Logical Conundrum of God

[Daretothink]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist - SciForums.com

Yeah this is pretty much one of those logical fallacies I spoke of earlier.

Click the link before you go any further.

The argument is that if God has omniscience than we do not have free will because all our choices are pre-determined. Furthermore because God is omniscient he will know if we accept or reject Jesus before we are created. So he creates us for the only purpose that we will go to Hell. This goes against the benevolence of God and therefore either he does not have omniscience or benevolence.

 

[daniel777]

the problem is with the premise.

omniscience doesn't necessitate determinism. . . . is omniscience the cause of the actions? or are the actions the cause of what's known? . . . . . either could be true; the argument makes the mistake of presupposing that determinism necessarily flows from omniscience.


an example:
suppose that free-will exists.... can actions be said to have been free after they are remembered? yes.
now, tie that understanding back into the premise... what you're left with is the question: "is God's omniscience deterministic or like memory?"

by presupposing "what will happen" necessarily follows from "omniscience" the argument overlooks the possibility that "omniscience" follows from "what will happen".

 

[Daretothink]

But then that opens the concept that God doesn't know anything until it has happened which then takes away the idea of omniscience, in the sense that "God knew you before you were born" Jeremiah 1:5. Thus the idea that the Christian God doesn't exist remains safe.

 

[daniel777]

But then that opens the concept that God doesn't know anything until it has happened which then takes away the idea of omniscience, in the sense that "God knew you before you were born" Jeremiah 1:5. Thus the idea that the Christian God doesn't exist remains safe.

there are two problems with this. one is a logical problem, and the second is an expanded explanation.
1. are you saying that a thing can exist by the knowledge of that thing alone? knowing something never necessitates a thing from the knowledge of that thing alone. it doesn't matter which came first.

an example:
i can know that two plus two equals four before i add them together. is my knowledge dependent on the principle of mathematics? or is my knowledge the determining factor; does two plus two equal four because i know that it does?

reasoning:
knowledge of a thing is impossible without the thing, but the things actual existence is possible without the knowledge of the thing. because knowledge of x is impossible without x, and because x is possible without the knowledge of x, the necessary factor is x and not the knowledge of x. thus, the determining factor lies with x when you just take into account x and knowledge of x.

2. most free-will philosophers and theologians take a transcendent view of God anyway... so terms like "until" and "before" are rendered meaningless in the context of the question of God's omniscience in relation to reality and then the question of his free-will following from that.

 

[Unfit'for'swine]

Genesis 6:6


6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart

Daretothink - nice to see you again? Converted any Christians to your religion yet?

Oh yes it is a religion,

"A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion. "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said."

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895

hehe


How are you? Have you done any exercise recently?


Peace Xx

 

[Daretothink]

there are two problems with this. one is a logical problem, and the second is an expanded explanation.
1. are you saying that a thing can exist by the knowledge of that thing alone? knowing something never necessitates a thing from the knowledge of that thing alone. it doesn't matter which came first.

I am saying that by the commonly used definition of omniscient as applied to the Christian God, YHWH knows everything, past, present, and future before it happens. As explained by the phrase "knew you before you were born", this kind of concept is interpreted as such that God knows you before you existed. I am basically saying that by the standard definition God knows everything prior to its existence.

an ex7;55036975ample: i can know that two plus two equals four before i add them together. is my knowledge dependent on the principle of mathematics? or is my knowledge the determining factor; does two plus two equal four because i know that it does?

Your knowledge that 2+2=4 is dependent on the fact that every previous time in known existence 2+2 has equaled 4, at no time has it correctly equaled five or six. Because of this we can form the ideas of mathematics because every time we enact 2+2 or something similar in principle we can get a consistent answer of 4. If one day 2+2=5 correctly it would change our understanding of the universe

reasoning:.
knowledge of a thing is impossible without the thing, but the things actual existence is possible without the knowledge of the thing. because knowledge of x is impossible without x, and because x is possible without the knowledge of x, the necessary factor is x and not the knowledge of x. thus, the determining factor lies with x when you just take into account x and knowledge of x.

Wrong. We have done this numerous times, that is have knowledge of something without its existence, using imagination. Many people can tell you a vivid history of the true lives X-Men but they do not exist. There does not exist a person who can actually emit a beam from his eyes but only lines on paper, yet he has a name, an origin, and social interactions with other such lines.

I also have to say that if God is not omniscient in the traditional sense of knowing all he is also not all-powerful because you do not have the power to change what you do not know of and if he only knows what happens after the event has occurred then his power relies on events which doesn't make him ALL-powerful.


Another argument I wanted to make

1. If God exists, then he[2] is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist

from Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey

 

[Daretothink]

Atheism means the disbelief in a God/Gods, not really a religion. I'll take the "bald is not a hair color" stance.

 

[Unfit'for'swine]

3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.

Says who? and it can't be you because you don't believe in absoloute truths, so everything you said is tosh.

"[FONT=&quot]We know God but as men born blind know the fire: they know that there is such a thing as fire, for they feel it warm them, but what it is they know not. So, that there is a God we know, but what He is we know little, and indeed we can never search Him out to perfection; a finite creature can never fully comprehend that which is infinite."[/FONT]

 

[daniel777]

I am saying that by the commonly used definition of omniscient as applied to the Christian God, YHWH knows everything, past, present, and future before it happens. As explained by the phrase "knew you before you were born", this kind of concept is interpreted as such that God knows you before you existed. I am basically saying that by the standard definition God knows everything prior to its existence.

and i'm basically saying that it doesn't matter which came first, and even if it did matter "prior" has no meaning in this context.

Your knowledge that 2+2=4 is dependent on the fact that every previous time in known existence 2+2 has equaled 4, at no time has it correctly equaled five or six. Because of this we can form the ideas of mathematics because every time we enact 2+2 or something similar in principle we can get a consistent answer of 4. If one day 2+2=5 correctly it would change our understanding of the universe

i actually agree with you about the nature of our knowledge of mathematics, (although i do think it remains a priori even though it can be said to be synthetic) but you didn't answer the main point/question. does 2+2=4 because i know it does? kant, and where your response seems to be going would probably both say no.

Wrong. We have done this numerous times, that is have knowledge of something without its existence, using imagination. Many people can tell you a vivid history of the true lives X-Men but they do not exist. There does not exist a person who can actually emit a beam from his eyes but only lines on paper, yet he has a name, an origin, and social interactions with other such lines.

i was using the traditional definition for knowledge: "a justified true belief". so, in other words, it's a contradiction in terms to "know" something that isn't true.

I also have to say that if God is not omniscient in the traditional sense of knowing all he is also not all-powerful because you do not have the power to change what you do not know of and if he only knows what happens after the event has occurred then his power relies on events which doesn't make him ALL-powerful.

do you mind rephrasing this? i had a hard time catching on. do you mean "doesn't make him all-powerful" or "makes him not all-powerful"? and when you said "you" did you mean "me" as in a human, or did you mean God?

but this is what i think you're saying. are you saying that God isn't all powerful if his knowledge relies on what happens and not the other way around, that knowing what happens as a consequence of what happens in some way makes him not all-powerful?

if that's what you're saying, forgive me if i'm missing it, i don't see how this can possibly be the case. it's not a necessary function of knowing to determine that which is known. giving determining powers to knowing would be adding to the definition of knowing. God can still be perfectly omniscient without having the added function of determination added to his attribute of omniscience.

Another argument I wanted to make

ok.

1. If God exists, then he[2] is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist

hmm, i would disagree with 3. a perfect being either has no wants or needs, or perfect wants and needs, or some combination of perfect wants and no needs, or no wants and perfect needs.

in the very least, a perfect being needs to be perfect (this one by definition) and wants to share that perfection. it's not the sort of needing or wanting that needs or wants because it lacks something. i think it is possible to need or want something without needing or wanting it out of a lack.

also, i would have made 6)"the universe exists" and moved the current 6) down to 7).... but i guess that doesn't really matter.

 

[Daretothink]

i actually agree with you about the nature of our knowledge of mathematics, (although i do think it remains a priori even though it can be said to be synthetic) but you didn't answer the main point/question. does 2+2=4 because i know it does? kant, and where your response seems to be going would probably both say no.

Yeah, I know how this will sound but I think the foundation of knowledge/understanding relies on semi-pragmatism. The fact that 2+2=4 is understood as true is because it has not only been true in every past instance but because we can receive consistent and reliable results.

i was using the traditional definition for knowledge: "a justified true belief". so, in other words, it's a contradiction in terms to "know" something that isn't true.

But true is a flexible term, such in the likes of a paradox in which both things can be true but still inconsistent. Still even more when it comes to things like"God" which is in the least a metaphysical question, the term "truth" is a questionable position to have because it can not be of scientific nature.

do you mind rephrasing this? i had a hard time catching on. do you mean "doesn't make him all-powerful" or "makes him not all-powerful"? and when you said "you" did you mean "me" as in a human, or did you mean God?

Here's an attempt.

God must be all-knowing to be all-powerful. Knowledge of something must be had in order to change it. I cannot change the channel on the television without knowing that there is a television. So if God is All-powerful he must be all-knowing.

You as in the object concept of God.

but this is what i think you're saying. are you saying that God isn't all powerful if his knowledge relies on what happens and not the other way around, that knowing what happens as a consequence of what happens in some way makes him not all-powerful?

Yes basically. Omniscience is knowing everything. This includes past, present, and future. This means that God knew everything about anything before it happened ever since He first existed. When you say that events have to occur for God to know something, that eliminates his abilities to know the future as it has not happened yet.

if that's what you're saying, forgive me if i'm missing it, i don't see how this can possibly be the case. it's not a necessary function of knowing to determine that which is known. giving determining powers to knowing would be adding to the definition of knowing. God can still be perfectly omniscient without having the added function of determination added to his attribute of omniscience.

Yeah I'm missing your point in this. Just to put it simply how can an all-knowing being still be such if he can only know things after they happen and not before.

hmm, i would disagree with 3. a perfect being either has no wants or needs, or perfect wants and needs, or some combination of perfect wants and no needs, or no wants and perfect needs.

Wants or needs simply is in contradiction with perfection. When you have something that you yet to gain, even if that something is a perfect want, you are not perfect simply because you are incomplete as a perfect being.

in the very least, a perfect being needs to be perfect (this one by definition) and wants to share that perfection. it's not the sort of needing or wanting that needs or wants because it lacks something. i think it is possible to need or want something without needing or wanting it out of a lack.

Perfect being needs to be perfect, a perfect being would already fulfill this and hence would not have this as a need anymore.

Wanting to share such a perfection is still a lack of something wanted so at some point God would have to be less than perfect because he lacked a want.

Simply God at some point was less perfect than now because he wanted to create a Universe to share perfection. He created the Universe to fulfill that want.

This goes against his characteristic of immutability. If God never changes then his want to create the Universe to share perfection would never change. Unless God wants what he already has?

 

[Daretothink]

You also have to argue that the Universe was perfect which again is such a flexible term. A perfect Universe to you may not be one to me. Perfection is subjective really.

 

[Daretothink]

3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.

Says who? and it can't be you because you don't believe in absoloute truths, so everything you said is tosh.

"[FONT=&quot]We know God but as men born blind know the fire: they know that there is such a thing as fire, for they feel it warm them, but what it is they know not. So, that there is a God we know, but what He is we know little, and indeed we can never search Him out to perfection; a finite creature can never fully comprehend that which is infinite."[/FONT]

Perfection requires a state of completeness. Having a lack of a need or want contradicts this definition. And again you need to understand that I cannot make absolute statement but that doesn't mean anything ever is useless. And plus I was using the a priori usage in the term of perfection. I can know the definition of perfection just by it's definition. I can know what a bachelor is without ever experiencing one just by using the definition of "unmarried man".

 

[daniel777]

Yeah, I know how this will sound but I think the foundation of knowledge/understanding relies on semi-pragmatism. The fact that 2+2=4 is understood as true is because it has not only been true in every past instance but because we can receive consistent and reliable results.

and i think that's a good approach to science from what i've seen, but the downside is that it doesn't leave any room for criticizing the existence of God or "actuals" from its own standpoint because "absolute truth" isn't really even taken into account. everything could possibly change and consistency, while preferred, isn't ontologically necessary.... it's only methodologically preferred.

BUT going back to the main argument, supposing there is a God, his justification for knowing wouldn't be based in that sort of semi pragmatic approach, but even still, all sorts of "knowing", even "knowing" with semi-pragmatic justification, is rooted outside of the knowing itself. If I know something, I don’t know it only because I know it; I know it because there is a thing to know. knowing is rooted in the thing being known whether it's the actual thing (or idea), a shadow of the thing, or just the experience based on a “semi-pragmatic” justification.

But true is a flexible term, such in the likes of a paradox in which both things can be true but still inconsistent. Still even more when it comes to things like"God" which is in the least a metaphysical question, the term "truth" is a questionable position to have because it can not be of scientific nature.

well, we aren't really discussing science, and science wasn't ever really suited for discovering "truth" in an "actual" sense.

also, i don't think actual paradoxes exist. . . . . which neither of us will be either to prove whether they actually do or do not. still, why should we assume that they do?

but anyway, how does that change the definition of "knowledge"?

i was explaining how i meant "knowing" in the explanation i gave, and the explanation could be narrowed to just God's knowing, and it's impossible for God to know something that isn't true. . . . . but when i say "knowing" generally i also mean it as a true justified belief.

God must be all-knowing to be all-powerful. Knowledge of something must be had in order to change it. I cannot change the channel on the television without knowing that there is a television. So if God is All-powerful he must be all-knowing.

gotcha.

Yes basically. Omniscience is knowing everything. This includes past, present, and future. This means that God knew everything about anything before it happened ever since He first existed. When you say that events have to occur for God to know something, that eliminates his abilities to know the future as it has not happened yet.

that doesn't follow... how does that eliminate his ability to know the future? tell me why. show me the contradiction.


i disagree.... for all the reasons stated above before this post that haven't really been dealt with yet. i hate going in circles.

also, you haven't yet taken into account 2 from my first post. if God is transcendent, all temporal references in relation to his transcendent self are meaningless.

Yeah I'm missing your point in this. Just to put it simply how can an all-knowing being still be such if he can only know things after they happen and not before.

i never said that omniscience only knows things "after" and not "before". regardless of when something happens, omniscience is simply knowing of it.

ok. i'll try to do a better job explaining.

As far as the definitions for omniscient and knowledge are concerned, I think I’ve shown clearly that knowledge must always come from the something outside of knowledge itself, such as an actual thing, experience, a decuction, ect… as well, I think we both agree that omniscience Is “knowing everything past present and future”. So, from those two points, it’s reasonable to conclude that omniscience is knowing everything past present and future, and what’s known is determined by the thing being known not by mere “knowing” itself.


So, that “is” what an all knowing being means. . . . as far as the “is” is concerned, if omniscience is real, then it is possible to know something regardless of when it happens in relation to knowing of it.

as to “how” it happens (which was your question), I’ve already given an explanation of how it might happen in number 2 of my first post, that God transcends our experience based understanding of time. All that we know of time is limited completely to our experience. We don’t know anything other than a linear progression of time (which is extremely annoying, because I can’t think of any reason why it should be), and we don’t know anything “outside” of time. Our language isn’t even suited to discuss “outside” of time because, trapped by our experience, we can’t understand it. For all we know, time could be a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff (yes, I’m a fan too). . . . . SO, most theologians and philosophers who endorse free-will also accept that God transcends the “physical” universe and the constraints of its properties including time. . . . . and, basically, terms like before, prior, after… all temporal references become meaningless. All that’s left is cause and effect. Anyway, regardless of whether or not all that is true or not, it is a possible “how” to supplement the “is”.


Here’s my main problem with the argument. It assumes that knowledge of a future event means that free-will cannot exist when free-will is simply defined as the ability to act without coercion. . . . Which just isn’t correct logically for reasons I’ve shown. . . . If God knows that you’re going to act in a certain way, that doesn’t mean that he somehow made you do it. As for the “how”, as with transcendence, he could have simply witnessed the event before it happened so to speak. If he simply just witnessed the event before it happened, then his foreknowledge doesn’t mean that he made you do it. It’s a false paradox.

Wants or needs simply is in contradiction with perfection. When you have something that you yet to gain, even if that something is a perfect want, you are not perfect simply because you are incomplete as a perfect being.

right but not all wants and needs are "something you have yet to gain". not all wants and needs necessitate a lack. a perfect being needs to be perfect in order to be perfect. a perfect being wants to be himself because he is himself.

Perfect being needs to be perfect, a perfect being would already fulfill this and hence would not have this as a need anymore.

i disagree. i think you're oversimplifying the definition and excluding a crucial concept. needs are essential, and i agree that God doesn't have any external needs. . . . . but to say that God doesn't need to be perfect is entirely false. to say that God doesn't need to be God is entirely false.
i don't see why need and want necessitate a lack in whatever/whoever is needing and wanting. take the "lack" out of the definition of need and want.

God can need to be himself and want to be himself to others.... and not because he lacks of himself but because he is himself perfectly. the real argument you're posting here is that:

1. If God exists, then he[2] is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being lacks nothing.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some lack.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist

and when you look at it in this sense that you're explaining it, i disagree with number 4. when you look at it in terms of want and need, of course, i disagree with 3 because i honestly don't see how want and need always necessitate a lack.

the argument also presupposes that "lack" is the only possible motivation for any action, which is also false.

Unless God wants what he already has?

now you're getting there. God needs to be himself. God wants to be himself. he doesn't lack himself. who is "himself"? God is love. does God lack love? no. does God want to share himself? yes. does he want to share himself because he lacks someone to share it with? no. he wants to share himself because that's who he is. he is perfect in himself.

 

[daniel777]

You also have to argue that the Universe was perfect which again is such a flexible term. A perfect Universe to you may not be one to me. Perfection is subjective really.

is this to me? i can't tell because i'm not following your other discussion.

but anyway, if it is, why do i have to prove perfection in accordance with your subjective interpretation?

 

[Unfit'for'swine]

Perfection requires a state of completeness. Having a lack of a need or want contradicts this definition. And again you need to understand that I cannot make absolute statement but that doesn't mean anything ever is useless. And plus I was using the a priori usage in the term of perfection. I can know the definition of perfection just by it's definition. I can know what a bachelor is without ever experiencing one just by using the definition of "unmarried man".

Well if God was small enough to be understood then he wouldn't be big enough to be worshipped.

The question I want to ask you is, what if your wrong? What if your logic fails you in the end, when you die. What if you go to hell for a life-time of wrong?

I'm just saying eternity is a long time.

The thing is, you don't know what happens after you die. No one has returned from the dead to tell you, but many people have experienced God, and some have seen hell, "Mary Baxter"

You can die walking across the street, why take a chance with eternity?

Eternity is a long time, someone once put it like this. If there was a Bird, and this bird flew around the earth and each time it did this, it's wing brushed against the side of a mountain. After the mountain has been reduced to dust, eternity wouldn't have even begun.

The Bible is the truth for me. I don't believe science holds truth.

 

[Daretothink]

Well if God was small enough to be understood then he wouldn't be big enough to be worshipped.

The question I want to ask you is, what if your wrong? What if your logic fails you in the end, when you die. What if you go to hell for a life-time of wrong?

I can ask you the same question can't I? What if your faith fails in the end and Islam is true. Not only would have lived a lie and looked like a child when arguing these things, you would go to hell because you did not accept Allah and Muhammad. Really we are in the same boat, your as much of an atheist as I am, I just go one further.

And to answer your question of what if, I don't really care. If I do indeed go to Hell because I didn't believe in YHWH then I'll be glad because I would rather go to hell than follow the tyrant of the Old Testament who is, excuse the pun, detesta(ment)ble.

I'm just saying eternity is a long time.

It is, the longest in fact. And it really shows your character that you would pull such a weak argument and threat when you have nothing to add to teh conversation like daniel77 can. Why don't you research things some more, come back and try again.

The thing is, you don't know what happens after you die. No one has returned from the dead to tell you, but many people have experienced God, and some have seen hell, "Mary Baxter"

"No one has returned from the dead" hmmm...I thought your religion was based on such an occurrence.

By the way in cases such as religious prophets, these "accounts" of seeing heaven or hell or God are uncorroborated and go up against any one else who ever experienced Allah, Jupiter, or Shiva. Can all those people be right too or are all these accounts explainable through science. Either way your wrong aren't you?

The Bible is the truth for me. I don't believe science holds truth.

The Bible is the truth? The same Bible that was written thousands of years ago by superstitious desert people who didn't have modern science to explain natural occurrences. Of course that is so logical to do. I suppose science is untrustworthy, except when it makes everyday of your existence much better with medicine, refrigeration, and modern farming techniques. The reason you reject science though is because a) you believe in the Bible so you cannot test science on it's own merit you have to measure it up to the "Holy Word", b) you are afraid of hell so you submit to being a Christian (which doesn't really help you if YHWH isn't the true God, and c) Science is harder to understand than the Bible.

So unift you can spit brimstone all you want but unless you come up with proof (something that would contradict the main component of faith) you arguments are that of a scared 5 year old after hearing of hell for the first time.

 

[Daretothink]

and i think that's a good approach to science from what i've seen, but the downside is that it doesn't leave any room for criticizing the existence of God or "actuals" from its own standpoint because "absolute truth" isn't really even taken into account. everything could possibly change and consistency, while preferred, isn't ontologically necessary.... it's only methodologically preferred.

I have taken the position before that absolute do not exist because we cannot know the future.

BUT going back to the main argument, supposing there is a God, his justification for knowing wouldn't be based in that sort of semi pragmatic approach, but even still, all sorts of "knowing", even "knowing" with semi-pragmatic justification, is rooted outside of the knowing itself. If I know something, I don’t know it only because I know it; I know it because there is a thing to know. knowing is rooted in the thing being known whether it's the actual thing (or idea), a shadow of the thing, or just the experience based on a “semi-pragmatic” justification.

You do have to assume that God does exist for this argument not to be moot though. Assuming there was which, I do not think we can based on evidence, God would be composed of what for God would have to be of a physical composition in order to do things such as exist and know for those are functions of a physical object. Knowing requires both the presence of the thing known and a brain capable of knowing by the being that has knowledge.

Furthermore if knowledge requires the thing known to be present than how can something be known before it is present other than a priori definitions?

Simply knowledge of something requires some factors a) the thing to be, b) experience of the thing or an a priori definition, c) object that is capable of knowing.

well, we aren't really discussing science, and science wasn't ever really suited for discovering "truth" in an "actual" sense.

What is suited for discovering "truth".

also, i don't think actual paradoxes exist. . . . . which neither of us will be either to prove whether they actually do or do not. still, why should we assume that they do?

There exist some when it comes to particle quantum physics and black holes and such but those I believe to be only temporary due to our present lack of technology in the area.

that doesn't follow... how does that eliminate his ability to know the future? tell me why. show me the contradiction.

Omniscient means knowing everything, but if free will exists that means that God is unknowing of what decision a human will make. So for true free will to exist God wouldn't know what choice would be made.

also you stated something about temporal limits not existing when talking about God. How so?

i never said that omniscience only knows things "after" and not "before". regardless of when something happens, omniscience is simply knowing of it.

But it is the matter of when that knowledge becomes known.

I kind kind of understand of what your saying I think. You believe that God remains omniscient because regardless of when it happens He WILL know of it, is that right.

In that case what supernatural aspect does that do for God.

as to “how” it happens (which was your question), I’ve already given an explanation of how it might happen in number 2 of my first post, that God transcends our experience based understanding of time. All that we know of time is limited completely to our experience. We don’t know anything other than a linear progression of time (which is extremely annoying, because I can’t think of any reason why it should be), and we don’t know anything “outside” of time. Our language isn’t even suited to discuss “outside” of time because, trapped by our experience, we can’t understand it. For all we know, time could be a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff (yes, I’m a fan too). . . . . SO, most theologians and philosophers who endorse free-will also accept that God transcends the “physical” universe and the constraints of its properties including time. . . . . and, basically, terms like before, prior, after… all temporal references become meaningless. All that’s left is cause and effect. Anyway, regardless of whether or not all that is true or not, it is a possible “how” to supplement the “is”.

If god exists outside of time then how do we have Biblical events on a time line? If God speaks doesn't that resonate throughout eternity because time isn't linear.

Here’s my main problem with the argument. It assumes that knowledge of a future event means that free-will cannot exist when free-will is simply defined as the ability to act without coercion. . . . Which just isn’t correct logically for reasons I’ve shown. . . . If God knows that you’re going to act in a certain way, that doesn’t mean that he somehow made you do it. As for the “how”, as with transcendence, he could have simply witnessed the event before it happened so to speak. If he simply just witnessed the event before it happened, then his foreknowledge doesn’t mean that he made you do it. It’s a false paradox.

Well by your definition free will doesn't exist anyway due to everything producing coercion such as family, social values and norms, brain chemistry. But you don't see predestination through knowledge as a problem?

right but not all wants and needs are "something you have yet to gain". not all wants and needs necessitate a lack. a perfect being needs to be perfect in order to be perfect. a perfect being wants to be himself because he is himself.

But when you say that a perfect being exist, that being has already fulfilled the need to be perfect and the want that accompanies it. A giraffe does not need to be a giraffe, it already is one. But then again this is a principle characteristic, something that does not change, of God and not a secondary which is under his power to change, but that raises a whole new question of "can God change himself"

now you're getting there. God needs to be himself. God wants to be himself. he doesn't lack himself. who is "himself"? God is love. does God lack love? no. does God want to share himself? yes. does he want to share himself because he lacks someone to share it with? no. he wants to share himself because that's who he is. he is perfect in himself.

So is your argument that God created the Universe to share his perfection.

If so then it needs to remain flawless. An artist is judged on his work isn't he.

And that goes into what is the ideal form of perfection, a sadist and I do not share the same idea of perfection

 

[daniel777]

You do have to assume that God does exist for this argument not to be moot though.

actually, the main argument starts with the premise that God exists.... so, as a response to that argument, i don't have to prove that God exists in order to argue against it.

Assuming there was which, I do not think we can based on evidence, God would be composed of what for God would have to be of a physical composition in order to do things such as exist and know for those are functions of a physical object.

first off though, have you forgotten your original claim entirely? it seems to me you keep going off in different directions.... which is actually perfectly fine with me because i think it's interesting, but are you still taking all this in the context of your original argument?

1. why does God have to have physical composition in order to exist?

2. if we can only know how God's omniscience works if he is physical, then supposing he isn't physical, how does the main argument in the op make any sense at all?

Furthermore if knowledge requires the thing known to be present than how can something be known before it is present other than a priori definitions?

all these "hows". but fair enough. here's a possible "how".... one that i've been going on and on about since my first post. God is equally present in each moment. because God is equally present in each moment, all actions, to him, are equally present and thus known.

Simply knowledge of something requires some factors a) the thing to be, b) experience of the thing or an a priori definition, c) object that is capable of knowing.

why?

What is suited for discovering "truth".

i would say a good tool to use is logic, and even that has severe limits.
logic: if b then not c. if a then b. from those two premises, it is true to conclude that if a not c.

There exist some when it comes to particle quantum physics and black holes and such but those I believe to be only temporary due to our present lack of technology in the area.

so do i.

Omniscient means knowing everything, but if free will exists that means that God is unknowing of what decision a human will make. So for true free will to exist God wouldn't know what choice would be made.

why?

because God's knowledge somehow determines human action? knowledge doesn't determine anything. . . . i hate going in circles, or were you going to give another reason why?

also you stated something about temporal limits not existing when talking about God. How so?

LOL, what? i can't post funny pictures too?


i look at it the same way i would an equation. it's there, abstract, and fully capable of influencing the physical world world. take for instance 2+3=5 again. when you view the math problem as an abstract, 2+3=5 is what it is without any temporal references. however, when it enters the physical world, or when it enters experience, 2+3 cannot equal 5 before 2 or before 3. there is now an order to doing things. i have two apples and "then" (temporal reference) add 3 before i can have 5. abstractly, 2 and 3 are simply five and it doesn't matter which came first. in a temporal experience, one has to come first. the abstract in this sense only points to relationships between different numbers (or ideas).

I kind kind of understand of what your saying I think. You believe that God remains omniscient because regardless of when it happens He WILL know of it, is that right.

well, no... i just view omniscience knowledge and determinism as part of an "equation" so to speak. i compare their relationships and from their definitions try to deduce what is possible necessary and not possible. anyway, i was pointing out that i didn't use any temporal references in my speech . . . . and that ^ is the reason why. tbh i could care less about possible reasons for "how" something is possible, but i can understand the desire for wanting to know a possible "how".

also, just because i give a reason how something might be possible doesn't mean i agree with it. if one possible reason for how something might happen can be shown in contrast to an argument saying that that specific something can't possibly happen, then the argument is rendered moot. of course, i already think it's moot because of the relationships between the terms, but transcendence does offer a possible how. . . . and just because i offer it as an explanation doesn't mean i believe it. i'm only offering it as a possibility.

If god exists outside of time then how do we have Biblical events on a time line? If God speaks doesn't that resonate throughout eternity because time isn't linear.

ewww... lol, i get aggravated when christians say that too. "outside of time"... just, ew. i got aggravated when i said it too. i think i used parentheses though. did i? not sure, too lazy to check... anyway... Biblically, God exists in both i think. from a transcendent standpoint, suppose God knows everything.... well, he also knows what he himself will do. if he knows what he's going to do does that mean that God isn't free? or is there a difference between being free and simply being? does freedom mean that a person is free to "be" not-himself? no, because in order to be free he must be himself, otherwise it's not "himself" being free? maybe this definition of freedom we're using just isn't tenable. and i'm trailing way off....

and good point about God speaking. logos. suppose God exists both immanently (temporally in this context) and transcendently.

and i never wanted you to take me as actually positing that time isn't linear. . . . just that it's not the only possibility.

Well by your definition free will doesn't exist anyway due to everything producing coercion such as family, social values and norms, brain chemistry. But you don't see predestination through knowledge as a problem?

that's not my definition; it's taken from the argument you posted. thankyou for admitting how flimsy it is. -.- my definition of free-will would actually look more compatibilistic. i don't believe in free-will in a libertarian sense, and no, i haven't really even brought my beliefs about free-will into the argument as far as i'm aware.

But when you say that a perfect being exist, that being has already fulfilled the need to be perfect and the want that accompanies it. A giraffe does not need to be a giraffe, it already is one. But then again this is a principle characteristic, something that does not change, of God and not a secondary which is under his power to change, but that raises a whole new question of "can God change himself"

no, you're smuggling "lack" into the definition of want and need. the ability or lack of ability of something to change doesn't shake the fact that essential properties/characteristics/whatever are still needed. something can be both already had and needed. "i need my mind to think". do you need yours? or do you lack it before you need it?

and i would say that God can't change himself, personally. we can discuss that if you want.

So is your argument that God created the Universe to share his perfection.

If so then it needs to remain flawless. An artist is judged on his work isn't he.

And that goes into what is the ideal form of perfection, a sadist and I do not share the same idea of perfection

my argument is that God created because he is perfect.

If so then it needs to remain flawless. An artist is judged on his work isn't he.

of course, but a good artist's artwork doesn't need to remain great in order for the artist to be considered good, does it? da vinci is still a great painter even if something bad happens to his paintings for instance.

And that goes into what is the ideal form of perfection, a sadist and I do not share the same idea of perfection

if perfection is "actual", as it is in the premise of the argument, then ideas don't really make a difference as far as the "actual" perfection is concerned.

 

[solarwave]

I havn't read the whole thread so far, but I see the problem being here:

Knowledge doesn't affect things. God knows the future but doesn't control is because of that knowledge. God knows because you will choose X, you don't choose X because God knew you would.

For example pretend there is no God but there is time travel. I go to the future and see you do X. I then go back to the present and I KNOW you WILL do X. Therefore you actions are determined? I would say the only reason I saw you do X is because you chose to do it, not because I saw it.

The same is true of God in a way. God is timeless (in my opinion) so He can see the whole of time and see you in time 1 and time 2 at the same time. So God's knowledge isn't even foreknowledge because God has no past or future.

 

[DaveInVain]

Hmm. Something wrong about this argument of God. Humans (as insignificant as we are) have no way of proving or disproving his existence. We can only hope that what we believe is right and further than that, we have no way of knowing. @Person Above me, trying to define God is very wrong of you. You can't describe a being more important than you, unless of course you believe that God is only an idea.