God is omnipotent according to Genisis. So why did he rest on the 7th day, shouldn't it not be a problem for him to create us? Discuss...

An omnipotent being can do anything in an infinitesimal amount of time. Why did it take so long?

Here's a better idea, why did a perfect being create us? Perfection is to imply completeness, to create is to indicate a lack.

Also, actions are the offshoot of stimuli, for a being to create it must have a stimulation, be it external or internal. What caused it to create us?

Our free will limits God's power making him not omnipotent.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

An omnipotent being can do anything in an infinitesimal amount of time. Why did it take so long?

Here's a better idea, why did a perfect being create us? Perfection is to imply completeness, to create is to indicate a lack.

Also, actions are the offshoot of stimuli, for a being to create it must have a stimulation, be it external or internal. What caused it to create us?

I think you may be overlooking the concept of love

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Our free will limits God's power making him not omnipotent.

So why call it god?

quote:Originally posted by qazwsx:

I think you may be overlooking the concept of love

For a perfect being to require love is absurd. It's perfect it doesn't need anything.

quote:Originally posted by jake420:

God is omnipotent according to Genisis. So why did he rest on the 7th day, shouldn't it not be a problem for him to create us? Discuss...

Why can't an all powerful being rest? Does it say anywhere that he was tired or "pooped" from the whole creation bit? I don't think so...

quote:An omnipotent being can do anything in an infinitesimal amount of time. Why did it take so long?

Why not? Just because he can/could do something, it would not mean that he has to. God could do a lot of things with his omnipotence, but that doesn't mean he would have to.

quote:Here's a better idea, why did a perfect being create us? Perfection is to imply completeness, to create is to indicate a lack.

This is implying that God is in need of something, and that he created us to fill that void, which would be wrong. God created humans to share his love. I don't know how you can flesh out a lack of completeness from the bible.

quote:Also, actions are the offshoot of stimuli, for a being to create it must have a stimulation, be it external or internal. What caused it to create us?

That seems to be a big question lingering on most people's mind...

quote:Our free will limits God's power making him not omnipotent.

No it wouldn't. without going into too much detail, God basically respects our free will. Our free will would not limit him.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

This is implying that God is in need of something, and that he created us to fill that void, which would be wrong. God created humans to share his love. I don't know how you can flesh out a lack of completeness from the bible.

I never mentioned anything about the Judeo-Christian god, I was simply referring to a perfect being. But for a perfect being to create must imply a lack of something. It's perfect it doesn't need to share it's love with anything.

*senses a big debate coming http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)*

It cannot be possible for us to have free will while God is omnipotent.

Free will implies that we have choices however if God is omnipotent then he knows everything. Therefore our decisions are known to Him before we make them, this elimnating free will.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:



I never mentioned anything about the Judeo-Christian god, I was simply referring to a perfect being. But for a perfect being to create must imply a lack of something. It's perfect it doesn't need to share it's love with anything.

No one is saying that God "needs" to share his love. I'd agree that he wouldn't be omnipotent if he were some how obligated to create and love something, but there is nothing to suggest that he(or any creator) "had" to do anything.

quote:Originally posted by AnAsTaSiO:

It cannot be possible for us to have free will while God is omnipotent.

Free will implies that we have choices however if God is omnipotent then he knows everything. Therefore our decisions are known to Him before we make them, this elimnating free will.

That is flawed logic.

Knowing a decision does NOT equate to forcing a decision.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

No one is saying that God "needs" to share his love. I'd agree that he wouldn't be omnipotent if he were some how obligated to create and love something, but there is nothing to suggest that he(or any creator) "had" to do anything.

Except the definition of perfection!

Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.

It lacks nothing, so why create?

Why not?

Edit: Since we're talking about an omnipotent, perfect being, it could, theoretically, become more perfect(as hard as that is to imagine).

A god could add to it's perfection, theoretically.

You definition of perfection is also pretty specific.

perfection

(noun) 1 : the quality or state of being perfect: as; a : freedom from fault or defect

[This message has been edited by napoleon_complex (edited 08-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

That is flawed logic.

Knowing a decision does NOT equate to forcing a decision.

Yes it does.

To quote you:

"Everything you just said has been brought up, and put down so many times it's laughable."

You're just stubborn... http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

No it wouldn't. without going into too much detail, God basically respects our free will. Our free will would not limit him.

How can you be omnipotent yet have six billion things beyond your control? Unless he could control people but is letting us roam free for the entertainment value or something. The only way I could see of God proving his omnipotence is overiding a person's free will.

God knows what is going to happen but lets us have free will. What's the point if God knows what is going to happen anyway? We have to experience the journey for ourselves and grow as people.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

That is flawed logic.

Knowing a decision does NOT equate to forcing a decision.

He knew before creating, and he created, so he forced.

I know we decided to just 'agree to disagree' in some other thread because your take on things was that "I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe, and we're not going to change our minds because we don't want to". And that's fine, just don't claim flawed logic when you respond to the argument you just responded to. No, knowing a decision does not equate to forcing a decision, unless the one knowing the decision created the whole world that the decision is being made within, and knew the decision before they did any creating. Your argument only retains logical soundness when you omit the consideration of your God's supreme creatorship. If you set up a row of dominoes in such a way that it is obvious to you the dominoes will knock eachother down in succession, tipping over the first one is effectively tipping over the last one.

Creating us does not by any means force our decisions.

For our ability to make decisions to be hindered by God, you would have to show that he makes our decisions or limits our choices to one and only one possibility. No one can show either.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Creating us does not by any means force our decisions.

For our ability to make decisions to be hindered by God, you would have to show that he makes our decisions or limits our choices to one and only one possibility. No one can show either.

If God knows the future, this does show that our choices are limited to one and only possibility : the one in God's knowledge.

quote:Originally posted by jake420:

God is omnipotent according to Genisis. So why did he rest on the 7th day, shouldn't it not be a problem for him to create us? Discuss...



Do we only rest when we are tired, or do we rest sometimes because it is pleasant to rest...to take time to reflect on what we have done.

I think it is a good example of taking time to reflect...

No problem...

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Creating us does not by any means force our decisions.

For our ability to make decisions to be hindered by God, you would have to show that he makes our decisions or limits our choices to one and only one possibility. No one can show either.

Wrong. If he knows the future, then I cannot change my mind. My action must be the one he saw in the future, or he is not omnipotent.

To have free will, we must have the ability to change our minds, which then makes our choice impossible to know, since if it is known before we're even born, then we cannot change our minds.

quote:Originally posted by outcast:



Do we only rest when we are tired, or do we rest sometimes because it is pleasant to rest...to take time to reflect on what we have done.

I think it is a good example of taking time to reflect...

No problem...

The problem still stands. He doesn't need to reflect. There is absolutely no reason to.

The bible god is the biggest redundancy in the world. Every single thing he does is redundant.

As such, it is a very legitimate question to ask why would a perfect god be redundant when he has no reason to.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The problem still stands. He doesn't need to reflect. There is absolutely no reason to.

The bible god is the biggest redundancy in the world. Every single thing he does is redundant.

As such, it is a very legitimate question to ask why would a perfect god be redundant when he has no reason to.





Well...that's rather redundant... http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

What you are reading are stories that express certain ideas. Some things are literal, some things use more creative imagry to get ideas across.

If you take a literal viepoint...how would you even know what God wants or needs? The only thing you can know is limited in scope due to certain bias that you might have, or a lack of information, and things of that sort.

I say this a lot, but you cannot know what you are not. You can have knowledge that can lead to certain conclusions regarding what you are not, but that is all.

Nothing you said dealt with the point.

This has nothing to do with taking the bible literally or figuratively. It has everything to do with the properties of an omniscient and omnipotent being, properties which make everything he does redundant, thus validating the question.

EDIT: Unless you're saying he didn't rest... which you said prewviously he did, but not because he was weary, but to reflect. The point still stands there too liek I said.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Nothing you said dealt with the point.

This has nothing to do with taking the bible literally or figuratively. It has everything to do with the properties of an omniscient and omnipotent being, properties which make everything he does redundant, thus validating the question.





No...had he not referenced Genesis and presented his point it outside that scope, then I might agree with you. But because he is using Genesis as a basis for the question so I think the method of interpretation is relevant to the question.

However, I am of the mindset that terms like omniscient and omnipotent are limited to the human scope...what we see...relative to us.

I wouldn't have the audacity to think I actually knew God.

quote:Originally posted by outcast:



No...had he not referenced Genesis and presented his point it outside that scope, then I might agree with you. But because he is using Genesis as a basis for the question so I think the method of interpretation is relevant to the question.

However, I am of the mindset that terms like omniscient and omnipotent are limited to the human scope...what we see...relative to us.



Genesis is just an example. The fact is every single action he takes, our creation, or anything else, is redundant. So I am taking it out of the scope of Genesis, and pointing out how it applies to everything else.

Moreover, you yourself already said he rested to reflect, the point would still stand there.



quote:

I wouldn't have the audacity to think I actually knew God.

There is no audacity involved if you're basing yourself on a supposedly inerrant book which has the purpose of both explaining god and his teachings. If I don't know the qualities that the bible god has, it is because the bible failed miserably at explaining him.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-16-2005).]

No...I said

quote:Originally posted by outcast:



I think it is a good example of taking time to reflect...





Example being the key word here...taking the story as being just that...a story telling of creative endeavors...and taking the time to reflect upon them...

I do not take Genesis literally...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

There is no audacity involved if you're basing yourself on a supposedly inerrant book which has the purpose of both explaining god and his teachings. If I don't know the qualities that the bible god has, it is because the bible failed miserably at explaining him.



I don't know if any book is inerrant or not...but I do think it is incomplete...or maybe should never have been compiled into one in the first place.

Plus most people (including myself) have not read the entire book from cover to cover. Some have...but not most. Something I am trying to do though, because it does interest me.

Why do you people use human logic to understand something that is beyond our comprehension. What if God just felt like making something one day? People are sponaneous, they need no explanation why they do random things. Why them must God act according to human logic?

If God mustn't require human logic to accomplish anything, then there is no valid argument until one can construct an argument on the logic he used.

Also you need to check the original connnotation of the Hebrew word that we say "rest" r/e the seventh day.

quote:Originally posted by outcast:

No...I said



Example being the key word here...taking the story as being just that...a story telling of creative endeavors...and taking the time to reflect upon them...

I do not take Genesis literally...



You said "Do we only rest when we are tired, or do we rest sometimes because it is pleasant to rest...to take time to reflect on what we have done."

So you're saying that either you believe that he rested "because it's pleasant to rest" ... "to take time to reflect on what he has done" or that it is a possibility, not necessarily what you believe. In either case, the point still stands. Hell, even if that isn't the case, the point still stands. Like I said, EVERYTHING he does is redundant. Whether you believe he did what the bible literally says he did, or something else, is is STILL redundant.



quote:[QUOTE]Originally posted by outcast:

[B]

I don't know if any book is inerrant or not...but I do think it is incomplete...or maybe should never have been compiled into one in the first place.

Plus most people (including myself) have not read the entire book from cover to cover. Some have...but not most. Something I am trying to do though, because it does interest me.



I'm speaking of people who do believe it is in errant, if you're not one of them, then that doesn't apply to you.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Why not?

Edit: Since we're talking about an omnipotent, perfect being, it could, theoretically, become more perfect(as hard as that is to imagine).

A god could add to it's perfection, theoretically.

You definition of perfection is also pretty specific.

perfection

(noun) 1 : the quality or state of being perfect: as; a : freedom from fault or defect



A perfect being cannot become "more perfect."

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Wrong. If he knows the future, then I cannot change my mind. My action must be the one he saw in the future, or he is not omnipotent.

To have free will, we must have the ability to change our minds, which then makes our choice impossible to know, since if it is known before we're even born, then we cannot change our minds.



Omniscience*

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You said "Do we only rest when we are tired, or do we rest sometimes because it is pleasant to rest...to take time to reflect on what we have done."

So you're saying that either you believe that he rested "because it's pleasant to rest" ... "to take time to reflect on what he has done" or that it is a possibility, not necessarily what you believe. In either case, the point still stands. Hell, even if that isn't the case, the point still stands. Like I said, EVERYTHING he does is redundant. Whether you believe he did what the bible literally says he did, or something else, is is STILL redundant.

Okay...I believe that a part of the story revolves around rest and reflection.

Why are stories written...to get a point across, right. As I see it this is the first instance where rest and reflection come in to play in scripture. Other scripture builds upon it.

So...what is written may be redundant [as in repetitive], but life is filled with redundancies. We don't always learn or understand things the first time.

quote:Originally posted by outcast:

Okay...I believe that a part of the story revolves around rest and reflection.

Why are stories written...to get a point across, right. As I see it this is the first instance where rest and reflection come in to play in scripture. Other scripture builds upon it.

So...what is written may be redundant [as in repetitive], but life is filled with redundancies. We don't always learn or understand things the first time.





What is written is not redundant, what was was done was. An omnipotent and omniscient god must be able to do anything, and must be able to any every single piece of knowledge, which includes every possible reflection imaginable, and includes every possible creation imaginable. He already knows what he created, how he created, and any possible reflection he could possible have while thinking of what he created. Doing it again, is redundant.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



What is written is not redundant, what was was done was. An omnipotent and omniscient god must be able to do anything, and must be able to any every single piece of knowledge, which includes every possible reflection imaginable, and includes every possible creation imaginable. He already knows what he created, how he created, and any possible reflection he could possible have while thinking of what he created. Doing it again, is redundant.



Your point being...?

That God would not want to be redundant?

Why not?

quote:Originally posted by outcast:



Your point being...?

That God would not want to be redundant?

Why not?

I already answered this before...

"As such, it is a very legitimate question to ask why would a perfect god be redundant when he has no reason to."



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I already answered this before...

"As such, it is a very legitimate question to ask why would a perfect god be redundant when he has no reason to."





How do you know he has no reason?

quote:Originally posted by outcast:

How do you know he has no reason?

If he's omnipotent and omniscient, he cannot gain more knowledge, nor can he expend less energy or time in doing what he did, nor can he gain more strengh.

His reasons are therefore confined to his whim, which is the basis of the question. Why would a god have this whim, when there is no other justification for it.

If you have a reason for why he would do it, then supply it. Until you do, the only logical possition is that which conforms itself with logic, and the attributes given to him.

P.S. This is merely semantics. "Reason" is a "motive". "Motive" has various definitions. One being asked for, and one which god cannot have.

He cannot have a physiological need for something, but he can have an impulse. We're asking for his impulse, while at the same time saying that he cannot have a need, which then makes the impulse irrational, unimportant and needless.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Why would a god have this whim, when there is no other justification for it.





Why would God need justification, let alone justification based on human reasonings?

quote:Originally posted by outcast:



Why would God need justification, let alone justification based on human reasonings?

Exactly. If God is in fact omnipotent, then he needs no justification for anything he does.

Circular logic...

the bible is the 'word of god'

that is a paradox in its self!

quote:Originally posted by outcast:



Why would God need justification, let alone justification based on human reasonings?

You're not reading. I said he doesn't need a justification, he doesn't need anything! I'm saying the question is, why would he do anything if that anything is already redundant. I AM NOT saying he needs a justification.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You're not reading. I said he doesn't need a justification, he doesn't need anything! I'm saying the question is, why would he do anything if that anything is already redundant. I AM NOT saying he needs a justification.

Well then it seems to me that what you are saying is that YOU need a justification for why God would do ANYTHING...especially if it is redundant.

And you say God needs no justification for doing anything...because he has no NEEDS...he is not lacking in anything.

So...it's your need for justification that you're dealing with. You have a NEED, and I don't think you can see past that NEED.

But according to you...God has no NEED...so he could then see past EVERYTHING...because there is no said need to blind him.

So...why are we blinded by our needs?

There are a number of earlier threads discussing this topic. Either he is omnipotent or not, if he is omnipotent e escapes reasoning, so it doesn't matter what you argue about you can't really totally grasp the concept, the definition of an infinity and all. If he isn't then he doesn't exist as classically thought. By deffinition omnipotence would say that he can be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time. As he has all powers he can defy logic.

I see alot about what G-d needs, what if he wants it? Someone is going to adress this, that an omnipotent being can't have wants right? wrong, as omnipotent, he has all abilities, even to have wishes and needs.

[This message has been edited by JewDude (edited 08-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by outcast:

Well then it seems to me that what you are saying is that YOU need a justification for why God would do ANYTHING...especially if it is redundant.

And you say God needs no justification for doing anything...because he has no NEEDS...he is not lacking in anything.

So...it's your need for justification that you're dealing with. You have a NEED, and I don't think you can see past that NEED.

But according to you...God has no NEED...so he could then see past EVERYTHING...because there is no said need to blind him.

So...why are we blinded by our needs?

Wrong. I want to know why he did it, that is very different from a "need". Do not put words in my mouth.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-16-2005).]

def:

want - to feel a need or a desire for; wish for...



want and need are basically the same thing...

It clearly says DESIRE.

I desire cake. Does that mean I NEED cake? No.

Quit grasping at straws.

"Want:

1. To desire greatly; wish for.

2. To desire (someone to do something)."

-The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

They are not "basically the same thing" because I can desire something without needing it.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Wrong. I want to know why he did it, that is very different from a "need". Do not put words in my mouth.



Then please stop asking. No one except God himself can tell you why he did it. We cannot answer it. Get that... we are incapable of answering this question. Please move on as it is redundant to further pound the question at us.

And yea, Rust is right in the above post.

[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 08-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Then please stop asking. No one except God himself can tell you why he did it. We cannot answer it. Get that... we are incapable of answering this question. Please move on as it is redundant to further pound the question at us.



Have you read my post? If so,then you'd see I'm not hammering anything. I'm defending the attacks of outcast on the original question. Fault him for attacking a question you claim he cannot answer.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It clearly says DESIRE.

I desire cake. Does that mean I NEED cake? No.

Quit grasping at straws.

"Want:

1. To desire greatly; wish for.

2. To desire (someone to do something)."

-The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

They are not "basically the same thing" because I can desire something without needing it.

However the phrase "to be at a want for" is a connotation of needing, its a very rare usage in the modern world though.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=want

To be in need of; require: “‘Your hair wants cutting,’ said the Hatter” (Lewis Carroll).

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Have you read my post? If so,then you'd see I'm not hammering anything. I'm defending the attacks of outcast on the original question. Fault him for attacking a question you claim he cannot answer.

I posted in response to the quoted paragraph. You asked a question that no man can give and you said quote: I want to know why he did it. You know full well that nobody can give the answer, so why ask it?

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

However the phrase "to be at a want for" is a connotation of needing, its a very rare usage in the modern world though.

http://di ctionary.r eference.c om/search?q=want (http: //dictiona ry.referen ce.com/sea rch?q=want )

To be in need of; require: “‘Your hair wants cutting,’ said the Hatter” (Lewis Carroll).

Wrong. One definition of "want" can have a connotation of needing, sure. But not the one that I used. As long as there is a definition of "want" that does not mean "need" then I was correct in my usage. There is, so I was.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Wrong. One definition of "want" can have a connotation of needing, sure. But not the one that I used. As long as there is a definition of "want" that does not mean "need" then I was correct in my usage. There is, so I was.

I never said volition wasn't a part of the meaning of want, I just said his meaning was valid. You like to change what we are arguing about alot don't you Rust?

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

If God knows the future, this does show that our choices are limited to one and only possibility : the one in God's knowledge.

So can you tell me right now, concerning the decisions you will make tomorrow, what are the decisions that god would have eliminated for you?

It's impossible to show that decisions are eliminated.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

I never said volition wasn't a part of the meaning of want, I just said his meaning was valid. You like to change what we are arguing about alot don't you Rust?

When the fuck have I changed what Im arguing about? All my posts have been replies. If anything has changed it's because the person I am replying to has changed the argument. How convenient that you just make empty accusations without backing them up.

As for his meaning being valid, that's irrelevant. I never said it wasn't a valid definition. I did say it wasn't what I meant, which is the relevant fact here. If I didn't mean "want" as a "need" then who cares if another definition could have been used? Certainly not me.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

This is implying that God is in need of something, and that he created us to fill that void, which would be wrong. God created humans to share his love. I don't know how you can flesh out a lack of completeness from the bible.

I never mentioned anything about the Judeo-Christian god, I was simply referring to a perfect being. But for a perfect being to create must imply a lack of something. It's perfect it doesn't need to share it's love with anything.

*senses a big debate coming http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)*



Just cause its perfect dosent mean it cant have fun. Why do people create things? for all types of reasons. What if God is lonely?

I assume jsut cause something is perfect dosent mean it dosent have the same feelings we do.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

So can you tell me right now, concerning the decisions you will make tomorrow, what are the decisions that god would have eliminated for you?

It's impossible to show that decisions are eliminated.

If there is only one possible future that God knows of, decision-making is an illusion because I will always decide to do what God knows beforehand. It may seem to me that I have plenty of options but God knows I only have one.

So either I truly have free will and omniscience is impossible or God is omniscient and my future life is already known in God's mind. Which also relieves me from any responsibility of sin and makes any "hell" punishment unfair and evil. The only way out of this for the christian God is to let go of his omni- abilities.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

If there is only one possible future that God knows of, decision-making is an illusion because I will always decide to do what God knows beforehand. It may seem to me that I have plenty of options but God knows I only have one.

So either I truly have free will and omniscience is impossible or God is omniscient and my future life is already known in God's mind. Which also relieves me from any responsibility of sin and makes any "hell" punishment unfair and evil. The only way out of this for the christian God is to let go of his omni- abilities.

Omniscience and free will can co-exist! Knowing the outcome does NOT mean dictating the outcome, nor does it mean limiting your possible choices. You can't show that you don't have as many choices, because you can't show that God has eliminated any of your choices.

You will decide what God knows beforehand. That is true. However, that does nothing to show that either your choices were eliminated to one or that the decision was made for you.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Omniscience and free will can co-exist! Knowing the outcome does NOT mean dictating the outcome, nor does it mean limiting your possible choices. You can't show that you don't have as many choices, because you can't show that God has eliminated any of your choices.

You will decide what God knows beforehand. That is true. However, that does nothing to show that either your choices were eliminated to one or that the decision was made for you.



Problem of Divine Foreknowledge

<OL TYPE=1>

<LI>A perfect being is omniscient, by defintion.

<LI>Evil exists.

<LI>A perfect being's omniscience is incompatible with human free will.

</OL>

From this there are two possibilities:

<OL TYPE=1>

<LI>If a perfect being is in fact omniscient, then humans are not free. We are not responsible for evil, hence the perfect being is responsible. But if the perfect being is responsible for evil, then the perfect being does not exist because a perfect being is wholly good, by definition.

<LI>If a perfect being does not know everything, then it is not perfect, hence a perfect being does not exist.

</OL>



Proposed solutions to the Problem of Divine Foreknowledge

-----------------------------------------------------

Solution I:

<OL TYPE=1>

<LI>A perfect being sees all times as present (in one "now").

<LI>Therefore, a perfect being does not see what we do before we do it.

<LI>Thus, it is possible for us to be free and for a perfect being to know everything.

</OL>

Problems with Solution I:

This solution suggests that either time doesn't exist or a perfect being can't tell time. If time doesn't exist, we pretty much can give up everything we ever believed at all. But if a perfect being can't tell time, then it is not perfect. Hence, there is no perfect being.

Solution II:

<OL TYPE=1>

<LI>The future is open (no future facts); infinite number of possibilites.

<LI>Future tense propositions have no truth value.

<LI>A perfect being can't know the future because there is nothing to know (nothing has been determined).

</OL>

Problems with Solution II:

This solution seems to imply that a perfect being changes; it learns new things everyday. But if this is true, then the perfect being is not perfect because it is impossible to become 'more perfect.'

Solution III: (most widely accepted)

<OL TYPE=1>

<LI>The tenseless theory of time is true. This means that the past, present, and future are all equally real (they all have facts about them).

</OL>

Problems with Solution III:

There is now a new definition for free will. Compatibilism suggests that determinisn and free-will are compatible.



[This message has been edited by bonkers (edited 08-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Omniscience and free will can co-exist! Knowing the outcome does NOT mean dictating the outcome, nor does it mean limiting your possible choices. You can't show that you don't have as many choices, because you can't show that God has eliminated any of your choices.

You will decide what God knows beforehand. That is true. However, that does nothing to show that either your choices were eliminated to one or that the decision was made for you.

If the presupposition already tells me that I only have one choice, the one God knows, what more is there to show?

Let's say I have three choices, A, B and C. God knows that I will choose B, so it is 100% certain I will do so. Choices A and C, while there in front of me, are of no consequence and are as good as eliminated. I can't select them. I think this clearly shows that if omniscience exists it makes free will an illusion.

quote:Originally posted by bonkers:



There is now a new definition for free will. Compatibilism suggests that determinisn and free-will are compatible.



How? Can you elaborate on this?

if we assume that free will exists

it seems to me that God will know all of the things i can choose with my free will, and what choices will be available for myself and others if i make any number of choices

i see it like a giant chess game, and God is the ultimate chess-playing computer. each person has certain "moves" that they can make, based on their situation and their personality. perhaps God has his own pieces, that he uses to limit our choices, if he so chooses. obviously, some people are very different from others, and are consequently used in different ways to accomplish different goals. but god, being the ultimate chess-playing computer, can compute all the moves in advance, for every turn, forever

thus, God knows every possible outcome and chain of events, but each person still makes their own decisions to minutely change the course of things

[This message has been edited by crazygoatemonky (edited 08-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

How? Can you elaborate on this?

Compatibilism (http://fyad.org/2xvw).

quote:Originally posted by crazygoatemonky:

if we assume that free will exists

it seems to me that God will know all of the things i can choose with my free will, and what choices will be available for myself and others if i make any number of choices

i see it like a giant chess game, and God is the ultimate chess-playing computer. each person has certain "moves" that they can make, based on their situation and their personality. perhaps God has his own pieces, that he uses to limit our choices, if he so chooses. obviously, some people are very different from others, and are consequently used in different ways to accomplish different goals. but god, being the ultimate chess-playing computer, can compute all the moves in advance, for every turn, forever

thus, God knows every possible outcome and chain of events, but each person still makes their own decisions to minutely change the course of things



This is a much better theory for God than omniscience. An "ultimate computer" as you put it that can predict your choice based on data but for free will to exist its accuracy cannot be 100%.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

If the presupposition already tells me that I only have one choice, the one God knows, what more is there to show?

Let's say I have three choices, A, B and C. God knows that I will choose B, so it is 100% certain I will do so. Choices A and C, while there in front of me, are of no consequence and are as good as eliminated. I can't select them. I think this clearly shows that if omniscience exists it makes free will an illusion.





Consider Newcomb's problem (http://fyad.org/2xvy).

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

When the fuck have I changed what Im arguing about? All my posts have been replies. If anything has changed it's because the person I am replying to has changed the argument. How convenient that you just make empty accusations without backing them up.

As for his meaning being valid, that's irrelevant. I never said it wasn't a valid definition. I did say it wasn't what I meant, which is the relevant fact here. If I didn't mean "want" as a "need" then who cares if another definition could have been used? Certainly not me.



I misread the order of the posts, I apologize and admit my mistake, sorry.

quote:Originally posted by AnAsTaSiO:

It cannot be possible for us to have free will while God is omnipotent.

Free will implies that we have choices however if God is omnipotent then he knows everything. Therefore our decisions are known to Him before we make them, this elimnating free will.

Free-will - God doesnt know what choices we will make he only knows what will happen if we make that choice.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

If the presupposition already tells me that I only have one choice, the one God knows, what more is there to show?

Let's say I have three choices, A, B and C. God knows that I will choose B, so it is 100% certain I will do so. Choices A and C, while there in front of me, are of no consequence and are as good as eliminated. I can't select them. I think this clearly shows that if omniscience exists it makes free will an illusion.



So you still have three choices(a,b,c) and you're the one still making the decision, correct? By gosh you would still have free will!

The only way you would be correct is if you knew what God has always known before hand.

quote:Originally posted by OMr_duckO:

Free-will - God doesnt know what choices we will make he only knows what will happen if we make that choice.

So the idea is that god's omniscience is less of a solid timeline and more of a huge near-infinite tree-chart with knowledge accounting for every choice made and every possible future resultant choice of each choice?

I like this better than napoleon's logic-defiant rationale.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Have you read my post? If so,then you'd see I'm not hammering anything. I'm defending the attacks of outcast on the original question. Fault him for attacking a question you claim he cannot answer.

Gads...people do get emotional here...I didn't 'attack' anyone.

The 'original question' as posted:

quote:Originally posted by jake420:

God is omnipotent according to Genisis. So why did he rest on the 7th day, shouldn't it not be a problem for him to create us? Discuss...



I simply do not see a correlation between Genesis and the dispelling of omnipotence.



I'm sure he could find something stronger than Genesis to back up his point.



My point is...that if anything...God is only omni[whatever] in relation to us since it is limited to our perspective...

quote:Originally posted by outcast:



Gads...people do get emotional here...I didn't 'attack' anyone.

The 'original question' as posted:

How did I get emotional? Saying the word "Attack" doesn't need any emotion.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

So you still have three choices(a,b,c) and you're the one still making the decision, correct? By gosh you would still have free will!

The only way you would be correct is if you knew what God has always known before hand.

Holy shit man. You must be drowning in a steel bubble filled with misguided logic.

If god knows you will do something, the other possible choices are not actually choices...they're not even possibilities. If god knows that action B will happen, not action A or C, then action B is the ONLY possibility, being as it was determined through omniscience from the very beginning til the very end of time.

Luckily though the simple solution to this problem is clear: God isn't omniscient, nor omnipotent, nor omnibenevolent, nor existent.

quote:Originally posted by outcast:



Do we only rest when we are tired, or do we rest sometimes because it is pleasant to rest...to take time to reflect on what we have done.

I think it is a good example of taking time to reflect...

No problem...

Good Answer

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

If god knows you will do something, the other possible choices are not actually choices...they're not even possibilities. If god knows that action B will happen, not action A or C, then action B is the ONLY possibility, being as it was determined through omniscience from the very beginning til the very end of time.

Would you still have three choices? Would your number of choices be limited to just B? The answer is no. You cannot determine whether or not some of your choices were eliminated, so you can't say that you don't have free will anymore.

If you can show that B would be your only choice in a decision that hasn't been made, then I would agree, but that is impossible.

You're logic is flawed in that you're looking at our free will from God's perspective, when you should be looking at it from our perspective.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Would you still have three choices? Would your number of choices be limited to just B? The answer is no. You cannot determine whether or not some of your choices were eliminated, so you can't say that you don't have free will anymore.

If you can show that B would be your only choice in a decision that hasn't been made, then I would agree, but that is impossible.

You're logic is flawed in that you're looking at our free will from God's perspective, when you should be looking at it from our perspective.





Terrible argument. You don't need to be aware of it for it to be true. Moreover, we can determine whether the choices are limited by the very argument being argueed.

Again, if god knows you're going to choose A, then you cannot choose B, and thus your choice, or at least the ability to change your mind is limited. Thus we can determine whether they will be limited.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Terrible argument. You don't need to be aware of it for it to be true. Moreover, we can determine whether the choices are limited by the very argument being argueed.

Again, if god knows you're going to choose A, then you cannot choose B, and thus your choice, or at least the ability to change your mind is limited. Thus we can determine whether they will be limited.

You'd have to be aware of your choices being limited for your argument to hold any water. If you don't know that you'll choose B, then you can't say that you could have only choosen B after the fact. You just can't.

You cannot look at this like you're God. It just doesn't work that way.

Edit: As for the part where you say we can determine if choices are limited, can you show that? How can you show that your choices would be limited when you don't even know which of the choices you are going to choose?

[This message has been edited by napoleon_complex (edited 08-22-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You'd have to be aware of your choices being limited for your argument to hold any water. If you don't know that you'll choose B, then you can't say that you could have only choosen B after the fact. You just can't.

Wrong. You keep arguing this time and time again, and it keeps getting refuted. I don't have to know anything, because my choices can be limited without me knowing them. I would not have free will in reality, though I may maintain an illusion of it... so what? The illusion is irrelevant.

Once again, take the example of Oedipus Rex. That's an example of a scenario were choices are being limited, for a fact, while at the same time, he not being aware of this.

The fact that he doesn't know it does not remove the possibility of them being limited. It only preserves an irrelevant and unimportant illusion, one that is not being discussed here.

You asked me how my choices could be limited while me not knowing they are, and I have provided an example.

quote:

Edit: As for the part where you say we can determine if choices are limited, can you show that? How can you show that your choices would be limited when you don't even know which of the choices you are going to choose?



Yes I can. I already showed it actually.

Again:

If god is omniscient and knows what I will do before I do it, then I must either choose A, or he is not omniscient. That would be logically impossible for his is omniscient; hence my choices are limited.

There, I just showed you.

What I said must be true, or god can do illogical things, which then means both you and I are correct. Either way I'm correct.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-23-2005).]

You would have to know that you would choose A, before you choose A, making it an impossible situation.

Oedipus Rex still doesn't even prove your point because Oedipus never knew that he would make the decision. What you call an illusion of free will is in actuality free will.

For it to be an illusion, we would have to know before hand what decision we would make, which is IMPOSSIBLE! An illusion would have to present options that are not real, but you cannot tell what is real and what is not, so how could you say what(a,b,or c) is an illusion and what is real?

You cannot look at this like YOU'RE omnipotent. You have to look at it from a human's perspective, in which case free will is perfectly respected.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You would have to know that you would choose A, before you choose A, making it an impossible situation.

There is no knowing, because that would remove my ability of changing my mind. By stating that I MUST choose A, which is what would be required if he says I'm going to choose A, then I cannot change my mind. I have no choice.



quote:

Oedipus Rex still doesn't even prove your point because Oedipus never knew that he would make the decision. What you call an illusion of free will is in actuality free will.

Huh? He thought he was going to, which is exactly what makes it an illusion. What makes it not-free will, is that he couldn't possibly change it. Thus, he maintained the illusion of free will, while in reality not having it.

quote:

For it to be an illusion, we would have to know before hand what decision we would make, which is IMPOSSIBLE! An illusion would have to present options that are not real, but you cannot tell what is real and what is not, so how could you say what(a,b,or c) is an illusion and what is real?

You cannot look at this like YOU'RE omnipotent. You have to look at it from a human's perspective, in which case free will is perfectly respected.

Your commiting the fallacy of wanting to see it from our own persepective, because that beneffits you. That' doesn't work that way.

I cannot look at it from my own prespective because I would the conclude something erroneously based on an illusion. I would have an illusion of free will because it seems that I'm choosing and that I can change my mind. That's erroneous. I have to base myself on the view of an outside observer, monitoring the possible choices.

What would I observe? That the choices would be restricted and as such, no free will would exist.

How can you look at it from God perspective then without getting an erroneous result?

For free will to be eliminated either the choices would have to be limited to one(which you can't show because for that to be true we would have to know what we're going to choose before we choose it) choice or the decision would have to be made for us(which has never been brought up if I recall correctly). If you want to add another way that free will can be violated, feel free, but under what we're talking about, it is impossible to say that free will is violated when you can have no way of knowing anything of the sort.

If you look at it like you're omnipotent, then you can't be talking about your free will, and if you look at it like a human, you wouldn't be able to conclude anything from logic or facts.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You would have to know that you would choose A, before you choose A, making it an impossible situation.

Oedipus Rex still doesn't even prove your point because Oedipus never knew that he would make the decision. What you call an illusion of free will is in actuality free will.

For it to be an illusion, we would have to know before hand what decision we would make, which is IMPOSSIBLE! An illusion would have to present options that are not real, but you cannot tell what is real and what is not, so how could you say what(a,b,or c) is an illusion and what is real?

You cannot look at this like YOU'RE omnipotent. You have to look at it from a human's perspective, in which case free will is perfectly respected.

So...let's say I'm psychotic and have the choices of transforming into a bat, or staying human. From my perspective, I have this choice. But from the perspective of reality I don't. I have no choice in what species I belong to. But oh yeah, I can't look at it from reality's perspective, because that's for some reason not allowed? Why not, may I ask? Why must we look at it from humanity's ignorant perspective when our imagination can, in fact, emulate the situation from the perspective of omniscience?

Just because we think we have a choice doesn't mean we do...especially if our 'choice' is already known, maybe not by us, but by another.

The only reconciliation between omniscience and free will is the inexistence of time and causality (No time: Omniscient god knows all that is, but if something "isn't", then it isn't yet knowledge, therefor not something omniscience applies to...also, there would be no future for the omniscient being to know about; No causality: choices are not influenced and caused by previous occurances, therefor unpredictable even by an omniscient being). I don't believe time exists in the classical sense of it being an actual dimension (rather an imaginary dimension used to organize, and measure changes in, the three real dimensions); but causality is a rather solid theory from what I've seen in my life. From the perspective of omniscience (that would be the perspective of reality) free will cannot exist unless both time and causality are inexistent, otherwise everything would be known and no straying from the omniscient viewpoint could occur, thereby eliminating all choices, but not necessarily the illusion of choice.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

How can you look at it from God perspective then without getting an erroneous result?

I never said it was from god's perspective...

quote:

For free will to be eliminated either the choices would have to be limited to one(which you can't show because for that to be true we would have to know what we're going to choose before we choose it) choice

I already showed you how it would be limited. Again:

"If god is omniscient and knows what I will do before I do it, then I must either choose A, or he is not omniscient. That would be logically impossible for his is omniscient; hence my choices are limited.

There, I just showed you.

What I said must be true, or god can do illogical things, which then means both you and I are correct. Either way I'm correct."



quote: If you want to add another way that free will can be violated, feel free, but under what we're talking about, it is impossible to say that free will is violated when you can have no way of knowing anything of the sort.

I CAN know whether it is violated since I know what omniscience entails! I already described the process, using logic, above.

quote:

If you look at it like you're omnipotent, then you can't be talking about your free will, and if you look at it like a human, you wouldn't be able to conclude anything from logic or facts.

We must certainly can conclude something from logic, unless we claim that he can do the illogical like I said previously. Either way I am correct.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-23-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

So...let's say I'm psychotic and have the choices of transforming into a bat, or staying human. From my perspective, I have this choice. But from the perspective of reality I don't. I have no choice in what species I belong to. But oh yeah, I can't look at it from reality's perspective, because that's for some reason not allowed? Why not, may I ask? Why must we look at it from humanity's ignorant perspective when our imagination can, in fact, emulate the situation from the perspective of omniscience?

If looking at real world situations(decision making) from impossible perspectives makes sense to, then go at it. Honestly though, how much sense does it make for us to look at our ability to make decision from the perspective of God?

quote:Just because we think we have a choice doesn't mean we do...especially if our 'choice' is already known, maybe not by us, but by another.

If it isn't known to you, then it's irrelevant.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I already showed you how it would be limited. Again:

"If god is omniscient and knows what I will do before I do it, then I must either choose A, or he is not omniscient. That would be logically impossible for his is omniscient; hence my choices are limited.

There, I just showed you.

What I said must be true, or god can do illogical things, which then means both you and I are correct. Either way I'm correct."

That is flawed because it requires that you know what decision you will make, before you make it otherwise you can't know that your ability to choose is limited.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

That is flawed because it requires that you know what decision you will make, before you make it otherwise you can't know that your ability to choose is limited.



It requires nothing of the sort. It requires god to know that, not me. I just need to know that he knows it (and I do by virtue of his omniscience) and then automatically my choice (which ever it may be -- which is why I don't need to know which one) is restricted to that choice (which ever it may be). I cannot change my mind, because if I did, I would be proving his omniscience wrong.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-23-2005).]

You still have the choices in front of you though and you still make a decision, while God simply knows the outcome. For those other choices to not be an illusion as you put it, you would have to know your decision beforehand, otherwise they are all real and all possible(according to YOU).

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You still have the choices in front of you though and you still make a decision, while God simply knows the outcome. For those other choices to not be an illusion as you put it, you would have to know your decision beforehand, otherwise they are all real and all possible(according to YOU).

I do not have choices because "choices" implies that I can choose them! I can't. Once he says I'm going to do X, I cannot choose Y. I cannot change my mind. They cease to be choices and thus I cease to have free will.

And I NEVER said anything of the sort, so I'm not sure where the hell you got that "according to you" bit.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I do not have choices because "choices" implies that I can choose them! I can't. Once he says I'm going to do X, I cannot choose Y. I cannot change my mind. They cease to be choices and thus I cease to have free will.

And I NEVER said anything of the sort, so I'm not sure where the hell you got that "according to you" bit.

I meant according to your perspective.

You have no way of knowing that you will choose x, so therefore the choice of y remains possible.

The only way you would be correct is if God determined that you would choose x, in which case you couldn't choose y.

quote:Originally posted by bonkers:

Compatibilism (http://fyad.org/2xvw).

Very interesting. However, I don't think it solves the problem of an omscient and omnipotent God with a will of His own; the fact that God both set up the choices and knew how they'd result still makes Him the initiator of any evil that would be done - which wouldn't be a problem, except the Christian God is also supposed to be all-benevolent.

I only skimmed the article, however - I probably missed something. Regardless, this is on a tagent. Better get back on topic. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I meant according to your perspective.

You have no way of knowing that you will choose x, so therefore the choice of y remains possible.

The only way you would be correct is if God determined that you would choose x, in which case you couldn't choose y.

It's been said a million times and you still refuse it. Your perspective is just not an objective base here because it is its exact nature we are out to specify (illusion or not of free will). You basically assume what you are out to prove. Circular logic. Fallacy.

What perspective makes sense then? Surely you don't think a human having omniscience would make sense, right?

Looking at this from God's perspective would be just as flase as you claim looking at this from our perspective to be.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I meant according to your perspective.

You have no way of knowing that you will choose x, so therefore the choice of y remains possible.

The only way you would be correct is if God determined that you would choose x, in which case you couldn't choose y.



1. I know what "according to you" means. I'm saying I never said what you're claiming would be "According to me".

As in, I neither said it, nor does my perspective hold the opinion that

"you would have to know your decision beforehand, otherwise they are all real and all possible"

2. I already showed you how I would know it: I would know it because I know he's omniscient and if he is omniscient it must follow that he knows what I will do and if he does then I cannot change my mind, and thus I have no free will.

You're once again talking about an illusion which is irrelevant.

quote:Originally posted by rastapimp:

God knows what is going to happen but lets us have free will. What's the point if God knows what is going to happen anyway? We have to experience the journey for ourselves and grow as people.



And then what?

quote:Originally posted by crazygoatemonky:

if we assume that free will exists

it seems to me that God will know all of the things i can choose with my free will, and what choices will be available for myself and others if i make any number of choices

i see it like a giant chess game, and God is the ultimate chess-playing computer. each person has certain "moves" that they can make, based on their situation and their personality. perhaps God has his own pieces, that he uses to limit our choices, if he so chooses. obviously, some people are very different from others, and are consequently used in different ways to accomplish different goals. but god, being the ultimate chess-playing computer, can compute all the moves in advance, for every turn, forever

thus, God knows every possible outcome and chain of events, but each person still makes their own decisions to minutely change the course of things



It's true, God only wants to checkmate us. Wipe us off the board.