What is the best way to respond to something like this? Help please?
Posted on: August 28, 2007 - 2:01am
Offline
What is the best way to respond to something like this? Help please?
What is the best way to respond to what this guy said? He is claiming that although god knows everything, that the devil had free will to choose. But how is it a choice if "god" knew what he would choose. Wouldn't that mean he was created with a horrible purpose? Based on that logic? here is what he said
He did know. Free will and predestination is a paradox not a contradiction.
"Either god is all powerfull and all knowing or he isn't."
Yes, he's all powerful.
"How could the devil have free will if God knew what would happen."
Understand what a paradox is and accept it. I know it may seem difficult but if you're open minded you can.
- Login to post comments
A paradox can appear self-contradictory but be nonetheless true. Until proof is given that this "god" exists, attempting to reconcile its contradictions will never rise above ad hoc rationalizing of poorly rendered fictional concepts. Check out ignosticism and theological noncognitivism, so as not to get drawn into such fruitless arguments.
Even though his side of the arguement is right (not towards the existance of god, but rather that both of these traits can [I use can loosely] co-exist in a being), he is still wrong because he insisted that all paradox's are possible, which is not the case. He also stated that you were close minded... which is hillarious.
Anyway, this is why he is correct.
If a God is all powerful, he has the ability or choice to choose who does and does not get free will.
If a God is all knowing, and everybody has free choice, he has the knowledge of every single path that could be taken by everyone in the history of everything. I.E. Futurama was spelled like Future-ama and the consequences there of. Here is why that knowledge does not take away free will.
You are given the choice of three paths. The person who has made these paths knows where they lead, however, you are given the choice to choose.
then he is not all knowing if he only knows the consiquences of choices and not the choices themselves.
If a being does not know which path I will choose then it does not know everything.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Perhaps the best response is that the devil had the best knowledge of the power and character of god and still chose to stand up to him because it was the morally right thing to do. If the theist thinks that the devil didn't do a futile act out of self-sacrifice but out of greed then ask why that couldn't apply to Jesus who sacrificed himself for the benefit of others although he had the free-will and ability to prevent himself from being executed.
The problem here is that you are using logic with a theist. You have him beat, to be sure, but in his mind he isn't. Remember, he thinks he already has the answer - all the rest is just details.
In fact, all he needs to do to escape this arguement is to admit that God is not omnipotent or omniscient. There is one idea(I forget the name of it) that says God is not all-powerful or all-knowing, but He is the most powerful and the most knowing. With this you can escape this paradox - he knows all possibilities, but leaves the choices up to you. It also eliminates the whole "Can God create a stone so big..." question. If theists could admit this, they'd be in a lot better shape. However, even a slight redefining of God is considered blasphamy.
Actually, thats a pretty good idea. Try to convince your opponent to redefine God ever so slightly. If you can get him to do this, he will be able to redefine his faith more drastically down the road.
I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.
If the statements are a paradox I'd think he just needs to explain how it can happen or were the defined terms are a bit off.
Like "I'm fucked if I don't get fucked" is using a word with two meanings.
The problem I'm seeing with this is that the freewill argument distracts from the real problem you are having. You don't really care if god can know something and people can have a choice. You are asking why god would allow it. I think that is your problem because of the "horrible purpose" factor and asking about gods level of power. (could he stop such a thing)
The convo skipped past god allowed evil to come into the world because he must allow freewill to freewill and a plan exist.
I think to really get to the root of the current problem you need to take the devil aspect out of the equation.
Can I have freewill if my choice is already known?
Freewill is about choice more then anything I think so...
Can I make a choice if my choice is already known?
Here we aren't talking about if I know my choice before I make it so...
Can I make a choice if someone else already knows it?
Well he talked about predestination.
Is predestination about whats going to happen is already decided or knowing whats going to happen?
- If predestination is about whats going to happen is already decide then who decided?
--- If I didn't decide it wasn't much of a choice. (dead end)
--- If did would that mean that I decided to come into existence?
Well I don't think that is possible as order for me to choose I need to exist. (dead end)
- If predestination is about knowing the events I'd say it might be possible, but you still run into the snag of what a god would do about it.
Can I choose to do something outside of the person's knowledge when they already know my choice?
The knowledge is either within his scope or not
I have this choice or I don't
-- If I have this choice then this person doesn't know (dead end)
-- If this person has the knowledge I don't have this choice.
Is freewill choice?
----- If freewill is simply choice then I should have the choice to do something outside his knowledge. (dead end)
----- If freewill isn't choice then what is it?
Wait a minute didn't we get here by asking, "Can I have freewill if my choice is already known?"
We assumed freewill is choice and it lead us to asking what freewill is. If freewill is choice then I messed up some place or its contradictory. If it isn't why didn't this other guy correct you on your assumption about the meaning of freewill?
There are two forms of paradox: an actual contradiction, or a groups of statements which aren't contradictory but lead to a non-intuitive result that seems like a contradiction. We know it's not the first kind because he said it's a "paradox not a contradiction". The second kind of paradox can be illustrated and the non-intuitiveness overcome by elaboration. So get him to elaborate. He can't, of course, because he's playing the "God works in mysterious ways" card only phrasing it with fancy words that have the letter x in them. Ask him what his definition of a paradox is, ask him why he doesn't think this scenario is a contradiction, ask him why saying "it's a paradox" is any different from "mysterious ways!", and then go from there.
Alternatively, you can say "Stop spouting off concepts from logic like you're not dumber than a sack of doorknobs."
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
Simply because one knows what action you are going to take does not limit the free-will factor. For example, if somebody offered you a pizza of your choice OR a freshly squeezed turd, which would you choose?
Everyone knows which you will choose and you still have free will.
[mod edit - fixed quotes]
Saying
is itself a contradiction, because what makes a paradox a paradox is its contradictory nature. What he is saying can be rephrased as
which is as bald a contradicition as there is.
Your use of the word knowledge is not really knowledge, but a colloquial usage. If I can in genuinely chose between the pizza and the turd, no one (including myself) knows for sure which I will chose until I do.
An equivalent example is "I am determined to go to the grocery store now." I may be dead-set on going to the grocery store, but on the way I get hit by a car and die. No matter how much I or anyone knew I was going to the store, all were wrong.
[mod edit - fixed quotes]
The problem, though, lies in the choice. You were headed to the store. You had made the choice to go to the store so the choice was made, therefor anyone you had told (or allready knew, for example) knew you were going to the store. You didn't make the choice to get hit by the car, and me knowing about it plays nothing on the fact that I knew you were headed to the store.
It is not an issue of the choice or the knowledge. It's both. Knowledge of the future disallows choice with respect to that knowledge and therefore choice implies lack of knowledge about the future.