Will we sin when we get to heaven?

[Oncedeceived]

Until you address the argument, I have.

You are making some assumptions are you not? Are you not implying that God's mind is like a Turing Machine?

Then why were you just now confused and asking if I believe the universe being caused necessarily entails a contradiction? You asked this:

Ok, so why did you say what power was used to create the universe when we were speaking of contradictions?
and when I "spelled it back to you" you didn't make any reference to it being incorrect.

You made the comment that the same power that created the universe would be the same power that was responsible for God's inability to violate logic correct?

In your defense there's a technicality working on your side. God indeed could've created the universe. But I have explained with absolute certainty that the mechanism by which he did so necessarily was either acausal (not involving causality) or else he invoked causality at the expense of violating logic.

Could you explain this because I am not following this point.

But I do believe that you mean for "create" and "cause" to be the same thing (at least in this context), and I believe your position is that God cannot violate logic, so your argument that God created the universe is 100% falsified given the assumptions you cling to. In fact, your argument is not only false, it's incoherent.

Again, break this down for me. Why does God not violating logic have to do with the creation of the universe.

Regardless, though, you're not only failing to follow the logic I'm using but you're not even able to remember my basic position, as shown by the fact that you ask for clarification on something that was spelled out explicitly in bold letters a hundred posts ago. Even the proof was given in colored font, so I don't know how you missed it.

Is not your basic position that if God can not violate logic HE is not omniscient?

By the way, with regard to this part:

and when I "spelled it back to you" you didn't make any reference to it being incorrect.

Again you're wrong. You attempted to summarize my argument in post #200, and I certainly made a reference to it being incorrect in post #202.

From post #202: If God is unable to violate logic then he is not omniscient.

Now to make this statement you are assuming that God's mind behaves a certain way. You are making the claim that there exists a way for God's mind to allow for a self-contradicting state of affairs, what are you basing that assumption on?

I'm going to stop you right here because you're embarrassing yourself. You looked up Gödel's Ontological Argument. I'm referring to his Incompleteness Theorem. They're as related as Pascal's Wager and Pascal's Triangle.

I understand your confusion, but I presented it as a way to show that God is a necessary Being and that He necessarily exists. If God's exists and His logic has provided the universe, laws thereof and logic itself, it is not a stretch to claim that God's mind behaves in an ordered logic reasoned way that works outside of the system He created. Not only outside but that His mind does not behave like a Turning Machine which is what I believe you are trying to imply.

If you really did mean to drive us off topic by throwing an unrelated "proof" at me and this "proof" just so happened to be authored by the obscure person I was referencing, then fine, I'll refute that terrible "proof." Otherwise I'm chalking this up to being another case of you not paying attention.

I am paying attention and trying to discuss this but you seem to expect someone to just accept your position without question. Now your premises of the theory is correct but I think your assumptions in regard to it are flawed and I am trying to find out where that is stemming from.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You are making some assumptions are you not? Are you not implying that God's mind is like a Turing Machine?

No.

You made the comment that the same power that created the universe would be the same power that was responsible for God's inability to violate logic correct?

This appears to be a run-on sentence and I don't know what you're talking about.

Could you explain this because I am not following this point.

I've explained it before. It stems from the fact that it is logically impossible to create the universe.

Again, break this down for me. Why does God not violating logic have to do with the creation of the universe.

Go back and read my post where I clarify it. I gave the post number a few posts back.

Is not your basic position that if God can not violate logic HE is not omniscient?

That is a correct formulation of one of my positions, but in the quote you're responding to, where I mention boldface words and colored fonts, I'm talking about my position on the universe necessarily existing acausally.

From post #202: If God is unable to violate logic then he is not omniscient.

Now to make this statement you are assuming that God's mind behaves a certain way. You are making the claim that there exists a way for God's mind to allow for a self-contradicting state of affairs, what are you basing that assumption on?

You already correctly formulated my position so I don't know why you are confused again.

I understand your confusion, but I presented it as a way to show that God is a necessary Being and that He necessarily exists. If God's exists and His logic has provided the universe, laws thereof and logic itself, it is not a stretch to claim that God's mind behaves in an ordered logic reasoned way that works outside of the system He created. Not only outside but that His mind does not behave like a Turning Machine which is what I believe you are trying to imply.

Firstly, you say God is necessary. Necessary for what? The universe? I already disproved that in my thread, "The universe with no need of God." And if God operates outside the system of logic that he created, then he is violating logic. Your argument is self-refuting.

I am paying attention and trying to discuss this but you seem to expect someone to just accept your position without question.

No. I expect you to understand my position. You seemed to do that here, briefly, but then you indicated later that you don't understand my position.

Now your premises of the theory is correct but I think your assumptions in regard to it are flawed and I am trying to find out where that is stemming from.

What theory?

 

[Chriliman]

Well then, we need to go back to the beginning of this and ponder over whether God is really omnipotent then.

Is God capable of creating a universe in which pain and sin do not exist, never will exist, and yet all created creatures know everything necessary are programmed in every necessary way to be benevolent to each other, themselves, and God?

Yes and the key to understanding this is that there is a process involved when God creates and refines His creation. We are within this process right now which is why we experience what we experience.

I know what you're thinking: that it would require taking away free will. But here's the thing. God has free will, and is incapable of sin, so we can still have free will, but be incapable of sin.

True, but God still needs to create us first in order to make us like Himself. It's the process of Him creating that we're experiencing. From the perspective of creation, God isn't finished yet. From God's perspective, He can see the beginning from the end, so He knows how perfect everything will be when He is done creating and refining His creation, but we can't actually take His perspective because we're not God, but we can imagine it to some degree and this is because we are made in His image.

If existence "before" God created everything else besides himself was perfect because it only contained God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent, then creating a creature that will inevitably do evil makes existence less than perfect, which is directly causing pain, and suffering, and sin since none of that would exist without Him creating it and knowing that it would happen.

From God's perspective, He both experiences eternity and linear time because He's God and He created space and time from His eternal state of existence for specific reasons that all creation will eventually know and understand. From His creation's perspective, we are experiencing linear time, not eternity because we're a part of the creation/refinement process which is why we experience what we experience.

So it's true that pain and suffering would not exist if God didn't create anything, but pain and suffering were a necessary byproduct that even God Himself endured in order to create something beyond our current understanding of perfection and beauty. It's not a sin to experience pain and suffering.

You have an interesting angle. It's almost as if you've fully taken the position of a believer without actually believing in God yourself. You know everything I'm saying makes sense, I wonder what's stopping you from actually believing in God...

Anyhow, thanks for the interesting conversation.

 

[Moral Orel]

So it's true that pain and suffering would not exist if God didn't create anything, but pain and suffering were a necessary byproduct that even God Himself endured in order to create something beyond our current understanding of perfection and beauty. It's not a sin to experience pain and suffering.

So then God's ability to teach us to be perfect is constrained by pain and suffering and He is incapable of designing a universe that achieves His end goal without submitting us to torment?

Pain and suffering is the only means by which God can make us perfect?

If so, then He is not omnipotent.

You have an interesting angle. It's almost as if you've fully taken the position of a believer without actually believing in God yourself. You know everything I'm saying makes sense, I wonder what's stopping you from actually believing in God...

I don't believe in God for a lot of reasons, one of them being that the Christian God is not omni-benevolent. Even if we ignore whether He is omnipotent or not, we can look at what powers He specifically is stated as having and just by looking at those we can see that He doesn't do everything good that He can but instead does bad things that He doesn't need to do.

You talked about a process to creating perfect beings, but He can skip that process altogether. When people die and go to Heaven, they receive whatever other changes are necessary to remove any desire to sin from them. Just accepting Jesus on Earth isn't enough to achieve perfection on ts own since even Christians continue to sin while still here, so there must be some extra step upon death that makes this possible. You don't even have to get any practice in at not sinning on Earth to get this extra step, as someone who accepts Jesus on their deathbed after a lifetime of debauchery will still become perfectly refined once they are dead. And you don't even need to have conscious thoughts or choices on Earth to receive this extra step since babies get a free pass to Heaven.

So, given the powers that God has, He could create humans, perfect and sinless (though with a sin nature that would eventually cause them to commit a sin) and kill them before they actually commit any sin. If they haven't committed a sin yet, as babies haven't committed a sin yet, then they are eligible for Heaven and eligible to receive this change that makes them perfect and sinless. Even if God is constrained in how He creates life, He is still capable of eventually creating new life that never experiences suffering of any kind and still lives forever in a state of pure bliss and perfection. He chooses to have pain and suffering exist without any real discernible purpose.

Now when we think about learning things we think about appreciating the things we learn, or that they have more value if they are earned. But if it is better to learn something than to simply have that knowledge as part of your very existence for all time, then that is something about us that is better than God, as He didn't learn or earn any property of Himself. He just is that way. Now I'm not saying we're better than God, that's why I put all the extra emphasis on the if. I'm saying that earning knowledge can't possibly be better than having it simply be a part of you because that would mean we are better than God in even one single aspect, which should be impossible.

Now He doesn't owe it to us to create us or give us a perfect state of being, as stated in Job, we haven't done Him any favors, so He doesn't owe us any in return. However, a being of pure love and goodness would have the desire to do what is best and optimally good, even creating things to direct that goodness at.

 

[Chriliman]

So then God's ability to teach us to be perfect is constrained by pain and suffering and He is incapable of designing a universe that achieves His end goal without submitting us to torment?

Pain and suffering is the only means by which God can make us perfect?

If so, then He is not omnipotent.

Pain and suffering is the direct result of our actions of disobedience against God. Yes, God made pain and suffering a possible reality because He wants us to be free to listen to Him or not. This means God is capable of creating beings who are truly free to listen to Him or not and this is a testament to who God really is, He's not afraid to suffer pain in order to achieve complete freedom for His creation. To me, this is true love and is exactly why I want this loving God to be my God.

I don't believe in God for a lot of reasons, one of them being that the Christian God is not omni-benevolent.

Scripture makes it clear that created beings can do a certain thing that is unforgivable. God was most intimate with creation when Jesus walked the earth, the people clearly saw God for who He truly is through Jesus Christ and they still rejected him and even killed him, but even while on the cross Jesus desired for them to be forgiven. It was when Jesus rose from the dead and went to His Father that the Holy Spirit was sent down and this was and is(now) God's last attempt to prove Himself to the darkest of hearts and still they rejected Him, meaning they desired their dark state over the light of God and it became impossible for them to repent. This is where free will can lead and God knows this, but He allows it in order to maintain true love between Himself and His creation. His love is freely given, but it can still be rejected. Why? I have no idea.

You talked about a process to creating perfect beings, but He can skip that process altogether.

This isn't accurate. God creates for a reason. What you're saying is that God can skip creating altogether, but this is incoherent, why would God skip creating things when He has a specific reason for everything He creates? Saying that "God creates", means it's axiomatic that a process is involved. You can't remove the process from the act of creating.

This means you can't remove yourself from the reality that God has allowed you to be in, only He can remove you from it and give you a better reality if it pleases Him to do so and this is where you're will to submit to Him would come into action. It's all very real time and in the present. God's reality is always now.

2 Corinthians 6:2
"For he says, "In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you." I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation."

Just accepting Jesus on Earth isn't enough to achieve perfection on ts own since even Christians continue to sin while still here, so there must be some extra step upon death that makes this possible. You don't even have to get any practice in at not sinning on Earth to get this extra step, as someone who accepts Jesus on their deathbed after a lifetime of debauchery will still become perfectly refined once they are dead. And you don't even need to have conscious thoughts or choices on Earth to receive this extra step since babies get a free pass to Heaven.

It's the power of God that makes us sinless, we don't become sinless on our own. It's His grace that forgives, we don't forgive ourselves.

So, given the powers that God has, He could create humans, perfect and sinless (though with a sin nature that would eventually cause them to commit a sin) and kill them before they actually commit any sin. If they haven't committed a sin yet, as babies haven't committed a sin yet, then they are eligible for Heaven and eligible to receive this change that makes them perfect and sinless. Even if God is constrained in how He creates life, He is still capable of eventually creating new life that never experiences suffering of any kind and still lives forever in a state of pure bliss and perfection. He chooses to have pain and suffering exist without any real discernible purpose.

Again, God did not directly cause pain and suffering, our sins did. Sin is possible because God created us with the freedom to obey Him or not. Jesus completely obeyed God perfectly. If you can explain in a coherent way how this makes God unloving and how Jesus isn't perfect for obeying God perfectly, then you might have a valid argument here.

It's between the truth that you're presenting and God's truth and I'm choosing God's truth because it makes perfect sense to me and explains why I experience what I experience.

You're free to make your own choices based on your experiences. I'm just saying that's how God designed things to work for specific reasons and I've thoroughly explained why this is true in a reasonable way.

Now when we think about learning things we think about appreciating the things we learn, or that they have more value if they are earned. But if it is better to learn something than to simply have that knowledge as part of your very existence for all time, then that is something about us that is better than God, as He didn't learn or earn any property of Himself. He just is that way. Now I'm not saying we're better than God, that's why I put all the extra emphasis on the if. I'm saying that earning knowledge can't possibly be better than having it simply be a part of you because that would mean we are better than God in even one single aspect, which should be impossible.

Now He doesn't owe it to us to create us or give us a perfect state of being, as stated in Job, we haven't done Him any favors, so He doesn't owe us any in return. However, a being of pure love and goodness would have the desire to do what is best and optimally good, even creating things to direct that goodness at.

Interesting thoughts.

 

[Moral Orel]

Sin is possible because God created us with the freedom to obey Him or not.

Look at it this way, you're saying that sin has to exist in order for free will to exist right? That isn't true. God has free will, but He never sins. People in Heaven have free will, but they never sin. Babies who have passed away, are in Heaven, and not only will they never sin, they never did sin. If your premise were true, then yes, the argument makes complete sense. But the premise is false. Sin existing is not necessary for free will to exist.

Now I totally understand the concept that only God can make us perfect. The point is that He chose not to for no reason at all. He makes us struggle to earn it, and the only reasoning given for it is "free will", but that isn't true. You can have free will and still never sin.

 

[Chriliman]

Look at it this way, you're saying that sin has to exist in order for free will to exist right?

Not necessarily, free willed beings could have chosen to obey God perfectly and Jesus is proof that it's possible to obey God perfectly. This is the crux of Christianity.

That isn't true. God has free will, but He never sins.

Agreed, as I've explained above.

People in Heaven have free will, but they never sin. Babies who have passed away, are in Heaven, and not only will they never sin, they never did sin. If your premise were true, then yes, the argument makes complete sense. But the premise is false. Sin existing is not necessary for free will to exist.

It's true that God cannot sin and Jesus is the proof that it's possible to obey God perfectly. You can either accept this as possibly true or reject it all together.

Now I totally understand the concept that only God can make us perfect. The point is that He chose not to for no reason at all.

Again, you falsely assume God is done acting on behalf of His creation, He's not done yet and our reality makes this clear.

He makes us struggle to earn it, and the only reasoning given for it is "free will", but that isn't true. You can have free will and still never sin.

I can't have free will and still never sin if I don't accept Jesus Christ as Lord because only He perfectly obeyed God and never sinned. Again, this is the crux of Christianity. It all false apart if Jesus isn't the perfect Son of God. You can't prove that He's not, but God can prove that He is and He continues to show me this truth and I continue to accept it everyday.

Thanks for your time

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am going to go through this again with the original post.

When I remarked on God's omnipotence, you said:

So I take it that your position is that God cannot perform logically absurd tasks such as creating a square circle. You use this line of reasoning to conclude that God cannot create sinless beings.

So to summarize your views:

1. A square circle is logically impossible
2. God cannot create a square circle
3. Therefore, one of God's limitations is that he cannot create a square circle
4. God cannot create a square circle and as far as we can tell this is because it is logically impossible (or is there another reason?)
5. Therefore, one of God's limitations is due to logic
6. We conclude that God is limited by logic

1. A square circle is logically impossible
2. Creating a square circle is logically self-contradicting
3. God is logical and self consistent and will not be self-contradicting
4. Therefore, God being logical and self consistent will not create a self-contradicting state of affairs.
5. We conclude that self-contradicting state of affairs are impossible due to God's logic and self consistency.

God is limited by logic, or bound by logic, or unable to violate logic, etc. To clarify, this is your worldview, not mine. If I believed in your God, I'd believe he could violate logic because he positively must do so in order to be omniscient or create the universe ex nihilo, both of which are essential characteristics of YHWH.

No, that is not my worldview. My worldview is as I've shown above. If God is omniscient, He knows logically that it is self-contradicting to create a square circle.

Why must he violate logic to be omniscient?

Gödel proved that there must be propositions which are true/false but cannot be shown to be either, which is to say that their truth value is necessarily unknown. God's omniscience is just as logically absurd as a square circle.

You haven't shown that to be the case. You haven't shown that "God believes X" or "God knows X" is comparable to "X can be derived from axioms."

Why must he violate logic to create the universe ex nihilo?

Allow me to recycle my arguments for this:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist in this state of reality. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality.

Alternatively, we can define causality as this:

Causality is the relation between a thing that is acting, a thing that is being acted on, and the effect that results. For example, consider a man sculpting a statue. The man is the thing that is acting, the marble is the thing that is being acted on, and the effect that results is the statue. With this in mind, the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails:

What did God act on to causally bring about the universe? Did he act on the universe? Then the universe existed before it existed so it could be acted upon and brought into existence... an absurdity. Did he act on nothing? Then nothing was causally effected, which is to say that no instance of a cause took place, which is to say that there was no cause, which is to say that the universe exists without a cause, so the most you can possibly assert is that the universe spontaneously popped into existence and that God was present but not participating.

You seem to be assuming that temporal causation is the only kind possible, how do you know that is the case? You are also assuming that time is only possible in the natural world but if God does exist as we claim, God's thoughts must take place in some sort of metaphysical way to be thoughts. God's existence is prior to the existence of the universe and eternal. We are limited by physical time but God is not. God's thought and then His word were the cause of the universe. We know that the universe did not exist and thus could not cause itself to exist. The laws of physics did not exist and so could not cause the universe to exist. So:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe came into existence and has a beginning.
3. The universe's space, matter, energy and time had a beginning.
4. The universe's laws of physics had a beginning.
5. The universe and its space, matter, energy, time and the laws of physics all have a beginning and could not have caused the universe to come into existence.
6. Therefore, the universe could not have existed prior to existing and the properties of the universe that came into existence after the singularity could not have caused the universe to come into existence. (Space, matter, energy, time and the laws of physics).
7. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
8. The universe began to exist.
9. Therefore, the universe has a cause.



Why are these issues relevant to the thread?

If we have shown that God necessarily must be able to violate logic, then your contention that he could not have created us to be sinless is refuted. Therefore we are left with the question again: If God prefers us to be sinless, and if we are better off that way as well, and if we would avoid hell had we been created that way initially, why didn't God simply do it that way to begin with?

1. "We" have not shown that God necessarily must be able to violate logic. I have shown that it is not a violation of logic but self-consistency and the impossibility of a self-contradictory state of affairs that prohibit a square circle. The question of creating us sinless is not refuted.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I am going to go through this again with the original post.



1. A square circle is logically impossible
2. Creating a square circle is logically self-contradicting
3. God is logical and self consistent and will not be self-contradicting
4. Therefore, God being logical and self consistent will not create a self-contradicting state of affairs.
5. We conclude that self-contradicting state of affairs are impossible due to God's logic and self consistency.

This is no different from saying that God is bound by logic, yet you deny that sentiment. Therefore your position is incoherent.

You say that God cannot create a self-contradicting state of affairs, which is the same as saying that God cannot perform logically absurd tasks, which is the same as saying that God is bounded by logic.

If you disagree, please explain what it would mean to be bound by logic.

You haven't shown that to be the case. You haven't shown that "God believes X" or "God knows X" is comparable to "X can be derived from axioms."

You already asked me if I am proposing God as a Turing machine and I said no. Now I see where you were coming from with that question. I see now it was a good question.

God's mind is obviously capable of performing tasks foreign to the nature of a Turing machine. Also, it is reasonable to suggest that if God is omniscient then he has no capacity to learn, and no capacity to perform logic for the purposes of obtaining new information, and hence he could know any logical proposition without needing to go through the process of performing a logical proof (so in no sense is God's mind like a Turing machine). Thus he might know if there exists X such that |Z|<|X|<|R| even though it was proven to be undecidable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Undecidable_conjectures).

But the problem here is that if God knows what this set is, then merely expressing the set is proof of the positive case. But he cannot prove the positive case, so the set must not exist. But now I have proven the set cannot exist, even though that is supposed to be impossible. We have reached a contradiction and so the starting assumption (God's omniscience) must be false.

You seem to be assuming that temporal causation is the only kind possible, how do you know that is the case?

Because that's how I defined causality and I don't know what the term means otherwise. If you have another definition, please provide it.

You are also assuming that time is only possible in the natural world but if God does exist as we claim, God's thoughts must take place in some sort of metaphysical way to be thoughts.

I did not assume that or claim it to be true.

God's existence is prior to the existence of the universe and eternal. We are limited by physical time but God is not. God's thought and then His word were the cause of the universe. We know that the universe did not exist and thus could not cause itself to exist. The laws of physics did not exist and so could not cause the universe to exist. So:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe came into existence and has a beginning.
3. The universe's space, matter, energy and time had a beginning.
4. The universe's laws of physics had a beginning.
5. The universe and its space, matter, energy, time and the laws of physics all have a beginning and could not have caused the universe to come into existence.
6. Therefore, the universe could not have existed prior to existing and the properties of the universe that came into existence after the singularity could not have caused the universe to come into existence. (Space, matter, energy, time and the laws of physics).
7. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
8. The universe began to exist.
9. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise 6 is a tautology and premise 7 is logically absurd as I already proved. Here it is again:

Suppose X begins to exist. Before X existed, what was acted on to bring X into existence? Was X acted on? Then X exists before it exists, a contradiction. Was nothing acted on? How does one act on nothing? What does that even mean?

Why are these issues relevant to the thread?

1. "We" have not shown that God necessarily must be able to violate logic. I have shown that it is not a violation of logic but self-consistency and the impossibility of a self-contradictory state of affairs that prohibit a square circle. The question of creating us sinless is not refuted.

You are repeating your incoherent position.

 

[Chriliman]

This is no different from saying that God is bound by logic, yet you deny that sentiment. Therefore your position is incoherent.

You say that God cannot create a self-contradicting state of affairs, which is the same as saying that God cannot perform logically absurd tasks, which is the same as saying that God is bounded by logic.

If you disagree, please explain what it would mean to be bound by logic.



You already asked me if I am proposing God as a Turing machine and I said no. Now I see where you were coming from with that question. I see now it was a good question.

God's mind is obviously capable of performing tasks foreign to the nature of a Turing machine. Also, it is reasonable to suggest that if God is omniscient then he has no capacity to learn, and no capacity to perform logic for the purposes of obtaining new information, and hence he could know any logical proposition without needing to go through the process of performing a logical proof (so in no sense is God's mind like a Turing machine). Thus he might know if there exists X such that |Z|<|X|<|R| even though it was proven to be undecidable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Undecidable_conjectures).

But the problem here is that if God knows what this set is, then merely expressing the set is proof of the positive case. But he cannot prove the positive case, so the set must not exist. But now I have proven the set cannot exist, even though that is supposed to be impossible. We have reached a contradiction and so the starting assumption (God's omniscience) must be false.



Because that's how I defined causality and I don't know what the term means otherwise. If you have another definition, please provide it.



I did not assume that or claim it to be true.



Premise 6 is a tautology and premise 7 is logically absurd as I already proved. Here it is again:

Suppose X begins to exist. Before X existed, what was acted on to bring X into existence? Was X acted on? Then X exists before it exists, a contradiction. Was nothing acted on? How does one act on nothing? What does that even mean?



You are repeating your incoherent position.

God created free willed beings who are free to be illogical and contradictory of their own will, whether intentionally or unintentionally, therefore God allows contradictions to exist and understands what contradictions are. God Himself has never and will never contradict Himself when He speaks and therefore is the source of truth and sound logic.

This does not mean He's incapable of being illogical, it's just that His word is always true and He never contradicts Himself because it would go against His will. This is also how we all know we are not God because we've been wrong in the past, but God has never been wrong about anything and will never be wrong in the future.

Explain how the above is illogical or means God is not omniscient, if you will.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

God created free willed beings who are free to be illogical and contradictory of their own will, whether intentionally or unintentionally, therefore God allows contradictions to exist and understands what contradictions are. God Himself has never and will never contradict Himself when He speaks and therefore is the source of truth and sound logic.

This does not mean He's incapable of being illogical, it's just that His word is always true and He never contradicts Himself because it would go against His will. This is also how we all know we are not God because we've been wrong in the past, but God has never been wrong about anything and will never be wrong in the future.

Explain how the above is illogical or means God is not omniscient, if you will.

First explain to me what Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem states, then I'll know I'm getting somewhere.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is no different from saying that God is bound by logic, yet you deny that sentiment. Therefore your position is incoherent.

You say that God cannot create a self-contradicting state of affairs, which is the same as saying that God cannot perform logically absurd tasks, which is the same as saying that God is bounded by logic.

If you disagree, please explain what it would mean to be bound by logic.

Let me try again. Logic is bound by God. There is no power that God lacks from which logically absurd states of affairs arise. There are no square circles, so there is no power that God lacks to create them.

You already asked me if I am proposing God as a Turing machine and I said no. Now I see where you were coming from with that question. I see now it was a good question.

I thought so.

God's mind is obviously capable of performing tasks foreign to the nature of a Turing machine. Also, it is reasonable to suggest that if God is omniscient then he has no capacity to learn, and no capacity to perform logic for the purposes of obtaining new information, and hence he could know any logical proposition without needing to go through the process of performing a logical proof (so in no sense is God's mind like a Turing machine). Thus he might know if there exists X such that |Z|<|X|<|R| even though it was proven to be undecidable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Undecidable_conjectures).

Correct.

But the problem here is that if God knows what this set is, then merely expressing the set is proof of the positive case. But he cannot prove the positive case, so the set must not exist. But now I have proven the set cannot exist, even though that is supposed to be impossible. We have reached a contradiction and so the starting assumption (God's omniscience) must be false.

The problem is not what you are seeing as the problem. The problem is that the set theory is a made up fictional exercise. Fictional or hypothetical entities are incomplete as they do not exist in reality and are not about truth. They live only in a fictional world and hold no truth value. They are imagined to be true and then derive the consequences which in turn have no truth value either. The Continuum Hypothesis nor its negation is derivable from the stand axioms of set theory and are as one would suppose from hypothetical or fictional entities which have not been completely characterized. In the case of CH, there is no truth to be know by God since it is all fiction, and not based on reality or truth. God's omniscience is intact.

Because that's how I defined causality and I don't know what the term means otherwise. If you have another definition, please provide it.

My point is that how the universe, cause and effect are entrenched in the physical world, if God exists as claimed, causation would be a metaphysical application which does not depend upon the natural or physical world or the processes therein.

I did not assume that or claim it to be true.

Ok. You will then have to explain why you felt physical time was necessary for God to cause the universe to come into existence.

Premise 6 is a tautology and premise 7 is logically absurd as I already proved. Here it is again:

Suppose X begins to exist. Before X existed, what was acted on to bring X into existence? Was X acted on? Then X exists before it exists, a contradiction. Was nothing acted on? How does one act on nothing? What does that even mean?

I agree that 6 is a tautology. Premise 7 is not logically absurd and you have not proven that. You again are using physical causation to explain something that is metaphysical in nature. There is nothing that requires God to act on X to bring it into existence. God's word creates.

You are repeating your incoherent position.

No, you are just not comprehending it. Logic is bound by God.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's true that God cannot sin and Jesus is the proof that it's possible to obey God perfectly. You can either accept this as possibly true or reject it all together.

I do, that isn't my contention at all. It isn't really relevant to my point though.
God cannot sin, God cannot deny Himself, and God has freewill.
Therefore God can create creatures who cannot sin, who cannot deny Him, and still have free will.

Again, you falsely assume God is done acting on behalf of His creation, He's not done yet and our reality makes this clear.

I'm not making that assumption at all. I'm talking about an overall plan that could exist. This other plan would contain no evil, no pain, no suffering, and still have free will. I'm stating that from the beginning it could have been made so that we cannot sin, cannot deny God, and still have free will. God has all of these attributes, so they are not contradictory.
Now humans being able to deny God may be your hang up in this argument, so I'll expand on that.
Can you deny that 2 + 2 = 4? Given enough knowledge, can you deny a solid fact? Your free will isn't hindered by your inability to deny that 2 + 2 = 4, so that isn't an issue. Therefore, God can give us enough knowledge about Him that we couldn't possibly deny He is God, and that He knows best, and is most powerful. However, He didn't give us that much knowledge. That isn't a problem of free will, it is a lack of knowledge. There is no reason that He couldn't have given us all the knowledge in existence, so He chose to keep us ignorant. If it doesn't have anything to do with free will, as I've attempted to show, then what purpose is there in keeping us from knowing enough to not be able to deny Him?

I can't have free will and still never sin if I don't accept Jesus Christ as Lord because only He perfectly obeyed God and never sinned. Again, this is the crux of Christianity.

I understand that. I'm not contesting that at all, except that God could have designed us to work differently from the beginning. If that is the way it is now, that is the way it is now. What I am talking about is a completely different possibility that would be different from the very beginning.

 

[Chriliman]

First explain to me what Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem states, then I'll know I'm getting somewhere.

Here's the theorem in a nut shell:

• Gödel: Imagine the sentence G, which equals "'I can never say G' is true."

If I say Gödel's sentence in the quotations, then it is false, since I did say "'I can never say G' is true." This means that I uttered a false statement, which is against the rules of my Vow. But if I remain silent, then "'I can never say G' is true" is a true statement, and then I am in violation of the Vow because I am supposed to always say a statement that is true when I hear it.

The problem is that in the second instance the statement "I can never say G' is true" was never stated out loud therefore it can't be known by anyone whether it's actually true or not, so remaining silent means the statement cannot be known as true by anyone else, except the person thinking about it. So who ever first made the statement "I can never say G' is true" was being illogical, therefore Gödel was being illogical when he formed this theorem and made it known.

 

[Chriliman]

I do, that isn't my contention at all. It isn't really relevant to my point though.
God cannot sin, God cannot deny Himself, and God has freewill.
Therefore God can create creatures who cannot sin, who cannot deny Him, and still have free will.

When you say "God can create" you can't remove the process of creation from that statement because it's axiomatic. We are still in the process of creation as we speak because God's not done yet.

Also, the fleshy man named Jesus was created by God, but the truth of Jesus is the eternal truth of God, this is why Jesus said:

John 14:6
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

I'm not making that assumption at all. I'm talking about an overall plan that could exist. This other plan would contain no evil, no pain, no suffering, and still have free will. I'm stating that from the beginning it could have been made so that we cannot sin, cannot deny God, and still have free will. God has all of these attributes, so they are not contradictory.
Now humans being able to deny God may be your hang up in this argument, so I'll expand on that.
Can you deny that 2 + 2 = 4? Given enough knowledge, can you deny a solid fact? Your free will isn't hindered by your inability to deny that 2 + 2 = 4, so that isn't an issue. Therefore, God can give us enough knowledge about Him that we couldn't possibly deny He is God, and that He knows best, and is most powerful. However, He didn't give us that much knowledge. That isn't a problem of free will, it is a lack of knowledge. There is no reason that He couldn't have given us all the knowledge in existence, so He chose to keep us ignorant. If it doesn't have anything to do with free will, as I've attempted to show, then what purpose is there in keeping us from knowing enough to not be able to deny Him?

I understand that. I'm not contesting that at all, except that God could have designed us to work differently from the beginning. If that is the way it is now, that is the way it is now. What I am talking about is a completely different possibility that would be different from the very beginning.

It's fine to imagine different ways that God could have created things, but we(at least I) can't deny the fact that God is in the process of creating/refining and that is why we experience what we experience throughout our lives. We can't see the end product right now, but God can.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Here's the theorem in a nut shell:

• Gödel: Imagine the sentence G, which equals "'I can never say G' is true."

If I say Gödel's sentence in the quotations, then it is false, since I did say "'I can never say G' is true." This means that I uttered a false statement, which is against the rules of my Vow. But if I remain silent, then "'I can never say G' is true" is a true statement, and then I am in violation of the Vow because I am supposed to always say a statement that is true when I hear it.

The problem is that in the second instance the statement "I can never say G' is true" was never stated out loud therefore it can't be known by anyone whether it's actually true or not, so remaining silent means the statement cannot be known as true by anyone else, except the person thinking about it. So who ever first made the statement "I can never say G' is true" was being illogical, therefore Gödel was being illogical when he formed this theorem and made it known.

No, that is not the statement of the theorem. The statement is,

Any self-consistent, nontrivial axiomatic system will contain true/false propositions which cannot be decided as true or false without adding more axioms.

 

[Moral Orel]

When you say "God can create" you can't remove the process of creation from that statement because it's axiomatic. We are still in the process of creation as we speak because God's not done yet.

Let's look at that then. God is eternal and exists without time existing, right? He created time itself and designed how it works, correct?

So how then is the way God creates life dictated by an ordered list of events which is dictated by time which is designed by God? Everything traces back to God designing it, so even the process that you say constrains God's actions is designed by God Himself. I would say, that in light of this, God could have designed that process completely differently.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Let me try again. Logic is bound by God. There is no power that God lacks from which logically absurd states of affairs arise. There are no square circles, so there is no power that God lacks to create them.

If logic is bound by God, then square circles don't exist only because God doesn't want them to? So if God wanted to create a square circle, then he could?

I thought so.

Correct.

OK.

The problem is not what you are seeing as the problem. The problem is that the set theory is a made up fictional exercise. Fictional or hypothetical entities are incomplete as they do not exist in reality and are not about truth. They live only in a fictional world and hold no truth value. They are imagined to be true and then derive the consequences which in turn have no truth value either. The Continuum Hypothesis nor its negation is derivable from the stand axioms of set theory and are as one would suppose from hypothetical or fictional entities which have not been completely characterized. In the case of CH, there is no truth to be know by God since it is all fiction, and not based on reality or truth. God's omniscience is intact.

It is true that set theory is a fiction, but you cannot make that claim and then tell me that the law of non-contradiction is non-fiction. If you want to claim that the law of non-contradiction is absolute, I need only point out that it is an assertion—just the same as any axiom that exists—and that there is nothing about it to distinguish it from other axioms. But I'm betting you will cling to your special-pleading assumption that the law of non-contradiction holds in all possible realities (even though it doesn't even hold in our reality!), so if that's the case can you please tell me which of the Dedekind/Peano axioms are fiction and which are absolute? Are all Dedekind/Peano axioms fiction?

Also, it doesn't even matter if you happen to be right. Let's say the law of non-contradiction is absolute and that set theory is a fiction. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem only assumes the law of non-contradiction. It does not assume any of the axioms from set theory. Gödel's proof applies to any self-consistent, nontrivial axiomatic system. "Self-consistent" means we're assuming the law of non-contradiction. "Nontrivial" means we have more than just the law of non-contradiction (you can hardly do anything with just the law of non-contradiction). Set theory is just a concrete example in which we can demonstrate the consequences of the theorem. So no matter what axiomatic system we're in, there will be propositions about existence which are undecidable and my argument will still apply. If you truly want to contend that no laws of logic are absolute except the law of non-contradiction (which, again, is 1.) special pleading, and 2.) absurd because it is already false in this universe), then we cannot even discuss a square circle because we lack the absolutes of logic to describe what a circle or square might be.

My point is that how the universe, cause and effect are entrenched in the physical world, if God exists as claimed, causation would be a metaphysical application which does not depend upon the natural or physical world or the processes therein.

I do not know what this means. You are not providing a definition of causality.

Ok. You will then have to explain why you felt physical time was necessary for God to cause the universe to come into existence.

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist in this state of reality. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality.

I agree that 6 is a tautology.

Premise 7 is not logically absurd and you have not proven that. You again are using physical causation to explain something that is metaphysical in nature. There is nothing that requires God to act on X to bring it into existence. God's word creates.

Thank you. I now see what the problem is. You've been equivocating the whole time.

When you say "Anything that begins to exist requires a cause," you are obviously referring to the fact that a painting needs a painter, a sculpture needs a sculptor, etc. You then whimsically say that the universe requires a cause in the same way, even though you are now admitting that this "cause" is completely foreign to our understanding and nothing like the causality that we know. In short, your argument is bogus.

Please tell me that you agree with the following:

The form of causality that a carpenter uses to cause a table to exist is NOT the form of causality that brought about the universe. The form of causality that brought about the universe has unknown properties, does not require space or time to operate, and is completely beyond our understanding. In short, we might as well not even refer to it as causality in any way, shape, or form.

No, you are just not comprehending it. Logic is bound by God.

But we don't even have logic in your worldview. All you will afford is us the law of non-contradiction, which can hardly be used to prove anything at all except that God is not omniscient (via Gödel's theorem).

 

[Chriliman]

Let's look at that then. God is eternal and exists without time existing, right? He created time itself and designed how it works, correct?

Time and space are good, therefore it could be said that they are intrinsic to God. If this is the case then God could have logically created our universe and life. It would then be our comprehension and understanding of God that had a beginning.

So how then is the way God creates life dictated by an ordered list of events which is dictated by time which is designed by God? Everything traces back to God designing it, so even the process that you say constrains God's actions is designed by God Himself. I would say, that in light of this, God could have designed that process completely differently.

Sure, God could have done things differently, but what matters to me is what is God doing now. Is He trying to help us understand Him right now? I think He's always willing to help us understand Him because He values accurate knowledge.

 

[Chriliman]

No, that is not the statement of the theorem. The statement is,

Any self-consistent, nontrivial axiomatic system will contain true/false propositions which cannot be decided as true or false without adding more axioms.

Is that statement true?

If so, how did you decide it was true without adding more axioms?

If you didn't have to add more axioms to decide it's true, then the statement is false.