Spirituality
23 May 08
25 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf God gives us free will, how would he know the result of hitler being born, and the mere fact of his birth does not immediatley ordain that the holocaust will happen, again I would say your line of reasoning is suspect. You make assumptions based on facts not in evidence, and use those assumptions to make sweeping condemnations of things you and I could not possibly hope to understand.
It is absolutely a matter of allow. There are millions of things an omniscient, future-knowing, all-powerful God could have done which wouldn't have affected free will in the slightest.
He could have seen to it that Mr Herr Hitler's sperm never reached Mrs Herr Hitler's egg, that wouldn't have violated free will. He could have seen to it that Hitle ...[text shortened]... er in the universe sat on his hands and did nothing. And that makes him just as guilty.
25 May 08
Originally posted by duecerSo, are you saying that God isn't omniscient then?? That would be quite a revelation to millions of Christians around the world!
If God gives us free will, how would he know the result of hitler being born, and the mere fact of his birth does not immediatley ordain that the holocaust will happen, again I would say your line of reasoning is suspect. You make assumptions based on facts not in evidence, and use those assumptions to make sweeping condemnations of things you and I could not possibly hope to understand.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzNot at all. You said:
Your God-logic seems to presuppose that God is a fallible being. My logic presupposes that God is an infallible being. God has all the power and knowledge in the universe - if he knows and does nothing about it, he validates it, by virtue of it being his creation.
"The topic is, as far as I can see, "did God mandate Hitler's actions?". The only answer for an omniscient, omnipotent God must logically be "yes"."
Then you said,
"Either your God didn't know (impossible), didn't care (possible) or didn't have the power to stop the Nazis (impossible)."
So you claim that God must have mandated the actions of Hitler, and then you identify a counterexample in which God might not have mandated the actions of Hitler (when God does not care). You affirm this counterexample as possible - both assert and deny your own conclusion that God must have mandated Hitler's actions. This is not my "God-logic"; this is your own contradiction. You should clarify whether an omniscient and omnipotent God must necessarily have mandated Hitler's actions.
25 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhen I read this I had to ask myself how you reached the conclusion that God is responsible for the actions of individuals.
But God is equally responsible for his inaction on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and pretty much every leader of every country which has mandated war as a solution to its problems.
Seriously, don't you think you have made a judgement about God that you can't qualify? It seems to me that since certain men did things that destroyed so many lives that it is only logical NOT to place the responsibility for their actions on God at all? Are you responsible for my actions and vice versa? Just because God is God doesn't logically make Him accountable for the actions of others.
26 May 08
If I was able to accept the hypothesis that God exists, I would have a real problem with the topic of this thread. In view of the countless manifestations of man's inhumanity to man, I would be torn between the preposterous stupidity of blaming God for them, and the equally preposterous stupidity of making excuses for Him about them. All I can say is thank God I'm an atheist.!!!!
26 May 08
Originally posted by Conrau KOne can mandate something by failing to stop it, when it is easily within their power to do. If you have small children, and one starts to hit the other, you validate that behaviour if you do nothing to stop it.
Not at all. You said:
"The topic is, as far as I can see, "did God mandate Hitler's actions?". The only answer for an omniscient, omnipotent God must logically be "yes"."
Then you said,
"Either your God didn't know (impossible), didn't care (possible) or didn't have the power to stop the Nazis (impossible)."
So you claim that God must h ...[text shortened]... n omniscient and omnipotent God must necessarily have mandated Hitler's actions.
26 May 08
Originally posted by josephwRead it again. God ISN'T responsible for their actions, but he IS responsible for not preventing those actions. With perfect foreknowledge of all that would transpire, God simply sat back and allowed these things to happen, when, as I demonstrated earlier, he could easily have prevented them, without affecting "free will" in the slightest.
When I read this I had to ask myself how you reached the conclusion that God is responsible for the actions of individuals.
Seriously, don't you think you have made a judgement about God that you can't qualify? It seems to me that since certain men did things that destroyed so many lives that it is only logical NOT to place the responsibility for their a ...[text shortened]... sa? Just because God is God doesn't logically make Him accountable for the actions of others.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
26 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzOne can mandate something by failing to stop it, when it is easily within their power to do. If you have small children, and one starts to hit the other, you validate that behaviour if you do nothing to stop it.
One can mandate something by failing to stop it, when it is easily within their power to do. If you have small children, and one starts to hit the other, you validate that behaviour if you do nothing to stop it.
Maybe I validate that behaviour (or, at least, I appear to validate it), but it is a semantic distortion to say that I mandate that behaviour. I may validate the statement "do not lie" as a good moral; I will not, however, mandate this statement.
I can imagine a number of scenarios in which I fail to intervene, but in which I do not validate the behaviour. For example, I may have previously told them not to fight, but that if they do, I will allow them to resolve their own disputes (perhaps I am a parent who wants to encourage personal responsibility). I would not have validated their pugnacious behaviour; I would definitely not have mandated their pugnacious behaviour.
26 May 08
Originally posted by Conrau KWould you intervene if you knew in advance one would kill the other as a result?
[b]One can mandate something by failing to stop it, when it is easily within their power to do. If you have small children, and one starts to hit the other, you validate that behaviour if you do nothing to stop it.
Maybe I validate that behaviour (or, at least, I appear to validate it), but it is a semantic distortion to say that I mandate th ...[text shortened]... d their pugnacious behaviour; I would definitely not have mandated their pugnacious behaviour.[/b]
Would you not be partially to blame for the resulting death, if you could have easily have prevented it?
Would a doctor in a mental hospital not have some pretty searching questions asked if he signed off on the release of a patient who then started murdering people?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
26 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzWould you intervene if you knew in advance one would kill the other as a result?
Would you intervene if you knew in advance one would kill the other as a result?
Would you not be partially to blame for the resulting death, if you could have easily have prevented it?
Would a doctor in a mental hospital not have some pretty searching questions asked if he signed off on the release of a patient who then started murdering people?
No; I said in this hypothetical that they would be responsible for the resolution.
Would you not be partially to blame for the resulting death, if you could have easily have prevented it?
Yes; I would be to blame in part. But partial blame is not sufficient to demonstrate that I mandated the act.
Would a doctor in a mental hospital not have some pretty searching questions asked if he signed off on the release of a patient who then started murdering people?
He may, although doctors are not omniscient.
26 May 08
Originally posted by Conrau KNo; I said in this hypothetical that they would be responsible for the resolution.
[b]Would you intervene if you knew in advance one would kill the other as a result?
No; I said in this hypothetical that they would be responsible for the resolution.
Would you not be partially to blame for the resulting death, if you could have easily have prevented it?
Yes; I would be to blame in part. But partial blame is not suffici ...[text shortened]... a patient who then started murdering people?[/b]
He may, although doctors are not omniscient.[/b]
No? Even if you knew that the resolution was impossible? And was going to lead to one murdering the other??
Yes; I would be to blame in part. But partial blame is not sufficient to demonstrate that I mandated the act.
But God is supposedly in a position where he knows in advance what will happen, in fact it can happen in no other way than the way that he has forseen it, and has all the power in the universe to stop it. Anything which does happen must be mandated by him, since the universe is only running along the tracks laid down by God. As many have pointed out, divine omniscience and free will are not easy bedfellows, as each logically precludes the other. Even so, God allows these thing to happen, despite having reasonable foresight and power to be able to stop them, and certainly in the UK, if a company had that same attitude they'd be sued for negligence.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
26 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo? Even if you knew that the resolution was impossible? And was going to lead to one murdering the other??
[b]No; I said in this hypothetical that they would be responsible for the resolution.
No? Even if you knew that the resolution was impossible? And was going to lead to one murdering the other??
Yes; I would be to blame in part. But partial blame is not sufficient to demonstrate that I mandated the act.
But God is supposedly in a ...[text shortened]... em, and certainly in the UK, if a company had that same attitude they'd be sued for negligence.[/b]
What is the point in these questions? Whether or not my non-interference is morally justified, it is still not the case that such non-interfenence entails any sort of validation of violence or mandate to commit such violence. I may be immoral not to stop their fight, but that does not mean I mandated their fight (I could have been too scared; maybe I suffered delusion; maybe I did not care; maybe cultural prohibitions enjoined me.)
But God is supposedly in a position where he knows in advance what will happen, in fact it can happen in no other way than the way that he has forseen it, and has all the power in the universe to stop it. Anything which does happen must be mandated by him, since the universe is only running along the tracks laid down by God.
How does foresight entail mandate?
Even so, God allows these thing to happen, despite having reasonable foresight and power to be able to stop them, and certainly in the UK, if a company had that same attitude they'd be sued for negligence.
Perhaps you could argue a case for negligence. That is a separate issue. Remember (I can't believe that I have to restate your contention for you), you believe that if God exists, it is necessarily the case that God mandated Hitler's actions. Neglect to intervene against Hitler does not constitute a mandate.