within this thread.) Even if a universe existed for eternity, the concept of time is based on an objective model, and is a measurement used to understand our world. Objectively though, an infinite universe is beyond our cosmological horizon, meaning we are just a patch of a much larger universe. In regards to Zeno, his paradoxes are good brain exercises, but the problem lays in how the arguments are stated, such as considering space and time separate entities. Harold N. Lee had an excellent article on it some time ago, I can't seem to find it however. I have not stated that matter has always existed, however if you posit that God exists you have some philosophical hurdles to cross yourself. An infinite amount of time is of course saying that time existed before the big bang, which it didn't, so there wasn't a time before the big bang. In the last half of your article you begin arguing against a universe that has always existed, which I have not argued in favor of, so I'll ignore it. Of course, me saying there wasn't a time before the universe could be wrong, at least according to M Theory, and that our universe is the collision of two other universes, or the explosion of a previous universe, in this instance meaning time happens from universe to universe. Recent WMAP data provides evidence for a previous universe, something Roger Penrose seems to agree withhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706v1

 

Discussion of M Theory by physicist Neil Turok: http://www.youtube.c...feature=channel

 

Here is a good example of someone who, though he has a decent grasp on many philosophical concepts, doesn't in this regard. God wasn't within time for all eternity, that is a philosophical blunder on his part as that would assume that time has always existed (which again runs us into the philosophical problems I mentioned above). He is right however, that this idea doesn't fit the leanings of most theologians as many have the philosophical chops to know better. Here is another philosophical blunder on his part, science cannot produce meaning. Science can only tell us the what is, not what ought to be. He tripped over the simple is/ought fallacy here. Unless purpose transcends the universe, it is not really purpose, it is only a description of what is, but not what ought to be. Science will never get us past being pointless accidents of the universe as that is not the realm in which science traffics. These are metaphysical questions, not questions of physics, biology, chemistry, geology, and the like.

LNC

 

I agree, that Paul Davies model doesn't fit with a theologian who doesn't subscribe to the usual childish view of the Christian god, however, the same basic problem is applicable. And ultimately I agree that science *most* of the time does not provide an ultimate purpose, but applying purpose to purposelessness is a distinct human trait in that we seek intent. As far as ought, as in what we ought to do (a lovely problem first posed by Hume), is based on the idea that all forms of knowledge are based on definitions and logic or observation. Therefore, moral oughts cannot be known in either of these two ways. However, religion and specifically a belief in God does in some ways give an "ought" however, it doesn't always give the best ought, which is why I abandoned these things, and instead embarked upon researching secular ethics, since God based oughts are based on biases and prejudices. Seeking a higher meaning, or a transcendental meaning to our existence is an important mode of research, I agree, however continuing this mode of research while it is based on religious beliefs is fallacious given the magnitude of religious beliefs and interpretations. In regards to science and morals, biology often adequately explains what we consider to be moral and immoral, such as we I ought to do and what I ought not to do, and how they are based in evolutionary biology along with psychology and sociology. Moral goods, the oughts of the Judeo-Christian good does not represent the ideal ought that I should perform, so I abandoned it. In many ways I believe the oughts are tied to our purpose and our will to meaning. In regards to how biology relates to our purpose, Dawkins gave a good series of lectures titled, "Growing Up in the Universe"

[LNC]

How is freewill compatible with an all-knowing god?

All knowing does not imply exhaustive determinism. God could simply know what we would freely choose before we freely make those choices. However, the counterfactual question is, what if we would have chosen differently? He would simply know a different reality.

 

So God allows a child to be raped by a pedophile priest because some good might come out of being raped?

I don't remember making that argument.

 

Human life didn't come into existence until millions of years after the big bang. How is that a personal origin?

Why would that be an argument against personal origins?

 

So why did God create wisdom teeth that you're just going to have have removed later on and serve no purpose?

First, not everyone loses their wisdom teeth. I have a big mouth (or so it has been said ) and still have my wisdom teeth. They serve me well to this day. Maybe our diets were different in earlier times such that they were necessary and more useful. However, I don't know what that has to do with the fine tuning of the universe which is not a widely disputed fact.

 

How is God loving and good for commanding the Israelites to stone people for eating shrimp and wearing clothes made from mixed fabrics?

Where does it say that people should be stoned for eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics? I don't remember seeing that punishment connected with these actions. In fact, I see no specific punishment connected with these actions.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I am saying, if we had some better sense then just making it up adhoc, when dealing with some divine thing we wouldn't have thousands of religions.

You are begging the question by making the argument that the evidence is being made up ad hoc. What is your evidence that this is the case? Why do you think that the number of religions would be any less if the evidence was any clearer than it is. As I mentioned in my previous post, even some who saw Jesus perform miracles remained deniers and some of them were even involved in the plot to have him crucified. So, I'm not sure that your point is valid.

 

LNC

[Guest Valk0010]

 

All knowing does not imply exhaustive determinism. God could simply know what we would freely choose before we freely make those choices. However, the counterfactual question is, what if we would have chosen differently? He would simply know a different reality.

So you don't believe god has a plan for your life? The only way what you say works is if god doesn't interfere in the life of a human in any substantial way. What you say works for a idea of god, but as far as I can tell not the christian god.

 

You are begging the question by making the argument that the evidence is being made up ad hoc. What is your evidence that this is the case? Why do you think that the number of religions would be any less if the evidence was any clearer than it is. As I mentioned in my previous post, even some who saw Jesus perform miracles remained deniers and some of them were even involved in the plot to have him crucified. So, I'm not sure that your point is valid.

 

LNC

I have a feeling, I am not going to be able to explain this clearly enough, but I will give it another shot. If I remember correctly I was talking about divine sense and the development of religion. And if that was the case, all I am saying was if there was one true faith, one true religion, there would be less confusion on what is the one true faith or one true denomination. This is not saying that everybody would be one religion, that would be absurd. There would be, just to make up a number say 5 religions instead of 25. I know there are more religions out there, but the 5 and 25 where just used to make my point in a more precise way.

[Neon Genesis]

 

All knowing does not imply exhaustive determinism. God could simply know what we would freely choose before we freely make those choices. However, the counterfactual question is, what if we would have chosen differently? He would simply know a different reality.

How can you be making a free choice if God already has determined what your choice is? If God has already determined what your choice will be before you make it, then you're no different than a character in a video game and God is just a video game player forcing you to do his bidding. If God just changes which reality he knows if you make a different choice, then this god is not all-knowing in any sense of the word. How can God know ahead of time the action you chose if he doesn't change what he knows until you make it?

 

I don't remember making that argument.

You said God allows evil to exist so that some good would come out of it. A priest who rapes a child is committing an evil act, so according to you, God allowed a child to be raped so that something good would come out of it.

 

 

Why would that be an argument against personal origins?

It'd be like a parent who gives birth to a child but doesn't see that child until years later when they grow up. Would you say that parent had a personal relationship with their kid?

 

Where does it say that people should be stoned for eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics? I don't remember seeing that punishment connected with these actions. In fact, I see no specific punishment connected with these actions.

 

LNC

Maybe you should go back and re-read the bible. This is pretty basic common knowledge. I'm not going to waste my time explaining basic common bible knowledge to you because I don't think you're worth it.

[Sybaris]

You are begging the question by making the argument that the evidence is being made up ad hoc. What is your evidence that this is the case? Why do you think that the number of religions would be any less if the evidence was any clearer than it is. As I mentioned in my previous post, even some who saw Jesus perform miracles remained deniers and some of them were even involved in the plot to have him crucified. So, I'm not sure that your point is valid.

 

LNC

 

Maybe that speaks more to the authenticity of the alleged event..........as demonstrated earlier with the example of Jessica Lynch.

[LNC]

So you don't believe god has a plan for your life? The only way what you say works is if god doesn't interfere in the life of a human in any substantial way. What you say works for a idea of god, but as far as I can tell not the christian god.

I don't think I said that or even implied what you are saying. Are you familiar with the concept of compatibilism? It holds and shows that God can be both sovereign and allow for free will. Others work it out in other ways, like the view of Molinism; however, I wouldn't consider myself a Molinist. Still, with either model, God can be both sovereign and allow for free will.

 

I have a feeling, I am not going to be able to explain this clearly enough, but I will give it another shot. If I remember correctly I was talking about divine sense and the development of religion. And if that was the case, all I am saying was if there was one true faith, one true religion, there would be less confusion on what is the one true faith or one true denomination. This is not saying that everybody would be one religion, that would be absurd. There would be, just to make up a number say 5 religions instead of 25. I know there are more religions out there, but the 5 and 25 where just used to make my point in a more precise way.

Again, you have not made a case for this view, you have simply asserted that it would be the case. I think you have to give some justification that your view would be the case. I don't think it is a valid view because it is not necessarily evidence that persuades a person to a position. Other factors may be involved like the cost of following Jesus and that, as Jesus said, after counting the cost, some decide that it is too high for them to follow him. Some are not willing to give up lifestyle choices, while others may have a misconception of Christianity. There are plenty of reasons that go beyond evidential justification that may cause a person to reject that evidence. Judas, for example, had all the evidence he needed to trust in Jesus and did follow him for three years before, in the end, turning against him for money.

 

LNC

[LNC]

How can you be making a free choice if God already has determined what your choice is? If God has already determined what your choice will be before you make it, then you're no different than a character in a video game and God is just a video game player forcing you to do his bidding. If God just changes which reality he knows if you make a different choice, then this god is not all-knowing in any sense of the word. How can God know ahead of time the action you chose if he doesn't change what he knows until you make it?

I've already said that I am not an exhaustive determinist, so I don't believe that all of our decisions have been made by God. However, you may be confusing omniscience with foreordination. Because God is omniscient, doesn't mean that he has determined those events in advance, as I have explained in other posts. The two concepts are commonly confused, but that is a mistake.

 

You said God allows evil to exist so that some good would come out of it. A priest who rapes a child is committing an evil act, so according to you, God allowed a child to be raped so that something good would come out of it.

I looked back for where I might have said that and couldn't find where I did. Maybe you can point it out to me, but I don't remember saying that. That is called the "greater good" argument and it is not one that I make.

 

It'd be like a parent who gives birth to a child but doesn't see that child until years later when they grow up. Would you say that parent had a personal relationship with their kid?

Why do you believe that God has left his creation alone? Even if there were periods where man might not have had direct contact with God, it doesn't mean that God didn't oversee and intervene for his creation. In the Bible, when man has had silence from God it was because man drove God away through his wickedness and pursuit of sin. It wasn't God who pushed man away. Even when Adam was driven from the Garden, God was providing for him and interacting with him and his children (see the story of Cain and Abel).

 

Maybe you should go back and re-read the bible. This is pretty basic common knowledge. I'm not going to waste my time explaining basic common bible knowledge to you because I don't think you're worth it.

No, it is not common knowledge. It may be common folklore, but that is different from knowledge. I did read my Bible before making that post, which is why I know that these behaviors were not necessarily sin (wearing mixed fabrics) and that stoning was certainly not mandated for this behavior. I think that you may need to go and read the Bible and read this section a little more closely. Here is the passage on mixed fabrics (Deut. 22:11), you can check for yourself if you don't believe me. Here are passages on shellfish (Lev. 11, Deut. 14), there is no mention of stoning for these practices. You confuse ceremonial and moral infractions. These would be considered ceremonial infractions. They would be considered unclean for these practices, but there was also ritual purification processes that they could go through to become clean again. Stoning was reserved for severe moral sins; however, it is no longer practiced and was never a part of Christianity.

 

LNC

 

 

[LNC]

You are begging the question by making the argument that the evidence is being made up ad hoc. What is your evidence that this is the case? Why do you think that the number of religions would be any less if the evidence was any clearer than it is. As I mentioned in my previous post, even some who saw Jesus perform miracles remained deniers and some of them were even involved in the plot to have him crucified. So, I'm not sure that your point is valid.

 

LNC

 

Maybe that speaks more to the authenticity of the alleged event..........as demonstrated earlier with the example of Jessica Lynch.

 

I'm not sure what you are driving at here, maybe you could explain further.

 

LNC

[Guest Valk0010]

About Molinism, of course a all knowing god would know, if someone did A, then B would happen, sure. But if he is going to do direct somebody to do A, then he has no option but to face B. What if someone doesn't want to face B or do A, then his ability to choose has been violated. That is the problem with the idea of god having a plan for your life under molinism. (I am not well read on molinism, so I welcome any, corrections on what the philosophical idea is.) I can't think of any examples of biological determinism that cause things like that.

 

About theistic compatibilism(I am a tad bit more familar with compatiblism then molinism), sure why not,however, does god then know what your going to do before you do it. Does he know what sins your going to make before you make them. Does he know the future? Or does he just know all possible outcomes? Or does he only know all possible outcomes in certain areas. Unless you have a different definition of omniscients then I do, I am not sure how that works with god being all knowing and all seeing.

 

And if he just knows outcomes, then how can he plan anything, if he doesn't already know which ones which. In our case sometimes plans fail, but how does God not fail then?

 

About the bit about if there was one true religion there would be less wrong religions. Sure what you said is true. But does that really explain it all, not sure if it does.

[Neon Genesis]

 

I've already said that I am not an exhaustive determinist, so I don't believe that all of our decisions have been made by God. However, you may be confusing omniscience with foreordination. Because God is omniscient, doesn't mean that he has determined those events in advance, as I have explained in other posts. The two concepts are commonly confused, but that is a mistake.

So if God being all-knowing doesn't really mean that God doesn't know what the future is and the future is still unknown to God, then why call God all-knowing? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

 

I looked back for where I might have said that and couldn't find where I did. Maybe you can point it out to me, but I don't remember saying that. That is called the "greater good" argument and it is not one that I make.

You said and I quote

But, maybe you are speaking about the evidential problem of evil. However, that argument requires a person to be able to see into the future to determine that the amount of evil that God allows now will have no positive effects in the future. In other words, to determine the probabilities one must know all of the background information; however, not having the ability to see into the future eliminates a key piece of background information that makes the argument fall apart.

You clearly state here that God allowed evil to exist will result in positive effects in the future, so if we connect the dots, this mean God allows children to be raped because allowing children to be raped will somehow result in positive effects for the future.

 

 

Why do you believe that God has left his creation alone? Even if there were periods where man might not have had direct contact with God, it doesn't mean that God didn't oversee and intervene for his creation. In the Bible, when man has had silence from God it was because man drove God away through his wickedness and pursuit of sin. It wasn't God who pushed man away. Even when Adam was driven from the Garden, God was providing for him and interacting with him and his children (see the story of Cain and Abel).

How could the sins of humanity be responsible for why God took forever to create humans when no humans existed then to sin? Im' not saying I believe God has left his creation alone. I'm saying that the first humans didn't appear until thousands of years after the formation of the universe. How is this a personal creation? And you can't blame the sins of humans for this when humans didn't exist yet. Are you even reading what we post or are you just here to preach? If you're just here to preach and not to address what we say, please stop wasting our time.

[LNC]

About Molinism, of course a all knowing god would know, if someone did A, then B would happen, sure. But if he is going to do direct somebody to do A, then he has no option but to face B. What if someone doesn't want to face B or do A, then his ability to choose has been violated. That is the problem with the idea of god having a plan for your life under molinism. (I am not well read on molinism, so I welcome any, corrections on what the philosophical idea is.) I can't think of any examples of biological determinism that cause things like that.

 

Again, I'm not a Molinist, but in that view God doesn't direct anybody to do anything, he simply sets the chess table, so to speak, such that given what he knows about the players, he knows in advance what moves they will make in given circumstances. So, given his omniscience, he knows what the outcome would be based upon the moves that he knows the players will freely make. However, there is no "God making them do it" in the Molinist worldview. However, there is not contradiction with God having a plan for the person's life either as that plan was set into the layout of the table (again, keeping with the chess analogy). I'm not sure what you are saying about biological determinism, but it seems that if we are biologically determined, we would have no freedom whatsoever. As Dawkins says, we are merely dancing to our DNA.

 

About theistic compatibilism(I am a tad bit more familar with compatiblism then molinism), sure why not,however, does god then know what your going to do before you do it. Does he know what sins your going to make before you make them. Does he know the future? Or does he just know all possible outcomes? Or does he only know all possible outcomes in certain areas. Unless you have a different definition of omniscients then I do, I am not sure how that works with god being all knowing and all seeing.

 

And if he just knows outcomes, then how can he plan anything, if he doesn't already know which ones which. In our case sometimes plans fail, but how does God not fail then?

 

About the bit about if there was one true religion there would be less wrong religions. Sure what you said is true. But does that really explain it all, not sure if it does.

I think the confusion may be between omniscience and foreordination. Because God omnisciently knows what decisions that we will make, does not mean that he has made those decisions in advance for us. He can know in advance what we will freely choose and yet we still freely choose those actions. Yes, that includes our sinful choices as well as our obedient ones. Yet, God is not responsible for our sinful choices simply because he knows we are going to make them before we actually carry them out. I don't think it is a matter of knowing counterfactuals as you suggest, but he knows the actual choices that we will make.

 

I'm not sure why, if our plans fail, that would mean that God has failed. Again, the fact that God knows in advance doesn't mean that he has directly ordained the choice or the outcome of that choice. I can lose chess pieces along the way to winning the game.

 

As to the existence of the number of false religions, we have to remember that the Bible says that we are sinful and rebellious people. We would prefer to carve our own paths to heaven than to necessarily take the one laid out be God. John Calvin once said that man's heart is an idol factory, and I think he was right in that assessment.

 

LNC

 

 

[LivingLife]

LNC How do you know what god knows or thinks?

[LNC]

So if God being all-knowing doesn't really mean that God doesn't know what the future is and the future is still unknown to God, then why call God all-knowing? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I never said that God was not all knowing. I said that omniscience does not equate to exhaustive determinism. Knowing in advance does not necessarily mean dictating in advance.

 

You said and I quote

But, maybe you are speaking about the evidential problem of evil. However, that argument requires a person to be able to see into the future to determine that the amount of evil that God allows now will have no positive effects in the future. In other words, to determine the probabilities one must know all of the background information; however, not having the ability to see into the future eliminates a key piece of background information that makes the argument fall apart.

You clearly state here that God allowed evil to exist will result in positive effects in the future, so if we connect the dots, this mean God allows children to be raped because allowing children to be raped will somehow result in positive effects for the future.

No, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not making a positive argument, but throwing up a defeater against the person who would argue that the amount of suffering in the world would count as an argument against God's existence. In fact, I made no positive case, but instead said what the skeptic would have to show to make his or her case, that being that the amount of evil could have no positive effect. Even if it is possible that the amount of evil could have some positive effect, then the argument is defeated. Yet, that is different from saying that God allows evil to bring about a positive effect, that would be a different argument, and I did not make that case as it didn't pertain to the post I was addressing.

 

How could the sins of humanity be responsible for why God took forever to create humans when no humans existed then to sin? Im' not saying I believe God has left his creation alone. I'm saying that the first humans didn't appear until thousands of years after the formation of the universe. How is this a personal creation? And you can't blame the sins of humans for this when humans didn't exist yet. Are you even reading what we post or are you just here to preach? If you're just here to preach and not to address what we say, please stop wasting our time.

Should God have created humans before the Earth was fully suitable for our existence and thriving? I would also believe that humans appeared billions of years after the formation of the universe, and thankfully so, as the universe was not a very friendly place for life until relatively recently. Even Earth, at 4.5 billion years old wasn't suitable for advanced life until relatively recently. So, in answer to your question, I'm glad we didn't come on the scene any sooner than we did or you and I wouldn't be here to chat about it. It would have been over before it got started. I do read each post before responding to it and I don't know that I have been preaching and am not sure why you make such an accusation. Nor am I forcing anyone to reply to this thread, I believe you are doing it of your free will. But seriously, if you think I am ignoring something you are saying, simply point it out to me and I will address it. I'm trying to have an honest exchange with you and the others here.

 

LNC

 

 

[LNC]

LNC How do you know what god knows or thinks?

 

He left us a record of his thoughts and ideas, which he revealed to people in the past.

 

LNC

[Neon Genesis]

 

I never said that God was not all knowing. I said that omniscience does not equate to exhaustive determinism. Knowing in advance does not necessarily mean dictating in advance.

Simply repeating over and over again that they're different doesn't explain how they're different. Going with the chess analogy, this would be like arguing the chess player deciding what moves the chess pieces can make on the board isn't dictating their moves and that the chess pieces somehow have freewill.

 

 

No, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not making a positive argument, but throwing up a defeater against the person who would argue that the amount of suffering in the world would count as an argument against God's existence. In fact, I made no positive case, but instead said what the skeptic would have to show to make his or her case, that being that the amount of evil could have no positive effect. Even if it is possible that the amount of evil could have some positive effect, then the argument is defeated. Yet, that is different from saying that God allows evil to bring about a positive effect, that would be a different argument, and I did not make that case as it didn't pertain to the post I was addressing.

So you're arguing that God allows suffering to produce a positive effect while at the same time claiming this isn't a positive argument at all? Do you even know if you're coming or going?

 

 

Should God have created humans before the Earth was fully suitable for our existence and thriving? I would also believe that humans appeared billions of years after the formation of the universe, and thankfully so, as the universe was not a very friendly place for life until relatively recently. Even Earth, at 4.5 billion years old wasn't suitable for advanced life until relatively recently. So, in answer to your question, I'm glad we didn't come on the scene any sooner than we did or you and I wouldn't be here to chat about it. It would have been over before it got started. I do read each post before responding to it and I don't know that I have been preaching and am not sure why you make such an accusation. Nor am I forcing anyone to reply to this thread, I believe you are doing it of your free will. But seriously, if you think I am ignoring something you are saying, simply point it out to me and I will address it. I'm trying to have an honest exchange with you and the others here.

 

LNC

According to YECs, God has the power to magically speak the universe and all creation in only six days but a god who takes billions of years to create humans is not a personal creation in any sense of the word and at best would be an impersonal deistic god.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

Again, I'm not a Molinist, but in that view God doesn't direct anybody to do anything, he simply sets the chess table, so to speak, such that given what he knows about the players, he knows in advance what moves they will make in given circumstances. So, given his omniscience, he knows what the outcome would be based upon the moves that he knows the players will freely make. However, there is no "God making them do it" in the Molinist worldview. However, there is not contradiction with God having a plan for the person's life either as that plan was set into the layout of the table (again, keeping with the chess analogy). I'm not sure what you are saying about biological determinism, but it seems that if we are biologically determined, we would have no freedom whatsoever. As Dawkins says, we are merely dancing to our DNA.

Thanks for that tidbit about molinism, don't know much about it, though. To me setting players on a chess game to be aloud to freely make a decision, is not all that different then making the decision for them. I am not sure I disagree with dawkins, but as far as I can see there is way more in the way of determined pre planing in a world with a god then a world where we are simply highly evolved and civilized animals.

 

 

I think the confusion may be between omniscience and foreordination. Because God omnisciently knows what decisions that we will make, does not mean that he has made those decisions in advance for us. He can know in advance what we will freely choose and yet we still freely choose those actions. Yes, that includes our sinful choices as well as our obedient ones. Yet, God is not responsible for our sinful choices simply because he knows we are going to make them before we actually carry them out. I don't think it is a matter of knowing counterfactuals as you suggest, but he knows the actual choices that we will make.

Not that I totally disagree, I just think your missing part of the picture. I am not sure what your getting out of there pointing towards simply knowing counterfactuals, but I think that was just me not being clear. I am not sure there is a confusion between omniscience and foreordination, I am saying that omniscience requires foreordination. Think about it this way, does god know all of our choices we ever going to make, or just the important ones. If your god and you have a plan, don't you think you need to at least know some of the actions the person is going to take. And if you have a plan for them, don't you want them to carry out that plan or reason for existence. That requires a violating free will. Even baiting a mouse with cheese is making them do something that, they might not, want to do, without that baiting. That is a slight form of predestination. Its making them make the choice. You have to also interfer on a persons free will and decison making to know the single outcome, other wise your just knowing pretty much counterfactuals and outcomes. Back to the bit about not having a failing plan, if there many different outcomes to something then your plan could fail.

 

 

I'm not sure why, if our plans fail, that would mean that God has failed.

That wasn't what I meant I was trying to say, if god doesn't know the exact outcome, how can he make sure his plans succeed.

 

Again, the fact that God knows in advance doesn't mean that he has directly ordained the choice or the outcome of that choice. I can lose chess pieces along the way to winning the game.

Say I know a kid is going to do something before the kid did it. Does this kid have any choice but to do it, if I already know its going to happen. He is just simply going to do it. He can't change his mind if someone already knows what he is going to do before he does it. He doesn't have the ability to choose. He doesn't have freedom to change his mind because the knowledge of the outcome has already been determined. He is just simply going to do A, he won't do B. If free will is the ability to choose, then I don't have a choice. To know everything that is going to happen before it happens requires determinism even in the smallest respects. If there is free will God can't be omniscient. Unless he preplanned are actions. That means we don't have choice. If there is free will there can't especially be any forordination, and didn't God want all to be saved.

[Ouroboros]

So if God being all-knowing doesn't really mean that God doesn't know what the future is and the future is still unknown to God, then why call God all-knowing? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I never said that God was not all knowing. I said that omniscience does not equate to exhaustive determinism. Knowing in advance does not necessarily mean dictating in advance.

No, but it means it won't and can't happen differently.

 

It's not the "knowing what will happen" that is the problem, but that the future is knowable and unchangeable. Just the "being able to know the future" means that the future will not change. A predictable future is a deterministic future. If the future is deterministic, the choices are deterministic. If the choices are deterministic, free will is deterministic.

[LivingLife]

LNC How do you know what god knows or thinks?

 

He left us a record of his thoughts and ideas, which he revealed to people in the past.

 

LNC

 

So you trust the writings of ancient people? How do you know that these were his thoughts and ideas?

[Guest Valk0010]

So if God being all-knowing doesn't really mean that God doesn't know what the future is and the future is still unknown to God, then why call God all-knowing? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I never said that God was not all knowing. I said that omniscience does not equate to exhaustive determinism. Knowing in advance does not necessarily mean dictating in advance.

No, but it means it won't and can't happen differently.

 

It's not the knowing what will happen that is the problem, but that the future is knowable and unchangeable. Begin able to know the future, the future will not change. A predictable future is a deterministic future. If the future is deterministic, the choices are deterministic. If the choices are deterministic, free will is deterministic.

I would plus one you for that but your a mod.

[Ouroboros]

I would plus one you for that but your a mod.

You know the worst thing is when someone quotes me? I can see the spelling errors...

 

I tried to correct it to make it a bit more readable.

 

I just can't understand the idea of "compatibilism." If we say that we can't put round objects through a square hole, to invent "round-squares" or "square-rounds" won't fix it. That's how I see that whole "compatibilism" or whatever one wants to call a "solution" to a contradiction.

 

It would however make sense to see God as a very good statistician. Let's say God doesn't know (not know for sure) the future, but he has a very reasonable level of probability for the outcome. Then he would think something like this: Hans has a 92% chance of going to Hell, but there's an 8% chance that he might change his mind before he dies. But that's not knowing or being prescient, but only very good at estimating the chances.

 

And it wouldn't really be good that way either. God calculating my chances of going to Hell as 92%, but he at the same time could calculate that if he came and showed himself to me, like he did for Moses, the chances of my going to Heaven suddenly increased, yet he decides not to. What's up with that? If he is just calculating the chances, then he must know that he can increase the chances radically by overwhelming us with evidence for his existence. So why doesn't he? He doesn't give a crap?

 

It's amazing how much imagination apologists have to give excuses for their absent God...

[LNC]

Simply repeating over and over again that they're different doesn't explain how they're different. Going with the chess analogy, this would be like arguing the chess player deciding what moves the chess pieces can make on the board isn't dictating their moves and that the chess pieces somehow have freewill. .

I believe that I did explain the difference in previous posts, but let me do so again. To know in advance is not the same as to determine the events in advance. For example, I could know in advance that my child would help himself to candy left out in a dish when I'm not looking because I know the propensity of the child, but the child still uses his free will to choose to take the candy. Now, my foreknowledge is not perfect, therefore, there may be factors that prevent the child from taking the candy. However, if I had perfect omniscience I could also tell whether those factors would come into effect and my knowledge of the situation would match those factors and the eventual outcome. Yet, I still have not determined that the child take the candy, I have simply foreseen the events.

 

In regard to the chess table, there is no dictating as to whether the person moves a pawn or a knight, but if I were to know the person and his strategies and propensities to move one way versus another, I would have foreknowledge without foreordaining the move. Free will is still intact even though the person's move was known in advance. There is no logical problem with the idea of omniscience and free will coexisting.

 

So you're arguing that God allows suffering to produce a positive effect while at the same time claiming this isn't a positive argument at all? Do you even know if you're coming or going?

Now, you are clearly misrepresenting my argument. I stated clearly that I was not making that argument and I wonder why you persist in making this assertion. Either you are confused (which I have a hard time believing) or you are willfully misrepresenting so you can throw in your follow on insulting question. Sorry, but that doesn't impress me and makes you look a bit desperate.

 

According to YECs, God has the power to magically speak the universe and all creation in only six days but a god who takes billions of years to create humans is not a personal creation in any sense of the word and at best would be an impersonal deistic god.

I am not a YEC, so I'm not sure why you bring up the point. That should have been clear from my post. The fact that God waited billions of years to bring man onto the scene doesn't imply that it wasn't a personal creation. I'm not sure how you make the logical leap to your conclusion, but it is a non-sequitur. Maybe you could try to fill in the gaps in your explanation.

 

LNC

 

 

[LNC]

Thanks for that tidbit about molinism, don't know much about it, though. To me setting players on a chess game to be aloud to freely make a decision, is not all that different then making the decision for them. I am not sure I disagree with dawkins, but as far as I can see there is way more in the way of determined pre planing in a world with a god then a world where we are simply highly evolved and civilized animals.

Oh, you are quite mistaken about the Molinist view, there is clearly a logical and philosophical difference in the two scenarios. In one, there clearly is free will and in the other there is not. In regard to a purely naturalistic worldview versus a world exhaustively determined by God, we would be equally determined beings nonetheless. The only difference would be whether that determinism is guided by genes or by an intelligent and loving agent. But, I would agree that there would be more pre-planning in the theistic model than the naturalistic model. I don't know why that might make a naturalistic model better though.

 

Not that I totally disagree, I just think your missing part of the picture. I am not sure what your getting out of there pointing towards simply knowing counterfactuals, but I think that was just me not being clear. I am not sure there is a confusion between omniscience and foreordination, I am saying that omniscience requires foreordination. Think about it this way, does god know all of our choices we ever going to make, or just the important ones. If your god and you have a plan, don't you think you need to at least know some of the actions the person is going to take. And if you have a plan for them, don't you want them to carry out that plan or reason for existence. That requires a violating free will. Even baiting a mouse with cheese is making them do something that, they might not, want to do, without that baiting. That is a slight form of predestination. Its making them make the choice. You have to also interfer on a persons free will and decison making to know the single outcome, other wise your just knowing pretty much counterfactuals and outcomes. Back to the bit about not having a failing plan, if there many different outcomes to something then your plan could fail.

No, you are wrong in saying that omniscience requires foreordination, that is philosophically false. I explained in my previous post to NeonGenesis how the two could logically coexist, so I will refer you to that post. Even if God knew all of our choices in advance, that does not equate to God ordaining those choices in advance. There are many ways to work it out, one being the Molinist view I presented, which allows for free will. The confusion may be with what degree of specificity God determines plans. Does he determine what I'm going to have for breakfast? I don't think so. Did he determine who I married? I'm not sure. Does he determine who will be saved? Yes, I believe the Bible makes that clear. However, I think he even, to a degree, involves our free will in that if my understanding is correct (which it may not be). However, I don't see that having foreknowledge requires that God violate our free will, which I demonstrated in the post to Neon.

 

I think your example of the mouse and cheese is mistaken though. See my example of the child and candy in the post to Neon. I think that you are making a case for exhaustive determinism (God has a plan for every thing that happens in the universe) and I don't make that case.

 

That wasn't what I meant I was trying to say, if god doesn't know the exact outcome, how can he make sure his plans succeed.

God does know all true propositions about our future, but that doesn't mean that he determined them. Those are two different concepts.

 

Say I know a kid is going to do something before the kid did it. Does this kid have any choice but to do it, if I already know its going to happen. He is just simply going to do it. He can't change his mind if someone already knows what he is going to do before he does it. He doesn't have the ability to choose. He doesn't have freedom to change his mind because the knowledge of the outcome has already been determined. He is just simply going to do A, he won't do B. If free will is the ability to choose, then I don't have a choice. To know everything that is going to happen before it happens requires determinism even in the smallest respects. If there is free will God can't be omniscient. Unless he preplanned are actions. That means we don't have choice. If there is free will there can't especially be any forordination, and didn't God want all to be saved.

Yes, the kid has a choice to do it. If the kid chose outcome A, God would know that as a true proposition and if the kid chose outcome B, then God would know that as a true proposition. The kid has a choice, but God knows the choices that we will make before we make them. I know it is a hard concept to understand and many people get confused on this subject, mainly because we want to conflate the two ideas together (foreknowledge and foreordination), but we must keep the two concepts separate and distinct. To know everything that is going to happen does not equate to determinism, it equates to foreknowledge and nothing more. The choice is still there and whatever the choice, God would know that choice.

 

So, in this famous battle of wits, God knew in advance the choice that was going to be made, even though the participants freely made them at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQNHBUqfLnM

 

 

 

LNC

[LNC]

No, but it means it won't and can't happen differently.

 

It's not the "knowing what will happen" that is the problem, but that the future is knowable and unchangeable. Just the "being able to know the future" means that the future will not change. A predictable future is a deterministic future. If the future is deterministic, the choices are deterministic. If the choices are deterministic, free will is deterministic.

 

It means that whatever possible way that it turned out, God would have known that in advance. It does not negate free will. Here is an article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy that gives reason that what is generally happening is the commission of the Modal Fallacy in Epistemic Determinism. There is always a hidden premise added into these arguments that is false. Give it a read.

 

LNC

[LNC]

So you trust the writings of ancient people? How do you know that these were his thoughts and ideas?

In this case, I believe I have good reason to trust the writings. The fact that they were written a long time ago is not an argument against their trustworthiness. In the case of the NT, we have both internal and external evidence to show them to be trustworthy. We also have a wealth of manuscript evidence to show that what we have is virtually what was written by the authors. So, I think I am justified in trusting the writings. Do you have reason that I should not trust them?

 

LNC