Originally posted by rwingett
There's an old saying:
There are those who remain silent and let people think they are fools, and there are those who open their mouths and remove all doubt.
Well, with all due respect Rwing, you actually need to continue debates to make such a statement. So please continue and respond to my post.
Just because God knows the future, what we will do, why does that imply we have no say in whether we go back to him or not.
As an example. Say I father 5 children. I love them, care for them, but in the end only 2 of them return my love. When I die, I leave my inheritance to the two children that love me.
As I loved all my children, created them and raised them, does it make it my fault if they didn't love me back ? Now imagine that even before I had my first child, that I went to a fortune teller and he/she showed me my future, my 2 children that loved me and the other 3 that didn't. So now I know the future. Do I choose not to have any children because 3 of them will not love me back or do I focus on the two children that will love me ?
Yes God knew man would sin, yes God knew He would have to die for man's sins. At the end of the day that is the mother of all parties up in the attic, so if people don't want to join the party even though they got a great invite, exactly where is God to blaim in all this ?
pc
Originally posted by pcaspianGod knew mankind would sin because that's exactly how he created him. He created him to be capable of sin. Mankind, as a whole, sins exactly as often as god designed him to. Because god is omniscient he knew mankind, as a whole, would sin exactly as often as he does. Because god created mankind this way anyway it means that god must have no great objections to our level of sinning. If he really wanted us to sin less often then he would have designed us in a way that would have brought about that result.
Originally posted by rwingett
[b]There's an old saying:
There are those who remain silent and let people think they are fools, and there are those who open their mouths and remove all doubt.
Well, with all due respect R ...[text shortened]... invite, exactly where is God to blaim in all this ?
pc
[/b]
Lets say that I design a robot to perform a specific function. My infallible calculations reveal it will have a 50% failure rate (for example). I could easily adjust that failure rate, or eliminate it altogether, but I do not. My robot then proceeds to fail at its task 50% of the time. Who is to blame? The robot or the designer? It would be folly to design such a robot but yet hope (or expect) that it would work correctly 100% of the time. It would be the utmost in capriciousness to condemn the 50% who failed at their task to be melted down.
Free will is meaningless when given by an omniscient god, because god would know in advance who would be saved and who would fail. Could god really not have known that Adam and Eve would eat from the Tree of Knowledge? If he knew they would do it, then was his order for them not to do so merely "play acting?" Can we not conclude that he actually intended for them to eat from the Tree of Knowledge? Can anything happen that an omniscient god does not precisely intend?
Originally posted by rwingettHey Rob,
God knew mankind would sin because that's exactly how he created him. He created him to be capable of sin. Mankind, as a whole, sins exactly as often as god designed him to. Because god is omniscient he knew mankind, as a whole, would sin exactly as often as he does. Because god created mankind this way anyway it means that god must have no great objection ...[text shortened]... m the Tree of Knowledge? Can anything happen that an omniscient god does not precisely intend?
Here's a quick question for you:
My best friend Brian knows me very well, as we've been friends since early on in high school. He knows me so well, that often it is the case that he knows what I will do before I do it.
So, suppose that Brian and I go to my neighborhood pub, and I go to the bar to get the first round. As I'm approaching the bar, Brian remarks under his breath to his girlfriend that he knows I will order myself a shot of Lagavulin and him a shot of Oban. Suppose he really does know this (he has been keeping track, and the evidence at this point provides sufficient justification for him to know).
When I return to the table, carrying a shot of Lagavulin for me and an Oban for Brian (and something fru-fru for his girlfriend), Brian claims the following: "I knew that you were going to order exactly those drinks prior to your ordering them. Hence, you had no choice in the matter; your decision to order those drinks was not made freely."
Is Brian's claim correct?
Originally posted by bbarrNo.
Hey Rob,
Here's a quick question for you:
My best friend Brian knows me very well, as we've been friends since early on in high school. He knows me so well, that often it is the case that he knows what I will do before I do it.
So, suppose that Brian and I go to my neighborhood pub, and I go to the bar to get the first round. As I'm approaching ...[text shortened]... matter; your decision to order those drinks was not made freely."
Is Brian's claim correct?
If he observed you ordering the same drink 1,000 times in a row, it doesn't mean you'll order it 1,001 times. Based on past evidence he can guess with a very high degree of accuracy what you'll do, but it falls well short of omniscience. God knew, before the first man sinned, that he would do so. He didn't have to observe the trend for years to figure it out.
Originally posted by rwingettI don't think you want to say that. Suppose Brian has observed me ordering these drinks 10,000 times. If so, then his evidence for the claim that I will order these drinks on this occasion is stronger than it would have been if he had observed this merely 1000 times, just as having observed this 1000 times provides stronger evidence than having observed this merely 100 times. But if, as the inductive base (the number of observations) gets larger, Brian's evidence gets stronger, then I could construct an analogous example wherein the strength Brian's evidence approaches certainty to any degree you want. Yet no matter what the size of the inductive base, you will want to say that Brian did not know that I was going to order these drinks on this occasion, because if Brian knew that I was going to order these drinks before I ordered them, then it must have been true that I was going to order these drinks before I ordered them, and this would entail that I could not have decided to order different drinks, and hence that my original choice was not free. The problem with your response is twofold: First, it entails that no degree of evidential strength less than absolute certainty is sufficient for knowledge ('cause it'll always be at least possible that you're wrong). Second, and relatedly, it entails that we can never know anything about what somebody will do in the future. It follows from your view that you don't know anything at all about what your friends, family, or even you yourself will do within the next year. Doesn't that seem absurd?
No.
If he observed you ordering the same drink 1,000 times in a row, it doesn't mean you'll order it 1,001 times. Based on past evidence he can guess with a very high degree of accuracy what you'll do, but it falls well short of omni ...[text shortened]... He didn't have to observe the trend for years to figure it out.
Originally posted by bbarrAll it takes is for you to order a different drink just once for Brian to be wrong. Are you claiming that you are incapable of doing so?
I don't think you want to say that. Suppose Brian has observed me ordering these drinks 10,000 times. If so, then his evidence for the claim that I will order these drinks on this occasion is stronger than it would have been if he had observed this merely 1000 times, just as having observed this 1000 times provides stronger evidence than having observed thi ...[text shortened]... riends, family, or even you yourself will do within the next year. Doesn't that seem absurd?
We can certainly have some knowledge about what our friends and family will do. But it will be limited knowledge. Are we qualified to say that Brian will always order Lagavulin? Or are we limited to saying that Brian has always ordered Lagavulin so far, and there is no reason for us to assume that he will not do so again?
My point in this thread is not to argue free will vs. determinism, even though that may be an enlightening topic. My point was to merely argue that free will is incompatible with an omniscient god. To say that god has given us free will when he knows, in advance, all the choices we will make is to make make free will meaningless.
Originally posted by rwingettrwingett has a good point here. Even if you had 100,000,000 observation, would this approach omniscience?
No.
If he observed you ordering the same drink 1,000 times in a row, it doesn't mean you'll order it 1,001 times. Based on past evidence he can guess with a very high degree of accuracy what you'll do, but it falls well short of omniscience. God knew, before the first man sinned, that he would do so. He didn't have to observe the trend for years to figure it out.
Is the nature of God's omniscience simply the ability to calculate probabilities to near perfection? Is omniscience the ability to know the future that happens in a fixed manor? While we can imagine different potential future events, past experience says that it happen in a linear manor - all our experience tells us there is one fixed future because all we know is a single past - not divergent realities that split off in all direction.
If experience is correct, then there is only one future. But omniscience could mean that God knows, not only the determined future, but the effect on the future of any action he takes now. This would mean God can determine an infinite number of possible futures, something that our experience can never do.
I think it is only possible for God to know the future by existing outside of time. He's already there. It changes the entire dynamic of how we think of God. But how else can a being be truly omniscient?
Originally posted by rwingett
My point in this thread is not to argue free will vs. determinism, even though that may be an enlightening topic. My point was to merely argue that free will is incompatible with an omniscient god. To say that god has given us free will when he knows, in advance, all the choices we will make is to make make free will meaningless.
2 things to consider.
1. As Coletti mentioned God exists outside of time. Does that not severely limit our understanding of Him ? Certainly cause and effect now play little part in the dynamic ?
2. If God were not to know the future, would that imply that he is not to blaim for man's transgressions or does that only make a God that is not perfect, i.e. a god that created a perfect object, which instead turned out to be flawed ?
Originally posted by pcaspianIf your understanding of god is so severely limited then how could you possibly know that he exists "outside of time", if such a thing were even possible? You can't claim specific attributes for god but at the same time claim that god in unknowable whenever you're confronted with a thorny question.
Originally posted by rwingett
My point in this thread is not to argue free will vs. determinism, even though that may be an enlightening topic. My point was to merely argue that free will is incompatible with an omniscient god. ...[text shortened]... ated a perfect object, which instead turned out to be flawed ?
Are you trying to claim that god is not omniscient, or that he is not perfect? What attributes do you think god has, and how do you know that he has them? Or do you think there is a god but that he is entirely unknowable?
How can anyone create a flawed perfect object? If it turned out to be flawed then it wasn't perfect, now was it?
Originally posted by rwingett
If your understanding of god is so severely limited then how could you possibly know that he exists "outside of time", if such a thing were even possible? You can't claim specific attributes for god but at the same time claim that god in unknowable whenever you're confronted with a thorny question.
Assuming the Big Bang was a realite and that the universe began 17 bil years ago, time began 17 bil years ago. As God has existed before the big bank, that would imply he exists outside of time.
PS: There are many, many thorny questions in science. Difference is I don't have to make up an answer to be plausible. Take the current substance that makes up 90% of all matter, AKA Dark matter. Never been proved yet makes the covers of most science magazines simply because it is the most plausible answer to current problems. God existing outside of time certainly is a plausible answer, whether true or not.
Are you trying to claim that god is not omniscient, or that he is not perfect? What attributes do you think god has, and how do you know that he has them? Or do you think there is a god but that he is entirely unknowable?
I've believe God can hide information from himself should He wish to. eg: In Israel He had to leave the people as they were too sinfull. Would that make Him not perfect ? HardLy 😉
How can anyone create a flawed perfect object? If it turned out to be flawed then it wasn't perfect, now was it?
Curious, what makes you believe that God made man to be perfect ? Man was made in God's image, but how needless to say it takes more than an image to form perfection. God no doubt made man to choose Him, the only way for man to choose God, would be for man to have capacity to choose or reject God. Would a man that chooses God not be perfect ? What would you love more, a child that chooses to love you, or a child that has no choice, but to love you ?
So having said that, I'll ask again. If God did not know the future, would that make it acceptable that some men would not enter the Kingdom of Heaven or would that mean God had made a flawed being ?
pc
Originally posted by pcaspianBut what if the Big Bang is just one event in an innumerable series of like events? Doesn't that possibility imply that God and the universe (as if the one could be separate from the other) are equally uncreated and without initial cause?
Assuming the Big Bang was a realite and that the universe began 17 bil years ago, time began 17 bil years ago. As God has existed before the big bank, that would imply he exists outside of time.
Originally posted by eagles54
But what if the Big Bang is just one event in an innumerable series of like events? Doesn't that possibility imply that God and the universe (as if the one could be separate from the other) are equally uncreated and without initial cause?
Well, latest scientific theory is that the universe will implode again, as opposed to the inflation theory put forward. So yes, according to currently scientific understanding of time, it will cease to exist once more. When it bangs again... time and 'God' will exist. As such God existing outside of time (in a scientific framework) is rather important.
pc
Originally posted by pcaspianMy question to those...Is it truely that surprising, disgusting that God instructed His people to do this ?
Abraham almost sacrifised his son. He did this for a God he knew was almighty, a God he knew personally to be the creator of the universe. In many Biblical accounts we come across worshippers of Baal sacrifising their children in the fire, or performing many other rituals only referred to in the Bible as disgusting. There are many accounts of ritual sacrifi ...[text shortened]... be able to love man knowing the evil we are capable of ?
pc
EDIT: PS sorry, wrong forum..
If God exists, he can make any commands he wants. It's not surprising, if he exists. However it's not what an infinitely good and omnipotent being would do, which means God, if he gave those commands, doesn't have both of these characteristics.
Is it ok to kill a person just because their customs happen to involve sacrifising their children ?
It depends on who you are and what the circumstances are. If you're an omnipotent god, there's no moral reason to go around killing people who don't want to die ever.
Can we blame God for wanting to prevent such behaviour amongst the Israelites ?
No.
Do we as human beings not hide of faces in disgust
Justifying the actions and decisions of an omnipotent god by comparing him to human beings with all our limitations is not reasonable. God would have other choices than we would and wouldn't have to resort to hurting people.
How much more patience must God have to witness man's behaviour yet give up His son to forgive us ?
It makes zero sense to me that an omnipotent god has to torture and kill Jesus in order to forgive people.
Simply put I ask, had you been God, would you be able to love man knowing the evil we are capable of ?
Sure.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[/b]
If God exists, he can make any commands he wants. It's not surprising, if he exists. However it's not what an infinitely good and omnipotent being would do, which means God, if he gave those commands, doesn't have both of these characteristics.
[/b]
Could you explain this belief ?
It depends on who you are and what the circumstances are. If you're an omnipotent god, there's no moral reason to go around killing people who don't want to die ever.
Again why ? Simply put from what perspective are you talking ? Are you describing omnipotence, or God ?
Justifying the actions and decisions of an omnipotent god by comparing him to human beings with all our limitations is not reasonable. God would have other choices than we would and wouldn't have to resort to hurting people.
Ok, yet we have the ability to understand empathy. Acting against empathy for our own good is selfish. I.E. Murdering your neighbour because you want his car is not good, as such if we do not extend the courtecy to our neighbours, why should God extend the same courtecy to us ?
It makes zero sense to me that an omnipotent god has to torture and kill Jesus in order to forgive people.
God didn't do any of this. Man did. God = Jesus died on the cross as a means to an end. A final sacrifise. Who knows why this had to be the way, but it was. This was not an isolated event, the boundaries of man's evil is limitless.
Sure.
Ok, if one of your children (or children's friends) murdered your children, your wife and cursed you, you are suggesting you would show forgiveness ? I ask you to think about what you are saying, truely think. In theory something my be possible, but really attempt to imagine you in that position. You answer still 'yes' ?