Religion in CRPGs

[Naked_Lunch]

For it to be possible for God to know it will happen, it MUST happen. IF he knows something will happen, and there is any chance that something else could happen then God could be wrong.

And it WILL happen because, for God, it already has. He has seen the beginning of the Universe to the end of time, in the blink of an eye, and has comprehended everything about it.

Exactly, in which case I cannot have free will because every decision I could possible make <i>has already been made</i> from God's perspective.

Yes, but from your perspective it hasn't. You have the god damn choice to do whatever the fuck you want, God only knows you will do. He knows which choice you will make, but he doesn't prevent you from doing. If he did, there would be no sin in the world.

You can sin, you can go against God, you can even choose not to believe in God and he will not force you back. You have free will.

Shaggy - Yes, and Fez is the priest!

 

[Kotario]

Let's say someone from the year 3000 shows up today. What does this mean is true? It means that from their perspective every action that we made is written down in a history book. There existence as beings from 1k years in the future means that the future is actually the "current" time and our decisions have already been made from their perspective.

Why?

I was not aware that our knowledge of this subject was so utterly complete that we can make statements like that. There are no Trousers of Time after all, no other theory or unconsidered possibility is actually correct?

 

[Sarvis]

<B>Naked_Lunch</b>

How can you be said to be making a choice if your choice has already been made? It's like saying Final Fantasy 7 has the same freedom of choice as Fallout!

<b>Kotario</b>

Maybe yoiu have different history textbooks than I do. Did you by any chance open yours up yesterday and read that Napoleon won at Waterloo, then open it up again today and read that he lost at Waterloo?

I doubt it.

Can at this moment you decide to wear a different pair of pants <i>yesterday</i>?

No, these things have happened already. They cannot have not happened, because we would then be in a different reality where they had.

This is where the Trousers of Time thing comes in, n which case you chose to wear every pair of pants you own yesterday as well as deciding to go outside without pants at all. Which is still not free will because you ended up making no choice at all!

 

[Naked_Lunch]

How can you be said to be making a choice if your choice has already been made? It's like saying Final Fantasy 7 has the same freedom of choice as Fallout!

You're making a choice NOW, as in "the present". God knows, as he is outside of time, what choice you've made. The choice hasn't been made FOR you. It has already been made from God's eyes, not ours.

 

[Kotario]

Sarvis, go find a professor of Philosophy and annoy them. In the best case scenario, you might learn something in the process.

 

[Sarvis]

How can you be said to be making a choice if your choice has already been made? It's like saying Final Fantasy 7 has the same freedom of choice as Fallout!

You're making a choice NOW, as in "the present". God knows, as he is outside of time, what choice you've made. The choice hasn't been made FOR you. It has already been made from God's eyes, not ours.

But we only think we are making a decision. Whatever we decide has been decided from a different perspective. It's only the illusion of free will if that is the case.

I cannot tomorrow decide to wear pink fuzzy slippers to work if from God's perspective I wore black sneakers to work. I only think I am making a choice, when in reality I am following a script that has already been written. In the script it says black sneakers, so that is what I will "decide" to wear.

How can you make a decision if, from another perspective, that decision has already been made?

 

[Sarvis]

Sarvis, go find a professor of Philosophy and annoy them. In the best case scenario, you might learn something in the process.

Maybe I should, becuase the professor would probably actually discuss the matter rather than acting like a child and trying to insult me. If you think my statements are so deficient you should have no problem disproving them, or at least coming up with some counter argument other than telling me to go away.

 

[kingcomrade]

You can't change what happened, but you can try to change the explanation. You can't change whether Napoleon won or lost, but you can change people's perceptions of the reasons why or how. Usually for pride or ideological reasons, I would think.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

How can you make a decision if, from another perspective, that decision has already been made?

It hasn't already been made! God has simply seen what you will wear, God doesn't decide it. He knows you will wear the slippers, because he's seen it all happen because he is God and is all-knowing. He is outside of time, everything has already happened for him. There is no following a script, God is not directing you or making sure the timeline or whatever stays in balance.

 

[Sarvis]

How can you make a decision if, from another perspective, that decision has already been made?

It hasn't already been made! God has simply seen what you will wear, God doesn't decide it. He knows you will wear the slippers, because he's seen it all happen because he is God and is all-knowing. He is outside of time, everything has already happened for him. There is no following a script, God is not directing you or making sure the timeline or whatever stays in balance.

You aren't following, and it is because you keep bringing God into this.

Can you decide now to have worn pink fuzzy slippers to work yesterday?

No.

The decision has already been made.

From the perspective of 100 years from now, the decision of what shoes I "choose" to wear tomorrow has already been made.

From the perspective of the end of time, the decision of what shoes I wear the day I day has already been made.

If God has seen everything happen, then it <i>has happened</i> and <b>cannot</b> happen any other way because it has already happened. I can't decide to wear combat boots tomorrow any more than Napoleon can decide he wants to be a baker. Both events have already happened from the perspective of one who is outside of time or at the end of time.

 

[Kotario]

Maybe I should, becuase the professor would probably actually discuss the matter rather than acting like a child and trying to insult me. If you think my statements are so deficient you should have no problem disproving them, or at least coming up with some counter argument other than telling me to go away.

I rather think that if you have interest enough to argue over the topic, you might want to learn something about it. Certainly no shortage of speculation about the nature of time. However, without a sufficiently open mind, it would be rather fruitless (this is where I have doubts about you). As it is, after testing the waters for myself, I have decided it's not worth a swim; thus no long point-by-point rebuttals. Sorry to dissappoint, and in any case,
interpret my actions however you wish.

 

[Sarvis]

Maybe I should, becuase the professor would probably actually discuss the matter rather than acting like a child and trying to insult me. If you think my statements are so deficient you should have no problem disproving them, or at least coming up with some counter argument other than telling me to go away.

I rather think that if you have interest enough to argue over the topic, you might want to learn something about it. Certainly no shortage of speculation about the nature of time. However, without a sufficiently open mind, it would be rather fruitless (this is where I have doubts about you). As it is, after testing the waters for myself, I have decided it's not worth a swim; thus no long point-by-point rebuttals. Sorry to dissappoint, and in any case,
interpret my actions however you wish.

The only thing worse than a troll is someone who feels the need to announce they don't want to take part in the discussion.

Keep in mind here that this is about only one thing, which is that Free Will and Omniscience are mutually exclusive. There can be Free Will, I'm not saying there isn't. There can be a God, there just can't be an Omniscient God.

This is not about the nature of time really, as that is merely a component of the discussion. If you know of some theory of time that can allow something to be known even if it never comes into existence, please elaborate.

 

[kingcomrade]

Like I said, you can't change which slippers you wore (without lying), but you could change the explanation from "I'm gay! fuzzy slippers are FABULOUS!!" to "the neocolonialist Amerikkkan neo con cabal forced me to resist their hegemonic crusade by wearing pink fuzzy slippers. Twasn't really my choice!"

 

[Shagnak]

Keep in mind here that this is about only one thing, which is that Free Will and Omniscience are mutually exclusive. There can be Free Will, I'm not saying there isn't. There can be a God, there just can't be an Omniscient God.

I remember talking with a friend (he is now a Baptist pastor) about this sort of thing in my late teens, and I came to a similar conclusion due to all of the inherent problems. Not to say that I was right, just that that is where i got to in that particular conversation.

But what if god, being also omnipotent, chooses not to know everything.
As in, he has the knowledge of everything at his beck and call when he wants it, but due to the nature that you have discussed above, decides not to as it will cement our future in concrete.
Essentially he is still omniscient, he has access to the knowledge of everything that can or will be, he just chooses not to be aware (blocks part of his "memory" perhaps?) of certain things so as to give us free will.
On analysis this may be just sophistry, but it is an interesting thought.

Edit: just realised that this kind of thing could be related to physics and that whole Schrodinger thing, you know, where the wave form doesnt collapse until it is observed. If God chooses not to observe a certain thing, then is it undecided?

 

[Human Shield]

From the perspective of 100 years from now, the decision of what shoes I "choose" to wear tomorrow has already been made.

From the perspective of the end of time, the decision of what shoes I wear the day I day has already been made.

What about from the perspective of all time at once?

You would have to show that taking another option is impossible. The way you are seeing it, even if there was no God no one would have free will because we can't change the past. Once you choose an option you can't go back and say you can't choose the other one because I actually choose this one.

The whole legal system would break if we couldn't assign fault: "You could have done something else." You can't say to the judge, "But a source of all knowledge outstand of the universe knew what I was going to do so I couldn't have done it differently."
"Why couldn't you have done it differently?"
"Because I didn't do it differently."

 

[Sarvis]

<b>kingcomrade</b>

But that doesn't change what actually happened, and is therefore immaterial to the discussion at hand. Omniscient God would know what happened, and would know all the different ways it had ever been explained throughout time.

<b>Shagnak</b>

Interesting, but does that really count as Omniscient? Will require thought...

<b>Naked_Lunch</b>

The way you are seeing it, even if there was no God no one would have free will because we can't change the past

No, not really. Because if there is no Omniscient God, then the future is not known. The fact that the future is not known means that it may not have been "written" yet.

A random thought on time I had years ago:

Time is like a tunnel that is being dug. Every instant of time is actually a ball of "time" that shoots down the tunnel and digs a little bit more into, well what we may as well think of as non-time. This is why we get deja vu sometimes, because the ball travels through each instant of time each instant before "creating" the next instant by digging the tunnel further.

This is probably not how it works, but it can be useful to illustrate here that God could not view the end of the tunnel unless it was already dug. If nothing is viewing the end of that tunnel, there is no reason to believe the end has been reached and therefore we could have free will.

Right now, I'm going to decide to leave now and get to my Tai Chi class on time... laters!

 

[Shagnak]

Interesting, but does that really count as Omniscient? Will require thought..

Yeah, part of the problem is that I would assume that he has has to think about a certain thing (e.g. an entity's future) for it to be part of his memory and be aware of it, so he can know that he should ignore it. Therefore, that thing has been observed and decided, whether or not he consciously decides to never think about it again.

Unless, being omnipotent, he decides to "decollapse the waveform" and put it back into the realms of uncertainty again...but then of course the knowledge in his memory will not necessarily match the state of the entity's future when the waveform collapses again (i.e. said entity directly experiences his/her future/present). So he cannot be said to be truly omniscient in that case.

The whole Schrodinger thingy above would only work out if we said that God had the power of omniscience, but he has never decided to use it. But when we are saying that he is omniscient are we saying that he has the ability, or that he is actually using the ability? Obviously, most would assume the latter (or more correctly, both), rather than exclusively the former.
Hmm...just playing with words really...

"Sorry, that prayer cannot be answered, God has decided not to be omniscient today and is not aware of you. Please call again another at another time or continuum."

:D

 

[Sarvis]

Ok, my conclusion is thus:

A thing cannot be known unless it exists. Therefore even if God _could_ know something, but chooses not to, that thing must exist or it could not be knowable.


Omnipotence is just as bad really. The classic paradox is of course:

Can God create something so heavy he cannot lift it.

If he can, he is not powerful enough to create something heavier. If he cannot, there is a clear limit to his power... which is to say he is not more powerful than himself. Similarly, he could not then create a being more powerful than himself. If he could create a being more powerful than himself, he is not omnipotent because there is the possibility for something more powerful.

The practical upshot is that the idea of a Perfect God just can't work.

 

[Shagnak]

I'm quite happy with the imperfect ones.
Cthulhu eat me first!

 

[Human Shield]

Ok, my conclusion is thus:

A thing cannot be known unless it exists. Therefore even if God _could_ know something, but chooses not to, that thing must exist or it could not be knowable.

Doesn't imply causality. The action we are going to take 'exists' outside of the universe.

Either our choosen actions are caused by it existing.
Or it exists because of our choosen actions.

Viewing all of time at the same time, I don't see why it can't exist because of our actions instead of the reverse.

Can God create something so heavy he cannot lift it.

The anwser is no. Omnipotent doesn't include being able to do the illogical.

God can't make square triangles.

 

[gluon]

I'm a lurker here, but this thread has finally tempted me out of the shadows.

Just a couple of observations regarding the discussion between Sarvis and NL about determinism versus free will:

1. Based on our current knowledge of how the human brain works and the assumption that the universe is completely monistic, free will simply cannot be an option.

2. But introduce the dualistic idea of a perfect entity on a higher plane (the soul), that can manipulate the probabilities of diverging electron paths (as predicted by Heisenberg uncertainty) in the brain of the individual with which it is connected (as I believe that nothing in the universe is truly random, even the things that science itself claims can't be predicted), and free will becomes a possibility.

Of course, who is to say that souls as individual units are the only possible way that they can exist? They could very well be part of a gestalt that would make up our idea of God. This would imply that God, in essence, not only knows everything but also takes a role in controlling individuals or letting the individuals control themselves.

The details of the reasoning behind this idea of mine are quite numerous, and as I don't have a lot of time at the keyboard, I'm not going to post them just now. Maybe later, if somebody decides to nitpick...

Keep in mind that I'm not claiming to be a dualist or monist. I haven't learned enough of the universe to take a stance one way or the other.

But this discussion is interesting. Keep it up, y'all!

 

[jiujitsu]

Religion is a nice touch in games for sure. It makes them relate better to real life where various religions have great effect on the world.

 

[Sarvis]

Ok, my conclusion is thus:

A thing cannot be known unless it exists. Therefore even if God _could_ know something, but chooses not to, that thing must exist or it could not be knowable.

Doesn't imply causality. The action we are going to take 'exists' outside of the universe.

Either our choosen actions are caused by it existing.
Or it exists because of our choosen actions.

Viewing all of time at the same time, I don't see why it can't exist because of our actions instead of the reverse.

Causality has absolutely nothing to do with this. It is all about perspective, from Omniscient God's perspective everything has already happened. What caused it to happen is immaterial to whether or not it DID happen.

Can God create something so heavy he cannot lift it.

The anwser is no. Omnipotent doesn't include being able to do the illogical.

God can't make square triangles.

Why is creating something heavy illogical? Is it illogical for me to build sometihng so heavy that I cannot lift it? No, that would be silly. Cars and houses could not then exist.

Even if he cannot create something, then that is a limitation on his power. Why couldn't he, for instance, change the laws of physics so that a square triangle does exist? After all, he wrote the laws right?

(Though really that's just silly because "square" and "triangle" are just human names for things. Had someone made a different decision in Ancient Greece we very well might call triangles squares and vice versa!)

<b>gluon</b>

Not ignoring you, just watching CSI... be back later!

 

[Shagnak]

For what it's worth Sarvis, I still agree with you on the omniscience vs free will thing.*

It's the stance I took when arguing with my religious mate all those years ago, and I have yet to read anything to convince me otherwise. Things that get close are very easily (too easily) arguable.
Still, it's fun playing devil's advocate and trying to find loopholes.

Even quantum theory seems to agree with us :shock:
(j/k....maybe)

[*But there are prolly other things in this thread that I don't. I'm going away later today for a few days, so I guess if this thread is still going I'll rejoin then.]

 

[Twinfalls]

Sorry, but glib science references to back up nebulous religious ideas don't impress me none.

introduce the dualistic idea of a perfect entity on a higher plane (the soul), that can manipulate the probabilities of diverging electron paths (as predicted by Heisenberg uncertainty)

Can you define or explain a 'perfect entity on a higher plane'. And where does Heisenberg's work predict a soul, being said 'perfect entity', as manipulating electron paths?

NB I have no knowledge whatsoever of these ideas, but believe that any scientific theory ought to be able to be explained to a layperson on some level (at least the purpose behind it), else it's most likely bunkum.