Jewish Discussion Thread

[Conserative Morality]

no it doesn't,

just because he knows
does not mean he controls.

Three problems here:

First, Menassa said He controls everything

Second, if God is omniscient, then free will is meaningless since He knows what is going to happen, and what is going to happen is going to happen, regardless of our choices, since He *knows* what is going to happen.

Third, if He knows and chooses to do nothing, He controls events through His refusal to act.

[Conserative Morality]

no,
yes.

Then God is not omniscient since he doesn't know for sure.

All hail the almighty weatherman.

[Evraim]

What of the Socialists? I thought this was one of their popular slogans.

Ascetics, except for Social Democrats.

On the contrary, most Socialists despise the affluent because they are not as impoverished as the destitute. In a sense, they are the opposite of ascetics. They want more of something.

[Conserative Morality]

On the contrary, most Socialists despise the affluent because they are not as impoverished as the destitute. In a sense, they are the opposite of ascetics. They want more of something.

Their ideology is ascetic in nature.

[Grave_n_idle]

That seems like faulty logic.

We cannot comprehend infinity, but you can still count the change in your pocket. You don't have to comprehend every aspect to comprehend any aspect.

If God cannot be understood at all.

Discussing him is meaningless.

If we cannot comprehend infinity, counting the change in our pocket isn't going to help our understanding of it, no matter how many pennies we have.

If you have a Bible close to hand, go and grab it. Flip it open to the start of Genesis, and read non-stop to the end of Deuteronomy.

What you have just read, think of it as one long sentence - a name - one which describes - inaccurately and in some small regard - the nature of god.

You have gained some knowledge and understanding of god - although you could not claim to understand god - because the sentence that would be long enough to give you THAT knowledge would be too long to read.

What you're arguing is illogical - it's like saying there's no point in studying physics, because we can never know absolutely everything.

[Ethel mermania]

Neutral towards Jews. Aren't Messianic Jews Christian Jews?????



Spontaneous John 3:16 God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son. Anyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life. NIRV

no, they are christians.

[Grave_n_idle]

no,
yes.

Then God is not omniscient since he doesn't know for sure.

That doesn't make sense.

In your example, she had a choice - and he already knew which choice she would make. That's not inconsistent.

[Ethel mermania]

God knows both.

He sees all and he knows all..... this may sound like babbling to you but I see it as pretty clear.

God knows if it will rain today and he knows if it will not rain today/

So if he knows it will rain it will rain. If he knows it won't rain it won't.

If he knows a given person will go outside without an umbrella that person will go outside without an umbrella. If he knows he will go outside with an umbrella that person will go outside with the umbrella. Either way, he has about as much free will as the clouds, if God is truly omniscient.

no,

knowledge of an event does not dictate control of the event.

[Conserative Morality]

If you have a Bible close to hand, go and grab it. Flip it open to the start of Genesis, and read non-stop to the end of Deuteronomy.

What you have just read, think of it as one long sentence - a name - one which describes - inaccurately and in some small regard - the nature of god.

If God CANNOT be understood in human terms at all, as was claimed, then any expression of God in human terms is, by it's very nature, incorrect and faulty.

You have gained some knowledge and understanding of god - although you could not claim to understand god - because the sentence that would be long enough to give you THAT knowledge would be too long to read.

What you're arguing is illogical - it's like saying there's no point in studying physics, because we can never know absolutely everything.

No, it'd be more like saying if physics cannot be expressed in English, then there is no point in discussing physics in English since any attempt to impart understanding will end in failure.

[Conserative Morality]

That doesn't make sense.

In your example, she had a choice - and he already knew which choice she would make. That's not inconsistent.

Then free will does not exist as all actions are predetermined. That is the point of EM's example.

Have you been following this conversation?

[Ethel mermania]

Tradition, whether or not handed down by God, does not help to understand God if He cannot be understood by human knowledge, since all knowledge must be interpreted by human beings and thus become human knowledge. People greater than you are no more capable of understanding God than you are if God cannot be understood with human knowledge.

There are plenty of exceptional child prodigies out there.

Humans who are greater than us (in this case Moses or Abraham) were able to understand god in his full power.

But I suppose this is where we will have to disagree because I am at least 99% sure you don't think Moses and Abraham were as great men as I do.

Find me this child that is 3 years of age and can fully understand metaphysics better than leading scientists today.... and we will continue.

i dont believe moses or abraham were able to understand god in his full power.

Though i did have a politics professor who beleived Abraham played god in the sacrificaing issac story.

And I love that god bitched to Moses about the jews being stiffnecked, doesnt make me feel so bad when i argue with my family

[Evraim]

On the contrary, most Socialists despise the affluent because they are not as impoverished as the destitute. In a sense, they are the opposite of ascetics. They want more of something.

Their ideology is ascetic in nature.

Do they promote self-denial or restraint?

So inquiring as to how you reconcile free will and omniscience is a stupid question?

Is it because you can't answer it with anything reasonable?

No. I think the question is legitimate. I know of a few theologians who have addressed the dilemma - mostly Catholics. Of course, another question is: if G-d desires to permit free will and moral agency to exist but is incapable of doing so because his omniscience acts as an impediment to this action, would that not violate his omnipotence as well?

If one presumes that his omniscience is absolute, the definition of free will must be reduced from the conventional understanding. This could perhaps be done by saying that G-d knows invariably what will happen but permits the illusion of free will to exist so that his judgements are not seen as arbitrary. It's as though a police officer knows from other sources that a particular individual might be at risk for indulging in cocaine but does not arrest him until the deed has been done. Naturally, this raises further inquiries.

The second possibility is that G-d may purposefully restrict his omniscience via omnipotence so that free will is possible - or that omniscience is not absolute.

The third possibility is that G-d does not adhere to the rules of logic and that these do not necessarily define the universe. This would be a disturbing answer, no?

[Grave_n_idle]

If God CANNOT be understood in human terms at all, as was claimed, then any expression of God in human terms is, by it's very nature, incorrect and faulty.

And incorrect and faulty doesn't necessarily equate to worthless. Moreover, I think you're conflating two different understandings of the word understanding.

Because you can't understand the reasoning of god, does not mean you can't understand what god says if he speaks to you. You appear to be conflating 'understanding' as in comprehending the mechanisms and psychology - with 'understanding' as in being able to comprehend that which intrudes into our mundane reality. You can certainly do the latter without doing the former.

No, it'd be more like saying if physics cannot be expressed in English, then there is no point in discussing physics in English since any attempt to impart understanding will end in failure.

Perhaps physics can't be truly expressed in English, since (arguably) what you're actually discussing is the math of the universe - and yet you can approximate broad strokes in mere words, and you can come closer to comprehending that about physics which we CAN know, through language.

[EnragedMaldivians]

So if he knows it will rain it will rain. If he knows it won't rain it won't.

If he knows a given person will go outside without an umbrella that person will go outside without an umbrella. If he knows he will go outside with an umbrella that person will go outside with the umbrella. Either way, he has about as much free will as the clouds, if God is truly omniscient.

no,

knowledge of an event does not dictate control of the event.

I never said he was controlling it. But if he is truly omniscient and knows event x will happen event x will happen. Nobody can change it since it's predetermined.

[Menassa]

Humans who are greater than us (in this case Moses or Abraham) were able to understand god in his full power.

But I suppose this is where we will have to disagree because I am at least 99% sure you don't think Moses and Abraham were as great men as I do.

Find me this child that is 3 years of age and can fully understand metaphysics better than leading scientists today.... and we will continue.

i dont believe moses or abraham were able to understand god in his full power.

Though i did have a politics professor who beleived Abraham played god in the sacrificaing issac story.

And I love that god bitched to Moses about the jews being stiffnecked, doesnt make me feel so bad when i argue with my family

Moses was the only prophet who spoke to god full on.

Scholars argue that he spoke to god as god was facing away from him while other prophets spoke to god in dreams or dream like states.

The Jews are stiff necked people.

[Ethel mermania]

That seems like faulty logic.

We cannot comprehend infinity, but you can still count the change in your pocket. You don't have to comprehend every aspect to comprehend any aspect.

If God cannot be understood at all.

Discussing him is meaningless.

If we cannot comprehend infinity, counting the change in our pocket isn't going to help our understanding of it, no matter how many pennies we have.

The manifestations that god chooses to unveil can be understood. To say that good in his fullness can be understood by any human is false. What he chooses to let us understand we can.

[Conserative Morality]

Do they promote self-denial or restraint?

I would argue that socialists, here understood as Marxist style state socialists rather than Social Democrats, do preach self-denial.

No. I think the question is legitimate. I know of a few theologians who have addressed the dilemma - mostly Catholics. Of course, another question is: if G-d desires to permit free will and moral agency to exist but is incapable of doing so because his omniscience acts as an impediment to this action, would that not violate his omnipotence as well?

If one presumes that his omniscience is absolute, the definition of free will must be reduced from the conventional understanding. This could perhaps be done by saying that G-d knows invariably what will happen but permits the illusion of free will to exist so that his judgements are not seen as arbitrary. It's as though a police officer knows from other sources that a particular individual is indulging in cocaine but does not arrest him until the deed has been done. Naturally, this raises further inquiries.

The second possibility is that G-d may purposefully restrict his omniscience via omnipotence so that free will is possible - or that omniscience is not absolute.

The third possibility is that G-d does not adhere to the rules of logic and that these do not necessarily define the universe. This would be a disturbing answer, no?

The first answer denies free will, the second denies omniscience, while the third makes discussion of God in human terms, which are restricted by logic, meaningless.

Although all three are acceptable answers, two deny part of what is traditionally attributed to the Abrahamic God, and one is what has been argued back and forth for the past few pages.

[Menassa]

Neutral towards Jews. Aren't Messianic Jews Christian Jews?????



Spontaneous John 3:16 God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son. Anyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life. NIRV

Thank you for quoting the New Testament.... though it has no value here.... may I direct you to the CDT?

[Grave_n_idle]

That doesn't make sense.

In your example, she had a choice - and he already knew which choice she would make. That's not inconsistent.

Then free will does not exist as all actions are predetermined. That is the point of EM's example.

Have you been following this conversation?

It's a faulty conclusion - if I already know which choice you are going to make, you will still make the choice.

An imperfect rendition of this happens quite frequently in my household - in many situations, I have come to know my wife well enough that I already know which choice she will make. My knowledge of it doesn't change the fact that she makes the choice - it just means I know her well enough to know which way she will lean.

Now imagine if I could see 'inside her heart' as they say, and see the thoughts I currently can't see - I'd know the choice that was going to be made with absolute certainty - but the choice itself would still have to be made.

[Conserative Morality]

And incorrect and faulty doesn't necessarily equate to worthless. Moreover, I think you're conflating two different understandings of the word understanding.

Because you can't understand the reasoning of god, does not mean you can't understand what god says if he speaks to you. You appear to be conflating 'understanding' as in comprehending the mechanisms and psychology - with 'understanding' as in being able to comprehend that which intrudes into our mundane reality. You can certainly do the latter without doing the former.

We are not discussing divine commands, we are discussing the nature of God, which supposedly cannot be understood. Please go through the conversation of the past few pages before responding again.

Perhaps physics can't be truly expressed in English, since (arguably) what you're actually discussing is the math of the universe - and yet you can approximate broad strokes in mere words, and you can come closer to comprehending that about physics which we CAN know, through language.

Very well, if you cannot express current human understanding of physics in English.

Consider my statement suitably amended.

[Ethel mermania]

no it doesn't,

just because he knows
does not mean he controls.

Three problems here:

First, Menassa said He controls everything

Second, if God is omniscient, then free will is meaningless since He knows what is going to happen, and what is going to happen is going to happen, regardless of our choices, since He *knows* what is going to happen.

Third, if He knows and chooses to do nothing, He controls events through His refusal to act.

1. Eisther Menassa is incorrect, or your interpretation is incorrect. He can control everything but chooses not to.
2. Knowledge is not control,
3. That is a thought, because we believe he sometimes does act, and we call those miracles.

[Menassa]

I have said all I can say on the matter....

so if my friends you will excuse me....

Evening prayers await.

[Evraim]

The first answer denies free will, the second denies omniscience, while the third makes discussion of God in human terms, which are restricted by logic, meaningless.

Although all three are acceptable answers, two deny part of what is traditionally attributed to the Abrahamic God, and one is what has been argued back and forth for the past few pages.

I'm relatively skeptical of free will as it is traditionally understood - even from a materialistic perspective. I suppose that's a discussion for another time though. I would say the second denies absolute omniscience but not necessarily the potential for omniscience. Finally, I saw the rigorous intercourse you've been having on the subject, though I'm not convinced meaningless is the most precise word to use, but then you were a self-professed moral nihilist last time we met.

[Ethel mermania]

On the contrary, most Socialists despise the affluent because they are not as impoverished as the destitute. In a sense, they are the opposite of ascetics. They want more of something.

Their ideology is ascetic in nature.

no it is not, it is about equality. A true socialist paradise has opera and ice cream for everybody.

[Conserative Morality]

It's a faulty conclusion - if I already know which choice you are going to make, you will still make the choice.

In which case there is no choice.

An imperfect rendition of this happens quite frequently in my household - in many situations, I have come to know my wife well enough that I already know which choice she will make. My knowledge of it doesn't change the fact that she makes the choice - it just means I know her well enough to know which way she will lean.

Exactly. Which way she will lean. You may have a 99.9999% chance of being right, but you are not entirely infallible in your predictions. Omniscience demands a lack of choice precisely because whatever choice is going to happen is already known and understood for all eternity. If free will exists, then there is still the possibility that you (Or God) will be wrong, as the person may pick a different choice. If they cannot pick a different choice, since God already knows what choice they'll make, then it's predetermined.

Now imagine if I could see 'inside her heart' as they say, and see the thoughts I currently can't see - I'd know the choice that was going to be made with absolute certainty - but the choice itself would still have to be made.

If you know what she will do with absolute certainty before she makes the choice, then her thought processes cannot deviate from a certain line that you have predicted, making this whole situation dependent on a deterministic system in the universe.