ISAW wrote: » Philosophy has moved on.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » 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?
In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders
ISAW wrote: » What about the null set? Couldn't an omnipotent/omnipresent being also created a null set without anything in it? How then could God be present in the empty set? See what happens when you use formal logic to prove everything? You end up with inconsistencies. Logic and mathematics isn't enough to explain everything. In fact mathematics itself has a logical proof of this. You middle Age/ ancient logical problems of God creating rocks he can't lift belong there. Philosophy has moved on.
Morbert wrote: » 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.
Morbert wrote: » 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.
PDN wrote: » He is according to how the word omniscient has been understood in Christian theology for centuries.
CerebralCortex wrote: » Nope, if he created everything, he created my actions, because logically they are within in the set of things that comprise everything.
Wikipedia wrote: The metric captures all the geometric and causal structure of spacetime, being used to define notions such as distance, volume, curvature, angle, future and past.
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.
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.
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.
Wicknight wrote: » Then he is not omniscient.
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.
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.
PDN wrote: » It only requires a temporal timeline for you, not for God. Atemporal does not exist for you. Atemporal exists for God.
CerebralCortex wrote: » I have. It would be foolish for me to expect to change you're mind PDN.
I've already told you that's fair but they can't claim that's a logical conclusion.
Wicknight wrote: » 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
CerebralCortex wrote: » As per Wicknight's point this is the same to me as God creating a rock he can't lift.
Nope, if he created everything, he created my actions, because logically they are within in the set of things that comprise everything.
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.
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?
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.
PDN wrote: » If you never existed then any 'knowledge' of you would be 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.
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 universe3. 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.
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.
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.
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.
lmaopml wrote: » This is the part where you are adding a timeframe. That's not consistent with Omnipotence. Anybody ?
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.
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.
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.
