Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Omniscience, Omnipotence, the Fall & Logical Contradictions.
Christian7
Member (Idle past 248 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 61 of 354 (355155)
10-08-2006 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by iano
10-06-2006 8:05 AM


Re: The cosmic gambler
Try looking at it this way. Lets assume that Adam had free choice (Jesus, "the second Adam" had too but lets leave that). Adam chose against God and instead ate an apple infected with a disease (he was told of this beforehand.."On the day you eat..)
So Adam is infected through his own choice - God is not implicated. Now Adam transfers this infection to all his offspring. Every gets the disease and Adam is to blame for giving it to them. This disease means that mans nature is geared to sin - just as a cats nature is to kill mice. Its called a sinful nature.
As soon as a person is able they will act according to their nature. They will do things that God finds objectionable - just as my cat leaving a half eaten bird on my bed is objectionable to me. In that sense it is not their fault that they act so - even if objectionable. They didn't give themselves this nature - Adam did. And it would be as unjust to punish people in Hell forever for doing that which they did by a nature as it would be for me to punish my cat for half eaten birds. When they die God would have to simply let that be that - we would cease to exist. We wouldn't exist anymore and would be back to the place before we did exist. Nothing lost, nothing gained.
But men are not left completely alone by God. They, unlike cats killing mice have this thing called conscience. Conscience is God operating on a person with a sinful nature calling them away from that nature and empowering them to do so. If a person sins in this instance it was because they chose to ignore the call of conscience which convinced them not to sin. And for this they can justly be punished. Not because they were born with this nature but because they chose to sin when they didn't have to. Sin only becomes sin if a choice is made to do so. It is different than simply acting according to animal nature.
There is a fine balance to be struck by God. Yes, attempt to restore things to the way intended in the beginning. But not push so far as to compel a person who does not want to be restored, to be restored. By chosing to call people through conscience God is making it possible for them to sin - instead of them just acting with animal nature. He is taking the risk that they will refuse in which case he risks them not being able to avail of simple non-existance but puts eternal damnation as a possibility for them. To balance that negative risk he places a positive - eternal bliss - in there too.
Gods options:
a) objectionable animals who cease to exist after they die
b) the risky business of objectionable persons who might go one or other way.
He chose the latter. It is his right to do so. He's God.
Great post. I agree 100%. I might vote for this for the next POTM.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 8:05 AM iano has not replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5395 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 62 of 354 (355165)
10-08-2006 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by mark24
10-06-2006 7:12 AM


Re: Does knowledge decrease or increase free will
Hi Mark,
If you had an authorative source for saying that the fall is not history I would be willing to listen. I think you statement is just a way of cutting off the conversation when you see that there is a valid point made.
But, technically, you are correct for those who choose not to go back to Father. It would make no difference if they were innocent in the beginning or not. That does not make the choosing not a choice. And, technically, you are correct about those who choose not to go back not having will. They give it up though, again by choice.
The conversation about God not being able to change his mind is also intendended to control the conversation. I have heard this discussion a hundred times and no proponent ever offers an authority. God can and does change his mind - if he could not then his power is limited just as the power of those who do not want to live with him is limited. You can and do change you mind.
A proponent of the "God can not change his mind because he already knows everything" theory is combining four types of knowledge into the most limiting one - knowledge about actual facts. The proponent then typically uses that limiting definition to excuse his own behavior.
The reality we live in clearly demonstrates that the more one knows the more options one has. One can know actual facts, historical and common, which gives useful options. One can also know about laws which gives even more options - more ability. On can also know what he wants which is the most enabling knowledge of all. And with each level of being enabled there comes risks and rewards.
Until we know all the possiblilties (by understanding the facts and laws and the great desires of others) we can not be fully enabled to know what we want. As we become more able then our desires will generally match our ability.
There is only one way to learn about facts and that is by a teacher (another person or the hard work of research). God already has done all the research - one way or another. Knowing what he knows he has built a framework in which he can pass as much knowledge of facts as is possible to us.
Now, there are two ways to learn about laws. If, for example, we obey the law of gravity (even if we do not understand it) we greatly reduce our chance of breaking a leg. On the other hand, if we disobey the law of gravity and break our leg and learn to respect that law then that is good. As we learn to respect one law we can choose to apply that respect to other laws and not have to "break our leg" with respect to that law. If we know this then God knows this. Again, God has built a framework where he can pass as much knowledge of laws as is possible to us.
For me, knowing that I was created innocent and that I fell though disobedience inspires me. I know that Adam and Eve learned much in the Garden because the history starts with God's training Adam regarding the animals and surely went on from there. I know that Adam and Eve and I can learn much from a broken law. Which brings me to the final type of knowledge - knowledge of good and evil (reward, risk, and safety). I know that God cursed the earth (not Adam, Eve, or me) for my sake - so I could learn this.
The whole of the creation account is one of choice. If God noticed that something was good then the only possible assumption is that it could have been not so good or even bad. He knew what good was and built toward that and I do the same. When God created Eve (the pinnacle of his creations) and brought her to Adam, Adam could have said "no thanks". In fact, he chose the opposite when he said in essence "I love you Eve, and I will (I choose to) disobey and go with you." They were not discouraged by the fact that they and we might learn about law the hard way (though we do have the option of learning the easy way).
We can desire anything we can think of. The knowledge of good and evil which we gain during our mortality will help us to identify those desires which are safe - where we will not break our legs. Those who have their hearts set on evil will have evil - apart from God and limited. Those who have their hearts set on good will have good - with Father and limited only by being safe. There is no way but mortality to learn about good and evil (safe and unsafe) and God knows that, which is why his plan unfolded as it did. And every individual has the option and will make the choice. I can and I must choose between good and evil.
This is a long post and I apologize for that but I really hope to, in concert with other posters, move the argument away from the false doctrine of "no real choice". I think that doing so will allow those who will to clearly see that there are not "Logical Contradictions." To see that an always loving (the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow) God has put us in the greatest college in the universe.
Most sincerely,
BAE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by mark24, posted 10-06-2006 7:12 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by mark24, posted 10-08-2006 8:15 PM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5395 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 63 of 354 (355175)
10-08-2006 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Straggler
10-06-2006 7:39 AM


A knowledge based on errors
A. No one is dammed.
B. I commend you for your grasp and command of name-calling.
C. No stereotyping - just choice.
D. God did not assume you would make any particular choice.
E. God is not punishing anyone.
F. No one is preprogrammed.
G. You will not be forced to "hang out with" him (you have a choice!!!!!!)
H. Again, God cursed the earth, not the people.
I. I agree that your choice of how to curse would not be fair.
J. Again, great name calling. You really have that skill down pat.
K. I am not asking you to worship anyone.
L. Just as your errors in knowledge have lead you to your conclusion, a knowledge of the truth leads to the exact opposite conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Straggler, posted 10-06-2006 7:39 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ReverendDG, posted 10-08-2006 10:35 AM BobAliceEve has not replied
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 10-08-2006 6:31 PM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 64 of 354 (355178)
10-08-2006 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by BobAliceEve
10-08-2006 10:01 AM


Re: A knowledge based on errors
A. No one is dammed.
B. I commend you for your grasp and command of name-calling.
C. No stereotyping - just choice.
D. God did not assume you would make any particular choice.
E. God is not punishing anyone.
F. No one is preprogrammed.
G. You will not be forced to "hang out with" him (you have a choice!!!!!!)
H. Again, God cursed the earth, not the people.
I. I agree that your choice of how to curse would not be fair.
J. Again, great name calling. You really have that skill down pat.
K. I am not asking you to worship anyone.
L. Just as your errors in knowledge have lead you to your conclusion, a knowledge of the truth leads to the exact opposite conclusion.
i've seen many different views that would say you are wrong about eberyone of those, and people on this board who claim there are elect and non-elect that were destend for hell
G. You will not be forced to "hang out with" him (you have a choice!!!!!!)
ok where would my other choice be? hell? to be tortured instead? or do i get to go to muslam heaven?
H. Again, God cursed the earth, not the people.
people believe everything was cursed, who do i accept as right?
i just say its all a myth to explain things, its a crappy one at that, my authority is i've read so many myths that are much better than this one

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-08-2006 10:01 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 65 of 354 (355258)
10-08-2006 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Christian7
10-08-2006 8:12 AM


omniscience and free will
quote:
A grand master chess player is able to anticipate his opponents move, almost to the point of absolute forknowledge depending on the level of his opponent, especially if he is a beginer or novice. Does this change the fact that the opponent has free will? Absolutley not. The opponent has the absolute free will to chose. But his choices will simply not add up because the grand master chess player has made far superior ones.
so...when the grandmaster who anticipates so brilliantly his novice opponent's moves sets up a trap for him and the opponent steps right in it and gets checkmated, would you say that the novice chose to lose the game or that the grandmaster made him lose it ?
eagerly awaiting your answer.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Christian7, posted 10-08-2006 8:12 AM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Christian7, posted 10-16-2006 3:12 PM Legend has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 66 of 354 (355268)
10-08-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by BobAliceEve
10-08-2006 10:01 AM


Re: A knowledge based on errors
A. Well acording to you I probably am
B. I could have called them a lot worse. What would you call those who disobey Gods instructions to the detriment of the billions that follow them?
C. What choice? Worship your God or damnation? Which faith (all of which claim lesser or greater damnation if you do not follow their particular brand) am I to believe?
D. No. An omniscient God already knows my choice
E. Really? According to the bible itself the wife of Lot, Aaron, everyone except Noah and his family at the time of the flood and the population of Jericho might disagree? How are you so sure no one is being punished?
F. There is still a major question which this post is exploring as to how an omniscient omnipotent God and free will are compatible. See the chessmaster posts
G. I would choose not to actually. He seems a very unpleasant individual as per E. above
H. Even worse given that we and everything else o this planet have little choice but to remain here (until science possibly provides an alternative)
I. Hurrah! Agreement.
J. You really have that patronising self righteous tone down to pat. Congratulations on that.
K. Well thanks for that small mercy
L. I would suggest that delusionment and indoctrination has led you to your conclusion. Your assertion of "truth" is a typical position of the deludedly faithful. Given that all faiths equally claim to be privy to absolute certainty and that you should therefore follow their teachings and no other (with greater or lesser damnation upon the non believer) and no logical way to discern between equally unprovable faith based positions (Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc. etc. etc.), the only logical conclusion is to beleieve only that which there is empirical evidence to support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-08-2006 10:01 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

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


Message 67 of 354 (355278)
10-08-2006 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by iano
10-06-2006 7:43 AM


Iano,
If so, then God is looking from before and also from after.
This in no way explains how god knows something in advance & how that doesn't make it predestined.
It is inescapable, god knows things before they happen, therefore they will happen, & there can be no choice. You can wriggle on about god being outside time all day long, but he still knows things before they happen.
In other words, the world has already ended from Gods perspective.
Rubbish, he intervened as it went along, ergo god is within time, not outside it, taking a retrospective look at how it panned out.
It all hinges on the nature of eternity. No time in it? Then it can be as I suggest it is.
Something without time is exactly the opposite of eternity.
Mark

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 7:43 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by iano, posted 10-09-2006 6:54 AM mark24 has replied

  
Thefallout
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 354 (355279)
10-08-2006 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mark24
10-04-2006 3:20 PM


Existance
The idea of God coming from nothing is irrelevant, at least if we are talking of the God reffered to in the Bible. The Bible speaks of God as always existing, in fact, existing beyond any notion of time, so He would never have been sibject to any notion of time as we know it.


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 70 by mark24, posted 10-08-2006 8:21 PM Thefallout has not replied
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 10-08-2006 8:23 PM Thefallout has not replied

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


Message 69 of 354 (355287)
10-08-2006 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by BobAliceEve
10-08-2006 8:47 AM


Re: Does knowledge decrease or increase free will
BobAliceEve,
If you had an authorative source for saying that the fall is not history I would be willing to listen. I think you statement is just a way of cutting off the conversation when you see that there is a valid point made.
I don't need an authoratitive account to show that the fall is not history. It exists only in religious texts & is corroborated exactly nowhere. There is no reason to accept the bibles account above any other creation myth. Religion does not equal history.
Were we to allow religious text & tradition as evidence, you would be swamped with every other religion that ever existed presenting "evidence", that by your own standards you must accept, would contradict the bible in many, many cases.
You really don't want to go there.
But, technically, you are correct for those who choose not to go back to Father. It would make no difference if they were innocent in the beginning or not. That does not make the choosing not a choice. And, technically, you are correct about those who choose not to go back not having will. They give it up though, again by choice.
So you keep saying, but if the choice was known in advance, it wasn't a choice. I am going to type one of two letters, a or b, god knows in advance which one. It doesn't matter how much I give the illusion of deliberation I am going to choose one & only one, & I can't change it. In my head it may appear to me that I'm actually choosing. But it's already written which letter I'm going to choose before I even thought of the scenario.
And the letter iiiiiiiis...... A !
No choice involved, god has seen it, it must be, I'm just following a script. The die was rolled before I was born.
God can and does change his mind - if he could not then his power is limited just as the power of those who do not want to live with him is limited. You can and do change you mind.
Another silly contradiction. If god was omniscient, why would he need to change his mind? Especially as he knew he was going to change his mind, in which case he can't be changing his mind, he always knew what he was going to do.
Looks like you have a choice to make, god is either omnipotent & can change his mind but can't be omniscient because he got it wrong in the first instance, or he is omniscient & can't change his mind & is therefore not omnipotent. You can't have it both ways.
The reality we live in clearly demonstrates that the more one knows the more options one has.
Illusions, what you are going to do is written in chaper 48, paragraph 2. The choice you make was predestined, it cannot be anything else. It cannot be changed. It cannot therefore be a choice made with a free will.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : Added clarification

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-08-2006 8:47 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

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


Message 70 of 354 (355290)
10-08-2006 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Thefallout
10-08-2006 7:41 PM


Re: Existance
Thefallout,
so He would never have been sibject to any notion of time as we know it.
If that were true, why did he take 6 days to make creation? Given that this is the case, there was a before humans, in which he still knew everything you were going to do. So the predestination problem is very, very much a contradiction.
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 68 by Thefallout, posted 10-08-2006 7:41 PM Thefallout has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 71 of 354 (355291)
10-08-2006 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Thefallout
10-08-2006 7:41 PM


Re: Existance
On that premise he is also immune to any logic or sense as we know it either. God is beyond comprehension......
In other words you have setup an unassailable position that can defy all argument with pseudo philosophical nothings about how god does not have to conform to human concepts of time/logic/rationality/motivation or anything else.
Congratulate yourself on the consistency of your delusion and consider how you actually "know" any of this nonsense and why your particualr brand of nonsense is to be believed over equally improbable but equally superficially unassailable claims regading any other god?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Thefallout, posted 10-08-2006 7:41 PM Thefallout has not replied

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


Message 72 of 354 (355338)
10-09-2006 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by mark24
10-08-2006 7:38 PM


Timelessness now, ladies and gents!
It is inescapable, god knows things before they happen, therefore they will happen, & there can be no choice. You can wriggle on about god being outside time all day long, but he still knows things before they happen.
I thought the purpose of wiggling WAS to escape. The question is whether the wiggling is warranted. You dismiss the notion of God being outside time without indicating how you do so. If he is indeed outside time then knowing it happened is the means by which he knows it is going to happen. Foreknowledge arising from afterknowledge eliminates determinance. That is escaping the inescapable Mark.
In other words, the world has already ended from Gods perspective.
Rubbish, he intervened as it went along, ergo god is within time, not outside it, taking a retrospective look at how it panned out.
I don't see how intervening as it is happening (whether in the past, now or in the future) has anything to do with it having happened. It is necessary to mix your tenses when mixing time with timelessness. God is intervening now on the 9th October and knows that he intervened on the 9th of October. Your position simply seems to assume eternity is elapsing time without end. If it was then you either have a determined universe + omniscience or non-predetermined + non-omniscience (Open view theology). But asserting this doesn't make it so. I assert an alternative (a timeless eternity not exactly being an unheard of viewpoint - it goes back a long way)
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by mark24, posted 10-08-2006 7:38 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by mark24, posted 10-10-2006 8:01 AM iano has replied
 Message 74 by sidelined, posted 10-10-2006 8:22 AM iano has replied
 Message 80 by Trump won, posted 10-15-2006 7:25 PM iano has not replied

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


Message 73 of 354 (355537)
10-10-2006 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by iano
10-09-2006 6:54 AM


Re: Timelessness now, ladies and gents!
Iano,
You dismiss the notion of God being outside time without indicating how you do so.
I dismiss the notion because it is an evidence-free ad hoc debating device. Since you are the claimant, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders to show he 1/ exists at all, & 2/ exists outside time. Otherwise all you are saying is something I can't show exists somewhere I don't know.
Not very compelling.
Mark

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by iano, posted 10-09-2006 6:54 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by iano, posted 10-10-2006 11:16 AM mark24 has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 74 of 354 (355543)
10-10-2006 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by iano
10-09-2006 6:54 AM


Re: Timelessness now, ladies and gents!
iano
If he is indeed outside time then knowing it happened is the means by which he knows it is going to happen.
I am curious here as to why you seem to think God being outside of time somehow means he can still access time. Being outside of time means what exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by iano, posted 10-09-2006 6:54 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by iano, posted 10-10-2006 11:24 AM sidelined has replied

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


Message 75 of 354 (355593)
10-10-2006 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by mark24
10-10-2006 8:01 AM


Re: Timelessness now, ladies and gents!
I dismiss the notion because it is an evidence-free ad hoc debating device. Since you are the claimant, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders to show he 1/ exists at all, & 2/ exists outside time. Otherwise all you are saying is something I can't show exists somewhere I don't know.
Not very compelling.
Proof of God is beside the point. I make the claims just as you do. You claim God-in-time to demonstrate an illogic. I claim God ex-time to demonstrate logic. Neither of us have evidence of what God resides in. Dismiss if you like but you dismiss your own argument on the same basis.
Your "prove God" diversion is not very compelling.
IF God operating in time THEN...
versus
IF God not operating in time THEN.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by mark24, posted 10-10-2006 8:01 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024