I think thats a fair enough statement...If an omnipotent being exists, he/she knows exactly what will happen in the future, exactly what choices will be made and so on. Therefore free will wouldnt really exist and everything would be predetermined.
But heres another thing: if the omnipotent being just knows what will happen and is not our creator, would that give other beings autonomy in a way?
Even if everything is predestined, unless you're the recipient of some divine intervention, you'll never know it. Living out this script, you at least still have the illusion of choice- which should, subjectively, be enough. And if you were to be the recipient of said divine intervention, you'd have the assurity of knowing there is a God, with a predetermined course for existence, who cannot be anything but, by definition, Right.
Without tidings of morality coming into it, of course.
And Joe, Nietzsche rather exhaustively covered this- you know there can only be actual freedom for man without God.
"We deny God, we deny the reponsibility of God, it is only thus that we will deliver the world."
I must reemphasize that a hypothesis is posited to be proved or disproved. It is not intended for value judgements or questions of relevancy at all. You can only determine the relevancy of a given hypothesis once you have determined its validity.
Even if everything is predestined, unless you're the recipient of some divine intervention, you'll never know it. Living out this script, you at least still have the illusion of choice- which should, subjectively, be enough.This is a pretty good point in a way. That is, if a being were non-autonomous due to the existence of an omnipotent being said non-autonomous being should not be able to fully ascertain its lack of autonomy. Yup
( ... )
Comments 6
But heres another thing: if the omnipotent being just knows what will happen and is not our creator, would that give other beings autonomy in a way?
Reply
Even if everything is predestined, unless you're the recipient of some divine intervention, you'll never know it. Living out this script, you at least still have the illusion of choice- which should, subjectively, be enough. And if you were to be the recipient of said divine intervention, you'd have the assurity of knowing there is a God, with a predetermined course for existence, who cannot be anything but, by definition, Right.
Without tidings of morality coming into it, of course.
And Joe, Nietzsche rather exhaustively covered this- you know there can only be actual freedom for man without God.
"We deny God, we deny the reponsibility of God, it is only thus that we will deliver the world."
Reply
I must reemphasize that a hypothesis is posited to be proved or disproved. It is not intended for value judgements or questions of relevancy at all. You can only determine the relevancy of a given hypothesis once you have determined its validity.
Even if everything is predestined, unless you're the recipient of some divine intervention, you'll never know it. Living out this script, you at least still have the illusion of choice- which should, subjectively, be enough.This is a pretty good point in a way. That is, if a being were non-autonomous due to the existence of an omnipotent being said non-autonomous being should not be able to fully ascertain its lack of autonomy. Yup ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment