Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“God is testing us”
I have often heard people say the above but I think this an illogical claim for the following reasons:
1, “God” is supposed to be all-knowing; -right?
2, if “God” is all-knowing then he must know the outcome of any “test” before the test starts; -right?
3, A “test” is, by definition, a deliberate action done to find know at what point ( 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, ) you disagree and what is your counter argument.
==============================
“God is testing us”
I have often heard people say the above but I think this an illogical claim for the following reasons:
=============================
I find that some skeptics exaggerate how "often" they supposedly heard something said.
1.) How many times did you hear people say "God is testing us" ?
2.) Who do you suppose they meant by "us" ?
===============================
1, “God” is supposed to be all-knowing; -right?
2, if “God” is all-knowing then he must know the outcome of any “test” before the test starts; -right?
================================
I think a "test" could be not for the sake of One who is all-knowing. It is possible that the "test" could be for the one being tested to know.
For example, a professor may know good and well that some self assured student really is not qualified to pass an examination. The "test" being given to that student may be for the the student's more realistic enlightenemt of the level of his preparedness.
The purpose was to let the student see where he was, being previosly self assured in a foolish way. Of course the same could be true in a positive sense. That is to test the student who lacks confidence to realize that he actually can deliver.
It is possible that a test of an all knowing God is designed not to enlighten God but to enlighten people.
====================================
3, A “test” is, by definition, a deliberate action done to find out something that is not known before that action itself is carried out; -right?
======================================
1. I don't know if that definition is right or not.
2.) I don't know if the English word "test" is the best word translation, if and when such a concept was employed by God in the Bible.
It would take some further research. I think I recall the word
"try" or
"trial" being used.
==========================================
4, But, we know from 2, that “God” must already know the outcome of any “test” before the test starts which therefore, from 3, means that any such so-called “test” by “God” is not a test by definition; -right?
=======================================
Would it follow that a "test" given by a professor who
knows pretty well the outcome of a student's preparedness is also not really a "test" ?
=======================================
-unless it really is a “test” in which case “God” would be ignorant of the outcome of such a test in which case he is NOT all knowing?
======================================
Philosophers and theologians have discussed for hundreds of years
"omniscience".
In spite of the volumes that have discussed and debated the matter, I don't think it has been resolved. Not all theistic theological thinkers would insist that omniscience
has to be an attribute of God.
And whether or not
"omniscience" of God is
"predestination" has also not been conclusively resolved. But it has been argued much either way much.
For all practical purposes if God knows the outcome of our choice, but we do not, is that really predestination ? I am not sure.
At any rate, most of the time we mortals do not have a clue of the outcome even if God does. From our sense we have no feeling of being coerced.
Think about it Mr. Hamilton. Do you feel anyone is
coercing you to arrange careful arguments on the invalidity of theism ? I suspect you do not feel coerced or predestined at all. I suspect that your sensation is that you have pure freedom of will to think as you wish.
I would like to ask former Atheist Anthony Flew. Does he feel predestinated and coerced to believe in a God now or did he feel
coerced and
predestinated to be an Athiest earlier?
And if he should change and revert
back to atheism, would he feel predestined or coerced to do so like some puppet whose strings are controlled by another.
Anyway, if God is truly omsicient and knows what will take place throughout all eternity, I find it difficult to find ground for blaming Him for having this attribute.
On what bases can I condemn an all knowing God with
"Shame on You. You should not know everything !" ?
And if God DOES know everything but you know that that is wrong that God should, what higher umpire or disciplinarian are you going to complain to that God should be disciplined? In that case that higher and more powerful and capable umpire must be God.
What transcendent authority and power to God are you going to invoke to make God stop knowing everything ? Would it be a committee of muscular atheists ?
I think a more reasonable approach to the problem is to have confidence that an ultimate Governor possesses ultimate goodness along with ultimate knowledge.
It doesn't make sense to me that the creation of such a Being would be superior morally then that Being. How could God endow with that which is not in Himself to give ?
To argue against God would be to argue against the One who gave you the ability to argue at all.
Then maybe you take the approach that there is NO God. Then if you know that you could not scientifically demostrate it and violate your own complaint. For in your own words, what "test" could be designed in which the designer of the test
knows the outcome?
To be consistent to your own philosophy, you could not propose any "testable" approach to demonstrating the non-existence of God. Then scientific method would be of no use to you in verifying your atheism.
We would just have to take your word on .... "faith", or something like it.
So you can't know there is no God and design a "test" to prove it, by your own philosophy. So where does that leave us?
I suppose you could propose a test and NOT know the outcome. In that case by your definition, your "test" is legitimate. However, in the process you would have to change your stance from an Atheist to an Agnostic.
Are you willing to make that concession ?
See what an enfluence you have been on me Mr. Hamilton? Now wouldn't you much rather prefer that I go back to mere bible thumping ?
How's classes going, by the way?