But What If You're Wrong ...

tosca1 · Jun 15, 2015

iangb said:
Physicist here. In most of those cases, I am in the same field.

What's more, the wonderful thing about scientific evidence is that anyone can criticize it. Science should be judged on how correct it is, not on the authority of the person stating it - that's more of a theistic worldview.

Yes....science should be judged on how correct it is.
Of course, the authority of the person stating it, counts. Anyone can claim to be a physicist but they aren't all of the same calibre!

What more, a high-rank scientist with credentials under his belt has more to lose if he is proven to be non-credible. He's got his reputation on the line!

tosca1 · Jun 15, 2015

Quag said:
That wasnt my or anyone elses claim. Hands on hands off an omniscient/omnipotent God percludes freewill.
If God created everything and knew exactly how everything would turn out then there is no free will.
No ifs buts or maybes.
LOGIC dictates that it is impossible for an omiscient omnipotent enity to NOT be responsible for everyhting that happens with their creation.
This isnt even a debate. The only thing to debate is whether or not God is omnisicent and omnipotent.

And either God knows about all those forks and their effect on the amrble when he created the tube, or God is not omniscient.

Long way short way, it doesnt matter, if God is omnsicient/omnipotent then God knowes and determined the outcome beforehand.

Not in the slightest you appear to be claiming that God is both omnisicent/omnipotent and not at the same time.
Sorry you cant have it both ways, pick one and accept what that means to your faith.

If you still can't grasp it after all the analogies give....what more can I say?

tosca1 · Jun 15, 2015

roguenuke said:
And I was saying that it is just as possible that there is no oblivion prior to conception as there being no oblivion after death.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant.

From a Christian perspective, the Bible indicates that each unique human soul begins at conception - meaning, souls did not pre-exist.

Genesis 2
7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Zechariah 12:1
The oracle of the word of the Lord concerning Israel: Thus declares the Lord, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him:

Souls will continue forever because we are created eternal beings. If souls are eternal beings, there is no oblivion after death.

Genesis 9
6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.

Psalm 102
27 but you are the same, and your years have no end.

Matthew 25
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

roguenuke · Jun 15, 2015

tosca1 said:
Yes....science should be judged on how correct it is.
Of course, the authority of the person stating it, counts. Anyone can claim to be a physicist but they aren't all of the same calibre!

What more, a high-rank scientist with credentials under his belt has more to lose if he is proven to be non-credible. He's got his reputation on the line!

No actually the information a scientist brings to an issue is what's important, not his/her "rank" (btw scientists don't have established ranks). Their position should bring only more expectations of their work, not failure to verify their work, assumptions that they are right simply because they have been right before.

tosca1 · Jun 15, 2015

roguenuke said:
No actually the information a scientist brings to an issue is what's important, not his/her "rank" (btw scientists don't have established ranks). Their position should bring only more expectations of their work, not failure to verify their work, assumptions that they are right simply because they have been right before.

They do have established ranks. Nobel winners, for one! Why do you think they're always described as nobel sientists if that prestigious award doesn't set them apart from others?

Obviously, there are scientists who had gained quite a reputation that they're described as "high-ranked" or top in their fields.

Not all scientists are reputable.

There are those who indulge in "pseudo-science," and there are those who deliberately corrupt science!
And I suppose there are also those who are certifiable!

roguenuke · Jun 15, 2015

tosca1 said:
They do have established ranks. Nobe winners, for one! Why do you think they're always described as nobel sientists if that prestigious award doesn't set them apart from others?

Obviously, there are scientists who had gained quite a reputation that they're described as "high-ranked" or top in their fields.

Not all scientists are reputable.

There are those who indulge in "pseudo-science," and there are those who deliberately corrupt science!
And I suppose there are also those who are certifiable!

Nobel scientist is not a "rank". It is a distinction. Nobel scientists have no authority over other scientists.

Scientists with good reputations can get things wrong, without even trying to be deceitful.

roguenuke · Jun 15, 2015

tosca1 said:
Thanks for clarifying what you meant.

From a Christian perspective, the Bible indicates that each unique human soul begins at conception, and it will continue forever because we are created eternal beings.

If souls are eternal beings, there is no oblivion after death.

The Christian perspective is still subjective. You can't prove it is the right one.

Plus, you are attempting to speak for all Christians, wrongly. Not all Christians believe a soul is created at birth. In fact one of the prophecies within Christianity that some Christians believe is that there is a well or reserve of souls, and that it running out is a sign of the end of times.

tosca1 · Jun 15, 2015

roguenuke said:
Nobel scientist is not a "rank". It is a distinction.

What do you think is "distinction?"

a noticeable difference between things or people

: the separation of people or things into different groups

: importance, excellence, or achievement

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinction

Just so you know that ranking is also used on scientists.

The World's Greatest Physicists (as Determined by the Wisdom of Crowds)
Now Mikhail Simkin and Vwani Roychowdhury at the University of California, Los Angeles, have come up with a way of ranking physicists by equating their achievements

The World's Greatest Physicists (as Determined by the Wisdom of Crowds) | MIT Technology Review

Nobel scientists have no authority over other scientists.

Who sez anything about having authority over other scientists?

Scientists with good reputations can get things wrong, without even trying to be deceitful.

There are those who are also deliberately being deceitful! There are those who deliberately corrupt science! You should look up hoaxes performed by those scientists!

I'll have to ignore you for now until you've got something worth responding to. Read up!

tosca1 · Jun 15, 2015

roguenuke said:
The Christian perspective is still subjective. You can't prove it is the right one.

Plus, you are attempting to speak for all Christians, wrongly. Not all Christians believe a soul is created at birth. In fact one of the prophecies within Christianity that some Christians believe is that there is a well or reserve of souls, and that it running out is a sign of the end of times.

I don't care what others believe. I'm going by what the Bible says.

pinqy · Jun 15, 2015

Quag said:
That wasnt my or anyone elses claim. Hands on hands off an omniscient/omnipotent God percludes freewill.
If God created everything and knew exactly how everything would turn out then there is no free will.
No ifs buts or maybes..

You're assuming that time is linear and that cause precedes effect and that the future cannot change the past.

But if instead time is a big ball of wibbly-wobbley timey-wimey stuff, then foreknowledge does not preclude freewill.

If an omniscient being concurrently exists in two time periods, then it can observe a free-will choice while it is made, and simultaneously know in a prior time what choice was just made.

Let's say you had a viewer into the future and you watch a person make a choice. You now know what that person will do. Does that mean they have no free will? Of course not...if they chose to do something else, that's what you would have seen. There's no paradox.

Critter7r · Jun 15, 2015

Athrawan said:
You err, not understanding the meaning of "predetermine". It means " to decide (something) before it happens or in advance". I repeat my point: knowing how a choice will turn out, IS NOT the same thing as deciding it before it happens.

It would be if you are the creator of the situation and the players.

The only way God isn't negating the human race's free will is if we are currently running thru the cosmos on our 2nd time around. That is to say that God created the universe with free will and let it run to it's natural conclusion without knowing what would happen, and now he's watching the re-run video knowing what everyone is going to do. Sort of like Biff when he came back with the Sport Almanac. Everyone had free will in those games, but since they had already happened once, Biff knew the outcome.

Critter7r · Jun 15, 2015

tosca1 said:
Do you see a new battery and a dead battery as being the same?

Why would it be any different?

.

It's more like a battery prior being manufactured, and then after being drained and put into a landfill.

Critter7r · Jun 15, 2015

pinqy said:
You're assuming that time is linear and that cause precedes effect and that the future cannot change the past.

But if instead time is a big ball of wibbly-wobbley timey-wimey stuff, then foreknowledge does not preclude freewill.

If an omniscient being concurrently exists in two time periods, then it can observe a free-will choice while it is made, and simultaneously know in a prior time what choice was just made.

Let's say you had a viewer into the future and you watch a person make a choice. You now know what that person will do. Does that mean they have no free will? Of course not...if they chose to do something else, that's what you would have seen. There's no paradox.

This would imply that God didn't know what the outcome would be prior to his observation of the free-will choice time period, which then negates his omnipotence.

pinqy · Jun 15, 2015

Critter7r said:
This would imply that God didn't know what the outcome would be prior to his observation of the free-will choice time period, which then negates his omnipotence.

No it wouldn't, because there is no "prior." It would know all of everything simultaneously.

Critter7r · Jun 15, 2015

pinqy said:
You're assuming that time is linear and that cause precedes effect and that the future cannot change the past.

But if instead time is a big ball of wibbly-wobbley timey-wimey stuff, then foreknowledge does not preclude freewill.

If an omniscient being concurrently exists in two time periods, then it can observe a free-will choice while it is made, and simultaneously know in a prior time what choice was just made.

Let's say you had a viewer into the future and you watch a person make a choice. You now know what that person will do. Does that mean they have no free will? Of course not...if they chose to do something else, that's what you would have seen. There's no paradox.

This sounds a lot like my Back To The Future comment with Biff and the Sports Almanac.

pinqy said:
No it wouldn't, because there is no "prior." It would know all of everything simultaneously.

Yet, you specifically mention a concurrent, yet prior time in the previous comment. :confused

pinqy · Jun 15, 2015

Critter7r said:
pinqy said:

You're assuming that time is linear and that cause precedes effect and that the future cannot change the past.

But if instead time is a big ball of wibbly-wobbley timey-wimey stuff, then foreknowledge does not preclude freewill.

If an omniscient being concurrently exists in two time periods, then it can observe a free-will choice while it is made, and simultaneously know in a prior time what choice was just made.

Let's say you had a viewer into the future and you watch a person make a choice. You now know what that person will do. Does that mean they have no free will? Of course not...if they chose to do something else, that's what you would have seen. There's no paradox.

Click to expand...

This sounds a lot like my Back To The Future comment with Biff and the Sports Almanac.

No, because you were talking about two iterations....two liner iterations. I'm talking about simultaneous.

Critter7r said:
pinqy said:

No it wouldn't, because there is no "prior." It would know all of everything simultaneously.

Click to expand...

Yet, you specifically mention a concurrent, yet prior time in the previous comment. :confused

[/quote]
Two different perspectives. In my example of the viewer, I'm talking about someone inside time seeing something from a different part of time, while when talking about an omniscient being, that would be outside time altogether.

From our perspective, inside time, there is cause and effect and things happen sequentially. But from outside time, that might not be true.

Don't think of it as knowing what someone will do before they do it, but think of it as knowing what someone is doing before they do it. Nothing is set or determined

Occam's Razor · Jun 15, 2015

tosca1 said:
I don't care what others believe. I'm going by what the Bible says.

Ok, and who's interpretation of which translation, written down after centuries of oral tradition, cherry picked from dozens of other gospels by fallible men... If it was Gods word at some point... It cannot be anything but a severe distortion now. Each man that story passed through prior to being written down is a sinner, each is fallible...

If it makes you feel better to belong to an exclusive club while looking down on others for not having the key to heaven, knock yourself out. It's an old and childish game.

Critter7r · Jun 15, 2015

pinqy said:
Don't think of it as knowing what someone will do before they do it, but think of it as knowing what someone is doing before they do it. Nothing is set or determined

I concede that it's possible for a being to behave in a manner such as you are suggesting, it is by no means logical to believe that.

Logic in the reality as we live it would dictate that if the creator of something knows exactly how it will behave, then there is predetermination involved.

Critter7r · Jun 15, 2015

Occam's Razor said:
Ok, and who's interpretation of which translation, written down after centuries of oral tradition, cherry picked from dozens of other gospels by fallible men... If it was Gods word at some point... It cannot be anything but a severe distortion now. Each man that story passed through prior to being written down is a sinner, each is fallible...

If it makes you feel better to belong to an exclusive club while looking down on others for not having the key to heaven, knock yourself out. It's an old and childish game.

Comic relief for some ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWOqHHE4upY

The Bible is literally the world's longest game of Telephone ...

RAMOSS · Jun 15, 2015

Radical said:
What a wonderful choice =p

How do you know it's a choice or not? .. or perhaps.. how do you not know if that choice is predetermined or not.

Quag · Jun 15, 2015

tosca1 said:
If you still can't grasp it after all the analogies give....what more can I say?

It appears that you fail to comprehend the meanign of omniscient and omnipotent..

Quag · Jun 15, 2015

pinqy said:
You're assuming that time is linear and that cause precedes effect and that the future cannot change the past.

But if instead time is a big ball of wibbly-wobbley timey-wimey stuff, then foreknowledge does not preclude freewill.

If an omniscient being concurrently exists in two time periods, then it can observe a free-will choice while it is made, and simultaneously know in a prior time what choice was just made.

Let's say you had a viewer into the future and you watch a person make a choice. You now know what that person will do. Does that mean they have no free will? Of course not...if they chose to do something else, that's what you would have seen. There's no paradox.

Irrelevant, If God is omnipotent and omniscient then God knew even before creation the outcome of everything God created and there is no freewill.
If God is both time is irrelevant.

Quag · Jun 15, 2015

tosca1 said:
I don't care what others believe. I'm going by what the Bible says.

Correction you are going to go by YOUR interpretation of what the bible says.

roguenuke · Jun 15, 2015

tosca1 said:
I don't care what others believe. I'm going by what the Bible says.

Which is then your belief. It is still subjective.

tosca1 · Jun 16, 2015

Critter7r said:
This would imply that God didn't know what the outcome would be prior to his observation of the free-will choice time period, which then negates his omnipotence.

No. She's saying you are viewing the future, and you're watching the person make his choice (which you already know which one he'll choose). You are an observer to the unfolding events of which you already know what the outcome will be.

The concept is like you watching a replay of a movie you'd already seen. You already know how it'll unfold and end.....EXCEPT in God's position, He's not watching a replay.