Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Options
1…1516182021…327

Comments

  • Options
    #512
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    I believe that omnipotence means unlimited power.
    OK, so you believe that an omnipotent Being is not limited by the problem of making creatures who possess free will?
    Free will implies the ability to act at ones on discretion in other words(in the theistic) willing things/states/thoughts actions into from nothing.
    Could you be a bit more clear in your wording please? What does "in the theistic" mean?
    oh wait I feel a paradox coming on.
    Maybe you would be better relying on logic rather than your feelings? That way, if a paradox exists, you could share it so we can all see it.


  • Options
    #513
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    God determines our existence.
    God determines his knowledge of our existence.
    God determines the existence of the universe.
    God determines his knowledge of the existence of the universe.
    We determine the existence of events in the universe.
    We determine God's knowledge of the existence of events in the universe.

    In order for free-will to exist, the only condition that needs to be met is that this set of statements do not imply a contradiction. If you cannot show that these statements imply a contradiction, then you cannot claim free-will and omniscience are mutually exclusive.

    Ok, think of it this way.

    1. God determines us.
    2. We determine the existence of events in the universe
    3. We determine God's knowledge of such events.
    4. God knows of such events. God knows all.

    Seems reasonable enough because you end up with God knowing all.

    But now, don't do 1, 2 and 3. Say we don't exist. God has no knowledge of the events in the universe, because we and the universe do not exist to determine them.

    1. God determines us.
    2. We determine the existence of events in the universe
    3. We determine God's knowledge of such events.
    4. God knows of such events.

    If we determine this then the end point isn't possible as the knowledge relies on us to determine it.

    But God is omniscient. His knowledge cannot rely on anything in order to be determined. God knows anything that can happen, will happen, might happen, won't happen, what would happen if the thing that won't happen did happen etc.

    This must continue to hold at all points, even if we remove elements. For example

    1. God doesn't determine us
    2. We do not exist to determine the events in the universe which itself does not exist.
    3. We do not determine God's knowledge of such events because we do not exist and the events do not happen.
    4. God knows of such events. God knows all.

    No matter what the order of determination you have to start with God knows all and end with God knows all, even if nothing happens in the middle.


  • Options
    #514
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    I don't propose an agree to disagree on this tiring subject. But it would it be more acceptable to talk about human nature? Things like the mind and conciousness and how they don't fit with theism? For example you said before that you(PDN) didn't think love could be explained by scientific enquiry. Why?

    I said love is not a physical phenomenon. Where's your problem with that statement?


  • Options
    #515
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    PDN wrote: »
    I said love is not a physical phenomenon. Where's your problem with that statement?

    The evidence suggests completely the opposite.


  • Options
    #516
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    The evidence suggests completely the opposite.

    Really Which evidence is that?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #517
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    PDN wrote: »
    Maybe you would be better relying on logic rather than your feelings? That way, if a paradox exists, you could share it so we can all see it.

    God is omnipotent creates and causes all things.
    God creates beings with free will(theistic free will).
    This implies the beings ability to create things that God didn't.
    Implies God wasn't so omnipotent after all.
    Which comes first, paradox.


  • Options
    #518
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    So, maybe you can give a straight answer to a straight question.

    Do you believe that philosophy and logic make it clear that the word 'omnipotent' implies impotence to make creatures who possess free will?

    Do you believe God is able to do logically impossible things, such as create a rock he cannot move, or cause himself to cease to exist and then bring himself back into existences.

    If you don't then what are you asking? The whole argument is that free will and omniscience is logically impossible, not that God could but is choosing not to do it.


  • Options
    #519
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ok, think of it this way.

    But now, don't do 1, 2 and 3. Say we don't exist. God has no knowledge of the events in the universe, because we and the universe do not exist to determine them.

    This is the part where you are adding a timeframe. That's not consistent with Omnipotence. Anybody ?


  • Options
    #520
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The whole argument is that free will and omniscience is logically impossible, not that God could but is choosing not to do it.

    Yes exactly!!


  • Options
    #521
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    This is the part where you are adding a timeframe. That's not consistent with Omnipotence. Anybody ?

    Stop hiding in timeframes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #522
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    :pac: That's the impossibility of explaining and defining Omnipotence, even our language gets in the way sometimes - You have to think really really really BIG here - All encompassing.


  • Options
    #523
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    God is omnipotent creates and causes all things.
    God creates beings with free will(theistic free will).
    This implies the beings ability to create things that God didn't.
    Implies God wasn't so omnipotent after all.
    Which comes first, paradox.

    The ability to "create things that God didn't" is a definition of free will.


  • Options
    #524
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    God is omnipotent creates and causes all things.
    God creates beings with free will(theistic free will).
    This implies the beings ability to create things that God didn't.
    Implies God wasn't so omnipotent after all.
    Which comes first, paradox.
    You are making a really elementary error here.

    There is a difference between:
    a) Being able to do x
    b) Actually doing x

    Do you actually understand that distinction?

    So, for example, an omnipotent God can, if He wishes, create a world where all grass is black. However, if He chooses to create a world where some grass is blue, green and yellow that has not somehow stopped Him being omnipotent.

    In the same way an omnipotent God could easily have created a universe where everything did exactly what He wanted it to do - everything perfectly programmed and each creature being essentially a robot. The fact that He chose not to do that in no way lessens His omnipotence.

    I think you are running into a difficulty as well by the way you use the word 'create'. Christians believe that God created everything in the sense that He created all the matter in the universe and designed its physical properties. But we hold that created beings can rearrange that matter in various ways so as to 'create' a house, sculpture or painting.


  • Options
    #525
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    lmaopml wrote: »
    This is the part where you are adding a timeframe. That's not consistent with Omnipotence. Anybody ?

    Actually it's not consistent with being Eternal rather than the attribute of omnipotence. :)


  • Options
    #526
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    This is the part where you are adding a timeframe. That's not consistent with Omnipotence. Anybody ?

    Its not. All those things can just be. The problem is that without us existing what determines God's knowledge of what we would do if we did exist? We can't, we don't exist.

    Unless someone wants to argue that God doesn't know about things that don't happen. But that is a fuzzy definition of omniscient.


  • Options
    #527
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    PDN wrote: »
    You are making a really elementary error here.

    There is a difference between:
    a) Being able to do x
    b) Actually doing x

    Do you actually understand that distinction?

    So, for example, an omnipotent God can, if He wishes, create a world where all grass is black. However, if He chooses to create a world where some grass is blue, green and yellow that has not somehow stopped Him being omnipotent.

    In the same way an omnipotent God could easily have created a universe where everything did exactly what He wanted it to do - everything perfectly programmed and each creature being essentially a robot. The fact that He chose not to do that in no way lessens His omnipotence.

    As per Wicknight's point this is the same to me as God creating a rock he can't lift.
    PDN wrote: »
    I think you are running into a difficulty as well by the way you use the word 'create'. Christians believe that God created everything in the sense that He created all the matter in the universe and designed its physical properties. But we hold that created beings can rearrange that matter in various ways so as to 'create' a house, sculpture or painting.

    Nope, if he created everything, he created my actions, because logically they are within in the set of things that comprise everything.


  • Options
    #528
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Its not. All those things can just be. The problem is that without us existing what determines God's knowledge of what we would do if we did exist? We can't, we don't exist.

    Unless someone wants to argue that God doesn't know about things that don't happen. But that is a fuzzy definition of omniscient.

    I don't think it is I think it just highlights how illogical the God definition is.


  • Options
    #529
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Its not. All those things can just be. The problem is that without us existing what determines God's knowledge of what we would do if we did exist? We can't, we don't exist.

    Unless someone wants to argue that God doesn't know about things that don't happen. But that is a fuzzy definition of omniscient.

    I don't think it's fuzzy at all. Omniscience means knowing everything that is true, not knowing things that aren't true.

    If you never existed then any 'knowledge' of you would be untrue. But your hypothetical non-existence appears to be nothing more than an off-topic evasion of the points raised in this thread by both theists and atheists alike.

    The fact is that you do exist, that an Eternal God (if He exists) sees your existence and your actions, and because he sees them He knows about them.


  • Options
    #530
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ok, think of it this way.

    1. God determines us.
    2. We determine the existence of events in the universe
    3. We determine God's knowledge of such events.
    4. God knows of such events. God knows all.

    Seems reasonable enough because you end up with God knowing all.

    But now, don't do 1, 2 and 3. Say we don't exist. God has no knowledge of the events in the universe, because we and the universe do not exist to determine them.

    1. God determines us.
    2. We determine the existence of events in the universe
    3. We determine God's knowledge of such events.
    4. God knows of such events.

    If we determine this then the end point isn't possible as the knowledge relies on us to determine it.

    But God is omniscient. His knowledge cannot rely on anything in order to be determined. God knows anything that can happen, will happen, might happen, won't happen, what would happen if the thing that won't happen did happen etc.

    This must continue to hold at all points, even if we remove elements. For example

    1. God doesn't determine us
    2. We do not exist to determine the events in the universe which itself does not exist.
    3. We do not determine God's knowledge of such events because we do not exist and the events do not happen.
    4. God knows of such events. God knows all.

    No matter what the order of determination you have to start with God knows all and end with God knows all, even if nothing happens in the middle.

    I don't see how this is related to my post. I posted the following set of relationships.

    God determines our existence.
    God determines his knowledge of our existence.
    God determines the existence of the universe.
    God determines his knowledge of the existence of the universe.
    We determine the existence of events in the universe.
    We determine God's knowledge of the existence of events in the universe.

    These are premises, and are not ordered. I could just as easily write.

    We determine God's knowledge of the existence of events in the universe.
    We determine the existence of events in the universe.
    God determines our existence.
    God determines his knowledge of the existence of the universe.
    God determines his knowledge of our existence.
    God determines the existence of the universe.

    All I ask is you show how these premises lead to a contradiction.

    What you have done is made up your own set of premises, which I have previously rejected (Such as "God determines us"). You have also used phrases like "end up" which implies you are not listing premises, but rather inferences from premises. But you don't define what you are supposing as a premise, and what you are inferring. You also don't define what you mean by "at all points". Your post is terribly unclear.

    So I'll restate my request. I listed 6 simple relationships between God, us, God's knowledge, and the universe. Can you infer a contradiction from them?

    ---

    CerebralCortex, you don't understand the words you are using.


  • Options
    #531
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    I don't think it's fuzzy at all. Omniscience means knowing everything that is true, not knowing things that aren't true.

    What does that mean? God can't know something is false?

    Omniscience means to know everything infinitely. The truth of what one knows is some what irrelevant. If God is omniscient he knows everything that is not true as much as everything that is true.
    PDN wrote: »
    If you never existed then any 'knowledge' of you would be untrue.

    Again how you are you using "untrue" in this sense.

    If I throw myself out of the window I will fall and hit the ground, probably killing myself.

    Are you saying that if I do not do this then that statement above is untrue?
    PDN wrote: »
    The fact is that you do exist, that an Eternal God (if He exists) sees your existence and your actions, and because he sees them He knows about them.

    This isn't what we are Morbet are discussing. Sees your actions and knows about them requires a temporal time line, myself and Morbet are discussing atemporal determination.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #532
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    I don't see how this is related to my post. I posted the following set of relationships.

    God determines our existence.
    God determines his knowledge of our existence.
    God determines the existence of the universe.
    God determines his knowledge of the existence of the universe.
    We determine the existence of events in the universe.
    We determine God's knowledge of the existence of events in the universe.

    These are premises, and are not ordered. I could just as easily write.

    We determine God's knowledge of the existence of events in the universe.
    We determine the existence of events in the universe.
    God determines our existence.
    God determines his knowledge of the existence of the universe.
    God determines his knowledge of our existence.
    God determines the existence of the universe.

    All I ask is you show how these premises lead to a contradiction.

    I thought I did.

    Remove us from that list. Does God still possess the knowledge determined by us?

    If not then he is not omniscient.
    Morbert wrote: »
    So I'll restate my request. I listed 6 simple relationships between God, us, God's knowledge, and the universe. Can you infer a contradiction from them?

    The contradiction is between what you are stating and omniscience. What you have stated is entirely consistent with a non-omniscient being. But since that isn't what God is described as their is an issue.


  • Options
    #533
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    As per Wicknight's point this is the same to me as God creating a rock he can't lift.
    Then, once again, I ask you to demonstrate why. Your repeated assertions, unbacked as they are by any logical support, aren't going to convince anyone.
    Nope, if he created everything, he created my actions, because logically they are within in the set of things that comprise everything.
    I've already explained to you that the Christian concept that "God created everything" refers to the creation of the physical matter in the universe, not to any subsequent arrangements that we might make of that matter.

    You really do waste everybody's time here if you persist in taking phrases and terms that Christians use, then invest them with a different meaning from that used by Christians, and then think that you're proving some kind of point against Christian beliefs.

    Most Christians do not believe that God "created everything" if, by that phrase, you mean that God created the iPod, boards.ie, the Ford Focus or Dachau. God created the raw material, and he gave us certain abilities and free will, but He did not create the things that we ourselves have shaped.


  • Options
    #534
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    PDN wrote: »
    Then, once again, I ask you to demonstrate why. Your repeated assertions, unbacked as they are by any logical support, aren't going to convince anyone.

    I have. It would be foolish for me to expect to change you're mind PDN.
    PDN wrote: »
    I've already explained to you that the Christian concept that "God created everything" refers to the creation of the physical matter in the universe, not to any subsequent arrangements that we might make of that matter.

    You really do waste everybody's time here if you persist in taking phrases and terms that Christians use, then invest them with a different meaning from that used by Christians, and then think that you're proving some kind of point against Christian beliefs.

    Most Christians do not believe that God "created everything" if, by that phrase, you mean that God created the iPod, boards.ie, the Ford Focus or Dachau. God created the raw material, and he gave us certain abilities and free will, but He did not create the things that we ourselves have shaped.

    I've already told you that's fair but they can't claim that's a logical conclusion.


  • Options
    #535
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    What does that mean? God can't know something is false?
    Stop being silly. You know fine well that isn't what I said. I said God can't know something that is false.

    He can't know that the moon is made of cream cheese, because the proposition that the moon is made of cream cheese is false.

    If you never existed then God would know that Wicknight didn't exist, but He can't know what actions a non-existent Wicknight didn't commit.
    Omniscience means to know everything infinitely. The truth of what one knows is some what irrelevant. If God is omniscient he knows everything that is not true as much as everything that is true.
    No, that is plainly nonsense. He knows everything to be false that is false, and He knows everything to be true that is true, but He cannot know to be true that which is false.
    If I throw myself out of the window I will fall and hit the ground, probably killing myself.

    Are you saying that if I do not do this then that statement above is untrue?
    It is not certain that you will fall and hit the ground. There are possible scenarios where you would not fall, and where you would not hit the ground. Whether you fall and hit the ground depends on variables, and some of those variables depend on the actions of others.
    This isn't what we are Morbet are discussing. Sees your actions and knows about them requires a temporal time line, myself and Morbet are discussing atemporal determination.
    It only requires a temporal timeline for you, not for God. Atemporal does not exist for you. Atemporal exists for God.


  • Options
    #536
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    I have. It would be foolish for me to expect to change you're mind PDN.
    You haven't changed anyone's mind. It's just you and Wicknight repeating assertions and convincing nobody.
    I've already told you that's fair but they can't claim that's a logical conclusion.
    They can claim it, they do so, and you appear unable to demonstrate otherwise.


  • Options
    #537
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Stop being silly. You know fine well that isn't what I said. I said God can't know something that is false.

    He can't know that the moon is made of cream cheese, because the proposition that the moon is made of cream cheese is false.

    That is stupid. God can know what the moon would be like if it was made by cream cheese. It doesn't require that the moon is made of cream cheese to know this.

    God can know what we would do if we existed even if we don't., in exactly the same way he can know what a moon made of cream cheese would be like. That is what omniscient means, infinite knowledge. Obviously if you restrict knowledge to being just things that are then this is not infinite.
    PDN wrote: »
    If you never existed then God would know that Wicknight didn't exist, but He can't know what actions a non-existent Wicknight didn't commit.

    Then he is not omniscient.
    PDN wrote: »
    It only requires a temporal timeline for you, not for God. Atemporal does not exist for you. Atemporal exists for God.

    In Morbet's argument we are atemporal as well, as far as I can tell he thinks this is the only way it can work.


  • Options
    #538
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Then he is not omniscient.
    He is according to how the word omniscient has been understood in Christian theology for centuries.

    Of course if you choose to follow Cerebral Cortex and define words differently then you can reach pretty well any conclusion you want to. But those conclusions will have little or no relevance to this forum since you are discussing something else other than Christian beliefs.


  • Options
    #539
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I thought I did.

    Remove us from that list. Does God still possess the knowledge determined by us?

    If not then he is not omniscient.

    Which premises are you asking me to remove? All premises regarding us? Then we have

    God determines the existence of the universe.
    God determines his knowledge of the existence of the universe.
    The contradiction is between what you are stating and omniscience. What you have stated is entirely consistent with a non-omniscient being. But since that isn't what God is described as their is an issue.

    God has knowledge of our existence, the universe's existence, and events in the universe. That is a sufficient definition for omniscient, as there is nothing in existence God does not know about.


  • Options
    #540
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Wicknight wrote: »
    In Morbet's argument we are atemporal as well, as far as I can tell he thinks this is the only way it can work.

    We are temporal insofar as our experiences. But we have an atemporal relation to the universe as a whole. This is no stranger than saying the occurrence of events in the universe follow a temporal sequence, but the set of all events themselves are atemporal. Or, to use an example from science. The motion of mass through space is temporal, but the coupling of that mass to spacetime, via Einstein's field equations, is atemporal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #541
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    I would have thought that the set of all events are contained within the universe, a temporal construct. Can you expand on what you mean?

    :confused:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement