Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8802 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-18-2017 2:13 PM
292 online now:
halibut, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (5 members, 287 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,618 Year: 27,224/21,208 Month: 1,137/1,714 Week: 345/525 Day: 20/67 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
24NextFF
Author Topic:   Omniscience, Omnipotence, the Fall & Logical Contradictions.
mark24
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 1 of 352 (354119)
10-04-2006 10:36 AM


Hi all,

I would like to start a spin-off thread from "Does Immunity Disprove the Fall?" thread. Certain posts with Faith were getting off-topic, so a new thread seems the best solution.

It started with this statement as regards the Fall:

Faith writes:

Yes, of course. God is omniscient and omnipotent. He would have planned for all contingencies down to the last moment on earth.

I replied:

If he's all-knowing then he knew man would screw up, he knew the fall would happen. He knew it couldn't be any other way, or the notion that god is omniscient is falsified. The logical corollary of an omniscient god is that he knew he was making men flawed, & the fall is falsified. How can man "fall" further in god's view, when he knew they were made fallen?

But this raises another point, why not start with the "fall" already in effect? Why go through the motions of setting someone up in a situation that they have to fail in (the forbidden fruit)?

I'll start my response with Faith's last message:

He did not make men flawed but perfect, and with free will. This is the consistent error so many of you commit. It is not a flaw to have free will and therefore the nearly inevitable ability to disobey God, but it is only inevitable because we are creatures. So many here will insist that this is a flaw against all argument, so I don't argue it often, but I strongly disagree with that idea.

What consistent error? You haven't shown one.

Free will is a red-herring, an irrelevance. If god is omniscient, then he must have known that the forbidden fruit would be eaten, it simply cannot be any other way & still have god being omniscient. So, I repeat, god knew he was making flawed men who would eat the fruit, he therefore knew that the fall was inevitable. So why bother with a pre-fall period? Why not just start out with carnivores, death etc if the fall of man was an absolute certainty, & it must have been an absolute certainty to god, because he's omniscient.

It is impossible to start with the Fall in place since it is the result of the action of disobedience. The Fall was simply what eventually happens to a creature given free will. We cannot resist disobeying at some point. God's plan still gives us a choice -- to choose His method of salvation or not, so that it is still up to us. In the end only those who really want God will have Him, and God will have people who truly love Him and worship Him.

It's impossible to start with the fall in place? So he's not omnipotent, now, either?

God knew with absolute certainty that the forbidden fruit was going to be eaten, he knew with absolute certainty that this would result in the fall, he knew this before he created anything, so why bother with the pre-fall period? Not to labour the point, but free-will is an irrelevance. You can have free-will, or the illusion of it, but the outcome of any decision you make must be known in advance to an omniscient being. It cannot be any other way. It is not therefore impossible (logically speaking) for that being to stop things happening before they do.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 10-04-2006 11:09 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 13 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-05-2006 5:55 AM mark24 has responded
 Message 42 by riVeRraT, posted 10-06-2006 7:13 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 53 by xXGEARXx, posted 10-07-2006 12:49 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 88 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-24-2006 9:16 PM mark24 has responded
 Message 310 by kofh2u, posted 02-10-2013 1:18 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1824
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 2 of 352 (354131)
10-04-2006 11:07 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10028
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 3 of 352 (354133)
10-04-2006 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
10-04-2006 10:36 AM


In The Beginning?
Quite frankly, im not sure what God thought In The Beginning.

I've never gotten an answer from Him, nor have I chatted with Adam or Eve yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 10-04-2006 10:36 AM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Legend, posted 10-04-2006 4:45 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 962 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 4 of 352 (354142)
10-04-2006 11:32 AM


In his new book, Richard Dawkins points out that omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible. Is God able to change his mind in the future?
Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by iano, posted 10-04-2006 1:17 PM Woodsy has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Guido Arbia, posted 10-08-2006 8:19 AM Woodsy has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 770 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 5 of 352 (354169)
10-04-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Woodsy
10-04-2006 11:32 AM


In his new book, Richard Dawkins points out that omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible. Is God able to change his mind in the future?

If God exists in timeless eternity (a reasonably well established if not unchallenged view) then 'future' must be dropped insofar as it concerns talking of him. The name he gave Moses to describe Himsself was "I AM". Jesus calls himself "I AM" a number of times - which drove the Pharisees into a rage - they saw this as Jesus calling himself God.

I AM indicates 'ever present'

It is unlikely that Dawkins factored this well established notion into his argument. Otherwise he wouldn't have one :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Woodsy, posted 10-04-2006 11:32 AM Woodsy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ramoss, posted 10-04-2006 2:20 PM iano has not yet responded
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 10-04-2006 3:20 PM iano has responded
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 10-04-2006 6:02 PM iano has responded
 Message 12 by ReverendDG, posted 10-04-2006 8:39 PM iano has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3046
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 6 of 352 (354197)
10-04-2006 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by iano
10-04-2006 1:17 PM



If God exists in timeless eternity (a reasonably well established if not unchallenged view) then 'future' must be dropped insofar as it concerns talking of him. The name he gave Moses to describe Himsself was "I AM". Jesus calls himself "I AM" a number of times - which drove the Pharisees into a rage - they saw this as Jesus calling himself God.

I AM indicates 'ever present'

Please show that 'I AM' indicates ever present.

Please show the 'I AM' that Jesus said means he is describing himself as God.

Where is it established as 'a fact' that god is in 'timeless eternity'?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by iano, posted 10-04-2006 1:17 PM iano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 10-04-2006 3:10 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29604
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 7 of 352 (354212)
10-04-2006 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ramoss
10-04-2006 2:20 PM


Hell, he could just show that there is such a thing as 'timeless eternity'. LOL


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ramoss, posted 10-04-2006 2:20 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Legend, posted 10-04-2006 4:48 PM jar has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 8 of 352 (354215)
10-04-2006 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by iano
10-04-2006 1:17 PM


Iano,

It is unlikely that Dawkins factored this well established notion into his argument. Otherwise he wouldn't have one

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.

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 5 by iano, posted 10-04-2006 1:17 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 9:35 AM mark24 has responded
 Message 68 by Thefallout, posted 10-08-2006 7:41 PM mark24 has responded

    
Legend
Member (Idle past 2594 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 9 of 352 (354235)
10-04-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
10-04-2006 11:09 AM


Re: In The Beginning?
quote:
I've never gotten an answer from Him,

...? don't you pray ?

Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed broken link


"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 10-04-2006 11:09 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 2594 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 10 of 352 (354236)
10-04-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
10-04-2006 3:10 PM


quote:
Hell, he could just show that there is such a thing as 'timeless eternity'.

why, it's the opposite of the 'fixed timespan eternity' ofcourse!


"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 7 by jar, posted 10-04-2006 3:10 PM jar has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13297
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 11 of 352 (354256)
10-04-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by iano
10-04-2006 1:17 PM


quote:

If God exists in timeless eternity (a reasonably well established if not unchallenged view) then 'future' must be dropped insofar as it concerns talking of him.

By "reasonably well established" I think you mean "commonly assumed". It's certainyl nto established on any evidential rounds.

quote:

It is unlikely that Dawkins factored this well established notion into his argument. Otherwise he wouldn't have one

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by iano, posted 10-04-2006 1:17 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by iano, posted 10-05-2006 9:25 AM PaulK has responded

    
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 1698 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 12 of 352 (354278)
10-04-2006 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by iano
10-04-2006 1:17 PM


If God exists in timeless eternity (a reasonably well established if not unchallenged view)

i contend that the bible says he is timeless or eternal, genesis says neather of these, people just assume this now
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by iano, posted 10-04-2006 1:17 PM iano has not yet responded

    
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 2983 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 13 of 352 (354336)
10-05-2006 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
10-04-2006 10:36 AM


We had to know about the fall (and creation)
God certainally could have started with the fall. He could have started with the judgement. But that would not do us any good. WE are the purpose of HIS works here. He started with the Creation and the Fatherhood. We are created with will (and were created with him). We chose. The fall happened to us. We fell because of choosing to do against his commandment. We fell from being with him to not being with him. Fallen, we need to be redeemed if we want to return to him. Needing to be redeemed means needing a Savior since we can not redeem ourselves. The Savior requires obedience which requires faith. Faith sorts out those who want to return from those who do not want to return. With this plan, those who do not want to return will have demonstrated that they do not want to return and those who do want to return will have demonstrated that they do want to and those who do will have demonstratd that they do. We will be judged based on the evidence of our lives via that demonstration.

If we did not know that we were created by him and with him then we would not know to want to be with him, our Father. If we did not know about the fall then we would not know we needed a redeemer, our Redeemer. The creation and the fall are essential elements of our knowing. If we did not have knowledge of the Fatherhood, the creation, and the fall, the balance of the plan would make no sense to any of us. God's plan does not require that the above make sense now to those who do not want to return. But it will make sense to all of us when we stand before him to be judged. Not one person will be able to say "I am not standing before you". When I am standing before him then I will know for certain that the Fatherhood, the Creation, and the Fall happened. And I will know if I want to live with him. If I want to live with him then the Atonement will take effect and I will be freed from the effect of the Fall.

I sincerely hope that this helps,
Bob, Alice, and Eve


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 10-04-2006 10:36 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 10-05-2006 8:58 AM BobAliceEve has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 2783 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 14 of 352 (354355)
10-05-2006 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by BobAliceEve
10-05-2006 5:55 AM


Re: We had to know about the fall (and creation)
BobAliceEve,

You haven't addressed the question. Why bother with the pre-Fall era if the fall was inevitable. A logical corollary of this is that since god knew in advance that Eve would eat the fruit, she had no free-will in any case.

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 13 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-05-2006 5:55 AM BobAliceEve has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2006 9:09 AM mark24 has responded
 Message 40 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-06-2006 6:58 AM mark24 has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13297
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 15 of 352 (354358)
10-05-2006 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by mark24
10-05-2006 8:58 AM


Re: We had to know about the fall (and creation)
It's about "plausible deniability", Mark.

If you think aobut it the Fall has to be a set-up - and God has to be responsible. But believers usually don't think about that and place the blame on Adam and Eve. If God created the universe with the Fall already there they wouldn't be able to evade the fact of God's responsiiblity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 10-05-2006 8:58 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mark24, posted 10-05-2006 9:42 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 273 by Phat, posted 02-07-2013 3:24 PM PaulK has responded

    
1
23456
...
24NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017