Philosoft

I'd say no, given that a single free-will decision could concievably lead to a series of events that destroys most of humanity. A Bush decision to launch a nuclear first-strike against China would lead to a quite different "nature of future events" than would the status quo.

Spenser

Call me silly but I don't even know what Omni-max means. If its anything like Cinimax Afterdark I like it. Oh I get, its an all encompassing word meaning:

all-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, all-compassionate, and all-of-the-above

What a waste of time, coming up with that word when one already exists, I believe the word is.... God. Unless of course you are referring to the Omnimax theater in Chicago, now that's a lot like going to heaven, only you can sin all you want all the way there.

So let me get this straight:

Makes sense, well you're going to need a lot more than a hundred of these to make a dollar. You only further demonstrated the inherent inevitability of omnipotence contradicting omniscience (and visa versa) for blocking knowledge of anything would mean not knowing which of course would mean not being omniscient and of course lacking the ability to do so (or do anything for that matter) would make one not omnipotent. Once again we are left not with a God who watches Cinimax, but instead is merely impotent...

johngalt

Many people might object to this question. If it were revised, then maybe it would make sense.

Sci_Fidelity

Yes I see your point.

Frest

So, the argument goes along the lines of why did this god allow its creation (i.e. lucifer) to screw up further creations (i.e. man) if it was either omniscient and/or omnipotent.

And then the retort from the faithful whom you are trying to impress upon with this sort of argument goes something like, "He gives us free will to decide our fates." And by choosing to not embrace god you choose to not be saved. Yadda yadda

It's a terrible argument and because none of the elements within it can be proven and instead rely up this sort of biblical and Milton-esque didactism, the whole point is moot. You will never be able to out-myth a person of significant faith. For every contradiction or outright fallacy of some myth, another myth can be derived that ignores said first flaw.

Is it so hard to just accept that people need a carrot? They need security, that when things finally leave the realm of their control, in death, they have something that they are in control of? "Well gee, i go to confession and church, therefore i am a good person and will be in heaven." That seems to be the big thing. And i'm of the opinion that as long as they don't mess with me about it, if that lets them sleep at night let them think it.

Darth Dane

Number 5 doesn't need any revision, it is backed up by number one, God is omniscient!!!

God being omniscient will know that Lucifer would lead man into sin.

If God really did do this, through Lucifer, then it means that God has a sense of humor, albeit a wicked and teasing kind, but it is all for the fun of God, where we are just 1's and 0's that God may manipulate as God will.

God has an absurd form for humor, even though all our suffering will cease, we still went through it. Why would God want us to experience all of these things, Love/Hate, pleasure/pain, ignorance/knowledge, high's/low's, good/bad, yin/yang?


Why do we have to experience all of this?

I dunno, but I fell blessed that I CAN experience both good and bad, God and Lucifer, pleasure and pain.

"Heaven is a moral place"

My answer would be "mu", the question is wrongly put, because teh answer is neither yes or no, morals have no validity in haven so to say,..... is that what it is in heaven, being God is to have no moral, you do exactly what you want.... for better and worse, what would you do?






DD - Love Spliff

Wyz_sub10

This has to be one of the more bizarre admissions I have seen on these boards.

What need, by the way, does an omnipotent being have for 'fun'?

GrandDesigner

Thus is so. Hmm, let me correct that. For one to be saved, one has to be in the wrong initially. So, if God wanted to simply create Heaven consisting of 'the saved', they'd have to believe they were being saved from something at some time, right? Woudn't it make more sense just to create Heaven? Where noone needs saving? They just exist, freely? Free to go through ups and downs...good times and bad?

The idea that one has to be saved, I'm leaning towards, is an idea inspired by one who wants to be recognized as a saviour. And one who'd probably be jealous and spiteful if He wasn't being praised for being that saviour. That sounds a bit odd.

Its probably more like God knew that Lucifer would try to make man believe he is sinful. But, in the end, He knows man is above that and even if mislead for a time, man will remember that.

What need, by the way, does an omnipotent being have for 'fun'?

A lot of people I grew up with were quite content to point out when they thought God, or whatever it is, was causing misery and being vengeful. What need would an ominpotent being have for vengence? And which would everyone else prefer?

Grand Ol Designer

Darth Dane

Wyz_sub10: It was just a possibility, not a proved fact.....!

What need, by the way, does an omnipotent being have for 'fun'?

God was bored perhaps? Then stir up some fun, maybe it is that God is bored and content at teh same time, God is bored and having fun at the same time, we should just join the dance of shiva and shakti

Thus is so. Hmm, let me correct that. For one to be saved, one has to be in the wrong initially. So, if God wanted to simply create Heaven consisting of 'the saved', they'd have to believe they were being saved from something at some time, right?

Right on, yes of course, to re-cognise teh good guys, they need something that is not good guys, otherwise we couldn't see them, if you only have white, you cannot see the difference, but if you put in what white is not, then you will KNOW what white is.

Woudn't it make more sense just to create Heaven? Where noone needs saving? They just exist, freely? Free to go through ups and downs...good times and bad?

Yes, it does make more sense, what would be easier to make it all in one go or in two go's, heaven and earth, instead of just Heaven of GoE?

It would be morer simple, and knowing me, the simplest way is the fastest way, the most practical way.






DD - Love Spliff

Tercel

I don't know to what extent God knows the future. According to Classical theology God has knowledge of all points in time, but according to Process and Open View theology He does not. I do not claim to know which one is correct. Even if we granted that God had knowledge of all points in the time stream at any point in time like Classical theology does, it doesn't mean that God had knowledge of the entire time-stream prior to its existence.

The position that I, personally, most favour is a modified Classical version in which God knows past, present and future but didn't know them prior to creation because the independent and unknown wills of human beings played a role in actualising the creation. (That seems the most logical possibility to me, anyway)