15 Aug 03
Originally posted by richjohnsonWell, a god without one of the three properites would certainly not be immediately blameworthy for the existence of unneccessary suffering. A non-omnipotent god may not have been able to prevent some instance of suffering. A non-omniscient god may not have known about the suffering. A morally imperfect god may have just not cared about the suffering. But would a creature without one of these properties be worty of worship? I see no reason, other than fear of punishment or hope for reward, to worship a morally imperfect being who happens to be omnipotent and omniscient. But what assurance do we have that such a creature would make good on promises of reward?
OK, forget about the triple-O Christian concept of God. What about a God who is only two of the three (e.g. omniscient and omnibenevolent)?
ps- I assume that you meant to type "the theory that there is a God (...) is clearly lacking"
15 Aug 03
Originally posted by bbarrWhile you claim that suffering is unneccessary, I stand firm in my statement that your claim is your own speculation and in no way definitive. I also refute in inference that suffering is unjust. As much as I know you hate the free will concept (or as you like to put it "blah blah blah" 😉) with any true free will there is also the ability to do harm. I can't put it any simpler than if there is choice.......there is choice! If we have the choice to bring evil into the world, a consequence is that evil things may happen. So tell me what is evil, allowing us to harm ourselves or making us slaves that couldn't even be having this discussion?
Well, a god without one of the three properites would certainly not be immediately blameworthy for the existence of unneccessary suffering. A non-omnipotent god may not have been able to prevent some instance of suffering. A non-omniscient god may not have known about the suffering. A morally imperfect god may have just not cared about the suffering. But wo ...[text shortened]... nt. But what assurance do we have that such a creature would make good on promises of reward?
15 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrActually, I think that a non-omniscient omnipotent god would be a contradiction - after all, in order to be able to do anything, you must have perfect knowledge, otherwise you will be unable to do things that require knowledge that you don't possess. Also, an omnipotent god who was not omniscient (if that were possible), could, beeing omnipotent, make everything known to him thus becoming omniscient. Lack of knowledge cannot be an excuse for an omnipotent god, as omnipotence implies omniscience.
...A non-omniscient god may not have known about the suffering...
Btw, an interesting thread!
-Jarno
15 Aug 03
Originally posted by OmnislashIf God is omniscient, then he knows exactly what you will be doing ten minutes from now, a month from now, a year from now, etc. Since his knowledge is perfect, his beliefs about your future actions can never be in error. But this means that all your actions have already been determined. Given the apparent choice between action A and action B, God already knows which you will "choose". Since God is always correct, it is impossible for you to choose action B if he knew, prior to your choice, that you would choose action A. Hence, God's omniscience is incompatible with your ability to do otherwise than that which you in fact will do. So, God's omniscience is incompatible with the existence of your free will. So Free Will cannot serve as an adequate defense to the problem of evil. If you truly believe in an omniscient God, and you truly believe that you have free will, than you believe a contradiction and are thereby irrational. It's your choice 😀 which belief to give up.
While you claim that suffering is unneccessary, I stand firm in my statement that your claim is your own speculation and in no way definitive. I also refute in inference that suffering is unjust. As much as I know you hate the free will concept (or as you like to put it "blah blah blah" 😉) with any true free will there is also the ability to do harm. I ...[text shortened]... llowing us to harm ourselves or making us slaves that couldn't even be having this discussion?
15 Aug 03
Originally posted by bbarrAh my friend, but I am not contradicting my self. That is, not with an omnipotent god. You yourself say that god must be both omniscient and omnipotent. If god is omnipotent, then he must NOT be constrained by time such as we are. If god is not bound by time, then knowledge is not bound by time either. You are quite correct in that God must be all three. He must be all three to be any given one. Omipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. I'm just omnislash. 😀
If God is omniscient, then he knows exactly what you will be doing ten minutes from now, a month from now, a year from now, etc. Since his knowledge is perfect, his beliefs about your future actions can never be in error. But this means that all your actions have already been determined. Given the apparent choice between action A and action B, God already k ...[text shortened]... lieve a contradiction and are thereby irrational. It's your choice 😀 which belief to give up.
15 Aug 03
Originally posted by OmnislashHang on. I'm not clear on how God not being constrained by time affects this.
Ah my friend, but I am not contradicting my self. That is, not with an omnipotent god. You yourself say that god must be both omniscient and omnipotent. If god is omnipotent, then he must NOT be constrained by time such as we are. If god is not bound by time, then knowledge is not bound by time either. You are quite correct in that God must be all three. H ...[text shortened]... be all three to be any given one. Omipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. I'm just omnislash. 😀
If God is omniscient, then he knows the full sequence of events that will/are/have occurred. The fact he is not constrained to travel linearly along this sequence (the way we experience ourselves doing) doesn't affect the fact that he has the knowledge that in ten minutes from our "now" I will make my next move on RHP.
I agree that he can have this knowledge outside of any time constraints , but it is still "set" if he knows it at all, so how can I have any choice about making my move?
If I'm missing the point of your post, I apologise, and I hope you will be good enough to clarify your argument.
Jim 🙂
15 Aug 03
Omnilash, Jim is quite right here.
From "God is not bound by time" it does not logically follow that his knowledge is not bound by time, no more than "God is omnipotent" would lead to "God's knowledge is omnipotent".
Any knowledge is bound by the object of that knowledge, irrespective of the properties of the one holding that knowledge. If we are talking about knowledge concerning events in time, then that knowledge is most certainly bound by those events in time, just as surely as if we are talking about knowledge of bananas, that knowledge depends on the bananas, irrespective of the properties of the beholder of that knowledge.
That knowledge about future events depends on future events is a fact, independent on whether those events are known by a mere mortal or a god that is not bound by time.
The point is that if god possesses absolute knowledge about what choise I will make, then that knowledge exists in some form in what for me is the present. Whether it's god that holds that knowledge, or my next door neighbour does not matter - if that knowledge cannot be in error, then I have no choise than to act according to that knowledge - I must make the precise "choises" that are in accordance to the knowledge about those actions that exists prior to those actions. So much for free will.
Free will and the existence of absolute knowledge about the future, independent on who holds it, are mutually exclusive.
-Jarno
15 Aug 03
"religious people, who apparently should be total nihilists ... etc"
Royalchicken.
Royalchicken, I've read these words in your post from 14 aug.'03 02:09 and I've tried to understand them, but I failed.
What do you mean ? Should religious people ( in your view) be
total nihilists ? Did I miss something ,maybe the context or ...
Can you give me an answer ?
IvanH.
15 Aug 03
Originally posted by bbarrBennett, I think you're right here. I'm not omniscient, nor omnipotent, and as I have demonstrated, not omnibenevolent. So I'm just a God without those three properties. Worship me 😀!
Well, a god without one of the three properites would certainly not be immediately blameworthy for the existence of unneccessary suffering. A non-omnipotent god may not have been able to prevent some instance of suffering. A non-omniscient god may not have known about the suffering. A morally imperfect god may have just not cared about the suffering. But wo ...[text shortened]... nt. But what assurance do we have that such a creature would make good on promises of reward?
I think the absurdity of accepting as a "supreme being" a god without these properties is absurd. Furthermore, as Omnislash quite correctly mentioned, a god cannot have one of these properties without the others.
Also, one other thing. The existence of god implies that the universe functions in a completely deterministic way. If the universe were completely deterministic, then it would be possible, given complete knowledge of the universe in one state, to calculate any property of the universe in any past or future state. Also, it would only be possible to have complete knowledge of the universe in any given state if that could have been calculated from a previous state, i.e. if the universe were deterministic. Thus we have:
God ------> Deterministic universe
Deterministic universe ------> Any state of the universe calculable from complete knowledge of another
Any state calculable... ------> Deterministic universe
However, "Any state calculable" means that the position and motion of any object may be perfectly known. This violates the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (as I understand it), and therefore the "Any state calculable" is false. Thus the universe cannot be entirely deterministic, and thus there is no god. (Especially in view of the fact that it would be god doing the calculating 😉.)
15 Aug 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe context was that a religious person can:
"religious people, who apparently should be total nihilists ... etc"
Royalchicken.
Royalchicken, I've read these words in your post from 14 aug.'03 02:09 and I've tried to understand them, but I failed.
What do you mean ? Should religious people ( in your view) be
total nihilists ? Did I miss something ,maybe the context or ...
Can you give me an answer ?
IvanH.
"1. Insist that god is outside of reason, and accept the consequence that no part of human existence can be attributed to god besides totally valueless and irrational thoughts.
2. Retract that claim, say that god can be contained by rationality, and be forced to accept the already decided conclusion that belief in god is irrational."
Thus a religious person, accepting option 1, must realize that nothing of meaning is an act of god and no acts of god have meaning, and since by being religious they accept only acts of god for consideration, they are left only to consider the meaningless.
If they accept option 2, they are forced to admit that they are irrational, and that any rational beliefs they have are incompatible with religion. So one person cannot simultaneously think in a religious and rational way.
Thus, while thinking "religiously", one cannot think of meaningful (in option 1) or rational (option 2) things. This is sort of nihilistic. The "total nihilist" bit was a half-joke on my part.
15 Aug 03
Originally posted by CapuletsSimilar examples of graffiti agian from Liverpool (what is it about them cheeky scousers):
There is an old football joke from the 70's Liverpool signed a player called St.John. Graffitee went up in Liverpool about what happens when St.John comes.Some one wrote under it that we move Jesus to left back.
JESUS SAVES...... but Rush gets the rebound
THE LORD MOVES IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS..... but did he have to move to Leeds [Robbie Fowler]
Mark
15 Aug 03
Originally posted by bbarr
it is not rational to believe in God."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Certainly I agree with this, but I doubt many religious people who have thought about it disagree with this point ...etc." Royalchicken.
Let's have a "Gedankenexperiment":
Assumption 1.
"It is not rational to fall in love"
Assumption 2.
"It is irrational to fall in love"
Question : Are these assumptions in essence the same and is it therefore impossible to agree with one and disagree with the other
or do these assumptions show differences and it is therefore possible
to agree with one and disagree with the other.
This is not just a word game, otherwise a would have posted it
in the <Posers and Puzzles> Forum.
I think it is important so we can understand eachother when we
read statements like "It is not rational to believe in God" and
"It is irrational to believe in God".
IvanH.
15 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm not quite sure that I understand what you mean by that - are you saying that things that contradict logic may exist in reality? That there may be square circles and that 1+1 may sometimes be 3?
Free will and the existence of absolute knowledge about the future, independent on who holds it, are mutually exclusive.
-Jarno
Yes, that is correct under the assumption that our knowledge and
ways of reasoning cover every aspect of reality ...
When you speak of "our ways of reasoning", you seem to be saying that reason is somehow arbitrary. I'll be the first to admit that my reasoning isn't always flawless, but in matters of simple logic I don't think there really is room for error. Or at least, when errors of pure logic are made, they can quite easily be pointed out. Reasoning may be flawed, but pure logic? How could 1+1 not be 2, regardless of who does the math? And similarly, how could I have the freedom to choose to do whatever if someone knows with absolute certainty what I'm going to do and cannot be wrong about it? As surely as 1+1=2, the existence of that absolute knowledge would fix my path, and leave me with only an illusion of freedom at best.
-Jarno