Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And when you pray to Him He already knew what you were going to say and what His response was going to be.God knows everything; all you see around you is his creation and existence he made. There is not a leaf that falls that God does not know or already isn't aware of. If you got in a car crash tomorrow, God, in his timelessness, knew that was going to happen, probably as a lesson for your spirit to learn.
I don't know how to make sense of this. Anything that acts or moves or thinks is changing by any reasonable interpretation. Perhaps it refers to God's morality or character or something, which, in light of the vagaries and complexities of the God(s) of the respective testaments, isn't saying much.You're right, I don't. But the Bible does allude to the nature of God in many respects, including along these lines...
Malachi 3:6
I am the Lord, I change not.
2 Timothy 2:13
He abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
James 1:17
Father of lights, with whom is no variableness.
I did not know of "temporary perfection" until you just mentioned it. It was you, after all, who ironically stated before that "perfection always remains perfection."I'd call Adam innocent, but not perfect. Perfection must be sustained, not merely having a clean slate for a short duration. Adam was only perfect for a blip in time, but he hadn't reached a perfected state. Thus, temporary perfection isn't really perfection at all.
"Choice" implies multiple possible outcomes. "Free will" refers to a way to actualize outcomes. It doesn't appear that the former entails the latter.Help me out here, Teddy... If we didn't have free will, how would we have any options to make choices? In other words, how is it possible to have available choices without having any free will to make those choices?
You choose simply by actualizing an outcome. If you are in your car at a 4-way intersection, there are at least 4 outcomes. If God reaches into your brain and causes you to turn right, then you have unfreely chosen to turn right. I use that example because it is hard to argue that God causing a choice is anything but unfree. But whatever else amounts to freedom of will I have not been able to discern.Let's look at it this way: I have two boxes placed in front of me. My options are the black one or the grey one. Is there a realistic scenario where I could choose one of them while not having free will? How could it be a choice unless I was free to select one or the other? Please outline this for me.
But within your interpretation you're assuming a priori that a perfect being has to change. Why is that a built-in assumption on your part?I don't know how to make sense of this. Anything that acts or moves or thinks is changing by any reasonable interpretation.
Meaning, a pseudo-perfection. If Adam was without sin for a period of time, that's quite different from being a perfect being. He hadn't even been tested sufficiently yet.TeddyKGB said:I did not know of "temporary perfection" until you just mentioned it. It was you, after all, who ironically stated before that "perfection always remains perfection."
I asked two direct questions which went unanswered. How would you address them?Triad: If we didn't have free will, how would we have any options to make choices? In other words, how is it possible to have available choices without having any free will to make those choices?
Teddy KGB: "Choice" implies multiple possible outcomes. "Free will" refers to a way to actualize outcomes. It doesn't appear that the former entails the latter.
Largely because I have never encountered something, theoretically or otherwise, that does not change.But within your interpretation you're assuming a priori that a perfect being has to change. Why is that a built-in assumption on your part?
If you can conceive of perfection as a singular quality, then you have the advantage; I cannot. Perfection, as far as I can tell, is contextual. We talk of the perfect game in baseball. I can imagine a perfect arrow - it never misses and always inflicts a killing blow. But when someone asks me to imagine a perfect being... I come up short. Something that "be"s perfectly?What we're discussing is the condition of perfection. Perfection, by default, suggests no fine-tuning left to be done. The original question which asked whether an omniscient being could choose to stop being omniscient begs the question. The onus is actually on the questioner to give any valid reason why a perfect being would then become unperfect.
If you'll indulge me a little reductio ad absurdum... If Adam wasn't perfect, then it follows that he was imperfect. Why (or how) did God create an imperfect being?Meaning, a pseudo-perfection. If Adam was without sin for a period of time, that's quite different from being a perfect being. He hadn't even been tested sufficiently yet.
I don't understand. I answered the questions as best I could.I asked two direct questions which went unanswered. How would you address them?
I... thought I did just that.Can you offer a scenario where we wouldn't have free will but would still have options to make choices?
Admittedly, the concept of a perfect being does seem to be much more complex than a perfect anything else. Could we distill it to mean that a perfect being always selects the best choice? But then this would require omniscience to have the knowledge sufficient to make those choices.Perfection, as far as I can tell, is contextual. We talk of the perfect game in baseball. I can imagine a perfect arrow - it never misses and always inflicts a killing blow. But when someone asks me to imagine a perfect being... I come up short. Something that "be"s perfectly?
I would differentiate between making a perfect choice and making the best available choice. If a perfect being creates something that isn't perfect, that's not a direct reflection of the perfection (or lack thereof) of the perfect being. The perfect being is using the available resources.TeddyKGB said:If you'll indulge me a little reductio ad absurdum... If Adam wasn't perfect, then it follows that he was imperfect. Why (or how) did God create an imperfect being?
I should probably ask them in a different way. I'm probably being a little vague. Can you offer a scenario where we wouldn't have free will but would still have options to make choices? You gave an example of being at an intersection and God making the choice for you of which way to go. That doesn't seem to fit both sets of requirements for the scenario you're suggesting. I think what you're doing inadvertently here is shifting the agent that is making the decisions. For there to be valid choices, I think we could say that the being in question is the one that the choices need to apply to. If I'm at an intersection and there are three possible options for directions to go, but some other entity is controlling my mind, then the choices were not mine but that other entity's. It doesn't seem much good to be saying that Person A can have free will for Person B. The choice has to be with the original agent. So, to rephrase the question...TeddyKGB said:I don't understand. I answered the questions as best I could.
Perfection makes no sense without qualification. An example I have used before: God is often described as both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. By common understanding, those qualities are mutually exclusive. An occasional rebuttal holds that God's justice and mercy are different from ours. Such non-answers, of course, serve only to make even thinking about God impossible.Admittedly, the concept of a perfect being does seem to be much more complex than a perfect anything else. Could we distill it to mean that a perfect being always selects the best choice? But then this would require omniscience to have the knowledge sufficient to make those choices.
In what way are you viewing perfection as contextual?
This entails a limiting factor external to the creator. What sorts of constraints could limit the otherwise perfect creator of, well, everything?I would differentiate between making a perfect choice and making the best available choice. If a perfect being creates something that isn't perfect, that's not a direct reflection of the perfection (or lack thereof) of the perfect being. The perfect being is using the available resources.
"Potential" is another empty term by itself. Even when we say, "She has potential," there is an implied predicate; the assumed background might be a sport or an academic discipline.To create a perfect being, what would the different components be?
1) A being with unlimited potential.
I will note problems with this shortly.2) A being that can make choices.
This is tough to follow, especially in light of your previous exhortation that "perfection always remains perfection."In order to meet both criteria, it would be necessary to start with an imperfect being. We are in the process of being made perfect.
Again, potential to what?Now, not everyone will achieve this end. But a perfect created group of beings could be seen as a group that is being granted its maximum potential.
Yes, but I think it's wrong. You specified yourself a "perfect computer programmer," not a perfect programming language designer. Again, context is everything.Why should it be a requirement for a perfect being to always create perfect things anyway? If I am a perfect computer programmer in a given programming language, I may create the ultimate program with flawless code, but that does not mean that the language is also perfect. The programmer doesn't necessarily create the language, but maximizes its use. Does that make some sense, hopefully?
I'm going to have to switch directions here, because ultimately I don't understand "free will" and presumably won't be able to satisfy your criteria thereby.I should probably ask them in a different way. I'm probably being a little vague. Can you offer a scenario where we wouldn't have free will but would still have options to make choices? You gave an example of being at an intersection and God making the choice for you of which way to go. That doesn't seem to fit both sets of requirements for the scenario you're suggesting. I think what you're doing inadvertently here is shifting the agent that is making the decisions. For there to be valid choices, I think we could say that the being in question is the one that the choices need to apply to. If I'm at an intersection and there are three possible options for directions to go, but some other entity is controlling my mind, then the choices were not mine but that other entity's. It doesn't seem much good to be saying that Person A can have free will for Person B. The choice has to be with the original agent. So, to rephrase the question...
What's a scenario where you yourself wouldn't have free will but you yourself would still have actual choices?
From that standpoint, I think you're correct. And the qualification which it seems to me has to be made is that perfection or completeness in reality doesn't work the same as hypothetical perfection or completeness. Logically, the hypothetical perfection model produces contradictions, as in your apt example.Perfection makes no sense without qualification. An example I have used before: God is often described as both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. By common understanding, those qualities are mutually exclusive. An occasional rebuttal holds that God's justice and mercy are different from ours. Such non-answers, of course, serve only to make even thinking about God impossible.
The creator of the universe need not be the universe itself, but could be an integral part of the universe. In other words, God could still have total control over the workings of the universe while being subject to its inherent conditions. In a similar fashion, we have control over how we think and feel, while being subject to respirating and our hearts beating. If we decide to stop respirating, then we lose the ability for all else.TeddyKGB said:This entails a limiting factor external to the creator. What sorts of constraints could limit the otherwise perfect creator of, well, everything?
When I say potential, I mean capability. An acorn has the capability of becoming an oak. It's not automatic, but it can reach such a condition. Likewise, an acorn cannot become a coral reef. It has no such potential.TeddyKGB said:"Potential" is another empty term by itself. Even when we say, "She has potential," there is an implied predicate; the assumed background might be a sport or an academic discipline.
All right, let me clarify. Perfection in the way I'm presenting it is a state of being. That state can be reached, and once reached, always remains such. Perfection, as I see it, doesn't mean always having been perfect. I apologize for the ambiguous terminology I used earlier. I should have given the disclaimer of "perfection once reached always remains perfection."TeddyKGB said:This is tough to follow, especially in light of your previous exhortation that "perfection always remains perfection."
God doesn't have to be the programming language designer though, does He? It makes sense to me that if He were the language designer, He would have eradicated things like evil, or better yet, never allowed it to exist in the first place. But evil exists and must be dealt with. There are additional examples.TeddyKGB said:Yes, but I think it's wrong. You specified yourself a "perfect computer programmer," not a perfect programming language designer. Again, context is everything.
OK, I think I'm seeing more of where you're coming from on this. This sounds pretty deep. Can you offer contrasting examples of both so I can see them in the same light?TeddyKGB said:As far as I can tell, there are two broad, mutually exclusive decision-making systems: 1) a choice caused by a series of previous events; 2) a choice not caused by a series of previous events. And anything that isn't caused is random, or at least that's the closest I can come to describing it.
OK, let's hold that thought and we'll get back to this. Thanks for your explanations.TeddyKGB said:What I keep seeing are allusions to some vague third category of choosing. Something in-between whereby, "I" choose freely but not causally or randomly. I don't have any idea what this choice-making thing might be nor do I feel I've gotten any closer to it after years of digging.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?