Omniscience, Omnipotence, the Fall & Logical Contradictions.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

quote:

---

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

---

On the contrary, it's the distinction I made right at the start.

quote:

---

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.

---

So your argument essentially amounts to claiming that our ideas of Go contradict themselves but nevertheless we should not reject them just because they cannot possibley be true.

quote:

---

Faith adds another dimension to single dimension reason

---

IIRC someone - perhaps Mark Twain - said "Faith is beleving what you know aint'so" or something similar. It appears that you agree.The purpose of models is to explain and enlighten - your "3D model" serves the purpose of obfuscation. Too right I'm not interested in it - and you shouldn't be either. Not if you're intellectually honest.

I never said that "omniscience = no free will". The question we were discussing was whether God could change His mind. If God is eternal and timeless then God never changes and is thus unable to change His mind. Such a change requires temporality.

quote:

---

No. My argument was: don't do a Sir Dickie unless you want to sell lots of books.

---

Your argument was that Dawkins was incorrect. And you failed to even make a coherent case because you got caught up in the self-contradictions of your theology. Looks like a point to "Sir Dickie".

So basically Free Will is just "plausible deniability" a cunning way of hiding responsibility. If God is truly omniscient he knew exactly what Lucifer would do if created as he was. All of it. In that case God is MORE responsible for Lucifer's actions than Lucifer is !

quote:

---

How so? And don't drag A&E into this, as is often done. If YOU personally are given instructions/directions, whatever...to make a choice, and if you evade the choice, who is responsible? If your Boss gives you something to do and you question his motives or wisdom is this his fault?

---

Why would I drag Adam and Eve int it ? And why would you think that I would when I have already stated the point: We are responsible for even reasonably forseeable consequences of our actions. How much more responsible must we be for consequences that we knew would inevitably happen.

quote:

---

My point is that I am going with this scenario as a parable and a life lesson. Responsibility is the key word. I am not necessarily warning those of you who after honest evaluation have determined that you and only you are responsible for your actions and behaviors. I am just saying that you are just as responsible as I am.

---

And I am saying that God is responsible for events that inevitably follow from his decisions - and that he knows in advance will inevitably follow. Omnipotence makes it even worse. Since God is limited only by logical necessity he has very fine control over what happens. So your lesson is not one in accepting responsibility - it is one about finding excuses - to DENY responsibility.Free Will or not, the creations of an omniscient and omnipotent creator are in a very real sense the puppets of their creator. Therefore the creator bears the primary responsibility for the actions of his creations.

quote:

---

I suppose I wont disagree that in the big picture, God is ultimately responsible for reality...in that He set it up.

---

It's worse than that. If your God exists, then by creating the Universe as he did and intervening as he did he's dictated every event in the Universe that has ever happened in the universe, including every free will decision. Every single one.

quote:

---

I simply and totally disagree. Are you telling me that just because He knows your next move you didn't make it? I am assuming you think it would be more fair if you could do something he didn't know about or couldn't control.

​

(Assuming "My" God existed. )

---

Again you're simply ignoring the issue of the creators's responsibility for the actions of the creation. If I am to have primary responsibility I have to be able to make decisions which weren't dictated by God. And given an omniscient omnipotent creator that just isn't possible.

quote:

---

Dont take this personal, but it is entirely logical within my scenario that Lucifer/Satan would use your exact same argument to protest against Gods power monopoly.

---

Of course it is logical that Lucifer would use a valid and truthful defence if it was available to him. That doesn't make it any less valid or truthful.

quote:

---

Ahhhh.jars old argument that the devil told the truth and that God lied.

---

No, it isn't. It's more that you have to actually refute my argument rather than assert that Lucifer could use it. It's said that the Devil can quote scripture. Does that make scripture wrong?

quote:

---

That one never set right with me...it reduced God to a human evolving creation rather than a Spirit of Truth that defeated an angel of Lies.

---

I don't think that preferring strict Monotheism over Dualism would reduce God. In fact that's really the issue here. You would be happier with a reduced God.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Not exactly. At best, you could successfully argue that God set Lucifer up to choose to become Satan.

---

Well, the truth would be, in that case, that God deliberately arranged that choice, leaving no alternative, making the whole idea of calling it rebellion silly. If Lucifer was doing God's will, then how can it be rebellion?You could avoid the dilemma by losing omniscience, so that God could not know that Lucifer would rebel - it still comes down to an implausible mistake on God's part but omnipotence is not infallibility. If you lose omnipotence as well your theology just about becomes viable.

quote:

---

OK I will agree then that God is responsible. Does this then imply that humans are not also responsible for choosing or rejecting Jesus Christ?

---

I don't think it does. What do you mean by "choosing or rejecting Jesus Christ" and what sort of responsibility are you talking about ?

quote:

---

Gods foreknowledge would have been irrelevant at this point.

---

No, it is a central issue.If God knew before creating Satan, that Satan (if he was created as he was) would inevitably rebel then God has the primary responsibility. God chose the rebellion and all its effects and nobody else could possibly stop it. The evil was not just potential - it was guaranteed, and knowingly guaranteed by God's choices.