Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal: Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

"4 Where wast though when I laid the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hathe stretched the line across it? 6 On what are its bases grounded on? or who laid the cornerstone thereof..."-Job 38:4-6, from the New Catholic Version of the Bible..

By definition, you cannot understand or question an omiscient being. The passage above demonstrates that effectively (it is from the speech God gives Job)

Specific commentary:

Cris: What is the sound of one hand clapping? I would use both, but my other hand is covering my chest to bestill my beating heart. Strong construction ... heck of a post. :D

Corp. Hudson: On the one hand, you have an excellent point. I think it's undermined, though, by the fact that it comes from Job. We are, of course, witnessing the tale of God allowing the ravaging of one of his children merely to prove a point to an accuser. You are correct, though, when we assert that an omniscient being is impossible to describe in full. That's partially why the present version of Abramic God is such a "mutt" construction: whatever works from Newton; whatever works from Anselm & Aquinas; whatever works from Paul, Gregory, Augustine, &c. All the while ignoring the mystics, who are fully aware of the possibility that God simply isn't. Not "nothing", but "No-Thing".

General commentary, topic post:


Proposal: Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Accepted according to Reasoning presented.

Proposal: That theists tend to view humanity (in general), and their immediate culture (specifically) as the center of God's will. We ask our purpose in the Universe, while never knowing what purpose the Universe, itself serves.

Reasoning (somewhat informal):

That, as finite beings, we humans are incapable of calculating infinite concepts.

That, as an infinite being, God exists outside of human conceptions of time.

That, as God exists out of time, it is difficult to describe his relationship to time. Thus, if we might accept analogy, I would propose that the Universe exists to God in the same way a camera flash or firecracker explosion might. Whereas we, the finite, perceive a single event, what we witness is actually an intricate combination of processes, or a subtle collective process. The Universe may be much like this to whatever perspective composes God. We, being part of the firecracker explosion, see each phase of the process occurring, yet, being part of the explosion, cannot witness it from without. Where our concerns might involve the heat at the center of the explosion, God the Objectivist might also be concerned with the air currents at the periphery of the explosion. In other words, what we do within the process/event of the Universe is necessary to its outcome, much like working a hypothesis or calculating a quadratic formula. The answer is predictable from the right perspective.

Thus, we might indeed have a false sense of free will; but to assume that God knows beforehand implies the human concept of "before and after", which does not apply to an entity outside recognized time. God, by the standard of all-knowledge, simply knows ... there is no beforehand.

What this creates, from God's perspective, is the idea that yes, God knows what should happen ... even what will happen, as such, works at this point. But it's an ongoing process with an intended result which, while it may or may not involve humanity, does not make humanity the centerpiece of the operation. Thus, if humans are components of God's Universe, it may be that the experimental conditions allow for "free will". As the explosion progresses, the data is revealed, but when the "event" of the processes is complete, and the history of events within the process is reviewed, we might find that no other method existed to cause the final outcome of the experiment. Thus, we have free will, and the result of our free will is exactly what God expects.

Conclusion: That the paradox of free will arises from a human shortsightedness regarding our station in the Universe. Humanity acts by its own accord, though the events and processes of its doings can equate to a natural balance with the "will of God". Insofar as we limit ourselves to humanized conceptions of God, that God will experience human limitations. That God cannot escape the paradox proposed is a predictable result of limiting an infinite concept to finite terms. God may well exist ... God may well be omniscient. But the God we have come to know, of Universal creation, of redemption, and of eternal meddling, cannot exist without paradox.
_________________________

Irrelevant?

Apologies for the patchwork presentation; it's fairly spontaneous for the moment, since I'll forget to get back to this when I have more time.

Also, I wanted to comment on another part of the topic post ....


If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

I'll have to dig for the name of the philosopher (90% of my library is in boxes right now), but Jeffrey Russel Burton, in Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages did touch on that idea somewhat. I'm quite sure I've got the concept, but I'm not quoting directly:



A child has died. He stands before God in heaven and asks: "Why did I die so young, without a chance to know the world you gave me?"

God responds: "Because, child, I see all time, and I knew that you would grow up to be wicked, and that would break my heart. I brought you home now so that I could bring you home, before you were lost to me."

Whereupon a great lament was heard, and the souls in Hell cried out, "Why, then, did you not save us, Lord, while you still could?"


Sometimes I think it must suck to be God.

thanx all,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot


[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited September 15, 2000).]

Darn it ... I didn't come all the way around on that last one. I'll try to patch it up later, if it confuses anyone, but I'd rather let it stand right now ... must get out the door to some silly corporate event.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Extra dimensions of time

Paradox resolved ;)

God may see the future but that does not eliminate free will. The future is where our free will decisions that we make will lead us. God can see where our decisions will lead us. Where is the paradox?

"If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil."

Strawman. Evil and perverse mean what? That which is away from God's will. That is the real paradox in this thread ;)

What is really unjust is that the set doomed for hell, due to their own free will decisions, has used their own free will to freely reject God's free gift of eternal life through Christ's sacrifical death on the cross.

I saw a very interesting verse in the Old Testament. it was about accidental deaths and the punishment that should ensue. It mentioned something like "and if God allows it to happen." Apparently, God is God and has his reasons for things even if we don't always understand them.

Peace,
Vinnie



[This message has been edited by ilgwamh (edited September 16, 2000).]

It looks to me like Corp.Hudson's point was that you cannot assume that HUMAN logic is applicable when trying to explain the existence of God...or the contradictions in relation to free will and such. I'm not a zealot, but I do think it is a valid argument to say that we just might be too small to resolve such paradoxes, even more so when you consider our limited understanding of the universe.

------------------
It's all very large.

Sorry about the big post in folks.



Proposal: Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Accepted according to Reasoning presented.
Proposal: That theists tend to view humanity (in general), and their immediate culture (specifically) as the center of God's will. We ask our purpose in the Universe, while never knowing what purpose the Universe, itself serves.
Reasoning (somewhat informal):
That, as finite beings, we humans are incapable of calculating infinite concepts.
That, as an infinite being, God exists outside of human conceptions of time.
That, as God exists out of time, it is difficult to describe his relationship to time. Thus, if we might accept analogy, I would propose that the Universe exists to God in the same way a camera flash or firecracker explosion might. Whereas we, the finite, perceive a single event, what we witness is actually an intricate combination of processes, or a subtle collective process. The Universe may be much like this to whatever perspective composes God. We, being part of the firecracker explosion, see each phase of the process occurring, yet, being part of the explosion, cannot witness it from without. Where our concerns might involve the heat at the center of the explosion, God the Objectivist might also be concerned with the air currents at the periphery of the explosion. In other words, what we do within the process/event of the Universe is necessary to its outcome, much like working a hypothesis or calculating a quadratic formula. The answer is predictable from the right perspective.
Thus, we might indeed have a false sense of free will; but to assume that God knows beforehand implies the human concept of "before and after", which does not apply to an entity outside recognized time. God, by the standard of all-knowledge, simply knows ... there is no beforehand.
What this creates, from God's perspective, is the idea that yes, God knows what should happen ... even what will happen, as such, works at this point. But it's an ongoing process with an intended result which, while it may or may not involve humanity, does not make humanity the centerpiece of the operation. Thus, if humans are components of God's Universe, it may be that the experimental conditions allow for "free will". As the explosion progresses, the data is revealed, but when the "event" of the processes is complete, and the history of events within the process is reviewed, we might find that no other method existed to cause the final outcome of the experiment. Thus, we have free will, and the result of our free will is exactly what God expects.
Conclusion: That the paradox of free will arises from a human shortsightedness regarding our station in the Universe. Humanity acts by its own accord, though the events and processes of its doings can equate to a natural balance with the "will of God". Insofar as we limit ourselves to humanized conceptions of God, that God will experience human limitations. That God cannot escape the paradox proposed is a predictable result of limiting an infinite concept to finite terms. God may well exist ... God may well be omniscient. But the God we have come to know, of Universal creation, of redemption, and of eternal meddling, cannot exist without paradox.



Tiassa,
Youmakamegrinlotsa :D
Why do I get the distinct feeling that we are starting to see things in a similar vane?
Why Do I feel like the words you speak are words that we have spoken before?
Maybe because they are?
So your starting to see what I¡¦m ranting about all the time ;) That makes me very, very happy and encouraged.
I quote from another thread that was leading in the same direction and same question, I apologise to those who tire from my repeated quotes and find them annoying. Please feel free to read around them.



666
Member
Posts: 318
Registered: Oct 1999

Tony,
I acualy read your whole post, when they are so long it is not normal for me.
There are just a couple of points I want to touch on. Mostly becuase they are fundamental (at least in my opoin) to the post. In one section you stated that not only are we imperfect, but so is god. This begs two questions. Why then should he be the one judging us if he is imperfect too? Who judges his sins when he is not on his perfect behavior, and why should he not be judged for these sins? You also stated that he waited for X amount of generations to see if any subsequent generations would stray from thier sining past. The only problem I see with this is the fact that the bible states he is a all knowing god. If he is a all knowing god we would have had the forsight to see they would not change and stricked them down long before.


Thanks T6 for the questions, man I hope not too many others ask me questions because I just don¡¦t got the time to answer them all.

I had a little problem in that I don't remember the God is imperfect part :( If I have stated this then I have made a very big boo-boo, and as such apologise profusely for any confusion caused.

I do like your questions however, they¡¦re very valid and I would like to respond to excerpts of them.



Why then should he be the one judging us if he is imperfect too? Who judges his sins when he is not on his perfect behaviour, and why should he not be judged for these sins?


Well I don¡¦t think He is imperfect and am sorry again if I gave this impression or stated it somewhere. Darn well doesn¡¦t help the cause in trying to get people to understand who He is if I make such fundamental errors in my posts does it? So that basically puts Him back in the job with the right qualifications for it.



You also stated that he waited for X amount of generations to see if any subsequent generations would stray from their sinning past. The only problem I see with this is the fact that the bible states he is a all knowing god. If he is a all knowing god we would have had the foresight to see they would not change and stricked them down long before.


Yeah that whole time, come possible outcomes, come end result thing didn¡¦t quite happen the way I picture things in my minds eye.

God does have the foresight to see every possible outcome regardless of the infinite amount of variables that are involved.

I just had a picture of what I¡¦m trying to get at come into my mind, I¡¦ll try my best to capture it in words for us.

God sits external to our frames of reference, time, space, etc, and at the same time also internal to them as a part of their dynamics and functioning.

Within Gods macro view (In other words taking an external view of all) of all possible outcomes with all possible actions and reactions there are two extremes.

One is that the end result will be that all of humankind suffering a lost eternity. Complete rejection of Him and all that He would desire for them by a choice of their own free will.

Two is that all of humankind come to a place of restoration with Him as their creator. A place of appreciation and recognition of who He is and what He has done on their behalf, and again by choice of their own free will.

And in between each extreme view is a seemingly infinite number of possible outcomes based on freewilled actions, decisions and reactions of humankind, physical actions and reactions of time, space and matter, etc. Remember the Tony makes a decision multiply by X multiply, multiply etc.

So God knows the totality of all possibilities and works within the constraints and confines of this realm to effect the best possible outcome He can influence whilst maintaining the integrity of His very character and nature. At the same time also ensuring that His attributes work with freewilled man within the confines of who He is.

This is how I can say that God is limitless and yet limited. He is limitless in His capacity to see and comprehend all things, all outcomes, all eventualities. Yet He limits Himself in the very way He interacts with His creation to ensure that they are Not completely destroyed by His Holiness and to ensure that He does not contradict His very own Character and Nature.

How else can I put this?

Pick the smallest number between 0 and 1, then divide it by 2. Darn it did it just get smaller? OK divide it by 2 again. What even smaller? Ok divide it by 10000000000000000000000000.......0

Still got a number? Yes you do, even between fixed constraints such as those that God sees in His micro vision of us there are infinite possible outcomes depending on the variables applied or the decisions made.

Pick the largest number you can think of, then multiply it by 2. Darn it did it just get bigger? OK multiply it by 2 again. What even bigger? Ok multiply it by 10000000000000000000000000........0

Still get a bigger number? Yes you do, even beyond fixed constraints such as those that God sees in His macro vision of us there are infinite possible outcomes depending on the variables applied or the decisions made.

God is limitless in His perception of the macro and the micro. We are limited in the time of our existence, the number of decisions we make and the possible myriad of outcomes through actions, reactions and interactions although seemingly infinite to us are within the constraints of Gods perspective. Like Him looking at 0 and 1, and yet at the same time the variables within are limitless within these constraints.

This is mind bending hey?

So in saying this one would then naturally assume that there are a finite number of possible outcomes. This would be based on the fact that as a universe that is a debateable number of years old there has to this very moment in time occurred if measurable XYZ number of actions and reactions that have occurred at a subatomic through to universal level.

Remember every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Well this stands true for direct physical interactions based on prior reactions, repeat ad nauseam. But a new question arises:

What changes the outcome of an action and reaction?

What gives us the unexpected outcome?

What causes things to not happen the way we have planned for them to happen or even expect that they will happen?

Answer = Choice, freewill, decision making.

OK try to pull it all together time:

Man this is hard, my grey matter HP is in overdrive trying to come up with the words needed to explain something almost intangible.

Why Did God not see the final outcome and just fix it before it happened?

Answer = He did and He didn¡¦t, He saw every possible outcome with every possible decision and every possible action and every possible reaction within the constraints that these events were occurring like looking at an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1. Which actual line or series of events would transpire out of every possible and plausible interaction and decision should He have planned on? Scary numbers hey? A little thing called free will that God designed into us at the creation of us so that we could have a meaningful and living relationship with Him rather than simply being drones on remote control to do His bidding. This simple little attribute that was placed in us because we are created in His image and He has this ability. This wonderful gift that was instilled into the dust that we are made of when God breathed life into us. This fraction of a moment ability, this thing that drives us to decide that we have rights, this thing that causes wars and peace amongst us, this thing that drives us to seek fulfilment and when we don¡¦t achieve it leaves us feeling empty.

Choice, decision, freewill all one and the same is the very reason why God allowed for what transpired to transpire. Why the events of past history are recorded and yet future history stands before us as though a hazy mist that we can dimly see a way forward through.

Do you see what I am saying T6? Do you see the awesomeness of the God I serve and yet at the same time the frailty? Do you see the anguish of knowing the darkest dark that can befall humankind and at the same time the most wondrous glory? Do you see the anguish and frustration of knowing that? And knowing that you are limited in and by the very character and nature you possess and by the very holiness that you are in the manner through which you can interact with your creation because this very thing. This thing called freewill and decision that has created a barrier, a disease between you both, a disease called sin.

God knew every possible outcome, God knew these things, He knew every decision that could be made for every situation, but what He did not know was which decision would be made? That is the very decisions that men would make and which exact path that these decisions would lead humankind on in the infinite number of possible outcomes. But God having made man, having fashioned him and breathed life into him knew the very nature of His creation, knowing this God could more accurately gauge the probable directions that we would take. So God being true to Himself had to deal with man in a way to affect the best possible outcome whilst maintaining His integrity.

Remember when I first came here? How I spoke of our perception of God, of how our view of Him is limited because if He were to reveal all that He is to us we would in no way be able to withstand it, even as eternal creatures we would be destroyed by all that He is. Remember how I said that we are limited by our five senses and that with them and the range of emotions that God has endowed us with God reveals Himself to us. The interface between the two, the soul with all our emotions, and the body with all our senses, the interface between these parts of our being and God is our spirit. This is why Jesus stated that the time is coming when those who worship the Father will worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. To worship God in spirit is to be subject to the Holy Spirit of God and His control in our lives. This is called the Kingdom of God, this is why Jesus could say that the Kingdom of God is within you and why the Apostle Paul spoke of us as being the temple of the Holy Spirit. The Kingdom of God is a Kingdom that rules and reins in the hearts of people through obedience in love to the Holy Spirit and His truth. His truth being the Word of God that becomes written on our hearts and flows from within us like rivers of living waters.

I do hope that what I am saying makes sense to people, I do pray that God will open the eyes to see the truth.

The core of your question, why wait X generations before cutting them off? Why not just not allow them to exist in the first place? Why not just see that they would do what they did and stop it all? Why not stop them in the first generation so that the situation does not become exasperated and elevated?

I know it comes back to His character and the limits that His mercy places on Him before exacting His judgement. I don¡¦t know the exact whys for every situation because I don¡¦t have all the facts. But I do know that by the limits that God places on Himself, even not knowing those exact limits I do know that by these limits He acts. He acts in accordance with them so as to not contradict His very person. At what point exactly does He say enough and NO MORE! I don¡¦t know? I just don¡¦t know at this place in my walk with Him. Should He consider that I am capable of dealing with that knowledge and knowing how to use it to His glory then I am sure He will show me and that ¡K¡K..well being honest with you, I don¡¦t think knowing the person that I am, that this will happen to soon. I¡¦ve got a lot to learn and understand about what He has given me without Him overloading all those emotions, senses etc that I talked about earlier ƒº

I do cry out to know Him better, to be closer to His heart, to be able to see Him beyond my human abilities, to be walking in obedience to His word and ways. And with these things alone I have a long, long journey ahead let alone Him showing me more.

I like the story of Moses a lot and I have probably shared this before, but what the heck ;)

Moses was a man I can relate to in a big way, early in his life (40) he made a mistake that cost a life. This caused him to flee into the wilderness and essentially disappear for about 40 years. We don¡¦t hear a lot about those 40 years and what he went through, we know a lot about what happened after he returned from it but what about during it?

What kind of wilderness experience was it? What did it drive him to or from? What kind of sorting of his beliefs took place? What did he dream of as he wandered through the lonely hills and valleys tending cattle and sheep? On the star filled nights when he was alone with his thoughts and the God of his ancestors that he felt he desperately failed, what kind of sorting of his mind, his heart, his emotions took place?

Its for me a bit like your question T6, you¡¦d like to know the answer, you¡¦d like to understand, but sometimes these things are a little beyond us aren¡¦t they?

Rest assured my friend I don¡¦t know it all, but having considered and thought deeply about my God. Having spent time with Him just reading about Him and having asked Him into my life, I know 100% iron clad that there is an answer to all our questions. If I ever fully understand God¡¦s timing and the way He interacts with us 100% I think I will be older than this body I currently inhabit is capable of.

Can I ask a question in return?

Why do you want to know this?

For what reason do you ask?

Allcare

Tony H2o


[This message has been edited by Tony H2o (edited September 16, 2000).]

I think you people are seeing holes where there are none. For one thing, Yahweh could not be omniscient if he didn't know every single thing, where every particle in the universe is/was/will be, what you will do at the beginning of time (or at least the beginning of his omniscience), what you could have done, and the outcomes of all the events that could have happened, throughout all time. There is no possible way, in the true sense of the word omniscience, that Yahweh could not know exactly what actions you would take, before you were even born. Unless he knows EVERYTHING that can/will/did/could happen, he isn't omniscient (something close, maybe, but not omniscient), and because Yahweh would have to know EVERYTHING, you have no freewill, because your actions are predestined. Now if you do have freewill, then Yahweh isn't omniscient, nor is he omnipotent. If you are omnipotent, you must necessarily be omniscience, because if you're one you can make yourself the other. If you're not one, you're neither. And since omnipotence is logically impossible (the old "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he couldn't lift?" argument, and its many variations), Yahweh isn't omnipotent or omniscient.

[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited September 16, 2000).]

"because Yahweh would have to know EVERYTHING, you have no freewill, because your actions are predestined. Now if you do have freewill, then Yahweh isn't omniscient, nor is he omnipotent. If you are omnipotent, you must necessarily be omniscience, because if you're one you can make yourself the other. If you're not one, you're neither."

Hmm, infinite awareness and unlimited influence on the part of god... I suppose that you could say that if god created everything, then your past, present, and future actions are also god's creation. This would negate any claims to free will. With your logic, you could also say that god created the devil and all things evil." So, we are puppets then? <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

“Hmm, infinite awareness and unlimited influence on the part of god... I suppose that you could say that if god created everything, then your past, present, and future actions are also god's creation. This would negate any claims to free will. With your logic, you could also say that god created the devil and all things evil."

My logic is the only logic that should be used in this debate. You can’t say Yahweh is omniscient and that we have freewill by saying that he only knows the outcome of events that we could take, because that isn’t omniscience. And yes, saying Yahweh is omniscient creates more paradoxes than just the freewill argument. If Yahweh is omniscient, he knew we would eat the fruit, he knew Satan would turn against him, he knew he would wipe out everyone on Earth again in the Flood, etc, etc, as soon as he came into existence (or whenever he got omniscient). Saying that we can’t know if he is omniscient because we don’t understand omniscience is just stupid. We thought up the concept, and later applied it to the Yahweh, obviously we can comprehend it enough to understand what it is, even though we can’t truly understand what it would be like to be omniscient. Besides, that argument just makes Yahweh incoherent, and who wants to worship an incoherent god?

“So, we are puppets then?”

Depends if you think Yahweh is omniscient or not. If he is, then yes we are puppets, if he isn’t, it doesn’t really hurt him (besides making him just a little less glorious). He could be nearly omniscient and nearly omnipotent, not really a big difference.

"Depends if you think Yahweh is omniscient or not. If he is, then yes we are puppets, if he isn’t, it doesn’t really hurt him (besides making him just a little less glorious). He could be nearly omniscient and nearly omnipotent, not really a big difference."

I thought that was your message. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited September 16, 2000).]

The only thing I disagree with in Cris's reply is when he says:

"If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist."

My objection has to do with the word god. You can be a god without being omniscient, omnipotent, transcendent, omnipresent, perfect, etc, etc. The other gods weren't like that, they just controlled some aspect of nature, like the sea or death. If I started running amuck downtime throwing fireballs and flying around at 600 Mph, I think it would be safe to call me a god, if only a lesser one. Just to clarify, here are some definitions of the word god:

god - A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality: An image of a supernatural being; an idol: One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: A very handsome man: A powerful ruler or despot.

Now God with a capitol G has a definition as follows:

God - A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions; The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

It is safe to say that God doesn't exist, because the concept is logically impossible (see above for why omnipotence is impossible, and for why omniscience is impossible with an all-good God and freewill), though Yahweh could just be really, really, really powerful instead of omniscient and omnipotent, making him a god and not God.

I don't really see how saying he isn't omniscient or omnipotent hurts Christianity though, certainly claiming Yahweh is the logically impossible is more damaging than claiming he isn't.

The old rock question? You know that argument has no truth value to it. When asking if God can make a bigger rock than he can lift you are using improper referents and relations.

Also, God may be omnipotent but traditional theology limits him slightly. For instance, the book of James says it is impossible for God to be tempted by evil.

"First, Omnipotence has historically been understood as the ability to perform any task consistent with His character and essence. (At least that's the classical definition/understanding of it)." http://www.webcom.com/ctt/HGodRock.html

Here is another quote from the thinktank:

"Secondly, there are some things that we can build pseudo-sentences about, that actually don't end up being 'tasks'...some can be quite comical...

"Can God make this question into a declarative sentence?"
"Can God change the subject of this sentence to 'jello'?"
"Can God make this sentence so long that he cannot read it?"
"Can God make the slithy toves gyre and gimble in the wabe?"
(for any fellow Alice-in-Wonderland-Enthusiasts out there!)

These 'sentences' seem odd to us, for they look like regular sentences, but they have what philosophers of language call 'ungrammaticality' (cf.Language and Reality--An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language, by Michael Devitt & Kim Sterelny, MIT Press, pps.89-92).

Then there is another class of sentences in which grammaticality is present, but there are improper referents and relations, similar to the linguists' favorite: "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". These sentences (and any questions based upon them like "Do colorless green ideas sleep furiously?") are said to have no truth value (neither true nor false)--they just don't have any meaning to BE true or false."

http://www.webcom.com/ctt/HGodRock.html

Peace,
Vinnie

"God - A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions; The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being."

Logically speaking...couldn't such a being define free will and good based solely on it's subjective views--despotic resolve?

------------------
It's all very large.

“The old rock question? You know that argument has no truth value to it. When asking if God can make a bigger rock than he can lift you are using improper referents and relations.”

True, the question is rather meaningless, but not because of the linguistics involved, but because of an argument can be made that doing the logically impossible (i.e. making rocks heavier than he can lift, making square circles, etc, etc) doesn’t count, but I can always say omnipotence requires the ability to do the logically impossible, and it just turns into who can come up with the best rhetoric.

“Logically speaking...couldn't such a being define free will and good based solely on it's subjective views--despotic resolve?”

Then our subjective notion of freewill is inconsistent with his. He may know the true definition of freewill (since he “defined” it), and it may be consistent with his omniscience, but it doesn’t matter. Our concepts of freewill and omniscient are inconsistent with each other, which is all that matters.

"Our concepts of freewill and omniscient are inconsistent with each other, which is all that matters

According to Christian view, the Bible is God's definition of omnisient and freewill. If this is true, it is our own subjective logic which contradicts God's existence.

------------------
It's all very large.

“According to Christian view, the Bible is God's definition of omnisient and freewill. If this is true, it is our own subjective logic which contradicts God's existence.”

So if I looked up the Bible in a dictionary, I would get the definition of “What Yahweh thinks is omniscient and freewill”? I’m not sure what that sentence is supposed to mean. Besides, what I meant was, if our concept of freewill was different than Yahweh’s, it wouldn’t matter, since our concept is still inconsistent with omniscience, meaning that even though the concept could be different, it is still just as valid as a concept all on it’s own, even though it differs from the concept defined by Yahweh.

Besides, is there a logical reason to believe the Judeo-Christian-(and possibly)-Muslim god exists? Without a logical reason to believe such a being exists, there is no logical reason to even speculate what Yahweh thinks/does/etc/etc.


[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited September 17, 2000).]

Bowser,


With your logic, you could also say that god created the devil and all things evil.

Actually, according to the Bible, this is the case.

<font color="red">Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.</font>

I suspect this idea was lifted from Hermetic Philosophy, which says that good and evil are merely opposite poles of the same thing. Without darkness, there is no light; without evil, there is no good. You cannot have only a north pole on a magnet, there must be a south pole as well. Therefore, God could not have created good without creating evil as well. Or, to quote The Kybalion on the Principle of Polarity:


"Everything is Dual; everything has poles; everthing has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled." - The Kybalion.

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

'So if I looked up the Bible in a dictionary, I would get the definition of “What Yahweh thinks is omniscient and freewill”?'

No, I suggest that the Bible (or any other religiose article) is a definition of God, life, and free will. The Christian Bible will give you a more in-depth definition of omniscient and freewill than that which is offered in your dictionary. The presumption being that the Bible is the word of God, your dictionary is not then an authority, but merely a reflection of the human mind and its limitations.

How's my rhetoric? <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">


Emerald,

<hr>
With your logic, you could also say that god created the devil and all things evil.

"Actually, according to the Bible, this is the case."
<hr>

I understand that. I was exploring the possibilities of S7's logic and how it fits into the Bible. I vaguely remember a reference to the devil being made in the Bible...something about being the most beautiful angel God had created... I'm sure someone out there can post the exact passage.

------------------
It's all very large.

“No, I suggest that the Bible (or any other religiose article) is a definition of God, life, and free will. The Christian Bible will give you a more in-depth definition of omniscient and freewill than that which is offered in your dictionary. The presumption being that the Bible is the word of God, your dictionary is not then an authority, but merely a reflection of the human mind and its limitations.”

Are you sure about that? Can you cite passages in the bible that will give me more in-depth definitions of these words than a dictionary? I don’t presume the Bible was divinely inspired anymore than I presume that the Greek gods inspired Homer when he wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey. Like I asked in my last post, is there any logical reason to even speculate on the existence of Yahweh?

"Are you sure about that? Can you cite passages in the bible that will give me more in-depth definitions of these words than a dictionary?"

I point at the book, as a whole. Read it and tell me which passages you find that support the notions of freewill and omniscient being. Once again, you must believe that the Bible is fact and the base your logic on its foundation--God is all powerful.

"Like I asked in my last post, is there any logical reason to even speculate on the existence of Yahweh?"

If you are committed to the belief in a single god, then there really is no point or logic in speculation regarding its existence. Your task then is to understand God. I suppose that it depends on where your logic is based: The Torah ('Five Books') or The Merriam Webster Dictionary.

------------------
It's all very large.

“I point at the book, as a whole. Read it and tell me which passages you find that support the notions of freewill and omniscient being. Once again, you must believe that the Bible is fact and the base your logic on its foundation--God is all powerful.”

Yahweh is all powerful and all knowing yet somehow we have freewill, because it may (or may not) say so in the bible? Who cares, if someone claims Yahweh is omniscient and that we have freewill, they are doing one of two things (or both). 1. Either not using a proper definition of the word omniscient or 2. Making Yahweh an incoherent concept. I’ll let you in on a little secret, the words omnipotent and omniscient never appear in the bible, they are concepts created and later applied to Yahweh. There is no definition for omniscient or omnipotent in the bible, so the bible is a useless source for this definition, since it has none.

“If you are committed to the belief in a single god, then there really is no point or logic in speculation regarding its existence. Your task then is to understand God. I suppose that it depends on where your logic is based: The Torah ('Five Books') or The Merriam Webster Dictionary.”

Is there any logical reason to “commit” to Yahweh?

"I’ll let you in on a little secret, the words omnipotent and omniscient never appear in the bible, they are concepts created and later applied to Yahweh."

...later created as a human description for God, possibly. And to whom other than God would we apply those notions?

"There is no definition for omniscient or omnipotent in the bible, so the bible is a useless source for this definition, since it has none."

No, you won't find them listed there in alphabetical order. But the Bible and earlier religiose beliefs gave rise to the notions which, later, gave meaning to the words in question.


------------------
It's all very large.

“later created as a human description for God, possibly. And to whom other than God would we apply those notions”

I could apply them to my new god, a big block of cheese in the sky, that’s who.

“No, you won't find them listed there in alphabetical order. But the Bible and earlier religiose beliefs gave rise to the notions which, later, gave meaning to the words in question.”

You won’t find those words, nor will you find a definition for them. Are you implying those words were there before they had concepts?

"I could apply them to my new god, a big block of cheese in the sky, that’s who."

<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> hmm, derived from a personal experience with cheese, I'm sure.

"You won’t find those words, nor will you find a definition for them. Are you implying those words were there before they had concepts?"

I'm implying that the concepts were introduced by religion long before they became words in the dictionary. In truth, those words and their definitions in the dictionary are derivatives from concepts first introduced by religious thought. They might even have devine origin.


------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited September 17, 2000).]

Hi,

"He-Who-Is is ineffable. No principle knew him, no authority, no subjection, nor any creature from the foundation of the world, except he alone. For he is immortal and eternal, having no birth; for everyone who has birth will perish. He is unbegotten, having no beginning; for everyone who has a beginning has an end. No one rules over him. He has no name; for whoever has a name is the creation of another. He is unnameable. He has no human form; for whoever has human form is the creation of another. He has his own semblance - not like the semblance we have received and seen, but a strange semblance that surpasses all things and is better than the totalities. It looks to every side and sees itself from itself. He is infinite; he is incomprehensible. He is ever imperishable and has no likeness to anything. He is unchanging good. He is faultless. He is everlasting. He is blessed. He is unknowable, while he nonetheless knows himself. He is immeasurable. He is untraceable. He is perfect, having no defect. He is imperishably blessed. He is called 'Father of the Universe'."

(from Eugnostos the Blessed)

We can only understand the concept of "omniscience" from our own flawed human perspective. But I think we can glimpse the ineffable manifestation of the concept "Father of the Universe/God", by studying our own creative urges. Be it art or literature or philosophy. What is that seed that drives us to create? What is it in us that moves pen to paper, creating the great literature and philosophy of civilization? I think within the human "creative urge" lies an explanation to the strange declaration in John 1. " In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God"

That`s all about the ineffable primal "thought no. 1"

Is our reality God`s thought processes? If it is, then we can never know or understand Him. As we and the universe we inhabit, are the manifestation of his mind, God can be within us, and beyond us. As we, during our creative endeavours become a "God" to the thoughts that emenate from us. We give our thoughts Life, Substance. And our thoughts are potentially infinite.

This post is starting to sound like, "Reflections from Shroomsville" but this is where my mind goes in trying to get around the paradox as above. It`s only a paradox because gravity brings us down.

Take care.

Freewill is an illussion. Every action we take, every thought we have, is reliant on circumstances and forces beyond our control.
Just think about it, everything has a motivation behind it and everything is perceived in a uniquely individual way, dependent on genes, childhood conditioning, society, religion, culture, media influence and peer pressure, what we do, is simply make choices.

“I'm implying that the concepts were introduced by religion long before they became words in the dictionary. In truth, those words and their definitions in the dictionary are derivatives from concepts first introduced by religious thought. They might even have devine origin.”

Well, of course, now prove the definition was different than the one today.

“He-Who-Is is ineffable. No principle knew him, no authority, no subjection, nor any creature from the foundation of the world, except he alone. For he is immortal and eternal, having no birth; for everyone who has birth will perish. He is unbegotten, having no beginning; for everyone who has a beginning has an end. No one rules over him. He has no name; for whoever has a name is the creation of another. He is unnameable. He has no human form; for whoever has human form is the creation of another. He has his own semblance - not like the semblance we have received and seen, but a strange semblance that surpasses all things and is better than the totalities. It looks to every side and sees itself from itself. He is infinite; he is incomprehensible. He is ever imperishable and has no likeness to anything. He is unchanging good. He is faultless. He is everlasting. He is blessed. He is unknowable, while he nonetheless knows himself. He is immeasurable. He is untraceable. He is perfect, having no defect. He is imperishably blessed. He is called 'Father of the Universe”

For someone “ineffable” and “unknowable”, it’s amazing how many details people know about Yahweh. Surely, if he was unknowable, Eugnostos wouldn’t even know he existed, let alone be able to describe 16 character traits of him, and tell you about his non-birth and how many people knew him. Useless, contradicting rhetoric.

“We can only understand the concept of "omniscience" from our own flawed human perspective. But I think we can glimpse the ineffable manifestation of the concept "Father of the Universe/God", by studying our own creative urges. Be it art or literature or philosophy. What is that seed that drives us to create? What is it in us that moves pen to paper, creating the great literature and philosophy of civilization? I think within the human "creative urge" lies an explanation to the strange declaration in John 1. " In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God”

Just an interpretation of John 1:1, nothing more. It could very well mean that “the Word” was part of the trinity (making it not a trinity, but oh well).

“This post is starting to sound like, "Reflections from Shroomsville" but this is where my mind goes in trying to get around the paradox as above. It`s only a paradox because gravity brings us down.”

It’s a paradox because it’s logically impossible, just like square circles, not because we can’t understand it. Making a claim that we have freewill while Yahweh is omniscient makes Yahweh an incoherent concept. Trying to say “We’re too dumb to comprehend it, but it still is” still makes Yahweh an incoherent concept, no matter how much you sugarcoat it. What if I told you I could make square circles? Would you believe me? Of course not, and you shouldn’t expect people to believe in the logically impossible either.

<img src = "http://www.geocities.com/bowsertwo/asquarecircle.jpg">

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited September 18, 2000).]

That's a black square with a white circle drawn on it, not a square circle.

No...that's a square circle. They share the same line, too. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited September 18, 2000).]

No, it's not a square circle. The image could be any number of things, a black square with a circular hole it in, a black square with a circular white stain out it, a white circle laid on top of a black square, etc, etc. It's just two images overlapping each other, it isn't one shape (well, it is one shape, a square).

Yes, I know it's a two dimensional computer generated image that isn't any of those things, but you get what I'm saying (even if you choose to ignore it).

"The image could be any number of things, a black square with a circular hole it in, a black square with a circular white stain out it, a white circle laid on top of a black square, etc, etc

You forgot to mention the "impossible" which is contary to logic or, perhaps, is very logical: square circle.

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited September 19, 2000).]

"You forgot to mention the "impossible" which is contary to logic or, perhaps, is very logical: square circle."

Do I have to teach you basic principles of geometry to make you understand why that isn't a square circle? You could have a square, a triangle, and an octagon inside of that square, and it still is just a square. A square is a shape. A circle is a shape. A shape is something distinguished from its surroundings by its outline. The outline is a square, it doesn't matter what is in the square, the outline is still a square no matter what the hell you put inside of the outline. If you actually think that is a square circle (which I didn't think you did till this post, and I still doubt it), then you know nothing about geometry.

[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited September 19, 2000).]

7

1.Eugnostos is not Yawheh, not God and not a character or person. Eugnostos is the concept of gnosis or enlightenment.

2.Open your eyes and your mind when reading something you don`t understand. In this way one learns.

3. John 1.1 - exactly, I was throwing my opinion into the pot. (this is a debating board)

4.Logic is a man made concept. Mankind is given the gift of glimpses into the supernatural, but more often than not, denies himself the truth. This is the human condition. One can call it "enslavement".

5. Looking into and towards the so-called impossible (non-logical) has given mankind inroads into technologies not thought possible. Also Quantum mechanics, at the face of it, is not particulary logical. Huh?

As Bowser says: "It`s all very large"

Take care.

“Eugnostos is not Yawheh, not God and not a character or person. Eugnostos is the concept of gnosis or enlightenment.”

I thought it was a person, my bad.

“Open your eyes and your mind when reading something you don`t understand. In this way one learns.”

There is no point in trying to learn about the logically impossible, except to maybe understand the impossibility of the nature of whatever is logically impossible.

“Logic is a man made concept. Mankind is given the gift of glimpses into the supernatural, but more often than not, denies himself the truth. This is the human condition. One can call it "enslavement".”

Logic is not a manmade concept. If intelligent life exist on other planets, they too would have undoubtedly discovered how to reason properly, just as the old “look out behind you” trick would have undoubtedly been used by any species with eyes and the ability to communicate. And what glimpses of the supernatural are you referring to exactly?

“Looking into and towards the so-called impossible (non-logical) has given mankind inroads into technologies not thought possible. Also Quantum mechanics, at the face of it, is not particulary logical. Huh?”

Name one instance in human history when someone looked into the logically impossible that helped us advance in technology. You won’t find one, because people don’t go looking for logically impossible for a reason. Quantum mechanics, evolution, relativity, etc, etc, were never logically impossible, and still aren’t.

<img src = "http://www.geocities.com/bowsertwo/asquarecircle.jpg">

"A shape is something distinguished from its surroundings by its outline. ..."

Yet, mysteriously, the outline of this shape reveals a square circle. Does the dictionary dictate the limitations of an outline or the shape of an outline?

Here's another square circle. Do you see it?

<img src = "http://www.geocities.com/bowsertwo/asquarecircle2.jpg">

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited September 19, 2000).]

Sorry Bowser, I'm not seeing it either.

The line you have in the second spot is just a line. You could possibly argue it is a side veiw of a DISK, but a disk is not a circle. A circle is a 2-dimensional figure and has no depth, only width and height. Ditto for a square. A 3-d "square" would be a cube. See?

Very good, MoonCat!

<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">You caught me on that one.

Okay... Do you see the (snicker) square circle below?

------------------
It's all very large.

“Yet, mysteriously, the outline of this shape reveals a square circle. Does the dictionary dictate the limitations of an outline or the shape of an outline?”

You’re either A. ignorant or B. doing this on purpose. Either way, it’s not worth discussing this with you anymore.

“Here's another square circle. Do you see it?”

I see what you probably think is a side view of a “square circle”, and it only speaks more about your ignorance of geometry. That would be a side view of a 3 dimensional disk inside of a 3 dimensional square or possibly a rectangle (it isn’t a cube though), which just makes me think you’re ignorant instead of doing this on purpose.

"You’re either A. ignorant or B. doing this on purpose. Either way, it’s not worth discussing this with you anymore."

You forgot C. Human Logic is Flawed. Also, yes, I'm ignorant, but that just makes me human like you--it doesn't hurt my pride.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"I see what you probably think is a side view of a “square circle”, and it only speaks more about your ignorance of geometry. That would be a side view of a 3 dimensional disk inside of a 3 dimensional square or possibly a rectangle (it isn’t a cube though), which just makes me think you’re ignorant instead of doing this on purpose."

Well, we both owe MoonCat a hardy thanks for pointing that out to us. She did help me better illustrate my point: Just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

------------------
It's all very large.

“You forgot C. Human Logic is Flawed. Also, yes, I'm ignorant, but that just makes me human like you--it doesn't hurt my pride.”

It appears my original thoughts were correct, you’re ignorant of basic geometric concepts.

“Well, we both owe MoonCat a hardy thanks for pointing that out to us. She did help me better illustrate my point: Just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.”

I owe her nothing, anyone with even basic understanding of geometry would have told you the exact same thing as we told you. You’re so ignorant of geometry that you tried to pass of that picture as a side view of what you consider to be a square circle, when anyone would have told you a square and a circle are 2 dimensional shapes, therefor they don’t have any depth to even have a side view.

What are you, 12? Is this some kind of game, or are you just completely ignorant of basic geometric concepts? That’s the only two possibilities, trust me, you didn’t find a flaw in human logic. If you think you did, you’re not just ignorant of basic geometry, you’re stupid too.

Half-penny, two-penny?

I don't think the original image in question shows a square circle ... I think the image shows a circle in a square.

My alpha female Siamese cat is a twin Siamese who looked exactly like her alpha-male brother when they were kittens; she is not, however a Siamese twin.

Is the Zebra black with white stripes or white with black stripes? Since I'm now digressing into the Philosophy of Uncle Shelby, I shall decist. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Maybe! It depends on the definition of the subject.

This is like the argument that one can’t prove that God does not exist because it is not possible to search every corner of the universe. However, if the definition of God forms a paradox then it is not worth searching for something that can’t exist.

For example I want to find a car that can travel north and south at the same time. Since this is impossible then I will not even begin the search. We can conclude that such an object cannot exist and therefore does not exist. But take the case of the 105-year-old woman who daily drives a rainbow colored Rolls Royce. There might be a corner of the universe where this event takes place. I cannot for sure say the subject does not exist; all we can say is that the event is very improbable. However, for the case concerning God there are paradoxes, like the one in this topic, that make it possible to say that God cannot exist and therefore does not exist.

My conclusion is based on logic and reason within our natural world. These are our only certain tools for running our lives. Any recourse to arguments that depend on the unnatural (or supernatural, if you prefer) where our logic and reason does not apply will result in total incomprehension on our part and usually circular arguments.

If indeed God does exist but is incomprehensible as has been stated then such a lack of understanding also means a lack of knowledge, i.e. to accept material as knowledge then it follows that we must understand the material first. In which case we cannot have any knowledge of God – he is unknowable. This is the exact stance taken by the true agnostics who state simply that there is no point discussing anything concerning God because God is unknowable. We can now reason that if Christians state that God is incomprehensible, when they are faced with awkward questions, then we can claim that such Christians are no more than confused agnostics when they argue for knowing God when it suits them.

tissa,

If you're trying to assert that it is a matter of opinion whether or not that is a square circle, then you're wrong. It isn't a matter of subjectivity, it is objectively a black square with a white circle in it. It is not a plane figure with four equal sides while being a plane curve everywhere equidistant from the center, which is what a square circle would be.

We might be experiencing a failure to communicate.


If you're trying to assert that it is a matter of opinion whether or not that is a square circle, then you're wrong. It isn't a matter of subjectivity, it is objectively a black square with a white circle in it.

I agree .... For your consideration:


I don't think the original image in question shows a square circle ... I think the image shows a circle in a square.

Otherwise, I was trying to be cute. Guess I sorta missed on that one, too. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:



------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Originally posted by tiassa:
We might be experiencing a failure to communicate.

And it's all your fault.

Someone7:

ok here goes:

x^2+y^2=r^2 where x,y are cartesian co-ordinates and r is the radius.

Let x^2+y^2 = C

therefore: C^2=r^4...I just squared a circle... Try using LOGIC to prove me wrong.

C is a circle (TRUE)
C^2 is a circle squared (TRUE)

Logically: (True) and (True) must be TRUE.
therefore logically sound.

Don't get me wrong I completely get the point you were making. Just wanted to show that applying logic can still be subjective...in this case the meaning of square is not defined and therefore I changed it to suite my logic...


Further Quantumn mechanics describes a state where an elementry particle (i.e. electron I believe) can exist in 2 states simultaneously....

i.e.
state1 NOT state2: true
electron at state1: True
electron at state2: True
therefore logically electron at state1 and state2: True
However state1 is NOT state2 hence
logically not sound the electron exists in both a locically true condition and a logically false condition.

So logic is false BUT this actually exists and quantumn mechanics guru's have obsevered and verified it....so there's an example of false logic in nature.......




[This message has been edited by Rambler (edited September 19, 2000).]

Someone,


What are you, 12?

Ahem, funny you should bring that up...I was actually wondering your age just before I read that particular line.

It seems to me that your posts have taken on a rather unfriendly tone since you first started posting here. I'm wondering why that is? Have we all done something to offend you terribly, or is this just your way? Just wondering...

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

“Don't get me wrong I completely get the point you were making. Just wanted to show that applying logic can still be subjective...in this case the meaning of square is not defined and therefore I changed it to suite my logic... “

It was defined.

“A circle is a shape.”

“a plane figure with four equal sides” – Out of context I admit, by I still defined what a square was.

“So logic is false BUT this actually exists and quantumn mechanics guru's have obsevered and verified it....so there's an example of false logic in nature.......”

I think you misunderstand the definition of logic.

Logic - The science or art of exact reasoning, or of pure and formal thought, or of the laws according to which the processes of pure thinking should be conducted.

The example you gave is not illogical, which has this meaning:

Illogical - Contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic

You fail to mention how it contradicts logic (i.e. how an electron existing in two simultaneous states is contradicting or disregarding the science or art of exact reasoning, or of pure and formal thought, or of the laws according to which the processes of pure thinking should be conducted). I’m not sure if it’s because our definitions of logic appear to be different, or because I just fail to understand your example. How is “state1 is NOT state2” illogical? What does that mean anyway? I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “false logic in nature” either. Please clarify.

“Ahem, funny you should bring that up...I was actually wondering your age just before I read that particular line.”

Oh, and may I ask what was you guess before and after that statement?

“It seems to me that your posts have taken on a rather unfriendly tone since you first started posting here. I'm wondering why that is? Have we all done something to offend you terribly, or is this just your way? Just wondering...”

That didn’t occur to me, I never considered my posts friendly or unfriendly. I made that remark because I was getting tired of replying to his remarks, which just seem like attempts to goad me anyway. His statement of “Well, we both owe MoonCat a hardy thanks for pointing that out to us” asserts that I needed MoonCat to explain it for me also, which of course I didn’t. So I took offensive and replied rather rudely to him. A worthless excuse for a more blatant insult from me, true, but hey, the majority of us do immature things when annoyed (another worthless excuse, true, but it’s all I have).

If you’re wondering about the “And it’s all your fault” remark, I meant that jokingly. Hard to tell without those corny smiley faces, but I don’t like using them, which is why I don’t.

"It appears my original thoughts were correct, you’re ignorant of basic geometric concepts."

Nope, you're wrong there; however, I don't let them rule my thinking.

"I owe her nothing, anyone with even basic understanding of geometry would have told you the exact same thing as we told you. You’re so ignorant of geometry that you tried to pass of that picture as a side view of what you consider to be a square circle, when anyone would have told you a square and a circle are 2 dimensional shapes, therefor they don’t have any depth to even have a side view."

Granted, I did neglect to take that into account, but I don't have any shame in admitting that I made an error. Tell me, why was she the first to see that error?

"What are you, 12?"

Golly, let me count my fingers...an toes. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">

"Is this some kind of game, or are you just completely ignorant of basic geometric concepts?"

It's an exploration into the limitations of canned knowledge. The World was once flat until someone challanged that popular concept. Don't you ever leave your cage?

"That’s the only two possibilities, trust me, you didn’t find a flaw in human logic. If you think you did, you’re not just ignorant of basic geometry, you’re stupid too."

S7, I created a square circle using a few definitions from the all-sacred dictionary. It is what it is ...a square circle.

Logic is proof by sound thinking and reasoning. When we talk of human logic, we introduce all of those human limitations which, in the end, compromise our proof (pride being one of those human limitations). We can test our logic, but we are still limited by our human perception. This is why human logic is flawed--it will always be tainted with our limitations.

<img src = "http://www.geocities.com/bowsertwo/anisquarecircle.gif">

As for the worth of a few definitions in the dictionary, I give you the square circle. A paradox no more.

<hr>
MoonCat,

You surprised me! Wow! Somebody was actually thinking on what I was saying. I better be more careful <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited September 20, 2000).]

“Nope, you're wrong there; however, I don't let them rule my thinking.”

Whatever.

“Granted, I did neglect to take that into account, but I don't have any shame in admitting that I made an error. Tell me, why was she the first to see that error?”

Because she was viewing the thread first.

“It's an exploration into the limitations of canned knowledge. The World was once flat until someone challanged that popular concept. Don't you ever leave your cage?”

1 Chronicles 16:30 - Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psamls 93:1 - The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Psamls 96:10 - Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Psamls 104:5 - Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Is it any wonder why people believed the Earth was flat?

“S7, I created a square circle using a few definitions from the all-sacred dictionary. It is what it is ...a square circle.”

I’ve already explained to you why it isn’t several times. Why don’t you try explaining your reason why you think it’s a square circle, or would you just rather keep asserting? Please, oh wise one, tell us how the object you created is a plane figure with four equal sides while being a plane curve everywhere equidistant from the center.

“Logic is proof by sound thinking and reasoning. When we talk of human logic, we introduce all of those human limitations which, in the end, compromise our proof (pride being one of those human limitations). We can test our logic, but we are still limited by our human perception. This is why human logic is flawed--it will always be tainted with our limitations.”

What universal human limitations are you referring to?

“As for the worth of a few definitions in the dictionary, I give you the square circle. A paradox no more.”

Looks like a moving plane figure with four equal sides (a square) with a circular hole in it to me. You can even see those little specs through it. I think you got a long way to go before you can create a shape with four equal sides that has no sides.

If you’re wondering about the “And it’s all your fault” remark, I meant that jokingly. Hard to tell without those corny smiley faces, but I don’t like using them, which is why I don’t.

If it helps at all, I got it.

--Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Someone,


Oh, and may I ask what was you guess before and after that statement?

Well, you do remind me of my 19 year old son who, still being a teenager, knows it all. And of course, you cannot possibly argue with a teenager who already knows everything. They will never let anything rest without getting in the last word on everything. So my guess, even before that remark, was that you were probably somewhere between 13 and 19 years old. Since that remark, I'm beginning to wonder if you didn't just subtract a year from your own age when you took that shot at Bowser. After all, to the mind of a 13 year old, a 12 year old is miles behind him in every respect. So I'm guessing, 13? I could be wrong, of course...


That didn’t occur to me, I never considered my posts friendly or unfriendly. I made that remark because I was getting tired of replying to his remarks, which just seem like attempts to goad me anyway.

If you're tired of replying to his remarks, perhaps you could just ignore him? Oh, but then if you're 13 years old, that wouldn't be an option, of course. As a 13 year old, you could never let anyone else have the last word - especially if you suspect that person is only 12. What was I thinking?


His statement of “Well, we both owe MoonCat a hardy thanks for pointing that out to us” asserts that I needed MoonCat to explain it for me also, which of course I didn’t.

Perhaps you didn't need MoonCat to explain that to you, but she was the first person here to point out the flaw. What's wrong with giving her credit? Would that be such a wound to your pride? Are you not secure enough in your own intellectual powers to allow someone else credit for even the smallest thing, or must you always try to prove you thought of it first?


If you’re wondering about the “And it’s all your fault” remark, I meant that jokingly. Hard to tell without those corny smiley faces, but I don’t like using them, which is why I don’t.

No, I wasn't wondering about that. Actually, it's the first sign I've seen that you might actually have a sense of humor, although I'm not surprised about your reluctance to use the smiley faces - it definitely would not be cool for a teenaged boy to use smiley faces, now would it? Or as my 19 year old son would say - that's too "gay". :rolleyes: (Teenaged boys are forever concerned about proving their "manliness" to the rest of the world, so anything that could be remotely considered "gay" is definitely out.)

Well, whatever you are is okay with me, I guess. You hardly require my permission to be a teenaged boy (or even to act like one), but it would just be nice if your posts were to take on a more civil tone, that's all. Do as you will.

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

“Well, you do remind me of my 19 year old son who, still being a teenager, knows it all. And of course, you cannot possibly argue with a teenager who already knows everything. They will never let anything rest without getting in the last word on everything. So my guess, even before that remark, was that you were probably somewhere between 13 and 19 years old. Since that remark, I'm beginning to wonder if you didn't just subtract a year from your own age when you took that shot at Bowser. After all, to the mind of a 13 year old, a 12 year old is miles behind him in every respect. So I'm guessing, 13? I could be wrong, of course...”

Judging my posts, would I be intelligent for a 13 year old? Or if I was a middle aged man, would I be slow witted?

“If you're tired of replying to his remarks, perhaps you could just ignore him? Oh, but then if you're 13 years old, that wouldn't be an option, of course. As a 13 year old, you could never let anyone else have the last word - especially if you suspect that person is only 12. What was I thinking?”

And let people think that was a square circle? Never! hehe

“Perhaps you didn't need MoonCat to explain that to you, but she was the first person here to point out the flaw. What's wrong with giving her credit? Would that be such a wound to your pride? Are you not secure enough in your own intellectual powers to allow someone else credit for even the smallest thing, or must you always try to prove you thought of it first?”

Did I deny her credit for replying to him first? I’m just telling the truth is all, I didn’t need her to point it out to me like Bowser did. We both knew before we saw that post that 2 dimensional objects don’t have depth, there is no credit to give on who thought of it first, hence nothing to prove.

“No, I wasn't wondering about that. Actually, it's the first sign I've seen that you might actually have a sense of humor, although I'm not surprised about your reluctance to use the smiley faces - it definitely would not be cool for a teenaged boy to use smiley faces, now would it? Or as my 19 year old son would say - that's too "gay".”

I wouldn’t consider the usage of them homosexual in nature, just corny. Not really appropriate for this forum in my opinion.

“(Teenaged boys are forever concerned about proving their "manliness" to the rest of the world, so anything that could be remotely considered "gay" is definitely out.)”

Chalk it up to not getting any.

“Well, whatever you are is okay with me, I guess. You hardly require my permission to be a teenaged boy (or even to act like one), but it would just be nice if your posts were to take on a more civil tone, that's all. Do as you will.”

Tell me, did you make this post to punish me for using a blatant insult instead of using the indirect ones you’ve attacked me with? Sure, you don’t come right out and say it, but you think I’m immature. Insults are insults, indirect or blatant. I do believe you’ve crossed that line further than I have with this post, of course it’s a matter of subjectivity. How about we forget this hole insult incident, and go back to calmly debating religious issues?

Someone,


How about we forget this hole insult incident, and go back to calmly debating religious issues?

Okay. :)

Blessings,

Emerald

------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.

I love the logic and reasoning that is being used. The whole paradox issue I have brought against many a Christians. None have really been able to argue against it, effectively, without relying upon blind faith. But here is what I submit to you, something I came across in a Logic Course.

"This sentence is false."

So, by stating it is false, that makes it true...which makes it false..and then true? So which is it? Neither, either...both?

Could then the same be applied to God? A contridiction, yet, still able to exist, because we cannot comprehend which it is, or how they can both exist at the same time?

------------------
"Even pure Logic is refuted by those of unbending and blinding faith."

Grimjester,

Welcome and thanks for your post.

Formal Logic is a formidable mechanism that helps determine truth or falsehood in many areas. However, there are strict rules for forming valid premises and conclusions. One of the most basic rules is that circular references are not valid. Your statement concerning the false sentence refers to itself and is therefore circular, and hence invalid in formal logic.

The simplest form of logic is the syllogism that as a minimum involves two premises and a conclusion, which can be true or false. For example:

A=2
B=2
Therefore A = B.

In the case for Christians, they have formed the equivalent of the following invalid sequence:

A=1
B=2
Therefore A = B

Meaning they are making a claim that is impossible – a paradox.

The correct conclusion is of course: A NOT = B. And for the topic: The correct conclusion is - Omniscience is incompatible with human freewill.

Your attempt at logic is admirable unlike Bowser’s childish gibberish with square circles.

Take care, I hope we will hear more from you.
Cris

There is much talk of so-called flawed human logic. (Stretch, Bowser). This is a confused claim. Logic is naturally universal in the same way as mathematics, take for example prime numbers in mathematics. I suspect that if extraterrestrial beings exist then we would be able to initially communicate with them using mathematics presented with a logical approach. Logic is something we have discovered, not invented, it is part of the natural universe.

What are often flawed are the languages (e.g. English) we use to express these disciplines. And it takes great care on our part to avoid language pitfalls usually by creating different terminology; hence mathematics has specific symbols and syntax, as does formal logic although not as obvious as mathematics.

Logic is a method utilized by anyone/anything that can exhibit rational intelligence. I.e. it is a sign of intelligence. Consider the chimpanzee faced with a hungry lion. The natural logic used by the chimp will be something like; a lion could hurt me, I don’t want to be hurt, best to run away. Clearly the language and conscious thoughts would not be like this but the effects are the same. Logic is not limited to the sole domain of humans; we have simply taken it to a higher level as befits our higher level of intelligence.

To effectively debate any complex issue with the hope of reaching acceptable conclusions requires structured thoughts and mental discipline. Logic is the most formal and powerful of these processes. Anything less leaves us in danger of confusion, false claims, irrationality, and sheer gibberish.

And gibberish is the common approach used by Christianity since their claims are not based on any established facts (facts require evidence, and logic is based on facts). So it is not surprising to find Christian claims riddled with paradoxes, as is in fact the case.

It is also not surprising to find Christians attempting to ridicule Logic, as they know only too well that logic destroys their irrational claims.

Have fun whatever.
Cris

Yes, I know what logic is. Least, I would hope so, or I just flunked that midterm I took. What I stated was merely a humorous thing, that I always found interesting.

Anyways, if you wish to critize Christianity, for not using logic, I shall do the same to evolution.

Explain, with evolution, how intelligent life formed? I mean, human intelligence. Considering, in evolutionary terms, it is complete overkill.

Explain how the big bang was started? Since every cause has to have a preceeding cause. So therefor, you need an uncaused cause (God).

Explain how life came from non-life? In the time frame given by evolution, it is impossible to make that jump.

Explain why there is no complete fossil record showing transitions from one species to another ie from dinosaurs to birds.

Explain why after 50+ years of searching, we have yet to find intelligent life anywhere else? Explain also, why Earth is so completely unique, and unlike anything we have seen before. As though it defies all other rules of the universe, and was created just for us.

Explain DNA's perfection. The fact it is a mathematical language, that speaks not only of a higher intelligence, but God?

Randomness, cannot create meaning. That is how we determine if there is intelligence life elsewhere, instead of a pulsar emiting the same radio signal, in a repeating pattern. Intelligence has structure, and creates structure. Randomness does not and cannot create structure. Especially not in the time frame given by evolution.



[This message has been edited by grimjester (edited October 17, 2000).]

And one more quick thing, before I leave you with those thoughts.

I believe it was Thomas Aquinas(sp) who said this. "Because I can see my past, and it's actions, does not mean I was forced to chose those things." Ok, maybe not an exact quote, but close enough.

What is he speaking of? God and the paradox of freewill. Meaning, that God looks to the past, and sees our actions that we chose. That does not mean, we were not able to chose them, just rather, he is in the "future", and looks at them in the "past".

There is no paradox in this. No more than you going out last weekend, and remembering it now.

------------------
"Even pure Logic is refuted by those of unbending and blinding faith."

grimjester,

Sorry about the logic lecture, I hadn't meant to sound condescending, its just that it is often difficult to tell, for some posters, whether they are using humor, are ignorant, or simply stupid. My tone was meant to be neutral, please don't take it personally.

Now of course you have admitted to flunking logic and you appear to be a theist - perhaps my point is proven - now that is humor.

Actually all of your questions have been pretty well fully covered in previous posts, however, I don't expect you try to read them all, there are now too many. I'll pull all the references together for you as soon as I can.

Unfortunately I am about to leave for a two week trip to Europe and I am unlikely to be posting here during that time. Please be patient and perhaps someone else here might point you at some useful references. If not then I'll do it on my return.

But feel fully assured that you are absolutely wrong on every issue.

In the meantime, have fun.
Cris




[This message has been edited by Cris (edited October 17, 2000).]

Explain, with evolution, how intelligent life formed? I mean, human intelligence. Considering, in evolutionary terms, it is complete overkill.

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but it's difficult to establish that life even exists, much less intelligent life.

That might be the point of the Universal Mystery, but remember that the average density of the Universe is so negligably low as to indicate that the Universe isn't there at all.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Actually, I read all the other posts, least, in this topic. If you might point me to the relavant posts in other topics, then I might have a better understanding of the illogical claims made ;)

<font face=Times new roman bold font size=3.0 color=blue>"The whole issue over the concept of "GOD" is where Humanity makes it's first mistake; and not to say in the least that God exists or not, but it originates from withone ones own "Perception" of what GOD is"!

This is why we have a "Divided House Of Many" instead of a more logical & peaceful Harmonic convergance of a more globaly accepted religious view that would have agreed that GOD is Not a seperate being as we humans attempt to personify something that is a "Aetherical Matrix of Collective Conciousness" <or> "I S N E S", ... a Multi-Dimensional Omnipresent Force" instead of this "Tri-Union" of independant Consciousness No!, No!~No!!

Our next widely accepted "Turn our heads & Look the other way, Do as I say & not as I do" Leadership sponsored & lead by so many examples of our Greates & wonderful Leaders in our history, that our shameful sheep are "Eagerly" so willing to sacrafice their own free will & independance too as if brainwashed by those "Control Freaks" who stand behind their pulpits every week preaching their great lies of suppresion & "Half/Truths" casting away what their egos do not support as to the true nature of man's great evolutionary process makes me want to reach for the proverbial "Barf-Bag" (Forgive my blunt forthrighness") and wonder why so many true & honest great men like Nicola Tesla" wanting to give our world Free Energy by wirless transmission & save our world from pollution, toxic waste & global warming over a 100 yrs ago! yet we are still living like we do, in spite of the fact we have had this technology to change all this time?

Somthings real wrong with the whole thing!
let's see now.........could it have anything to do with oversized egos, corruption, greed & lust NO Way! I'm just being slightly condescending right?

Grimjester wrote:
"EXplain.......this.
Explain......that.
Explain...Explain.
After stating "I know what logic is"then says: Explain DNA's perfection, the fact it is a mathematical language, that speaks not only of a higher intelligence, but god.
GOD???
If you need to ask these silly questions,
YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT LOGIC IS.!!!

Originally posted by Mack:
Grimjester wrote:
"EXplain.......this.
Explain......that.
Explain...Explain.
After stating "I know what logic is"then says: Explain DNA's perfection, the fact it is a mathematical language, that speaks not only of a higher intelligence, but god.
GOD???
If you need to ask these silly questions,
YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT LOGIC IS.!!!

Now now, no personal attacks. I know exactly what logic is. If you have read my posts before this one, you too would understand. So please, I do not personally attack you people, and say that evolutionists are just a bunch of hate filled arseholes, because they cannot answer those questions I put forth, without resorting to name calling.

If you want me to start putting them into sylogistical arguements, I am sure I could, using A E I O, propositions. Which I might add, Cris did not do, so obviously, he has no clue what logic is! (sorry Cris, I still love you).

And if you wish to look at major sciencetists who believe in God (not creationism, as reported in the bible), look at Albert Enstien. Also, please forgive my spelling, it is terribly early in the morning and I have not had any caffeine...

“Explain, with evolution, how intelligent life formed? I mean, human intelligence. Considering, in evolutionary terms, it is complete overkill.”

By means of the current known/theorized mechanisms of evolution. Define overkill.

“Explain how the big bang was started? Since every cause has to have a preceeding cause. So therefor, you need an uncaused cause (God).”

Explain to me why the Big Bang can’t be it’s own uncaused cause, and why some ancient Hebrew deity needs to be invoked to explain anything. After all, matter is energy, and energy can’t be created or destroyed, and because we know this (it’s the first law of thermodynamics), it is not illogical to speculate that this energy always existed. Now if you mean to ask how all the energy got into one place to explode, it was never apart to have not exploded, or so the theory goes if I’m not mistaken.

“Explain how life came from non-life? In the time frame given by evolution, it is impossible to make that jump.”

Explain to me what basis you have to make the claim that it would be impossible to make the jump, because it sounds like hot-air. The answer to your question though, is by the theorized processes of abiogenesis.

“Explain why there is no complete fossil record showing transitions from one species to another ie from dinosaurs to birds.”

Fossilization is a rare occurrence. I’m not sure what you mean by “complete” either. Do you mean to say every single species we find must have clear transitional records for evolution to be considered valid? Or do you just mean just higher taxonomic groups, like amphibians to reptiles, and dinosaurs to birds? Your demand is rather vague, so I’m not too sure what you're asking me to explain, but the short answer is fossilization is a rare occurrence, and we should be lucky we have anything we can get. Of course, I think your demand can be easily explained by surfing on over to the TalkOrigins Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html).

“Explain why after 50+ years of searching, we have yet to find intelligent life anywhere else? Explain also, why Earth is so completely unique, and unlike anything we have seen before. As though it defies all other rules of the universe, and was created just for us.”

Explain to me why you assert Earth is so completely unique and why it defies all the other rules of the universe. To my knowledge, Earth doesn’t defy any rules we know of, nor is it “completely unique”. To say that it is completely unique would require you to be omniscient, otherwise it’s like making the claim that there are no such things as pink unicorns, you’d have to know whether or not there are more planets with life on them, you’d have to know every single one of those planets, you’d have to know all the life on those planets, you’d have to know if some mad scientist somewhere on Earth hasn’t created one, etc, etc, etc, etc. Your claim is completely illogical. That is a underhanded demand anyway, since I believe we can’t even view planets smaller than a gas giant, they have to be big enough to leave a shadow we can observe when they pass in front of their sun, we can’t observe planets our size. Even if we could, we’d be a long ways off from knowing anything about it’s atmosphere, it’s continental formations, whether life exists on the planet or not, etc, etc.

Also, you can fathom any reason why we haven’t contacted aliens in 50 years of searching. Maybe we’re the only intelligent life that has advanced technology in the galaxy. Maybe there is no other intelligent life yet. Maybe no one cares to talk to us, maybe our instruments are too crude. Of course, the best answer is that there are billions and billions of stars in our galaxy, and 50 years is hardly enough time to stumble on a technologically advanced species that even wants to communicate with us.

“Explain DNA's perfection. The fact it is a mathematical language, that speaks not only of a higher intelligence, but God?”

The abstract concept of perfection makes this question hard to answer, since the state of being perfect has many definitions. Indeed, it wouldn’t be that much different than asking to explain why DNA is good/evil/beautiful/etc/etc. I would have to ask you to explain what exactly you mean by perfection, but I’ll take a guess. Lacking nothing essential to the whole? By this definition, you could call my ugly, dented, stained cereal bowl sitting in front of me perfect, since it lacks nothing to complete it for its purpose of holding milk and cereal. Of course, to argue against DNA’s supposed perfection, I’d still have to know more about what you mean. At the moment, I can only assume it’s your own subject notions that make DNA perfect, and not logical reasoning, but it can simply be explained anyway. It evolved by known/theorized mechanisms of evolution. Oh, and DNA isn’t a mathematical language, it is a nucleic acid consisting of large molecules shaped like a double helix that determines individual hereditary characteristics. We call this determining “information” (or in your case a mathematical language) so we can better understand it.

“Randomness, cannot create meaning. That is how we determine if there is intelligence life elsewhere, instead of a pulsar emiting the same radio signal, in a repeating pattern. Intelligence has structure, and creates structure. Randomness does not and cannot create structure. Especially not in the time frame given by evolution.”

Define meaning and structure, and explain why randomness can’t create it, and define randomness too. Otherwise it’s a meaningless, abstract assertion.

“What is he speaking of? God and the paradox of freewill. Meaning, that God looks to the past, and sees our actions that we chose. That does not mean, we were not able to chose them, just rather, he is in the "future", and looks at them in the "past".”

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Does this explanation somehow make our actions past, present and future not already known to God? So God did or didn’t know what our actions would be before we were born? Or are you trying to redefine omniscience to mean knowing a lot but not everything? So you haven’t solved the paradox at all, let alone even mention how God doesn’t already know our actions. And besides, what basis can you make the claim that God is in the future, and looks at our actions in the past (i.e. what scripture can you cite to prove that what you claim of God is so). This is the worst attempt to rationalize the paradox in the entire thread.

[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited October 21, 2000).]

"And if you wish to look at major sciencetists who believe in God (not creationism, as reported in the bible), look at Albert Enstien. Also, please forgive my spelling, it is terribly early in the morning and I have not had any caffeine."

Albert Einstein was more than likely a deist, or at the very least a non-practicing Jew (i.e. he didn't fast on certain holidays and other pointless rituals). His belief in a God didn't mean he believed anything literally in the bible. Did Einstein believe God impregnated a virgin to give birth to a son that is himself who would be later sacrificed to appease him? Did Einstein believe God killed all life on Earth, besides what he got Noah to put into a boat?

It pains me when Christians say Einstein believed in God, as if he believed in all the same crap they do. Whatever concept Einstein had of God and his role in the universe, it was more than likely a whole lot easier to swallow than what most Christians are preaching. Besides, appealing to authority will get you no where, so save it for the indoctrination of your children.

[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited October 22, 2000).]

OK, where to begin?

I relies that Someone7 has already gone over grimjester’s remarks but I will put my 2 cents in as well.

All quoted by grimjester
“Anyways, if you wish to critize Christianity, for not using logic, I shall do the same to evolution.”

You cant criticize evolution in this way because it is not like Christianity in that Christianity has a set of rigid beliefs that make up a religion. Evolution may be contradictory but it is a scientific explanation that changes throughout its existence until it is refined or thrown out for a better theory. Evolution is not a bible defined fact but rather a hypothesis or theory that is KNOWN to be flawed and anyone that refuses to admit it is not reasoning. However most of what you questioned in the theory stands very firm.

“Explain, with evolution, how intelligent life formed? I mean, human intelligence. Considering, in evolutionary terms, it is complete overkill. “

Why? It isn’t an overkill at all. In fact our intelligence makes a lot of sense. From the perspective of today one might say that all we have achieved is an overkill in terms of survival, I mean who needs a nuclear plant to survive in the wild. However this originally wasn’t the case. We became as intelligent as we are today while still using stone tools. Our intelligence was needed to survive the harsh conditions because we needed to no how to implement those tools and build on them. Our species didn’t become an overkill until later when we built upon those basic tools and created the overkill ourselves.

“Explain how the big bang was started? Since every cause has to have a preceeding cause. So therefor, you need an uncaused cause (God). “

This one of the setbacks that is in evolution. From what i understand, before there was the big bang there was no space and therefore none of our current laws would preside there. Gravity, relativity, and even the laws of motion would all be completely meaningless as they did not exist. In this reference we cannot in now way explain where it came from as what we no did not exist. Besides, trying to disprove one theory with logic that is the center of your own theory is a double standard. If the big bang cannot just be then why can god just be.

“Explain how life came from non-life? In the time frame given by evolution, it is impossible to make that jump. “

Where’s the jump? The earth’s lifetime is 3 billion years old if I am recalling properly and the universe somewhere in the 15 billion year scale, that’s a LOT of time considering that we have only had history for 6000 years or so.

“Explain why there is no complete fossil record showing transitions from one species to another ie from dinosaurs to birds. “

S7 explained this pretty well so all I want to point out is that we have found a COMLPETE fossil record for 1 species; the wale. As luck would have their closely related to wolves.

“Explain why after 50+ years of searching, we have yet to find intelligent life anywhere else? Explain also, why Earth is so completely unique, and unlike anything we have seen before. As though it defies all other rules of the universe, and was created just for us. “

Explain to me why you expect to find life in 50 short years when we haven’t even visited ANYTHING except our own moon and landed on less than half the planets in our solar system. Our best form of searching is radio, and the nearest solar systems, if they got our message to begin with, would only have their message reaching us now. That is assuming that their listing to radio transmission, which means they are miraculously close to us in development (within a few hundred years). And Earths uniqueness isn’t really as unique as you seem to put it. As I recall Mars used to be a lot like earth, with an unfortunate accident. Yet none of the other planets are even close to each other, Earth is the least unique. We just happen to be in a good spot for life. Hold off on the uniqueness until we have found more than 9 measly planets, considering there are more than a billion stars in our galaxy and maybe equally as many galaxies, each one of them able to harbor planets.

S7 also described the DNA question quite well.

“Randomness, cannot create meaning. That is how we determine if there is intelligence life elsewhere, instead of a pulsar emiting the same radio signal, in a repeating pattern. Intelligence has structure, and creates structure. Randomness does not and cannot create structure. Especially not in the time frame given by evolution. “
Once again I do not believe that you understand the MASSIVE amount of time evolution has asked for. 15 billion years is a LOT of time, and I hate to tell you but the pulsars you are referring to were thought to be life because it was structured, our signal would sound much the same if heard from space, just less sophisticated.

Now to move on.

Overlooking the completely ridiculous idea of a square circle, logic IS flawed. Not in concept but in implementation it has some basic problems. When humans put restrictions on anything it is later found that those restrictions were incorrect. One example i can recall off the top of my head is the medieval concept of how a cannonball worked. It was seen that a cannon ball had a certain amount of energy (sorry i cant recall the term they used but its just a term, the logic, or illogic still holds) and it traveled in a STRAIGHT line until it ran out of this energy and fell straight toward earth. Today we understand that projectiles follow a hyperbolic path and not one of straight lines. These people used logic to define their laws and they were incorrect all the same. At some point it was said that quantum mechanics was logical, I don’t know if you have ever studied it but as far as I can see it is the most illogical thing I have ever come across and even its leading creator, Neils Bhor (not sure on the spelling), said that it defied logic, yet true all the same.
Yet with all that said, Logic it the only tool we have to work with and is the strongest there is.

Back to the main subject.

The idea of Omniscience is a paradox in itself. That would imply that you have ether power to do ANYTHING. Anything includes creating another omniscience thing. Consider the unstoppable cannonball coming into contact with the immovable wall (both indestructible). The cannonball cannot be stopped and therefore must move the wall. On the other hand, the wall is immovable and therefore must stop the ball. Logic dictates that both scenarios cannot be true yet nether can be true and therefore omniscience cannot exist at all. Omniscience is in itself a paradox. An even bigger paradox is created with the advent of freewill, as it cannot coexist with omniscience. That has already been stated so i best end here before my post becomes so long nobody reads it.

"And if you wish to look at major sciencetists who believe in God (not creationism, as reported in the bible), look at Albert Enstien."

One point on this – Scientists aren’t a religion, it is a study and 1 smart man, or even a thousand, doesn’t make me turn my mind off to logic and reality. I don’t believe relativity because Einstein says its true, I believe it because i have researched it and it makes sense, not only theoretically but experimentally. God is none of these and defiantly a omniscience God is not.

------------------
If the theory does not fit reality then reality MUST be changed.

[This message has been edited by FA_Q2 (edited October 22, 2000).]

“Overlooking the completely ridiculous idea of a square circle, logic IS flawed. Not in concept but in implementation it has some basic problems. When humans put restrictions on anything it is later found that those restrictions were incorrect. One example i can recall off the top of my head is the medieval concept of how a cannonball worked. It was seen that a cannon ball had a certain amount of energy (sorry i cant recall the term they used but its just a term, the logic, or illogic still holds) and it traveled in a STRAIGHT line until it ran out of this energy and fell straight toward earth. Today we understand that projectiles follow a hyperbolic path and not one of straight lines. These people used logic to define their laws and they were incorrect all the same.”
----------

To say a cannon ball travels in a totally straight line is illogical in light of the theory of gravity and our modern knowledge of physics. This is not an example of the limits of logic rather, an example of how it can be misapplied. Empirical knowledge requires not only reasoning but data. We cannot simply think about a subject and expect to understand how it works.

For an example, if I have been told that cars have square wheels, it is perfectly logical to assume that they are very uncomfortable, inefficient vehicles. I came to this conclusion not due to any inherent flaw in logic, (Logic, as has been previously mentioned, is universal.) it is due to the fact that I was misinformed. I did not have accurate data to support my logic. It is in this, I think, that the limits of logic lie. Human beings, by nature, can only know the content of their perception. Therefore if their data is incorrect or incomplete, they can easily come to perfectly logical but incorrect conclusions.

It is therefore important to keep in mind that although humans ability to use logic (Not logic... Man’s study of logic) is quite reliable, we are finite in our capacity to use it and it’s application may be mired in flawed data.

“At some point it was said that quantum mechanics was logical, I don’t know if you have ever studied it but as far as I can see it is the most illogical thing I have ever come across and even its leading creator, Neils Bhor (not sure on the spelling), said that it defied logic, yet true all the same.”

Quantum mechanics is logical. It is, however, counter-intuitive. It is certainly not the way that humans expected the universe to behave. I think it would be more accurate to describe is as defying common sense. To a layman, it appears to be terribly nonsensical. Within the framework of the theory, however, it does make sense. The theory does fit with the data, the conclusions do follow from the premises.

Regards,
Synaesthesia (Tim)
“Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals.”

Hi all,

Well this post has resorted to the usual fanfare that we see time and again here. But it still makes for entertaining reading ;)

I guess I¡¦d like to jump in and take this right back to the proposition made originally by Cris and carried through to an argument about logic, evolution, Darwin, Einstein ¡K¡K..etc, etc.

¡§Omniscience v¡¦s Free will, a paradox.¡¨

Now Cris I¡¦m going to say a few things that may be contrived as a personal attack but they are not meant that way OK?

Firstly the meaning of Omniscience and how we relate that word back to God.

Omniscience = All knowing, infinite knowledge.

Omni = All, inclusive of everything. From the Latin Omnis = all.

Omnipotent = All powerful, almighty, unlimited power.

Omnipresent = All places at the same time.

Free will = Free, without restriction. Will, the power of choice, ability to decide.

Ok English lesson over and I think we all understand the thrust of the statement.

How can an all powerful, all knowing, all present God who is in control allow free will?

How can the two exist? For to have free will is a contradiction to God being in control.

Cris, I think this is essentially what you were getting at.

Again this will be a long post so if you are seriously interested in a LOGICAL response read on, if not goodbye and take care :)

This discussion has been had on a number of occasions in this place so much of what I have to say will be a repeat of things already said but perhaps in a slightly varying context.

There are a number of things to be understood here.

Firstly we must understand and realise why God allowed free will in the first place, why He empowered His creation with this ability?

Secondly we need to attempt to grasp a few of Gods characteristics, parts of His nature and attributes that dictate the way He responds to mankind and creation in general. Now with this we must also remember that He is all knowing and as such sees detail that we don¡¦t.

Thirdly, well this gets tricky. We need to understand and attempt to see our existence from God¡¦s perspective. In saying this I am referring to the passage of the human race through time past, present and future.

And all throughout the discussion and following verbage trying to maintain logic and reasoning for it all to make sense and not to contradict itself.

Also note that some questions will only be fully answered together with the responses to other questions.

Wow this should be a fun ride!!

Free Will

So why did God allow free will? Why did God allow or empower His creation with free will when being all knowing He should have seen the consequences of this action and as such should have been able to avert the ensuing calamity? So why?

The simple answer is that He had to.

What did you say God had to do something? But I thought that He was God and that He was all powerful and that He didn¡¦t have to do nix that He didn¡¦t want to.

Well this is where God¡¦s character kicks in, God is not like us so the standards we have can not be applied to Him. We as part of His creation and created in His image have attributes that reflect aspects of Him but He and His knowledge of Himself, all His attributes, His character and nature is beyond us when we attempt to visualise it from a human perspective.

So the answer is that yes God had to give creatures within His creation free will. This He had to do so as not to contradict His own character and nature which would place Him at fault, God will not be faulted. A part of God¡¦s character is that He is creative and as such He must create, He can not deny that aspect of His character. Another aspect of His nature is that He is a God who desires intimacy with the creation He has created. For this to occur God had to empower His creation with attributes and abilities limited but akin to His own. So to ensure the outcomes of His desires as layed down by aspects of His character and nature God gave His creation these faculties, He created them in His image.

Free will, the ability of choice and decision was given to His creation to fulfil the requirements of Gods character. For God to have an intimate and meaningful relationship with the jewels of His creation He had to give them free will to chose to love Him in return. To make a conscious decision beyond reaction to stimuli and input of five senses, to be able to resist the fight or flight reactions dictated by these senses, to go beyond simply being drones on remote control who faithfully and continually obey His every command. He had to give them free will to achieve the desired outcome of a loving intimate relationship, to have communion with them.

Is this much different than that which we desire in a relationship? Is this not what binds people together, socially, politically, and sensually? The desire to love and to be loved.

What kind of relationships do we see around us where the love has died? What kind of relationship or view could one expect to have of God without an understanding of Him, without love?

We each desire to love and to have the love we lavish out upon an individual returned, why would God be so different? And what of the heart that suffers from unrequited love?

God created parts of his creation with abilities beyond instinctive reactions to stimuli so that He could have intimate fellowship, communion, with them. For this to occur God had to be true to His own attributes, to the aspects of His character and nature that dictated what was needed to achieve this outcome. That which was needed is what we call free will. For a creature created to respond with love it must have the ability of free will to decide to do so.



Excerpts from discussions along similar lines.

When God made the universe He made it perfect.
When God created all beings that inhabit it He created them perfect.
When God created them he gave them the ability of choice, free will. And with that free will and the power it contains the creation defied the creator.
In doing so the creation brought disunity and sin into existence, an insidious and powerful force.

The one who conceived of this was called Lucifer, and was majestic beyond compare.
In his pride he would not turn from his errors and chose to oppose the Lord Most High.
Sin entered into God's creation and contaminated it through Lucifer, and through his free will choice to sin.

By standing against the Lord in the power of his own free will, by trusting in his own ability he, Lucifer managed to deceived a third of heaven into thinking that he was greater than the Lord Most High.
So why create beings who have free will?

God had to create them that way. Yes that's right He had to, as mentioned previously He created them according to His character and nature. God created angelic beings for the purpose of intimate fellowship, communion and service. He created them with abilities beyond instinctive reactions, abilities of choice and reasoning, abilities that He has instilled into humankind also. He made them this way so as to have meaningful interaction and dialogue with them. He also gave them boundaries that they could and should use these abilities in. Lucifer crossed the boundary and in so doing introduced sin. God set the boundaries because He in His infinite wisdom and knowledge knew that if His creation had no boundaries in which to use their God given abilities, then they would find themselves entering into areas of His character and nature that would consume them. Areas called justice, righteousness, wrath, anger and judgement, areas that are as much an integral part of God's character and nature as are mercy, forgiveness, longsuffering and love. God being fully aware of who He is and what He is choose that His creation should live according to rules and regulations laid down in love, laid down in love to protect them from entering into His judgement and all that His attributes ascribed to it call for.

Having created the angelic hosts and humankind with the ability of free will for a purposeful and meaningful relationship He set them boundaries that were not to be transgressed. In transgressing these boundaries sin entered into and contaminated the perfection of God's creation. In sinning and choosing to disobey the laws given in love the bond with God, the relationship and the intimate communion was severed. The instigator of destruction, Lucifer had become bitter and twisted by his failure to ascend to a place above the throne of God and in his twisted reasoning has resorted to assaulting God by driving the wedge of sin between God and humankind.

So who's fault?

So the question that begs answering is who is ultimately responsible?

Is it the creation for choosing to disobey? For making the conscious decision to step outside of the boundaries laid down in love through the ability of free will?

Or is it the creator for giving them the free will in the first place? For giving them the ability of choice fully knowing that they may choose to disobey yet eternally hopeful that they would use the measure of wisdom given them and decide obedience over rebellion?

These are not very easy questions to answer, but I think we need to go there in order to gain the understanding needed. We need to look at the very root cause and effect, and we need to take into consideration the very characteristics and attributes of the players involved. Without taking it all the way back to this we will continue to argue the same arguments over and over, we will continue to look at the superficial distractions and issues without addressing the root cause and making an informed decision about our faiths and belief systems. Without doing the hard yakka we will never truly have a clear understanding of issues that appear in the word of God that on the surface appear to contradict the very author Himself.

Who is ultimately responsible?

Did God make a mistake? Did He in His omnipotence not see what may or would happen? Yes He saw and He created, He created according to His very person so does that make Him ultimately responsible?
Lets consider this however in the light of who He is. An aspect of God's character is that He is creative, He being a God who is true to Himself must therefore create, to do otherwise, to suppress this ability would be paramount to Him contradicting Himself. I have said many times that this has never happened and never will. Another part of His character, another aspect of His person is the aspect of His love. He is a God of love and so He in return longs for a creation that can share in this love, a creation that can reciprocate from hearts that are uninhibited and inspired by their creator, for them to have intimate fellowship and communion in His love and to love in return so that He might pour out His blessing upon them.

So God created them and He created them to fulfil the vary requirements and desires of His very character and nature, it was His attributes that dictated the design, it was His character the stipulated the very traits that were needed. And so God created them in His image according to His character, nature and attributes, and in accordance with this the ability of free will to fulfil these very requirements.
So in doing this, in meeting the very requirements that His character, nature and attributes dictated did God make a mistake?

Did He by being true to that which He is err? Did He by allowing us to be made in His image do something wrong? Or did we as part of the creation made perfect cause our own demise? God created us outside of Himself, as an external fully functional creature, a creature that He chose to make with the abilities He (dare I say) HAD TO give it. Yes God Had to, God does have limits, these are limits laid down by His very person, having limits yet being omnipotent sounds almost contradictory but He is limitless within the confines of the limits dictated by His person. So having limits that He alone can meet God set limits in love that His creation must and have the abilities to meet.

So again I ask who is at fault? Again I throw up the question who is responsible? Again I ask is the Creator or the creation? T6 once drew an analogy of God letting His pets run amuck and thereby being ultimately responsible for its action, this was a very good analogy. God understands His responsibility in our abilities, however we are the ones responsible for our actions and there effects. Let me explain with a real life story:

In the city I live we recently had a case tried where a man who owned a number of large dogs was being held accountable for their actions, actions that resulted in the savage and brutal death of an elderly woman.

The man involved was ultimately found guilty of the actions of his animals, for one reason. That reason being that he failed in his duty of care to provide adequate confines for the animals to live within. He essentially let them roam uninhibited throughout the area, he set them no boundaries and having no constraints the animals knew no discipline.

So how does this relate to God? How does this relate to human suffering? How does this relate to God's judgement of seemingly innocent lives?

God is the dog owner and we as creation are the dogs

However unlike the individual who let his animals roam wild God has set boundaries for His creation to operate within, His word and the law established in Love. So unlike the owner who allowed his dogs to roam, God has set up a boundary in love. If you are familiar with animals and know how to train them and earn their respect you will know that the best method is affection. A dog that is treated with affection and consistent instruction will be the most loyal companion to a man. You could have a property with known boundaries and never need a fence because the animals loyalty would dictate its obedience. It would stick to your side when you say come, it will stay on its bed when instructed to do so, it will swim in freezing waters at your command and it would jump through fire at your signal. Why because it loves and obeys its master, and if the master of the animal loves the beast then the beast will trust the master who would never cause it wilful harm.

Such it is with God, in my last post I tried to show how in doing so, in laying down the law in love for the protection of the creation from itself sin became apparent. The law served to show people the holiness of the God they served, the law stood not only for man but as a reflection of God's character and nature, as an indicator of His attributes. The books of the law and the prophets have entwined within them the very plan of Gods eternal plan for mankind. God knew we would fall, yet as difficult as it is to wrap our minds around He had to make us and He had to allow the fall. God could have intervened, He could have changed the course of history at any one point in time as we understand it. And He has, He has done this time and again and will continue to do so in accordance with His character and nature. We however are fickle in our characters and nature and so our free will choices equate to changes that are seldom in accordance with Gods will. Even before sin entered our sphere choices and decisions were made that have had a ripple effect on humanity throughout the ages, choices that resulted in changes, changes that have resulted in loss and destruction, loss and destruction brought about at times because of Gods judgement, brought about because we listened to the destroyer in place of the Lord Most High.
Free will = choice.
Choice = change.
The outcome was a choice, a free will decision made by beings created that stood external to God. When saying that I am saying that the angelic beings and humankind were created by God not to be dictated to but to be fellowshipped with in a unity of love. They were created to walk closely with Him yet external to Him, to consider, to ponder, to learn, to grow, to seek, to understand, to love and to be loved, to choose and decide beyond instinctive reactions to external stimuli, to be perfect and they were granted the abilities and attributes that God Himself possessed to achieve and maintain this, they were created to bless and to be blessed, to honour and to be honoured.

At the dawn of time the events that transpired, transpired.

God fulfilled perfectly the role He played in the creation of the beings involved, He created them perfect yet with the ability to be imperfect. God knew that at any time (if I can apply that term to the realm of the eternal one) one of His creations could and would eventually stumble and fall, was Lucifer the first one to do so? I would surmise not, I would consider that God in His mercy had the ability to forgive any transgression that was committed in ignorance, that His loving kindness would cover a multitude of unknown sins even when the transgressor became aware of their error. I would consider that God had exercised this ability prior to the fall of Lucifer and that in Lucifer the whole scenario changed. It changed in that Lucifer would not humble himself and accept God's forgiveness for to so would be an admission of fault in the light of the boundaries established by God, the Law. Lucifer was a majestic being, a creature within creation that stood in splendour and was beheld as most beautiful amongst creation. A creature who was seen as immensely powerful and wise, who was seen as established in the ways of the almighty and as being closest to the throne of God. A position of great honour, a position of great power, a position of immense responsibility, a position of pride? Yes, pride crept in and was found in Lucifer, by the measure of his wisdom the one who was closest to God aspired to be like God, he saw his position and in comparison to all of creation concluded that he and he alone in all his beauty was deserving of the praise and admiration that was given him. Lucifer lost sight of the reality that with God sustaining him, without the one who created him upholding him then he was naught. In loosing sight of this and allowing himself to gloat in his pride he determined that he could be better and greater than the Lord Most High. And then sin was found in him, but because of his pride, because of his position of great honour, because he did not want to be seen as humbling himself and lowering his stature before the Almighty, because he stood in arrogance and choose by the act of his free will not to repent from that which was consuming him, because of this he moved outside of Gods love and under His judgement. Outside of God forgiveness and into His wrath. Lucifer choose and he choose poorly, however in mercy God did not completely destroy this being. God choose to humble this being by taking away the very things that caused his pride to mount up within him. And even then having been stripped of his status, having been cast down the wicked one choose again to defy the word and law of God. In spite and in hatred he set about to drag down as much of creation that he could influence to the same level he had fallen. He became know as Satan and he set about to assault the very character and nature of the Lord Most High. Satan set about a plan to confront the very attributes of his creator, having dwelt close to the throne he knew the very limits that God Himself constrained Himself to, and knowing this Satan set about to assault these limits in an effort to cause the Most High Himself to error.
And so we see the accounts within Scripture of God's judgement, judgement at times that appears harsh and ruthless. But judgement that was forced before God and according to God's character and nature demanded that He act. And what are we in actuality seeing? What we are seeing time and again is where the evil one orchestrates humankind by their own free will into a position of Gods judgement. He moves us into the wrath of God in an effort to destroy and malign the character of God and to confuse people as to who God truly is and what He the Lord Almighty has actually done for humanity. Satan does so by appealing to our fallen natures, through enticing us like he enticed Eve and like she enticed Adam. And which of us has never been affected by it? Which of us can honestly say I am faultless and perfect in the sight of God? We have all succumbed to the disease, we have all tasted of it and we if we are 100% honest with ourselves will look within and see how it still affects us daily.

So who is ultimately responsible for all of this? Who is it that will ultimately take responsibility for the actions of the evil one and for the actions of all mankind? Who is it that will bear the burden? Who is it that will set straight all atrocities all destruction all pain all suffering? Who will take the judgement upon himself for all these things? Who is capable of doing such a thing? Will God abandon us to the misery of our own mess? Is it God's responsibility, who ultimately has to take the responsibility? God laid down the Law in love to protect His creation from itself, was it not the creation itself that transgressed and chose to ignore the boundaries that God established? Should they themselves not bear the weight of their decisions? Or should God?

Tiassa keeps saying that God made it God should fix it, and yes Tiassa is correct to a point but blind to the conclusion.

As much as we are responsible for our individual action and the effect that they have from generation to generation, as much as we deserve the penalty of rebellion that awaits us all, as much as we have inflicted pain the law of the harvest dictates that we must suffer likewise, unless someone takes the burden of our suffering upon themselves. As much as we try to blame the evilone and much as he tries to blame the Holy one we, each and every one of us are responsible for our actions and the results of those actions, God included. Do you think that for one moment that God would forsake us? That He, Father, Son and Holy Ghost would abandon that which He created to eternal damnation and destruction? Do you think that even know that He has built into each and everyone of us the ability to withstand sin that we alone are capable of doing so? Doing so when that which we relied upon for our strength to withstand has been severed because of sin, that thing being intimacy with our creator. What a dismal and appalling situation, what hopelessness would confront us and drive people to suicide at the though of no tomorrow, would drive them to paranoia at the concept of no eternal hope, of being abandoned by God. As much as we are due the wages of our ways there is a hope, a hope and a plan that was laid down at the foot of eternity.
Death, destruction, pain, sorrow these are all the works of our own hands, drive along a course by the manipulator of humanity Satan.

But God seeing all that would transpire, knowing that His creation would slip from the place that it was created for had in place a plan of restoration.

That plan being for one who was as faultless as a sacrificial lamb, one who could empathise with fallen creation and suffer through their daily toil, one who knew no sin, one who lived and reflected in the human form the very character and nature of the Lord Most High, one who was part of His very being. This one, the only one possible would take their place, He would be the stand in for all of creations fall. This one would bear the eternal burden of our sin, He would take the wages of sin and death due to us for our transgressions and He and He alone would make atonement for them. He would die the cruel and brutal death that we all deserved, He would suffer the agony and the shame, He would take it and He would die in it. And die He did.

But the message of hope and great promise is that He arose, death could not contain Him, sin could not constrain Him, He arose as He died, innocent and He ascended to the right hand of the Father and is enthroned in all glory and honour. He hold the keys to death and life and those who call on His name, those who are restored to the Lord Most High through this mans sacrifice will never taste the sting of death or the bitter suffering according to the wages of their sins.
Jesus said:
I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me.
He spoke the truth!
God has not washed His hands of the creature that He is responsible for, infact in place of walking away from us He gave His all for us to remedy the disease of sin.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that all that believe on Him shall not perish by have everlasting life.

Gods Son thinking it nothing to be equal with God humbled Himself and took on the form of a man. He did so to be obedient to the Fathers love and eternal plan of salvation, He did so as part of the responsibility that God Most High took upon Himself for our errors.

Please try to see what has happened and is happening, please trust Him with your heart. He will restore and renew if we only but trust and obey. He will heal and hold, He will make living waters to flow within you, He will cause a barren and dry place to spring forth with new life. He, Jesus will again make straight a path for you to walk in unity and in the presence of the Lord Most High who dwells in a place of Holiness, so Holy that the only way in is through the blood of the lamb.


Omniscience and Omnipotence.

God being all knowing should then have understood that this decision to give His creation free will could have serious consequences and implications?

God being all powerful would then be handing on part of His power to His creation, does this then presume that God is less powerful? Or that God is not in control of that power?

A couple of strong points to respond to that will take a bit of working through to give a logical and sensible answer beyond the gibberish that you are accustomed to Cris. So please hang in there as I try to work this through.

Firstly, all powerful.

Yes God is Omniscience and Omnipotent.

He is Omnipotent in the fact that all things will come under His final judgement according to His appointed time. At this time everything will be brought forward, nothing will be hidden and all things will be answered for, then His judgement will fall. So yes God is all powerful in that He is the final authority, He is the final judge and He has the final say at the close of the existence of the human race.

Basically you either believe this and give it due consideration or you don¡¦t. Each individuals free willed choice.

Secondly all knowing.

This becomes somewhat of a complex picture to try and capture into words. Firstly lets start with some questions.

The argument is:

1. If God is omnipotent then He knows beginning from the end.

2. If God knows the beginning from the end how can we have free will? We are merely pre-programmed to carry out the lives we live.

3. Alternatively if we have free will then how can God know the outcome?

4. This would then mean that God does not know what decision will be made or the results of it hence the argument that God is not omnipotent.

As far as I can see this is a fairly logical line of human reasoning.

Another argument is:

5. Does God have limits?

6. If God has limits then He cannot be omnipotent.

The answer is ?

1. Yes God is omnipotent, (the question is phrased from the stance that He is not)

2. Yes we have free will. And no we are not pre-programmed to carry out the lives we lead.

3. Yes God knows the outcome.

4. Yes God knows every decision that will and can be made and He is Omnipotent.

5. Yes God has limits.

6. Yes God is omnipotent, and is omniscient.

BUT HOW CAN THIS BE?

Its a logical contradiction to say that something with limits is limitless, or is it?

Its illogical to reason that if God knows the end that we are able to decide anything, or is it?

Is there a solution?

This will be somewhat fragmented as I have cut and pasted some sections that appeared relevant from previous discussions.

Its also way, way long and somewhat repetitive¡K¡K¡Ksurprise hey? :D

OK suppose Tony has a decision to make.

For that decision there are 20 possible outcomes.

For those 20 possible outcomes there are 400 possible outcomes assuming there are 20 outcomes as the standard.

For those 400 possible outcomes there are another 20 possible outcomes.

150 decisions later and we have a possible 2.8545E+196 possible outcomes for one individual who makes more than 150 conscious and subconscious decisions per minute.

Take that figure and multiply by 6 billion individuals making decisions.
Then factor in that this possible amount of outcomes is instantaneous from moment to moment or second to second and multiply this by the sum of time lived and potential life remaining for these six billion individuals as well as factoring in the population growth..¡K.well it¡¦s a pretty big sum with a very large number of probable outcomes hey?

So do you know anyone who¡¦s capable of seeing all these possibilities? All these outcomes and their effects from a micro to macro level and beyond into realms that we don¡¦t even know exist?

I quote from another thread that was leading in the same direction and same question, I apologise to those who tire from my repeated quotes and find them annoying. Please feel free to read around them.



666
Member
Posts: 318
Registered: Oct 1999

Tony,
I actually read your whole post, when they are so long it is not normal for me.
There are just a couple of points I want to touch on. Mostly because they are fundamental (at least in my opinion) to the post. In one section you stated that not only are we imperfect, but so is god. This begs two questions. Why then should he be the one judging us if he is imperfect too? Who judges his sins when he is not on his perfect behaviour, and why should he not be judged for these sins? You also stated that he waited for X amount of generations to see if any subsequent generations would stray from their sinning past. The only problem I see with this is the fact that the bible states he is a all knowing god. If he is a all knowing god we would have had the foresight to see they would not change and stricked them down long before.


Thanks T6 for the questions, man I hope not too many others ask me questions because I just don¡¦t got the time to answer them all.

I had a little problem in that I don¡¦t remember the God is imperfect part ƒ¼ If I have stated this then I have made a very big boo-boo, and as such apologise profusely for any confusion caused.

I do like your questions however, they¡¦re very valid and I would like to respond to excerpts of them.



Why then should he be the one judging us if he is imperfect too? Who judges his sins when he is not on his perfect behaviour, and why should he not be judged for these sins?


Well I don¡¦t think He is imperfect and am sorry again if I gave this impression or stated it somewhere. Darn well doesn¡¦t help the cause in trying to get people to understand who He is if I make such fundamental errors in my posts does it? So that basically puts Him back in the job with the right qualifications for it.



You also stated that he waited for X amount of generations to see if any subsequent generations would stray from their sinning past. The only problem I see with this is the fact that the bible states he is a all knowing god. If he is a all knowing god we would have had the foresight to see they would not change and stricked them down long before.


Yeah that whole time, come possible outcomes, come end result thing didn¡¦t quite happen the way I picture things in my minds eye.

God does have the foresight to see every possible outcome regardless of the infinite amount of variables that are involved.

I just had a picture of what I¡¦m trying to get at come into my mind, I¡¦ll try my best to capture it in words for us.

God sits external to our frames of reference, time, space, etc, and at the same time also internal to them as a part of their dynamics and functioning.

Within Gods macro view (In other words taking an external view of all) of all possible outcomes with all possible actions and reactions there are two extremes.

One is that the end result will be that all of humankind suffering a lost eternity. Complete rejection of Him and all that He would desire for them by a choice of their own free will.

Two is that all of humankind come to a place of restoration with Him as their creator. A place of appreciation and recognition of who He is and what He has done on their behalf, and again by choice of their own free will.

And in between each extreme view is a seemingly infinite number of possible outcomes based on free willed actions, decisions and reactions of humankind, physical actions and reactions of time, space and matter, etc. Remember the Tony makes a decision multiply by X multiply, multiply etc.

So God knows the totality of all possibilities and works within the constraints and confines of this realm to effect the best possible outcome He can influence whilst maintaining the integrity of His very character and nature. At the same time also ensuring that His attributes work with free willed man within the confines of who He is.

This is how I can say that God is limitless and yet limited. He is limitless in His capacity to see and comprehend all things, all outcomes, all eventualities. Yet He limits Himself in the very way He interacts with His creation to ensure that they are Not completely destroyed by His Holiness and to ensure that He does not contradict His very own Character and Nature.

How else can I put this?

Pick the smallest number between 0 and 1, then divide it by 2. Darn it, did it just get smaller? OK divide it by 2 again. What even smaller? Ok divide it by 100000000¡K¡K¡K..0

Still got a number? Yes you do, even between fixed constraints such as those that God sees in His micro vision (that is the smallest detail) of us there are infinite possible outcomes depending on the variables applied or the decisions made.

Pick the largest number you can think of, then multiply it by 2. Darn it, did it just get bigger? OK multiply it by 2 again. What even bigger? Ok multiply it by 100000000¡K¡K¡K..0

Still get a bigger number? Yes you do, even beyond fixed constraints such as those that God sees in His macro vision of us there are infinite possible outcomes depending on the variables applied or the decisions made.

God is limitless in His perception of the macro and the micro. We are limited in the time of our existence, the number of decisions we make and the possible myriad of outcomes through actions, reactions and interactions although seemingly infinite to us are within the constraints of Gods perspective. Like Him looking at 0 and 1, and yet at the same time they are limitless within these constraints.

This is mind bending hey?

So in saying this one would then naturally assume that there are a finite number of possible outcomes. This would be based on the fact that as a universe that is a debateable number of years old there has to this very moment in time occurred if measurable XYZ number of actions and reactions that have occurred at a subatomic through to universal level.

Remember every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Well this stands true for direct physical interactions based on prior reactions, repeat ad nauseam. But a new question arises:

What changes the outcome of an action and reaction?

What gives us the unexpected outcome?

What causes things to not happen the way we have planned for them to happen or even expect that they will happen?

Answer = Choice, free will, decision making.

OK pull it together time:

Man this is hard, my grey matter HP is in overdrive trying to come up with the words needed to explain something almost intangible.

Why Did God not see the final outcome and just fix it before it happened?

Answer = He did and He didn¡¦t, He saw every possible outcome with every possible decision and every possible action and every possible reaction within the constraints that these events were occurring like looking at an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1. Which actual line or series of events would transpire out of every possible and plausible interaction and decision should He have planned on? Scary numbers hey? A little thing called free will that God designed into us at the creation of us so that we could have a meaningful and living relationship with Him rather than simply being drones on remote control to do His bidding. This simple little attribute that was placed in us because we are created in His image and He has this ability. This wonderful gift that was instilled into the dust that we are made of when God breathed life into us. This fraction of a moment ability, this thing that drives us to decide that we have rights, this thing that causes wars and peace amongst us, this thing that drives us to seek fulfilment and when we don¡¦t achieve it leaves us feeling empty.

Choice, decision, free will all one and the same is the very reason why God allowed for what transpired to transpire. Why the events of past history are recorded and yet future history stands before us as though a hazy mist that we can dimly see a way forward through.

Do you see what I am saying T6? Do you see the awesomeness of the God I serve and yet at the same time the frailty? Do you see the anguish of knowing the darkest dark that can befall humankind and at the same time the most wondrous glory? Do you see the anguish and frustration of knowing that? And knowing that you are limited in and by the very character and nature you possess and by the very holiness that you are in the manner through which you can interact with your creation because this very thing. This thing called free will and decision that has created a barrier, a disease between you both, a disease called sin.

God knew every possible outcome, God knew these things, He knew every decision that could be made for every situation, but what He did not know was which exact decision would be made? That is the very decisions that men would make and which exact path that these decisions would lead humankind on in the infinite number of possible outcomes. But God having made man, having fashioned him and breathed life into him knew the very nature of His creation, knowing this God could accurately gauge the probable directions that we would take. So God being true to Himself had to deal with man in a way to affect the best possible outcome whilst maintaining His integrity.

Remember when I first came here? How I spoke of our perception of God, of how our view of Him is limited because if He were to reveal all that He is to us we would in no way be able to withstand it, even as eternal creatures we would be destroyed by all that He is. Remember how I said that we are limited by our five senses and that with them and the range of emotions that God has endowed us with God reveals Himself to us. The interface between the two, the soul with all our emotions, and the body with all our senses, the interface between these parts of our being and God is our spirit. This is why Jesus stated that the time is coming when those who worship the Father will worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. To worship God in spirit is to be subject to the Holy Spirit of God and His control in our lives. This is called the Kingdom of God, this is why Jesus could say that the Kingdom of God is within you and why the Apostle Paul spoke of us as being the temple of the Holy Spirit. The Kingdom of God is a Kingdom that rules and reins in the hearts of people through obedience in love to the Holy Spirit and His truth. His truth being the Word of God that becomes written on our hearts and flows from within us like rivers of living waters.

I do hope that what I am saying makes sense to people, I do pray that God will open the eyes to see the truth.

The core of your question, why wait X generations before cutting them off? Why not just not allow them to exist in the first place? Why not just see that they would do what they did and stop it all? Why not stop them in the first generation so that the situation does not become exasperated and elevated?

I know it comes back to His character and the limits that His mercy places on Him before exacting His judgement. I don¡¦t know the exact whys for every situation because I don¡¦t have all the facts. But I do know that by the limits that God places on Himself, even not knowing those exact limits I do know that by these limits He acts. He acts in accordance with them so as to not contradict His very person. At what point exactly does He say enough and NO MORE! I don¡¦t know? I just don¡¦t know at this place in my walk with Him. Should He consider that I am capable of dealing with that knowledge and knowing how to use it to His glory then I am sure He will show me and that ¡K¡K..well being honest with you, I don¡¦t think knowing the person that I am, that this will happen to soon. I¡¦ve got a lot to learn and understand about what He has given me without Him overloading all those emotions, senses etc that I talked about earlier ƒº

I do cry out to know Him better, to be closer to His heart, to be able to see Him beyond my human abilities, to be walking in obedience to His word and ways. And with these things alone I have a long, long journey ahead let alone Him showing me more.

I like the story of Moses a lot and I have probably shared this before, but what the heck ;)

Moses was a man I can relate to in a big way, early in his life (40) he made a mistake that cost a life. This caused him to flee into the wilderness and essentially disappear for about 40 years. We don¡¦t hear a lot about those 40 years and what he went through, we know a lot about what happened after he returned from it but what about during it?

What kind of wilderness experience was it? What did it drive him to or from? What kind of sorting of his beliefs took place? What did he dream of as he wandered through the lonely hills and valleys tending cattle and sheep? On the star filled nights when he was alone with his thoughts and the God of his ancestors that he felt he desperately failed, what kind of sorting of his mind, his heart, his emotions took place?

Its for me a bit like your question T6, you¡¦d like to know the answer, you¡¦d like to understand, but sometimes these things are a little beyond us aren¡¦t they?

Rest assured my friend I don¡¦t know it all, but having considered and thought deeply about my God. Having spent time with Him just reading about Him and having asked Him into my life, I know 100% iron clad that there is an answer to all our questions. If I ever fully understand God¡¦s timing and the way He interacts with us 100% I think I will be older than this body I currently inhabit is capable of.

Allcare

Tony H2o

Sorry Tony, but this is yet another post I’ll just skim over, you preach too much.

Basically it comes down to you misunderstanding freewill. You see, for freewill to even exist, there must not be a such thing as fate. If fate exists, freewill doesn’t. It’s basically that simple. And if God knows what will happen, that implies it will can not and will not happen any other way than what God already knows will happen, hence fate, hence the non-existence of freewill. I think you may of have somewhat touched on this, though I only skimmed your post, by saying that God knows all the possible outcomes of any actions we will take. Well, either God still knows what will happen regardless of the other possible outcomes, or God isn’t omniscient.

How come all these arguments are just attempts to redefine freewill and omniscience? Trying to rationalize it by invoking extra dimensions of time, saying God is in the future, or saying God knows all the possible outcomes doesn’t solve the fact that the very state of knowing what will occur is necessary of a being who is omniscient, and freewill must necessarily be independent of any predetermined outcome. If God omniscient, he knows what our actions would already before we were born, that means we have no choice in the matter. We can not do any other action besides what God already knows we will do. It’s that simple.

This argument is so stupid. You know what the smart theist does? They just admit God isn’t omniscient. It’s that simple. God could be something close to omniscient, what the hell does it matter? Like I’ve already said, claiming the logically impossible is much worse than claiming God isn’t omniscient and that we have freewill.

I would just like to address the theory that god sees all possible outcomes and therefore can be omniscience is possible with freewill. I believe that all who are making this argument are overlooking one simple fact: even IF God can see ALL outcomes and is omniscience then he MUST be able to define the one that will actually come true and disregard the others as they are untrue. The very concept of omniscience demands that the true path be know. Only one of these infinite paths may be taken, not two or three, and he MUST know which one to be omniscience.
Tony H2o: I skimmed your message but couldn’t get to into it because of the length. I don’t know how many people read the whole thing and, please tell me if I’m wrong, it is simply to much for one post. I’m not attacking you or anything, I just believe that I, along with many others would get a lot more out of your posts if they were summarized. Just a suggestion :)


------------------
If the theory does not fit reality then reality MUST be changed.

Someone7

Sorry Tony, but this is yet another post I’ll just skim over, you preach too much.

That’s the strange thing about religious discussion isn’t it? People speak what they think and believe, if I didn’t then how would you debate or discuss with me about it? ;)


Basically it comes down to you misunderstanding free will. You see, for free will to even exist, there must not be a such thing as fate. If fate exists, freewill doesn’t. It’s basically that simple.

Basically???

Wow I’m glad its simple, I’ve been racking my brain trying to grasp this whole thing. Dang if only someone had pointed this out to me earlier it could have saved me a lot of energy and effort.

I’m sorry S7 I’m being a little sarcastic at your expense.

Now what I’d have to say in response is that basically you do not understand quantum theory. Tell me how can a particle exist in two places at the very same time? Impossible you say? Well according to quantum physics it is very possible, regardless of how illogical it may seem.

So then why is it so hard to contemplate free will and omniscience as existing at the very same time? On the surface it seems illogical, but when things are viewed superficially then most of everything we do is totally illogical. Man alive dear old Mr Spock would have a hard time containing all his frustration living in our illogical society.

I have attempted to reconcile this as logically as I can, sure it looks like a lot of preach stuff mixed in but there is no way to separate the who of God from the how of God, where, when and why of God. The who of Him is as much a part of the answer as the how, what, when, where and why.

My understanding of free will is an understanding that I chose to do what I chose to do, to believe what I chose to believe, to love whom I chose to love and to resent who I chose to. I decide these things, they are not pre-programmed into the eternal computer, they are recorded and eventually I will be accountable for them either in the here and now or the there and then.



And if God knows what will happen, that implies it will can not and will not happen any other way than what God already knows will happen, hence fate, hence the non-existence of freewill. I think you may of have somewhat touched on this, though I only skimmed your post, by saying that God knows all the possible outcomes of any actions we will take. Well, either God still knows what will happen regardless of the other possible outcomes, or God isn’t omniscient.


Let me say that God will steer the decisions of individuals from time to time to ensure that the outcome of His eternal plan is maintained. We as individuals chose how we react to the steering of God.

Remember how it says that God hardened Pharos heart? Personally I think this is worded poorly because when you look into the story and see what happened it becomes apparent that God placed options before the King of Ejypt. The King however chose not to believe that the God of the Israelites was greater than him or his gods and regardless of warning the King of Egypt chose disobedience over obedience. Pharos chose to oppose God and lost face, being a proud man he refused to back down and hardened his heart at the expense of the people that he ruled over and those in his household.

All through this sorry record we see the things we are discussing taking place. God will cause for His plan to take place. We as beings created with free will can either choose to be part of it or apart from it. Our decision, our call.

God will see His eternal plan for humanity carried out to the close of time as we understand it, of this I have no doubt. What I do doubt is my fickle human nature that so often makes the wrong decisions so I lean on Him for greater understanding and wisdom in my decisions and choices.

God knows every possible outcome for every possible scenario for every possible atom, electron, molecule, particle….etc, etc. And the final outcome will be what He has determined will happen according to His plan. Where we chose to stand in relation to that is our free willed decision.

It will not change Gods outcome, it will change our outcome.

The question then is this:

1. Where will we stand in the final outcome of God?

I can’t answer that for anyone but myself.

2. Does God already know? If so then why try? A very fatalistic scenario hey?

This is the mind bender, the final outcome. 10% probability of salvation? 20% probability? ………..100% probability?

Please grant me license to preach a bit more here. Each and every individual who has ever lived and will ever live has the potential to be 100% saved. The work that Jesus did at the cross ensured this and created a way back to God for fallen mankind. How we chose to respond or view this determines our outcome. God knows at this very instant in time the very individuals who belong to Him, who have made this decision to believe. What of the next instant though? How do you think He who sits outside of time views all that lies before us? What do you consider that He may see from this moment forward through to the climax of our existence?

I made up a graph on my excel spreadsheet that very clearly shows what may be His external view of the universe and time. However I have no way of placing it in here for you to view so I will attempt to describe it.

Imagine that time is laid out before God as though a line or strand suspended in space, this line represents Gods fixed plan, His will.

Then imagine radiating away from this line millions and millions of finer lines or fibres of the strand over the complete length of the master strand, sometimes running in parallel to it other times running tangentially to it. And then visualise if you can many millions of lines or fibres that actually run along the path of the master line and make up the master line.

God sees each micro fibre that radiates from or makes up the master cord. God sees each strand and every direction that each strand runs in.

Now look at the origin of the chord, what I want you to see here is three single strands of fibre that are knitted together into a chord of unparalleled beauty and exquisite mastery. Then move forward and you will see the chord fray and two strands still knitted become separated from the thickest and strongest strand. They are soon rewoven back into the tapestry but the beauty that once was is damaged and the strands are painstakingly re-fashioned to the thicker chord from which they were frayed.

Time elapses and the chord becomes stronger as more strands are added, but not as strong or as thick as it was fashioned to be because for as many strands that now make up the tapestry of the chord there are many more that have frayed away in their separate directions. Many that regardless of how far they fray away from the chord they are inextricably attached to it. Many that seemingly radiate out in a haphazard fashion forming a mass of entangled strands that end randomly nowhere. Some on occasion find their way back to the master chord and are bound back into the tapestry of it, but many, many strands terminate in the seemingly endless mat of tangled fibres and strands.

And God sees each micro fibre.

Each strand, each tangled web that was created for the beauty of the cord, to be woven into the chord, no one strand stronger than the next yet all fashioned together, all woven into a masterful work they would be stronger than fraying away from the master strand and becoming lost in a sea of tangled fibres.

And God sees each micro fibre.

Now shift your vision along the chord as though the elapsing of time, see how the chord grows and along with it the mass of fibres that radiate from it and become lost in the entangled web surrounding it. See how some have been worked back into the chord, see how some run aimlessly away from it. Yet all are linked to the master chord.

Which strand are you? And where in the final weaving of the chord will you be?

God weaves the chord with every fibre that chooses to be woven into it. The fibres that decide not to be part of it are allowed to decide their own path, their own fate or destiny.

When the final cut is made who alone but the master weaver will view the chord and choose which strands will remain and which will be discarded as waste.

The master weaver has a plan that not one strand should be wasted or lost, yet He knows that each strand must decide for itself to become part or apart from the chord.

God sees the chord being woven, He has a vision for the final out come of the chord. That vision is of a completed chord with every fibre, every strand woven into it. This is Gods vision of the future of mankind. He sees them in faith as He created them to be, a strong chord fastened together as one with Him as the master strand around which they are knitted.

And he also sees them as they are at this very point in time in relation to that which He created them to be. A picture that tears at the very fibres of the future vision that He has of the chord.

How each strand ends up at the close of time as we know it is the choice of each strand.

But God in love is hope eternal, and as is written:

1 If I make use of the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am like sounding brass, or a loud-tongued bell.
2 And if I have a prophet's power, and have knowledge of all secret things; and if I have all faith, by which mountains may be moved from their place, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 And if I give all my goods to the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it is of no profit to me.
4 Love is never tired of waiting; love is kind; love has no envy; love has no high opinion of itself, love has no pride;
5 Love's ways are ever fair, it takes no thought for itself; it is not quickly made angry, it takes no account of evil;
6 It takes no pleasure in wrongdoing, but has joy in what is true;
7 Love has the power of undergoing all things, having faith in all things, hoping all things.
8 Though the prophet's word may come to an end, tongues come to nothing, and knowledge have no more value, love has no end.
9 For our knowledge is only in part, and the prophet's word gives only a part of what is true:
10 But when that which is complete is come, then that which is in part will be no longer necessary.
11 When I was a child, I made use of a child's language, I had a child's feelings and a child's thoughts: now that I am a man, I have put away the things of a child.
12 For now we see things in a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now my knowledge is in part; then it will be complete, even as God's knowledge of me.
13 But now we still have faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love.


Love hopes for the best but it will measure the actual at the appointed time.

God sees every possible iteration or outcome that may occur for each and ever fibre and strand from time beginning to time ending. And He will do all that is within His power and in accordance with His character and nature to ensure that best result that He can with strands of free will.

There is an innumerable amount of numbers in this equation, what numbers result? Fate or choice, you choose.

Allcare

Tony H2o

“That’s the strange thing about religious discussion isn’t it? People speak what they think and believe, if I didn’t then how would you debate or discuss with me about it?”

Getting your point across doesn’t require a sermon.

“Basically???”

Yeah basically.

“Wow I’m glad its simple, I’ve been racking my brain trying to grasp this whole thing. Dang if only someone had pointed this out to me earlier it could have saved me a lot of energy and effort.”

Good, maybe now we can stop debating it.

“I’m sorry S7 I’m being a little sarcastic at your expense.”

Ah shoot, and I thought it was over…

“Now what I’d have to say in response is that basically you do not understand quantum theory. Tell me how can a particle exist in two places at the very same time? Impossible you say? Well according to quantum physics it is very possible, regardless of how illogical it may seem.”

First of all, there’s no reason to say I don’t understand quantum theory, since I haven’t said anything about it. Anyway, I bet whatever theory you read has a very good explanation for it, so either give me an article (preferably written by the person who created the theory, or at least another scientist) about it so I can read it for myself, or don’t bother talking about it, because you would just be playing on my ignorance.

“So then why is it so hard to contemplate free will and omniscience as existing at the very same time? On the surface it seems illogical, but when things are viewed superficially then most of everything we do is totally illogical. Man alive dear old Mr Spock would have a hard time containing all his frustration living in our illogical society.”

I’ve said it once on this forum and I’ll say it again, illogical doesn’t mean logically impossible. An omniscient deity and freewill are mutually exclusive, unless you can somehow tell us how we can perform actions that an omniscient wouldn’t already know we would do.

“I have attempted to reconcile this as logically as I can, sure it looks like a lot of preach stuff mixed in but there is no way to separate the who of God from the how of God, where, when and why of God. The who of Him is as much a part of the answer as the how, what, when, where and why.”

Trust me, you could easily get to the point without talking about things like human suffering, God being a dog owner, God being perfect, etc, etc. What’s this about the “awesomeness” and frailty of the god you server? Is it really necessary to make your arguments valid? It’s just really annoying. Also, I’d love for you and all the other theists out there to justify your rationalizations with scripture. Cite a passage in the bible that says “God had to create things the way he did”.

“My understanding of free will is an understanding that I chose to do what I chose to do, to believe what I chose to believe, to love whom I chose to love and to resent who I chose to. I decide these things, they are not pre-programmed into the eternal computer, they are recorded and eventually I will be accountable for them either in the here and now or the there and then.”

And your understanding of freewill is wrong (for the purpose of this debate anyway, it’s a rather loosely defined word), just like I suspected. Here something to ponder: Can you do something God already doesn’t know you would do? If you can’t, you have no choice to not do what God already knows you will do. If you do, God is not omniscient (big freaking deal). This is like arguing with a person that if fate exists, freewill doesn’t…

“Let me say that God will steer the decisions of individuals from time to time to ensure that the outcome of His eternal plan is maintained. We as individuals chose how we react to the steering of God.”

Here a definition of freewill I find rather amusing after reading this paragraph:

Freewill - The power, attributed especially to human beings, of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

“Remember how it says that God hardened Pharos heart? Personally I think this is worded poorly because when you look into the story and see what happened it becomes apparent that God placed options before the King of Ejypt. The King however chose not to believe that the God of the Israelites was greater than him or his gods and regardless of warning the King of Egypt chose disobedience over obedience. Pharos chose to oppose God and lost face, being a proud man he refused to back down and hardened his heart at the expense of the people that he ruled over and those in his household.”

See what I mean about preaching? We’re not idiots, we don’t need a story illustrated by you to understand what you’re talking about. Besides, we know what Yahweh did after the Pharaoh refused to obey, he killed all the first born children. Not just Pharaoh’s, every single person who didn’t do some ridiculous thing that I can’t remember at the moment. I should have added this to my “Yahweh, the baby killing God” post, that and when he killed David’s newborn son, when God sent bears to kill 42 children for making fun of Elisha for being bald, when he flooded the world (I wonder how many babies he killed that day). Ridiculous stories, all of them, and they hardly speak of the glory of your god.

“All through this sorry record we see the things we are discussing taking place. God will cause for His plan to take place. We as beings created with free will can either choose to be part of it or apart from it. Our decision, our call.”

Yes, a decision God already knows the outcome of.

“God will see His eternal plan for humanity carried out to the close of time as we understand it, of this I have no doubt. What I do doubt is my fickle human nature that so often makes the wrong decisions so I lean on Him for greater understanding and wisdom in my decisions and choices.”

Does this paragraph help validate your argument? Of course not, it’s more useless preaching.

“God knows every possible outcome for every possible scenario for every possible atom, electron, molecule, particle….etc, etc. And the final outcome will be what He has determined will happen according to His plan. Where we chose to stand in relation to that is our free willed decision.”

So God already knows what we will do, yet we have a choice in the matter? How so? How do I decide to go against what God already knows will happen?

“It will not change Gods outcome, it will change our outcome.

The question then is this:
1. Where will we stand in the final outcome of God?
I can’t answer that for anyone but myself.
2. Does God already know? If so then why try? A very fatalistic scenario hey?
This is the mind bender, the final outcome. 10% probability of salvation? 20% probability? ………..100% probability?”

More useless preaching.

“Please grant me license to preach a bit more here. Each and every individual who has ever lived and will ever live has the potential to be 100% saved. The work that Jesus did at the cross ensured this and created a way back to God for fallen mankind. How we chose to respond or view this determines our outcome. God knows at this very instant in time the very individuals who belong to Him, who have made this decision to believe. What of the next instant though? How do you think He who sits outside of time views all that lies before us? What do you consider that He may see from this moment forward through to the climax of our existence?”

Your preaching is boring, I didn’t say you couldn’t do it. You don’t need my permission to preach, I’m just telling you what I’m sure a lot of people on the forum think. Your posts are very long, and a good portion of it is just speaking about your relationship with God, other people’s relationship with God, salvation, etc, etc. You don’t need to do that to validate a point. I wouldn’t expect people to read my posts if when I was speaking about God, Jesus, whatever, I just started going into finer detail about the Big Bang and evolution and how you can become a better atheist. I don’t mean to be rude, but it’s just what I think. You write a small pamphlet every single post.

And now, since you’re going on and on about some strand being space and fibers coming off it, and God what God sees, etc, etc. I’m just gonna finish this post.

S7

Thankyou for being honest and straight forward with your response.

I have only glanced over it but I see and understand a lot of what your saying, but can I make a suggestion?

Just don't read them.

It is really that simple, I know I repeat myself a lot but if its bugging you ignore me.

Beside that I have nothing much else to say except that you sound way like Boris ;)

Allcare

Tony H2o

The entire sermon about the chords shows that there is no free will. If god knows which strands will stray before they stray then there is no free will. If God knows who will be saved and who will not before time even began then there is no free will. On the other hand, if god doesn’t know any of these things then he is not omniscience. It IS that simple.

------------------
If the theory does not fit reality then reality MUST be changed.

Tony

I don't mean to be rude, it's just that you could be such a pleasure to debate, if your posts were just more on topic. Indeed, even without copying and pasting old arguments, you still write a lot, and you have a lot to say, it just so happens that what you have to talk about is...preachy in the extreme. I'm not sure if it can be helped or not, but even if you continue to have preachy posts, I suggest just trying to stay more on topic.

[This message has been edited by Someone7 (edited October 24, 2000).]