Armand Jacks Destroys ID in One Sentence

_{Barry Arrington

April 16, 2017

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Armand Jacks says he has a knock down show stopping argument to rebut ID’s claim that intelligent agency is the only known cause of specified complexity.

Get ready.

Hold on to your hat.

Here it is:

Using the same argument, the only known causes of everything we have ever seen in the entire universe are material causes.

Are blind unguided material forces capable of typing the post you just posted AJ? If you say “no” your argument is refuted. If you say “yes” you look like a fool or a liar or both. Talk about the Scylla and Charybdis.

AJ, you really should stop and think for 10 seconds before you write something like that down. I know, I know. Thinking is hard, and 10 seconds is a long time. But still.

As for the title of this post, on reflection maybe I overstated AJ’s accomplishment a little.

Comments

oh, and what about this slice of Plato in The Laws Bk X:
Ath. Then I suppose that I must repeat the singular argument of those who manufacture the soul according to their own impious notions; they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods. Cle. Still I do not understand you. Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul’s kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind. Cle. But why is the word “nature” wrong? Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [[ . . . .] Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? . . .
kairosfocus_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Also, what about the possibility of a quantum influence interface to the brain and CNS as i/o front end computational substrate cybernetic loop controller? --> And if that does not pull out BA77, let's put up an APB on him as a missing person. (I am wondering if he is ill. Anybody out there has a good contact?)kairosfocus_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

And let us ask, could it by any chance be linked to the Smith cybernetic model with a two-tier controller with an internal interface and shared resources, especially memory?kairosfocus_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Onward, why not let us try to ponder what Plato meant by speaking of the self-moved entity.kairosfocus_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Strange, isn't it, how this all connects and how if we would focus core issues the secondary ones would take care of themselves.kairosfocus_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

FTR: let us recall the actual OP:
Armand Jacks Destroys ID in One Sentence April 16, 2017 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design 201 Comments Armand Jacks says he has a knock down show stopping argument to rebut ID’s claim that intelligent agency is the only known cause of specified complexity. Get ready. Hold on to your hat. Here it is:
Using the same argument, the only known causes of everything we have ever seen in the entire universe are material causes.
Are blind unguided material forces capable of typing the post you just posted AJ? If you say “no” your argument is refuted. If you say “yes” you look like a fool or a liar or both. Talk about the Scylla and Charybdis. AJ, you really should stop and think for 10 seconds before you write something like that down. I know, I know. Thinking is hard, and 10 seconds is a long time. But still. As for the title of this post, on reflection maybe I overstated AJ’s accomplishment a little.
To this, I counterpose Plato, as a start point for not only speaking to agent cause and its implications but also through the concept of reflexive internal cause in an agent -- the self-moved -- we may better understand responsible, rational freedom:
Athenian Stranger: [[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . . [[I]f impious discourses were not scattered, as I may say, throughout the world, there would have been no need for any vindication of the existence of the Gods-but seeing that they are spread far and wide, such arguments are needed; and who should come to the rescue of the greatest laws, when they are being undermined by bad men, but the legislator himself? . . . . Ath. Then, by Heaven, we have discovered the source of this vain opinion of all those physical investigators; and I would have you examine their arguments with the utmost care, for their impiety is a very serious matter; they not only make a bad and mistaken use of argument, but they lead away the minds of others: that is my opinion of them. Cle. You are right; but I should like to know how this happens. Ath. I fear that the argument may seem singular. Cle. Do not hesitate, Stranger; I see that you are afraid of such a discussion carrying you beyond the limits of legislation. But if there be no other way of showing our agreement in the belief that there are Gods, of whom the law is said now to approve, let us take this way, my good sir. Ath. Then I suppose that I must repeat the singular argument of those who manufacture the soul according to their own impious notions; they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods. Cle. Still I do not understand you. Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind. Cle. But why is the word "nature" wrong? Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [[ . . . .] Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
FFT. KFkairosfocus_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT}

I have discussed Alinskyite, trollish misbehaviour exemplified by AJ et al here, a little while ago: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/fft-charles-unmasks-the-anti-id-trollish-tactic-of-attacking-god-christian-values-and-worldview-themes/#comment-630182 AJ et al would be well advised to pay close heed. KFkairosfocus_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

Eugen: Apple Jack". Ha ha ha, that's really funny. Pretty clever to change "Armand Jacks" to "Apple Jack". Are you a professional stand up comedian by any chance? If not, you should think about. I reckon you would kill on stage.Pindi_{April 24, 2017
April
04
Apr
24
24
2017
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

EA @ 190 We have hit common ground! You post "If your point is that God allows certain things to happen that he could have prevented had he wanted to exercise his free will to do so, then sure. I don’t have a problem with that. This is undoubtedly the case on a regular basis." That's exactly my point. And that is how allowance is tied to the event. As I've said several times, I'm not arguing that we have no freewill because of this fact. Our will is as free as a bird, most of the time. WJM @ 191 Thank for the more direct and less complicated thought. I am in agreement that there can be a lot of obstacles between intent and action. Mugwump3 @ 124 summarizes your sentiment nicely. And I think our judge (God) would consider these obstacles in assigning culpability. All, great discussion. Really enjoy everyone's honest effort to try and understand these difficult issues. Justinjuwilker_{April 24, 2017
April
04
Apr
24
24
2017
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Andrew:
Armand, If you are going to run with the Big Trolls, you need a thicker skin.
Sorry. But life is too short to spend it dealing with childish behaviour. If I wanted that I would be a school teacher.Armand Jacks_{April 24, 2017
April
04
Apr
24
24
2017
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

If you prefer to make fun of my name, I prefer not to talk with you. Have a nice life.
Armand, If you are going to run with the Big Trolls, you need a thicker skin. Andrewasauber_{April 24, 2017
April
04
Apr
24
24
2017
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Do you need a hug and a safe space AJ? :D Just kidding, I really don't care about you but just letting you know about my foreknowledge: you'll embarrass yourself over basic logic and reason in the future.Eugen_{April 24, 2017
April
04
Apr
24
24
2017
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Eugen:
Eric to Apple Jack
If you prefer to make fun of my name, I prefer not to talk with you. Have a nice life. Eric:
The claim that God’s mere knowledge of the future robs us of our free will is not only inconsistent with this doctrine, it is diametrically opposed to this very central tenet of Judeo-Christian faith. Anyone who believes God has foreknowledge and that this foreknowledge eliminates our free will must reject this most basic and fundamental doctrine of free will set forth throughout scripture, embracing instead a kind of determinism or fatalism in which we are but unwitting pawns, without real ability to act and instead carried along by every wind as we are acted upon by forces outside our control – a view little different in substance from the materialistic claim that free will is an illusion and we are but pawns to the blind forces of physics and our genes.
This is the most honest thing I have heard from your side of the discussion. Thank you for this. The belief that god's foreknowledge and free will are not incompatable is just that, a religious belief. I don't have any problem with this as I think that the free will debate is one that can't be won by either side because there is no way to prove that it exists. You either take it on faith or you don't. At best, it is a debate whose merit lies in the fact that it is more interesting than debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. KF:
Re AJ: This objector would do well to ponder the demonic folly inadvertently revealed by Alinsky in his:...
KF would do well to address the actual issues rather than taking personal offence from anyone who has the audacity to disagree with him. As well, he would do well to stop telling everyone who opposes then how they can do well. That smacks of condescending and sermonizing. If I wanted that, I would go to church.Armand Jacks_{April 24, 2017
April
04
Apr
24
24
2017
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Eric to Apple Jack "Is this just some materialist talking point you picked up along the way, or can you actually give some reasons for your position?" I had foreknowledge that AJ wouldn't give reasons and logic for his position. :D Merriam-Webster Definition of free will 1 : voluntary choice or decision "I do this of my own free will" 2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine interventionEugen_{April 24, 2017
April
04
Apr
24
24
2017
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Re AJ: This objector would do well to ponder the demonic folly inadvertently revealed by Alinsky in his:
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity." 5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." . . . . 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. [NB: Notice the evil counsel to find a way to attack the man, not the issue. The easiest way to do that, is to use the trifecta stratagem: distract, distort, demonise.] In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...' "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."
He would be better advised to sort out his many worldviews problems, starting with first setting aside the use of crooked yardsticks that only impose error and lock out the true, the sound, the right . . . for such already conform to reality and will never align with error. When error becomes the yardstick, folly follows and leads to ruin. Hence, again, the failure inadvertently highlighted by Lewontin:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
A word to the wise . . . KF PS: Notice, the hang-up on a distractive point triggered by Seversky.kairosfocus_{April 24, 2017
April
04
Apr
24
24
2017
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

GUN, that illustrates my point. KFkairosfocus_{April 24, 2017
April
04
Apr
24
24
2017
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

juwilker, Often one can gauge one's desire to maintain a worldview by how far they are willing to examine their views. Let's take for instance someone who intends to only wash their hands once, but because of OCD cannot stop themselves from washing their hands 10 times. Or, an addict who intends to get clean, but the power of their addiction overwhelms their intent. What of other mental/physical illnesses that act as a barrier between intent and an action that correctly interprets that intent? I disagree that we are responsible for our actions; we are responsible for our intentions. The path from an intention to action is not a direct one by any means. For instance, we may intend to to do good, but because of social conditioning and other factors we can be doing harm. Are we then responsible for that harm? Then we come to consequences, and I refer to the adage "Man proposes, God disposes". We can intend whatever we want, and then actions will be whatever they are, but what is forming the ultimate consequences of our actions? When one deeply examines the issue, there is plenty of room between the free will intent of an individual and the consequence of action for God to do whatever it wishes and arrange whatever outcomes it desires without interfering in anyone's free will.William J Murray_{April 24, 2017
April
04
Apr
24
24
2017
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

Justin @186:
You are correct on causation.
Thank you.
The way I see it, the knower’s ability to modify the event does implicate the knower. If I stand by and watch a woman get raped and do nothing, my allowance is part of the outcome. I didn’t cause it, but I’m implicated. Summarizing what mugwump3 stated in @124 often the freewill/foreknowledge debate is not about decision-making but culpability (and I’m not meaning culpability in the negative sense). Why is this sentiment or chain of argument tying allowance to the event so unreasonable in your mind?
If your point is that God allows certain things to happen that he could have prevented had he wanted to exercise his free will to do so, then sure. I don't have a problem with that. This is undoubtedly the case on a regular basis. If your point is further that we exercise our free will within larger bounds and parameters that have been set, whether by God, our circumstances, our physical capabilities, the time in which we live, the impact of others' decisions on us, and a hundred other factors, then yes, I agree. There are limits to our free will. It is not absolute. It can be impacted. If your point is even that God could, if he wanted to, prevent me from doing something in a particular instance, then I can even agree with that in many cases, perhaps most. So I don't disagree with you on these key points. ----- Now, do you recognize that these do not address the claim put forth by Armand Jacks and Seversky, namely that foreknowledge of the future means there can be no free will exercised as to those events, even in principle? Maybe you are already on board with my responses to them in that regard and agree their claim is nonsense and you are now trying to focus on more interesting nuances of the things listed above. If so, great. But in that case, I'm simply pointing out that your mild and reasonable view of how one being's exercise of free will ("allowing" in your case) might interact with another being's free will, is most certainly not the point being made by our materialist interlocutors. To use your example, the claim on the table is that if you knew the rapist was going to rape then the rapist has no free will. And, we might add, should reasonably be absolved from any responsibility for the actions he was "forced" to take without free will. Forced, presumably by your knowledge (although this cause-effect relationship has conveniently been completely ignored and unexplained by those making the claim in these pages). ----- We are responsible for our actions (what we do) and God is responsible for his actions (allowing us to do what we do). That is all fine and good. But this is a completely separate question from whether mere foreknowledge eliminates free will.Eric Anderson_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

Armand Jacks @180:
No, the issue is whether god can actually have full knowledge if we have free will. There is no causation.
Of course it is about causation. It is all about causation. Whether the knowledge causes some change or elimination of my free will. What causes the outcome, given that we have taken free will off the table. Why do you keep repeating this bald-faced claim about foreknowledge and free will being inherently incompatible? Is this just some materialist talking point you picked up along the way, or can you actually give some reasons for your position? I have given you detailed reasons why this is nonsense. Reasons based on the plain definitions of words in the English language, based on our practical experience, based on logic, based on the chain of causation. You have steadfastly refused to answer the questions posed to you. You apparently fail to recognize that if you have no free will in the matter then there must be some other cause for the outcome. And you have failed to think through the implications of your claim, thus avoiding the perfectly reasonable and logical follow-up questions to your claim.
If god knows with certainty that I am going to have bacon and eggs tomorrow, am I capable of changing my mind at the last minute? If not, I don’t have free will.
Of course you're capable of ordering what you want at the last minute. Why would you think otherwise? Again, you misunderstand the chain of events and when the knowledge arises. The knowledge of what you do* arises only once you do it. It is your action that gives us knowledge about what you did. The knowledge doesn't arise first and then the action later. My guess is that your failure to comprehend the basic issues is tied to the fact that you have a mental block against the possibility that anyone could actually know the future. Fine. That is a separate discussion, and you can disbelieve in such a being all you want. But please, for the love of basic logic, stop pushing this nonsense that foreknowledge automatically means no free will. Either put up and demonstrate the causal chain that (a) eliminates your free will if there is foreknowledge, and (b) causes the thing to occur (the thing that it looks like you did, but you didn't, because you have no free will), or be intellectually honest enough to admit that you are just making a naked assertion without evidentiary or logical support. ----- * Again, if we are talking about actual knowledge, as opposed to predictive probability.Eric Anderson_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

Another Key Point: The chain of cause and effect is a key issue some people still struggle to get their minds around. The claim on the table goes like this: If God knew AJ was going to order eggs, then AJ must order eggs and, ergo, AJ has no free will in the matter. This mistakenly views the knowledge as arising first, largely independent of AJ's actions, and that the action flows later from the knowledge. In other words it essentially views the knowledge as the cause, and the choice as the effect. This is not what is going on. This is exactly backwards. The knowledge of the action arises as a result of the action, just like it always does. If AJ instead decided to order pancakes, then the knowledge would be that he will order pancakes. Where would that knowledge come from? It would come from the fact that he ordered pancakes, instead of eggs. It wouldn't just pop into existence out of the blue on its own. The knowledge* of AJ's action arises -- as it always and inevitably must -- from AJ's action. It doesn't matter whether the action was past, present or future. The knowledge of the action depends upon and arises from the action, not the other way around. ----- What some seem to be getting hung up about is whether someone could indeed have the ability to know the outcome of future actions. If you don't think God is omniscient, or you don't think time travel exists, or you don't think knowledge of the future is possible, in and of itself, fine. That is a somewhat separate discussion. But the idea that knowledge of the future causes that future or eliminates free will is based on a misunderstanding that the knowledge arises from the knower, prior to the action, rather than arising, as it always does, from the action. ----- * Note here that we are talking about actual knowledge, acquired however you want to imagine it: through clairvoyance, through time travel, through God's ability to see the future -- it doesn't matter. If we are instead just proposing some pretty capable predictive skills, which although excellent might be less than 100% sure, I take it people would drop the claim about loss of free will anyway and could find comfort in the idea that free will exists in this tiny space of uncertainty between the excellent predictive skills and the actual outcome.Eric Anderson_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Since today is Sunday, I will add one additional important problem with the claim that foreknowledge means no free will. This is, at least partially, a theological argument (although the principle applies much more broadly), so I didn’t bring it up before, because I thought it might be unpersuasive to Armand Jacks and Seversky and I preferred to focus on the definitional and logical problems. However, for any theists reading this thread, particularly anyone from a Judeo-Christian bent, this is an important point to keep in mind. One of the central themes of scripture, indeed, one of the great overarching principles, is that individuals have free will and the ability to choose. “Choose you this day whom ye will serve,” is but one example of the scriptural injunction. The entire concept of an individual’s relationship with deity is dependent upon an individual’s ability to choose: how to act, what to do, whether to heed, whether to follow God or mammon, whether to embrace good or evil, whether to serve and uplift, how to treat others, and on and on. Whatever concept we may have about blessings and rewards also depends upon a recognition that the individual had a choice in the matter and that the Lord’s “judgment is just”. Yes, there are some corner cases – on the one hand cases in which we might think the judgment too harsh or on the other hand in which unwarranted mercy was received by the individual. But the overarching theme across the ages of Judeo-Christian scripture is clear: use your free will to make the right choices and good consequences will follow, if not here, then at least in the hereafter. The claim that God’s mere knowledge of the future robs us of our free will is not only inconsistent with this doctrine, it is diametrically opposed to this very central tenet of Judeo-Christian faith. Anyone who believes God has foreknowledge and that this foreknowledge eliminates our free will must reject this most basic and fundamental doctrine of free will set forth throughout scripture, embracing instead a kind of determinism or fatalism in which we are but unwitting pawns, without real ability to act and instead carried along by every wind as we are acted upon by forces outside our control – a view little different in substance from the materialistic claim that free will is an illusion and we are but pawns to the blind forces of physics and our genes.Eric Anderson_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

EA @ 174, We are agreeing with the first case in my post in 167 reposted here: "I know you will object. But let me explain. I see God as the ultimate “filter”, in the allowance of events to occur. If God sees that AJ is going to order bacon and eggs tomorrow (based on freewill of AJ) but God does not like that outcome, he may override AJ’s will and cause him to order pancakes. Or God may allow the outcome to occur and AJ eats his bacon and eggs. In the first case, you will say that we are talking about God’s will, not AJs will and that you are not addressing this situation. In the second case you might retort that allowance is not the same as causation. Agreed, they are not technically the same. But allowance does impute affect on the event in question. And I think this is what our materialist interlocutors are saying." We are in agreement with the first case. The knower is using ability to interfere (override) and can be easily assigned as the cause of AJ ordering pancakes. It is the second case that we are debating. Ok, so the heart of the issue is whether “allowance” can in anyway be tied to the event in question (AJ ordering bacon and eggs). You say no way. From the way you see it, the knower's “ability” has nothing to with causation of the event unless actually used. Or in your words @ 168: “It doesn’t have anything to do with whether the knower had an ability to interfere. The question is whether the knower actually, in real space and time used that ability and did interfere." This is the sticking point. You assert that having the ability to interfere has nothing to with the causation of that event. In a limited and technical sense, I agree with that statement. The knower, with ability to stop/modify that event in question, does not actually cause the event. AJ’s freewill reigns as he orders bacon and eggs. And the jury in the courtroom who reads the detective’s report titled “Who Caused the Ordering of Bacon and Eggs On April 23rd 2017 at around 8:00 AM” will agree and assign cause to the competently endowed freewill agent AJ. You are correct on causation. And the jury made the right decision given the facts they have. But the jury knew nothing about the knower. The way I see it, the knower’s ability to modify the event does implicate the knower. If I stand by and watch a woman get raped and do nothing, my allowance is part of the outcome. I didn’t cause it, but I’m implicated. Summarizing what mugwump3 stated in @124 often the freewill/foreknowledge debate is not about decision-making but culpability (and I’m not meaning culpability in the negative sense). Why is this sentiment or chain of argument tying allowance to the event so unreasonable in your mind? WJM @ 179 I would like to respond more in-depth with what you are saying. But you are digging in much deeper about this subject than where I wish to go. I’m not disagreeing with what you are saying, I’m just not wanting to parse these ideas into too many pieces. I start getting lost. Justinjuwilker_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

kf,
GUN, you are apparently locked into seeing only causally successive temporality.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I do believe that we can't alter the past.
God is outside of time inherently and sees all times and spaces and yes the inner secrets of our hearts. As pointed out way above, that is akin to seeing after the fact [future to us is also present to him], not to forcing the fact so that responsible, rational freedom is a grand delusion. I am just astonished at how hard it is to acknowledge a simple thing, different worldviews work differently and should be understood in their terms, not by imposing an alien constraint from a different worldview assumed to be truth beyond dispute. On ethical theism, time is part of reality, not its whole. KF
Is there something there that disagrees with anything I've said?goodusername_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Andrew:
Ya think?
As often as I can. I recommend it for everyone.
We have established you can change your mind.
Then god's knowledge is faulty. One minute he knows I am going to have bacon and eggs. When I change it he knows that I am going to have pancakes. That isn't foreknowledge, that is a parlour trick.
There is no value judgment needed here. That God is omniscient is His nature. Rating the importance of it seems like a futile exercise.
That certainly explains the pains that theists go through to rationalize an obvious inconsistency.Armand Jacks_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

Only a theist would believe this.
Ya think?
If he knows the choices I am going to make, how can I possibly change my mind?
The way you always do.
If I can’t change my mind then I don’t have free will.
We have established you can change your mind.
Why is it so important that god be omniscient?
There is no value judgment needed here. That God is omniscient is His nature. Rating the importance of it seems like a futile exercise. Andrewasauber_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Andrew:
You make the choices. God knows the choices you [will] make. There’s nothing logically incompatible with that at all.
Only a theist would believe this. If he knows the choices I am going to make, how can I possibly change my mind? If I can't change my mind then I don't have free will. Unless I have missed it, I haven't read an answer to my earlier question. Why is it so important that god be omniscient?Armand Jacks_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

They are just mutually incompatible.
Armand, This is just an assertion. Can you demonstrate how you know it's true? You make the choices. God knows the choices you make. There's nothing logically incompatible with that at all. Andrewasauber_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Hi Eric. I apologize for not responding earlier but I was busy watching KF implode. You might say that I knew it would happen and he had no free will to do otherwise.
Whether [God] caused it is precisely the issue in whether there is free will.
No, the issue is whether god can actually have full knowledge if we have free will. There is no causation. They are just mutually incompatible. If god knows with certainty that I am going to have bacon and eggs tomorrow, am I capable of changing my mind at the last minute? If not, I don't have free will. If I can, god does not have infallible foreknowledge. By the way. My bacon and eggs this morning were great. So maybe I don't have free will.Armand Jacks_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

juwilker said;
I know you will object. But let me explain. I see God as the ultimate “filter”, in the allowance of events to occur. If God sees that AJ is going to order bacon and eggs tomorrow (based on freewill of AJ) but God does not like that outcome, he may override AJ’s will and cause him to order pancakes. Or God may allow the outcome to occur and AJ eats his bacon and eggs. In the first case, you will say that we are talking about God’s will, not AJs will and that you are not addressing this situation. In the second case you might retort that allowance is not the same as causation. Agreed, they are not technically the same. But allowance does impute affect on the event in question. And I think this is what our materialist interlocutors are saying.
As EA has said very well, it's important to unpack terminology and think the logic through. Free will is not free action nor is it a power to determine of outcomes of one's actions. IMO, "will" = "intent"; we can intend whatever is possible to imagine. We can intend (will) utterly unrealistic things in situations where what one intends has virtually no chance of occurring other than bare possibility." When God "intervenes" (hardly an "intervention" when you're the basis for the whole thing anyway), there is no need to intervene in a person's intention (will), there is only a need to arrange the situation or the outcome in order to advance God's purpose. IOW, AJ may order bacon and eggs, but there may be no bacon and eggs left. Or, a thought may occur to AJ or an event occur that influences him to change his mind about what to do at that time. Furthermore, I don't consider "ordering eggs and bacon" to be an accurate or true description of intent/will, but rather a description of the outcome of of intent/will as that intent/will is translated by AJ's mind and situation into the physical actuality. I don't think we ever have an intention, at the level of intention, of "ordering eggs and bacon", but rather the intention itself is rather something more primordial - pre-language, so to speak - that gets translated by the mind/brain/situation into something specific physically. Let's say the intent is the pre-language equivalent of "sustenance"; that intent is translated by the various personal, psychological aspects of AJ's mind at the time, filtered down through the physical interface of the brain into an actuality that happens to be, at that time and place in that situation, ordering bacon and eggs. Putting a thought in AJ's mind or altering the chemistry of the brain or hiding the bacon and eggs temporarily is not interfering with the intent/will, it's just modifying how it will be actualized in physical reality. Other unpacking necessary: mind and will are not the same thing, IMO. Will/intent is the pure aspect of who we are as our connection to God. I consider it the essence of the soul. I think of the mind as a kind of supernatural skin for the soul as the intent expresses itself as an individual, while the body/brain is an interface the soul/mind in order to function in the physical world. IOW, who/what we are in essence is the intent/soul; but that intent (free will, self-mover) is pre-language, primordial, divine. It is then housed and filtered through mind, body and brain into thoughts and actions. God influencing the final outcome of an actualized intent is not the same thing as God changing the intent.William J Murray_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

GUN, you are apparently locked into seeing only causally successive temporality. God is outside of time inherently and sees all times and spaces and yes the inner secrets of our hearts. As pointed out way above, that is akin to seeing after the fact [future to us is also present to him], not to forcing the fact so that responsible, rational freedom is a grand delusion. I am just astonished at how hard it is to acknowledge a simple thing, different worldviews work differently and should be understood in their terms, not by imposing an alien constraint from a different worldview assumed to be truth beyond dispute. On ethical theism, time is part of reality, not its whole. KFkairosfocus_{April 23, 2017
April
04
Apr
23
23
2017
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply