Tercel

If heaven has 1 immoral act committed in 100,000,000,000 years then it's what I call a "moral place".

I think that in heaven, free will will be "fulfilled" rather than taken away. Those in heaven will be those who have made themselves into such loving moral beings that they are no longer capable of acting immorally - having not the slightest inclination, desire, temptation or urge to do so. Similarly, I think those in hell will be those who have made themselves into such hate-filled beings that they are similarly not capable of anything good. Their free-will has not been taken away, they have simply destroyed it themselves. The Bible speaks often of God "giving over" people to the power of sin or evil once the people have committed a sin. But I don't think it's God that actively forces people into addictions, but rather, what people do naturally affects them and inclines their nature towards it.

Tercel

Well, I could still say that "God knows everything" and mean that God knows everything that can be known.

I can think that God knows all possible futures and determines some future events Himself. (Open View theology) Or I could believe He knows all events within space-time (Classical theology) etc.

Er, that point's not even in remote doubt and doesn't require seeing the future to answer. Since Satan's power doesn't even begin to encroach upon God's power it's kind of a trivial question.

Tercel

They're okay when they're not talking about God. (I have numerous fundy friends)

Grr. Tercel is a word meaning "Male hawk". I think hawks are cool birds, which is why I choose the name. Toyota stole it.

God by the Christian definition doesn't necessarily know everything. Plenty of theologians would say there are things that can't be known, even by God.

j-ogenes

It's interesting to see a lot of debate about what an "omnipotent" or "omniscient" being can or can't do. Here's something I heard once:
If God can do anything, that means he can build a wall he can't break through.

Hence, something he CAN'T do is break through that wall. Is omnipotence something we simply can't fathom? I mean, when we think of being able to do anything, doesn't that lead to contradictions like that above? I'm really asking here more than anything. I'm no great logician--I'm wondering what anyone may have to say.

Darth Dane

Yes, teh moment we think of an atrribute teh opposite appears.

Think of Yin, Yang appears
Think of Good, and Evil appears.

God can be in two places at once, or maybe infinately many places at once. Being in two places at once, is not so easy to imagine for humnas, but maybe it is easy for God?

".....everything is possible...."





DD - Love Spliff

Tercel

j-ogenes,

Self-references have a tendency to break logic. (eg Let S be the set of all non-self-referencing sets. Is S self-referencing?
Or: "This sentence is a lie". Is it true or false?)
God creating a wall that he can't break (or traditionally "a stone so heavy he cannot lift it") are self-referencing as God is being asked to create something with reference to his own abilities, so the question could well be illegal.

Even apart from the general logical dodginess of self-referencing questions, the answer I would (as a Christian) is this: A wall that God can't break is non-sensical. It's like saying "A square with three sides". God can break all walls: One of the properties that walls have is that they can be broken by God. Thus to say a "wall that God can't break" is like saying "a square circle" or "agj lsjkag". God can no more create a "wall that He can't break" than he can "gljkkl sajklfkl sdlkjf" and for the same reason.

Philosoft

Okay gang, the limits of God's power and self-referencing statements are interesting, but they are also distracting. Please try to stay on topic.

~Philosoft, EoG mod