|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Omniscience, Omnipotence, the Fall & Logical Contradictions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
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? I don't see any reason why he couldn't. Asking me what timelessness would be like is pointless. I couldn't say (although I have pictured it earlier by the device of a reader (God) and a novel (our reality). The argument "all-knowing logically means no free choice" is true. But what is logically true for us by no means has to be the case in fact. Claiming that goes too far. It forces God to operate within the limits of our logic: ie: "if it doesn't fit our logic then it cannot be". Whilst the former is true enought, the latter is patently bogus. I am using the device of timelessness to illustrate the flawed nature of that latter argument: the one that decides what is logical must be the case in fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
iano
I am using the device of timelessness to illustrate the flawed nature of that latter argument: the one that decides what is logical must be the case in fact. No,you cannot merely assert something without explaining the basis for taking this stance since it does nothing to bolster your position and, indeed, serves to undermine it. My question is how a God performs an act when he is removed from the dimension of time which is necessary to perform an action in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
xXGEARXx Member (Idle past 5149 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
An omnipotent being can see without looking, so how can it prevent itself from being omniscient? That makes zero sense. He can SEE without LOOKING. Then what word would you use? Peer?, View?, Feel?, Observe?, Peek-a-Boo?, Gaze?, ??? I don't fully grasp the concept to begin with. Do you? For all you believers out there. Help me understand this one. Why is it the Bible was "divinely inspired" by God to mankind, but if a guy claims that God is talking to him now-a-days, he is considered schizophrenic? Little scary isn't it. As much as I hate to say it, my faith is beginning to feel a little shaken up. I guess I am just flat confused. I used to believe it and defend it to the bitter end, but now it doesn't seem to sit with me the same way. Sucks don't it? Edited by xXGEARXx, : No reason given. Edited by xXGEARXx, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
xXGEARXx writes: That makes zero sense. He can SEE without LOOKING. Then what word would you use? Peer?, View?, Feel?, Observe?, Peek-a-Boo?, Gaze?, ??? Those are all human words used to describe human experiences. How can you expect them to express the experiences of an omnipotent being? What does it mean to "see"? Is seeing active or passive? Does an omnipotent being need eyes to see? Does it need to face in the direction of what it sees? How far can it see? Can it see through things? Can an "omnipotent" being prevent itself from seeing? If yes, then it isn't omniscient. If no, then it isn't omnipotent.
I don't fully grasp the concept to begin with. Do you? The problem is that neither "omniscience" nor "omnipotence" is a very useful concept. We can't "fully grasp" them - which is why the human descriptions of those concepts are contractory. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1268 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
quote: Iano I suggest replying to Legend's post if you want to retain any credibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian7 Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: |
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. The answer is simple. Both are true. Likewise, God sets people up to get saved, but they also chose to get saved of their own free will. The only difference is God is less controling over the situation and gives the person a fair opportunity to chose him. He does does coerce salvation onto anyone or coerce anyone not to be saved. No one can be saved by forced, for it is with their heart that they chose him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian7 Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: |
But why did he let ME get this deadly disease in the first place? I had done nothing wrong and had not had not even had the opportunity to do anything wrong. In Gods eyes we are all guilty until proven innocent. Why? Preventative medicine is the name of the game and medical negligence would still be the verdict. I might need a lawyer. The best lawyer is Jesus Christ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian7 Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: |
Ah, the Bart Simpson Defense: "I could look into the future, but I don't wanna". An omnipotent being can see without looking, so how can it prevent itself from being omniscient? God's very nature is self consistent, therefore if it was God's will that he would change his mind he would not have absolute omniscience, rhather he would have selective omniscience. God would still be omnipotent because whatever he choses to know he would know, but because God is omnipotent he could also chose not to know. However, the fact is, God does not change his mind. God allows himself to be influenced by our actions but he has already decided what he will do. So for our benifit he appears to change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4021 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
I used to believe it and defend it to the bitter end, but now it doesn't seem to sit with me the same way. Sucks don't it?
Quite the contrary, Gear. Look at it as a load lifting and the getting of wisdom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5034 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Iano I suggest replying to Legend's post if you want to retain any credibility. I think it's a bit late for that.... "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
xXGEARXx Member (Idle past 5149 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
What does it mean to "see"? Is seeing active or passive? Does an omnipotent being need eyes to see? Does it need to face in the direction of what it sees? How far can it see? Can it see through things? Can an "omnipotent" being prevent itself from seeing? If yes, then it isn't omniscient. If no, then it isn't omnipotent. Wait a minute.. If an omniscient being prevents himself from "seeing" something, that automatically means he isn't? I can't buy that one. A being that powerful can or could potentially do whatever he wanted to do. I think you were just trying to make your point, and I can appreciate that. I just don't understand how you can say-if this, then that-without really understanding it in the first place. In other words, why should it NOT be possible? It absolutely should. Just because I can not fully understand or grasp the concept, doesn't mean it doesn't exist either. As far as the "seeing" thing. It is indescribable. How could one describe something that has yet to be understood in the first place? It is nice to even be able to discuss such things, right? Take my mind for instance. How can I descibe my thoughts? I "see" images in my head? lol.. I mean, how else do you say it? I can remember different events in life many years ago. I can "see" the images and even remember what I felt like, without really feeling it at all. Pretty amazing. I am sure there is a neat handy dandy scientific appraoch to how it all works, but that is also something we can STUDY. I tell ya, real nice work goes into all this from being created from non intelligence, as some would believe. Edited by xXGEARXx, : No reason given. Edited by xXGEARXx, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
xXGEARXx writes: How could one describe something that has yet to be understood in the first place? In terms that one does understand. The Indians described the steamboat as a "fire canoe" - a combination of two concepts that they understood. The problem with "omni"potence and "omni"science is that we can't logically combine the two. They can't coexist. One destroys the other, just as fire destroys canoe.
I just don't understand how you can say-if this, then that-without really understanding it in the first place. If we could understand omniscience, we'd be omniscient. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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. I see what your saying, but how would God knowing the failures of man make him culpable? God also would 'know' that man has the ability to do what is right and not to stray on their own. We all know that with the law. But we sometimes knowingly do what is wrong. So, if God did it any other way, we'd just be robotic automotons. Which is worse? Having the potential for failure or being directed by some unforseen force?
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. The Fall is very significant for mankind because it pinpoints who we are and how choose to deal with God and His Law. The Fall and our own inability to keep the Law or our rebellion to it is a forshadowing of what God Himself would do through His Redeemer. As for God knowing everything we are going to do somehow making Him liable for our actions doesn't really work. If you knew that you were being watched, you might not bring yourself to commit the act. But the foreknowledge is pretty inconsequential. Think of it in human terms since trying to rationalize God is difficult. Suppose you are a bankrobber and you are looking to pull off a heist. The FBI is already on to, unbeknownst to you. They have you under surveillance and are just waiting to build enough evidence to make an arrest. You try and complete the heist but you are stopped in the process establishing your motive and your intent to commit the act. Does the foreknowledge of the crime make the FBI liable for your actions? No, how would it? Would you change your mind prior to if you had known they were watching? Probably, unless you're an idiot. With God, you do know He's watching. Even if the staunchest atheist has a conscience and knows when he/she commits evil. So, whether you know that God exists is only the half of it. What really matters is whether or not you know in your heart that you are doing something wrong. That's what you are being judged on. Does that help? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given. "There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
nemesis_juggernaut,
Does the foreknowledge of the crime make the FBI liable for your actions? But god knows you are going to do it, or not, before you have done it, or haven't. Bad analogy, the FBI didn't create you. If the FBI created you knowing you were going to perform an act, then yes, they would be responsible. In exactly the same way that you would be responsible if you made a bike so poorly that you knew a wheel would fall off. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Bad analogy, the FBI didn't create you. If the FBI created you knowing you were going to perform an act, then yes, they would be responsible. In exactly the same way that you would be responsible if you made a bike so poorly that you knew a wheel would fall off. God knows your outcome before you were made. This much is true. But he gives to all of us the ability to have done what was good and just, so that whatever the outcome is, it will be dependent soley on ourselves. God knowing the future does not equate to Him 'making' or 'determining' your future. The actions you take are all on you. If God was really controlling you, you'd be saved, not condemned. That's because God does not condemn, He saves. We condemn ourselves. That's the choice of freewill, no? "There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024