Nic Hautamaki

then what's your position? When I say that God created the world, I mean he created EVERYTHING in it. Since he is the first cause, the prime mover, etc, everything that happens after his creation of the universe happens only according to his design. There is no room for responsibility separate from God unless there is a creator of the universe separate from God. Even if you want to say that he created Free Wills, since he created them everything they do is according to his design as well anyways, so it's a logical impossibility for him to truly create free wills as an omniscient and omnipotent being.

Theli

A minor contradiction here, if god is outside of our time there can be no difference from god's perspective in knowing what is happening right now (in our time), and what will happen say... tomorrow. Thus if he knows everything that happens now, he must also know everything that will happen tomorrow. Omniscience and being "outside of time" requires all "frames" of time to be set and thus making determinism true.
For mortal men, no. But if you created the person in question and also the conditions that guide his choice then you did create his choice.

stretch

uh .... what do you mean by all frames of time being set? Time passes in the universe, our hypothetical being outside of time can 'see' all of this 'simultaneously'. What prevents what the being outside of time is viewing/aware of from being the 'consequences' of a stochastic created universe?

So do you think you had a choice in hitting the submit button when you posted this? If so, do you think that wasn't really a free choice if God is omniscient, but it was a free choice if God doesn't exist?

stretch

I think that the word 'design' is the clincher here. Why can't a first cause set off a non-designed universe with random elements? Being omniscient, that first cause can 'simultaneously' see the results of this, but not 'micro-manage' every little detail.

I would view it, given omnipotence, more as 'relinquishing' free will, than creating it.

(If you want me to outline the arguments from Clark, I'll pull the book out on the weekend and summarize them .... they're probably different from what I'm saying .... I'm just playing with ideas and seeing what does and doesn't fly ... )

Theli

Every event in the history of the universe would already have to be set to outcomes, as an omniscient god outside of time would know these outcomes. God would know excacly what I was going to do tomorrow.
Our future would already have happened, as god could see the outcome. This outcome would be unavoidable and not unpredictable or random.
As you can see by my post I was not just refering to omniscience, but to the idea that god also created everything. Anyway...
If we would define free will as making a choice wich is not set by other conditions then the fact that our future is knowable to begin with would negate such free will.
However it depends on how you define "free will".

Keep in mind though that this isn't a definition I would personally agree with, but one used by people who believe in the existence of god.

jaydoc

Hi all. First post here.

The idea of an omnimax god taking responsibility for his creations is similar to a dog breeder. If I took 100 pit bulls and selected the most aggressive ones and bread them, then took their puppies and repeated the process for several generations and then gave them away to children, should I be responsible when the kids get shredded? It seems pretty obvious that if you know what your creation is going to do, you are accountable for it.

Wyz_sub10

Welcome jaydoc!

Take off your shoes and get comfortable. Stop by the Secular Lounge when you get a moment and introduce yourself.

If you have any questions, just throw me a PM.

Wyz_sub10,
EoG Moderator

Theli

Especially if you at any point in time can change/stop your creation if you see it go estray.

Welcome to IIDB, by the way. I hope you will attend our weekly prayer to satan this friday.

Nic Hautamaki

I don't think that completely solves the problem, stretch.

"I think that the word 'design' is the clincher here. Why can't a first cause set off a non-designed universe with random elements? Being omniscient, that first cause can 'simultaneously' see the results of this, but not 'micro-manage' every little detail.

I would view it, given omnipotence, more as 'relinquishing' free will, than creating it."

For one thing, you must be thinking of Free Will as some kind of metaphysical force, for it to be relinquished. I make no such assertion. To me Free Will is not a force, but rather a theory of describing how the world works. If God exists, than the theory of Free Will is false. It isn't some object that doesn't exist, it's a description that doesn't apply.


If God cannot micromanage every detail, as you put it, than he must not be omnipotent. If he can, but simply chooses not to, knowing what will result if he does not, than he is responsible for what happens, since he is the first cause. Your statement implies that he does micromanage some details, and ignores others. Even if the world works in this way (which I do not accept that it does) God's choices about what to micromanage and what not to, and his omniscience regarding the consequences, leave him just as guilty of the evil and suffering that result.

Keatslover

The philosopher Voltaire once said "If God is all powerful, He is not just and if He is just, He is not God."
The fact is, if God is all powerful and all knowing there is no getting away from it that "He" is responsible for everything we do. It's all "His" will. So basically, theists either have to admit that God decides everything and humans are not to blame for anything they do,thus leaving the concept of sin, or they have to allow that God is not all powerful and is not responsible for what humans do and thus humans can be justly punished for their so-called sins.
I had to read Paradise Lost in college last year and I found that Milton, as well as having an obsession with Eve, was reduced to portraying God as a sort of entrapment officer, dressing up attempts to wet the curiosity of Adam and Eve as warnings against eating the apples. Milton wanted an all-knowing, all-powerful God to be totally blameless for the fall. Inevitably what he ended up with was the biggest logical tangle. God was angry about the fall but would have looked foolish...ok, down right stupid if Adam and Eve had never eaten the forbidden fruit as he predicted the whole thing in book one. You can't have somone who can do everything and know everything and yet be inocent of consequences.