Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WWSD · 01-31-2003, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by malpensante
wwsd:
the bible does show a god who appears to be ignorant of at least some aspects of the future (for example, when he reacts with surprise or anger to someone's deeds, or when he needs to see some patriarch about to kill his son in order to believe that the patriarch is willing to do it for his faith).

Indeed, I am aware of these examples. But I was asking for a biblical basis for the idea that god actually limits himself. The passages that you refer to show a limited god, but do not show that it is by his own action that he is limiting himself.

some say he actually mimics that partial ignorance about the future in order to be a better moral teacher. i prefer the theory that he is mutably omniscient (clifford pickover's concept). imagine a guy called max, created by god. can max do something that only max knows he did it? if god is omniscient, no. but if god is mutably omniscient, there is no paradox that an omniscient can not create max, for god could have been omniscient when he created max(but perhaps uncurious about some specifical act by max), and become mutably omniscient, or ignorant, about max's deed when max performs it. some say that the power of omniscience is not the same as actual omniscience. that god can choose to know something, doesn't mean he has to have all that can be known in mind all the time.

Interesting ideas, but they are still ascribing values to this god that no one can be sure of. Does scripture specifically teach the above scenario?

And, indeed, muting one's omniscience limits the range of actions one can take in a gioven situation, and limited actions are limited potential, thus this god is not omnipotent unless he is omniscient.

WWSD · 01-31-2003, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spurly
I think this comment is interesting. So are you sayign that if people have ministerpreted God in the past, we are stuck with that misinterpretation instead of looking for the truth about God?

I think this works both ways. Who says the new definitions aren't the erroneous ones?
Can you afford to take the risk of redefining the god concept wrongly?

And what happened to those who misinterpreted god in the past?

Furthermore how does one judge what interpretations are correct and which ones are mistaken given that everyone has the same set of data (divinely inspired data at that)?

This idea of redefining god seems a little silly to me. Why could not have god done the job right in the first place instead of leaving the task to his admittedly limited creations?

Jamie_L · 01-31-2003, 01:12 PM

Accepting that your internal feelings about what God is like are an acceptable source of information about God is the first step to atheism.

I spent years making up a God concept in my head that would be compatible with the world I observed. Then I figured out that I was just making things up, and it was silly for me to think it had any bearing on reality. What made more since was to assume my observations about reality had bearing on reality.

Jamie

Wiploc · 02-01-2003, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wordsmyth
Omnipotence requires omniscience.

That's like saying you can't have eyes unless you've got them open. Omnipotence includes the power to be omniscient, but it doesn't imply that the power has necessarily been exercised.

Quote:

[BA being cannot perform an action that requires a knowledge that that being lacks. The greater a beings lack of knowledge, the greater the impotence of action wheresoever that knowledge is a prerequisite.

While the claim that the xian God is not actually omniscient might appear to aid the "free-will" defense, it simultaneously countermands its alleged omnipotence. [/B]

The traditional Christian god (tCg) is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

The Problem of Evil (PoE) points out that the tCg cannot exist in a world with suffering.

The Free-will Defense (f-wD) is a lame attempt to confuse people into not noticing that the PoE is true.

Giving up the tCg in favor of a weaker, meaner, or less knowledgeable god is surrendering to the PoE. Don't describe it as an "aid" to f-wD. The f-wD has nothing to do with punk gods. It is relevent only to the tCg.
crc

Wiploc · 02-01-2003, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spurly
he chooses to use his omnipotence to limit his omniscience. Kevin

God is a glue-sniffer?

crc

SecularFuture · 02-01-2003, 01:00 PM

Kevin,

Quote:

"So are you saying that if people have misinterpreted God in the past, we are stuck with that misinterpretation instead of looking for the truth about God?"

It doesn�t seem like theists are trying to find the most accurate interpretation for the God they worship anymore. It seems more like they�re trying to reshape the God concept so that it can hold up against the more modern, and founded, scientific concepts about our world.

Quote:

�I will readily admit that men have made errors in the past when trying to give definition to God.�

Okay� This is where I say we should all STOP � START OVER - & RETHINK. Before we try to define God, we should first search for God. Does God exist to begin with? You can learn more about my personal search for God here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=44396

spurly · 02-01-2003, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecularFuture
Kevin,

Okay� This is where I say we should all STOP � START OVER - & RETHINK. Before we try to define God, we should first search for God. Does God exist to begin with? You can learn more about my personal search for God here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=44396

SecularFuture,

I have done what you have said for years - searched for God. And I have come to the conclusion that yes, he does exist. And he has revealed himself to us in the Bible.

I realize that not everyone has come to the same conclusion. I hope that they will honstly keep searching.

Kevin

SecularFuture · 02-01-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

"And he has revealed himself to us in the Bible."

How can a BOOK prove the existence of something?! So - if I wanted to make unicorns real, all I would have to do is write a book on it, right?? You can only *believe* that the bible was inspired by the God you *believe* to be real. There is no proof for any of your claims. And no - I do not hold the burden of proof; you do. You are making a positive claim without giving any rational, or logical, evidence to support the claim.

WWSD · 02-01-2003, 07:20 PM

Quote:

I have done what you have said for years - searched for Allah. And I have come to the conclusion that yes, he does exist. And he has revealed himself to us in the Qu'ran.

I realize that not everyone has come to the same conclusion. I hope that they will honstly keep searching.

It all really amounts to the same thing doesn't it? It's your claim of personal experience vs. another's and neither holds any real world evidence.

the_cave · 02-15-2003, 02:47 PM

I'm somewhat surprised this thread has fallen into disuse...

Why _shouldn't_ we consider coherent meanings of words like omniscient, omnibenevolent, and so forth? Philosophers are always debating terms and models which, on the face of it, seem absurd to non-philosophers. Yet even the most secular institutions support philosophy. And even the most secular philosophers debate such terms (witness the existence of this website...)

Perhaps the purveyors of "open theology" are largely made up by liberal theologians attempting to shore up their beliefs...or perhaps not. But so what if they are? Why should a decent idea be discarded simply because the motivations of its originators are considered suspect by some? Good ideas can come from anywhere.

Surely the only reason to disregard philosophical theology would be disinterest in its subject. But that has nothing to do with the validity of such arguments.

I find that the assumption is indeed pervasive on this board that the term "God" denotes only the orthodox Judeo-Christian concept of a deity. This seems to me to be a trivialization of theistic perspectives--a kind of straw-man, in other words.

Where are the threads on original ideas about being-ness, or the meaningfulness of human existence, or, indeed, the character of the cosmos itself? Surely, all these have a place on an atheism website, just as they would on a theistic website.

To me, open theology (and any other such radical theology) is a fine way of pursuing difficult questions about the attributes of real objects (such as the universe...and whatever it might be.) And one I myself feel some affinity towards (but then, I am a theist).

In other words, why _aren't_ we debating the meaning of terms like God? Surely, defining one's terms is the first step towards good debate.

02-15-2003, 02:47 PM	#50
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	_really_ free thought... I'm somewhat surprised this thread has fallen into disuse... Why _shouldn't_ we consider coherent meanings of words like omniscient, omnibenevolent, and so forth? Philosophers are always debating terms and models which, on the face of it, seem absurd to non-philosophers. Yet even the most secular institutions support philosophy. And even the most secular philosophers debate such terms (witness the existence of this website...) Perhaps the purveyors of "open theology" are largely made up by liberal theologians attempting to shore up their beliefs...or perhaps not. But so what if they are? Why should a decent idea be discarded simply because the motivations of its originators are considered suspect by some? Good ideas can come from anywhere. Surely the only reason to disregard philosophical theology would be disinterest in its subject. But that has nothing to do with the validity of such arguments. I find that the assumption is indeed pervasive on this board that the term "God" denotes only the orthodox Judeo-Christian concept of a deity. This seems to me to be a trivialization of theistic perspectives--a kind of straw-man, in other words. Where are the threads on original ideas about being-ness, or the meaningfulness of human existence, or, indeed, the character of the cosmos itself? Surely, all these have a place on an atheism website, just as they would on a theistic website. To me, open theology (and any other such radical theology) is a fine way of pursuing difficult questions about the attributes of real objects (such as the universe...and whatever it might be.) And one I myself feel some affinity towards (but then, I am a theist). In other words, why _aren't_ we debating the meaning of terms like God? Surely, defining one's terms is the first step towards good debate.

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

01-31-2003, 01:12 PM	#43
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Accepting that your internal feelings about what God is like are an acceptable source of information about God is the first step to atheism. I spent years making up a God concept in my head that would be compatible with the world I observed. Then I figured out that I was just making things up, and it was silly for me to think it had any bearing on reality. What made more since was to assume my observations about reality had bearing on reality. Jamie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.