Logical Argument against omniscience of biblical god

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Young Philosophers Forum
  3. » Logical Argument against omniscience of biblical god

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 04:57 am
Im a Atheist so i dont believe in any of this anyway, ok, i better get on with the argument:

The biblical God is told to give us free will, free will means that your actions cannot be forseen. But the biblical god is told to be omniscient. Heres the contradiction: If he gives free will, then he cannot forsee what we will do in the future, if that would be possible it wouldnt be free will. So this means that the biblical God cannot be omniscient for he cannot forsee our actions
 
wayne
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 05:12 am
@no1author,
no1author;147780 wrote:
Im a Atheist so i dont believe in any of this anyway, ok, i better get on with the argument:

The biblical God is told to give us free will, free will means that your actions cannot be forseen. But the biblical god is told to be omniscient. Heres the contradiction: If he gives free will, then he cannot forsee what we will do in the future, if that would be possible it wouldnt be free will. So this means that the biblical God cannot be omniscient for he cannot forsee our actions


You are assuming that God is somehow constrained by the same rules as the rest of us. What makes you think that a god would be constrained by time.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 05:39 am
@no1author,
no1author;147780 wrote:
Im a Atheist so i dont believe in any of this anyway, ok, i better get on with the argument:

The biblical God is told to give us free will, free will means that your actions cannot be forseen. But the biblical god is told to be omniscient. Heres the contradiction: If he gives free will, then he cannot forsee what we will do in the future, if that would be possible it wouldnt be free will. So this means that the biblical God cannot be omniscient for he cannot forsee our actions


But by foreseeing what we will do, God does not force us to do it. So why cannot God foresee that we will do what we are going to do of our own free will? I can foresee that you will eat at least one meal today, can't I? But did I force you to eat it? I suppose that you ate it of your own free will.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 05:44 am
@kennethamy,
But if he can foresee the outcome of his creation.the end story..why the invention? why bother ,just go to from start to end of game. I would never play chess if I knew the outcome and every darned move to be made. BORING. What purpose does it serve?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 05:46 am
@xris,
xris;147791 wrote:
But if he can foresee the outcome of his creation.the end story..why the invention? why bother ,just go to from start to end of game. I would never play chess if I knew the outcome and every darned move to be made. BORING. What purpose does it serve?


That is a different question.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 05:53 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;147794 wrote:
That is a different question.
Its a question relevant to this thread not another thread.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 05:56 am
@xris,
xris;147800 wrote:
Its a question relevant to this thread not another thread.


It does not follow that if it is not relevant to another thread that it is relevant to this thread. Lots of posts may not be relevant to another thread and also, not relevant to this one (or any other one).
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 06:30 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;147802 wrote:
It does not follow that if it is not relevant to another thread that it is relevant to this thread. Lots of posts may not be relevant to another thread and also, not relevant to this one (or any other one).
So why is it not relevant? its an argument against the notion of omniscience, it serves no purpose, it is contradictory, its a silly notion that a omniscient god would want to pursue a certain venture. Even before he conceived of it, he new he was going to conceive it..Its illogical at every level.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 06:49 am
@xris,
xris;147813 wrote:
So why is it not relevant? its an argument against the notion of omniscience, it serves no purpose, it is contradictory, its a silly notion that a omniscient god would want to pursue a certain venture. Even before he conceived of it, he new he was going to conceive it..Its illogical at every level.


Because if the question is, if God is omniscient, then how can there be free will, it cannot be relevant to reply, because God is not omniscient. If God is not omniscient, that shows nothing about whether if God is omniscient, there is free will.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 07:05 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;147815 wrote:
Because if the question is, if God is omniscient, then how can there be free will, it cannot be relevant to reply, because God is not omniscient. If God is not omniscient, that shows nothing about whether if God is omniscient, there is free will.
But his illogical appearance makes the question illogical. You cant ask an illogical question and then expect logic to arrive from that concept. Why do four legged dogs not clockk the legs when urinating?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 07:10 am
@xris,
xris;147818 wrote:
But his illogical appearance makes the question illogical. You cant ask an illogical question and then expect logic to arrive from that concept. Why do four legged dogs not clockk the legs when urinating?


Yes, always that term, "illogical". But what does it mean when you use it? That is very hard to tell.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 07:12 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;147821 wrote:
Yes, always that term, "illogical". But what does it mean when you use it? That is very hard to tell.
Not if you use logic, surely?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 07:18 am
@xris,
xris;147822 wrote:
Not if you use logic, surely?


My name is not "Shirley"!!
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 07:30 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;147823 wrote:
My name is not "Shirley"!!
It might be:sarcastic:
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 07:37 am
@xris,
xris;147827 wrote:
It might be:sarcastic:


It might be, but it isn't.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 07:43 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;147830 wrote:
It might be, but it isn't.
With that same certainty, I can assure you that a omniscient god is totally illogical. You tell me why in your opinion he is logical? surely that would be easy, not Shirley.
 
NeitherExtreme
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 09:15 am
@no1author,
Hi xris.

xris;147791 wrote:
But if he can foresee the outcome of his creation.the end story..why the invention? why bother ,just go to from start to end of game. I would never play chess if I knew the outcome and every darned move to be made. BORING. What purpose does it serve?


Have you ever watched the same movie more than once? Well, after the first time there are no longer any surprises involved, but sometimes the experience is worthwhile anyway, without being "illogical". So maybe an omniscient God could feel the same way.

And I think you might be assuming that this God could only be concerned with entertaining himself. But what if if an omniscient God wanted to create other beings that would have their own time-based experiences? Shirley, that would not be inherently illogical, would it?

Edit: Dang it. I always miss that that some threads are in the "Young Philosopher's" forum. I'm an old man of 26 and should know better.:surrender:
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 11:26 am
@xris,
xris;147833 wrote:
With that same certainty, I can assure you that a omniscient god is totally illogical. You tell me why in your opinion he is logical? surely that would be easy, not Shirley.


I never said He was either logical nor illogical, since I have no idea what that would mean. And, I am not "surely" either.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 12:20 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;147873 wrote:
I never said He was either logical nor illogical, since I have no idea what that would mean. And, I am not "surely" either.

well if you have no idea then your definitely not Shirley.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 12:23 pm
@xris,
xris;147791 wrote:
But if he can foresee the outcome of his creation.the end story..why the invention? why bother ,just go to from start to end of game. I would never play chess if I knew the outcome and every darned move to be made. BORING. What purpose does it serve?
I know you're going to die.....should you then conclude that your life be ended now or not lived? It's not about how it begins or ends it's the in between stuff where the essence is found.

no1author;147780 wrote:
Im a Atheist so i dont believe in any of this anyway, ok, i better get on with the argument:

The biblical God is told to give us free will, free will means that your actions cannot be forseen. But the biblical god is told to be omniscient. Heres the contradiction: If he gives free will, then he cannot forsee what we will do in the future, if that would be possible it wouldnt be free will. So this means that the biblical God cannot be omniscient for he cannot forsee our actions
this is the problem with trying to insert God INTO our time domain. You have to realize everything is in the past for God. It would be like watching a film of Abraham Lincoln's life and concluding he didn't have free will. It's in the past for me. I know everything he ever did, but I did not effect his free will.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Young Philosophers Forum
  3. » Logical Argument against omniscience of biblical god
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/27/2020 at 11:48:55