Free will vs Omniscience

And that's why it's silly. The omniiscient god idea is quite plainly a human invention that ties people in knots because it's yet another religious paradox that can't be escaped from.It's only solved by admitting that omniscience can only exist in a god if he is the epitomy of evil - creating an nasty experiment that results in the torture and death of the creatures he makes for his own sadistic pleasure.As to what I'd say to your god, well that's also silly, but allowing the conceit for a moment, try this, it's only a minute or so long: Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Hi Tangle - your link's broken on my mobile, but I presume this is Stephen Fry's wonderful response to that question ?

Yup. Thanks, fixed, I hope.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Yep - working now.

Oh, Stephen! Fryed us again! Of course, the internet has rebuttals to his ostentatious argument.
Stephen Frye and God Granted most of the Christian responses are unsatisfactory for my intellect, but I see a recurring pattern amongst this line of questioning in general. The atheists always limit God to the character defined in the book. They hold the characters metaphorical feet to the fire in that regard. The book is not all that we have. What we have are the same tools that the authors of the book had. God, if God exists is more complex than can be described in a book. Second, if God could prevent every evil malady that nature throws at our species, the result would be a reality totally unlike the one we now inhabit. Pain and suffering seem to be a part of the overall human growth process. You may argue that this simply proves that natural selection and evolution are reality and that God is fantasy. So we digress.For the record, I thought that Dawkins response was much more rational than was Stephen Fryes: This seems more in line with AZPaul3, who believes that we simply essentially reproduce and die...hence why worry about some magical future when our job is to maximize our present living moment. I can't quite stomach the indifference part of that world view, however. Evolution seems every bit as cruel as any God could be.

Why? Why could He not be less complex? After all, the people who wrote the book were awed by things they didn't understand. What if those things were just done by extraterrestrial technology, a few steps above ours? Even IF those events really happened, why would the writers not exaggerate the powers required? Yes. Every second of human history has been humans trying to do that. It's definitely what we want. We're making the improvements that God can't (not omniscient) or won't (evil) make for us.

I suppose that I should consider this as a valid argument. You and jar always pointed out how I and many fundamentalist Christians wanted a God that was capable of solving every dilemma and wiping away every tear. (After smiting the rest of us for daring to rebel against His authority)I'll think outside my comfort zone for a moment and consider that the scenario could be true. Its like i said to Tangle, though. Evolution is every bit as cruel and unfavoring as any God that could be dreamt up. As long as we are imagining a hypothetical God, what is so wrong with the One that Jesus so lovingly called "Father"? He seems good enough for Jesus. Frankly, everything I liked about my Dad was that he could help me get out of trouble, find answers, and learn to become as successful as he was. I could live with a God like that. God can still be omniscient and not make changes. We have no place to judge Him as evil since we are not the center of the universe. At best, we should just do it ourselves as you suggest. Judging God is beyond our pay grade.

It doesn't. What it has are a number of excuses for how the world is the way it is. The problem of suffering has never been answered and can't be because it's another paradox. A universally benevolent god would not permit such suffering. By definition. Ok, I'm going to contradict myself now - more accurately, I'm going to add to it. The book is not all you have - it's probably not even the most important. We know this to be the case because you all read something different in the book; the book is moderated by your experience and background. Your early learning about the book from your church, parents, school, friends, society etc will affect what you see in the book. This is also why some countries, states, towns see things differently to others. It's cultural.That's one. But the other thing you have is your personal experience. This revelation thing where something happened that you interpret as God. That, I'm sure, cements the belief in place and without that you'd get much milder form of the disease. It's a bit circular because the more intense the belief the more likely the revelation is likely to happen. Seeing Jesus's face in tea leaves and Faith's rapture for example. He's answering a different question Phat. But, of course, it's the same ground being trod. There is no god Phat, evolution is just describing the way life is the way it is. Evolution explains why there is suffering; religion can't (unless you accept that god is evil.)

Which Jesus? The one in the book that you reject or the one that you make up in your head? Yes, if He's evil. Why would we have to be "the center of the universe" to know the difference between good and evil?

We either knew good and evil because God gave us that, as described in the book, or because we evolved to understand it. Either way, Judging God is still presumptuous unless one believes that God needs to measure up to our imaginative standards.

According to the book, God didn't give it to us. It was against His will. We stole the knowledge, much like Prometheus stole fire. We understand that it is for our benefit, Nobody else's. They are our standards, Nobody else's. What is presumptuous is thinking that you know what the alien overlord's standards are.

Its as simple as Bill Brights four spiritual laws. There are only two possible ways to know Gods mind.1) He gave us insight.
2) We made it up.Either way is not presumptuous. The point I'm arguing against is making up a God whom you can (or should) correct. Totally puzzling.

Even worse. If we are to hold the God of our discussion to the one in the book, so too should we own up to the fact that we are rebellious thieving humans hellbent on determining our own destiny. And the book has solutions for that.

The four spiritual laws are nonsense.And your bumper sticker is a false dichotomy. It ignores the humanity-centered life (which incidentally, Christ advocated). And it's presumptuous to think it's 1 and not 2.

This communion includes Christ. We are not simply a bunch of evolving humans making up God and Christ. If so, your point is meaningless. Why make up a character and then tell everyone they must do what the character advocates?