Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ManM · 04-10-2002, 07:50 AM

I apologize for the delay in posting. My adaptive filter project was more tedious than I expected.

Amos, you contradict yourself. First you tell me that I created the image of God in my mind, and then you refer to Him as 'our God'. For some reason I doubt we have the same understanding of Him.

Captain Pedantic,
You have hit on the one thing that troubles me the most. Would God have done it if there was not going to be a happy ending? Furthermore, does everyone have to be happy in order for God to be justified? If I make a theme park, I know that there will be some unhappy children. Is that unhappiness justification for destroying the park and taking away other children's happiness? Or on the other side, does the happiness of some justify the unhappiness of others? Or is it really best that there were no children to be happy or sad? That is a rough question, and I'm not sure I have made up my mind on an answer yet. I'm leaning on the first option, that the unhappiness of some does not make the whole thing rotten. However, this is only on the condition that there really would be no reason to be unhappy. Any unhappiness would not be imposed, but instead would be a personal decision. Oy... Rough question.

Bree, I suppose they also subscribed to double predestination then? Or did God's plan only apply to his chosen 'saved'? I can't imagine anything more horrible than the idea that God creates people with a capacity for suffering and then dooms them to a hopeless eternity of pain.

Brian63,
So the omnipotent God wills not to exercise His influence? What you do is what you will to do. If you believe this, then you understand that God would certainly change the situation if He willed it changed more than he willed it to remain the same. As you can see, an omnipotent God's will becomes the final determining factor of any situation. Therefore, how can anything truly oppose God's will? The idea seems nonsensical to me. I believe this reasoning necessarily follows from the assertion that God is omnipotent.

Now let's look at the Christian claim of free will. When we sin, we allegedly are opposing God's will. But as I've shown, it is impossible to oppose omnipotence. Likewise, free will suggests that we are independent of God's influence. If we are truly independent of God's influence, it follows that God does not have the ability to influence us in some manner. If God does not have the ability to influence us, then He is by definition not omnipotent. However, if our independence from God is a matter of God's will and not an ultimate reality, then omnipotence can be spared. But what sort of freedom from God is contingent on His will? At best, this freedom is illusion, for we are not really independent of God's influence. Hopefully this illustrates the tension between an omnipotent God and our freedom.

And yes, I'm a Christian.

Samhain · 04-10-2002, 09:47 AM

Here's my take on the issue in my discussion with jpbrooks, taken from a thread in the EoG forum:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000170" target="_blank">The injustice of divine punishment</a>. There have also been a few other threads recently in EoG which have addressed this situation. A god of "omnimaxity", if you will, is extremely problematic.

Quote:

Conclusion 1: God is an omnibenevolent creator, but he cannot extend further than this with his "omnimaxity." He cannot be omnipotent in this sense, since his omnibenevolence would dictate to change all of the evil in the world to good, since God would not be able to put up with evil in the world because it goes against his ultimate and undying "goodness." So we can therefore assume in this conclusion that since God does not change all evil to good, that he is, in a sense, powerless to change all of the world to good, so this questions his omnipotence and/or omniscience. I will hold that God in this situation has the power to change some things in the world, but his power cannot extend in the "universal" sense, but he changes what he can, when he can. In this case we would have Free will.

Conclusion 2: God is, basically, the same as nature. God holds to the characteristics of omnipotence and omniscience, but instead of omnibenevolence, holds to omniindifference, since we we have concluded that it is impossible for omnibenevolence to exist along with omnipotence. God is nothing more than a hard deterministic viewpoint in this sense, and can be eliminated by applying Occam's razor. This God, as a entity, makes little, if any, sense at all. It would be pointless to worship a God of this type, one might as well worship nature. In this case God would eliminate free will, just like a deterministic universe would. I still hold that we cannot have free will with God as an omniscient and omnipotent being.

Conclusion 3: I hesitate to list this as a conclusion at all, since it is completely absurd and, I believe, impossible, but I've decided to list it anyway since I figured this would be more of the theistic viewpoint.
God keeps his omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence (even though, if we regard the Bible as accurate at all, we know this to be quite absurd, especially with omnibenevolence). We still have free will, and our actions are completely free of God's intervention (in a basic sense)(even though this conflicts with his omniscience and omnipotence). God allows evil into the world for some sense which we cannot understand (even though this conflicts with his omnibenevolence). Therefore it would be just for God to punish us accordingly depending on our actions, since we are not one of God's "tools" in this sense. The reason why God can have all of his "omnimaxity" is because, while we can define the terms, the attributes themselves "transcend logic." So basically God has everyone of these attributes, but cannot be bound by them in any sense? Absurd. In this case it is impossible to understand any attribute of God at all, and therefore impossible to understand God. This is another example of the cryptic nonsense which (in my experience) theists seem to fall back upon time after time, when they refuse to see logic and reason. I cannot even count this type of god as supernatural, but just irrational and impossible. This definition of God makes the least amount of sense at all in my opinion, but it is the only one which can explain all of the contradictions of God by basically shifting the burden of proof.

Now which of these three is worth worship? (1) A god who can be just as incompetant as any human since he does not have enough knowledge or power to be infallible, (2) A god who is basically nature and determinism defined or (3) A fairy tale. Something nice to hear and ok to believe if you are four years old, but when faced with harsh reality, it is sensed that this is completely devoid of all logic and reason. And therefore it can be logically concluded that there is no purpose in worshipping a god which one cannot even begin to comprehend let alone define.

Feel free to comment/question.

EDIT: In order for omnipotence to exist in a being, the being must also hold the attribute of omniscience. You cannot change what you do not know, therefore for God to exist as an omnipotent being he must also be omniscient, you cannot have the power to change everything if you do not know everything. Nothing can be affected outside God's knowledge.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]

scombrid · 04-10-2002, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Manm:
If I make a theme park, I know that there will be some unhappy children. Is that unhappiness justification for destroying the park and taking away other children's happiness?

If you were God don't you think that you'd be able to create a park to suit everybody?

Or, why not only create children that will enjoy your creation? Omniscience would know whether or not they will be happy before they exist.

This seems to be another line of logic that ultimately leads me to the conclusion that if God exists, he has trouble controlling his creation or simply choses not to.

echidna · 04-10-2002, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
Captain Pedantic,
You have hit on the one thing that troubles me the most. Would God have done it if there was not going to be a happy ending? Furthermore, does everyone have to be happy in order for God to be justified? If I make a theme park, I know that there will be some unhappy children. Is that unhappiness justification for destroying the park and taking away other children's happiness? Or on the other side, does the happiness of some justify the unhappiness of others? Or is it really best that there were no children to be happy or sad? That is a rough question, and I'm not sure I have made up my mind on an answer yet. I'm leaning on the first option, that the unhappiness of some does not make the whole thing rotten. However, this is only on the condition that there really would be no reason to be unhappy. Any unhappiness would not be imposed, but instead would be a personal decision. Oy... Rough question.

ManM, the only resolution to the contradiction of freedom and happy endings which I can make is a piece of wishful thinking, that during our lives �God� would provide no evidence whatsoever for their existence, no support, no guarantees.

To maintain a theme park theme, the roller coaster is most fun when we feel that we risk our safety. To truly let yourself go and enjoy the ride, is to not be constantly be thinking about the safety measures, the routine inspection checks, the regulations and the design calculations. Adrenalin is often associated with �feeling more alive� but is best generated from situations of risk. If we are forever cocooned in safety, then there�s no risk, no adrenalin, no �aliveness�. (I can�t help thinking about the closing lines of Camus� �The Outsider�.)

Of course having said that, there�s no evidence for any of these protective measures in our lives, no evidence for God�s �niceness�.

At best we can just wishfully hope that there�s a happy ending, but there�s no sign of that guarantee. So as such we have maximum opportunity for risk and to feel alive.

(Heh, Steve Martin's "Parenthood" springs to mind as well.)

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]

Brian63 · 04-10-2002, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
Brian63,
So the omnipotent God wills not to exercise His influence? What you do is what you will to do. If you believe this, then you understand that God would certainly change the situation if He willed it changed more than he willed it to remain the same. As you can see, an omnipotent God's will becomes the final determining factor of any situation. Therefore, how can anything truly oppose God's will? The idea seems nonsensical to me. I believe this reasoning necessarily follows from the assertion that God is omnipotent.

I love playing Christian's advocate.

Keep in mind that this is not a subject that I'm particularly familiar with, and I have not studied it in depth to any remarkable degree. What I am suggesting is from my own somewhat uninformed perspective.

I can see God as having one "prevailing will" and other "ancillary wills." If I recall correctly, I first read it explained in Mere Christianity by Lewis. He used an analogy (surprise, surprise) that I cannot recall, but I will conjure one up myself.

You are a parent who just learned that your teenage son is buried in credit card debt. He asks you for money to pay it off, but you believe that he will become a better person in the end if he learns to deal with it himself. So in the end, your "prevailing will" is that he should learn to become more responsible, while your "ancillary will" would suggest helping him out of this immediate jam.

I guess it would all revert back to the idea that God (if He even existed, which He doesn't

) has a plan for humans that requires that he not intervene in our lives, even though he is able to do so. So we could still have free will, and God would have dominion over us. He would not exercise that though. If you interpret this as meaning "we can't go against God's will" then I would agree with you if you are referring to the "prevailing will" only. We can still oppose his "ancillary wills."

Keep in mind I'm pulling this all out of my butt as I go along.

Quote:

But what sort of freedom from God is contingent on His will? At best, this freedom is illusion, for we are not really independent of God's influence.

Agreed, if we are referencing the "prevailing will," but not the "ancillary wills."

Brian

ManM · 04-10-2002, 07:35 PM

Samhain,
I think my argument opposes an omnipotent God. It says nothing about knowledge or goodness. Just offhand I do not see any obvious problems with a omnibenevolent and omniscience God. I think it is consistent to say that God could know all, desire all to be well, and still be unable to bring about the welfare of all. As an analogy, I see an alcoholic, I know that is harmful to him, and I wish to help him. However, I am powerless to change him. Only he can change himself. I may try to influence him from the outside by forcibly sending him to a clinic, but in the final analysis that is the extent of my power. Even after being treated in the clinic, he could remain an alcoholic and there is nothing more I can do about it.

scombrid,
If I am free and independent of God's will, then there is always the possibility that I can reject any 'park' God builds. Also, if God tailored me so that I will always enjoy his 'park', again my freedom comes into question.

I will agree with you one thing though. This does indicate that God is having trouble controlling his creation. But the only trouble possible comes from the area over which he can exert no control, that is, our freedom.

David Gould · 04-10-2002, 09:19 PM

If humans having free will is part of God's plan and he will not interfere with that, it is logically possible for humans to create a situation in which they no longer have free will, thus thwarting God's plan.

For example, the whole of humanity could be subjegated by a mind controlling machine that we ourselves chose to build.

This to me demosntrates a paradox - it is logically possible for free will to lead to non free will.

God could choose to stop this happening only by interfering with our free will - again, leading to non-free will.

So, God including in a master plan 'free will' is foolish.

Samhain · 04-10-2002, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
Samhain,
I think my argument opposes an omnipotent God. It says nothing about knowledge or goodness. Just offhand I do not see any obvious problems with a omnibenevolent and omniscience God. I think it is consistent to say that God could know all, desire all to be well, and still be unable to bring about the welfare of all. As an analogy, I see an alcoholic, I know that is harmful to him, and I wish to help him. However, I am powerless to change him. Only he can change himself. I may try to influence him from the outside by forcibly sending him to a clinic, but in the final analysis that is the extent of my power. Even after being treated in the clinic, he could remain an alcoholic and there is nothing more I can do about it.

Yes, my snipet from my other post was taken a wee bit out of context of the omnipotence of God, but my theories still apply. What is the point of worshipping a god who does not desire goodness? What is the point of worshipping a god who does not have the power to change things to goodness? Omniscience and omnibenevolence can exist in a god, yes, but, as we know from the Bible's depiction of God, God cannot truly be shown to have the attributes of either omniscience or omnibenevolence, but he shows a degree of omnipotence just by creating everything. Likewise omniscience must also be present for omnipotence to come into play, but we can clearly see that omnipotence and omniscience contradict each other at the same time if we are to have free will

Tusitala · 04-11-2002, 01:45 AM

Wow! You guys/girls amaze me with the depth in which you research and debate various subjects. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

A question from a simpleton's point of view......

What sort of a 'GOD' do we have if he makes mistakes and then has to rub them out and start again? Is 'GOD' incompetent?

tronvillain · 04-11-2002, 05:11 AM

Actually, the simpler explanation is that maybe the conventional idea of "free will" doesn't make very much sense.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-10-2002, 07:50 AM	#11
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	I apologize for the delay in posting. My adaptive filter project was more tedious than I expected. Amos, you contradict yourself. First you tell me that I created the image of God in my mind, and then you refer to Him as 'our God'. For some reason I doubt we have the same understanding of Him. Captain Pedantic, You have hit on the one thing that troubles me the most. Would God have done it if there was not going to be a happy ending? Furthermore, does everyone have to be happy in order for God to be justified? If I make a theme park, I know that there will be some unhappy children. Is that unhappiness justification for destroying the park and taking away other children's happiness? Or on the other side, does the happiness of some justify the unhappiness of others? Or is it really best that there were no children to be happy or sad? That is a rough question, and I'm not sure I have made up my mind on an answer yet. I'm leaning on the first option, that the unhappiness of some does not make the whole thing rotten. However, this is only on the condition that there really would be no reason to be unhappy. Any unhappiness would not be imposed, but instead would be a personal decision. Oy... Rough question. Bree, I suppose they also subscribed to double predestination then? Or did God's plan only apply to his chosen 'saved'? I can't imagine anything more horrible than the idea that God creates people with a capacity for suffering and then dooms them to a hopeless eternity of pain. Brian63, So the omnipotent God wills not to exercise His influence? What you do is what you will to do. If you believe this, then you understand that God would certainly change the situation if He willed it changed more than he willed it to remain the same. As you can see, an omnipotent God's will becomes the final determining factor of any situation. Therefore, how can anything truly oppose God's will? The idea seems nonsensical to me. I believe this reasoning necessarily follows from the assertion that God is omnipotent. Now let's look at the Christian claim of free will. When we sin, we allegedly are opposing God's will. But as I've shown, it is impossible to oppose omnipotence. Likewise, free will suggests that we are independent of God's influence. If we are truly independent of God's influence, it follows that God does not have the ability to influence us in some manner. If God does not have the ability to influence us, then He is by definition not omnipotent. However, if our independence from God is a matter of God's will and not an ultimate reality, then omnipotence can be spared. But what sort of freedom from God is contingent on His will? At best, this freedom is illusion, for we are not really independent of God's influence. Hopefully this illustrates the tension between an omnipotent God and our freedom. And yes, I'm a Christian.

04-10-2002, 07:35 PM	#16
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	Samhain, I think my argument opposes an omnipotent God. It says nothing about knowledge or goodness. Just offhand I do not see any obvious problems with a omnibenevolent and omniscience God. I think it is consistent to say that God could know all, desire all to be well, and still be unable to bring about the welfare of all. As an analogy, I see an alcoholic, I know that is harmful to him, and I wish to help him. However, I am powerless to change him. Only he can change himself. I may try to influence him from the outside by forcibly sending him to a clinic, but in the final analysis that is the extent of my power. Even after being treated in the clinic, he could remain an alcoholic and there is nothing more I can do about it. scombrid, If I am free and independent of God's will, then there is always the possibility that I can reject any 'park' God builds. Also, if God tailored me so that I will always enjoy his 'park', again my freedom comes into question. I will agree with you one thing though. This does indicate that God is having trouble controlling his creation. But the only trouble possible comes from the area over which he can exert no control, that is, our freedom.

04-10-2002, 09:19 PM	#17
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	If humans having free will is part of God's plan and he will not interfere with that, it is logically possible for humans to create a situation in which they no longer have free will, thus thwarting God's plan. For example, the whole of humanity could be subjegated by a mind controlling machine that we ourselves chose to build. This to me demosntrates a paradox - it is logically possible for free will to lead to non free will. God could choose to stop this happening only by interfering with our free will - again, leading to non-free will. So, God including in a master plan 'free will' is foolish.

04-11-2002, 01:45 AM	#19
Tusitala Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Tauranga, New Zealand Posts: 156	Wow! You guys/girls amaze me with the depth in which you research and debate various subjects. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> A question from a simpleton's point of view...... What sort of a 'GOD' do we have if he makes mistakes and then has to rub them out and start again? Is 'GOD' incompetent?

04-11-2002, 05:11 AM	#20
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Actually, the simpler explanation is that maybe the conventional idea of "free will" doesn't make very much sense.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.