₦airaland Forum

musKeeto: You and I know both know I won't.

Then your claim can be discarded as having no basis

musKeeto: My broda, i taya. I've learnt to just let him be.

There are many posts he has made here, that contradict some of his earlier posts on this forum sometime last year...

but we all learn and make mistakes, don't we?

Logicboy03:


I thought I was the only one that noticed that Anony has changed some of his arguments!

Provide the contradicting posts please

Ihedinobi: The above only confirms what I was convinced about before you guys started. You really could care less what Anony's arguments for free will and omniscience could be, no? Well, it doesn't matter. I wouldn't be surprised if you're trying to squelch the war inside you with already answered questions. It won't go away like that, my friend. You want to stop that warfare, just tell yourself that Anony is a phool for believing what he does. There's no guarantee that that will work either, but it should work better than making a phool of yourself repeating questions that have been well answered.

Lol, you were right in the beginning.

InesQor: @Kay 17

I'm probably slow or something, but I think your argument number 2 above is not coherent in expression. Probably you typed in a hurry. This invalidates point 3. And as I and Anony already said, freewill is not unlimited so one cannot do the impossible out of "freewill".

This topic might be more related to machine learning / artificial intelligence than you think. In Supervised machine learning, it's called the No Free Lunch theory (nothing to do with my restaurant analogy).



In summary, it is impossible to "learn" by drawing an inference from an object beyond what we have experienced. So it is impossible to have unlimited freewill. Your freewill is limited by what you experience in the Supervised Learning environment called life. Bias-free learning is futile, and that Bias comes from the Supervisory system. In life, I believe this comes from God.

As for your general argument about a man making a choice against God's foreknowledge, think of it like someone who has seen a movie before. No matter how the actors are making their difficult choices, the second-time viewer already knows how it will play out.

God is not limited in time so his foreknowledge is because the past present and future are all obvious to him at once. He's seen all of this before, so YES you're making your choices but he already knows which choices you'll be making.

While I agree with you in principle and I understand your analogy is meant to portray, I think your analogy doesn't explain the point perfectly. God being outside time, cannot have a linear view of time i.e there is no past and future with Him. God is ever-present. This may be difficult to wrap one's head around because man's experience of time is linear. The point however remains that the fact that God can predict a man's choices does not mean that therefore the man is not indeed making those choices. probably, I will expand on this further after Kay 17 gives a response.

striktlymi: LWKMD!!!

I knew LB would fall for it! I was just waiting!

Lol, I think this is where Proverbs 26:5 applies

Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Logicboy03: lol....Proving Anony wrong;

List of regular atheists here;
-Majaze
-Logicboy
-Advocate
-TheHomer
-Muskeeto
-Weigraff
-Kay17
-Ooman
-Rhymz
-Plaetton
-Jayriginal

and many more......All of which have argued against religion with the philosophical problems of evil, lack of evidence for God etc. Most of whom, if not all have argued with Anony.
====================================================

Psuedo-intellectual, trying to make a failed point about about rationality by merely listing usernames.

Some atheists are just dull.

Kay 17: All my arguments for the absurdity of freewill:
My argument on the paradox of omnipotence/freewill
I was in essence attacking your the coherence of your omniscience/freewill argument

Funny enough I think I quite get your objections however for an argument to move towards truth, we must accept some basic foundational facts. In other to oppose a position, you must lay down the basic assumptions of your counter position. You cannot just switch possibilities at will in order to escape a conclusion. Let me lay out for you the basic assumptions of my position

1. Free-will exists therefore it is possible to make free choices
2. Knowledge is finite therefore it is possible to know every thing
3. The fact that everything can be known does not make choice extinct
4. In order to know everything including the future, one must exist beyond the confines of linear/sequential time.

If the above are true, then it is possible for omniscience to co-exist with free-will

On your part:
1. You don't hold that God is subject to linear time and you agree that knowledge is constant, this makes very omniscience possible.
2. You hold that omniscience cannot co-exist with free-will.

It is obvious that you accept the possibility of omniscience. What I haven't yet heard from you is why you think freewill cannot exist other than merely stating that it is absurd.

The reason this is important is because you seem to switch from free-will to non-freewill at will. I want to hear you take a definite position. Does freewill exist? Yes or no.

Kay 17: ^^ anony, you claimed man always has to take his decisions freely and isn't predestined.

2. You claimed that God has foreknowledge of such decisions, right?

I think I am beginning to get a picture of what your objections might be, however my problem with you is that rather than come out with what you believe to be the case, you are rather desperately shifting goal posts in order to escape my argument.

At one moment you object by arguing that man has free-will therefore omniscience is nugatory, when the problems with your argument are pointed out to you, you immediately switch to an argument that free-will becomes useless. All the while never explaining why you think free-will cannot be.

It is becoming ever more important now that you explain why you think free-will is absurd. It will be more helpful to us that you stop dodging that request especially since you are going to continue switching the nature of free-will on and off as you deem fit.


My argument is simple: The fact that God knows what you will do doesn't take anything away from the fact that you freely chose to do it.


P/s: I think we are really in for some quality discourse but before we proceed further, I must insist that you give your definite stance on the nature of free-will by explaining precisely why you think it is absurd.

[size=14pt]Bus Ads Deny The Existence Of God Other Minds[/size]

Citing the impossibility of having direct, immediate experience of another person’s consciousness, a group of solipsists is running ads on buses declaring “There Are Probably No Other Minds . . . Now Stopping Worrying and Enjoy Your Hallucinations.”

The campaign is the brainchild of Richard Dawkins, author of the self-published “The You Delusion.”

Dawkins said he got the idea from his life-long study of atheism. “Once I realized there was no proof of a higher intelligence in the universe, it struck me as a colossal leap of faith to believe that there were any other minds out there besides my own,” he said. “All of my experience of ‘them,’ however real it may seem, occurs exclusively in my head, and the fact that ‘they’ appear to exhibit signs of self-awareness similar to my own is simply another part of the same personal, subjective phenomenon.”

Dawkins added that he had long suspected that the sinful, chattering idiots by whom he found himself surrounded were too stupid to be real. He nevertheless expressed a certain affection for the amusing, imaginary creatures, even when they were bad. “Having brought them into being by the force of my will, I feel a strong, fatherly, near-infinite love for those whom I have made in my image.”



DISCLAIMER: The above is not really Dawkins. It is merely a parody of him


Source: http://ravingatheist.com/page/7/

Kay 17: Exactly my point in proving that God's omniscience will actually render nugatory any form of choice or free will!

And I still don't see your point.

InesQor: Infinite number of options? Not quite. Not always. Almost never, in fact.

As I said earlier, I believe we have freewill WITHIN predestined confines (this takes care of "doing the impossible", though the onus is on you to define what is "impossible" in each context):

Very well put.

Please elucidate.

I have been asking him to do the same for a while now

Kay 17: Your Quote Anony2



From the above, you made it clear that man freely chooses his actions, and in my scenario: the man freely chooses btw either paths. And God knows before any action or choice is made, what action/choice the man will take. From your reply to me, you contradict yourself!

No I do not in anyway contradict myself rather it is the scenario that you have provided that seeks to contradict me, however the scenario itself is laden with problems.

My position is that the fact that God knows what a person will do next does not mean that the person did not choose to do it.

Your counter-position on the other hand would imply that the future is fixed yet is not fixed and that the future is known and yet is not known. both are blatant contradictions

Let me see if I can spell out the problems of your argument for you.

Kay 17: IF a man is faced with two paths A and B, by predestination or by God's foreknowledge the man takes A. Now what if he got to know of God's foreknowledge of the path A he was to take and deliberately decides to take B, rendering God's omniscience nugatory??

Note the above scenario

Kay 17: 1. No, I don't believe I implicitly made such an assumption, I never regarded time linear to God. However knowledge is constant, if God has foreknowledge as most christians claim, then it means the future event as knowledge of it is fixed and constant.

2. I'm saying its fixed and as a result paradoxical to God's omnscience if man being aware of God's foreknowledge deliberately acts contrary to God's knowledge.

Now please observe the following carefully:-

1. You hold that knowledge is constant therefore if it is KNOWN that A is the path, then that knowledge is constant. If the man takes path B, then it simply means that it is NOT KNOWN that A is the path. Since knowledge is constant, You cannot know and not know at the same time. Therein lies your first contradiction.

2. Here you hold that the future is fixed. If God knows it, it is fixed. If man knows it, it is still fixed. Even if the whole world knows it, IT IS STILL FIXED. If man acts contrary to it, then IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FIXED. The future cannot be fixed and yet not fixed at the same time. Therein lies your second contradiction.

I hope you get it now.


P/s: You still haven't made any attempt to explain why you think free-will is absurd

ooman: The feeling is mutual

smh

ooman: Actually, lecturers would not ask such dumb question as this. They do not lack numeracy like you do.

At this point, I don't know whether to laugh at you or to cry for you. SMH

ooman: If you lack the education to understand that equation, you will not understand its meaning too. Its not rocket science, its hard science.

yawn...

brainpulse: You wrote something id=s proven beyond resaonable doubt and you cant explain it OMG.

Have you being to a project defence at all? Do you assume that your lecturers knows it or you prove to them that you understand, know and believe in your presentations BEYOND RESAONABLE DOUBT?

Nah, he told his lecturers to go and look it up because he was not going to spoon-feed them. The guy is such a genius. Lololol

ooman: Perhaps you should tell that to brainpulse and yourself first.

I think it applies more to you in this case.

ooman: Who is ignorant here? Me who posted an equation or you who dont understand? Read a little quantum physics. That would do for beginners.

Merely posting an equation does not prove that you understand it. Explaining it does.

You have failed to explain it. . . .and no, calling other people ignorant does not count as an explanation.

ooman: Oh, it is quite obvious that you lack the sagacity to understand quantum physics. It is understandable though. Not all who uses computer can cope with anything quantum.

Lololol.......everyone has the ability to call another person ignorant. Unfortunately, that ability does not bestow the name-caller with knowledge.

ooman: I laugh at your lack of understanding, myopic as you are, you think evolution is quite what exactly? Do you not know that ancient greek philosophers used simple maths in disproving the bible. Math has been used since times past to calculate sedimentation rates, calculus, sets and other algorithm has always been the back bone of evolution. I understand this is quite new to you, so you need time to catchup.

I understand that you really lack experience of cosmology. Have you studied Mars before? Its so chaotic in it and new events occurs always. Change is the ultimate cause. Energy is eternal, remains in its simplest state, as preferred even by matter, until there is a difference in composition.
Just as supernova caused by change, that is explosion of a star caused by accumulation of larger element causes the evolution of new stars and planets and asteroids etc, so does change in composition of energy around a point- called cosmic egg caused an explosion, an expansion called the universe, the debris of this explosion was the raw material from which solar systems formed. No god needed.

Lol, at this point it is now painfully obvious that you are terribly ignorant of what you set out to talk about.

mazaje: Just answer this question. . .
If you know before hand that your child will disobey you,take your car keys drive off with the car, have an accident that will end his life. Will you drop your car keys, knowing very well that your child will disobey you and the disobedience will end his life. . .Will you still go ahead and drop the car keys where he will see it?. . .

From where I stand, it is unnecessary that I answer the question posed by this analogy since we have already tackled the underlying argument behind it sufficiently.

mazaje: I don't have any problem with the free will argument at all. . .What I disagree with is the way you guys have been presenting the free will argument. . .It is not completely biblical. . .In the bible it talks about god hardening people's minds according to his will or saving people according to his will. . .It even talks about god creating some people for destruction already. It says some people were called and chosen to be saved already before the creation of the earth. . .Where then is their free will?. . .Sure every body has the right to choose what ever he or she wants. . .But the bible does not say that EVERY body has the right to choose. . .It talks about god's will and him hardening or saving who ever he wills. . .That's just my position. . .I careless about free will and I am not making any argument of for or against it as a good or bad doctrine. . .Just saying that it is vague from the bible and not s straight shot. . .




If you know before hand that your child will disobey you,take your car keys drive off with the car, have an accident that will end his life. Will you drop your car keys, knowing very well that your child will disobey you and the disobedience will end his life. . .Will you still go ahead and drop the car keys where he will see it?. . .

I think your objections have been dealt with conclusively. All you are doing now is merely repeating them in the hope of stretching the discourse unnecessarily.

kmcutez: Ooman, can you please stop responding to anony, davidylan and co. so that this thread do not get derailed. We are learning much from you.

...and what exactly have you been learning my dear young lady?

bawomolo: correction, he renounced atheism in favor of deism and who regarded him as the world's most acclaimed atheist?

Lol, and deism is not theistic?

ooman: Ok, the ultimate fact about evolution is that THERE IS NO GOD BEHIND IT. And since everything has a cause and AT LEAST, SOMETHING MUST BE ETERNAL. the formula proved energy, instead of God as eternal and the first cause.

The formula is based on quantum physics, you want want me to precis quantum physics for you here? Pls, that will be cumbersome. google quantum physics pls!!!

Good, so it is settled that you claim that evolution is based on maths and observation is really rubbish. Anyway, it was funny watching you throw in a big formula that you didn't understand yourself with the hope that I would get bamboozled and therefore back down.

Now we come to the meat of your argument which really is that "there is no God behind it". You have proposed energy as an alternative. However, energy does not stand in causal relationship to anything and therefore cannot be a first cause.

Interesting, what you've done here is try to draw a distinction between the knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. That's like saying "You know that your username is Kay 17 but it is not Kay 17" How can you know a thing without knowing it? You contradict yourself my friend.

Let me see if I can show you by answering point by point

Kay 17: 1. No, I don't believe I implicitly made such an assumption, I never regarded time linear to God. However knowledge is constant, if God has foreknowledge as most christians claim, then it means the future event as knowledge of it is fixed and constant.

Here you come to the conclusion that the future is constant (I don't share this view but it is a view you hold nonetheless)

2. I'm saying its fixed and as a result paradoxical to God's omnscience if man being aware of God's foreknowledge deliberately acts contrary to God's knowledge.

Here you switch from a fixed future to one with multiple outcomes. If it is fixed, then man will not be able to act contrary to it even if he knows what the outcome will be. If he can act contrary to it, then it cannot be said to be fixed.
The future is either fixed or it is not fixed. You can't have it both ways just because you don't want God to be omniscient.

I think at this point, you are no longer trying to make a coherent argument rather you are merely trying to churn out comments irrespective of how bad they are hoping that will somehow help you to escape the logical conclusion of God's omniscience . . . or is it it free-will you want to escape from? I can't quite tell which it is.

ooman: YOUR REPLY SHOWED YOUR FAILURE TO INTERPRET THE FORMULAS I POSTED. THIS IS WHY I SAID WE SHOULDNT GO TOO MUCH INTO MATHEMATICS. Maths proved that energy had no source, disproving a source for an eternal energy.

Energy is eternal and everything came from it, hope you will understand that simple logic

here it is again

Lol, I am still not seeing how "energy is eternal" explains evolution.

Also I am very interested in that your math formula, I will really love you to explain the formula to me in detail so that I can use it and work evolution too.

ooman: did you read the link i posted? from the link i said:

My friend you are just rambling upon a tangent that is irrelevant to what we are discussing here.

Let me remind you of what you said:

ooman: however, i feel compelled to answer. Evolution is based on maths and observation - FACT

ooman: oh pls, there are no guesses in evolution. that was why i said evolution was based on MATH AND OBSERVATION. that which we were not present to witness has been confirmed by MATHS, that which we witness is called deductive observation!!!

All I have asked you to do is to back up your claims by providing this mathematics formula and showing exactly how it is used to describe and predict evolution?

Remember that according to you, there is no guess work in evolution. SHOW ME THE MATHS!

ooman: here
https://www.nairaland.com/1207187/what-facts-energy-say-god

below is the "mathematical nature" of energy. if you understand it, of course, which is why it is better we continue to speak in plain language

And how exactly does the above equation explain evolution?

ooman: secondary school maths should teach you algorithms used in studying nature. Most of you people didnt listen in secondary school down through college, this is why you remain worshipers and gullible.

You still haven't explained the nature of this maths used in studying nature. Telling us how ignorant we are still doesn't count as an explanation my friend.