Distinguishing between right and wrong

[zephcom]

Because of Jesus the Christ, God is indeed our Father for all of us who come to Christ in faith! You can learn more about this in the 4 gospels, which will surprise you over and over (even if you've read them before!). This is because God loves --

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. "

Simply because God loves does not make Him our father. Even the passage you quote declares that God has only ONE Son.

 

[Halbhh]

As far as freedom goes, if there is an all knowing God there isn't a chance at all that there is the freedom to choose.

Yes, this is a familar view, and seems to be the view of a sizable portion of people, but it's based on our ordinary life experience where we find that things in everyday life we are accustomed to dealing with operate in a reliable, predictable way. Or close enough, such as how weather forecasts are mostly reliable (though of course not always).

From this oridinary life experienece we are conditioned to feel that nature itself must be not merely largely causal -- causal as one learns in keeping with the simple classical laws of physics -- but something much more far reaching: fully deterministic to the level of the "clockwork Universe", where all the future is entirely fixed in all ways, without any ability of anyone to change anything. This is the 'common sense' view of most people even at some point in life, and also has adherents that have thought it out in depth.

I once believed this also, that nature was fully and entirely determinstic, clockwork, but we were protected from that fatalism by the imprenetrable complexity would would make it seem unpredictable, because it was too complex to predict.

But I didn't stop at this viewpoint, but continued to learn in physics, and other fields.

Physics experiements have not been able to confirm full predictability, but only statistical likelyhood, as for example the probability of a roll of 7 on a pair of dice is the statistically most likely roll. Like that, sort of. The key experiments in this regard are called "Bell Test Experiments", and it's sort of technical, but so far if there are fixed and fully predictable laws so that there is only one outcome possible for a physical system, we haven't been able to confirm that, but instead the opposite is looking more and more likely to be true instead -- true randomness at the heart of nature. That still allows most all macro events to be causal in predictable ways....up to a point. Like weather. As we say, the quantum wave equation is itself deterministic. But...under it the probabilities it is describing could be random, and look likely to be, so far.

Put simply, things would be mostly predictable, with unlimited computing power and complete information (omniscience), but not entirely.

 

[Halbhh]

Simply because God loves does not make Him our father. Even the passage you quote declares that God has only ONE Son.

As you might guess, I said that God is our Father, individually, for us, because there are passages about how God is our Father, for us. Are you wanting to read some of them? I think it's by far the best to learn them as part of the whole picture, part of the whole gospel, as a whole, as you read through an entire gospel. ( I recommend the NIV or ESV translations, and they are free, online, at sites like Biblehub)

 

[zephcom]

Yes, this is a familar view, and seems to be the view of a sizable portion of people, but it's based on our ordinary life experience where we find that things in everyday life we are accustomed to dealing with operate in a reliable, predictable way. Or close enough, such as how weather forecasts are mostly reliable (though of course not always).

From this oridinary life experienece we are conditions to feel that nature itself must be not merely largely causal -- in keeping with the simple classical laws of physics -- but something much more far reaching: fully deterministic to the level of the "clockwork Universe", where all the future is entirely fixed in all ways, without any ability of anyone to change anything. This is the un-thought-out typtical view of most people even at some point in life, and also has adherents that have thought it out. I once believed this also, that nature was fully and entirely determinstic, clockwork, but we were protected from that fatalism by the imprenetrable complexity would would make it seem unpredictable, because it was too complex to predict.

But I didn't stop at this viewpoint, but continued to learn in physics, and other fields.

Physics experiements have not been able to confirm full predictability, but only statistical likelyhood, as for instance the roll of 7 on a pair of dice is the statistically most likely roll. Like that, sort of. The key experiments in this regard are called "Bell Test Experiments", and it's sort of technical, but so far if there are fixed and fully predictable laws so that there is only one outcome possible for a physical system, we haven't been able to confirm that, but instead the opposite is looking more and more likely to be true instead -- true randomness at the heart of nature. That still allows most all macro events to be causal in predictable ways....up to a point. Like weather. As we say, the quantum wave equation is itself deterministic. But...under it the probabilities it is describing could be random, and look likely to be, so far.

Actually -my- reasoning has nothing at all to do with physics or our ordinary life experience. It is based solely on the existence of an all knowing and all powerful God.

If that God exists then we truly don't have free will. If He doesn't exist, true free will is entirely possible.

It works this way, the all-knowing God will accurately know what the future is. And because this God is all powerful, we will be unable to make Him be wrong about His knowledge of the future.

If we can't make Him wrong, then we can only do what He knows we will do. Doing anything else makes Him wrong and that isn't possible.

It has nothing at all to do with physics, science or anything else in this realm.

 

[Halbhh]

These texts simply call into question the supposed omniscience of the biblical god. Why would an omniscient being be surprised or feel grief and regret as a result of the behaviour of his creation? Did their behaviour come as an unpleasant surprise to him? Surely an omniscient being would have known how things would turn out even before it started its creation?
It seems strange that a supposedly omniscient being would create something, and being omniscient know that things would get so bad that it would find it necessary to destroy that creation. Strange too that the creator blames his creation for its shortcomings when those shortcomings can only be attributed to a flaw in the creator's own design. This would also call into question the creators supposed omnipotence.
The whole thing makes so little sense that it seems to me it is nothing more than a tale thought up by primitive man to try and explain things they just did not understand. The god in this story comes across as being incompetent and psychotic which is hardly surprising. Human failings in a man-made god!

Because we are like children to Him in a way, and He intentionally made us with real free will (not just an appearance of free will), so that we are therefore at least partially unpredictable (at least in some partial way), so that our individual choices cannot be all foreseen, not even with total information and infinite calculating power. This is my take, and it fits all the scriptures, and as best I understand the opposite view, which seems fully deterministic, does not fit all scripture, or makes them essentially moot, useless, and also pointless. This happens to accord with modern physics too. See the post I just wrote on determinism, #42.

 

[zephcom]

As you might guess, I said that God is our Father, individually, for us, because there are passages about how God is our Father, for us. Are you wanting to read some of them? I think it's by far the best to learn them as part of the whole picture, part of the whole gospel, as a whole, as you read through an entire gospel. ( I recommend the NIV or ESV translations, and they are free, online, at sites like Biblehub)

Father-figure, perhaps. Or maybe the passage you selected before is just wrong. I'm good with that too.

 

[Halbhh]

Actually -my- reasoning has nothing at all to do with physics or our ordinary life experience. It is based solely on the existence of an all knowing and all powerful God.

If that God exists then we truly don't have free will. If He doesn't exist, true free will is entirely possible.

Trust me for a second -- this you say is exactly the thing (and also the only thing) I am addressing in post #42. Just exactly that.

Please read it more fully for your answer. And please ask questions about unclear parts, with the understanding I'm only addressing precisely (and only) this question of omniscience and free will. I just edited it for more clarity.

 

[zephcom]

Because we are like children to Him in a way, and He intentionally made us with real free will (not just an appearance of free will), so that we are therefore at least partially unpredictable (at least in some partial way), so that our individual choices cannot be all foreseen, not even with total information and infinite calculating power. This is my take, and it fits all the scriptures, and as best I understand the opposite view, which seems fully deterministic, does not fit all scripture, or makes them essentially moot, useless, and also pointless. This happens to accord with modern physics too. See the post I just wrote on determinism, #42.

So now God is not all knowing??? That makes Him flawed, huh? You keep coming back to this theme of a flawed God.

 

[Halbhh]

In short, it fits scripture (and also experimental results in physics btw) that God gave us not only an appearence of (seeming) free will -- just an illusion of choice, us being too complex for us to predict -- but instead of that, real free will. That means we are not fully predictable. And from physics, the extensive Bell Test Experiments support this on the side of nature -- it appears most likely to not be fully (100%) predictable. It's only statistically likely to have outcomes, it appears. Probabilistic. That works great for a stable and reliable reality.

Put in very ordinary everyday language -- well painted steel bridges won't likely rust and collapse........soon.... Usually. It's pretty reliable. And we can repaint them even just on the guess it's getting to the point some rust might be starting. Or we can wait. And if we wait, they probably won't collapse, yet. Most likely. Pretty reliable.

Perhaps weather is a better example. Forecasts are mostly reliable. Most of the time.

 

[zephcom]

Trust me for a second -- this you say is exactly the thing (and also the only thing) I am addressing in post #42. Just exactly that.

Please read it more fully for your answer. And please ask questions about unclear parts, with the understanding I'm only addressing precisely (and only) this question of omniscience and free will. I just edited it for more clarity.

Okay, I read your correction. It doesn't change anything concerning my point. -If- there is an all-knowing God, your point doesn't exist. It only exists if there is NO all-knowing God.

And I've already acknowledged that. If you desire a flawed God, that is okay. I prefer God to be perfect just as one defines God.

One of the difficulties in this whole God thing is being willing to accept the perfectness of God without trying to make changes.

 

[zephcom]

In short, it fits scripture (and also experimental results in physics btw) that God gave us not only an appearence of (seeming) free will -- just an illusion of choice, us being too complex for us to predict -- but instead of that, real free will. That means we are not fully predictable. And from physics, the extensive Bell Test Experiments support this on the side of nature -- it appears most likely to not be fully (100%) predictable. It's only statistically likely to have outcomes, it appears. Probabilistic. That works great for a stable and reliable reality.

Put in very ordinary everyday language -- well painted steel bridges won't likely rust and collapse........soon.... Usually. It's pretty reliable. And we can repaint them even just on the guess it's getting to the point some rust might be starting. Or we can wait. And if we wait, they probably won't collapse, yet. Most likely. Pretty reliable.

Perhaps weather is a better example. Forecasts are mostly reliable. Most of the time.

Which is more important to you...scripture being right even when it requires accepting a less perfect God or a perfect God and scripture which contains errors?

 

[Halbhh]

So now God is not all knowing??? That makes Him flawed, huh? You keep coming back to this theme of a flawed God.

What's flawed about that? Total knowing of everything that is right now is overwhelmingly more....amazing than the most astounding things we can observe in nature, including in the cosmos, stuff like 'active galatic nuclei' (aka feeding supermassive black holes, aka 'quasars', where a small region emits more light than a vast galaxy of 100 billion stars). Far more amazing mathematically than anything we've seen in the universe with observation. It's something that mathematically evokes truly unimaginable numbers, like being able to know what all atoms in the Universe are doing (there are something like 10^24 stars in the Universe, and people can't imagine that really, but atoms -- that's more on the order like 10^80th (!), just overwhelmingly vast large numbers like that.)

If someone thinks that's not much, perhaps they can't grasp even the lesser scales like how massive just our own sun, 1 star, is, or how many atoms are on Earth. Numbers they cannot grasp. He is so far above us in His knowing. To know all that is right now is beyond words complexity.

 

[Halbhh]

Which is more important to you...scripture being right even when it requires accepting a less perfect God or a perfect God and scripture which contains errors?

It's a fundamental outcome that Someone at least billions of years old is going to know a lot more than we can grasp, even just from age, even before considering other things. Consider the implication -- it's not obvious to small children what their parent understands, why the parent says "no" to a small child about something. Because the child doesn't understand all the parent does.

Consider without preconception; instead read it with an open curiosity, wanting to find new things:

8“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.

9“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."

(or even better, the whole passage, the chapter:
Isaiah 55 NIV)

 

[zephcom]

What's flawed about that? Total knowing of everything that is right now is overwhelmingly more....amazing than the most astounding things we can observe in nature, including in the cosmos, stuff like 'active galatic nuclei' (aka feeding supermassive black holes, aka 'quasars', where a small region emits more light than a vast galaxy of 100 billion stars). Far more amazing mathematically than anything we've seen in the universe with observation. It's something that mathematically evokes truly unimaginable numbers, like being able to know what all atoms in the Universe are doing (there are something like 10^24 stars in the Universe, and people can't imagine that really, but atoms -- that's more on the order like 10^80th (!), just overwhelmingly vast large numbers like that.)

If someone thinks that's not much, perhaps they can't grasp even the lesser scales like how massive just our own sun, 1 star, is, or how many atoms are on Earth. Numbers they cannot grasp. He is so far above us in His knowing. To know all that is right now is beyond words complexity.

Regardless of how awed you might be that God could know everything that is right now, you STILL make God flawed when you deny that He has perfect knowledge of the future.

This is simple logic and no amount of discussing how large the universe is or what science knows now about randomness does not change the logic that God is either all-knowing or He isn't. If He is all-knowing then that includes the future. If He isn't all-knowing, He no longer fits the definition of God.

 

[zephcom]

It's a fundamental outcome that Someone at least billions of years old is going to know a lot more than we can grasp, even just from age, even before considering other things. Consider the implication -- it's not obvious to small children what their parent understands, why the parent says "no" to a small child about something. Because the child doesn't understand all the parent does.

Consider without preconception; instead read it with an open curiosity, wanting to find new things:

8“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.

9“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."

(or even better, the whole passage, the chapter:
Isaiah 55 NIV)

Ignoring the question does not mean the question doesn't require an answer. At some point in your life you will likely need to decide which is more important to you, God or scripture.

 

[Halbhh]

Regardless of how awed you might be that God could know everything that is right now, you STILL make God flawed when you deny that He has perfect knowledge of the future.

This is simple logic and no amount of discussing how large the universe is or what science knows now about randomness does not change the logic that God is either all-knowing or He isn't. If He is all-knowing then that includes the future. If He isn't all-knowing, He no longer fits the definition of God.

Ah, I didn't communicate well enough all I am attempting to say in post #42, and no doubt partly because it's hard to communicate, and I'm not able to condense so much so well. I did not say God cannot know the future..... Use an absense of presumptions as you read what I was saying, and it helps. I said (or tried and failed to communicate?) a key different thing than that. I said it appears He made us with at least some kind of partial (not total) unpredictable aspect. That's not the same as saying He cannot see where we are going, nor does it say He cannot predict many things about us perfectly. I hypothesize He can predict many key things about us perfectly into the future, but He made have intentionally made us unpredictable in addition in some partial way also. This is my guess. But....we are beginning to get into what's called 'mystery' meaning we realize we don't know all things. We cannot assume we ourselves are all-knowing, but that instead the quote from Isiaha 55 just above is quite true. I don't assume I can understand everything about even predictability. It may be our very concept of predictable vs unpredictable isn't....real, but instead the real is yet more complex and nuanced in a way our best logic cannot encompass. That's also possible. We don't say He is "God" for nothing , say as if He were merely a smart older man, merely only a better version of ourselves, say 10 times as smart, or some limited little concept of Him like that. That at least is clear to be a mistake. He transcends our ability to encompass. We cannot trace out His limits.

 

[zephcom]

Ah, I didn't communicate well enough all I am attempting to say in post #42, and no doubt partly because it's hard to communicate, and I'm not able to condense so much so well. I did not say God cannot know the future..... Use an absense of presumptions as you read what I was saying, and it helps. I said a key different thing than that. I said it appears He made us with at least some kind of partial (not total) unpredictable aspect. That's not the same as saying He cannot see where we are going, nor does it say He cannot predict many things about us perfectly. But....we are beginning to get into what's called 'mystery' meaning we don't assume we ourselves are all-knowing, but that instead the quote from Isiaha 55 I quoted just above is quite true. I don't assume I can understand everything about even predictability. It may be our very concept of predictable vs unpredictable isn't....real, but instead the real is yet more complex and nuanced in a way our best logic cannot encompass. That's also possible. We don't say He is "God" for nothing , say as if He were merely a smart older man, merely only a better version of ourselves, say 10 times as smart, or some limited little concept of Him like that. That at least is clear to be a mistake. He transcends our ability to encompass. We cannot trace out His limits.

Except you DID 'trace out His limits' in your post.

You do appear to be keeping God firmly locked into time. I see that in your comments about how God can 'predict' our behavior or 'see' where we are going.

My point has nothing to do with God 'predicting' anything. It has everything to do with God -knowing- what we will do because God is no more limited by time than He is limited by distance. He knows what we are going to do because He watched us do it. And because He knows, we can't do anything else when -we- arrive in time to that point.

Again, this is an issue of logic. And because it is an issue of logic, we can change the parameters we use to arrive at a conclusion. If we want, or need, to have true free will, we need to only rid ourselves of a perfect God. That is what you have done by limiting God to the constraints of time.

I, on the other hand, am willing to accept the loss of free will in order to maintain a truly perfect God.

 

[Halbhh]

Except you DID 'trace out His limits' in your post.
...

Not even close to that! Not even close. I am laying out a guess about a small part of how one key mystery might work (there is a lot more than just 1 mystery), but I say I don't know even if the hypothesis is realistic (did you get to that part?). So, not even slightly do I think to trace out limits even while I hypothesize about physic and predictability. That topic itself is only one piece of one aspect of His creation, and creation itself is far less than He Himself is my best guess.

God is not merely some finite thing He Himself created!

I may not write clearly enough to make that obvious, but if you read it again a different day, perhaps it will be more clear. Maybe this will help -- I really believe fully the verses above from Isiaha 55. They are not just some poetry to me. I take them as very factually true.

So my hypothseizing about one aspect of nature isn't even slightly close to tracing out limits. Yes? If you don't see that, perhaps it will be more clear another time. I wish I could write more clearly on such things. When I say 'mystery' I really mean unknowns, and also what may not even be knowable for us here.

Here's an analogy --

If I say: "I bet Clara is wearing green shoes today."

That isn't a full description of Clara.
And! it would not be even close to a full description even if:
A) I guessed right, and B) also described every article of clothing correctly.

Even this getting several things right would amount to very little at all.

Even a perfect photo of Clara would tell us only some superficial things, and vastly less than the reality of Clara as she is.

 

[zephcom]

Not even close to that! Not even close. I am laying out a guess about a small part of how one key mystery might work (there is a lot more than just 1 mystery), but I say I don't know even if the hypothesis is realistic (did you get to that part?). So, not even slightly do I think to trace out limits even while I hypothesize about physic and predictability. That topic itself is only one piece of one aspect of His creation, and creation itself is far less than He Himself is my best guess.

God is not merely some finite thing He Himself created!

I may not write clearly enough to make that obvious, but if you read it again a different day, perhaps it will be more clear. Maybe this will help -- I really believe fully the verses above from Isiaha 55. They are not just some poetry to me. I take them as very factually true.

So my hypothseizing about one aspect of nature isn't even slightly close to tracing out limits. Yes? If you don't see that, perhaps it will be more clear another time. I wish I could write more clearly on such things. When I say 'mystery' I really mean unknowns, and also what may not even be knowable for us here.

Here's an analogy --

If I say: "I bet Clara is wearing green shoes today."

That isn't a full description of Clara.
And! it would not be even close to a full description even if:
A) I guessed right, and\
B) also described every article of clothing correctly.

Even getting several things right would amount to very little at all.

A perfect photo of Clara even would tell you only some superficial things, and vastly less than the reality of Clara as she is.

Some of this is understandable. You and I are locked into time just as we are locked into the constraints of distance. Our minds are structured to function within those constraints. It is only natural for us to conceive of God as fitting into those same constraints.

However, we have defined God as having certain attributes, all-knowing, all-powerful etc. So when we think of God we need to be careful to do that within the parameters we have set in our definition of God.

What I see in your hypothesizing is a God which is really more of a super-human than a being which fits the actual definition of God. That isn't a put-down. Nearly all humans have difficulty grasping the differences in their own lived experiences and the concept of God as we have defined Him.

I'm no exception to that either. It has taken a long time to become adjusted to seeing God as something different than a super-human. But that needs to happen before one can truly grasp realities of life here.

Surprisingly enough, this adjustment in how one views God is even reflected in how one understands the Bible.

 

[Halbhh]

Some of this is understandable. You and I are locked into time just as we are locked into the constraints of distance. Our minds are structured to function within those constraints. It is only natural for us to conceive of God as fitting into those same constraints.

However, we have defined God as having certain attributes, all-knowing, all-powerful etc. So when we think of God we need to be careful to do that within the parameters we have set in our definition of God.

What I see in your hypothesizing is a God which is really more of a super-human than a being which fits the actual definition of God. That isn't a put-down. Nearly all humans have difficulty grasping the differences in their own lived experiences and the concept of God as we have defined Him.

I'm no exception to that either. It has taken a long time to become adjusted to seeing God as something different than a super-human. But that needs to happen before one can truly grasp realities of life here.

Surprisingly enough, this adjustment in how one views God is even reflected in how one understands the Bible.

Please be sure to read down to the end of post #56 (or at least read the end, the last --

... We don't say He is "God" for nothing , say as if He were merely a smart older man, merely only a better version of ourselves, say 10 times as smart, or some limited little concept of Him like that. That at least is clear to be a mistake. He transcends our ability to encompass. We cannot trace out His limits.

It's the perfectly to be expected that you will sometimes explain to me what I already agree with, and I'll explain to you what you already agree with, sometimes. If we manage to communicate well enough, which is always a challenge.

I definitely, just as I explained in that quote, and in another post, do not see God as merely a superhuman, say like merely a much wiser and smarter older man, 10 times as smart. No, definitely not how I see Him!