God is my co-pilot

[KLA2]

Could God create a stone so big and heavy that he couldn't lift it? If so, why?

So He could get stoned?

http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/rainy.html

{runs away, dodging the barrage of stale buns}

[Enzo]

And you KNOW something's happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr KLA2?


So on the way to work today I got behind a pickup with dog stickers all over and the plates read "DOG BUS."

One bumper sticker read "My dog is smarter than your honor student."

But there among the others was this message:
"Dog is my copilot."

[Superluminal]

And why not create the chicks already impressed? :P

That's one thing most religious people seem to agree on is that god does not control free will. Otherwise we would all love god without question. Therefore god could not create the chicks already impressed.

[Enzo]

I dunno, if the chicks were already impressed, that would enhance my free will outlook.

[Lance]

That's one thing most religious people seem to agree on is that god does not control free will.

Which means god cannot be omniscient...

I had this debate with a pastor friend a while back. It didn't go well.

[KLA2]

And you KNOW something's happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr KLA2?

"There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear"

http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/forwhati.htm

[MM_Dandy]

That's one thing most religious people seem to agree on is that god does not control free will.

Which means god cannot be omniscient...

I had this debate with a pastor friend a while back. It didn't go well.

We had it here, too. A couple of things, here, though. I'm not so sure that most religious people would hold that their God or Gods do not control the actions of people. In fact, many say things as "God caused so-and-so to do such-and-such." Also, even if an omniscient being does not control free will it does not necessarily follow that it cannot.

[Lance]

Okay, here's my way of thinking...

IF: There is an "all-knowing" god
and IF: There was a "moment of creation"
THEN: Evey action and choice made by everyone, for ever, was "known" to the creator even before that "moment of creation".
THEREFORE: All those future actions and choices were predetermined, because they were all part of that moment of creation.
So there can be no real free will. The script was written and finalized before the stage was ever built.

[troubleagain]

Why not think that He created and set everything in motion and just let things happen as they would? Makes just as much sense to me as your way of thinking, and would be a heck of a lot more fun for Him.

[MM_Dandy]

Okay, here's my way of thinking...

IF: There is an "all-knowing" god
and IF: There was a "moment of creation"
THEN: Evey action and choice made by everyone, for ever, was "known" to the creator even before that "moment of creation".
THEREFORE: All those future actions and choices were predetermined, because they were all part of that moment of creation.
So there can be no real free will. The script was written and finalized before the stage was ever built.

Very interesting. In fact, your conclusion resembles a passage from the Bible, even (from Psalm 139). But before I say whether or not I agree with you, I'd like to know if you consider "real free will" to be different from any other type of free will, and if you do, what makes it different.

[Enzo]

It boils down to what your definition of "all knowing" or "omniscient" might be. Not being cute, it is not as obvious as it might look.

[Мастер]

It boils down to what your definition of "all knowing" or "omniscient" might be. Not being cute, it is not as obvious as it might look.

There's a similar problem with omnipotent :P

[MM_Dandy]

It boils down to what your definition of "all knowing" or "omniscient" might be. Not being cute, it is not as obvious as it might look.

Actually, I find that agreeing on a definition for "free will" and coming to a conclusion as to whether or not it exists more difficult.

[Enzo]

So you see, Lance, we have Marshall McLuhan right here and he says you're all wet...

[Lance]

Why not think that He created and set everything in motion and just let things happen as they would? Makes just as much sense to me as your way of thinking, and would be a heck of a lot more fun for Him.

It's not a matter of what I believe. I'm just making the case that, logically, omniscience, a moment of creation and free will can't peacefully coexist.

I'd like to know if you consider "real free will" to be different from any other type of free will, and if you do, what makes it different.

Um, no, I don't think so.

I may perceive that I have the choice to go straight or turn right at the next intersection. But if my path was predetermined then I had no choice at all. I only thought I did.

It boils down to what your definition of "all knowing" or "omniscient" might be. Not being cute, it is not as obvious as it might look.

I pretty much use this one.

So you see, Lance, we have Marshall McLuhan right here and he says you're all wet...

Um, huh?

[MM_Dandy]

I'd like to know if you consider "real free will" to be different from any other type of free will, and if you do, what makes it different.

Um, no, I don't think so.

I may perceive that I have the choice to go straight or turn right at the next intersection. But if my path was predetermined then I had no choice at all. I only thought I did.

It boils down to what your definition of "all knowing" or "omniscient" might be. Not being cute, it is not as obvious as it might look.

I pretty much use this one.

I agree with your definition of omniscience, Lance, but I don't agree that predeterminism has to rely on omniscience or an act of creation. In other words, I believe that you could remove omniscience and creation from the discussion, and still make an argument for predeterminism.

So you see, Lance, we have Marshall McLuhan right here and he says you're all wet...

Um, huh?

I Googled Mr. McLuhan, and I'm none the wiser, myself.

[Мастер]

I agree with your definition of omniscience, Lance, but I don't agree that predeterminism has to rely on omniscience or an act of creation. In other words, I believe that you could remove omniscience and creation from the discussion, and still make an argument for predeterminism.

I think the problem is the other way, is lack of predeterminism inconsistent with omniscience.

A == omniscience
B == predetermination

So you said B->A is not a correct implication. But what about ~B->~A?

[Enzo]

I'm sorry, I thought it was more obvious. A tip of the hat to the famous scene in Annie Hall where they - ANnie and Woody Allen's character - are in line at the movies, and someone in line is going on and on about Marshall McLuhan, and Woody has heard enough and turns and tells the guy he doesn't know what he is talking about, and then in a moment of surrealism, he says "in fact I have Marshall McLuhan right here" - he does indeed - and McLuhan tells the guy "You know nothing of my work."

MvLuhan was a well known guy in the 1960s and 70s, his famous book was The Medium is the Message.

Roger Ebert says:

Alvy is smarter than the ground rules of Hollywood currently allow. Watching even the more creative recent movies, one becomes aware of a subtle censorship being imposed, in which the characters cannot talk about anything the audience might not be familiar with. This generates characters driven by plot and emotion rather than by ideas; they use catch-phrases rather than witticisms. Consider the famous sequence where Annie and Alvy are standing in line for the movies and the blowhard behind them pontificates loudly about Fellini. When the pest switches over to McLuhan, Alvy loses patience, confronts him, and then triumphantly produces Marshall McLuhan himself from behind a movie poster to inform him, "You know nothing of my work!" This scene would be penciled out today on the presumption that no one in the audience would have heard of Fellini or McLuhan.

I think Roger is right.

So I don't really think you are all wet, I just liked the reference there. I like the idea of having your own QED to bring along with you.

[MM_Dandy]

I agree with your definition of omniscience, Lance, but I don't agree that predeterminism has to rely on omniscience or an act of creation. In other words, I believe that you could remove omniscience and creation from the discussion, and still make an argument for predeterminism.

I think the problem is the other way, is lack of predeterminism inconsistent with omniscience.

A == omniscience
B == predetermination

So you said B->A is not a correct implication. But what about ~B->~A?

Well, if Determinism is true, it would be inconsistent.

If not, we might have to discuss whether or not omniscience includes the outcomes of indeterminate events -- does an omniscient being have knowledge of that which is impossible to know?

[MM_Dandy]

I'm sorry, I thought it was more obvious...

That Woody Allen, he's a smart fella.

I'd like to say I was playing along, but the entirety of history and laws of physics prevent me from doing so. :P

[Мастер]

Well, if Determinism is true, it would be inconsistent.

Which one?

If not, we might have to discuss whether or not omniscience includes the outcomes of indeterminate events -- does an omniscient being have knowledge of that which is impossible to know?

OK, my assumption (and I think the assumption of whomever started this one) was that it would.

[Lance]

does an omniscient being have knowledge of that which is impossible to know?

That's my point... If the omniscient being is also responsible for the entirety of creation, then how could the being not know? The being created the knowledge/situation/what-ever in the first place.

[troubleagain]

See, I *knew* who Marshall McLuhan was, and his book and all that from my college Humanities class, and I still didn't get the reference. Now I know why--I hate Woody Allen.

[Blue Monster 65]

Waydaminit - Woody Allen is God?

Woof! - Scott

[Dragon Star]

See, I *knew* who Marshall McLuhan was, and his book and all that from my college Humanities class, and I still didn't get the reference. Now I know why--I hate Woody Allen.

I agree...usually the only Woody I like is my own.