Vanderzyden

I observe a pattern here, K. You make these claims, but provide no justification.

Please demonstrate why it is probable that omniscience necessarily precludes the existence of faultless free-will creatures.

Please also define what you mean by omniscience, and tell us from what reliable source you obtained this concept.

(I, for example, prefer the term divine foreknowledge.)

Vanderzyden

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Oh, I just went back to look at something else from Mageth. He fancies himself to be more sophisticated than the writer of the bulk of the New Testament. Fascinating, is it not?

Here is an appropriate reply:


Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

K,

Yes, it is sad and infuriating that some people condemn others for denying or rejecting God. However, I wonder, do you realize how much disrespectful treatment occurs right here at Infidels?

We are ALL evil. Many "Christians" think themselves "above it all", but they are living a lie. On the other hand, many atheists won't admit the existence of evil, despite its unmistakable, pervasive presence in our world.

Vanderzyden

K

Vanderzyden:

I'll try to lay it out as straighforwardly as possible. First I'll take care of the definition.

omniscient - adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything. (this comes from the American Heritage Dictionary)


Here are my assumptions (for the sake of argument).

A. God created humans with a design of His choice.

B. God is omniscient (God knows everything).

C. Knowing EVERYTHING means knowing what will happen in the future.

D. Humans have faults.

Here is how I attempt to follow logically from the premises.

1. God knew exactly what every human would do before he created us. This includes all of our faults. FROM B, C, and D

2. God still created us the way He chose to. FROM A

3. Since God created us using His design even though He knew full well that we would have faults, He created us with all of our faults. FROM 1, 2, and D


I think that's about as straightforward as I can make it. I suppose you may say that omniscience doesn't imply knowing the future. That would invalidate this proof.

K

Vanderzyden:

I'm one of those people who doesn't believe in an objective good and evil. But that's definitely a topic for another thread.

Cthulhu

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

MrDarwin

Gee, I'm observing a pattern here, too. Vanderzyden is still avoiding following up on a claim he posed earlier in this thread. Let's briefly review the exchange:

Still waiting. In case Vanderzyden ever cares to follow up, he can find the discussion here:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000639" target="_blank">Vanderzyden's gospel contradiction challenge</a>

Vanderzyden

K,

I see that you deny the existence of "objective" evil:

But you contradict yourself by asserting the truth of this statement:

Do you see the problem? On one hand, you insist that nothing may be called evil in an objective sense. This is the position of moral relativism: there is no absolute standard or morality. You are saying, along with the pre-Socratic philosopher Protagoras, that "Man is the measure of all things." On the other hand, you recognize that humans have problems. Perhaps you would agree that we humans have big problems. I must ask, then, what are these "faults", as you call them? Are they good? No, that is not what you are saying. No, in fact, we both recognize that faults are non-good. Things are good when they "meet their specification". I would call this "fulfilling their purpose". So, when you observe "faults" in humans, you are seeing that they do not perform optimally, in the way that they should.
So, what is non-good (when the term is applied to humans)? Well, that is known as evil.

OK, let's have a look at your definition of omniscience:

The "fault" of the dictionary definition is that it is circular. It simply translates the latin derivative. What I am asking for is the definition of "total knowledge". What does it mean to know everything? First, we must admit that we cannot provide a precise definition ourselves, since we cannot possibly grasp this concept in practice. But, we may say that knowing everything means having knowledge of everything that can be known. For example, we could imagine that God does not know every future event, but he knows all of the critical future events, and he knows precisely how he will act in the future (to accomplish his purposes). 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.

Now, to your argument:

In general, I agree with A and D. I have discussed the problems with B and C above, but I'll accept these premises as true for the purposes of our discussion.

Incidentally, K, let us do away with terms like "proof". In the first place, this is not a deductive argument. Second, you and I will not come anywhere near proof when we discuss such lofty things.

Conclusion #1 is indeterminate on the definition of omniscience, as shown above. God may not have direct knowledge of every action of every human beforehand. However, God would certainly know the capacity of humans to develop faults, since he created them with this capacity. These faults manifest themselves in choosing what is non-good. Furthermore, since God created humans, he would also know precisely how humans would choose, given a choice.

In creating humans, he makes them perfect. He gives them the ability to love, but this ability is not possible without the attendant ability to CHOOSE. To love something is to choose to do so. Love is not "programmable"--it must be freely done. Of course, a choice necessarily entails alternatives. This is what is meant by free-will. We may choose to do what is good, or what is evil. Note: Should you deny the notion of free-will you must (1) reconcile this with the general human experience, and (2) resolve the contradiction with premise A, which states that God makes at least one choice (why would this preclude him from creating other beings who may also choose?)

Now, If we admit that humans have faults, then we must admit that humans are imperfect. From this, we may directly infer a potential state of perfection. In turn, we then recognize that the Creator must create with intention. The humans he created were meant to fulfill a purpose. The good for humans is that which fulfills our intended purpose. Evil is the opposite. Human faults result from choices that are evil (non-good). Every human has chosen, at various times in their lives, to do what is not good for them.

So, your conclusions do not follow. With prior knowledge, God designed humans to fulfill a purpose, but gave them the ability to choose. Humanity necessarily entails free will. Humans have decided in favor of the non-good (non-God). Their faults are the result.

Of course, humans may recover, and again choose the Good. A remedy is available.

Vanderzyden

MrDarwin

Is anybody else not quite getting this?

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

K

Vanderzyden:

You've taken outside references into the argument. The fact that I don't believe in objective morality has nothing to do with any of the statements in my demonstration (instead of proof). I also don't believe in God. That is why I said that the assumptions I made were for the sake of argument. What I was attempting to demonstrate was that given the assumptions (A-D), we would have to conclude that God created us with our faults. I never said that I believed the assumptions.

Now we can focus on your actual objection. That is with the premises B and C. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying that God does not know absolutely everything. If that is correct, then omniscient isn't the appropriate adjective to describe Him. Like I pointed out earlier, this demonstration obviously doesn't work for those who don't accept that God knew before He created us that we would sin.

You added another something else from outside the argument saying that God made us perfect with the ability to choose love. If you like, I can demonstrate why this leads to a contradition with the assumption that we have faults, but it will require the addional assumptions that God is the most powerful being and that He would not allow another god to add faults to His creation.