View Full Version : What if god was falable?
Gawain of Orkeny
08-14-2005, 06:40
What if religions idea of an infalable god is wrong? What if we really are created in the image god and he is falable just like us. Sure smarter and wiser but maybe he also makes mistakes here and there. This would explain evolution. That or he just got bored of certain species ~:) Is there more than one god? Does every planet that has inteligent life have its own god who created it? Is there only one universe? These are questions we will never know the answer to.
bmolsson
08-14-2005, 06:44
The creator is not perfect, his creation is an image of him and is for sure not perfect. If he would have had access to a forum, we all would never have existed. When he was bored he would have posted rubbish in a forum instead of creating a big mess called earth.......... ~;)
sharrukin
08-14-2005, 06:54
If God gives man free will then does he not, by implication allow him to exercise it? This suggests that at the very least a limitation, even if self imposed. Otherwise, if we are given free will to choose but he knows in advance exactly what we will do with it, then what is the point? Doesn't God have to be fallible otherwise the imperfections in the world make little sense.
Most older religions didn't have the concept of an infallible god.
If a being is fallible, then it's not God, just a higher form of being. Maybe a fallible being created the world as we see it, but then that being must surely exist within some framework and therefore subordinate to an even higher being.
True divinity must be omniscient and omnipotent. Such a being would not be constrained by time or space, and therefore would know the outcome, even it we have free will then an omniscient God would know what we, on our own, would do, before we were even created.
This is one of the deepest flaws in Christianity. Why would a merciful God create beings that it knew would be cast into Hell?
One of the great mysteries.
ichi :bow:
bmolsson
08-14-2005, 08:13
The free will is a myth..... ~;)
sharrukin
08-14-2005, 08:34
If a being is fallible, then it's not God, just a higher form of being.
True divinity must be omniscient and omnipotent.
One of the great mysteries.
ichi :bow:
Why must a true divinity must be omniscient and omnipotent? That was never a requirement throughout most of history.
Ironside
08-14-2005, 09:22
Why must a true divinity must be omniscient and omnipotent? That was never a requirement throughout most of history.
It's to earn the big G in God. ~;)
Otherwise you're only god. ~D
Kagemusha
08-14-2005, 09:35
I have my occasional doubts that God is just Some celestial strategy player. ~;)
sharrukin
08-14-2005, 09:36
It's to earn the big G in God. ~;)
Otherwise you're only god. ~D
Well, you would think that creating the universe would be enough to get a little respect! Asking for perfection just seems a little demanding.
Ianofsmeg16
08-14-2005, 09:50
God certainly aint pperfect....he created thid wonderful world full of everything we need, but in humans he really cocked up, he gave us free will.
God did some wonderfuk things but maybe he's realised his mistake and leaving us alone....
Ja'chyra
08-14-2005, 09:55
What if god was falable?
What if God was real?
bmolsson
08-14-2005, 10:01
Asking for perfection just seems a little demanding.
I guess you have never been married...... ~;)
I will not pretend to know God, but if he’s infallible, he must at least have humour. And evolution must be his gift to the innumerable internet forum posters.
God knows best. ~;)
Louis VI the Fat
08-14-2005, 13:48
What if we really are created in the image god and he is falable just like us. What if man created God in the image of man? And made a few flaws? And now procrastinates himself indefinately before his own mistake, set in stone?
Devastatin Dave
08-14-2005, 15:10
What if god was falable? Well, it would explain the creation of liberals I suppose. ~D
well...if god was real... he could be falable....
imagine that for example he liked to smoke pot from time to time.....
that would certainly explain the platypus ~D
Steppe Merc
08-14-2005, 17:13
The platypus is one weird animal...
Devastatin Dave
08-14-2005, 17:17
The platypus is one weird animal...
I believe the existence of this animal shows that God has a sense of humor. ~D
What if God is fallable? Probably is, done some stuff right, done some stuff wrong.
[shameless plug]Ever read God's Debris good book whose premise is that there is one person on Earth who knows everything, and he tells the guy who is going to replace him all, part of that is that God, trying to prove his omnipotence blew himself up(big bang), and is trying to reform himself, if he can he is omnipotent, ect, ect. Rather intresting read.[/shameless plug]
Well, you would think that creating the universe would be enough to get a little respect! Asking for perfection just seems a little demanding.
How could God create a universe that he couldn't control? In order to create a universe you could not constrained by space or time, and you'd have to be completely aware. Otherwise how could you?
I'm not asking for perfection, just asking the theoretical theological question. IMO if you aren't perfect then you're not God.
ichi :bow:
Crazed Rabbit
08-14-2005, 19:17
LOL DevDave!
To the topic; no, he is not falable.
Crazed Rabbit
sharrukin
08-14-2005, 19:29
How could God create a universe that he couldn't control?
We as humans create things we cannot control all the time. Of course we just think we are gods.
In order to create a universe you could not constrained by space or time, and you'd have to be completely aware. Otherwise how could you?
Thats a logical conclusion. However if God created all things then he either is, or is not constrained by his own creation.
If he is constrained by his own creation, then by the act of creation he became less than perfect.
If he is not constrained by his own creation, then he can choose to be imperfect. Logic, especially the human sort need not apply.
I'm not asking for perfection, just asking the theoretical theological question. IMO if you aren't perfect then you're not God.
ichi :bow:
If God is omniscient and omnipotent then why can't he be both perfect and imperfect?
Simply because we cannot understand how that could be possible?
Perhaps God isn't as limited as you imagine!
We as humans create things we cannot control all the time. Of course we just think we are gods.
Hence the distinction between us and God. The analogy fails because we make things from other things, and are not perfect. God creates things from nothing, and is perfect.
Thats a logical conclusion. However if God created all things then he either is, or is not constrained by his own creation.
If he is constrained by his own creation, then by the act of creation he became less than perfect.
If he is not constrained by his own creation, then he can choose to be imperfect. Logic, especially the human sort need not apply.
In order to not be constrained he would had to have made a conscious decision to not be constrained. If in fact God did create the universe then the entire world springs from God's will. If God made a decision to not be constrained then God could just as easily change his mind and lose the constraints, so theres not much true constraint.
Regarding logic, the human sort. Its all we have. When you say that since God is above human law, and hence human logic, then the discussion is reduced to nothing more than faith. Why would God make things logical and give us the ability to reason, then change the rules.
Logic or faith. Since faith is personal and subjective, logic is all that remains as a tool to examine these ideas and the world around us.
If God is omniscient and omnipotent then why can't he be both perfect and imperfect? Simply because we cannot understand how that could be possible?
Perfect and imperfect are human terms, subjective and IMO hard to define. I'm not smart enough to argue perfection. But logically it seems to me that any God worth the title would have to all powerful, unconstrained, and all knowing.
Perhaps God isn't as limited as you imagine!
I think I made the point that God must be omniscient and ominpotent, so I can't see how you construed that to say that I imagine God is limited.
ichi :bow:
sharrukin
08-14-2005, 20:14
In order to not be constrained he would had to have made a conscious decision to not be constrained. If in fact God did create the universe then the entire world springs from God's will. If God made a decision to not be constrained then God could just as easily change his mind and lose the constraints, so theres not much true constraint.
If God can do anything (omnipotent) then he can choose to be constrained in any degree he wants. He can also choose to be permanently constrained as well, or he isn't omnipotent if he cannot do that! There can be as much true constraint as he cares to have.
Regarding logic, the human sort. Its all we have. When you say that since God is above human law, and hence human logic, then the discussion is reduced to nothing more than faith. Why would God make things logical and give us the ability to reason, then change the rules.
The rules established for a mortal and very imperfect being such as ourselves could never be the same as that established for a god. How can God not be above human law? Can the human mind grasp the concept of nothing? We cannot even imagine it, and yet our logic is supposed to be able to grasp what God can or cannot be?
Logic or faith. Since faith is personal and subjective, logic is all that remains as a tool to examine these ideas and the world around us.
And yet every Holy book talks of faith as the means to God, not logic. Logic as a means to explore the creations of God is one thing. Logic as a means to understand God has limitations. We are part of creation and are hence limited by its constraints and laws. We know that we cannot conceptualize 'nothingness'. There may be many things we are incapable of understanding.
Perfect and imperfect are human terms, subjective and IMO hard to define. I'm not smart enough to argue perfection. But logically it seems to me that any God worth the title would have to all powerful, unconstrained, and all knowing.
I think I made the point that God must be omniscient and ominpotent, so I can't see how you construed that to say that I imagine God is limited.
ichi :bow:
You are assuming that God is constrained by the demands of human logic, and the limitations of what we as human beings can understand. That he is either omnipotent or not. Yes, or no!
If he is in fact omnipotent, then why can he not be both 'omnipotent' and 'not omnipotent'?
Hurin_Rules
08-14-2005, 23:06
What if religions idea of an infalable god is wrong? What if we really are created in the image god and he is falable just like us. Sure smarter and wiser but maybe he also makes mistakes here and there. This would explain evolution. That or he just got bored of certain species ~:) Is there more than one god? Does every planet that has inteligent life have its own god who created it? Is there only one universe? These are questions we will never know the answer to.
You needn't worry-- I am indeed perfect.
Divinus Arma
08-14-2005, 23:11
What if God was... one of us? *gasp*
You know, just a slob... A stranger on the bus just trying to make his way home? All alone with nobody calling him on the phone... Except for maybe the Pope in Rome?
*gasp*
If God can do anything (omnipotent) then he can choose to be constrained in any degree he wants. He can also choose to be permanently constrained as well, or he isn't omnipotent if he cannot do that! There can be as much true constraint as he cares to have.
This is the old microwave burrito argument. If God can choose to be permanently constrained, he must be able to reverse that decision, or else he wouldn't be omnipotent. And any self-imposed (and therefore self-reversing) constraint is no real constraint at all.
Again, go back to the original post where I raised the issue of constraint. The true creator of the Universe could not be constrained by space or time. If God were constrained by time then how does prophesy work? Prophesyworks because God (at least a God qualified to be called that) already knows the outcome.
No the Supreme Being isn't constrained by space or time. And no semantical argument about an omnipotent God choosing to be constrains will change that.
The rules established for a mortal and very imperfect being such as ourselves could never be the same as that established for a god. How can God not be above human law?
Of course since a true Universal Creator would be responsible for actually making whatver laws it wanted, it would be above those laws (hence, not constained by space and time - you've contrdicted yourself here).
My question is why would God create humans, give them certain faculties, including observation and rational thought, and then make it so that observation and rational thought were nothing but deceptive, only to be overwhelmed by a higher realm of observation and logic? Why would God do that?
Can the human mind grasp the concept of nothing? We cannot even imagine it, and yet our logic is supposed to be able to grasp what God can or cannot be?
I can grasp nothingness, its not that hard.
and the real issue isn't for us to be able to grasp what God can be, but for us to be able to grasp what our lives are supposed to be all about. Back to my point, either God gave us clues and the ability to make sense of them or he didn't. I have faith that he did. Otherwise what's the point of giving us faculties.
And yet every Holy book talks of faith as the means to God, not logic. Logic as a means to explore the creations of God is one thing. Logic as a means to understand God has limitations. We are part of creation and are hence limited by its constraints and laws. We know that we cannot conceptualize 'nothingness'. There may be many things we are incapable of understanding.
Faith means many things to different people; to some it is blind, to others faith is based on a large part in logic.
So now we're back to my original question. God gave us some faculties, but not enough to fully comprehend his will. He is omniscient, and thus knows what we will do of our own free will given that scenario. He knows that some will choose poorly, and thus will be (according to some Christian thought) condemned to hell for an eternity.
What supreme being would do that? Not a loving merciful one that's for sure, and this is the primary flaw in Christian thought.
You are assuming that God is constrained by the demands of human logic, and the limitations of what we as human beings can understand. That he is either omnipotent or not. Yes, or no!
If he is in fact omnipotent, then why can he not be both 'omnipotent' and 'not omnipotent'?
First, I'm not assuming that there even is a God, so please don't tell me that I'm assuming facts about God. I've put forth the concept that a truly Supreme Being is infallible, it has to be omnipotent (hence it can't microwave a burrito so hot that it can't eat it, because no matter how hot it makes the burrito it can always eat it). If God isn't omnipotent or omniscient then it isnt truly God, just a higher form of being.
Either God created the universe, in which case God has power over the universe, or God exists within a universal framework, in which case it isn't God, simply a higher form of being than we. Since we don't have access to the truth, and our faiths differ, all that we have left is logic with which to discuss it. Hiding behind our lack of perfection doesn't help make much progress, and avoids critical thought, IMO.
ichi :bow:
Samurai Waki
08-15-2005, 01:15
I would be bored if I was God. Nothing would matter, I would become irritable and cruel. I like Norse Mythology Better :bow:
sharrukin
08-15-2005, 02:40
This is the old microwave burrito argument. If God can choose to be permanently constrained, he must be able to reverse that decision, or else he wouldn't be omnipotent. And any self-imposed (and therefore self-reversing) constraint is no real constraint at all.
Again, go back to the original post where I raised the issue of constraint. The true creator of the Universe could not be constrained by space or time. If God were constrained by time then how does prophesy work? Prophesyworks because God (at least a God qualified to be called that) already knows the outcome.
No the Supreme Being isn't constrained by space or time. And no semantical argument about an omnipotent God choosing to be constrains will change that.
It isn't semantics, its logic.
Logic after all, cannot even prove that we exist, how could it prove the existence of what created it?
Can logic be used to prove the validity of logic?
Of course since a true Universal Creator would be responsible for actually making whatver laws it wanted, it would be above those laws (hence, not constained by space and time - you've contrdicted yourself here).
You are the one claiming God is constrained by logic not me!
The principles of logic state that contradictions cannot both be true. We cannot say that A exists and that A does not exist without at least one of those statement being false. However if time and space do not bind God as you mentioned then for God, you can be both dead and alive. Dead in the year 2134 AD and alive in the year 1998 AD. You must assume that he is also bound by space and time for logic to bind him as well. If time did not apply then events would have no causality.
My question is why would God create humans, give them certain faculties, including observation and rational thought, and then make it so that observation and rational thought were nothing but deceptive, only to be overwhelmed by a higher realm of observation and logic? Why would God do that?
This question seems to be based on the idea that we are gods equal. We cannot be! What is true for him cannot be true for us! Otherwise we would be co-equal with God. God is capable of understanding things which we could never understand. We are limited by what we are. He is not!
I can grasp nothingness, its not that hard.
Really!
You can imagine the absence of all things!
Well how can it even exist, because if it did, then it would logically be something, and not nothing?
What BTW does it look like!
and the real issue isn't for us to be able to grasp what God can be, but for us to be able to grasp what our lives are supposed to be all about. Back to my point, either God gave us clues and the ability to make sense of them or he didn't. I have faith that he did. Otherwise what's the point of giving us faculties.
To understand the world around us. I am not saying that logic is invalid as a tool to understand the world. I am saying it is invalid as a tool to understand what is not of the world.
However our perception of things may not correspond with reality as it is. Many things we consider true may in fact be false. We are limited by who and what we are, our own thought patterns, culture, and physical perceptions.
"We cannot imagine the scope of our ignorance, just as a blind man cannot imagine darkness until he can see."
- Immanuel Kant
Faith means many things to different people; to some it is blind, to others faith is based on a large part in logic.
So now we're back to my original question. God gave us some faculties, but not enough to fully comprehend his will. He is omniscient, and thus knows what we will do of our own free will given that scenario. He knows that some will choose poorly, and thus will be (according to some Christian thought) condemned to hell for an eternity.
What supreme being would do that? Not a loving merciful one that's for sure, and this is the primary flaw in Christian thought.
About the faith part you will have to ask someone that has some.
If God exists he is a lot more than merciful and loving! From what I have read of the Bible he can be less than loving on occasion. IMO, he doesn't know what we will choose and there is no logical reason he would need to know. A logical contradiction is not binding if he is omnipotent.
Logically any being that cannot violate logic is not omnipotent.
First, I'm not assuming that there even is a God, so please don't tell me that I'm assuming facts about God. I've put forth the concept that a truly Supreme Being is infallible, it has to be omnipotent (hence it can't microwave a burrito so hot that it can't eat it, because no matter how hot it makes the burrito it can always eat it). If God isn't omnipotent or omniscient then it isnt truly God, just a higher form of being.
Either God created the universe, in which case God has power over the universe, or God exists within a universal framework, in which case it isn't God, simply a higher form of being than we. Since we don't have access to the truth, and our faiths differ, all that we have left is logic with which to discuss it. Hiding behind our lack of perfection doesn't help make much progress, and avoids critical thought, IMO.
ichi :bow:
Well, I don't believe in God either, so I don't have any faith.. That really isn't the point.
You seem to be assuming that because logic has limits it has no value. Critical thought is essential to human progress, but logical paradoxes exist. This doesn't invalidate logic as a valuable tool.
If an omnipotent power exists it can violate logic. If you refuse to concede such a possibility then you have a priori answered your own question which was never a valid one to begin with. If all things are subject to Gods will, then that must include logic. If God cannot transcend logic then he is subject to it, and is therefore not God. You assume that God is in fact bound by his own creation (logic), and is therefore NOT omnipotent. You then proceed to ask if he is omnipotent. Your question, as you pose it, can have no other outcome.
If you do assert that omnipotence means that logic can be violated, then you cannot use that same logic to prove the existence of an omnipotent being that is not subject to logic.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." --From Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)
bmolsson
08-15-2005, 02:42
If somebody claimed to be God ? Wouldn't that be proof that God exist ?
sharrukin
08-15-2005, 02:44
If somebody claimed to be God ? Wouldn't that be proof that God exist ?
Not sure I follow that one?
Divinus Arma
08-15-2005, 04:33
Somebody mentioned taht they would be bored if they were God. *sigh* So now I have to post a meaningful response.
Just for the sake of it, consider the following:
You are God. No, you are not really God, but imagine so.
So as I said, you are God. And there you are. Surrounded by... nothing. Not even darkness. Just... nothing.
So now what? You have infinite power. You have infinite knowledge. Nothing else is going on and there really is no reason to even exist, but you really don't have a choice. After all even the real God said, "I am". So why not make something? Might as well. It could be the reason to exist.
Thus, answers the greatest riddle in history:
Q:"What is the meaning of life?"
A: "God was bored."
Papewaio
08-15-2005, 05:08
We are Gods own little TW game then?
bmolsson
08-15-2005, 05:55
We are Gods own little TW game then?
I guess he is waiting for the patch..... ~D
It isn't semantics, its logic.
Logic after all, cannot even prove that we exist, how could it prove the existence of what created it?
Can logic be used to prove the validity of logic?
You made the claim that God could somehow constrain himself so that he wasn't omniscient, which is semantics. I proved, logically, that if he did that then he could undo that, since he's omnipotent. There is no real constraint if you can unconstrain yourself at any time.
You are the one claiming God is constrained by logic not me!
I never claimed that. I asked why God would give us senses and rationality if it was all meaningless.
The principles of logic state that contradictions cannot both be true. We cannot say that A exists and that A does not exist without at least one of those statement being false. However if time and space do not bind God as you mentioned then for God, you can be both dead and alive. Dead in the year 2134 AD and alive in the year 1998 AD.
Not necessarily, for in fact I do exist. Gos, unconstrained by space and time, knows this, knew it would be before I was born.
Your conclusion isn't supported by your assumptions.
You must assume that he is also bound by space and time for logic to bind him as well. If time did not apply then events would have no causality.
Time applies for us, but not for a true God. As I asked, how could he make prophesy and have a plan if time applied to God. If time constains God then he cannot know the future, and isn't God. Since God created time as we know it then he is obviously not constrained by time.
My question is why would God create humans, give them certain faculties, including observation and rational thought, and then make it so that observation and rational thought were nothing but deceptive, only to be overwhelmed by a higher realm of observation and logic? Why would God do that?
This question seems to be based on the idea that we are gods equal. We cannot be! What is true for him cannot be true for us! Otherwise we would be co-equal with God. God is capable of understanding things which we could never understand. We are limited by what we are. He is not!
My question surely isnt based on the concept that we are God's equal, since I clearly stated that he created us. Again the conclusion doesn't follow from your assumptions, which are faulty to begin with.
Really!
You can imagine the absence of all things!
Well how can it even exist, because if it did, then it would logically be something, and not nothing?
Nothing is easy, it is the absence of all things including space and time.
What BTW does it look like!
Nothing
If God exists he is a lot more than merciful and loving! From what I have read of the Bible he can be less than loving on occasion. IMO, he doesn't know what we will choose and there is no logical reason he would need to know. A logical contradiction is not binding if he is omnipotent.
Then you consider God to not be omniscient. Thats OK, mate, IMO a being that isnt omniscient is the one true God. A God that created the entire universe from nothing is clearly both omniscient and omnipotent.
Logically any being that cannot violate logic is not omnipotent.
Now you're on the trolley. An all powerful God can do whatever it pleases, logical or not. Still my questions remains unaswered. Why would he give us logic if not to use it. To mislead us? and since I beleive that an all knowing God who was merciful wouldn't condemn his creations to hell eternally, I think there's a fatal flaw in the whole Christianity thing. You still haven't addressed that.
Well, I don't believe in God either, so I don't have any faith.. That really isn't the point.
I neer said I never believed in God. I don't know what the deal is, but I have lots of questions.
You seem to be assuming that because logic has limits it has no value. Critical thought is essential to human progress, but logical paradoxes exist. This doesn't invalidate logic as a valuable tool.
I must not be very clear then, because I believe logic has tremendous value. It is all that we have. It's faith that has little value to me.
If an omnipotent power exists it can violate logic. If you refuse to concede such a possibility then you have a priori answered your own question which was never a valid one to begin with.
As I have stated repeatedly, an allpwerful God can do whatever it wants. The question is, what is it doing?
and my questions are quite valid, despite your assertion to the contrary.
If all things are subject to Gods will, then that must include logic. If God cannot transcend logic then he is subject to it, and is therefore not God. You assume that God is in fact bound by his own creation (logic), and is therefore NOT omnipotent. You then proceed to ask if he is omnipotent. Your question, as you pose it, can have no other outcome.
You've completely missed the point. My assertion is that only a truly omnipotent and omniscient being is worthy of the name God. If God created the universe, then he must be all knowing and all powerful. Any lesser being isnt God, just another (albeit on a higher plane than we) being.
If you do assert that omnipotence means that logic can be violated, then you cannot use that same logic to prove the existence of an omnipotent being that is not subject to logic.
I never use logic to assert that God exists. You've seriously misunderstood me. I agree with you that you can't use logic to prove anything, but persist in my belief that logic is the best tool we have.
One good Shakespearan quote deserves another. My feelings are with Hamlet, who does not know what, if anything, is out there. But he uses his logic to make the best deteminations that he can.
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
ichi :bow:
sharrukin
08-15-2005, 06:05
If we were an advanced 22nd century version of SimCity, how would we, as software creations, know?
sharrukin
08-15-2005, 06:20
If all you are saying is that logic is useful then I agree!
God, if he exists gave us logic as a means to understand the world around us!
He also says that faith is the way to him!
That in and of itself is interesting.
I have addressed the 'flaw' in the whole Christianity thing and the flaw only exists if you assume logic applies. You state that "An all powerful God can do whatever it pleases, logical or not." and then proceed to use that same logic to ask "As I asked, how could he make prophesy and have a plan if time applied to God. If time constains God then he cannot know the future, and isn't God."
It simply doesn't follow. He doesn't follow the logical rules we use to understand the world around us. He can know the future and not know the future, because the rules do not apply to him!
I always liked Hamlet! ~:)
Yes, Hamlet is the best.
If all you're saying is that anything is possible then there's no stopping point and no certainty and no use using logic, but an all-knowing God pretty much has to be omniscient.
He also says that faith is the way to him!
To be precise, God didn't say that; some guys allege that he told them that. I remain skeptical
ichi :bow:
bmolsson
08-16-2005, 03:16
Not sure I follow that one?
It's easy. If somebody tells you that he is Bob, then you can be sure that it's Bob, right ? If Bob now in reality is Steve, then this would not be a problem, because Bob still exist even if he is Steve. If another group of people in a middle east country call Bob, Joey, then this would have the same effect as if Bob was called Steve. The existance is already there. In reality the existance of Bob is a fact the moment he tells everyone he does exist, regardless if other people know him as Joey and he in reality is Steve........ ~;)
Divinus Arma
08-16-2005, 03:45
It's easy. If somebody tells you that he is Bob, then you can be sure that it's Bob, right ? If Bob now in reality is Steve, then this would not be a problem, because Bob still exist even if he is Steve. If another group of people in a middle east country call Bob, Joey, then this would have the same effect as if Bob was called Steve. The existance is already there. In reality the existance of Bob is a fact the moment he tells everyone he does exist, regardless if other people know him as Joey and he in reality is Steve........ ~;)
There is no spoon.
bmolsson
08-16-2005, 04:28
There is no spoon.
Religious people use a spork..... ~D
This is one of the deepest flaws in Christianity. Why would a merciful God create beings that it knew would be cast into Hell?
One of the great mysteries.
Hello,
I don't have any problem with applying logical constraints to Deity. For example: I don't believe Deity can create a square-circle or be and not be at the same time.
I'll give an answer to the question that is within the bounds of logic. Two points: a moral being must be a free being as morality is necessarily tied to the ability to choose. If men are moral (accountable for their actions) then they must be free. What is free cannot be set. This also applies to future contingents which are an aspect of any free agent. A future contingent is by definition indeterminate. What is indeterminate cannot be known, in fact does not yet exist. God cannot know what is inherently indeterminate.
Divine omniscience does not necessarily imply a stagnant state. Some characteristics can be self-surpassing even eternally self-surpassing. Love for example. Included in the myriad forms of love is a directedness to some object. As objects increase then the capacity to love also increases. Deity loves His children, as more children are born then that love naturally expands. Regarding knowledge: Deity possesses all knowledge that it is possible to possess at any one time. knowledge can also be object directed. As such, it is also not limited and is as continually expansive as the creative process. Subsequently, Deity's knowledge also is eternally expansive and self-surpassing, but limited to all that is knowable at any given time. The future choices of free agents are not knowable. Therefore a merciful God did not create beings that were known would be cast into Hell.
Good question by the way.
bmolsson
08-16-2005, 07:30
Therefore a merciful God did not create beings that were known would be cast into Hell.
But then, why did he create hell ?
But then, why did he create hell ?
Why would you assume the one precedes the other?
I have my occasional doubts that God is just Some celestial strategy player. ~;)
alternatives :balloon2:
1. He is celestial strategic AI developped by Intergalaktik CA :charge:
2. He could make mistake if he wanted to. ~:confused:
Samurai Waki
08-16-2005, 10:26
what are you guys talking about, the world is controlled by the 5 Jewish Bankers! (Sealab 2020) :bow:
what are you guys talking about, the world is controlled by the 5 Jewish Bankers! (Sealab 2020) :bow:
How do you know? :inquisitive: :hide:
Reverend Joe
08-16-2005, 20:05
God IS fallable. How else do you explain the platypus? An egg-laying, billed mammal, with a surly attitude and only one known place of habitation- the platypus is a monstrosity.
In fact, why do we even need a Platypus? Does it even serve any purpose?
I hate the platypus!
Come, one and all, and join my crusade to destroy God's mistake: the Platypus! KILL ALL PLATYPI!!! DEUS LO VOLT!!! :rifle: :furious3:
Hello,
I don't have any problem with applying logical constraints to Deity. For example: I don't believe Deity can create a square-circle or be and not be at the same time.
I'll give an answer to the question that is within the bounds of logic. Two points: a moral being must be a free being as morality is necessarily tied to the ability to choose. If men are moral (accountable for their actions) then they must be free. What is free cannot be set. This also applies to future contingents which are an aspect of any free agent. A future contingent is by definition indeterminate. What is indeterminate cannot be known, in fact does not yet exist. God cannot know what is inherently indeterminate.
I am sure an omniscient God could predict the future to pinpoint accuracy. How else would you explain prophesy?
Divine omniscience does not necessarily imply a stagnant state. Some characteristics can be self-surpassing even eternally self-surpassing. Love for example. Included in the myriad forms of love is a directedness to some object. As objects increase then the capacity to love also increases. Deity loves His children, as more children are born then that love naturally expands. Regarding knowledge: Deity possesses all knowledge that it is possible to possess at any one time. knowledge can also be object directed. As such, it is also not limited and is as continually expansive as the creative process. Subsequently, Deity's knowledge also is eternally expansive and self-surpassing, but limited to all that is knowable at any given time. The future choices of free agents are not knowable. Therefore a merciful God did not create beings that were known would be cast into Hell.
Good question by the way.
So what you are saying is that an omniscient being even though he has all knowledge, that is all that it is possible to be in possession of at one time, still self-surpass by gaining more? To me this is a bit illogical… unless Deity is capable of creating new knowledge and hence adds to the ultimate knowledge pool.
This leads to a couple of difficult questions that I have been grumbling over; the notion of exaltation. I have bumped into this word a couple of times regarding deities in different religions and more so in ancient religion. I am speaking of the exalted man, the chief God.
The top God of the old religions is more often than not described as an exalted man. I am speaking of Egypt’s Ptah, Sumerian Anshar, Norse Odinn, Hebrew Eli (Elohim?).
To me this signifies a man being raised to godhead by someone on a higher plane or simply by the contemporary people worshiping a gifted man. Odinn seems to be raised to Godhead sometime between the first century BC and first century AD. The others I listed seem to give no place or timeframe.
*I am drifting off topic*…
Ok, this notion of God exalting his creation, making man what he is, gives him an extra-exalted status, an even higher degree of glory and thus possessing more.
If this is an ongoing process and if in the eternities there exists an infinite hierarchy of higher beings.
Does the level of omniscience and omnipotence expand exponentially? Is there even the slightest possibility that one God of a higher level than another, does possess more knowledge? If not, how is new knowledge distributed and does all Gods, which is all exalted beings, have the same level of omniscience? That is, they all "evolve" at the same pace and at the same time.
Papewaio
08-16-2005, 22:53
The Platypus is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the creation of the world. ~:cool: :book:
I am sure an omniscient God could predict the future to pinpoint accuracy. How else would you explain prophesy?
Prophesy refers to:
1) God revealing His will and intent to others. Deity knows His own purposes and can make others aware of the same. This means Deity is the active agent and intends to bring some X about.
2) God revealing possible results. As with the prophet Jonah going to Nineveh and telling them to repent or they would be destroyed: they repented and were spared.
I reject the notion that the future is an actual thing: exists in space and time or has ontic status. Rather I see the future as unrealized possibility. As such, it may or may not come about. If one wishes to argue the future does, in fact exist, then it must be set i.e. determined. This is antithetical to free will. If the future already is, then nothing can change that fact and morality, responsibility, freedom cease to be. This would constrain even the Divine.
So what you are saying is that an omniscient being even though he has all knowledge, that is all that it is possible to be in possession of at one time, still self-surpass by gaining more? To me this is a bit illogical… unless Deity is capable of creating new knowledge and hence adds to the ultimate knowledge pool.
A pluralistic universe made up of free agents is dynamic. There is no static condition where all that will be, is. Rather, change is the norm and with change new possibilites, new relations and new challenges: new knowledge. If each subject is unique and has its own experience then it cannot be otherwise.
The below is referencing an older heterodox tradition.
Ok, this notion of God exalting his creation, making man what he is, gives him an extra-exalted status, an even higher degree of glory and thus possessing more.
If this is an ongoing process and if in the eternities there exists an infinite hierarchy of higher beings. Does the level of omniscience and omnipotence expand exponentially?
Yes.
Is there even the slightest possibility that one God of a higher level than another, does possess more knowledge? If not, how is new knowledge distributed and does all Gods, which is all exalted beings, have the same level of omniscience? That is, they all "evolve" at the same pace and at the same time.
92 And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all things—where God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever;
93 Before whose throne all things bow in humble reverence, and give him glory forever and ever.
94 They who dwell in his presence are the church of the firstborn; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fullness and of his grace;
95 And he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion.
96 And the glory of the celestial is one, even as the glory of the sun is one. D&C 76: 93-96
Hello,
I don't have any problem with applying logical constraints to Deity. For example: I don't believe Deity can create a square-circle or be and not be at the same time.
I'll give an answer to the question that is within the bounds of logic. Two points: a moral being must be a free being as morality is necessarily tied to the ability to choose. If men are moral (accountable for their actions) then they must be free. What is free cannot be set. This also applies to future contingents which are an aspect of any free agent. A future contingent is by definition indeterminate. What is indeterminate cannot be known, in fact does not yet exist. God cannot know what is inherently indeterminate.
Divine omniscience does not necessarily imply a stagnant state. Some characteristics can be self-surpassing even eternally self-surpassing. Love for example. Included in the myriad forms of love is a directedness to some object. As objects increase then the capacity to love also increases. Deity loves His children, as more children are born then that love naturally expands. Regarding knowledge: Deity possesses all knowledge that it is possible to possess at any one time. knowledge can also be object directed. As such, it is also not limited and is as continually expansive as the creative process. Subsequently, Deity's knowledge also is eternally expansive and self-surpassing, but limited to all that is knowable at any given time. The future choices of free agents are not knowable. Therefore a merciful God did not create beings that were known would be cast into Hell.
Good question by the way.
Hello Pindar , I've been wondering when you'd arrive on scene.
Good response, you've reinforced my view that if free will exists then that creates problems for an omniscient diety.
Do we have free will? Are we moral beings?
Physics and chemistry provide a way of measuring and predicting events. A drop of water falling on a stone has relatively predictable results (the more you know about the rock and water the more predictable the situation).
Could it not be that we are simply more complex equations, and that our actions and reactions are predetermined? When a bird lands near my cat the reaction seems almost predetermined. Are we different from the rest of the world?
But I digress. Any being who could create such a world as ours from nothing but thought would have to have mastery over space and time. If God is truly eternal and created the universe, then I contend that it created time as well as space. It must know all about everything, always.
or at least have a good guess about things.
We come at this from two directions. From the individual, who seems to possess free will (and the issue of moral beings needing to have free will), and from the Divine, who must be omniscient.
What is free cannot be set.
and I concur, but there is a twist. It is not set, it is for us (who are constrained by time) to choose as life unfolds. We are free to choose whichever. But Divinity, in its omniscience, knows what we will choose. It is our choice (assuming we have free will) but the choice was known before we were born because God isn't constrained by time.
The future choices of free agents are not knowable.
For us, who are constrained by time, this is true. For an omniscient God, there is no future or past.
To limit God in time reduces him to simply a higher form of being. To be truly omniscient one must know all, including what we perceive as the future. Again, divine prophesy and revelations about the future seem to indicate that (the Christian God anyhoo) has knowledge of the future.
Therefore I'm back to my point about Gods children being created knowing they would end in Hell.
ichi
bmolsson
08-17-2005, 07:25
Why would you assume the one precedes the other?
I don't, but even if I did, why would that matter ? He did create, didn't he ? ~;)
bmolsson
08-17-2005, 07:29
Do we have free will? Are we moral beings?
No and Yes.
Our free will is an illusion.
Our moral has been planted in our DNA, a human without moral is not a human.
Hello Pindar , I've been wondering when you'd arrive on scene.
Please excuse my late arrival. :bow:
Given the way you posed the problem I am going to freely move within the larger Christian corpus. This means canon appeals or anything else generally held within Christian theology is fair game. I will try and avoid overtly sectarian references, but if I move in that direction I'll try to note it.
Do we have free will? Are we moral beings?
I would argue yes. I am a moral agent (as are you) because notions of good and evil are meaningful and I am responsive to them. This is empirically the case and as such is sufficient for the conclusion. Extra-phenomenal causal schemes that would contradict that position are conceptually empty. I take experience as a central basis for knowledge claims. If a view cannot or does not meet with empirical data, its value is suspect.
But I digress. Any being who could create such a world as ours from nothing but thought would have to have mastery over space and time. If God is truly eternal and created the universe, then I contend that it created time as well as space. It must know all about everything, always.
or at least have a good guess about things...
But Divinity, in its omniscience, knows what we will choose. It is our choice (assuming we have free will) but the choice was known before we were born because God isn't constrained by time...
For us, who are constrained by time, this is true. For an omniscient God, there is no future or past.
There are two key points above. One, God is outside of time. Two, God knows our free actions before they are made.
If God is outside of time (there is no future or past) then everything is like one eternal present to God. I think there are a host of difficulties with this view. I'll mention a couple. Such a position entails that all historical facts, given their simultaneity, are both true and untrue while equally real. Washington is crossing the Delaware and dead at the same time. Caesar is crossing the Rubicon and Armstrong is walking on the moon at the same time. This means one has to admit an absurdity (both A and -A).
Another issue from a Christian perspective is that Deity is taken as the Creator. Creation is time laden both in regards to the act and the result. If God is outside of time no creation is possible. If God does create then He must be involved in the creative process which compromises God not having time states.
Now point Two: I have already argued that free actions and Divine foreknowledge are incompatible. This would be a simple formula:
1) God foreknows (with certainty) agent P will sin
2) P will sin freely
The problem:
3) If God foreknows that P will sin, then it is necessary that P will sin.
4) If it is necessary that P will sin, then P is not free to refrain from sinning.
5) If P is not free to refrain from sinning, then P is not free.
Divine foreknowledge evisorates agency and thereby morality: 1) must be rejected to preserve morality. Now it may be worth noting that omniscience is not a Biblical notion. Omniscience is derived from Greek thought, specifically the logic of perfection. If one wishes to retain omniscience as an attribute of Deity then the parameters need to be properly drawn. I think one can argue convincingly that God knows all things. The future is not a thing: it is literally not yet. As such, the future does not exist. God is not required to know what does not exist. This applies to knowledge of any creature's future damned state as well.
To limit God in time reduces him to simply a higher form of being. To be truly omniscient one must know all, including what we perceive as the future. Again, divine prophesy and revelations about the future seem to indicate that (the Christian God anyhoo) has knowledge of the future.
In the Canon one of the common refrains is that Israel worships the Living God. This Living God appears very much in time. A simple example is prayer. Deity appears to answer prayers. In fact it is taken as an example of God's love and care for His children that He do so. This implies temporal placement. Now does this reduce God to simply a higher form of being? Sure, why not? One could argue this higher form of being is the highest form of being: the very maximal state of existence. A loving God that interacts with and cares for His children cannot be otherwise.
bmolsson
08-18-2005, 02:45
Divine foreknowledge evisorates agency and thereby morality.
Why assume that God is good ? :book:
Now does this reduce God to simply a higher form of being? Sure, why not? One could argue this higher form of being is the highest form of being: the very maximal state of existence.
After saying the above, as a mormon, will you still go to heaven ? ~;)
A pluralistic universe made up of free agents is dynamic.Do you support the multiverse theory?
The below is referencing an older heterodox tradition.
Ok, this notion of God exalting his creation, making man what he is, gives him an extra-exalted status, an even higher degree of glory and thus possessing more.
If this is an ongoing process and if in the eternities there exists an infinite hierarchy of higher beings. Does the level of omniscience and omnipotence expand exponentially?Yes.Do you acknowledge a heterodox tradition or did you just simply answer my question as if it was hypothetical?
Pindar, your posts in this thread has been enlightening and I must agree with your statements concerning an open future.
There are however a few discrepancies in religious texts where God reveals the future, which you would argue being; revealing his intent with the future.
Let’s take one example which would be specifically familiar to you: Lehi’s vision of the tree of life and his son Nephi’s following vision.
Lehi sees an allegorical story played out concerning the future and Nephi desires to know its meaning and receives a vision concerning his people.
In the vision (Nephi's) an angel shows him what will befell of his people from the present (600 BC) and until Christ visits and organises his church among them (aprox. 33 AD) and further until the destruction of his people (aprox. 400 AD). The coming of Christ would be an intended event or what you would possible call a foreordained event. But the angel reveals that 3 righteous generations will pass after the coming of Christ and a fourth also, but after that there would be wars between the people of his brethren and his which ultimately leads to the destruction of his people. A God not knowing the future can not make such accurate predictions, assuming the BOM story actually happened.
As I said I totally agree with you on the future not existing yet, but religion seems to be unclear on this.
by Pindar
A pluralistic universe made up of free agents is dynamic.
Do you support the multiverse theory?
A pluralistic universe does not refer to multi-universe theory. Rather, it refers to a universe made up of independent agents: you, I and God for example are separate and distinct. A universe that admits this distinction is necessarily dynamic as independant agents interact. The contrast to this would be a monistic universe: ala Parmenides or Hegel.
Do you acknowledge a heterodox tradition or did you just simply answer my question as if it was hypothetical?
Christian Orthodoxy is defined by adherence to the Ecumenical Councils. That same Orthodoxy assumes a general Neoplatonic metaphysic. This metaphysic is incompatable with Hebrew scripture and leads to many of the problems you have encountered.
My answer reflects a pre-Orthodox and extra-Orthodox reply. It is heterodox on both counts.
Pindar, your posts in this thread has been enlightening and I must agree with your statements concerning an open future.
There are however a few discrepancies in religious texts where God reveals the future, which you would argue being; revealing his intent with the future.
Let’s take one example which would be specifically familiar to you: Lehi’s vision of the tree of life and his son Nephi’s following vision... A God not knowing the future can not make such accurate predictions...
One caveat: The Bible and other religious text are typically pre-rational. They do not apply a rational standard. Rarely, if ever, are terms defined, qualified or put forward as a rigorous coherent schema. A strictly rational approach is therefore problematic.
Even so, a simple reply is the above tradition admits a preexistence: meaning all humanity had a prior existence as spirit children of Deity before assuming their moral coils. This prior state included periods of individual growth and development. While individuals may not remember their source, it doesn't follow all their aptitudes, inclinations and other personal aspects were similarly removed. Further, and more to the point, Deity would be aware of each of His children on an intimate level. This added to Deity knowing when and where an individual would enter mortality may allow general predictions. This in many ways would follow the predictive pattern used by men: where we predict the reaction of those we know to future events all the time. The more familiar we are, the more comfortable we are with making predictions. These predictions do not determine the choices made nor do they make the future a real thing.
I believe this type of prediction (as with future generations falling away into apostasy) coupled with the previous mentioned prophetic type I mentioned, where Deity makes His own intentions known, are demonstrated in the cited vision. An example of this latter type would be:
"And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters." 1 Nephi 13:13
Given your interest: let me give you some Scriptural examples of Divine contingent knowledge and that Deity anticipates the future along lines similar to our own experience:
After God tests Abraham to see what he will do He speaks through His messenger:
"Do not hurt the boy in any way, for now I know that you truly fear God. You have not withheld even your beloved son from me." Gen. 22:12
(If Deity already knew the answer what's the point of the test?)
Other examples: the Lord speaking of Israel's faithlessness:
"I thought that after she (Israel) had done all this she would return to me. But she did not come back. Jer. 3:7
"I thought to myself, `I would love to treat you as my own children!' I wanted nothing more than to give you this beautiful land--the finest inheritance in the world. I looked forward to your calling me `Father,' and I thought you would never turn away from me again. But you have betrayed me, you people of Israel! You have been like a faithless wife who leaves her husband," says the LORD." Jer. 3:19,20
From the Book of Abraham:
"we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them" Abr 3:24-25
Now let me give you a perhaps even more telling example from Modern scripture. In 1832 Joseph Smith received a revelation that declared a new city would be built and a new temple constructed in Jackson County MA:
"Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation." D&C 84:4
Even if generation is extended out to a full twenty years: several generations have passed and no temple has been built in Jackson Missouri. If this is taken as revelation this would seem to be a problem. The answer is found in a different revelation given to the prophet in 1838. It reads:
"Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God....And this I make an example unto you, for your consolation concerning all those who have been commanded to do a work and have been hindered by the hands of their enemies, and by oppression, saith the Lord your God." D&C 124: 51, 53
It appears both the Lord and Smith expected a temple to be completed. This was hindered by the free actions of individuals. The plan for the temple was not removed, but the timetable was changed. This seems to indicate Deity's limited knowledge of the future and the Lord's ability to respond to the actions of men.
To reiterate prophecy can be broken into the following patterns:
1) Declaration by the Lord of His own intentions that He will bring about.
2) Inference of the future based on prior experience or present causes.
3) A conditional prediction of what will happen if something else happens.
I think this understanding of prophecy is properly aligned with the canon, allows for human freedom (morality) and is truer to the way the Divine is presented. Deity is not a removed, disinterested, unmoved abstraction, but an involved, empathetic and a dynamic being working for the salvation of His children.
Uesugi Kenshin
08-22-2005, 06:33
No and Yes.
Our free will is an illusion.
Our moral has been planted in our DNA, a human without moral is not a human.
Just skimming through this thread and I saw your comment on human morality, people can be born without a sense of morality, they are still human. I believe a person without a sense of morality is the definition of a psychopath, but I could be wrong.
I did a bit of research and it appears that I remember correctly, just google psychopath definition and pick the first result.
Anyway no comments on a diety at the moment, I don't exactly have a set of beliefs that favors debating whether or not a diety is fallible. Carry on. :bow:
bmolsson
08-22-2005, 09:44
Just skimming through this thread and I saw your comment on human morality, people can be born without a sense of morality, they are still human. I believe a person without a sense of morality is the definition of a psychopath, but I could be wrong.
I did a bit of research and it appears that I remember correctly, just google psychopath definition and pick the first result.
Anyway no comments on a diety at the moment, I don't exactly have a set of beliefs that favors debating whether or not a diety is fallible. Carry on. :bow:
A human with no morality is not a human, he is a terrorist and he will be shot at sight...... ~;)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.