God cannot be all-mighty

Catholicism · May 27, 2006

Lilly of the Valley said:
Well, actually I think knows works better because God doesn't just see what we do, He knows it. He knows everything.

Yes, but the question is "How" does God know everything. Yes, I agree "knows" is better than "sees." But my point was to express present tense rather than future tense. God knows the futre from eternity. If you deny that, then you must deny free-will or at least that God knows the future. But yeah, good point.

Telephone · May 27, 2006

JonF said:
yes I did, and you dismissed it.

I apologized and explained that it was a response to a statement you made, a statement I mistakenly read as a question.

This pedantry is not getting us anywhere.

JonF said:
Your scenario is still a causal claim. God’s knowledge causes “only a single path or single option to take” and “only a single path or single option to take” eliminates free will.

My actual text: Free will may be limited by the fact that there is only a single path or single option to take, no other exists.

You, yourself, have tacked "God’s knowledge causes" onto the front of my words and expect me to except this as my scenario !!?

Good try but no cigar !

JonF said:
Your arguments go like this: God has knowledge the actaul world, knowledge about the actaul world implies truth about the actaul world, then from this your next step isn't clear You seem to just assume that this means there isn't free will.

Let me clarify for you.

Foreknowledge negates free will.

Foreknowledge of an action by an inerrant omniscient deity does not allow the actor to make any other choice other than that which the diety has foreknowledge of.

JonF said:
You know this is rather humorous. I call you on posting Ad Hominems, and how do you respond? By apologizing with another ad Hominem. The great irony in this is that your ad Hominem is fallacious.

I will get myself to the doctors first thing tomorrow and see if he can do anything about my fallacious ad hominem. While I am there would you like me to grab something for your pedantry ?

JonF · May 27, 2006

Telephone said:
Foreknowledge of an action by an inerrant omniscient deity does not allow the actor to make any other choice other than that which the deity has foreknowledge of.

How does this limit free will? You still have yet to give a valid argument that shows foreknowledge eliminates free will. You just keep making statements with out any implication between them.

Mortensen · May 27, 2006

How does this limit free will? You still have yet to give a valid argument that shows foreknowledge eliminates free will. You just keep making statements with out any implication between them.

Forknowledge eliminates free will because the only option to choose is what God knows...

Lilly of the Valley · May 27, 2006

Reasons for freewill: Here

Telephone · May 27, 2006

JonF said:
How does this limit free will? You still have yet to give a valid argument that shows foreknowledge eliminates free will. You just keep making statements with out any implication between them.

The foreknowledge of an inerrant omniscient deity means when faced with a series of options person X can only choose the option foreknown by the diety.

When presented by option A, B and C the inerrancy of the Christian god will not allow person X to choose anything but that which is foreknown. (in my example this would be option B)

Person X cannot choose option A or option C, to do so would render the inerrant deity wrong, an oxymoron, impossible and nonsensical in this context.

Person X does not have free will if he cannot choose options other than those pre-known before his birth.

JonF · May 28, 2006

Telephone said:
The foreknowledge of an inerrant omniscient deity means when faced with a series of options person X can only choose the option foreknown by the diety.

When presented by option A, B and C the inerrancy of the Christian god will not allow person X to choose anything but that which is foreknown. (in my example this would be option B)

Person X cannot choose option A or option C, to do so would render the inerrant deity wrong, an oxymoron, impossible and nonsensical in this context.

Person X does not have free will if he cannot choose options other than those pre-known before his birth.

Your last paragraph is where the problem lies. You said God’s foreknowledge doesn’t cause anything. But here you seem to be saying God’s foreknowledge causes him to make a certain choice (A in this case) verse another. I would argue the converse. Person X choice causes God’s foreknowledge. Your argument’s form is flawed, there are unstated premises, or you are making a causal claim somewhere.

I know what you are gonna say. I’m not making a causal claim. You are, I’ve underlined the words in your post when used together make causal claims.

Mortensen · May 28, 2006

Your last paragraph is where the problem lies. You said God’s foreknowledge doesn’t cause anything. But here you seem to be saying God’s foreknowledge causes him to make a certain choice (A in this case) verse another. I would argue the converse. Person X choice causes God’s foreknowledge. Your argument’s form is flawed, there are unstated premises, or you are making a causal claim somewhere.

I know what you are gonna say. I’m not making a causal claim. You are, I’ve underlined the words in your post when used together make causal claims.

Again I ask. If you are in a life or death situation, why struggle to survive if the outcome of the situation would be the same whatever you do?

JonF · May 28, 2006

Mortensen said:
Again I ask. If you are in a life or death situation, why struggle to survive if the outcome of the situation would be the same whatever you do?

This question only has relevancy if we dont have free will, and this is the mater of discussion.

IfIonlyhadabrain · May 28, 2006

Knowledge is the result of an occurring event, not the cause. Will is always the cause. Knowledge can move will, but it can never be the cause of events, it is only the result of events.

God's knowledge of my choice, God's knowledge of your choice, God's knowledge of His own choice is the result, not the cause, of those choices. God knows it because that is what is chosen. It is not what is done because God knows it.

Moreover, those choices are made freely, and by volitional powers. My choice is made out of my own will and done by my own power. God's choices are made out of His own Will and from His own power. His knowledge comes from those choices, as a result of them. They do not come about on account of His knowledge.

Your argument impicitly states that God's knowledge is causal, rather than caused. God's knowledge of Himself arises from within Himself, from eternity. God's knowledge of the universe and of future events arises from vision, which is rooted in His eternality. Vision is not causal. Vision only shows what choices are made (in the temporal perspective, what will be made). Those choices are nevertheless choices.

JonF · May 28, 2006

Let me take another attempt to clear up this confusion about causation.

If foreknowledge doesn’t cause an event, then it won’t be caused by a particular instance of cause.

So one causal relation is such:
X implies Y
X is the reason for Y
Y is actual.

For example: I have a tummy ake (actual). Eating dessert before dinner gives me a tummy ake (implication). The reason for my tummy ake is I ate dessert before dinner (reason).

In your argument it is clear that you hold foreknowledge implies the event, and the event is actual. So in order for X not to cause Y, X must not be the reason for Y. If X isn’t the reason for Y, how does X limit our free will?

Mortensen · May 28, 2006

Iflonlyhadabrain... please answer my question above

IfIonlyhadabrain · May 28, 2006

Mortensen said:
Again I ask. If you are in a life or death situation, why struggle to survive if the outcome of the situation would be the same whatever you do?

This one? I would have thought the answer to be clear by now. The outcome is not the same despite what you do. The outcome is determined by what you do. So is God's knowledge, since it is a vision of what you do choose to do, and the outcome that results from that choice.

Telephone · May 30, 2006

JonF said:
Person X choice causes Gods foreknowledge.

The word 'foreknowledge' translates as 'awareness of something before it happens or exists.'

For god to have his foreknowledge caused by the future event negates the foreknowledge.

Or are you suggesting information of the event is sent backwards in time to god ?

JonF · May 31, 2006

Telephone said:
Or are you suggesting information of the event is sent backwards in time to god ?

Not sure exactly what I believe about this, but I dont see why not.

elman · May 31, 2006

Mortensen said:
Forknowledge eliminates free will because the only option to choose is what God knows...

No what God knows is what you chose-free will. What you chose was not the only option. You had many and you chose one, and that choice is what God knows.

Telephone · May 31, 2006

JonF said:
Not sure exactly what I believe about this, but I dont see why not.

You have no problem with information being send back in time ?

Time to ditch this thread.

IfIonlyhadabrain · May 31, 2006

Quantum Physics suggests that it's possible to move backwards in time, and even that our actions today can influence events of the past. It is conditioning that makes us consider the past and the future with different expectations. I'm not necessarily supporting this view. I am merely presenting a modern science that lends support to the idea that the past is neither as fixed nor the future as open as we so surely assert them to be.

JonF · Jun 1, 2006

Telephone said:
You have no problem with information being send back in time ?

Time to ditch this thread.

I was feeling the same when there stopped being responses to issues I was raising.

DeepThinker · Jun 3, 2006

IfIonlyhadabrain said:
Quantum Physics suggests that it's possible to move backwards in time, and even that our actions today can influence events of the past. It is conditioning that makes us consider the past and the future with different expectations. I'm not necessarily supporting this view. I am merely presenting a modern science that lends support to the idea that the past is neither as fixed nor the future as open as we so surely assert them to be.

Think about this a different way. Alow your mind to leave the tiny box that it is in, then alow it out of the box that that one is in. Now your getting close to understanding the laws of the universe that our brains are far to small to understand, ie the understanding of God. Now that we are thinking a little more openly. If God is almighty a paradox does not effect him in the least, he is not limmited by any laws if he could not combat the paradox you have constructed for him then he would not be almighty so even by saying it is there proves even more that he is alpwerfull.

God cannot be all-mighty

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Sapere Aude!

Mortensen

Guest

Legend

Well-Known Member

Sapere Aude!

Mortensen

Guest

Sapere Aude!

Well-Known Member

Sapere Aude!

Mortensen

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Sapere Aude!

elman

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Sapere Aude!

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency