Vanderzyden

There is no contradication, MrD.

Instead of just posting one-liner questions, why don't you elucidate the difficulty you are having in reconciling these two statements?

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

Apparently, did not see my qualifier:

"Such a definition would not diminish his power, since he still maintains control over men, angels, and the universe. Please realize that this is not my definition. I use it primarily as an illustration--to show that we may not take the term omniscience so lightly."

I'm not sure what you are attempting to clarify in the way you framed the argument. Regardless, you have not refuted my demonstration of the weakness of the argument.

Well, I'm not sure that you can demonstrate such a contradiction. I'd like to see that. But, before you do, read this <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000617" target="_blank">thread</a>.

Vanderzyden

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

K

Vanderzyden:

All human discourse relies on common understanding of the meaning of words. Just because someone can claim that an omniscient being knows major future events, but not all of them, does not change the generally accepted meanng of the word - all-knowing. I realize that you did not claim that as your definition, but you did try to use it to invalidate the premise. It makes no sense to assign a trait to God (or anything else for that matter) if that trait is undefined. What is your definition of omniscient and do you believe that God is omniscient?

Also, the statement "he still maintains control over men, angels, and the universe" would indicate that God controls us and the universe. Another reason for Him not to hold us responsible for our actions. He is the one in control of us and the universe around us.

It's probably going to take me a little while to dig through that other thread..

Vanderzyden

Perhaps it is misleading for me to use the word "control". So let me clarify: "Maintaining control" means that nothing is outside his control. Nothing is more powerful or more knowledgable than God. God is necessarily in control of my existence if he is my creator and has set the terms for my death. He is in control of the universe because he has established and precisely configured it.

None of this, however, precludes him from creating free agents who may reject or deny him. He is not obligated to force himself upon those would choose to avoid him.

I wonder, K, if you don't believe God exists, then why are you so concerned with being held accountable for your actions?

Oh, I will be posting to the "To disprove God is easy" thread very soon. Should you have any further interest, you may get additional insight into my way of thinking in that post.

Vanderzyden

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Vanderzyden

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

K

Vanderzyden:

I'm not at all concerned about being held accountable by God. You are making the same mistake GeoTheo originally made. I'll give you the same response I gave him. When I making these arguments, I try to start with assumptions coming directly from Christian teachings and then proceed logically to end up a version of God that contradicts other traits assigned by Christians. This argument results in an unjust God who holds his creations responsible for actions he knew they would take before He created them the way He did.

I'll grant you that this particular one doesn't work if you don't consider God omniscient in the traditional sense of the word. So far the only definition of omniscient I've seen that would invalidate the reasoning is if omniscient doesn't include knowledge of the future. This isn't traditional omniscience by the way. It also would invalidate all of the supposed prophesies in the Bible. I realize you never claimed the definition of omniscience, but barring a new definition that I haven't thought of (very possible), I can't see any other reasonable omniscience that would invalidate the reasoning.

Amos

What you are saying here is that there is two of us. Our God identity and our human identity (or ego identity) wherein we have self-worth as humans.

Michelangelo's painting in the Sistine Chapel called "The Creation of Adam" (?) clearly shows Adam outside of the human skull to show this division.

The reality, is that God did not create our human identity because whatever God creates finds existence or we would have no knowledge thereof. Since our ego has no corporeal existence God could not have created it and therefore remains a complex identity of our imagination (the proof of this is that it can vanish in rapture).

Since our ego is ours, I, we two combined,* do have free will and must be held accountable for our actions. However, since we are divided between our ego and God identity can it be said that we do not have a free will and the only reason for this is that it is possible that we become one with God in the Beatific Vision and will henceforth be of singular identity in the I AM.

* In Zamjatin's "WE" there are four identities as in, "I, we four."

Fiach

As a scientist (neurogeneticist), I am experienced at being wrong at least 30% of the time. Unlike religionists who are never wrong (in their own minds) we admit two inadmissibles: "I don't know" and "I was wrong."

As to the envelope analogy, I can honestly admit that I would love to have a magic envelope with the true answer stating that there is a loving (good) God with whom I will spend eternity. I would be delighted to say that "I was wrong."

However, I have never heard of a kind and loving God. I was raised in a Christian culture with its cruel vindictive, caparicious, homicidal, trickster God, JHWH/Trinity. That monster god created Hell for 99.99% of humanity, and only a handful of arse kissing sychophants to enter Heaven.

So, if Islamo-Judeo-Christianity's God is a given falsehood, and there is instead, a kind and decent, fair and just, loving and merciful God, I would answer yes to the hypothetical question.

But if I have to choose between Jehovah and Satan, neither of which I believe exists, I would have to side with Satan. Satan is the lesser of two evils.

Fiach

Radorth

Sorry you went through that, but glad I missed it and got to start from scratch.

I don't suppose your experiences bias you in any way, being as you are strictly "rational"? Your mentors sound like they belong in the same place as the Pharisees to me. We forget the only people Jesus condemned to hell were religious and/or hypocritical, but you only notice such things when you start from scratch I suppose.

Radorth

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Jobar

Amos:
"it is possible that we become one with God in the Beatific Vision and will henceforth be of singular identity in the I AM."

And at that point, we may say with all humility "I am God" because we realize this is at root true for all "I"'s. THOU art THAT. Remember that I once said I found your expression of pantheism in the language of Catholicism to be like trying to do quantum mechanics in Chinese, Amos? Well, perhaps it's possible to come to correct answers using Chinese, after all.

RJS, I, like many of the others here, was raised Christian- Southern Baptist, for me. And all my family, except for one sister in the process (perhaps) of deconverting, are still churchgoers. I love them very much, and they still love me. I won't say that it has been an easy row to hoe- but aside from the occasional dig (from me or from them) we have made our peace. I do not condemn them for believing what I consider is nonsensical, and they do not condemn me- (well, although my mother did tell me I was a disgrace when I wrote a letter to the local paper, in support of the Newdow 'under God' decision, in which I stated flat out I was an atheist...) - for being an unbeliever.

My point is that I do not hate Christians in general. Far from it! I do indeed hate- not too strong a word- some high-profile and flagrantly public Christians such as Falwell and Robertson, for the nonsense and hatred and evil they preach. And I fear the power of ignorant and hateful people who think anyone not for them is against them.

I think that we can explain all we see and experience without recourse to God or Gods. I think the theistic hypothesis for the universe's existence is simply wrong.

I find all those who claim inside knowledge from God to be charlatans and conmen, supremely well organized liars. (Many of them manage to lie to themselves.) They have a lovely and ancient racket going, and the money they spend upon themselves and the continuance of their racket far exceeds the money they spend on true charity. They know no more of God than I do.

RJS, the theists who come here and stay for long periods- HelenM, seebs, luvluv, Rev. Joshua, and many more- are fine and intelligent people. They are willing to come and interact with us, despite strong philosophical differences. Others have said that we wish that the religious boards would reach out to us, and accept our presence and commentary on their boards, as readily as we accept them. The fact is though that atheist boards are more accepting of theists, than vice versa.

Hm- reading back over this and the last several pages of this thread, we have wandered rather far from xeren's original question. Xeren, IMO this has been a wonderful and fruitful conversation, despite the fact that it's wandered all over the place!