Proof against Christian God or Free Will

Discussion in 'Religion, Beliefs and Spirituality' started by batenswitch, Dec 1, 2011.


  1. Omniscience absolutely does not imply predetermination.


    Your playing a video game, you have 8 doors to choose from, each one has some different thing that will happen in it. The game in no way predetermines which one you will choose obviously, however it has every possible choice already known in the program as far as what will come of the choice in the main scheme, however whichever one activates is up to which door you choose to go through. The game will not predetermine where you walk, or where you look, or anything else, however, all the possible options are there, known to the software. Multiply that to an almost infinite level of choices in existence. God knows what would have happened had you not done something, hell, people can even know these things to certain extents but that's useless to go into.

    It's not a hard concept to understand.
     
  2. #42 batenswitch, Dec 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 5, 2011
    If God knows everything (as the word OMNISCIENCE implies), he knows exactly which choice you will make before you make it. Infinite Foreknowledge = Predetermination.

    It's not a hard concept to understand.


    The scenario you described is flawed because the game isn't omniscient (it doesn't know which door you will choose). So are you saying God isn't omniscient?
     
  3. If there is something that an omniscient entity doesn't know, e.g. the outcome of a game, isn't it safe to say that the entity isn't omniscient? Omniscience implies he knows how it can play out as well as how it will play out.
     

  4. That's just the thing. It doesn't come down to the nature of the object, but of the definition. Knowledge, the kind you're describing, isn't fluid, it isn't reliant on context.

    If you think of the old platonic distinction between form and content, the kind of knowledge you want is the knowledge of the form. It doesn't matter what a sentence actually says, so long as you see there is a thing in the form of subject->predicate, then you've got knowledge of the sentence. You know what it can say and what it can't say be virtue of it's structure.

    When you get people who want to chase after the kind of knowledge that's held in the content, rather than the form, then you get this slippery slope kind of situation where everything you seem to try and nail down linguistically just keeps slipping away in a state of constant equivocation. The definitions change as the conditions change and you end up in and endless digress.

    I don't know the solution to newcomb's problem, or if it's even really a problem. But if you understand what I'm saying, you can see that the knowledge isn't of a certainty, it's of a set of possible uncertainties, which is the best kind of knowledge a true, non-commital to-the-bone skeptic can have.

    It's not about proving anything right or wrong, or being for or against anything. It's about understanding both sides better than either side.
     

  5. it's all good, just thought I'd show the philosophy section isn't completely devoid of deep thinkers, haha
     

  6. For the experience, nothing more, nothing less
     
  7. I just read Newcomb's Paradox, but I can't seem to understand what's going on. (Lol I feel retarded.)

    This is what I see:

    Transparent Box A contains $1,000
    Opaque Box B contains either $0 or $1,000,000

    You can take either box A and B, or only box B. If the Predictor predicts that you will take box A and B, box B will contain $0. If the Predictor predicts that you will take box B, box B will contain $1,000,000. The chooser is aware of this, but unaware of Predictor's decision.

    So what's the dilemma here? If you're aware of this, isn't it an automatic decision to take only box B?

    What am I not understanding lol....:confused:
     
  8. The goal is to maximize increased utility by making a particular choice. So with that in mind, which one do you choose and why?
     

  9. I'd prefer to understand both sides and then prove the idea wrong.




    That's pretty insulting/condescending for a man of God.
     
  10. Box B, because I know that it's contents will be $1M if it was predetermined that I chose box B.

    I am not a retard, not in the past, present, or future(only in understanding this problem;)); therefore I know that my predetermined choice was box B.
     
  11. The object of the game is to yield the most money. To ensure this, it'd be most logical to choose only B. However, to maximize your winnings you would choose A and B, expecting the Predictor to predict only B.

     

  12. Choose B you might get nothing.
     
  13. Yeah but you can bank on the idea that the Predictor is almost infallible. Logically, box B is the best decision. It yields the most profit with the highest chance.
     
  14. The predictor should always guess u take a and b, that way no matter what you choose you only get the lesser amount.

    That being said I would always choose A, that way I always get something. I would pick the sure thing before lettin anyone else dictate what I get
     
  15. Huh? When I choose, am I aware of the fact that there will be $1M in B if my predetermined choice was only B? Is the Predictor absolutely infallible? (Or just highly accurate?)

    If the Predictor is infallible, then my choice is, was, and always will be B. I don't see the dilemma. If the Predictor is not infallible but only highly accurate--well I still choose B because I am 99% certain there is $1M in box B.
     
  16. I feel like I am presupposing something, or looking over a crucial piece of information, because I see absolutely no dilemma.
     
  17. Well if the predictor is infaliable (sp?) Then he wont make a choice only you do,that being said you know what he will pick and u can pick accordingly.

    However, if the predictor is a person or irl, they will always pick the choice that bones u, which means they will never predict B to ensure your minimal gains
     
  18. #59 meddlehaze, Dec 6, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2011
    Only A is not an option. You either choose the contents of A and B or B only.
    You don't know what the Predictor chose, there could be 1m or nothing depending on if his prediction is correct or not.

    I think the paradox works better if the Predictor is not infallible, but has a very low error rate. There is some contention on whether he is or not, but the original version says he's almost always correct.
     
  19. Hmm, this seemed to have helped me look at it in a different light.

    I know that I will always choose B.
    This implies that I know what the Predictor put in B, yet supposedly I do not.

    Is this the paradox? In that case, now my mind is fucked.:smoke:
     

Share This Page