Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jamie_L · 07-23-2002, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
In short, why is not Creation simply a pure act of creativity? Why do atheists hold that there can be no implicit value in this? Strange.

I can't speak for all atheists, but I can speak for me: I don't hold any such sentiment. I am only relating the views of certain theists, as I understand them. I believe Philosoft was probably doing the same. IF there were a god, and IF he/she/it created the universe, then it is certainly possible he/she/it could have any number of motives. However, many (I might even say most) theists attribute a plan of some sort to their god beyond just creating for the sake of creating. If you feel differently, great.

Jamie

Samhain · 07-23-2002, 11:09 AM

Even so, SOMMS, the point is still valid. Omniscience (without omnipotence, as I would hold that the two cannot logically present themselves within one being) is incompatible with free-will. If omniscience is present within a being, extending into the future, then future choices are already set and a path of determinism is laid before us. There is nothing that we could possibly do to change any action that has already been laid bare for us by 'God's' omniscience, as it would contradict his power.

Philosoft · 07-23-2002, 12:26 PM

SOMMS,

Gosh, you're right. There are so many Christian denominations that think God is just a giant creating machine with no concept of what he will create or what his purpose for creating is. Honestly, what was I thinking? I should have indicated the philosophical position that debate-minded apologists would use, rather than the one most ordinary Christians use.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 07-23-2002, 01:33 PM

Philosoft,

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
SOMMS,

Gosh, you're right. There are so many Christian denominations that think God is just a giant creating machine with no concept of what he will create or what his purpose for creating is. Honestly, what was I thinking?

Exactly.

What were you thinking?

Are you mistaking the common fundementalist exclamation 'God has a plan for your life!' with 'A necessary and sufficient attribute of God is that He created the physical universe with an initial state and had a plan to bring about a final state for this time-space and all entities contained therein'

If so then your argument is really based on misunderstading and (at best) is merely a strawman.

If not then please present some evidence or Biblical reference as to this plan God had before the creation of the universe and perhaps even what this plan was.

SOMMS

Samhain · 07-23-2002, 01:36 PM

If 'God' has a plan now it stands to reason, through the argument of omniscience, that he has always had that plan.

Philosoft · 07-23-2002, 01:50 PM

SOMMS,

That was sarcasm. Sorry, I'm not going to use your hand-picked (and bizarre) formulation of "God's plan" because you think it's right or because you claim to have biblical justification. This has gone way too far anyhow. I stand by my assertion that there is a significantly accepted Christian notion that the events we are a part of were created from a "plan." I hope you don't insist we need to do independent surveys to evidence this.

Pomp · 07-23-2002, 01:52 PM

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas,

This bit always confuses me. Why is it that
athiests steadfastly promote the idea that God had a secret agenda and created the universe only to manipulate it as means to some end?

Are you sure that you're addresing this criticism to the correct group? As soon as theists stop using the "mysterious ways" defense, which implicitly references their god's secret ineffable plan, atheists will stop "steadfastly promoting" the idea of god's mysterious plan.

This illustrates how little the promoter of such a viewpoint has actually thought about the subject. It is completely contradictory with the concept of an omnipotent entity.

Yes, it is. Again, your "team" dreamed up the "mysterious plan" idea in the first place. Don't blame us if it's incoherent.

If an omnipotent being did desire a specific state of affairs...why wouldn't the entity create
the universe with THAT state to begin with???

Exactly. It stands to reason, therefore, that, if your god did, indeed, create the Universe, then whatever state of affairs exists in the Universe is precisly the state of affairs desired by your god. From the point of view of an omnipotent being, whatever world exists is, necessarily, the best of all possible worlds.

In short, why is not Creation simply a pure act of creativity?

Sure. I've long maintained that the only rational motive any god might have for creating a Universe is pure artistic expression.

Why do atheists hold that there can be no implicit value in this? Strange.

First of all, because many atheists, myself included, deny that the phrase "implicit value" holds any meaning. Value is not implicit in things out there in the world. Value exists only in the relationship between the valuer and the thing valued.

Second, and more importantly, because this is not what the overwhelming majority of theists actually believe. You're asking us to argue against a position that is not widely held. For the third time, atheists did not invent the idea of god's mysterious plan. Theists did.

I would have no grounds for complaint if, instead of telling the victims of disasters, illnesses, etc. that "Everything happens for a reason," and "God works in mysterious ways," theists simply said "God finds more 'implicit value' in allowing the Universe unfold so as to allow your suffering than he does in looking after your well-being and happiness." The problem is that theists are, understandably reluctant to portray their god as such, simply because no one wishes to worship the sort of immoral monster who places his own creative desries ahead of the well-being of others.

Note that I don't see this as an argument against the existence of god, but as more of an argument against the emotional appeal of believing in a god, if that makes sense to you. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to analyze the personality traits of a being whose existence is not demonstrated, except as a counter to the feel good propaganda about the "god of love" that Xians claim to worship.

Taffy Lewis · 07-23-2002, 02:54 PM

Most theologians agree that God cannot do the logically impossible. If persons have free will then many aspects of the future are indeterminate and therefore there is nothing to know with regard to those aspects. So it is logically impossible that (1)the future should be indeterminate and (2)that there be some facts about it that can be known.

For example, if I am free to choose whether or not to see a movie this weekend then the claim "I will see a movie this weekend." has no truth value. There is no information or knowledge to be had; thus there is no information or knowledge to lack. So God could still know everything even if he does not know what I will do.

People who claim there is a conflict must implicitly assume that there is some truth about which choice I will make. But if I am free then there is no truth about which choice will be made.

Philosoft · 07-23-2002, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taffy Lewis:
Most theologians agree that God cannot do the logically impossible. If persons have free will then many aspects of the future are indeterminate and therefore there is nothing to know with regard to those aspects. So it is logically impossible that (1)the future should be indeterminate and (2)that there be some facts about it that can be known.

I see a problem developing.

Quote:

For example, if I am free to choose whether or not to see a movie this weekend then the claim "I will see a movie this weekend." has no truth value. There is no information or knowledge to be had; thus there is no information or knowledge to lack. So God could still know everything even if he does not know what I will do.

You don't see a continuity problem with this?

Quote:

People who claim there is a conflict must implicitly assume that there is some truth about which choice I will make. But if I am free then there is no truth about which choice will be made.

Your argument concedes that there are innumerable things that God does not foreknow. It makes no sense to call God 'omniscient' if all God knows is a bunch of things after they happen. It makes no sense to say God is in control of anything or that God has a plan for everything if he cannot guarantee outcomes. There are, according to your logic, billions of free will decisions made at all moments in time. And, we can conclude from your logic that God simply observes billions of outcomes. In this sense, God is simply a human with incredible vision.

Taffy Lewis · 07-23-2002, 05:30 PM

Philosoft,

Quote:

Your argument concedes that there are innumerable things that God does not foreknow.

In the case of free choices, there is nothing to foreknow. Libertarian free will is necessarily indeterminate. If some state of affairs is not determinate that just means that it is not true that it is the case and not true that it is not the case. There is nothing to know. I do not lack some knowledge or information by not knowing an indeterminate event. Therefore such events are compatible with omniscience.

Quote:

It makes no sense to say God is in control of anything or that God has a plan for everything if he cannot guarantee outcomes.

Having a plan does not depend upon meticulously arranging everything that happens. My plan to go to work tomorrow does not depend upon my controlling everything that happens.

Further, it is part of traditional theism that God has chosen to create persons with free will and control over their own destiny. If God exists and we have free will then this plan has been fulfilled.

Quote:

In this sense, God is simply a human with incredible vision.

First, humans are a particular biological species of organism and God is not. Secondly, God can still know everything. Nothing about free will conflicts with maximal knowledge understood as knowledge of everything that is actual and possible. Not only is this far beyond anything humans are capable of but it also seems that no greater degree of knowledge is possible.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Taffy Lewis ]

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

07-23-2002, 11:09 AM	#12
Samhain Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,735	Even so, SOMMS, the point is still valid. Omniscience (without omnipotence, as I would hold that the two cannot logically present themselves within one being) is incompatible with free-will. If omniscience is present within a being, extending into the future, then future choices are already set and a path of determinism is laid before us. There is nothing that we could possibly do to change any action that has already been laid bare for us by 'God's' omniscience, as it would contradict his power.

07-23-2002, 12:26 PM	#13
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	SOMMS, Gosh, you're right. There are so many Christian denominations that think God is just a giant creating machine with no concept of what he will create or what his purpose for creating is. Honestly, what was I thinking? I should have indicated the philosophical position that debate-minded apologists would use, rather than the one most ordinary Christians use.

07-23-2002, 01:36 PM	#15
Samhain Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,735	If 'God' has a plan now it stands to reason, through the argument of omniscience, that he has always had that plan.

07-23-2002, 01:50 PM	#16
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	SOMMS, That was sarcasm. Sorry, I'm not going to use your hand-picked (and bizarre) formulation of "God's plan" because you think it's right or because you claim to have biblical justification. This has gone way too far anyhow. I stand by my assertion that there is a significantly accepted Christian notion that the events we are a part of were created from a "plan." I hope you don't insist we need to do independent surveys to evidence this.

07-23-2002, 01:52 PM	#17
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas, This bit always confuses me. Why is it that athiests steadfastly promote the idea that God had a secret agenda and created the universe only to manipulate it as means to some end? Are you sure that you're addresing this criticism to the correct group? As soon as theists stop using the "mysterious ways" defense, which implicitly references their god's secret ineffable plan, atheists will stop "steadfastly promoting" the idea of god's mysterious plan. This illustrates how little the promoter of such a viewpoint has actually thought about the subject. It is completely contradictory with the concept of an omnipotent entity. Yes, it is. Again, your "team" dreamed up the "mysterious plan" idea in the first place. Don't blame us if it's incoherent. If an omnipotent being did desire a specific state of affairs...why wouldn't the entity create the universe with THAT state to begin with??? Exactly. It stands to reason, therefore, that, if your god did, indeed, create the Universe, then whatever state of affairs exists in the Universe is precisly the state of affairs desired by your god. From the point of view of an omnipotent being, whatever world exists is, necessarily, the best of all possible worlds. In short, why is not Creation simply a pure act of creativity? Sure. I've long maintained that the only rational motive any god might have for creating a Universe is pure artistic expression. Why do atheists hold that there can be no implicit value in this? Strange. First of all, because many atheists, myself included, deny that the phrase "implicit value" holds any meaning. Value is not implicit in things out there in the world. Value exists only in the relationship between the valuer and the thing valued. Second, and more importantly, because this is not what the overwhelming majority of theists actually believe. You're asking us to argue against a position that is not widely held. For the third time, atheists did not invent the idea of god's mysterious plan. Theists did. I would have no grounds for complaint if, instead of telling the victims of disasters, illnesses, etc. that "Everything happens for a reason," and "God works in mysterious ways," theists simply said "God finds more 'implicit value' in allowing the Universe unfold so as to allow your suffering than he does in looking after your well-being and happiness." The problem is that theists are, understandably reluctant to portray their god as such, simply because no one wishes to worship the sort of immoral monster who places his own creative desries ahead of the well-being of others. Note that I don't see this as an argument against the existence of god, but as more of an argument against the emotional appeal of believing in a god, if that makes sense to you. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to analyze the personality traits of a being whose existence is not demonstrated, except as a counter to the feel good propaganda about the "god of love" that Xians claim to worship.

07-23-2002, 02:54 PM	#18
Taffy Lewis Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North America Posts: 203	Most theologians agree that God cannot do the logically impossible. If persons have free will then many aspects of the future are indeterminate and therefore there is nothing to know with regard to those aspects. So it is logically impossible that (1)the future should be indeterminate and (2)that there be some facts about it that can be known. For example, if I am free to choose whether or not to see a movie this weekend then the claim "I will see a movie this weekend." has no truth value. There is no information or knowledge to be had; thus there is no information or knowledge to lack. So God could still know everything even if he does not know what I will do. People who claim there is a conflict must implicitly assume that there is some truth about which choice I will make. But if I am free then there is no truth about which choice will be made.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.