Douglas J. Bender

K,

That's not what I've done. In fact, the burden is upon you to show that a probability of zero for an event implies it is "logically impossible" for that event to occur. You have not done so, and I've given you a specific and valid counterexample. Your argument would also essentially entail that since there is no actual "infinity", all arguments involving "infinity" are invalid.

In Christ,

Douglas

K

Douglas:

I've never claimed that an event with probability zero is logically impossible. I have made two claims:

1. An event with probability zero of occurring can not occur.

2. As a refutation to your counterexample, I claimed and demonstrated that choosing one value from an infinite number of choices all with equal probability is a concept that holds no meaning. It is logically impossible.

No, arguments that use infinity can be perfectly valid. If you'll notice, I've made several myself. However, arguments that use infinity as a substitution for a finite number are not valid. It seems to me that all the claims of examples of probability zero events occurring reduce to this one error. Infinity is not a number and can not simply be treated as if it were.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: K ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

Omniscience does not remove the ability to make decisions. By the way, define "real ability". In one sense, God has the "real ability" to commit evil; in another sense, because of His character, He never could commit evil. On the other hand, God doesn't have, in any sense, the "real ability" to make Himself to have never existed. Would this mean He was therefore not "omnipotent"? I don't know why atheists have not mentioned this latter point before, given some of the other points they attempt to make.

What?

Sorry, but that's not the "Christian definition of evil". Try, rather, "love does no harm to its neighbor".

Not so. Everything God does is "good", but only because "love" is defined to be "good", and God is love and never acts contrary to the "requirements" of love. Again, "good" is that which acts in accordance with "love", and evil is anything which does not; and, "love does no harm to its neighbor", as well as, "Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil [does not meditate on or plan harm to others]; does not rejoice in iniquity [any of the above], but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things".


No, it does not. Calvinists and non-Calvinists have debated this for years, with the Calvinists claiming that there is no such thing as "free will". Besides, how does KNOWING what someone's actions will be predetermine those actions? Take a "finite", hypothetical, example: Imagine you had a son, and you happened to know for a fact what he would do, very specifically, one particular Friday, and that you knew this a week in advance. When your son was confronted with various choices on that Friday, would you then say that he had no free will in those choices, or just that you happened to know beforehand what he would freely choose?

No, it would be somewhat like you or I trying to imagine what a person who murders for thrills is thinking - it doesn't mean we approve of, or would desire to commit, such things.

Foreknowledge is not equivalent to predeterminating. I can say that I know that I will never physically torture someone for their faith, yet that does not mean that I am precluded from doing so because of some "preordination". I am perfectly free in regards to my choice in the matter, but because of who I am (my character as it is), there is no possibility of my making the choice to physically torture someone for their faith.

Again, foreknowledge does not equal predetermination.

The Bible, which is what this thread is trying to show is inconsistent in its teaching that God has "free will" yet will never or could never commit certain acts (of evil). In order to show that it is inconsistent, you must assume what it says to be true to be true, and then show that this results in a logical or factual contradiction. Thus, since the Bible says that God is perfectly benevolent and just, and perfectly "love", it follows from the requirements of logic that you must assume this to be true, and then attempt to show a contradiction with one of the other Biblical teachings (God's free will, or His "inability" to commit evil).

Once again, omniscience does not preclude free will.

No. God knew beforehand that He would eventually "regret" that He had made the world, but He also knew beforehand how He would deal with the world's sins. Thus, the Flood and Noah's Ark. God's "regret" involves reaching a point, in response to the choices made in time, of desiring to start anew, and He does so with Noah.

In Christ,

Douglas

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Jerry Love

Of course it does, and I have explained why. If I know tomorrow I will choose to eat pizza there are two possabilities.

1. I can choose not to eat pizza; meaning that my previous knowledge was incorrect.
2. I cannot choose not to eat pizza; meaning I really have no choice in the process.

"Real ability" means that the ability is actually there; as opposed to "but can't because..." potential abilities.

The reason that God cannot commit evil is because of the definition of evil (against the will of God). Any non-God-based standardof good and evil would find things like the genocide of the hittites, or the killing of the firstborn of Egypt, or the flooding of the world "evil".

Because anyone who pushes that definition of omnipotence is too ignorant to make the discussion worthwile. The only even concievable working definition is "can do anything that can be done". All other definitions are self-refuting.

God cannot choose to not eat the pizza he knows he is going to eat without denying his omnicient knowledge that he would eat it.

When God floded the world and killed every man, woman, child, and fetus. Would that be "harm"? When God commanded the Isrealites, having defeated their foes, to "kill every man, child,and woman who has born a child; while sparing the women who had not born children for themselves", was that "harm"? When God handed Job to Satan to have his family murdered, his posessions destroied, and himself tortured to prove a point, was that "harm"? When God destroied egyptian soldiers with a pillar of flame, destroyed the tower of Babal, destroied Sodom, created pain and death for Adam and Eve, commanded that womn marry ther rapists and that unruly kids be stoned to death, was that "harm"?

Envy? Is that like Jealousy? "For I am a jealous God"? Is "puffed up" like "glorified"?

How can it not?

If there is absolutely no chance that he can choose differently? Then he has no freewill.

God killing for thrills would not be murder. For it to be murder, it must be unlawful. Laws reflect the will of God. It would be neccessairy for God to break his own will (to want to do what he doesn't want to do) in order to turn killing into murder.

God kills a lot.

You don't truely have foreknowledge though do you? You are just making an educated guess. I can make likely guess all I want. The fact is, omniscience requies a future that is static, rather than in flux. A static future can have no "free" decision making. Only fixed brancs.

I have a robot programmed to shut down at 5:00. It shuts down at 5:00. Did it have freewill because it (in its logic) "decided" to shut down at 5:00? Of course not.

Again, omniscience does. True freknowledge does.

You repeated the claim that God is said by the Bible to be benevolent. Can you please cite the scripture?

So then, considering omniscience, God must have regretted creation before he created it.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Jerry Love ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

Jerry Love,

Not so. The correct description and "formulation" should be, rather:

"If I know that tomorrow I will freely choose to eat pizza, then there are two possibilities:

1. I can choose not to eat pizza, but I won't - thus, I will eat pizza; meaning that my previous knowledge was correct.
2. I cannot choose not to eat pizza, and I will eat pizza; meaning I really have no choice in the process, and my previous knowledge was incorrect (since I thought I would have a free will choice to choose to eat or not eat pizza)."

Thus, with option #1, there is no contradiction of free will because of foreknowledge.


In Christ,

Douglas

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Principia

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Jerry Love

You've made my point. You've demonstrated with #2 that there is no real freewill. That's like saying "I choose to fall" when falling suddenly turns gravity into a decision.

Jobar

DJB:
we are assuming the Bible true in all respects regarding God

No, we are NOT.

If the Bible were true in all respects, we would not be having this argument- as the Bible states specifically that the Lord brings peace and creates evil. In Isaiah, I believe.

No, we are arguing what I like to call the apologist's God- who is truly omnibenevolent, and does not will the existence of evil.

In other words, a totally self-contradictory God.

B. H. Manners

I'm by no means assuming the Bible true in all respects nor will I do so just because a theist tells me I have to.

Douglas J. Bender

No, I have not, since you have not shown that option #2 is actually what obtains or occurs. What I demonstrated is that there are two logical possibilities, and there is as yet no reason to assume that one is invalid or disproved.

In Christ,

Douglas