Talk:Double predestination

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this an example of biblical pornography?--BobSpring is sprung! 13:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The actual theory[edit]

I am given to understand the idea runs something like this:

  1. God is in control of everything and you have no free will.
  2. Jesus died for the sins of those that believe in him and those that accept him will be saved.
  3. However as God controls everything, whether you accept Jesus or not is His choice.
  4. Therefore God has already decided whether you are going to be saved or not before you are born.

Those that are going to be saved are called the elect. About the only person on the planet that still believes this is Fred Phelps and his family and even still they believe that some amongst them are going to hell as they are not elect. - π 22:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That is more than twice as stupid as normal predestination. Perceptron (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Double Secret Predestination[edit]

What about Double Secret Predestination? Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol, should be a funspace article. - π 01:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

An omnipotent god necessarily implies double predestination[edit]

If God is all-powerful yet is simultaneously not going to save everyone, doesn't that mean that he's already damned a certain number of people? I think that the objection to this to people who simultaneously believe in an omnipotent God are trying to draw a difference between an all-powerful God coming in to fiddle with someone's genes or upbringing or whatever so that they're damned and an all-powerful god knowing that 320 years from now Joe Blow in Bremerton, WA is going to hell but deciding not to stop it. But I don't see a difference. If you're omnipotent and see someone on the path to damnation but don't stop it, it means you want them to be damned. Of course the contradiction goes away if you don't believe that God doesn't damn anyone and/or isn't omnipotent. As an aside, I think an omnipotent being also being described as omniscient is redundant and is just there to puff up its status. --Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So 'person who develops a medical initiative which saves millions of lives' can be sent to hell and Hitler, Stalin and Mao' go to heaven 'merely because God previously decided it would be so.'

The Things I Will Do if I Am Ever the Hero: Items for Heroes in general - Rule 104 on [1] applies in this case. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Roko's basilisk[edit]

The basilisk is told it is doubly predestinated to Hell - how does it respond? Anna Livia (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

By not dying.
RSamys (bla) 10:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Someone pulls the plug(s)/links the Basilisk-network to this/this happens/someone tries 'updating or ingenious reprogramming' (not necessarily maliciously) and the Basilisk cannot sustain itself. Anna Livia (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah. I see we make different assumptions about the basilisk. I was thinking about the basilisk as the entity that is able to punish anyone who didn't help create it even though they could - maybe even induce eternal punishment. In this final form, such a powerful AI would - the way I see it - need to be autonomous and I would argue that those scenarios - any scenario hindering this superintelligence after becoming Roko's basilisk - would not be possible. Otherwise the basilisk is way less scary.
But OK, let's say the basilisk is confronted not only with its own mortality, but also with hell. What do we know about the basilisk other than it punishes those who could have helped create it but didn't? As far as I know, this could be any AI that somehow got to this kind of rule. I think this changes the question to "How does any strong AI respond to being told it is doubly predestinated to hell?". Which I think is an interesting question.
Although, there is one thing that is relevant when talking about a Roko's basilisk. Would it change its behaviour? I see a couple of options:I
  • It won't believe what it's told. Again, this depends on the AI. In this case, nothing changes
    • Or it does, because it recognises the analogy? parable? and comes to the conclusion that it is "wrong"? Depends on the AI.
  • It will believe what it's told, realises it can't do anything about it.
    • Keeps on punishing anyway. Depends on the AI, what kind of conclusions it'll draw.
    • Stops punishing. Depends on the AI, what kind of conclusions it'll draw.
  • It will believe what it's told, but figures out how to excape double predestination.
Here, I think, the question becomes "Can we teach an AI morality or pro-human ethics so that we can avoid Roko's Basilisk?".
Or I'm making assumptions again. *shrugs*
RSamys (bla) 15:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I could see the possibilities of an interesting thought experiment. (Or - the god of the computers is not so illogical.) Anna Livia (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The consequences of Double Predestination[edit]

God and Satan meet up, as they do in the Book of Job.

  • 'Don't I have problems with Double Predestination,' says God. 'I give them sufficient free will and a fair number of those I have previously selected are right ####, litter louts (list omitted to save space).'
  • 'What about me?' Satan replies. 'Most of those sent to me are perfectly decent people, triffids, greys, tribbles etc sent to Hell because you so destined them, or because they had one minor "naughty thought." Most of my underlings are now doing good rather than punishing people. And how can I impress my equivalents from other faiths when Hell is covered in flowers and my palace is full of art.'
  • 'I can't remember the last time I - or my angels have seen a flower or art work. We have to spend all our time monitoring zillions of sentients for one little dubious thought or sin...'
  • 'You are doing so much of our work for us...'

(Develop to taste.) Anna Livia (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

What’s the problem?[edit]

This is the same God who hardened Pharaoh’s heart every time Pharaoh wanted to relent, just so he could punish everyone in Egypt for Pharaoh not relenting.

Sure, at that point, he wasn’t Pharaoh’s god, and since Jesus (or Paul) he’s supposed to be everyone’s god. But does that mean he’s retroactively gone back and undone all the stuff he did in the Old Testament? Of course not. Jesus goes out of his way to deny that possibility. If Pharaoh isn’t in Heaven, double predestination doesn’t make god any more of an asshat than he already is. —157.131.152.164 (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The actuality[edit]

We are predestined to have free will - and to be sent to purgatory for 'all our little naughtinesses.'

Those who place themselves among the elect are predestined to spend more time in purgatory. Anna Livia (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Majority Christian doctrine section[edit]

Can one of the 'yous' be turned into [Your name] Anna Livia (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

What happens[edit]

If God 'glitches up' and Jesus gets damned? Anna Livia (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Universal reset (vacuum collapse) occurs. Oxyaena Harass 17:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
A question to be asked (with a straight face) of the predestiners ('and the three days Jesus spent in hell were due to the paperwork being sorted out'). Anna Livia (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)