God gives no one special protection. If you think God will save you from injuring yourself, you may be in for a rude awakening
Follow the yellow brick road. Follow the yellow brick road. Follow follow follow follow, follow the yellow brick road. Buckle your seat belt, Dorothy, because Kansas is going bye-bye.
There would be no doubt that many people have pondered the paradox of omniscience versus free will. It is highly likely that there are more arguments than those presented here so far. However, the arguments I've posted in this thread over the past years represent the most known, if not the most thought out, versions of the arguments philosophers/freethinkers have come up with, which supports my stance that omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. Allow me to go off on a brief tangent for a moment. It has nothing specific to do with the main topic but I'd like to voice some personal opinions. It concerns the fact that many concepts which are connected to gods are not concepts which can be applied to mortals. A Supernatural Universe vs a Natural Universe. A supernatural universe is the concept of a universe which doesn't actually exist. In this imaginary universe, the laws of Nature are replaced with the fickle whims of Magic. Where as a natural universe is the concept of the real universe. There are laws of Nature which never change. There is no intelligence pulling any magic switches in the natural universe. There are forces of Nature which naturally obey the laws of Nature. Omniscience vs Knowledge .... through Learning Omniscience is the concept of supernatural "automatic" knowledge achieved by a supernatural being. Because nothing supernatural exists in the Natural universe, therefore, omniscience doesn't exist. There is only one way to gain knowledge. Through learning. No knowledge is gained "automatically" in the Natural universe. Magical Time vs Real Time Magical Time is a concept in which a being can exist, move about and have a non-sequential relationship with real time. It is how supernatural beings are able to exist "outside of time". It defies the laws of nature and, therefore, doesn't exist. Real time is the natural order of time. It exists in the sequential order of past to present to future. It is so incorporated into the Natural universe that we cannot even make a statement without some reference to time. For instance, the simple statement "I am" here it has a reference to the present time. As said I listed these as my opinions but, as far as I am concerned, they are truth (in my opinion). Don't kid yourself into thinking I'm going to change my mind just because you /anybody else say so. If your (theistic) intention is to convert me to your way of thinking then I'm afraid you're deluding yourself or trying to delude others.
Free will is an illusion. Human beings merely believe that they have free will . Every possible thought or action is predicated on the summation of all past experience. The only people who genuinely have "free" will are those who are clinically insane . I think a more interesting topic is the notion of a god who is both omniscient AND omnipotent , which is actually a logical impossibility , if you reason it through to it's conclusion .... ( See " The God Delusion " by Richard Dawkins )
Have you seen both of them to be able to make an "objective" comparison? Again, do you have both at your disposal to be able to do an "objective" comparison? Then I have to ask you this simple question: why time "flies" when you do an enjoyable activity, but time "drags on or seem to stay still" when you're doing that you don't like? Example given by Einstein(maybe not him, but still applies): when you're with your loved ones time flies even though you've spent a few hours together, yet when touching a hot stove for a second it seems like...forever? Based on the fact that one has a piece of the puzzle, how can that one to tell you the entire image his piece of puzzle belongs to? Humans observe 5% of the Universe, yet they claim they know it. This is like a person says about another person that he/she knows him/her, by the fact that the 1st person has seen a strand of hair from the second person. Kinda magical this "scientific" thinking, uh? @Mutoid: R. Dawkins...he's deluded alright.
@Socrat: Perhaps our perception of time is no more than an illusion. Or, is it another one of those "Quantum Paradoxes" (i.e. when observed, nature seems to want to change up on you.) @Sid_16: You've been reading waay too much tolkein. Magic is just another form of illusion, designed to amuse and control the masses. Just like psychic phenomena is nothing more than an application of social engineering, applied to a mind that wants to believe in divination. In religion, it is said that the Devil plays in the minds of man, but GOD lives in the hearts of Man. The mind can be easily tricked, but not the heart. Contrary to popular belief, Science and Spirituality are not diverging. They are converging. There will come a time when We understand enough about science to know that some of the phenomena discussed in science have their roots in spirituality. See You at the Nexus.
@TCM I have showed up inconsistencies in humankind’s mind (idea of oneself). I post them for fun. People reflect them and post their opinion. A flaw does not exist as long as one is unaware. But this unawareness takes effect on today’s human condition (unhappiness, stress, greed, exploitation of nature, wars) Commonness is not the same as ‘the right view’. To me all I have posted are valid points. I find it nice that you have picked up what I’ve posted and you’ve replied. As said I do not want to change opinions, I point on illusions. Maybe later in life you recognize a mentioned flaw, maybe never. Either way it does not matter. OK to have this clarified ….I am adding to the debate: “We have the observer (subject) and the objects which are observed. The observer cannot be an object of observation.” This is pure logic. Nothing else. Nothing invalid. A subject is no object and a subject cannot know itself. It is that much logical that you ignore it and apply ‘own’ logic. Your body (actually the object of observation) is constantly changing. The cells, the molecules of your body today are not those in the future. I actually wanted to point on the fact that your body (idea of matter) is constantly changing. It means what you perceive as body was not the same when you were 10 and won’t be the same when you are 80. No original cell is left, no original molecule. You metabolize/egest stuff and you create/build stuff from food. Anyway ‘you’ stay. The same is with the mental object experiment. To dismantle your body until ‘you’ is left. There is no location for it. To assume that you are your brain is an illusion. If you’d be the brain then you still have to stand the fact that the brain has also a metabolism. It gains matter from food/Oxygen and loses via egestion. “Don't kid yourself into thinking I'm going to change my mind just because you /anybody else say so. If your (theistic) intention is to convert me to your way of thinking then I'm afraid you're deluding yourself or trying to delude others.” @sid_16 I guess nobody wants to change your mind. You will change your mind alone when you have found ‘a better’ ideology yourself. Anyway what you have posted sounds rather memorized . Present time. Could you elaborate this contradiction, please? How do you determine time without to relate? The present time is 34, no it's 16:24! Any sense here?
No, "you" don't stay, since "you" are a function of your physical brain which is constantly changing. That's your flawed assumption to begin with, which is why all this talk about subjects and objects is nonsensical in the context of human observers. There is no fixed "you". Cut away the right parts of your brain and tell me how "you" have not changed. You try to separate consciousness from body functions which is simply wrong. Affect the right areas in your brain and you suddenly can't speak anymore. Affect the right areas and you can't even _think_ the same stuff you thought yesterday. [1] There is no universal mind of yours that is independent from the hardware (brain). If your brain stops to function, there is no "you" that is still floating around. You'd have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt to make it an acknowledged reality. Nobody has done it so far so it's safe to assume it just isn't so. If you have other insights, provide the evidence. You can't, which is why all of this is just mental masturbation with no basis in reality. [1] Heck, the potheads must know best how affecting the brain changes your thoughts in whatever ways. It's all just chemistry.
Ordinarily I would agree with you, but why does this happen ?! There seems to be a cloud server somewhere, if everything was relegated to the brain then recall would not be possible.
The least reliable source for scientific evidence is a human eye witness. Remember how the bible came to be and all that, yes? I can probably come up with thousands of hillbillies from bumf**k nowhere who will happily tell you that aliens exist nearby and visit us regularly. I couldn't even audibly understand what the mother was saying the whole time. I can understand English in most accents but that was horrible. Was there an independent study? Repeating what the mother claims to have experienced is all fine and good, but not proof for anything. She's first and foremost a prime candidate for confirmation bias. Also, people with drab lives do all kinds of stuff to get attention. That's why independent studies are so important. So based on just that video, I'm not even convinced all that stuff happened in the first place, or maybe the kid had seen a bad movie or whatnot. Who knows without the evidence.
Totally does not conceive of a Created Universe? a Created Universe is a Natural Universe, because Nature itself was also Created
"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" - Sam Harris The fact that this clown calls himself Socrate and has "humbleness" written in his sig makes this farce all the more laughable. The info may be real. Do you know for a fact that they didn't get the info beforehand, just to be able to claim they knew it before they got it? Remember, if the claim is extraordinary, the evidence better be, too. Edit: There are at least some people that give you hope that this mass delusion can someday go extinct and humanism and true progress can happen without cavemen holding us back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btJazTimH4M
They are mostly small kids and the info is not easily had, did you actually look at the video I posted to ask such a question ? Love the video you posted by the way. I don't think there is any argument from any sane person that religion is bollocks!