Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kent Stevens · 08-25-2002, 02:42 AM

An entity that knew everything would also know about themselves. They would also know what they would doing on January 1 2010. They would also know that they could do no alternative to this.

But even if we try a semantic trick and redefine what "knowing everything" means, fatalism would still apply to those who God reveals their fate to.

Say a perfect fortune teller tells a woman that she will meet a tall and handsome stranger. This means that the woman must meet this stranger even if she is happily married to someone not tall and handsome. Even if she hides in her house she has no choice but to meet this stranger. Just imagine if the perfect fortune teller said that a murder was to take place. Then if the foresight is perfect this means that murder must take place even if say the police are notified about this. God would be like this fortune teller with perfect foresight.

In terms of characters with perfect foresight there does not appear to be any actually writen about. The precogs in Minority Report are imperfect in that somehow they can not factor into their predictions, what happens when they tell someone affected by the prediction, what will happen.

Even Cassandra does not seem to have complete and perfect foresight. One version of the Cassandra myth has Cassandra not agreeing to elope with the God Apollo, after Apollo has taught her how to be able to predict the future. But if Cassandra could have predicted her own punishment from Apollo, perhaps she would not have rejected him in love. The curse that Apollo gives Cassandra is that everyone will think her predictions are in fact lies told by her. Also, I do not think that Cassandra's predictive power is complete in the sense that she could not predict far in advance her own murder.

The three fates were supposed to determine someones fate from birth. But their prediction is incomplete in that they may not be able to predict everything, in the same way that an all knowing being could. I do not know if the fates could predict the fates of the gods or not.

God is supposed to be all knowing, but he does not seem to be able to have predicted that Adam would have eaten the forbidden fruit. In this and in other examples he does not have perfect foresight. God's capability of perfect foresight is only something that is later implied by the doctrine of omniscience.

Answerer · 08-25-2002, 06:05 AM

Well, it is a well-known fact that bible do contradict God's abilities such as omniscience and omnipotence. However, we also need to consider other possibilities as well. For example, maybe God pretend to be ignorant of the fact that Adam did eat the apple, but this kind of action by God may almost be deemed as a form of hyprocrisy. In the end, it will be up to the christians which interpretations to accept.

08-25-2002, 08:20 AM

Kent you are much too complicated for me. As I see it, neither data nor knowledge exist unless we have knowledge thereoff.

Like, I really don't know if trees exist in New Zeeland but if you tell me they do I would believe you. The only reason why I would know what you are talking about is because we have an agreement in place to describe trees.

Do you now still think that God knows what trees look like unless he part of our conversation?

As the bible presents it God did know that man would eat from the apple because he prepared the way of salvation in Gen.2:10-14.

[ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]

owleye · 08-25-2002, 10:31 AM

Paddy...

"Does god transcend his own omniscience?"

Since I haven't read everything in this thread, I'm not sure why this question is being asked. Perhaps it's because there is a long-standing debate that I'm not familiar with among the participants. In any case, assuming that someone has actually claimed such a transcendence and this is how you wish to respond to it, then let's see if it makes sense.

"If so, he is not omniscient. How can he be omniscient if he doesn't know what choices he will make?"

If God transcends His omniscience then there are two different references to be considered when talking about God and His attributes. The God (1) that knows and the God (2) that is conscious (cognizant) of God (1)'s knowledge. This is a quite reasonable picture of God, I think, since it mirrors how we ourselves are cognizant of our own knowledge. It certainly is the case that we can with our limited understanding of what we know, know what choices we are likely to make. Presumably with perfect knowledge of ourselves we would have perfect knowledge of what choices we will make.

"How could he know what choices anyone will make?"

We pretty much know how a person is going to vote given knowledge of his background and his circumstances. It is not much of a stretch to say that we know (or that God knows) what choices we will make (or that he will make) given perfect knowledge of the person.

I would agree that there may be a problem of accounting for evil in a world that is allegedly created by God, having omniscience and omnibenevolence (and omnipotence). However, this seems to be a separate question. As indicated, Leibniz believed that God chose the best of all possible worlds, and if this means there is some evil it must be because all other possible worlds are even worse off.

"If he is subject to his own omniscience, that is he is a determined being, how can he be all loving when according to christian rationale love requires free will?"

To be self-determining is not much different than having free-will. Why should my having free-will mean that I do not determine my own choices. Moreover, how is it possible for me to self-determine my choices if I don't have the free will to do so? Thus, it seems to me that God's determination of his own choices is what makes it possible to say that God has a completely free-will and benevolent, etc.

owleye

Kent Stevens · 08-25-2002, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Kent you are much too complicated for me. As I see it, neither data nor knowledge exist unless we have knowledge thereoff.

Like, I really don't know if trees exist in New Zeeland but if you tell me they do I would believe you. The only reason why I would know what you are talking about is because we have an agreement in place to describe trees.

Do you now still think that God knows what trees look like unless he part of our conversation?

As the bible presents it God did know that man would eat from the apple because he prepared the way of salvation in Gen.2:10-14.

Amos your talk about trees relating to God's choice is way to complicated for me. By the way I am from New Zealand not New Zeeland.

If God knew that Adam would eat the forbidden fruit why did he warn Adam and Eve from doing so in the first place. It would pointless to warn them as they are going to do eat the fruit anyway. Why did not God not stop Eve from eating the fruit or further warn her, if God knows everything.

God does not seem to know that Cain would kill Abel in advance. God tests Abraham to see whether he is prepared to kill his son Isaac for him. But if God knows everything there is no need to test anything, as God would already know the result of such a test.

08-25-2002, 06:20 PM

Sorry Kent, "Zeeland" is a province in the Netherlands and you are from New Zealand where they have trees.

Did you know that Adam never ate from the apple but woman did and she also gave some to her husband and he ate it? It was at this time that they first realized that they no longer were naked and had an ego to protect. This ego idenity became known as Adam.

Well it was "Lord God" (not God) who told man not to eat from the tree of knowledge and God had nothing to do with this (Gen.2:16-17). Notice that woman was not even formed at this time so how could God have warned the woman not to eat from the TOK?

I actually think that the woman was in cahoots with the serpent and tricked the man because the woman desired power, wealth and beauty (Gen.3:6).

joedad · 08-25-2002, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Answerer:
Well, it is a well-known fact that bible do contradict God's abilities such as omniscience and omnipotence. However, we also need to consider other possibilities as well. For example, maybe God pretend to be ignorant of the fact that Adam did eat the apple, but this kind of action by God may almost be deemed as a form of hyprocrisy. In the end, it will be up to the christians which interpretations to accept.

So true.

If the serpent is really the god, only in disguise, and the so called "god" is really the devil masquerading as a god, it clears up a lot of problems. The "Fall" becomes an Ascent. No need for redemption. A god is telling A&E that knowledge is a good thing. Eden becomes an intoxicating and mindless devilish paradise. No disobedience committed. The devil gets rejected. A&E choose for god. There's probably more.

Of course, that's entering the christian model of god as "good."

In the end, however, omniscience and free choice are mutually exclusive.

joe

The Bobby Llama · 08-26-2002, 07:58 PM

Hi guys,

Back when I was a theist I arrived at an answer to this paradox that I don't think has been covered here yet. I'll go over it briefly for the sake of argument:

Suppose God exists outside of time and space. If he exists outside of time and space then he wouldn't be stuck in the same linear progression of time that we are. Thus omniscience and free choice wouldn't have to be mutually exclusive for him.

Sound feasible?

Christopher Lord · 08-26-2002, 08:10 PM

that is the only way. if he was in a seperate plane, understanding EVERYTHING about our universe but merely a mortal in his own.

IF (an omnimax) god existed, he would have to be outside of our own universe, but this is basically the DEIST position, which I cant argue against.

(feel free to be a deist, its just not my cup of tea)

The Bobby Llama · 08-26-2002, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Christopher Lord:
that is the only way. if he was in a seperate plane, understanding EVERYTHING about our universe but merely a mortal in his own.

He doesn't necessarily have to be mortal in this other universe. But we have no way of knowing anything about the nature of it for sure. It's not like the Bible is exactly forthcoming with the details, either.

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: The Bathroom Monkey System ]

08-25-2002, 08:20 AM	#13
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	Kent you are much too complicated for me. As I see it, neither data nor knowledge exist unless we have knowledge thereoff. Like, I really don't know if trees exist in New Zeeland but if you tell me they do I would believe you. The only reason why I would know what you are talking about is because we have an agreement in place to describe trees. Do you now still think that God knows what trees look like unless he part of our conversation? As the bible presents it God did know that man would eat from the apple because he prepared the way of salvation in Gen.2:10-14. [ August 25, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

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

08-25-2002, 02:42 AM	#11
Kent Stevens Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 484	An entity that knew everything would also know about themselves. They would also know what they would doing on January 1 2010. They would also know that they could do no alternative to this. But even if we try a semantic trick and redefine what "knowing everything" means, fatalism would still apply to those who God reveals their fate to. Say a perfect fortune teller tells a woman that she will meet a tall and handsome stranger. This means that the woman must meet this stranger even if she is happily married to someone not tall and handsome. Even if she hides in her house she has no choice but to meet this stranger. Just imagine if the perfect fortune teller said that a murder was to take place. Then if the foresight is perfect this means that murder must take place even if say the police are notified about this. God would be like this fortune teller with perfect foresight. In terms of characters with perfect foresight there does not appear to be any actually writen about. The precogs in Minority Report are imperfect in that somehow they can not factor into their predictions, what happens when they tell someone affected by the prediction, what will happen. Even Cassandra does not seem to have complete and perfect foresight. One version of the Cassandra myth has Cassandra not agreeing to elope with the God Apollo, after Apollo has taught her how to be able to predict the future. But if Cassandra could have predicted her own punishment from Apollo, perhaps she would not have rejected him in love. The curse that Apollo gives Cassandra is that everyone will think her predictions are in fact lies told by her. Also, I do not think that Cassandra's predictive power is complete in the sense that she could not predict far in advance her own murder. The three fates were supposed to determine someones fate from birth. But their prediction is incomplete in that they may not be able to predict everything, in the same way that an all knowing being could. I do not know if the fates could predict the fates of the gods or not. God is supposed to be all knowing, but he does not seem to be able to have predicted that Adam would have eaten the forbidden fruit. In this and in other examples he does not have perfect foresight. God's capability of perfect foresight is only something that is later implied by the doctrine of omniscience.

08-25-2002, 06:05 AM	#12
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	Well, it is a well-known fact that bible do contradict God's abilities such as omniscience and omnipotence. However, we also need to consider other possibilities as well. For example, maybe God pretend to be ignorant of the fact that Adam did eat the apple, but this kind of action by God may almost be deemed as a form of hyprocrisy. In the end, it will be up to the christians which interpretations to accept.

08-25-2002, 10:31 AM	#14
owleye Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Home Posts: 229	Paddy... "Does god transcend his own omniscience?" Since I haven't read everything in this thread, I'm not sure why this question is being asked. Perhaps it's because there is a long-standing debate that I'm not familiar with among the participants. In any case, assuming that someone has actually claimed such a transcendence and this is how you wish to respond to it, then let's see if it makes sense. "If so, he is not omniscient. How can he be omniscient if he doesn't know what choices he will make?" If God transcends His omniscience then there are two different references to be considered when talking about God and His attributes. The God (1) that knows and the God (2) that is conscious (cognizant) of God (1)'s knowledge. This is a quite reasonable picture of God, I think, since it mirrors how we ourselves are cognizant of our own knowledge. It certainly is the case that we can with our limited understanding of what we know, know what choices we are likely to make. Presumably with perfect knowledge of ourselves we would have perfect knowledge of what choices we will make. "How could he know what choices anyone will make?" We pretty much know how a person is going to vote given knowledge of his background and his circumstances. It is not much of a stretch to say that we know (or that God knows) what choices we will make (or that he will make) given perfect knowledge of the person. I would agree that there may be a problem of accounting for evil in a world that is allegedly created by God, having omniscience and omnibenevolence (and omnipotence). However, this seems to be a separate question. As indicated, Leibniz believed that God chose the best of all possible worlds, and if this means there is some evil it must be because all other possible worlds are even worse off. "If he is subject to his own omniscience, that is he is a determined being, how can he be all loving when according to christian rationale love requires free will?" To be self-determining is not much different than having free-will. Why should my having free-will mean that I do not determine my own choices. Moreover, how is it possible for me to self-determine my choices if I don't have the free will to do so? Thus, it seems to me that God's determination of his own choices is what makes it possible to say that God has a completely free-will and benevolent, etc. owleye

08-25-2002, 06:20 PM	#16
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	Sorry Kent, "Zeeland" is a province in the Netherlands and you are from New Zealand where they have trees. Did you know that Adam never ate from the apple but woman did and she also gave some to her husband and he ate it? It was at this time that they first realized that they no longer were naked and had an ego to protect. This ego idenity became known as Adam. Well it was "Lord God" (not God) who told man not to eat from the tree of knowledge and God had nothing to do with this (Gen.2:16-17). Notice that woman was not even formed at this time so how could God have warned the woman not to eat from the TOK? I actually think that the woman was in cahoots with the serpent and tricked the man because the woman desired power, wealth and beauty (Gen.3:6).

08-26-2002, 07:58 PM	#18
The Bobby Llama Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: EC, WI Posts: 87	Hi guys, Back when I was a theist I arrived at an answer to this paradox that I don't think has been covered here yet. I'll go over it briefly for the sake of argument: Suppose God exists outside of time and space. If he exists outside of time and space then he wouldn't be stuck in the same linear progression of time that we are. Thus omniscience and free choice wouldn't have to be mutually exclusive for him. Sound feasible?

08-26-2002, 08:10 PM	#19
Christopher Lord Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 808	that is the only way. if he was in a seperate plane, understanding EVERYTHING about our universe but merely a mortal in his own. IF (an omnimax) god existed, he would have to be outside of our own universe, but this is basically the DEIST position, which I cant argue against. (feel free to be a deist, its just not my cup of tea)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.