|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Omniscience, Omnipotence, the Fall & Logical Contradictions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: By "reasonably well established" I think you mean "commonly assumed". It's certainyl nto established on any evidential rounds.
quote: If your assumption makes it impossible for God to change His mind then it contradicts the Bible, which does depict God as changing his mind. So it looks as if Dawkins has a point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
It's about "plausible deniability", Mark.
If you think aobut it the Fall has to be a set-up - and God has to be responsible. But believers usually don't think about that and place the blame on Adam and Eve. If God created the universe with the Fall already there they wouldn't be able to evade the fact of God's responsiiblity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: I don't believe that that is true.
quote: How about in the point of view where He says that He is going to do something and then decides not to do it ? Either He wasn't going to do it - and was lying when he said that He did (which is obviously unacceptable to virtually every Christian) or He really did intend to do it, but changed his mind in the perfectly ordinary sense of the word. If your claim about God existing in "timeless eternity" doesn't allow God to change His mind in that sense then it contradicts the Bible. If it does then how does it contradict Dawkins' point ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: And if you read your own link you'll see that the whole subject is under debate, and also draws in another unresolved debate over the nature of time. So it's not "well established" in the sense that evolution is - it's just a common, but heavily debated view which cannot be shown to be true.
quote: No, the problem is that your views make no sense. I'll agree that it is common for Christianty to make no sense, which is just one reason I am not a Christian.
quote: So God is timeless except when He isn't and doesn't change His mind excpet when He does. Not exactly a useful contribution to the debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote:But - when the debate has not been - and cannot be - resolved you certainly can't that it is established as true. Instead it is as I said - a common assumption. quote: I think that that isn't what you meant to say. But the fact is that you have managed no coherent explanation of how your views allow God to change His mind as the Bible says that he does, nor have you actually managed to explain how your objection is relevant to Dawkins' argument.
quote: Which is true only in the sense that ones faith must override reason so that the problems may be ignored.
quote: Let me know when you manage to do so, in a way that is relevant to Dawkins' argument. SO far you have failed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: On the contrary, it's the distinction I made right at the start.
quote: So your argument essentially amounts to claiming that our ideas of Go contradict themselves but nevertheless we should not reject them just because they cannot possibley be true.
quote: IIRC someone - perhaps Mark Twain - said "Faith is beleving what you know aint'so" or something similar. It appears that you agree. The purpose of models is to explain and enlighten - your "3D model" serves the purpose of obfuscation. Too right I'm not interested in it - and you shouldn't be either. Not if you're intellectually honest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
I never said that "omniscience = no free will". The question we were discussing was whether God could change His mind. If God is eternal and timeless then God never changes and is thus unable to change His mind. Such a change requires temporality.
quote: Your argument was that Dawkins was incorrect. And you failed to even make a coherent case because you got caught up in the self-contradictions of your theology. Looks like a point to "Sir Dickie".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
So basically Free Will is just "plausible deniability" a cunning way of hiding responsibility. If God is truly omniscient he knew exactly what Lucifer would do if created as he was. All of it. In that case God is MORE responsible for Lucifer's actions than Lucifer is !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Why would I drag Adam and Eve int it ? And why would you think that I would when I have already stated the point:
If God is truly omniscient he knew exactly what Lucifer would do if created as he was. All of it.
We are responsible for even reasonably forseeable consequences of our actions. How much more responsible must we be for consequences that we knew would inevitably happen.
quote: And I am saying that God is responsible for events that inevitably follow from his decisions - and that he knows in advance will inevitably follow. Omnipotence makes it even worse. Since God is limited only by logical necessity he has very fine control over what happens. So your lesson is not one in accepting responsibility - it is one about finding excuses - to DENY responsibility. Free Will or not, the creations of an omniscient and omnipotent creator are in a very real sense the puppets of their creator. Therefore the creator bears the primary responsibility for the actions of his creations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: It's worse than that. If your God exists, then by creating the Universe as he did and intervening as he did he's dictated every event in the Universe that has ever happened in the universe, including every free will decision. Every single one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Again you're simply ignoring the issue of the creators's responsibility for the actions of the creation. If I am to have primary responsibility I have to be able to make decisions which weren't dictated by God. And given an omniscient omnipotent creator that just isn't possible.
quote: Of course it is logical that Lucifer would use a valid and truthful defence if it was available to him. That doesn't make it any less valid or truthful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: No, it isn't. It's more that you have to actually refute my argument rather than assert that Lucifer could use it. It's said that the Devil can quote scripture. Does that make scripture wrong?
quote: I don't think that preferring strict Monotheism over Dualism would reduce God. In fact that's really the issue here. You would be happier with a reduced God. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Well, the truth would be, in that case, that God deliberately arranged that choice, leaving no alternative, making the whole idea of calling it rebellion silly. If Lucifer was doing God's will, then how can it be rebellion? You could avoid the dilemma by losing omniscience, so that God could not know that Lucifer would rebel - it still comes down to an implausible mistake on God's part but omnipotence is not infallibility. If you lose omnipotence as well your theology just about becomes viable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: I don't think it does. What do you mean by "choosing or rejecting Jesus Christ" and what sort of responsibility are you talking about ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18047 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: No, it is a central issue. If God knew before creating Satan, that Satan (if he was created as he was) would inevitably rebel then God has the primary responsibility. God chose the rebellion and all its effects and nobody else could possibly stop it. The evil was not just potential - it was guaranteed, and knowingly guaranteed by God's choices.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025