|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Omniscience, Omnipotence, the Fall & Logical Contradictions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Override. Welcome to EvC!
override writes: Do you mean, that what you do in one room will affect the other room? That if you choose the fruit in on room, you will also choose a fruit in the other room, or if instead you choose the chocolate in one room you will also choose a chocolate in the other room? It's a circular argument. Mikey used the assumption that we have free will to prove that we have free will. In a situation wherein God does alter our ability to choose, we very well might have chosen the chocolate in one room, and the fruit in the other. But, Mikey asserts that this won't happen, and holds this up as evidence that we have free will. ----- For new members at EvC: If you press the "peek" button at the bottom corner of this (or any other) post, you can see the codes that let you make quote boxes and other formatting effects, like these:
Bluejay writes: Mikey used the assumption that we have free will to prove that we have free will. or,
quote: You can do different text colors for emphasis, too. -Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
override Junior Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 3 Joined: |
quote: Yeah, I know his or her argument was flawed, I just wanted him or her, to confirm. I didn't want to say something, and later on they will change it, that's what happened earlier in the post, when i was reading. Someone changed their argument. It seemed like he or she was talking about some sort of mirror situation, where if one thing happened in one room, the same will happen in the other, but that is god is only in one room. That would still prove that they had no choice in both rooms, because one room, is a mirror, or hologram of the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
I believe that man created God in his image with all the same biases, prejudices & stupidity of himself. If so why was Jesus Christ so opposed, persecuted, and ultimately executed? IF He came doing His Father's will and His Father is just the extension of human biases, prejudices, and stupidity then both Father and Son should have been welcomed warmly? As it stands the religionists were at odds and the tension gradually built up into a confrontation that ended Christ's life. Why didn't the scribes, Pharisees, and experts on the holy law welcome Jesus more absolutely as an embodiment of thier own prejudices, biases, and stupidity ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Why didn't the scribes, Pharisees, and experts on the holy law welcome Jesus more absolutely as an embodiment of thier own prejudices, biases, and stupidity ? The last three words: Prejudices, biases & Stupidity.Jesus didn't do what they, the scribes,Pharisees & so called experts, thought he would do. Edited by bluescat48, : accedental erasure There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
The last three words: Prejudices, biases & Stupidity. Jesus didn't do what they, the scribes,Pharisees & so called experts, thought he would do. But if man created God in his image which included the prejudices, biases, and stupidity which make up this creating man (as you suggest), then Jesus coming (also a man), talking so much about being God's Son, should have done as they would expect thier own creation to do. An alternative is that man did not invent God and Jesus WAS the Son of God. And He expressed Divinity. Then man's bias, prejudice, and stupidity reacted negatively to the true expression of God. Is that possible? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
then Jesus coming (also a man), talking so much about being God's Son The point is that there is no absolute proof that the writings, known as the Gospels, were written as accurate writings. If one believes that they are accurate then your account could be right, but if they are not then my point could be right. Until such time as irrefutible evidence is found then it reverts to belief only. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
The point is that there is no absolute proof that the writings, known as the Gospels, were written as accurate writings. If one believes that they are accurate then your account could be right, but if they are not then my point could be right. Until such time as irrefutible evidence is found then it reverts to belief only. Well, I think this is a change of the subject to another point you wish to make. Now you want irrefuttabe evidence and proof with mathematical certainty of the Gospel which plainly states that it is written to faith. Jesus lived by faith. All that He accomplished He attributes to His faith. He does not attribute His accomplishments to mathematical certainty of His Father, but to His faith and obedience. His point is faith in God. That is not simply our faith in a vacuum, but our faith PLUS the faithfulness of God. Evidence of authorship may be offered. People like F.F. Bruce, Bruce Metzger, Benjamin Warfield, or Norm Giesler could offer you much evidence about the authenticity of the texts of the New Testament. Irrefutable proof ? Well, I don't think you have irrefutable proof that your father is actually your father, not if you yourself insisted on skepticism. How do you know that the man who calls himself your dad was really your father ? Did you ever do a DNA analysis to prove that the man you called your father was irrefutably your father ? If not why not? Didn't you think you needed irrefutable proof? Do you have irrefutable proof that the doctors did not conspire to fabricate information about your parents? Do you have irrefutable proof that your parents did not take home the wrong baby? Do you have irrefutable proof that your birth certificate is not lying? I wager that you have not checked out all these things. Probably you trust some man and some woman that they are who they say they are, your parents. But you really don't KNOW that with irrefutable proof, especially for a someone insistent that a conspiracy must have taken place. I think you have raised another issue - "Show us irrefutable proof with mathematical certainty that the Gospel is true." I can show evidence that causes me to believe. And we believers experience evidence which suggests that we are on the right track. But the Gospel tells us up front and throughout, quite candidly, that this is written that we might believe: "Moreover indeed many other signs also Jesus did before His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name." (John 20:20,31) Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
trainspotting Junior Member (Idle past 5614 days) Posts: 4 From: Tunisia Joined: |
My first message here.
About omnipotence here is a quote from one of my favorite novels (the name of the rose) " But how can a necessary being exist totally poluted with the possible? What difference is there, then, between God and primigenial chaos? Isn't affirming God's absolute omnipotence and His absolute freedom with regard to his own choices tantamount to demonstrating that God does not exist?" Could God change his mind? Since he knows already which decision he is going to make (no surprise for him) ! PS: Sorry for the horrible english
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Could God change his mind? Since he knows already which decision he is going to make (no surprise for him)! Welcome to EvC forum! I will take a crack at this. As a former Christian now agnostic most educated Christians define God as not being subject to the dimensions of spacetime. That is to God, there is no past, present or future. If this is the case, than how could he change his mind? Also, if he is omniscient i.e. knows everything and when everything is going to happend, again how can he change his mind? That would be a paradox would it not? If he changed his mind i.e. premeditated a decision and then decided to go with a different decision about a particular subject, that would imply that he is subject to the dimension of time. To change his mind implies a cause and effect relationship and therefore subject to the restrictions of time i.e. running forward and never backwards, cause and effect, etc. Indecisiveness associated with "changing his mind" implies that he does not have omniscient knowledge of what will take place in the future. Therefore, if he knew what would take place there would be no justifiable reason for him to "change his mind". Hope this makes sense. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
trainspotting Junior Member (Idle past 5614 days) Posts: 4 From: Tunisia Joined: |
that's what I meant . he can not change his mind thus his is not omnipotent. But in most religious books I know ( I am a former muslim , former deist and currently atheist)they speak about events as if god has taken decisions after human made a sin: for Adam and the apple, for sodom and Gomor, and some other fine stories.
is as if god did not know that those people were going to disobey his orders , as if it was a total surprise for him (he loved them and cared for them and suddenly they disobeyed so he punished them , this reaction is subject the dimensions of spacetime). As if there were two gods in one ( and I am talking about the three monotheist religions , even those which do not believe in Jesus being god and all the trinity story) : the god all mighty omnipotent , omniscient and so on... and the god made just like man (or like greek gods) : irascible , avenging, reactive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
trainspotting writes: that's what I meant . he can not change his mind thus his is not omnipotent. I think this is just a simple play on words that doesn't really mean anything. Like saying "I can't squash God like an ant under my boot, therefore that's something God can't do, therefore God is not omnipotent". But that's not the function of the word omnipotent. Omnipotent is just the word used to describe a being that is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-beneficial, present-everywhere... that sort of thing. Certainly anything that can be squashed like an ant is not all-powerful. Therefore it would be the ability to be squashed like a bug that would remove God's omnipotence, not the other way around. In the same way, if God could change His mind, then He would not be omnipotent (since He would not be all-knowing), not the other way around. It's just a problem with understanding language, not an actual problem with omnipotence. God can't be squashed like a bug.God can't change his mind. Neither of these affect God's ability to be:all-powerful all-knowing all-beneficial present-everywhere ... Therefore, this is not an idea that prevents God from being omnipotent. What prevents God from being omnipotent is that He does not exist in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
trainspotting Junior Member (Idle past 5614 days) Posts: 4 From: Tunisia Joined: |
First, it's you that can not push god under your boot, it is not god who can not be under your boot. Mike Tyson is stronger than me even if he wants to commit suicide and let me stab him with a knife he will still be stronger than me. Your example is like saying god can not commit suicide, but I think god can commit suicide he can live forever but if he doesn't want to live there's nothing in his supposed characteristics which goes against it(the question would be then will the universe survive his death but that's another story)
to come back to "he can not change his mind" this is something that he really can not do no matter what if he wants it or not, because he would have to erase his ability to know everything Edited by trainspotting, : No reason given. Edited by trainspotting, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
trainspotting writes: to come back to "he can not change his mind" this is something that he really can not do no matter what if he wants it or not, because he would have to erase his ability to know everything Exactly. It's just a play on words. In order for God to be squashed like an ant He'd have to erase His ability to be all-powerful. No longer all-powerful = no longer omnipotent.In order for God to change His mind He'd have to erase His ability to be all-knowing. No longer all-knowing = no longer omnipotent. Remember this:
quote: If you are correct, if not being able to change His mind removes God's omnipotence, you should be able to show me which of the following God no longer has when He doesn't change His mind: all-powerfulall-knowing all-beneficial present-everywhere But, you can't do that, that's because He doesn't lose any of those things. That's because He doesn't lose His omnipotence. In fact, not being able to change His mind (because He is all-knowing) is what defines His omnipotence, not what removes it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
trainspotting Junior Member (Idle past 5614 days) Posts: 4 From: Tunisia Joined: |
really? I thought that being unable of changing his mind because he knows everything is what defines his all-knowing. Unless you take his knowledge as a power, but anyway it only shows that these unelimited powers have in themselves their own limits.
My reflexion was based on a chronological order. He already knows everything he knows even the fact that he would erase his ability of knowing everything or commit suicide , therefore changing his mind is still impossible. However, committing suicide is having the power to live tomorrow and deciding not to use or having the power of forgiving what Mr X will do tomorrow and deciding that he will not forgive it. I agree anyway this playing on words, but religions also play on words, their arguments and assuptions are based on these words, we are only playing with the same rules. If we wanted to ignore them , and if we wanted to ignore their arguments we wouldn't be here in the first place, we would stay away clinging to our beliefs or unbeliefs. PS: again sorry for my bad english Edited by trainspotting, : No reason given. Edited by trainspotting, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
The argument wasn't in the least flawed but is logically sound.
It is absolutely true, that whether God does or does not exist, this will never affect what you choose to eat. To say I am using freewill to prove freewill is actually what's called a "vacuous truth", in the sense that I can only use reality as an example/. In reality, we all know that we are in command of our choices. The burden of proof is upon those who think we don't have choices, which is against 100% of the facts. So you have to prove that God's existence would change the physical make-up of your taste buds, to stop you liking chocolate rather than fruit. It's ludicrous, and thus reductio ad absurdum is complete. Fact is that anyone with one quarter of a brain knows that we make choices on our own. You have to prove how God's existence would change your choice. You can't assume determinism to prove determinism. Why should I have to prove the obviousness of freewill, but atheists don't have to prove the affects of determinism? Weird.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024