Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[zippy2006]

Based on the results.

It is suboptimal based on the results? But it would seem that you're talking in circles. I've already denied the premise that, "If not everyone is Christian, then God has not done his part," yet you continue to lean exclusively on that premise.

If that isn't your argument, then feel free to offer another. (The same goes for Ana) As is, there is no reason to believe that the suboptimal results are due to God rather than man.

What free will does one exercise in being born to a culture dominated by a religion other than Christianity?

You spoke of someone being born with a disposition that "forever precludes them from forming a relationship with their creator." Do you think that being born into a non-Christian culture does this? If so, why? I don't see it at all.

Making himself known to the world as the god of Christianity still leaves open the possibility of a relationship. It doesn't force anyone to have a relationship with him, but it does make his message unambiguously clear.

It seems to me that he has done just that.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

I understand what you're saying. Let me explain how I've come to my conclusion that an intelligent designer must have created this world.

When I was 19, I began having serious doubts about God. I decided most people who believed in Him were ignorant, and looking for some source of hope in their life. Science just didn't seem to support the God I had been told about. So, I tried to "fix" myself by attending a Christian school. Long story short, I left within months with the assumption that Christians were ignorant hypocritical [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]s.

So, I decided to pursue science. After studying plant science in depth, I realized evolution was less likely than creation. All living things are related to an extent, but nobody can link them all back to one ancestor. Evolution requires a cause and effect process, but single-celled organisms would have no reason to complicate themselves by evolving. Also, mutations do not produce additional information. While living organisms can adapt, they can't add information to their DNA.

Also, it makes no sense to evolve to become more complicated, because the more complicated something is, the more vulnerable it is. And why, if life evolved on earth, did it not evolve on Mars? If things just evolve to meet their environments, surely something on a nearby planet would have evolved to that planet's climate. This suggests our life relies on our atmosphere, which contradicts the idea behind evolution that things just change and adapt to anything. Also, there's the problem with reproduction. Self-fertilization is much more simple, and reliable. Why evolve into male and female?

The only explanation that sounded reasonable, after two years of research, was an intelligent designer. Why male and female? The marriage relationship is crucial to Christianity.
Why was everything related, but only to an extent? Common ancestors, but in the form of an original cat, dog, horse, etc. Breeds evolved.

The complexity of creation makes sense with a complex creator. Not by millions of years of accidents producing increasingly complex life forms. Why would nature voluntarily complicate itself to the point of creating life and death? The Bible has answers to those questions that science does not.

That's where my view of earth and creation comes from. Not blind faith, but years of research into the honest possibilities of where we came from and why.

 

[zippy2006]

The answer to your first question lies in the existence of multiple interpretations of the bible and multiple denominations of christianity. Optimal would be a situation where only one of each of these exists.

But the question is whether the existence of multiple interpretations is due to God or to man. Supposing the product is suboptimal and the only contributors are God and man, it follows that someone's approach is suboptimal. But the arguments you offer simply don't lend any reason to believe it is God.

The mere presence of suboptimal results is simply not sufficient to prove your conclusion.

How do you come to the conclusion that the "person possessing free will is to blame"? After all...they are the intended audience of god's message...are they not?

Yes, what is your point? If I intend a message for you and you distort it or close your ears, is it my fault or yours?

You suggested that god might be successfully communicating with people in other ways than the bible. This only strengthens my case that the bible contains flaws.

If I write you a letter does it follow that telephones contain flaws?

Suppose god can speak directly to someone...and there is no lack of clarity at all. It would be far more effective/efficient then if god delivered his message to mankind in this way instead of a 2000 year old book.

Or perhaps the exact same result would occur. Yet your approach is individualistic. God uses creation, including human beings, in his plan of salvation. If you think that God cannot work through imperfect creatures to achieve his aims then it becomes even clearer that we believe in different Gods.

 

[zippy2006]

-mistake-

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is suboptimal based on the results? But it would seem that you're talking in circles. I've already denied the premise that, "If not everyone is Christian, then God has not done his part," yet you continue to lean exclusively on that premise.

If that isn't your argument, then feel free to offer another. (The same goes for Ana) As is, there is no reason to believe that the suboptimal results are due to God rather than man.

Why would it be due to man? You alluded to free will, but I think I've already addressed that in the original post:

Why is that a problem for God? Knowing the best way in which to reach any person means that, if he so desires, he is able to form a relationship with anyone, regardless of their current disposition. He doesn't need to rely on suboptimal methods for converting people because, for each individual, he already knows the optimal way to convert them.

In other words, even if an individual freely rejects him, for whatever reason, he should still be able to find a way of forming a relationship with them, if he so desires. By virtue of his omniscience, he knows the best way to reach anyone, regardless of their initial disposition.

You spoke of someone being born with a disposition that "forever precludes them from forming a relationship with their creator." Do you think that being born into a non-Christian culture does this? If so, why? I don't see it at all.

No, what I mean by that comment - "forever precludes them from forming a relationship with their creator" - needs some clarification. If there is someone he cannot reach and form a relationship with, then he must have created them that way. He must have created them such that they would never enter into a relationship with him. Assuming he only creates beings with whom he wants to form a relationship, I presume that you would consider this impossible.

It seems to me that he has done just that.

I understand how, as a believer, it might seem that way to you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But the question is whether the existence of multiple interpretations is due to God or to man. Supposing the product is suboptimal and the only contributors are God and man, it follows that someone's approach is suboptimal. But the arguments you offer simply don't lend any reason to believe it is God.

Supposing that the miscommunication were due to man, couldn't God overcome such problems easily? Why would our limitations pose a problem for him?

 

[Ana the Ist]

By the same token, what a "flaw" is is a matter of perspective and not fact. This renders your whole "logical argument" against the existence of God to be nothing more than you telling me that you think God did a lousy job at getting His message across. I think He did a marvelous job.

According to you, we are both right. Your argument collapses.

Go back and read my first post again. I avoided that problem by only discussing god's perfection as it relates to his creations. I also made sure all terms were clearly defined...not left ambiguous like you and sister did.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

You're definitely not a philosopher. Funny you should be making this argument...It's the same one AP has been wanting to make for about the last 20 pages or so...

Anyways, you said "earthquakes" (which fall under natural disasters) were "disciplinary actions" taken after years of "warnings". Who are they intended to discipline? There are plenty of good people, who are christians, who have died in earthquakes all over the planet? Why would god want to "discipline" them? If they aren't being punished for their behavior (morality) or their beliefs (christianity)...then what are they being executed for?

What about people born with seriously disabling birth/genetic defects? Are they being punished as well? If so...what are they being punished for?

A philosopher would probably ask themselves these questions (or similar ones) before declaring the problem of "suffering" as one that "easily defeats itself."

Let me clarify: People use natural disasters, such as earthquakes, to refute God on one hand, and the disciplinary actions He took in the OT on the other. He took disciplinary actions after multiple warnings to change their immoral behavior.

Ironically, genetic mutations that produce deformities are labeled evil when we relate them to God, yet necessary in terms of evolution. Simply put, disabilities exist because the world is not perfect.

 

[zippy2006]

Why would it be due to man? You alluded to free will, but I think I've already addressed that in the original post:

In other words, even if an individual freely rejects him, for whatever reason, he should still be able to find a way of forming a relationship with them, if he so desires. By virtue of his omniscience, he knows the best way to reach anyone, regardless of their initial disposition.

I grant that God approaches in the best way possible. The question is whether the best way is necessarily sufficient.

First let me say that it is intuitive to me that one could never force a relationship on someone with free will. Someone with more intelligence and wit may be more adept at forming such a relationship, but they would still have no guarantee. They must do their best and wait for a response. They cannot, by themselves, elicit the response. But I will try to give a more concrete reason...

I believe that free will entails the "ability to do otherwise." That is, for each volitional act that an agent carries out, they were capable of acting otherwise than they actually did (even if this only amounts to not-acting). Now suppose Bob approaches Sue, who has free will. Suppose Bob successfully woos Sue, who responds to Bob's approach and forms the desired relationship. According to Sue's ability to do otherwise, the forming of the relationship was not necessary. She was not forced or guaranteed to respond, no matter how appealing Bob's approach was.

For every person who responds to God and converts, it is possible that they might not have responded. And everyone who fails to respond and convert falls into precisely that second category. (Granted, "conversion" here need not be understood as explicit faith or membership in Christianity.)

No, what I mean by that comment - "forever precludes them from forming a relationship with their creator" - needs some clarification. If there is someone he cannot reach and form a relationship with, then he must have created them that way. He must have created them such that they would never enter into a relationship with him. Assuming he only creates beings with whom he wants to form a relationship, I presume that you would consider this impossible.

The above should explain this, but I will add a word or two.

There is no one he cannot reach, but there are (presumably) those he will not reach. God can, by virtue of the recipient's free will, reach each individual. God creates open-ended individuals. They are not determined in either direction.

I understand how, as a believer, it might seem that way to you.

And I understand how, as a non-believer, it might not seem that way to you.

Supposing that the miscommunication were due to man, couldn't God overcome such problems easily? Why would our limitations pose a problem for him?

I take it that we are using "miscommunication" in a very broad sense. In reality Christianity does not see it so much as one person being irresponsible in the maintenance of their two-way radio, but the problem is rather entwined in moral impediments (i.e. sin, especially pride; John 1:5).

Our limitations are more fundamental than a complicated puzzle that a supremely intelligent agent could put together. It is much more like a betrothal than a "help wanted" ad, which God could fill with ease. For me the more pressing (and empirical) question is, "Why do we so often reject God's offer?" Those rejections are very clear to me in both small and large ways, both in myself and others. For example, I know of drug addicts who have literally been offered all the help in the world and yet never recover. I will leave it at that for now, for the sake of brevity...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I grant that God approaches in the best way possible. The question is whether the best way is necessarily sufficient.

Why wouldn't it be? If there are any barriers that need to be overcome, surely an omniscient and omnipotent being should be able to overcome them. If not even that is sufficient, then the question becomes why he created such a situation in the first place (i.e., an individual who he knew could never be reached).

First let me say that it is intuitive to me that one could never force a relationship on someone with free will. Someone with more intelligence and wit may be more adept at forming such a relationship, but they would still have no guarantee. They must do their best and wait for a response. They cannot, by themselves, elicit the response. But I will try to give a more concrete reason...

I believe that free will entails the "ability to do otherwise." That is, for each volitional act that an agent carries out, they were capable of acting otherwise than they actually did (even if this only amounts to not-acting). Now suppose Bob approaches Sue, who has free will. Suppose Bob successfully woos Sue, who responds to Bob's approach and forms the desired relationship. According to Sue's ability to do otherwise, the forming of the relationship was not necessary. She was not forced or guaranteed to respond, no matter how appealing Bob's approach was.

Intuitively, this makes sense. But now suppose that Bob created Sue for the purpose of forming a relationship with him. This changes the nature of the interaction completely. Now Sue exists for the purpose of satisfying one of Bob's desires, specifically his desire for a relationship. But Sue still has free will, meaning that she has the choice of not satisfying Bob's desires. Now suppose that Bob is omniscient. He knew prior to creating Sue whether she would ever willingly engage in a relationship with him. Suppose he knew that she would never do so, no matter what he did. This would mean he created Sue knowing that she would never satisfy his desires. He can say that Sue is to blame, since she rejected him freely. But he created her knowing that she would do that.

And I understand how, as a non-believer, it might not seem that way to you.

Well, to me and every other nonbeliever in Christianity, including those belonging to a different religion.

I take it that we are using "miscommunication" in a very broad sense. In reality Christianity does not see it so much as one person being irresponsible in the maintenance of their two-way radio, but the problem is rather entwined in moral impediments (i.e. sin, especially pride; John 1:5).

Our limitations are more fundamental than a complicated puzzle that a supremely intelligent agent could put together. It is much more like a betrothal than a "help wanted" ad, which God could fill with ease. For me the more pressing (and empirical) question is, "Why do we so often reject God's offer?" Those rejections are very clear to me in both small and large ways, both in myself and others. For example, I know of drug addicts who have literally been offered all the help in the world and yet never recover. I will leave it at that for now, for the sake of brevity...

Many would say that pride is what prevents individuals from accepting the Gospel message, but I think that shifts the locus of responsibility onto the individual who isn't convinced in an attempt to absolve the religion for failing to present a compelling case in the first place. Sometimes the fault lies within the religion, rather than in the individuals who do not assent to its doctrines.

 

[Gene2memE]

You are wrong.

No, demonstrably not.

A skeptic of one worldview, is a believer in another.

You can be both a believer and a skeptic, while holding the same worldview. I was a skeptical Christian. I'm a skeptical atheist. Neither of my position of belief or non-acceptance of belief had that much to do with my skepticism.

Atheists have worldviews.

Correct. That's part and parcel of being a human. But ascribing to particular beliefs, apart from the non-acceptance of the claims of theism, is not a pre-requisite for atheism.

Every atheist here has particluar answers for the big questions of life.

Correct again. But, and its an important but, there is no link between atheism and having particular answers to the questions of life. I can and do have wildly different answers to fellow atheist about the big questions.

They have belief systems, belief structures, which like everbody else's, are founded upon certain beliefs that are taken for granted as being true and are thus, articles of faith, i.e. articles that we are reasonable in trusting are true in the absence of some logically or mathematically rigorous proof.

There are some fundamentally basic beliefs that need to be shared in order to be able to converse logically - that we're real beings inhabiting a real universe. We also need to accept esoteric claims and labels, in order to have a common vocabulary to discuss ideas.

But every atheist has answers to the questions:

1. Who/what are we?
2. Where did we come from?
3. Why are we here?
4. Where are we going?

Atheists have specific answers to these specific questions. These answers and others, form their worldview.

Sure, atheists have answers to those questions. Having different answers to those questions does on does not disqualify you from holding the atheist position.

My answer to all of those is either trivially simple or 'I don't know'.
Bringing a deity in to answer those questions is not an answer. In fact, its worse than an answer, its a faulty answer that stops us from either admitting that we dont know and looking for the actual answers.

 

[zippy2006]

Why wouldn't it be? If there are any barriers that need to be overcome, surely an omniscient and omnipotent being should be able to overcome them.

I don't think that's right, and I've already given what I think to be a sufficient response. The problem is that "barriers," "omniscience," and "omnipotence" are all essentially quantitative terms in your lexicon, but free will presents a qualitative impediment that cannot simply be steam-rolled by omniscience and omnipotence. There are theological debates surrounding this issue, but the common view is the one I have given.

If not even that is sufficient, then the question becomes why he created such a situation in the first place (i.e., an individual who he knew could never be reached).

Intuitively, this makes sense. But now suppose that Bob created Sue for the purpose of forming a relationship with him. This changes the nature of the interaction completely. Now Sue exists for the purpose of satisfying one of Bob's desires, specifically his desire for a relationship. But Sue still has free will, meaning that she has the choice of not satisfying Bob's desires.

Note that already at this point there arises a problem. Free will seems to contradict the reason for Sue's creation. I think it is necessary to observe that free will itself serves as the ground for relationship. Without free will Sue could never form a relationship. Thus along with the possibility of relationship there arises the possibility of rejection.

Now suppose that Bob is omniscient. He knew prior to creating Sue whether she would ever willingly engage in a relationship with him. Suppose he knew that she would never do so, no matter what he did. This would mean he created Sue knowing that she would never satisfy his desires. He can say that Sue is to blame, since she rejected him freely. But he created her knowing that she would do that.

I will offer three answers.

First, a very simple reductio. Your solution envisions a God who creates only individuals who will freely love him and who abstains from creating those individuals who would freely reject him. This seems to create a strange asymmetry in freedom, which by nature ought to create the symmetrical options of relationship or rejection. That is, creation would never witness freedom in its fullness. The universe would be narrow and artificial in that respect. It also seems to create a strange God, much like a king who kills anyone who would disagree with him--in this case causes them never to have existed.

Second, it is worth pointing out that Sue would still be to blame, even if God created her knowing how she would act. She still had freedom, it was still her choice. God saw her sin, but did not cause it.

Third, God's creation of Sue logically precedes his foreknowledge. It isn't strictly right to say that he created Sue knowing that she would reject him. He created her in freedom, with the possibility of accepting him. Her sin is her creation, not God's creation. He created her with the full intention that she might fly. The fact that she did not was not part of his intention. Should he have clipped her wings prematurely because he knew that she would not ultimately succeed?

Ought one not create something if they know it will not ultimately succeed? Even if it is a person, with intrinsic worth? Should he/she not be allowed to make their choice in freedom rather than be squelched lest they choose wrongly?

It is a good question, and I'm not sure I've answered it very well. Although I don't find your reasoning compelling, it should be admitted that this is an area of wide speculation in theology. Some have considered that the majority will be damned, and some have speculated that all will be saved. Your speculation runs parallel to a theory of predestination deriving from Luis de Molina ("Molinism") and is open to some of the same objections, such as an objection to the possibility of "Middle Knowledge" (e.g. knowledge of what a non-existent person would have done in a certain circumstance had they existed).

Well, to me and every other nonbeliever in Christianity, including those belonging to a different religion.

Only those who have considered and rejected.

Many would say that pride is what prevents individuals from accepting the Gospel message, but I think that shifts the locus of responsibility onto the individual who isn't convinced in an attempt to absolve the religion for failing to present a compelling case in the first place. Sometimes the fault lies within the religion, rather than in the individuals who do not assent to its doctrines.

Pride is thought to be the source of the Fall and the mother of all sin, but it is not the only sin, no.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

I am not asking for proof. I would just like to see something that might define and demonstrate that "gods" are possible, in some way that might raise them above characters in books.

"Truth" as in "religious opinion"?

What is this evidence that you allude to? Can you present it in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?

That's why it does not sound to me like an accurate description of reality.

How does science require faith? We can accept the findings of scientific methodology, or not. We can dispute or falsify the results using the same methodology. Do I require faith in semiconductor theory to turn on and use my computer?

I understand what you're saying. Let me explain how I've come to my conclusion that an intelligent designer must have created this world.

When I was 19, I began having serious doubts about God. I decided most people who believed in Him were ignorant, and looking for some source of hope in their life. Science just didn't seem to support the God I had been told about. So, I tried to "fix" myself by attending a Christian school. Long story short, I left within months with the assumption that Christians were ignorant hypocritical [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]s.

So, I decided to pursue science. After studying plant science in depth, I realized evolution was less likely than creation. All living things are related to an extent, but nobody can link them all back to one ancestor. Evolution requires a cause and effect process, but single-celled organisms would have no reason to complicate themselves by evolving. Also, mutations do not produce additional information. While living organisms can adapt, they can't add information to their DNA.

Also, it makes no sense to evolve to become more complicated, because the more complicated something is, the more vulnerable it is. And why, if life evolved on earth, did it not evolve on Mars? If things just evolve to meet their environments, surely something on a nearby planet would have evolved to that planet's climate. This suggests our life relies on our atmosphere, which contradicts the idea behind evolution that things just change and adapt to anything. Also, there's the problem with reproduction. Self-fertilization is much more simple, and reliable. Why evolve into male and female?

The only explanation that sounded reasonable, after two years of research, was an intelligent designer. Why male and female? The marriage relationship is crucial to Christianity.
Why was everything related, but only to an extent? Common ancestors, but in the form of an original cat, dog, horse, etc. Breeds evolved.

The complexity of creation makes sense with a complex creator. Not by millions of years of accidents producing increasingly complex life forms. Why would nature voluntarily complicate itself to the point of creating life and death? The Bible has answers to those questions that science does not.

That's where my view of earth and creation comes from. Not blind faith, but years of research into the honest possibilities of where we came from and why.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I understand what you're saying. Let me explain how I've come to my conclusion that an intelligent designer must have created this world.

When I was 19, I began having serious doubts about God. I decided most people who believed in Him were ignorant, and looking for some source of hope in their life. Science just didn't seem to support the God I had been told about. So, I tried to "fix" myself by attending a Christian school. Long story short, I left within months with the assumption that Christians were ignorant hypocritical [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]s.

So, I decided to pursue science. After studying plant science in depth, I realized evolution was less likely than creation. All living things are related to an extent, but nobody can link them all back to one ancestor. Evolution requires a cause and effect process, but single-celled organisms would have no reason to complicate themselves by evolving. Also, mutations do not produce additional information. While living organisms can adapt, they can't add information to their DNA.

Also, it makes no sense to evolve to become more complicated, because the more complicated something is, the more vulnerable it is. And why, if life evolved on earth, did it not evolve on Mars? If things just evolve to meet their environments, surely something on a nearby planet would have evolved to that planet's climate. This suggests our life relies on our atmosphere, which contradicts the idea behind evolution that things just change and adapt to anything. Also, there's the problem with reproduction. Self-fertilization is much more simple, and reliable. Why evolve into male and female?

The only explanation that sounded reasonable, after two years of research, was an intelligent designer. Why male and female? The marriage relationship is crucial to Christianity.
Why was everything related, but only to an extent? Common ancestors, but in the form of an original cat, dog, horse, etc. Breeds evolved.

The complexity of creation makes sense with a complex creator. Not by millions of years of accidents producing increasingly complex life forms. Why would nature voluntarily complicate itself to the point of creating life and death? The Bible has answers to those questions that science does not.

That's where my view of earth and creation comes from. Not blind faith, but years of research into the honest possibilities of where we came from and why.

You should continue researching.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't think that's right, and I've already given what I think to be a sufficient response. The problem is that "barriers," "omniscience," and "omnipotence" are all essentially quantitative terms in your lexicon, but free will presents a qualitative impediment that cannot simply be steam-rolled by omniscience and omnipotence. There are theological debates surrounding this issue, but the common view is the one I have given.

I'm not suggesting that it can be "steam-rolled," but that any barriers arising due to free decisions could probably be overcome by an agent possessing the properties of omniscience and omnipotence. If mere mortals like us can overcome such barriers (through persuasion, for example) without violating someone's free will, then I don't see why this would present as an intractable problem for a deity whose power and foresight far surpasses our own. If anything, such a being would have an incomparable advantage in forming relationships because, as I mentioned previously, it would know the best way to reach any individual, regardless of their initial disposition.

Are some individuals "unreachable"? Potentially. But then who is to blame for this? You seem to want to assign blame to the individual for freely rejecting the offer of a relationship. Given the unfathomable power differential, I'm more inclined to attribute it to the one who created such an individual knowing that they would forever remain "unreachable" and therefore in a wretched state of damnation.

Note that already at this point there arises a problem. Free will seems to contradict the reason for Sue's creation. I think it is necessary to observe that free will itself serves as the ground for relationship. Without free will Sue could never form a relationship. Thus along with the possibility of relationship there arises the possibility of rejection.

In my view, this serves to expose the problems that inevitably arise when one inserts a deity into a social situation. The power differential is so immense that it becomes impossible for this not to be an issue. In any case, he remains entirely certain of the outcome of his creation: he either creates Sue to freely accept him or to freely reject him. In other words, he either creates her to be saved or to be damned. I'll leave open the question of whether this means free will is even possible in these circumstances. What seems clear enough is that, being omniscient, he cannot be ignorant of the ultimate outcome either way. So he is left with a choice: to either create Sue knowing what she will do (accept/reject) or to not create her.

I think you've touched on something that is almost universal in human relationships, but which is absent once omniscience and omnipotence enter the picture - risk. In forming relationships with others, we each face the risk of rejection because we remain uncertain of the other person's intentions and disposition. We risk wasting our limited resources in trying to persuade them to willingly accept us. We risk opportunities to form better relationships with more willing partners. We take risks in forming alliances that may upset others in the social situation, and so on. When we make a decision not knowing exactly what the outcome will be, we experience some of level risk. An omniscient being faces no such limitation; he knows exactly what the outcome will be in any given situation. Being omnipotent, his resources are also limitless, so there is no risk that he will squander them in trying to form relationships.

First, a very simple reductio. Your solution envisions a God who creates only individuals who will freely love him and who abstains from creating those individuals who would freely reject him. This seems to create a strange asymmetry in freedom, which by nature ought to create the symmetrical options of relationship or rejection. That is, creation would never witness freedom in its fullness. The universe would be narrow and artificial in that respect. It also seems to create a strange God, much like a king who kills anyone who would disagree with him--in this case causes them never to have existed.

There is already a huge asymmetry in the nature of the relationship, so I don't see why this particular asymmetry would be problematic. It may be problematic for notions for free will, but that seems to me a consequence of proposing an omniscient/omnipotent agent anyway.

Second, it is worth pointing out that Sue would still be to blame, even if God created her knowing how she would act. She still had freedom, it was still her choice. God saw her sin, but did not cause it.

Yes, Sue would still be free to decide. I'm inclined to agree with that conclusion tentatively, ignoring questions about free will, at least for the moment. But it does reflect poorly on the character of her creator, does it not? He created her knowing that she would never be united with him, and then also instituted the punishment for not being united with him.

Third, God's creation of Sue logically precedes his foreknowledge. It isn't strictly right to say that he created Sue knowing that she would reject him. He created her in freedom, with the possibility of accepting him. Her sin is her creation, not God's creation. He created her with the full intention that she might fly. The fact that she did not was not part of his intention. Should he have clipped her wings prematurely because he knew that she would not ultimately succeed?

In my view, I simply don't think you can reconcile this with omniscience. If, at any point, he does not know what will ultimately become of Sue, then he cannot be considered omniscient. Ignorance of any kind is incompatible with omniscience.

Ought one not create something if they know it will not ultimately succeed? Even if it is a person, with intrinsic worth? Should he/she not be allowed to make their choice in freedom rather than be squelched lest they choose wrongly?

I don't think one can say that she has "intrinsic worth" if her value is ultimately conferred by some other being who created her for the specific purpose of forming a relationship with him.

It is a good question, and I'm not sure I've answered it very well. Although I don't find your reasoning compelling, it should be admitted that this is an area of wide speculation in theology. Some have considered that the majority will be damned, and some have speculated that all will be saved. Your speculation runs parallel to a theory of predestination deriving from Luis de Molina ("Molinism") and is open to some of the same objections, such as an objection to the possibility of "Middle Knowledge" (e.g. knowledge of what a non-existent person would have done in a certain circumstance had they existed).

I'm conscious of the fact that this is an area of significant debate among Christians. I thank you for your response though, since you've addressed my comments thoughtfully, as well as prompting me to think!

 

[anonymous person]

I'm not suggesting that it can be "steam-rolled," but that any barriers arising due to free decisions could probably be overcome by an agent possessing the properties of omniscience and omnipotence. If mere mortals like us can overcome such barriers (through persuasion, for example) without violating someone's free will, then I don't see why this would present as an intractable problem for a deity whose power and foresight far surpasses our own. If anything, such a being would have an incomparable advantage in forming relationships because, as I mentioned previously, it would know the best way to reach any individual, regardless of their initial disposition.

Are some individuals "unreachable"? Potentially. But then who is to blame for this? You seem to want to assign blame to the individual for freely rejecting the offer of a relationship. Given the unfathomable power differential, I'm more inclined to attribute it to the one who created such an individual knowing that they would forever remain "unreachable" and therefore in a wretched state of damnation.

In my view, this serves to expose the problems that inevitably arise when one inserts a deity into a social situation. The power differential is so immense that it becomes impossible for this not to be an issue. In any case, he remains entirely certain of the outcome of his creation: he either creates Sue to freely accept him or to freely reject him. In other words, he either creates her to be saved or to be damned. I'll leave open the question of whether this means free will is even possible in these circumstances. What seems clear enough is that, being omniscient, he cannot be ignorant of the ultimate outcome either way. So he is left with a choice: to either create Sue knowing what she will do (accept/reject) or to not create her.

I think you've touched on something that is almost universal in human relationships, but which is absent once omniscience and omnipotence enter the picture - risk. In forming relationships with others, we each face the risk of rejection because we remain uncertain of the other person's intentions and disposition. We risk wasting our limited resources in trying to persuade them to willingly accept us. We risk opportunities to form better relationships with more willing partners. We take risks in forming alliances that may upset others in the social situation, and so on. When we make a decision not knowing exactly what the outcome will be, we experience some of level risk. An omniscient being faces no such limitation; he knows exactly what the outcome will be in any given situation. Being omnipotent, his resources are also limitless, so there is no risk that he will squander them in trying to form relationships.

There is already a huge asymmetry in the nature of the relationship, so I don't see why this particular asymmetry would be problematic. It may be problematic for notions for free will, but that seems to me a consequence of proposing an omniscient/omnipotent agent anyway.

Yes, Sue would still be free to decide. I'm inclined to agree with that conclusion tentatively, ignoring questions about free will, at least for the moment. But it does reflect poorly on the character of her creator, does it not? He created her knowing that she would never be united with him, and then also instituted the punishment for not being united with him.

In my view, I simply don't think you can reconcile this with omniscience. If, at any point, he does not know what will ultimately become of Sue, then he cannot be considered omniscient. Ignorance of any kind is incompatible with omniscience.

I don't think one can say that she has "intrinsic worth" if her value is ultimately conferred by some other being who created her for the specific purpose of forming a relationship with him.

I'm conscious of the fact that this is an area of significant debate among Christians. I thank you for your response though, since you've addressed my comments thoughtfully, as well as prompting me to think!

Screwtape has said:

“You must have often wondered why the Enemy (God) does not make more use of His power to be sensibly present to human souls in any degree He chooses and at any moment. But you now see that the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo” (24-25). C.S. Lewis

The demons believe and tremble. God's desire for you sir, is that you love Him and cling to Him and look to Him for fulfillment, not merely assent to His existence and there be content. He is Holy however, and His love will never be at the expense of His holiness. He extends the invitation but you must meet Him on His terms, not yours. You are the creature, He is the Creator. God is not obligated to move heaven and earth just so those that are stubborn, obstinate, stiff-necked, hard hearted, and lovers of sin see the light. He is obligated to give a measure of light to each individual such that they either are drawn to it or repulsed by it. If one rejects that light which He gives, He is under no obligation to chase them around the world for their entire life, appearing before them and performing miracles for them like some sad bloke who keeps buying flower and candy for the woman who hates his guts.

God has so providentially ordered the states of affairs of our world so as to bring as many to a saving, filial knowledge as is possible while at the same time ensuring that everyone's freedom to choose to love or reject Him is preserved. This means that some will die without ever having come to a saving, filial knowledge of God and will spend eternity without Him. Some will die after having received the gracious gift of life extended to them and will spend eternity with God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Screwtape has said:

That's nice. But unless Screwtape is going to address the questions and comments you've either evaded or ignored, I'm not particularly interested.

 

[bhsmte]

Screwtape has said:

“You must have often wondered why the Enemy (God) does not make more use of His power to be sensibly present to human souls in any degree He chooses and at any moment. But you now see that the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo” (24-25). C.S. Lewis

The demons believe and tremble. God's desire for you sir, is that you love Him and cling to Him and look to Him for fulfillment, not merely assent to His existence and there be content. He is Holy however, and His love will never be at the expense of His holiness. He extends the invitation but you must meet Him on His terms, not yours. You are the creature, He is the Creator. God is not obligated to move heaven and earth just so those that are stubborn, obstinate, stiff-necked, hard hearted, and lovers of sin see the light. He is obligated to give a measure of light to each individual such that they either are drawn to it or repulsed by it. If one rejects that light which He gives, He is under no obligation to chase them around the world for their entire life, appearing before them and performing miracles for them like some sad bloke who keeps buying flower and candy for the woman who hates his guts.

God has so providentially ordered the states of affairs of our world so as to bring as many to a saving, filial knowledge as is possible while at the same time ensuring that everyone's freedom to choose to love or reject Him is preserved. This means that some will die without ever having come to a saving, filial knowledge of God and will spend eternity without Him. Some will die after having received the gracious gift of life extended to them and will spend eternity with God.

Why would a God have to be an enemy?

I dont view God as an enemy, as i find it challenging to apply the term enemy to a being i dont believe exists.

 

[anonymous person]

Why would a God have to be an enemy?

I dont view God as an enemy, as i find it challenging to apply the term enemy to a being i dont believe exists.

Screwtape was a demon in C.S. Lewis' work entitled "The Screwtape Letters"

 

[bhsmte]

Screwtape was a demon in C.S. Lewis' work entitled "The Screwtape Letters"

Was C.S. able to demonstrate objectively that demons exist?