332 replies to this topic

[OrdinaryClay]

Seeker79, on 19 October 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

There can be no free will with omniscience.So which is it? Omniscience or freewill. The existence of omniscience ensures a deterministic universe.

Funny thing is that I believe in a great spirit, but not the devil of Abraham.

Omniscience does not logically contradict free will. Knowing something will happen is not the same as forcing it to happen. The difference is clear. A barometer anticipates the weather, but does not create it. God knows unfailingly what will happen, but we still have the free will to make our choices in life. God cannot force a free will agent to do something. That is a logical contradiction.

[Arbitran]

OrdinaryClay, on 20 October 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:

Omniscience does not logically contradict free will. Knowing something will happen is not the same as forcing it to happen. The difference is clear. A barometer anticipates the weather, but does not create it. God knows unfailingly what will happen, but we still have the free will to make our choices in life. God cannot force a free will agent to do something. That is a logical contradiction.

Omniscience on its own is logically permissible; omniscience + omnipotence and/or omnibenevolence is not. A being which knew when something terrible was going to happen, and had infinite power with which to prevent it, and yet did not, cannot be omnibenevolent. A being which, with infinite power, brings into being all things (as god[s] are purported to do), and yet does so in full knowledge that some of those things created will serve no purpose, and will instead play out entirely miserable, painful existences, is nothing other than a sadist. One of the most monstrous sadists which could possibly exist: creating life, merely to let it be tormented for the entirety of its existence. The attributes given to god[s] are simply logically inconsistent, when taken as a whole. As I began: omniscience alone is not out of the question (though logically impossible to prove beyond sheer hypothetical: how does one go about proving that he/she knows everything?), but omniscience in tandem with omnipotence and/or omnibenevolence are simply self-contradictory, by definition.

[OrdinaryClay]

Arbitran, on 20 October 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

Omniscience on its own is logically permissible; omniscience + omnipotence and/or omnibenevolence is not. A being which knew when something terrible was going to happen, and had infinite power with which to prevent it, and yet did not, cannot be omnibenevolent. A being which, with infinite power, brings into being all things (as god[s] are purported to do), and yet does so in full knowledge that some of those things created will serve no purpose, and will instead play out entirely miserable, painful existences, is nothing other than a sadist. One of the most monstrous sadists which could possibly exist: creating life, merely to let it be tormented for the entirety of its existence. The attributes given to god[s] are simply logically inconsistent, when taken as a whole. As I began: omniscience alone is not out of the question (though logically impossible to prove beyond sheer hypothetical: how does one go about proving that he/she knows everything?), but omniscience in tandem with omnipotence and/or omnibenevolence are simply self-contradictory, by definition.

You've trotting out the refuted notion of the problem of evil.

First, God has chosen to give us free will. It is logically impossible for Him to force us to make choices and maintain our free will. He is omnibenevolent in that He offers us, completely free, salvation from our sinful choices, but WE must choose to accept this offer. This is truly omnibenevolent.

Second, you have no evidence whatsoever that humanity would make any better choices if our world was completely free from physical suffering. On the contrary, we have every indication that if we had no suffering humanity would be far more self centered and hedonistic than it already is. Physical suffering is not evil. Evil comes from the hearts of free willed beings. Evil is the absence of the will of God.

[Arbitran]

OrdinaryClay, on 20 October 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

You've trotting out the refuted notion of the problem of evil.

Not precisely. The problem of evil certainly touches on the same principles, but I was exclusively responding to the question of the logical consistency/viability of omniscience/omnipotence/omnibenevolence.

OrdinaryClay, on 20 October 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

First, God has chosen to give us free will. It is logically impossible for Him to force us to make choices and maintain our free will.

If he is supposed to be omniscient, then he already knows what choices we'll make; therefore, based on this prospect (an intrinsic property of omniscience), those of us who make poor choices, he created from the beginning specifically to make those choices. Which begs the question: why did he bother creating those people, whom he would ultimately condemn to hell, in the first place?

OrdinaryClay, on 20 October 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

He is omnibenevolent in that He offers us, completely free, salvation from our sinful choices, but WE must choose to accept this offer. This is truly omnibenevolent.

Salvation from the sadomasochistic torments which he would himself have ordinarily subjected us to? That isn't benevolent in the least, let alone omnibenevolent. That's blackmail, not mercy.

OrdinaryClay, on 20 October 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

Second, you have no evidence whatsoever that humanity would make any better choices if our world was completely free from physical suffering. On the contrary, we have every indication that if we had no suffering humanity would be far more self centered and hedonistic than it already is.

Freedom from suffering = humanity making better choices. Your statement in self-contradictory.

And please, enlighten us all with the "every indication" you refer to. The suggestion that a lack of suffering correlates to solipsism is a bald non-sequitur; in any case, it wouldn't matter in the least if people were more hedonistic in a world free of suffering, now would it?  

OrdinaryClay, on 20 October 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

Physical suffering is not evil. Evil comes from the hearts of free willed beings. Evil is the absence of the will of God.

I did not say that physical suffering was evil. As you say, evil comes from willing beings; if your god is a willing being, and behaves as your religion claims he does, then he can be said to be nothing other than the source of the most superb evil.

[Seeker79]

SpiritWriter, on 20 October 2012 - 05:11 AM, said:

I believe in a great spirit and the father of Abraham I know some have their 'specific' Gods. But I think that those in Judo-christian etc. religions seek after the most high God. It may have been another entity to begin with that absolved into that hierarchy throughout history, but that doesn't mean Abraham, did not converse with the supreme being - whatever you want to call it. I know I'm different, but the notion of the Abrahamic God does not bother me.

It's the spirit of spirituality that bothers me. It's the absolute belief in story telling that in my opinion misrepresents the great spirit and anything truthfully spiritual that may have occurred.  I believe Abraham might have been a real spiritual person at some point. But the stories that erupt from such and the telling of the character of the god, I think is about man and his problems. Most religions trace their roots back to Somone who probably was a very connected person, but then their messages are twisted to fit the manipulationd of men. I don't think the judeo god has better traits than some  of the others, strictly observing what the bible says any way. Wankan tanka of the Lokota would be a much better choice in my opinion. Middle eastern mythology dosn't have any apeal to me.

Edited by Seeker79, 20 October 2012 - 10:12 AM.

[SpiritWriter]

In meditation once I felt I met Abraham. We were standing on a high cliff looking over a lush valley. He extended his arm outward and said to me: There is a promise land...

I don't know if these things are private and I should keep it to myself.. It's just that Abraham came up so I guess I don't mind sharing that..

Edited by SpiritWriter, 20 October 2012 - 03:33 PM.

[orangepeaceful79]

SpiritWriter, on 20 October 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

In meditation once I felt I met Abraham. We were standing on a high cliff looking over a lush valley. He extended his arm outward and said to me: There is a promise land...

I don't know if these things are private and I should keep it to myself.. It's just that Abraham came up so I guess I don't mind sharing that..

Its your choice whether to share or not.  What you experience as matters of faith are personal and yours alone.  I hope that no one here would seek to demean that, whether any of us share your viewpoint or not.   If your religious/spiritual experiences cause you to believe that there is a God of Abraham and that he will lead you to the promised land, then that sounds like a pretty positive thing in your life.  I applaud that.  So long as your beliefs don't demean or impinge upon the beliefs or non-beliefs of others I personally have no problem with your public testimonial.

[OrdinaryClay]

Arbitran, on 20 October 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

Not precisely. The problem of evil certainly touches on the same principles, but I was exclusively responding to the question of the logical consistency/viability of omniscience/omnipotence/omnibenevolence.

That is the reason critics claim for stating the "Problem of Evil". The goal of the critic, in this case you, is to attempt to build a contradiction. Philosophers break the question into to two parts. One, is there a logical contradiction, and two is there a probabilistic contradiction, or is there a reasonable explanation for why God created a world in which there is suffering and free willed agents who commit evil.

My two part response in my prior post was a brief answer to both cases.

A response to the problem of evil is called a theodicy. https://www.google.c...efine: theodicy

I personally prefer William Lane Craig's response.

https://www.google.c...problem of evil

I'm a molinist. God possesses middle knowledge that allows Him to have foreknown all potential universes He could have created including how each one of His free willed creations would have chosen
given all possible scenarios. I believe He chose the universe in which the optimum number of people would freely choose His salvation. That this is logically possible shows that there is no logical
contradiction.  

This brief discussion does a very good job of describing why there is no probabilistic problem of evil: http://www.youtube.c...0HD0CxgI#t=320s

1) It is impossible for the human mind to conceive of the information needed to determine if God does not have sufficient reason to create Evil
2) We exist not to please ourselves, but to submit to the will of God. It is our self delusion to believe our purpose is our own happiness. Simply knowing our Creator, and worshipping Him is the ultimate good.

Edited by OrdinaryClay, 20 October 2012 - 03:56 PM.

[OrdinaryClay]

Seeker79, on 20 October 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

It's the spirit of spirituality that bothers me. It's the absolute belief in story telling that in my opinion misrepresents the great spirit and anything truthfully spiritual that may have occurred.  I believe Abraham might have been a real spiritual person at some point. But the stories that erupt from such and the telling of the character of the god, I think is about man and his problems. Most religions trace their roots back to Somone who probably was a very connected person, but then their messages are twisted to fit the manipulationd of men. I don't think the judeo god has better traits than some  of the others, strictly observing what the bible says any way. Wankan tanka of the Lokota would be a much better choice in my opinion. Middle eastern mythology dosn't have any apeal to me.

You object to story telling then you proceed to tell us a story about somone. shamanism is story telling.

[OrdinaryClay]

orangepeaceful79, on 20 October 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

Its your choice whether to share or not.  What you experience as matters of faith are personal and yours alone.  I hope that no one here would seek to demean that, whether any of us share your viewpoint or not.   If your religious/spiritual experiences cause you to believe that there is a God of Abraham and that he will lead you to the promised land, then that sounds like a pretty positive thing in your life.  I applaud that.  So long as your beliefs don't demean or impinge upon the beliefs or non-beliefs of others I personally have no problem with your public testimonial.

Do you hold your beliefs to the same standard? Do you ensure that your beliefs do not impinge on my beliefs?

[orangepeaceful79]

OrdinaryClay, on 20 October 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

2) We exist not to please ourselves, but to submit to the will of God. It is our self delusion to believe our purpose is our own happiness. Simply knowing our Creator, and worshipping Him is the ultimate good.

I understand that worship is important for many reasons - to connect with that energy that you feel is God as you understand it.  I get that.

What about when people go out and kill in God's name?  I'm sure there are plenty of times throughout history (some are documents in the Bible, others like the Crusades, or really any holy war or killing in any God's name) where people felt compelled to kill others and did so because they said that God told them to.  That could be termed a form of obedience to God, and even worship of him.

How does that fit into worshipping God as being the ultimate good?  Honestly.  I'm not just trying to make an argument on an internet discussion board.  This right here is one of my most fundamental problems with God.  It doesn't make sense to me at all.

I ask this as a purely information seeking question.  Its not a challenge to your belief system.  You seem like a highly knowledgeable person when it comes to Christianity, which I have respect for.

Edited by orangepeaceful79, 20 October 2012 - 04:13 PM.

[orangepeaceful79]

OrdinaryClay, on 20 October 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

Do you hold your beliefs to the same standard? Do you ensure that your beliefs do not impinge on my beliefs?

Has something I said made you feel as though your beliefs were impenged upon?  If so then I apologize, not for my beliefs but the manner in which I have conveyed them.  Quite sincerely.

[SpiritWriter]

orangepeaceful79, on 20 October 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

Its your choice whether to share or not.  What you experience as matters of faith are personal and yours alone.  I hope that no one here would seek to demean that, whether any of us share your viewpoint or not.   If your religious/spiritual experiences cause you to believe that there is a God of Abraham and that he will lead you to the promised land, then that sounds like a pretty positive thing in your life.  I applaud that.  So long as your beliefs don't demean or impinge upon the beliefs or non-beliefs of others I personally have no problem with your public testimonial.

Thank you for saying that. Sometimes I feel that people are quick to say that a 'Christian' (I use this as an example, but I think it is a good one.) is trying to demean or impinge upon others simply by talking out loud about God (or whatever their belief is that is opposite to the company they are in). This makes an atmosphere that makes it difficult for a person to express themselves. Many people have the attitude that if we don't believe like they do that we should just not talk at all. This makes a very shallow society, and furthers segregation and bigotry. We are highly sensitive creatures and get angered easily. We may not need to go around constantly discussing deep topics with total strangers, but I think that we could be a little stronger, not get bent out of shape so easily and have discussions like these with people like: our barber, our child's teacher, our brothers girlfriend etc... Not in the stance that we are trying to convince anyone of anything, but that we wouldn't be afraid, that we would attempt to grow our own awareness about both the oneness we share and the diversity of our world. Meaning that if it were my perfect world, discussions of opposition should not be a problem, it should allow for the opening of the mind rather than a reason to fight. I know that this subject has deep roots, and a small paragraph cannot cover it, there are many things to consider, especially because of its religious nature.

I think in general, without identifying with Groups etc, we live in a world with so many opinions and attitudes of 'correctness' that it is hard for anyone to really get the chance to speak, without ridicule. Our collective experiences and understandings are so vast, and our abilities to understand another, who have been in a completely different place for decades, take a little more patients and understanding that we normally allow. If we only associate with those who act and think like we do, we end up farther in our corners, thinking we are more right, more educated, more privileged (more blessed, more favored?). Having a larger knowledge base of the WHOLE picture, I believe helps us to truly discern what is right and wrong and what our obstacles are as a large group.

I believe I have went into a tangent but I thank you for your reply, because you said something that really hit home for me, and something I think about often.

Edited by SpiritWriter, 20 October 2012 - 04:39 PM.

[Seeker79]

OrdinaryClay, on 20 October 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

You object to story telling then you proceed to tell us a story about somone. shamanism is story telling.

I do not object to story telling oral tradition is very powerful just not to be taken literal. But you completely missinderstand shamanism. Shamanism is about direct experience of the divine. Every group has its myths and stories, but at their core lies an experience. Even Christianity has this. The portrayed life of Christ has a tremendous amount of shamanic parallels, so does the life of mosses. Of course the word "shaman" is just a modern word based off of shaman in siberia. In fact, Jesus, if he existed was basically a Jewish mystic, just as a native American shaman were mystics for their particular group. Quite obviously the interpretations of the divine are going to be tainted by culture. That's the way that conciousness works...... Context.

Edited by Seeker79, 20 October 2012 - 04:34 PM.

[Seeker79]

SpiritWriter, on 20 October 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

In meditation once I felt I met Abraham. We were standing on a high cliff looking over a lush valley. He extended his arm outward and said to me: There is a promise land...

I don't know if these things are private and I should keep it to myself.. It's just that Abraham came up so I guess I don't mind sharing that..

Sounds like a wonderful vision. I agree the promise land is still out there. I actually think its right under our feat.

Edited by Seeker79, 20 October 2012 - 04:46 PM.