Believing Jesus faith ,Jesus,believe

[Bikerman 2]

Subject-to does not necessarily imply pre-dating, especially if we assume that the "laws of logic" are dependent on our spacetime (though this assumption is not required anyway). I wouldn't think it unreasonable, though, to believe that God instilled logic within us for us to notice and put to use (to say that conscious effort is required for the use of logic).

Well, yes it does - certainly in this case. If God is subject to (ie unable to change) the laws of Logic then it follows that they exist 'outside' God and must, therefore, be eternal, if God is eternal - otherwise God would have once been free to act illogically but can now no longer do so - which would destroy the notion of omnipotence.

For "proof 1." Eventhough omnipotence is irrelevant as to whether or not God need(n't) create, if we are to use terms like virtue?to imply (high) moral standards?, we would realize the accusation of evil placed on God is unjustified. For simply bearing knowledge of something does not automatically place responsibility on God just 'cause one course of action lead to something deemed dreadful. For if intentions were to be disregarded out of any accusation, i cannot agree that any formal justice or criticism of the situation has occurred. Further evidence of false accusation is seen when reading "he did create." On the contrary, what He did create was a creature pure and without sin ("in His image"). Just 'cause this very creature eventually committed wrong does not mean that God created an evil creature.

a) God is omniscient and omnipotent. It therefore follows that at the moment of creation God could foresee every action and event within that creation. God could have created a universe in which some things did not happen. Therefore, since God created the current universe, in full knowledge of all the outcomes, God IS directly responsible for everything that happens.

For "proof 2." How so? Can He not make you hate Him with your own free will? How does that mean He cannot make you love Him with your own free will?

No he cannot. I choose to love or hate him. If he can over-ride my choice then free-will is an illusion and the justification for God creating evil is therefore destroyed.

For "proof 3." So Him knowing that His omnipotence will cause or change the future is not possible for Him? I am curious as to how His own knowledge of His own actions prohibit Him from making use of His omnipotence to make a change in the future. Do you mean He cannot take back a potential action due to His knowledge? Is it not the case that knowledge given from omniscience makes potential actions irrelevant? So why would we consider potential actions for omniscience? Whatever it is that you meant, i'll leave for your response.

If God knows that event X will happen in the future at time T, and God then changes things so that event X does not happen at time T, then his previous 'knowledge' was WRONG and he did not know what would actually happen at time T - therefore he was never omniscient.

[truefusion 3]

Well, yes it does - certainly in this case. If God is subject to (ie unable to change) the laws of Logic then it follows that they exist 'outside' God and must, therefore, be eternal, if God is eternal - otherwise God would have once been free to act illogically but can now no longer do so - which would destroy the notion of omnipotence.

Ah, i can see the confusion now. You define "subject to" as "unable to be changed by;" i define "subject to" as "can be applied to." Therefore, while logic is dependent on a (requiring the existence of a) conscious entity, it can be applied to practically anything.

a) God is omniscient and omnipotent. It therefore follows that at the moment of creation God could foresee every action and event within that creation. God could have created a universe in which some things did not happen. Therefore, since God created the current universe, in full knowledge of all the outcomes, God IS directly responsible for everything that happens.

God would only be responsible if He takes part in every evil act caused by the creatures He created, as if by supporting evil acts. What you are suggesting is like saying: I built a chair to sit on it, i am therefore responsible for the actions of anyone who uses the chair to beat someone with it, knowing fully that any object can be used to hurt someone.

No he cannot. I choose to love or hate him. If he can over-ride my choice then free-will is an illusion and the justification for God creating evil is therefore destroyed.

I'm not even omnipotent and i am capable of churning your emotions. I can only imagine what God is capable of doing if He so willed. Perhaps you are overthinking on the concept of free will to realize that people lack more control over themselves than they thought they did. You may be able to train yourself to remain stable when conversing with people, but the fact that anyone even requires training says much about self control and, therefore, free will. Then again, Who knows if all the training in the world could overcome what God can dish out.

If God knows that event X will happen in the future at time T, and God then changes things so that event X does not happen at time T, then his previous 'knowledge' was WRONG and he did not know what would actually happen at time T - therefore he was never omniscient.

Indeed, potential events. You cannot define omniscience as knowing everything and then go on to say that by changing an event God no longer knows everything. Where did that knowledge disappear to? It didn't go anywhere, for by definition omniscience means to know, to lack ignorance. Simply acting does not make knowledge disappear. You require ignorance in order for that to happen, but omniscience contradicts ignorance; ignorance does not fit within omniscience. It is absurd to say that you can become ignorant or wrong in knowledge by "changing" a course of action when you know all possible outcomes anyway.

[Bikerman 2]

Ah, i can see the confusion now. You define "subject to" as "unable to be changed by;" i define "subject to" as "can be applied to." Therefore, while logic is dependent on a (requiring the existence of a) conscious entity, it can be applied to practically anything.

Why do you think logic is dependant on consciousness? Do you think that things happen illogically when nobody is looking?

God would only be responsible if He takes part in every evil act caused by the creatures He created, as if by supporting evil acts. What you are suggesting is like saying: I built a chair to sit on it, i am therefore responsible for the actions of anyone who uses the chair to beat someone with it, knowing fully that any object can be used to hurt someone.

Nope, that defence doesn't hold. God CREATED the universe, God therefore created the evil and did nothing to stop it. In any judicial system in the world that counts as guilty. God could have chosen to create a universe where those particular evils did NOT happen, so by creating a universe where they DID happen he is directly and culpably responsible for them.

I'm not even omnipotent and i am capable of churning your emotions. I can only imagine what God is capable of doing if He so willed. Perhaps you are overthinking on the concept of free will to realize that people lack more control over themselves than they thought they did. You may be able to train yourself to remain stable when conversing with people, but the fact that anyone even requires training says much about self control and, therefore, free will. Then again, Who knows if all the training in the world could overcome what God can dish out.

No, God cannot make me believe against my will because if he could do so then he would loose any excuse for evil in the world. The only way which Christians can justify the presence of evil is by saying that it is necessary if there is to be free-will. But if free-will is not absolute and God can change it then there is no need for evil and God therefore becomes a monster..

Indeed, potential events. You cannot define omniscience as knowing everything and then go on to say that by changing an event God no longer knows everything. Where did that knowledge disappear to? It didn't go anywhere, for by definition omniscience means to know, to lack ignorance. Simply acting does not make knowledge disappear. You require ignorance in order for that to happen, but omniscience contradicts ignorance; ignorance does not fit within omniscience. It is absurd to say that you can become ignorant or wrong in knowledge by "changing" a course of action when you know all possible outcomes anyway.

It is not at all absurd. If I know that when I throw this cricket ball, it will hit the wall opposite, and then suddenly the wall falls down, my knowledge is now not knowledge anymore, it is faulty assertion.
If God knows everything that will happen, and then those things do not happen, then what he 'knows' is in fact wrong. God can know every possible outcome, but that does not help, since it doesn't determine WHICH possible outcome will occur. I know that if I roll a dice I will get 1,2,3,4,5 or 6. I don't know WHICH I will get. If God DOES know which I will get then it follows absolutely that God cannot do anything to change that result, otherwise his 'knowledge' of what I would roll was in fact not knowledge at all, but error.

[truefusion 3]

Why do you think logic is dependant on consciousness? Do you think that things happen illogically when nobody is looking?

In the same way perception requires a conscious, so does logic. You could say logic is dependant on perception, seeing that logic is itself a thought process, as logic is formulated based on what is perceived. You can't have an observer without a conscious.

Nope, that defence doesn't hold. God CREATED the universe, God therefore created the evil and did nothing to stop it. In any judicial system in the world that counts as guilty. God could have chosen to create a universe where those particular evils did NOT happen, so by creating a universe where they DID happen he is directly and culpably responsible for them.

I am uncertain of what kind of judicial system you live under, but, going back to my chair builder analogy, being declared guilty simply because, for example, the person did not nail the chair to the ground, or whatever, i find absurd. That's like saying those who were robbed are just as guilty of robbery as those who robbed them. If the rules are injected with exceptions for a being simply because this being has greater potential than a human, then i would claim this judicial system to be inconsistent.
The judicial system i know, unless corrupt, could never declare someone guilty of a crime they didn't commit. In this assumed case, you (the plaintiff) are accusing God of an act He didn't commit. Arguing that simply creating humans God should be declared guilty of sin is not a(n) (winning) argument. In order for you to have evidence against God, you would have to show that God created humans for the sole purpose of committing sin. This is impossible for you, and it is Biblically shown that God didn't create them for them to commit sin. In other words, you have no case.

No, God cannot make me believe against my will because if he could do so then he would loose any excuse for evil in the world. The only way which Christians can justify the presence of evil is by saying that it is necessary if there is to be free-will. But if free-will is not absolute and God can change it then there is no need for evil and God therefore becomes a monster..

I am still surprised that you would mention that free will justifies God, given your argument before this one. It makes me wonder if you're playing the devil's advocate. Regardless, i never believed free will is absolute; in fact, Biblically, it can be argued that it isn't absolute. Also, i never believed God is incapable of doing something about the evil in this world. However, i do believe God is consistent in His ways. Biblical examples of His consistency include how He deals with sin, how the Gospel follows from the "Mosaic" Law, how He gives people time to repent before passing Judgement, how He would not do away with an entire city full of sin while there remains one worthy of life, et cetera. From His character shown in the Bible, why should we expect for someone's desires to cause Him to act against His consistency?
It is also interesting to see you saying that a being Who created personalities, Who allowed for things such as love and hate, Who knows you better than you do yourself, is incapable of swaying your position on how you perceive Him. If God were to show Himself to you and suddenly He'd be everything you'd want in a God, you're saying you wouldn't think differently of Him? Would you claim that thinking differently of Him in that point in time is you lacking free will? Does the existence of desires, of preference and of similar things contradict free will? Are you capable of loving what you hate? Are you capable of hating what you love? Does either contradict free will?

Tell me, would you be a monster because you acknowledge that there is evil in the world and have the potential to do something about it but choose not to? And is God a monster because He chooses to deal with evil in a way that differs in how you would prefer He treat evil? If God were an impersonal God, would He be a monster if He simply created and let things be? How does simply there being no need for evil make Him a monster? It doesn't; you would have to add things that are irrelevant to that in order to even claim that God is evil.

I try to avoid using other people's arguments as my own, as the flaws usually reveal themselves during discussion. It is like an atheist using another atheist's argument (e.g. the tea-pot argument). All the arguments you have presented to me in this topic i have read variations of from other atheists/non-believers. I would not necessarily claim that free will necessarily allows for evil. After all, "free will" is hard to properly define when attempting to fit everything one desires for it. If it were to be defined as "simply having a choice," that is vague and would allow for instances like no good, all evil, yet with free will; and for all good, no evil, yet with free will.

It is not at all absurd. If I know that when I throw this cricket ball, it will hit the wall opposite, and then suddenly the wall falls down, my knowledge is now not knowledge anymore, it is faulty assertion.If God knows everything that will happen, and then those things do not happen, then what he 'knows' is in fact wrong. God can know every possible outcome, but that does not help, since it doesn't determine WHICH possible outcome will occur. I know that if I roll a dice I will get 1,2,3,4,5 or 6. I don't know WHICH I will get. If God DOES know which I will get then it follows absolutely that God cannot do anything to change that result, otherwise his 'knowledge' of what I would roll was in fact not knowledge at all, but error.

Perhaps forming an illustration would help you understand.

Let's use your dice analogy:

These are all possible outcomes. This is how i would assume God would "see" possible outcomes (of which He knows which number the die would land on).

Rolls die ==> lands on 1.Rolls die ==> lands on 2.Rolls die ==> lands on 3.Rolls die ==> lands on 4.Rolls die ==> lands on 5.Rolls die ==> lands on 6.

This is what you're doing, you're adding ignorance to the outcomes:

Rolls die ==> lands on 1 ==> WRONG ==> lands on 4.Rolls die ==> lands on 2 ==> WRONG ==> lands on 1.Rolls die ==> lands on 3 ==> WRONG ==> lands on 5.Rolls die ==> lands on 4 ==> WRONG ==> lands on 5.Rolls die ==> lands on 5 ==> WRONG ==> lands on 2.Rolls die ==> lands on 6 ==> WRONG ==> lands on 3.

There is no ignorance in knowledge. That is not how God would perceive things, since omniscience lacks ignorance. Notice how your dilemma is gone once you keep things like this:

Rolls die ==> lands on 1.Rolls die ==> lands on 2.Rolls die ==> lands on 3.Rolls die ==> lands on 4.Rolls die ==> lands on 5.Rolls die ==> lands on 6.

You may still find it difficult to perceive things under this "restriction," as it would make potential outcomes irrelevant when knowing the actual outcome, and that it makes events seem absolute, but it is understandable (and more logical). Let's say God knows it'll land on the number 3. Being that God's knowledge is absolute, the die lands on the number 3.

Concerning whether or not God's omniscience contradicts omnipotence, there would be no difference from the previous example, except for the fact that it doesn't concern any die. Let's use an (oversimplified) example concerning two countries, A and B:

Two countries have an argument ==> War starts ==> War ends in favor of A without God intervening.Two countries have an argument ==> War starts ==> War ends in favor of B without God intervening.Two countries have an argument ==> God intervenes ==> Peace treaty is made.Two countries have an argument ==> War starts ==> God intervenes ==> War ends in favor of A.Two countries have an argument ==> War starts ==> God intervenes ==> War ends in favor of B.

Which one is the one that occurs? Only God knows, right? Is His omnipotence, however, haulted (prevented) in the ones where God intervenes? No.

[Bikerman 2]

In the same way perception requires a conscious, so does logic. You could say logic is dependant on perception, seeing that logic is itself a thought process, as logic is formulated based on what is perceived. You can't have an observer without a conscious.

Why does perception require a consciousness? Plants perceive - they respond to external stimulii - but I think it would be a stretch to say that a plant was conscious. You also seem to be confusing the entity and the practice - logic does not require to be practiced in order to exist. For example, basic formal logic states that one entity may not be at different places at the same time. That needs no consciousness to 'police it'.

I am uncertain of what kind of judicial system you live under, but, going back to my chair builder analogy, being declared guilty simply because, for example, the person did not nail the chair to the ground, or whatever, i find absurd. That's like saying those who were robbed are just as guilty of robbery as those who robbed them. If the rules are injected with exceptions for a being simply because this being has greater potential than a human, then i would claim this judicial system to be inconsistent.

That is not a good analogy for many reasons. People are not chairs. A much better analogy would be that of the parent. If a parent created a playground for his children that was dangerous, and even 'had a feeling' that the children would injure themselves, and yet went ahead anyway then he/she would be guilty of several crimes, including reckless endangerment.

The judicial system i know, unless corrupt, could never declare someone guilty of a crime they didn't commit. In this assumed case, you (the plaintiff) are accusing God of an act He didn't commit.

This is just plain wrong. Ask someone to murder your wife and you can and will be charged with conspiracy to murder, which carries the same penalty as the act itself. God created the universe in full knowledge of the suffering and evil in it - in fact he created the evil. He is therefore clearly guilty for the results.

Arguing that simply creating humans God should be declared guilty of sin is not a(n) (winning) argument. In order for you to have evidence against God, you would have to show that God created humans for the sole purpose of committing sin. This is impossible for you, and it is Biblically shown that God didn't create them for them to commit sin. In other words, you have no case.

False. If I put barbed wire on a public footpath, it doesn't matter whether I did it solely to injure people - I am still guilty for any injury that results.

It is also interesting to see you saying that a being Who created personalities, Who allowed for things such as love and hate, Who knows you better than you do yourself, is incapable of swaying your position on how you perceive Him. If God were to show Himself to you and suddenly He'd be everything you'd want in a God, you're saying you wouldn't think differently of Him? Would you claim that thinking differently of Him in that point in time is you lacking free will? Does the existence of desires, of preference and of similar things contradict free will? Are you capable of loving what you hate? Are you capable of hating what you love? Does either contradict free will?

No I am not saying anything of the sort. If God appeared then my basic philosophy would compel me to accept his existence. That would be MY choice, not God's.

Tell me, would you be a monster because you acknowledge that there is evil in the world and have the potential to do something about it but choose not to? And is God a monster because He chooses to deal with evil in a way that differs in how you would prefer He treat evil? If God were an impersonal God, would He be a monster if He simply created and let things be? How does simply there being no need for evil make Him a monster? It doesn't; you would have to add things that are irrelevant to that in order to even claim that God is evil.

Yes I would. If I knew that a particular person was going to die horribly, I knew when and how, and yet I did nothing to either stop it or warn them - sure, I would be a monster.

Let's use your dice analogy:

<snipped irrelevant parts>
You missed the point.
The fact is that the dice will land on one number or another. If God can predict that in advance (and he must be able to), then God cannot do anything that would change that outcome in the future.
Here's a simple illustration:

Time T
God knows that event E will happen at time T+x

Time T+1
God does something that now means event E will NOT happen at time T+x

Time T+x
Event does not happen.

God might well have known all the possible events that could happen at time T+x, but the fact is that he knew that event E would happen and it did not happen, therefore he was wrong. It follows from simple logic that God cannot interfere in causality in any manner which would change future events, since that would mean his previous knowledge that those events would happen is wrong.

Now, the sharper reader will have seen a way out of this apparently unanswerable case.
God knows both what event will happen at time t+x AND he also knows that his intervention in the future will change what would have happened so that a different event occurs. he would have to know this, of course, at every point in the timeline (ie he must ALWAYS have known it).

This appears to answer my poser - but consider what it is in fact saying.
In order for this to be true, God must know in advance not only every action which can happen in the universe, but God must also know WHAT GOD WILL DO at every moment in the future. That means, for example, that praying to God is actually immoral, since you are asking God to change his actions and therefore prove himself fallible (because if he does something he wasn't going to do, then he never knew the future at all, since that will inevitably change it).
More troubling for the Christian is the fact that it also means that God has no freedom of action - everything he does is what he was always going to do. He is simply a wind-up robot acting on auto-pilot, unable to deviate at all from those actions which he has known, for eternity, that he will carry out. God's entire timeline of actions and interactions throughout his infinite existence must have been known precisely by God at every point in that infinite existence.

(This can actually be shown to give rise to several more paradoxes which make it further impossible that God can be omniscient and omnipotent).
Edited February 4, 2011 by Bikerman (see edit history)