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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
You're assuming that time is linear and that cause precedes effect and that the future cannot change the past.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 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.
Do you see a new battery and a dead battery as being the same?
Why would it be any different?
.
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.
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.
No it wouldn't, because there is no "prior." It would know all of everything simultaneously.
No, because you were talking about two iterations....two liner iterations. I'm talking about simultaneous.This sounds a lot like my Back To The Future comment with Biff and the Sports Almanac.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.
[/quote]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
I don't care what others believe. I'm going by what the Bible says.
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
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.
What a wonderful choice =p
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.
I don't care what others believe. I'm going by what the Bible says.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?