The great and all powerful religion thread!

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I'm getting mixed messages, and, like Mike, I just can't quit you.

edit: I too was seeing something weird in that Einherjar post.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The claim that knowing one's own future makes free will impossible is not without controversy, though intuitively it does seem correct.

I would think it's less controversial that knowing other people's futures (i.e. like God would know all our futures) makes free will impossible on the part of the other people.

 

[mutantllama]

Hernan Cortes.

Speaking of genocide...

He came dancing across the water
Cortez, cortez..
What a killer...

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Though less controversial, I'm not comprehending how a mythical god knowing our futures and keeping said futures to himself makes perceived free will impossible. I guess it wouldn't be "true" free will, but we would literally not ever know anyway...

 

[Blind Guardian]

It doesn't have to be. Logic can't apply to some god who is beyond human concepts (like logic). Logic only works in systems where it is itself defined, as far as I can understand. For instance, math has its own internal axiomatic logic system. So does science (though we learn more because of it all the time, whereas math kind of doesn't change). The Biblical god can't have human logic applied to it; it's beyond us.

As always with religion the point of view gets moved around, the basic idea of mine is that nothing should be taken for a truth unless it's proven as you'll agree with me on. A truth in science can't be contradicted and continue to be considered a truth which i think is much healthier than having these solid laws that can never be changed.

 

[Einherjar86]

Here's how I look at it. If God knows our futures, we have no free will. He knows exactly what we will do. Now, some people argue that he has no control over us individually; he just knows what choices we will make. However, knowing literally everything (and thus knowing what choices people will make) prohibits an individual's free will, because their fate is already written in stone before it has even been enacted. Even if God only knows what choices we will make, it stands to reason that those choices have already been made, thus how he knows we will make them. We could not change those decisions, because then God would not actually know our futures. The same applies for himself; God knowing his own future is a logical impossibility, because he would know all his choices before he made them, but would be powerless to alter those decisions. Thus, he is not omniscient. I know it's a very circular point to argue, but it just makes no logical sense.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

God doesn't give a shit about what science proves. He's (allegedly) beyond scientific understanding, making it hard to prove he exists or doesn't. Of course it's healthier for people to "believe in science" but a lot of people find it unfulfilling or something else stupid and thus go "religion is kewl I follow it"

Einherjar:

several problems with your conclusions that I immediately see:

1. Just because someone knows what someone else is going to do doesn't mean the person didn't freely choose that course of action. I can say "you're going to jump" and you could either choose to jump or choose another myriad of other actions. If you jump, do you not have free will? No, you're just following a prediction. Thus, it's not really crazy to think that a god, in his infinite knowledge (to which human logic systems just don't apply, see next part) could just (be) infinitely guess(ing) everything everyone will do.

2. God just existing is a logical impossibility; if being a logical impossibility causes one to cease to exist, he'd be gone way before he realized that knowing his own future means knowing all his actions, ergo making him not logically possible. Logic does not apply to gods.

 

[Blind Guardian]

Here's a different question for you who aren't religious; if you knew God existed would you be fans of his? I would.

 

[mutantllama]

well if he's an asshole, then I most likely wouldn't be a fan, or really worship him at all. But if he's a nice guy, then I would be a friend of him.

 

[Blind Guardian]

I'm talking about the Christian God as we know him now of course.

 

[Zephyrus]

It doesn't have to be. Logic can't apply to some god who is beyond human concepts (like logic). Logic only works in systems where it is itself defined, as far as I can understand. For instance, math has its own internal axiomatic logic system. So does science (though we learn more because of it all the time, whereas math kind of doesn't change). The Biblical god can't have human logic applied to it; it's beyond us.

Non-overlapping magisteria = FAIL

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

According to Gould's magisteria thing, they inherently don't overlap, so that's redundant iirc

 

[Zephyrus]

But God's existence and nature is a theoretically scientific hypothesis, which is in principle falsifiable, because a universe with a God would be much different than one without.

 

[Blind Guardian]

Oh by the way i have work in four hours and haven't even gotten to bed or even masturbated yet because i've been sitting here being pseudo intellectual with you guys. Think i'm gonna watch some Cody Lane and then go to bed and then make sure i never get dragged into this thread again

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

But God's existence and nature is a theoretically scientific hypothesis, which is in principle falsifiable, because a universe with a God would be much different than one without.

...according to one line of thought, out of like...a fucking lot. I personally don't buy that.

 

[Zephyrus]

So science should ignore the question of God? That's contradictory to the very nature of science.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I don't think they are communicable. Science is technically a human invention (as in, without us, there would be no term for it and no discoveries to benefit society which wouldn't exist obviously), god apparently is not if religious canon is to be believed. I don't see how they work together, or ever will.

 

[Zephyrus]

In the past there were many things we thought could never be proven or disproved.

 

[Blind Guardian]

Oh my god i'm sorry i just had to look one last time. I don't think science denies god any more than it denies other facts it hasn't proven or disproved yet. Science should go by the same ideology as "innocent until proven guilty".

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I don't think those things are even comparable to the supposed creator of mankind. Even postulating his existence here is seriously hurting my ego-karma though.