Scotty

I think a re-definition of "omniscient" or omni-whatever is how I dealt with the inconsistencies/fallacy of some "god" that knows everything.
Logically possible was how I always thought. The free-will debate is what convinced me that "god" was logically impossible as described.
Now, if you want to come to terms with redefining "god's" abilities and living with it, that is what I did (and eventually just threw out when I found the entire idea of "god" uninteresting):

What makes sense, that "god" can read every particle in the universe and know the exact outcome (or already knows all of the outcomes)?

I couldn't imagine that any "god" would want to do this. Why bother? What level of energy would be required to make this happen? Why would you possibly want to bother? What point would it serve? I wouldn't have, you don't need to to make predictions.
(If you then _are_ every particle in the universe it sure must be boring to be. But it still requires an ability to consciously move each one... ridiculous)
I moved "god" to the macroscopic level. Knowing, if desired, every action somebody was doing at that moment in time or in the past (or the ability to read minds...)

Now, with that in mind, "god" cannot see the future. "God" could though, make very accurate predictions about the future because he would know every variable and be able to make "a good guess" (think Asimov's Psycometry).

This left "free-will" open, and the ability for things to "evolve" into evil and leave us to our own choices. It isn't everybodies definition, but I could live with it (even though I don't anymore )

Just something to think about, and how you could deal with it in the future. I don't think there is any way to really come to grips with all of inconsistencies that make an omniscient "god".


-Scott

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Scotty ]</p>

ManM

echidna,
The claim of Christianity is that we do have evidence of God's benevolence. God will grant us all resurrection, and all of us will be in the theme park. Even further, Christianity provides some insights as to what that theme park will be like. Whether or not we enjoy it is up to us, and we are given our entire lives to prepare as we see fit. By asserting our freedom, we find room for hope (or wishful thinking as you put it) that everyone will be happy, but we understand that there is nothing which necessitates the happiness of all.

Brian,
To use your language, how could the "prevailing will" and "ancillary will" ever conflict for an omnipotent God? This is analogous to us choosing the lesser of two evils. Yet, if we were omnipotent, who or what could impose any undesirable choice on us? Now, it seems clear to me that the only way to reconcile the OT with a good God is to claim that He chose the lesser of two evils. But when the Christian turns around and says God is omnipotent, you immediately are forced to wonder what could thrust such a choice upon Him? Surely an omnipotent God would never be forced to kill every living person save one and his family. However, a God who had no power over human will might be forced to do that if He saw human will was leading toward extinction. And if that were the case, it is much harder to consider the flood a purely evil or unnecessary act. Instead, it becomes analogous to the act of a doctor who amputates an arm to save a life. Sure, if the doctor was omnipotent, he could cure the disease without removing the arm. It would be silly for the omnipotent doctor to cause unnecessary pain in that manner. But I can find no fault in the doctor who is forced to choose the lesser of two evils. Instead, I would focus my judgement on that which imposes the choice on the doctor.

Long story short, if you wish to pose a conflict between God's prevailing will and ancillary will, you must first establish what could possibly cause that conflict.

David Gould,
So God was foolish for creating free creatures because they could use their freedom against Him? And so freedom is undesirably because it has the potential to go bad? A similar argument could be posed for the other side of the coin. Freedom is desirable because it has the potential to become good. I think this type of argument leads to a dead end.

Samhain,
Why worship a God who does not have power over our will? Well, let's think about God. Here is someone who gave up His omnipotence in creating us. When we rebelled, He did not destroy us, but instead strives to save us. This love is enough to impress. Even more, you look at the beauty of His creation. You look at the complexity of that which he engineered. If we believe these things about God we can't help but be impressed. And then when we hear that God will grant us eternal life in paradise, we find it hard not to worship Him.

Also, just a small point of correction. The is no such thing as a small amount of omnipotence. Either you are omnipotent or not. Now God may have been omnipotent before the creation... This leads to another interesting tangent. God lost his omnipotence when He created other free creatures. Therefore, if the other free creatures decided to bring their will in line with God's, He would become functionally omnipotent. We would have the omnimax God people are so fond of, and at that point we should expect there to be no more evil.

Tusitala,
A lack of omnipotence doesn't imply incompetence. Besides, we don't know if He screwed up or not. Our fate is still in our hands.

tronvillain,
Of course a materialist can simply deny freedom. But that really isn't the point of this topic. I am simply looking for a theological discussion with skeptics. The best way to refine your beliefs is to bring them up in the presence of those who oppose them. I am primarily interested in consistency. Freedom is just something I am presupposing for this discussion, and so I ask you to just go with it.

Scotty,
I believe that Christianity is more than just philosophical ramblings about God. I know this is a cliche, but I feel that true Christianity is a life lived. I discuss the philosophy on places like Infidels.org so that I can strive for intellectual consistency. But in all honesty, I don't see a question about God's omnipotence changing my pursuit for stillness and moral perfection.

Samhain

ManM,

You said in response to my post:

The fact is that we have reduced this god to an incompetent being, one capable of just as much folley as any human. Man cannot have free will if God's omniscience extends into the future since we would be, in some sense, predetermined. Therefore, God can have neither omniscience or omnipotence at all at this time. Therefore we would have no rock solid guaruntee of an eternity of bliss. There will be a war according to the NT, of course, propaghanda states that the side who will win is good, of course because we have God on our side, but if God is proven to be nothing more than a creature bound to natualism such as humans are, only in a different fashion, then evil and the amount of evil is more probable of triumph.

On another note, the rebellion of Adam and Eve was a result of God's own doing. "Here, I create the world, everything is good (*nods to himself*), except for that damned tree I made over there which I'm almost positive that Adam and Eve will eat of." How fucking ridiculous. God gives us free will, brings the tree of knowledge into play (obviously man has free-will at this time since God specifically commands that they not partake in THAT fruit, but they do so anyway). The entrance of evil into the world of man is solely based upon the responsibility of God. Rejection of God cannot be seen as evil, even though it may entail hell, so evil is not necessarily needed to have free will when it comes to choosing God, yet God chooses that we have evil in the world just because he wants it in a sense by making the tree of knowledge. How stupid. Here, I make this tree, but it's bad, so don't eat from it! For what reason would a "good" God do such a thing? All I can see is that he has a sick sense of humor. Demented even.

Samhain

If God loses his omnipotence and omniscience by giving us free will (as you state) then we must eliminate the possibility that anything will go in accordance with God's "plan" after the point that man has free will. Once God becomes as incompetent as man we almost eliminate the possibility of God's power to effect the future in the way that he chooses, just like a human being

More so, without God's omnipotence and omniscience we run the risk of losing the "war against evil" which is obviously winning in the world right now, so I say join the winning side!

Maybe not, but it sure does make the possibility of incompetence a whole lot more likely, and looking at the world as it stands now, I think God should be locked up in a mental hospital for his incompetence.

You won't find intellectual consistency looking at Christianity or the Bible

Scotty

Cool, I have never had somebody say that about what I write. I like it. Philosophical ramblings, it has a nice ring to it.

Or maybe I am not being clear....hmmm.

It was my take on free will, when I thought it was an issue.

The whole problem seems logically impossible. A "god" that the end justify the means. The only problem is you won't know the answer until you are dead. Makes sense I suppose.
I guess this is why every preacher (well, not every) teaches that the end is near. If it wasn't coming soon, you would never know why all of the shitty things that happened to you happened at all.

I have an answer though, and it works every time.

It is random.

-Scott