Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Omniscience, Omnipotence, the Fall & Logical Contradictions.
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 16 of 354 (354364)
10-05-2006 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
10-04-2006 6:02 PM


By "reasonably well established" I think you mean "commonly assumed". It's certainy not established on any evidential rounds.
By "reasonably well established view" I mean the view is reasonably established. And the evidence for that view is an interpretation of what the Bible says - much like ToE is a well established view: an interpretation of what nature says. Within its own area of operation both these views are well established.
If your assumption makes it impossible for God to change His mind then it contradicts the Bible, which does depict God as changing his mind. So it looks as if Dawkins has a point.
I don't see a problem with God being able to change his mind - in the sense that we would percieve him acting so. However, in the area of language, God is constrained to describing himself, his attributes and methods in terms of our own limitations of understanding language based concepts. For example: using fire and brimstone language to describe the torment of Hell doesn't mean that Hells torment involves high temperatures or a standard hunan nervous system to experience it. Torment beyond imagination is the message conveyed. What it will actually be like is another story.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2006 6:02 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2006 9:37 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 17 of 354 (354368)
10-05-2006 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by mark24
10-04-2006 3:20 PM


How does this make it easier for you? The odds of getting something as complex as god from nothing are = to something as complex as god existing forever.
I don't get what you are after here Mark. I'm not sure talk of odds is the correct way of examining these things. A timeless, ever existing God steps outside the zone of logical analysis for me. In another thread I spoke of how we just assume our objective reality to be so - then we move on with the business of living life. So to here. An assumption: timeless God. Then analysis of how all that we are told fitting together.
For myself, God being timeless certainly allows for a pre-fall situation + genuine free-will (meaning the choice could have gone either way). God knowing (by way of being in a position of timeless observer) the choice wouldn't mean the choice was a foregone conclusion. If the choice had been otherwise then that is what he would foreknow. In other words he foreknows (from his dimension) what there is to know (what we will chose to happen).
If this is not what you are seeking clarification on then let me know

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 10-04-2006 3:20 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by mark24, posted 10-05-2006 11:03 AM iano has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 18 of 354 (354369)
10-05-2006 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by iano
10-05-2006 9:25 AM


quote:
By "reasonably well established view" I mean the view is reasonably established. And the evidence for that view is an interpretation of what the Bible says - much like ToE is a well established view: an interpretation of what nature says. Within its own area of operation both these views are well established.
I don't believe that that is true.
quote:
I don't see a problem with God being able to change his mind - in the sense that we would percieve him acting so.
How about in the point of view where He says that He is going to do something and then decides not to do it ? Either He wasn't going to do it - and was lying when he said that He did (which is obviously unacceptable to virtually every Christian) or He really did intend to do it, but changed his mind in the perfectly ordinary sense of the word.
If your claim about God existing in "timeless eternity" doesn't allow God to change His mind in that sense then it contradicts the Bible. If it does then how does it contradict Dawkins' point ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 9:25 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 10:06 AM PaulK has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 19 of 354 (354372)
10-05-2006 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
10-05-2006 9:09 AM


Re: We had to know about the fall (and creation)
PaulK,
Yes, I know that, it's ultimately the thrust of my argument.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2006 9:09 AM PaulK has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 20 of 354 (354377)
10-05-2006 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
10-05-2006 9:37 AM


I don't believe that that is true.
What don't you believe? That the view the God exists in timeless existance isn't a well-established one? For some reason I can't copy the section but its at section 3.
Eternity in Christian Thought (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
How about in the point of view where He says that He is going to do something and then decides not to do it ? Either He wasn't going to do it - and was lying when he said that He did (which is obviously unacceptable to virtually every Christian) or He really did intend to do it, but changed his mind in the perfectly ordinary sense of the word.
You bring up a problem which occurs very often when it comes to deciding what can and cannot be possible in our deliberations as to the nature and workings of God. We are constrained by our logic in other words. But God is not.
Because if God is constrained only to be able to operate within the bounds of our logic then we have brought God down to our size. But our logic cannot be said to bind what is logical and reasonable to him in the dimension he operates in. Our (lets call it: single dimension) logic is like, or in the manner of, his (lets call it: multi dimensional)logic. But not the same because of the dimensional differences.
Its a bit like us being able to look at the plan view of a house and extract certain useful information as to what that house looks like. Whereas God has a 3D solid model available to him and can access all the information possible as to what the house looks like.
We can see the colour of the carpet. God can see the height of the pile of the carpet. We are not seeing the colour incorrectly but we are not seeing all there is to be seen about the carpet.
So, if timeless, he exists in a zone which is not fully open to us. In so far as he aligns one dimension of himself with time (ie: he align one dimension of himself with our only dimension) he changes his mind. But that is not the only dimension open to him so his changing his mind cannot be said to be constrained in the same way that our changing our mind is constrained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2006 9:37 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2006 10:19 AM iano has replied
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 10-05-2006 10:44 AM iano has replied
 Message 27 by Heathen, posted 10-05-2006 12:27 PM iano has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 354 (354382)
10-05-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by iano
10-05-2006 10:06 AM


quote:
What don't you believe? That the view the God exists in timeless existance isn't a well-established one? For some reason I can't copy the section but its at section 3.
And if you read your own link you'll see that the whole subject is under debate, and also draws in another unresolved debate over the nature of time. So it's not "well established" in the sense that evolution is - it's just a common, but heavily debated view which cannot be shown to be true.
quote:
You bring up a problem which occurs very often when it comes to deciding what can and cannot be possible in our deliberations as to the nature and workings of God. We are constrained by our logic in other words. But God is not.
No, the problem is that your views make no sense. I'll agree that it is common for Christianty to make no sense, which is just one reason I am not a Christian.
quote:
So, if timeless, he exists in a zone which is not fully open to us. In so far as he aligns one dimension of himself with time (ie: he align one dimension of himself with our only dimension) he changes his mind. But that is not the only dimension open to him so his changing his mind cannot be said to be constrained in the same way that our changing our mind is constrained.
So God is timeless except when He isn't and doesn't change His mind excpet when He does. Not exactly a useful contribution to the debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 10:06 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 10:48 AM PaulK has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 22 of 354 (354388)
10-05-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by iano
10-05-2006 10:06 AM


Theological evolution
iano writes:
What don't you believe? That the view the God exists in timeless existance isn't a well-established one? For some reason I can't copy the section but its at section 3.
Eternity in Christian Thought (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Checking that link, I find:
stanford encyclopedia writes:
3. The Eternalist View
So, beginning with Augustine and Boethius, many thinkers have held the view that God exists apart from time, or outside time.
It seems that the idea of timelessness is part of an evolving concept of God, and it mostly arose after biblical times. There is no indication of such timelessness in the Genesis text.
Could it be that fundamentalism is a kind of liberal theology, reading into the scriptures what the fundamentalists want to believe?
I think we need a theory of theological evolution.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 10:06 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 10:55 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 23 of 354 (354389)
10-05-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
10-05-2006 10:19 AM


And if you read your own link you'll see that the whole subject is under debate, and also draws in another unresolved debate over the nature of time. So it's not "well established" in the sense that evolution is - it's just a common, but heavily debated view which cannot be shown to be true.
A view under debate does not mean it is not a well established as a view. Let me put it this way so we can move on: I didn't lick the idea off a stone. And that age old view: God operating in timeless eternity - permits both free willed choice for Adam and Eve alongside God knowing which choice they would make.
You bring up a problem which occurs very often when it comes to deciding what can and cannot be possible in our deliberations as to the nature and workings of God. We are constrained by our logic in other words. But God is not.
No, the problem is that your views make no sense. I'll agree that it is common for Christianty to make no sense, which is just one reason I am not a Christian.
Is this not another way of saying just what I said. Unless God operates within the level of your logic then his operation is not possible to occur?
Nobody is reasoned into Christianity. It can only make sense from the perspective of having insights currently closed to you. The catch-22 of faith. "Faith is the evidence of things not seen" - but you don't get that faith (evidence) until you have faith (belief)
The reason for reasoning is to combat reason that rejects. Since no view regarding the nature of the dimension God exists can be made concrete then one can argue from what the Bible indicates is a possible view. And the timeless one although debated is not plucked from thin air. It permits God's foreknowing and free willed choice
So God is timeless except when He isn't and doesn't change His mind excpet when He does. Not exactly a useful contribution to the debate.
Whatever...
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2006 10:19 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2006 11:00 AM iano has replied
 Message 225 by dogrelata, posted 11-18-2006 10:39 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 24 of 354 (354391)
10-05-2006 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by nwr
10-05-2006 10:44 AM


Re: Theological evolution
It seems that the idea of timelessness is part of an evolving concept of God, and it mostly arose after biblical times. There is no indication of such timelessness in the Genesis text.
As I understand it, it is from the Bible as a whole that the idea arises. That folk took some time (as did/does Science) to get around to the deeper layers of the onion doesn't mean those layers weren't lying there all the time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 10-05-2006 10:44 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 25 of 354 (354392)
10-05-2006 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by iano
10-05-2006 10:48 AM


quote:
A view under debate does not mean it is not a well established as a view
But - when the debate has not been - and cannot be - resolved you certainly can't that it is established as true. Instead it is as I said - a common assumption.
quote:
Is this not another way of saying just what I said. Unless God operates within the level of your logic then his operation is not possible to occur?
I think that that isn't what you meant to say. But the fact is that you have managed no coherent explanation of how your views allow God to change His mind as the Bible says that he does, nor have you actually managed to explain how your objection is relevant to Dawkins' argument.
quote:
Nobody is reasoned into Christianity. It can only make sense from the perspective of having insights currently closed to you. The catch-22 of faith. "Faith is the evidence of things not seen" - but you don't get that faith (evidence) until you have faith (belief)
Which is true only in the sense that ones faith must override reason so that the problems may be ignored.
quote:
Since no view regarding the nature of the dimension God exists can be made concrete then one can argue from what the Bible indicates is a possible view
Let me know when you manage to do so, in a way that is relevant to Dawkins' argument. SO far you have failed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 10:48 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 1:12 PM PaulK has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 26 of 354 (354394)
10-05-2006 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by iano
10-05-2006 9:35 AM


Iano,
A timeless, ever existing God steps outside the zone of logical analysis for me.
Why didn't you say so! If you had just said god is illogical to begin with... So why did you start a thread stating god was logically knowable?
For myself, God being timeless certainly allows for a pre-fall situation + genuine free-will (meaning the choice could have gone either way).
There can be no free-will because the outcome is already determined. God is omniscient, right? He knows what's going to happen, therefore there is only the illusion of free-will for the individual making the decision. If god has seen an outcome in advance, it is predestined, if it is predestined, it isn't free-will.
God knowing (by way of being in a position of timeless observer) the choice wouldn't mean the choice was a foregone conclusion.
Of course it would. You cannot actually make any decisions because your life is mapped out, god has seen it, & it must therefore be so. You can't change it. It doesn't matter how hard you try, it's already been seen by god. Your life is a recording that is being played. You have no more free-will than a character in an old film you've seen before, they will always do the same thing, even though they think they are making decisions, they aren't. You have seen it & it is so.
If the choice had been otherwise then that is what he would foreknow.
The choice can't be otherwise. God sees the outcome of a decision of yours once, & it is so. And he must see it cos he's omniscient. God isn't wrong. You can't make your decision otherwise. If you can then god is wrong & he can't be omniscient.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 9:35 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 12:53 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 10-05-2006 2:18 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 59 by Christian7, posted 10-08-2006 8:12 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 27 of 354 (354427)
10-05-2006 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by iano
10-05-2006 10:06 AM


iano writes:
We are constrained by our logic in other words. But God is not.
And there it is folks.. the magic get out clause that signifies the end of rational debate...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 10:06 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 1:17 PM Heathen has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 28 of 354 (354433)
10-05-2006 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by mark24
10-05-2006 11:03 AM


Why didn't you say so! If you had just said god is illogical to begin with... So why did you start a thread stating god was logically knowable?
If you would put smilies beside your humorous bits it would help. We aren't that familiar with each other to spot it clearly
In case you are being serious though. I know this computer screen exists. How it works is beyond me. There can be all sorts of mystery about something you know exists. Sure you can embark on finding out but at this moment timeless existance steps beyond the capablilty of my logic to resolve it.
There can be no free-will because the outcome is already determined. God is omniscient, right? He knows what's going to happen, therefore there is only the illusion of free-will for the individual making the decision. If god has seen an outcome in advance, it is predestined, if it is predestined, it isn't free-will.
If the outcome is determined then there can be no free will. I agree.
God knows (now) everything there is to know (whether in our past our present or our future). I agree
He knows what's going (human-speak) to happen in the (human-speak) future. But our space/time dimension would have to exist within eternity - there being nowhere outside eternity for it to exist. Eternity, being timeless means that our future is present tense to God as is our past.
The way I visualise it (for it cannot be rationally resolved - but no matter) is as I would a novel. The novel (history from beginning to end) is complete and sits on the bookshelf of eternity. A reader (God) can pick up the novel and open any page and see NOW what is going on in the novel at any point in the novel. We are the characters in the novel. In our dimension we are making choices and living day to day. We, the characters do not know what will happen on the next page. The reader can of course - just by flipping it over. In fact the reader has already read the complete novel.
This novel however, has been written by the characters in it. They have made all their choices and it is the interaction between all those choices (Gods input notwithstanding) which have determined the course of the novel. A completed novel it is though, laid on the bookshelf of eternity - even if the characters do not know that yet.
That's the best I can describe it Mark. Sure the time elapsing dimension cannot be circumvented completely. Time gets shifted to the reader and the stasis which can only be imagined of timeless existance gets shifted to the characters of the book.
In the heel of the hunt we are left with a Bible which points out again and again that mans will is involved in his destiny. If it is not and all is determined then so what? There is nothing to find out by us because determined creatures find out what they are determined to find out - by him.
Not much fun in that
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mark24, posted 10-05-2006 11:03 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 10-06-2006 5:30 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 29 of 354 (354437)
10-05-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by PaulK
10-05-2006 11:00 AM


But - when the debate has not been - and cannot be - resolved you certainly can't that it is established as true. Instead it is as I said - a common assumption.
It is well established as a view. I am not saying it is well established as being true. There is a difference you are not getting here
I think that that isn't what you meant to say.
That is exactly what I was saying. Dawkins argument, if it relies on limiting God acting only in ways which are permissable to our logic (and then finding him illogical) - is setting up a straw God to demolish. God, by definition, is not confined to operate within our logic and cannot therefore be demolished by our logic. We might have to hold our hands up and say "shucks - I don't know" but that isn't really Dawkins approach usually.
Which is true only in the sense that ones faith must override reason so that the problems may be ignored.
Faith adds another dimension to single dimension reason. Reason it remains but it is expanded upon. Whereas standard reason views a plan view of a house and can take you so far, faith adds glimpses into the 3D solid model. Unless you see it yourself of course it will seem unreasonable. It is unreasonable from your perspective. You know that the bible talks constantly of this blindness (to this other dimension).
You don't have to believe me (or it) but there is no point in getting into assertion and counter assertion. If you have no interest in the view from 3D model land then fine. Lets cut that bit out

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2006 11:00 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2006 1:41 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 30 of 354 (354439)
10-05-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Heathen
10-05-2006 12:27 PM


And there it is folks.. the magic get out clause that signifies the end of rational debate...
You mean demanding God to conform to the image and likeness of your logical limits... or else (insert gap to be closed here) is conducive to debate?
Why are you always so eager to self-proclaim victory when you sail in the same boat that I do?
Better discuss than debate these things though for truly there is no rational resolution either way. Not that Trickie Dickie Dawkins would ever admit as much. He's got sales targets to meet!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Heathen, posted 10-05-2006 12:27 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Heathen, posted 10-05-2006 3:54 PM iano has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024