Logical Argument against omniscience of biblical god

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 12:54 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;147903 wrote:


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.


I agree with the spirit, but not the letter of what you say. We do not have to invoke all this obscure stuff about the past and God. It is only a matter of seeing that knowing that something will occur does not imply forcing that thing to occur, and so, implies nothing about free will.
 
north
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 08:15 pm
@kennethamy,
god is not logical to begin with nor reasonable

and never has been

( actually thats not true

god has been logical in gods manipulation of Human emotions )
 
prothero
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 12:53 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;147913 wrote:
I agree with the spirit, but not the letter of what you say. We do not have to invoke all this obscure stuff about the past and God. It is only a matter of seeing that knowing that something will occur does not imply forcing that thing to occur, and so, implies nothing about free will.
If god already knows the history of the world from beginning to end and stands outside of time in eternity (the usual portrayal of omniscience) then it is hard to see how free will (defined as the ability to do otherwise) could also be true. Predictability is different than inevitability.

If there is truly the ability to do otherwise then the future is open (not yet determined) in some respects (does not exist) and thus can not be know even to god. God knows all there is to know and takes in the experience of the world but the future may be unknown and as yet undetermined even to god.

Can an omnipotent god change the future? Can one be both omnipotent and omniscient at the same time? Does not one power put certain logical limitations on the other? To say that god has unlimite knowledge of the future and unlimited power to change the future is to create a logical paradox. Above all god is the ordering, rational and creative agent and this implies logical limitations. God can not violate his own nature and the laws of nature are immanent not arbitrary and imposed.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 02:34 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


I am not sure how one can propose a logical argument against the existence of a fictional character but I understand where you are coming from.

Omniscience has no contradictions with free will though. The omniscient god that offers free will to its own creations knows every possible outcome of every possible action of its creations. Knowing every possibility does not mean one has to be forced. You know that when you flip a coin it is either gonna come up heads or tails every time but you still flip just for fun. It is similar to that I would imagine. However not being omniscient I just have to take a guess.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 04:08 am
@trismegisto,
The question is not about determination and free will those can be debated without a god who his omniscient. Its when you place this proposed god into the debate that it becomes illogical. Its not if he can, its why he should? What purpose does it serve him, to know the results of his creation to be at the begining and the end even before he has considered his creation..If he is beyond time and everything is laid out before him like a tapestry and he created it and new its eventual outcome it becomes more and more bizarre in it concept. Your all kidding yourself you think and then dont consider the illogical consequences of your expressions.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:15 am
@xris,
xris;148147 wrote:
The question is not about determination and free will those can be debated without a god who his omniscient. Its when you place this proposed god into the debate that it becomes illogical. Its not if he can, its why he should? What purpose does it serve him, to know the results of his creation to be at the begining and the end even before he has considered his creation..If he is beyond time and everything is laid out before him like a tapestry and he created it and new its eventual outcome it becomes more and more bizarre in it concept. Your all kidding yourself you think and then dont consider the illogical consequences of your expressions.


You place to much importance on logic. Its just as subjective as religion.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:20 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;148246 wrote:
You place to much importance on logic. Its just as subjective as religion.
I dont think so. logic can be questioned , religion is a matter of faith.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:33 am
@xris,
xris;148248 wrote:
I dont think so. logic can be questioned , religion is a matter of faith.


That statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of religion.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:34 am
@prothero,
prothero;148105 wrote:
If god already knows the history of the world from beginning to end and stands outside of time in eternity (the usual portrayal of omniscience) then it is hard to see how free will (defined as the ability to do otherwise) could also be true. .


Well, it may be hard to see, but nevertheless, to take an example from Leibniz, it is true that God new that Judas would sin, and it is also true that God knew that Judas would sin freely, which is to say, of his own choice. The fact that God knew that Judas would sin is not inconsistent with Judas choosing to sin and not being compelled to sin. Naturally, had Judas not chosen to sin, and, therefore, not sinned, God would not have knows that Judas would sin. So, whether God knew that Judas would sin was up to Judas, and not up to God, just as whether Judas would sin was up to Judas and not up to God. God's knowing that Judas would sin did not force Judas to sin, but Judas's sinning forced God to know that Judas would sin. For, if Judas was going to sin, how could an omniscient God not know he would? So, it is because Judas would sin that God knew he would, and not because God knew Judas would sin that Judas sinned.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:40 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;148253 wrote:
Well, it may be hard to see, but nevertheless, to take an example from Leibniz, it is true that God new that Judas would sin, and it is also true that God knew that Judas would sin freely, which is to say, of his own choice. The fact that God knew that Judas would sin is not inconsistent with Judas choosing to sin and not being compelled to sin. Naturally, had Judas not chosen to sin, and, therefore, not sinned, God would not have knows that Judas would sin. So, whether God knew that Judas would sin was up to Judas, and not up to God, just as whether Judas would sin was up to Judas and not up to God. God's knowing that Judas would sin did not force Judas to sin, but Judas's sinning forced God to know that Judas would sin. For, if Judas was going to sin, how could an omniscient God not know he would? So, it is because Judas would sin that God knew he would, and not because God knew Judas would sin that Judas sinned.


Maybe, but its silly to try to make what is already accepted as an unfathomable character fit your measly concept of what unfathomable means. Gimme a break, next you are going to try to logically prove that the hamburglar can travel faster than the speed of sound. Or that blue is really red. What do you hope to gain by just making up stuff about an idea conveyed through words?
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:51 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;148252 wrote:
That statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of religion.
Once again you presume too much. Your statement defines your beliefs. Religion is beyond logic, it can only be valued by the faith of the believer. Logic can be valued by all of us. You really cant express yourself without abuse, can you?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:53 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;148255 wrote:
Maybe, but its silly to try to make what is already accepted as an unfathomable character fit your measly concept of what unfathomable means. Gimme a break, next you are going to try to logically prove that the hamburglar can travel faster than the speed of sound. Or that blue is really red. What do you hope to gain by just making up stuff about an idea conveyed through words?


I am dealing with the issue as posed. You simply don't think the issue can be dealt with for some obscure reasons of your own. Fine. Don't deal with it.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 12:01 pm
@xris,
xris;148261 wrote:
Once again you presume too much. Your statement defines your beliefs. Religion is beyond logic, it can only be valued by the faith of the believer. Logic can be valued by all of us. You really cant express yourself without abuse, can you?


Don't get all sad just because you failed. Try again, it will make you stronger.

---------- Post added 04-04-2010 at 11:07 AM ----------

kennethamy;148262 wrote:
I am dealing with the issue as posed. You simply don't think the issue can be dealt with for some obscure reasons of your own. Fine. Don't deal with it.


First you have to admit that a "Logical argument against omniscience of biblical god" is not a logical premise. You can't disprove a fictional character.

You will never be able to get to the root of the subject without first coming to terms with what the original idea was meant to convey.

how is a three thousand year old literary character supposed to have anything in common with the 150 year old fledgling pseudo-science of logic?
 
prothero
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 12:16 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;148253 wrote:
Well, it may be hard to see, but nevertheless, to take an example from Leibniz, it is true that God new that Judas would sin, and it is also true that God knew that Judas would sin freely, which is to say, of his own choice. The fact that God knew that Judas would sin is not inconsistent with Judas choosing to sin and not being compelled to sin. Naturally, had Judas not chosen to sin, and, therefore, not sinned, God would not have knows that Judas would sin. So, whether God knew that Judas would sin was up to Judas, and not up to God, just as whether Judas would sin was up to Judas and not up to God. God's knowing that Judas would sin did not force Judas to sin, but Judas's sinning forced God to know that Judas would sin. For, if Judas was going to sin, how could an omniscient God not know he would? So, it is because Judas would sin that God knew he would, and not because God knew Judas would sin that Judas sinned.
God's omniscience merely replaces Laplace's demon.
There can then be only one possible future and so free will as the ability to do otherwise can not be true and "free will" becomes mere illusion.
One can twist both the meaning of free will and of the ability to do otherwise but no libertarian free will advocate will buy it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 12:27 pm
@prothero,
prothero;148278 wrote:
God's omniscience merely replaces Laplace's demon.
There can then be only one possible future and so free will as the ability to do otherwise can not be true and "free will" becomes mere illusion.
One can twist both the meaning of free will and of the ability to do otherwise but no libertarian free will advocate will buy it.


Have you considered my argument? Why could not God not only know that Judas would sin, but also know that Judas would freely choose to sin? Never mind the slogans. As Socrates advises, "We must follow the argument wherever it goes".

There can be only one possible future. But that does not mean that Judas's choice does not affect that future, does it? Omniscience does not imply fatalism as you appear to think it does. Fatalism is the view that human choices do not affect the future.
 
prothero
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 03:00 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;148283 wrote:
There can be only one possible future. But that does not mean that Judas's choice does not affect that future, does it? Omniscience does not imply fatalism as you appear to think it does. Fatalism is the view that human choices do not affect the future.

If there can be only one possible future then
free will as the ability to do otherwise can not be true.
Judas could not have done otherwise and "free will" is merely illusion. Your notion of "free will" is not the one men desire, believe in or conduct their lives as though they have. You can join the Calvinists with their doctrine of predestination and the elect. I fail to see if the future is already fixed, essentially has already occurred that "free will" in such a universe would have any real meaning, truth or significance. It would be impossible viewing history to tell the difference between fatalism, predestination and hard Laplace determinsim. In truth there would be no meaningful difference.

I "choose freely" and that "determines" the future but I could not have chosen otherwise and the future could not have been otherwise. For me and my simple reasoning that is not "free will". We would be "mere puppets" in a "cosmic play" which has already been written. I reject such a notion even if it is logically possible. It is not truth. Philosophy is about truth and wisdom not just logic. The Biblical God is not omniscient as any of numerous biblical stories indicates.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 03:26 pm
@prothero,
prothero;148323 wrote:
If there can be only one possible future then
free will as the ability to do otherwise can not be true.
Judas could not have done otherwise and "free will" is merely illusion. Your notion of "free will" is not the one men desire, believe in or conduct their lives as though they have. You can join the Calvinists with their doctrine of predestination and the elect. I fail to see if the future is already fixed, essentially has already occurred that "free will" in such a universe would have any real meaning, truth or significance. It would be impossible viewing history to tell the difference between fatalism, predestination and hard Laplace determinsim. In truth there would be no meaningful difference.

I "choose freely" and that "determines" the future but I could not have chosen otherwise and the future could not have been otherwise. For me and my simple reasoning that is not "free will". We would be "mere puppets" in a "cosmic play" which has already been written. I reject such a notion even if it is logically possible. It is not truth. Philosophy is about truth and wisdom not just logic. The Biblical God is not omniscient as any of numerous biblical stories indicates.


Of course Judas could have done otherwise if he had chosen to do otherwise. What makes you think he could not have chosen otherwise? How was he compelled to chose as he did? And, in any case, why do you think that just because God knew what he would choose that Judas had to choose it? Of course had he chosen otherwise, then God would have then known he would choose otherwise. So the fact that Judas chose to sin, and that God knew he would choose to sin, does not imply that Judas did not freely choose to sin, for he could have chosen otherwise. And, had he done so, that is what God would have known he would do. Whether or not God is omniscient is, of course, irrelevant to the issue which is whether if God is omniscient there is free will.

These "puppet" and "play" metaphors are only metaphors, and misleading metaphors at that, since, as I have argued, God's knowing what we will do does not make us puppets or actors in a scripted play.
 
davidm
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 05:37 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;148329 wrote:
Of course Judas could have done otherwise if he had chosen to do otherwise. What makes you think he could not have chosen otherwise? How was he compelled to chose as he did? And, in any case, why do you think that just because God knew what he would choose that Judas had to choose it? Of course had he chosen otherwise, then God would have then known he would choose otherwise. So the fact that Judas chose to sin, and that God knew he would choose to sin, does not imply that Judas did not freely choose to sin, for he could have chosen otherwise. And, had he done so, that is what God would have known he would do. Whether or not God is omniscient is, of course, irrelevant to the issue which is whether if God is omniscient there is free will.

These "puppet" and "play" metaphors are only metaphors, and misleading metaphors at that, since, as I have argued, God's knowing what we will do does not make us puppets or actors in a scripted play.


I find this reasoning to be correct. It's interesting because I've had this discussion before, and try as I might, I somehow can't get this idea across. :nonooo: Don't know why. :brickwall:
 
prothero
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 06:21 pm
@davidm,
davidm;167822 wrote:
I find this reasoning to be correct. It's interesting because I've had this discussion before, and try as I might, I somehow can't get this idea across. :nonooo: Don't know why. :brickwall:
I predicted my wife would have an english muffin and tea for breakfast this morning. She did. I do not claim she did not make this decision using her "free will". That of course is one thing.

I predict I can tell you precisely what my wife, is thinking, feeling, her actions at every moment for her entire lifetime. That is something else entirely, isnt it. They would be having me committed to the looney bin.

Prediction and predetermined are two different things, yes??

I submit though that the future does not yet exist, that there are elements of unpredictablity in the world, and that even "god" does not have perfect knowledge of the "future". One can construct a logical argument for omniscience but that is not the way the world "really" is.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 06:23 pm
@davidm,
davidm;167822 wrote:
I find this reasoning to be correct. It's interesting because I've had this discussion before, and try as I might, I somehow can't get this idea across. :nonooo: Don't know why. :brickwall:



Because some people (maybe many) are simply not persuaded by sound argument. Maybe they should be, but they are not. As Samuel Johnson once said to someone he was having a discussion with, "Sir, I can give you an argument, but I cannot give you understanding". Logicians are only logicians. They are not psychiatrists.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 01:48:48