free will and omnipotence

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm curious when you say you are "not really interested in hearing arguments about God being outside of time" ? What on earth do you think Christians believe? How can God be omnipotent if he is restricted by time. That would mean that time would have to exist before God could do anything. As Einstein pointed out , time is merely another dimension of sp ...[text shortened]... all that stuff about hard drives , chips , binary/digital codes and motherboards". 🙄

I have already acknowledged the possibility that God exists outside of time. However, I call into question your ability, as a mere mortal constrained by time and space, to explain the properties of a being who is outside of time.

I would only consider further discussion if we were to concentrate on the part of God that interacts with us within our cage of time and space. I would turn your argument on its head and point out that a God that cannot act within that cage isn't very omnipotent, either. I would point out that the Bible points out numerous examples of God acting within time.

Hard drives, chips, etc. can be proven to exist. God cannot. The operation of computer parts can be predicted and demonstrated. The behavior of God cannot. This is a really bad analogy.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I have already acknowledged the possibility that God exists outside of time. However, I call into question your ability, as a mere mortal constrained by time and space, to explain the properties of a being who is outside of time.

I would only consider further discussion if we were to concentrate on the part of God that interacts with us within our ...[text shortened]... ts can be predicted and demonstrated. The behavior of God cannot. This is a really bad analogy.

I absolutely and unreservedly have no problem at all discussing the part of God that moves within time or enters into our world as that would mean we are going to end up discussing Jesus .

What I object to is the arbitary discarding of everything else about God at the same time. If you ask me to explain how God is omniscient of your choices but how your choices are still free , then I cannot do this without refering to eternity. It's not possible. Period This is where the anaolgy of chips etc works very well. Unless you think you can talk meaningfully about computing without refering to these ideas? Maybe you would like to explain how jet engines work without refering to the words combustion , turbine or fuel ? What next , let's talk about world war 2 but not mention Hitler , churchill or stalin?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I keep hearing this argument that somehow free will can't exist because God is omnipotent and nothing happens without him initiating it.

According to this argument the universe/existence is entirely deterministic ruling out any chance of true free will. Therefore we cannot have free will because everything can be traced back to God's initiation or So I guess it shouldn't suprise me if you also have funny ideas about omnipotence as well

I keep hearing this argument that somehow free will can't exist because God is omnipotent and nothing happens without him initiating it.

I don't. One contention that is common, however, is that the existence of an omniscient god precludes free will of a libertarian sort. Since the focus here is on omnipotence, the following should be relevant: omnipotence implies the capacity for omniscience; so, omnipotence together with some claim that propositions regarding future states have definite truth values should collectively be enough to preclude libertarian free will.

1) If God is truely ominpotent then he must be the Uncaused Cause , the foundation of everything that exists for whom no initiation is necessary.

You're saying that being the "Uncaused Cause" (a necessary being who gives rise to all other existence) is a necessary condition for being omnipotent. Why should I accept this? What's the logical contradiction in saying that some omnipotent being also happens to be a being whose existence is contingent?

It follows logically from 1) that there is at least one thing in existence that has real free will because God is not subject to determinism being omnipotent and Uncaused.

Whether a being's existence is contingent or necessary; whether that being can do anything that is logically possible or not; I don't see why these considerations would have implications concerning freedom of the being's will. Presumably, an omnipotent being could bring about a state of affairs in which he possesses libertarian free will, but such a state is not necessary. Also, if you're suggesting that any omnipotent being has libertarian free will since he could "always have done otherwise" in light of his omnipotence, then you're just begging the question.

to have an infinite regress of caused causes that never ends which is mind boggling

Why is this so mind boggling relative to, say, the necessary existence of some eternal being? I don't see any reason why there must be some beginning. Besides, if we're going to conclude that some necessary entity must exist, it may as well just be the universe itself. The Cosmological Argument is not compelling in any way relative to the subject of your God.

3) If God has free will and is all powerful , why is it so impossible or hard for him to share that very free will with us?

It's seemingly impossible because of the properties you ascribe to your God. Many Christians want to say that God is eternal and timeless and yet that he is active in time and responsible for certain temporal changes (e.g., for miracles or acts of creation, etc.). This is sometimes called the problem of action: that if God is eternal and timeless, then it is not possible for him to change at any one point in time, which is something deemed necessary for his being causally active and responsible for temporal changes. Simply saying that he is omnipotent and therefore can do such things is not good enough since the claim here is that it is logically impossible for some thing to be both eternal/timeless and active in time. There may be ways for you to clarify your position and to attempt to get around the problem of action, but you should at least consider this argument which attempts to expose a contradiction in Christian theology.

I know some of you Atheists think that God should be able to create real free will and also prevent any of us from going astray at the same time , which to me is logically absurd.

Some of us atheists are compatibilists and think your notion of "real free will" is ridiculous and unintelligible to begin with. Sure, maybe under a libertarian account it would not be possible for god to provide for both an absence of willful misconduct and the existence of 'free will' -- after all, it is not logically possible to causally determine the content of willings if such content is metaphysically random, or perhaps if such content is brought about by some incredibly bizarre sort of agent causation. But who cares? Libertarian free will, such as your notion, is not even a coherent concept, let alone something to be valued if it did exist. Compatibilist free will is "real" free will in which *I* am a genuine source of the content of my willings, and under a compatibilist account it is possible for an omnipotent god to provide for both free will and an absence of willful misconduct. At the very least, the existence of free will does not entail the amount of pain and suffering that is present in the world (and I mean this also in regards to the pain and suffering that is commonly identified to be proximately caused by acts of 'free will' -- not merely in regards to the numerous forms of natural evils).

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I keep hearing this argument that somehow free will can't exist because God is omnipotent and nothing happens without him initiating it.

I don't. One contention that is common, however, is that the existence of an omniscient god precludes free will of a libertarian sort. Since the focus here is on omnipotence, the following should be relevant: ...[text shortened]... will' -- not merely in regards to the numerous forms of natural evils).[/b]

Word.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I don't. One contention that is common, however, is that the existence of an omniscient god precludes free will of a libertarian sort.

Such contentions usually end up mixing logic or semantics with metaphysics.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I absolutely and unreservedly have no problem at all discussing the part of God that moves within time or enters into our world as that would mean we are going to end up discussing Jesus .

What I object to is the arbitary discarding of everything else about God at the same time. If you ask me to explain how God is omniscient of your choices but how ...[text shortened]... fuel ? What next , let's talk about world war 2 but not mention Hitler , churchill or stalin?

I don't agree that "God outside of time" is an essential part of any discussion about God's interactions with us. This difference is probably unresolvable, so I'll decline to discuss the matter further with you.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I don't agree that "God outside of time" is an essential part of any discussion about God's interactions with us. This difference is probably unresolvable, so I'll decline to discuss the matter further with you.

I thought that the thread was about omnipotence/omniscience and free will and how it's possible for God to be both but for free will to still exist. Since you probably realised that it is the Christian God we are talking about then that implies a God who is eternal. We could have had the discussion you proposed but if you had won the argument (which you no doubt would have done given that you would have loaded the dice beforehand) then all you would have disproved is another god entirely (who is not eternal). This leaves me wondering why you bothered to join the thread in the first place??

Why do you insist on leaving such a crucial part of Gods' nature out of the debate. Surely we could have debated why I think it's crucial and why you think it's not at the very least? I find myself wondering whether you unconsciously realised where this debate might lead. But hey ho , God gave you free will , I can't force you.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I thought that the thread was about omnipotence/omniscience and free will and how it's possible for God to be both but for free will to still exist. Since you probably realised that it is the Christian God we are talking about then that implies a God who is eternal. We could have had the discussion you proposed but if you had won the argument (which yo ...[text shortened]... ised where this debate might lead. But hey ho , God gave you free will , I can't force you.

Funny, the thread wasn't about omniscience at all until I mentioned it.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Funny, the thread wasn't about omniscience at all until [b]I mentioned it.[/b]

You were right to bring up omniscience in connection with omnipotence , I can't dispute that.

And when you did bring up omniscience I said fine ,"bring it on" and you started to walk away or place preconditions on what arguments I could and couldn't use to defend my position. So you can either return and have a debate about the eternal God Christians really believe in , or try to score points in an argument based on some kind of god that neither of us believe in!

Originally posted by knightmeister
You were right to bring up omniscience in connection with omnipotence , I can't dispute that.

And when you did bring up omniscience I said fine ,"bring it on" and you started to walk away or place preconditions on what arguments I could and couldn't use to defend my position. So you can either return and have a debate about the eternal God Christi ...[text shortened]... try to score points in an argument based on some kind of god that neither of us believe in!

No, sorry, I've tried to get Christians to explain what they mean by "outside of time" several times on these forums, without success. I have no desire to hear more of the inevitable vague and incoherent attempts to explain it, nor do I see the relevance of it when your own belief system tells us that God interacts with man within the constraints of time and space. Your prize argument that you believe defends your position is actually so weak that it's not worth the time to discuss it.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
No, sorry, I've tried to get Christians to explain what they mean by "outside of time" several times on these forums, without success. I have no desire to hear more of the inevitable vague and incoherent attempts to explain it, nor do I see the relevance of it when your own belief system tells us that [i]God interacts with man within the constraints o ...[text shortened]... elieve defends your position is actually so weak that it's not worth the time to discuss it.

Ok , I'm feeling more mellow today let's say I meet you where you are then . No talking about the part of God that is outside of time , let's just talk about the part of God that interacts with man within time and see where that takes us. Bear in mind that I might find it hard.But what would you like to ask?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
No, sorry, I've tried to get Christians to explain what they mean by "outside of time" several times on these forums, without success. I have no desire to hear more of the inevitable vague and incoherent attempts to explain it, nor do I see the relevance of it when your own belief system tells us that [i]God interacts with man within the constraints o ...[text shortened]... elieve defends your position is actually so weak that it's not worth the time to discuss it.

That God interacts with man within the boundaries of space and time does not in any way contradict the notion that he is a being outside space-time. That you cannot seem to grasp it is your problem, not that of the theist who holds the position.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That God interacts with man within the boundaries of space and time does not in any way contradict the notion that he is a being outside space-time. That you cannot seem to grasp it is your problem, not that of the theist who holds the position.

No, he who makes a positive claim has the burden of supporting it.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
No, he who makes a positive claim has the burden of supporting it.

There's nothing to support (in this case). You made a counter-argument that is flawed, that's all.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
There's nothing to support (in this case). You made a counter-argument that is flawed, that's all.

Oh! How silly of me. Here I thought one was supposed to believe things that are supported by evidence or logic. If you're more comfortable with dogmatic assertions, please don't let me get in the way.