If he knows what we will do whats the point.

Originally posted by telerion
Let's see. Lewis' mental idol created the universe without knowing for certain whether it would fall or not (free will came from somewhere else). He was certain, however, that it could fall because he designed it with that possiblity.

So he gets bored twiddling his useless opposable thumbs in the Void and decides to role the proverbial dice. ...[text shortened]... ane . . . I mean C.S. Lewis, God changes from infinitely cruel to infinitely negligent.

Hang on a moment. Unending torture? Precious soul? Why should you give a d@mn for anybody's soul? I doubt you even believe in it's existence.

When you play with loaded dice you're not surprised when you win; so too when you look at history from a momental, personal rather than eternal, objective perspective don't be surprised if you can't make sense of anything.

Originally posted by knightmeister
CS Lewis's answer to this one was to realise that God doesn't 'foresee' what we are going to do in the future it's just that he is already seeing what you are going to do tomorrow. You are still free to do what you want tomorrow but the only reason God knows what you are doing tomorrow is because he is already there watching you do it. God experiences ...[text shortened]... does know (not because it is pre-determined) because he can simply watch you doing it.

If that is the case, then what we think of as a god must be more like a 4th or 5 dimensional statue, that is to say, it is a fixed object and cannot change. How can such a being change in any signicant way if it is fixed in space and time. If it already exists in all times then it is a fixed being and therefore like a statue.

Originally posted by Halitose
Hang on a moment. Unending torture? Precious soul? Why should you give a d@mn for anybody's soul? I doubt you even believe in it's existence.

When you play with loaded dice you're not surprised when you win; so too when you look at history from a momental, personal rather than eternal, objective perspective don't be surprised if you can't make sense of anything.

I was writing from the viewpoint of the super-duper cool god of xianity. Of course I don't believe in a soul, but what does that have to do with anything? I was simply pointing out why Lewis' attempt to get around the omniscience/free will dilemma leaves his god looking like a imprudent dimwit.

Of course, if you don't like C.S Lewis' idol or if you don't like Hell as it is described in the Bible, you are free (as a theist is always) to redefine your personal idol or your personal spirit world however you like. If you can't reconcile your idol's love and wisdom with an unending punishment, then make Hell less scary. The typical xian tendency is to find some way to blame things on humans (e.g. man creates Hell for himself because he doesn't want to be with my idol! It's just a place apart from my idol where the non-believer wants to be, but it really is a very terrible place to be. Did I say that the non-believer wants to be there?).

So make up whatever you like. It's really very easy and requires only a bit more imagination than Arby Hill possesses.

Originally posted by telerion
I was writing from the viewpoint of the super-duper cool god of xianity. Of course I don't believe in a soul, but what does that have to do with anything? I was simply pointing out why Lewis' attempt to get around the omniscience/free will dilemma leaves his god looking like a imprudent dimwit.

Of course, if you don't like C.S Lewis' idol or if you d ...[text shortened]... 's really very easy and requires only a bit more imagination than Arby Hill possesses.

I was writing from the viewpoint of the super-duper cool god of xianity.

What arrogance - oh and did I mention disingenuity. I find it almost inexcusable that you, as an ex-Christian, would peddle such a strawman, fully knowing the "facts". Then again, I'm not really surprised. I have no problem with you presenting God's viewpoint, but don't then do it from a selective, demeaning and purposely dishonest perspective.

I was simply pointing out why Lewis' attempt to get around the omniscience/free will dilemma leaves his god looking like a imprudent dimwit.

How? Do mention God's reasons for creating humanity. And while you struggle with this stupefying question, please keep in mind that the universe does not revolve around you or me or any other human, but rather the eternal interaction between man and God.

P.S. So that we don't cover ground that I've already gone over, do peruse my latest additions to the Divine Decree thread.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If that is the case, then what we think of as a god must be more like a 4th or 5 dimensional statue, that is to say, it is a fixed object and cannot change. How can such a being change in any signicant way if it is fixed in space and time. If it already exists in all times then it is a fixed being and therefore like a statue.

In some ways you are right , God is unchanging according to Christianity (but that's in moral charactor). Statuesque though? Your reasoning suggests that God is somehow 'stuck' in the time which he observes as if he is reliant on space/time rather than the other way round. Given that time itself moves forward and can be bent (according to Einstein) I don't even see the comparison with a statue. Even Atheist/Agnostic Phycisists talk about extra dimensions having dynamic fluidity.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Which book did Lewis write this, or was it in a book? I do not recall
that, but like the perspective.
Kelly

It was definitely Mere Christianity.

Originally posted by telerion
Let's see. Lewis' mental idol created the universe without knowing for certain whether it would fall or not (free will came from somewhere else). He was certain, however, that it could fall because he designed it with that possiblity.

So he gets bored twiddling his useless opposable thumbs in the Void and decides to role the proverbial dice. ...[text shortened]... ane . . . I mean C.S. Lewis, God changes from infinitely cruel to infinitely negligent.

My understanding of the fall is that it refers to the fall of man. This is the idea (inherent in most religions) that man has somehow fallen short of spiritual wholeness or is in darkness not knowing who God is. In order to have free will you have to have some separation from God otherwise we would all be compelled to follow him so yes, he did know we would fall maybe in much the same way a parent knows a child is going to screw up at some point when they leave home.

You are right to say God took an incredible risk in creating us. If only one soul rejects him then his heart is more broken than we could possibly know and continues to be broken into eternity.However, your list of consequences is selective and does not include the unimaginable joy and endless sharing of love that will occur as creation reveals it's eternal children , the purpose of it all. Have you got children? If so, Were you negligent in having them? Maybe you should have kept life to yourself given the risks?

What arrogance - oh and did I mention disingenuity. I find it almost inexcusable that you, as an ex-Christian, would peddle such a strawman, fully knowing the "facts". Then again, I'm not really surprised. I have no problem with you presenting God's viewpoint, but don't then do it from a selective, demeaning and purposely dishonest perspective.

You've obviously read my post completely the wrong way. All I'm saying is that redefining with God's foresight as Lewis does makes God seem like a negligent buffoon.

I see nothing in my post that makes me arrogant per se (maybe the term "idol" set you off. Personally, the only difference I see between your god or Lewis' god and a worshipped stone statue is that the stone has a physical representation). There is certainly no room for calling me disingenious. I'm not posing as a believer or trying to peddle something. I'm not trying to play your god or Lewis' god or anyone else.

Show me how I'm being demeaning and 'purposefully dishonest.' You may not like my conclusion, but as it stands this is how I see Lewis' argument playing out.

How? Do mention God's reasons for creating humanity. And while you struggle with this stupefying question, please keep in mind that the universe does not revolve around you or me or any other human, but rather the eternal interaction between man and God.

This is absolutely irrelevant to my post. You seem incapable of divorcing yourself from your passionate beliefs. I'm mulling over a thought and showing how Lewis' construct still leaves the xian god culpable. That is all. Really, you need to take a break. Return. Re-read my post in context and then apologize to me for your boorish behavior. The person who gave you a rec for this diatribe can apologize too (to me and him/herself for being such a fool.)

P.S. So that we don't cover ground that I've already gone over, do peruse my latest additions to the Divine Decree thread.

I will look them over, though given your total misinterpretation of my words, I doubt they will have any bearing on my point either.

Originally posted by knightmeister
My understanding of the fall is that it refers to the fall of man. This is the idea (inherent in most religions) that man has somehow fallen short of spiritual wholeness or is in darkness not knowing who God is. In order to have free will you have to have some separation from God otherwise we would all be compelled to follow him so yes, he did know we ...[text shortened]... Were you negligent in having them? Maybe you should have kept life to yourself given the risks?

We must be very careful with parent-child analogies when discussing the creator/creation relationship. Analogies between the relationship of an omnipotent omniscient creator and humans and the relationship between a human parent and a human child are almost always uninstructive.

Many of these arguments against this sort of god come from his omniscience and omnipotence. Humans cannot foresee every consequences that will arise from each child's existence. Furthermore, even if they did they lack control over most facets of the environment that their children face in the same way that your god is supposed to. To compare and O-O deities decision to create a flawed world (flawed here includes an intertemporal standard. Being great for a short-period and then failing is still a failure) to a parent raising a child is like comparing a cardiologists decision to let a unqualified nurse perform an emergency heart transplant to a shoe shiner making the same choice.

Anyway, it's really a very simple idea. If God is super-duper (i.e. possessing all the great and magnificient qualities believers here continually attribute to him), then he either deliberately created a world in which "x" fraction of humans go to Hell instead of another one in which "x" fraction did not (Note: a world in which less that "x" fraction of humans go to Hell is still unattainable even if we apply a tight "free will" constraint over god's choice set); or he deliberately chose to create a world in which he was reasonably sure (though perhaps not certain) that "x" fraction of humans would go to Hell rather than create one in which the likelihood of humans betraying him was much lower. In the first case, I, by any decent ethical view, judge that this god is cruel. In the second case, I judge that he is infinitely negligent.

Hal may find my judging his idol to be arrogant (and disingenious???), but as I'm sure he does not mind doing the same to any non-xian idol, I lack any sympathy for his indignation.

Originally posted by telerion
[b]What arrogance - oh and did I mention disingenuity. I find it almost inexcusable that you, as an ex-Christian, would peddle such a strawman, fully knowing the "facts". Then again, I'm not really surprised. I have no problem with you presenting God's viewpoint, but don't then do it from a selective, demeaning and purposely dishonest perspective.

Yo ...[text shortened]... ation of my words, I doubt they will have any bearing on my point either.[/b]

[/b][/i]You're right. I had no reason to turn this into personal insults, and for that I sincerely apologise. Bear with me for a moment though as I go through your thought processes (the emotive, response eliciting barbs notwithstanding) and unearth why I labeled your previous posts (and you) as arrogant and disingenuous.

I wish to question your fundamental underlying assumptions in reaching the conclusions you did.

I see you chose not to answer my question of why God would create a world in the first place. This is a question which is pivotal in understanding the concept of evil; the answer of which I am even struggling with at the moment.

From your statement it bled through the canvass that such a reason would be the maximising of unspecified good within a physical environment -- hence my label of arrogance. How could you claim to have insight to the hidden machinations of God without even examining a whole world of possibilities lying before you? Enters disingenuity; you start throwing around terms such as "infinitely negligent" and "imprudent dimwit" having reached your conclusion, knowing full well that this wouldn't be true for all given scenarios.

Personally, the only difference I see between your god or Lewis' god and a worshipped stone statue is that the stone has a physical representation).

You assume that there is indeed something worthy of worship (do you??). With that assumption, why do you label everything an "idol" when the very worthiness of worshiping the object is in question?

You seem incapable of divorcing yourself from your passionate beliefs.

I tend to agree with you. That being said, I don't mind the occasional verbal sparring (which IMO could be lifted to a point above the belt without jeopardising the integrity of your argument) that seems ubiquitous to this forum. 😉

If you still think that I have misrepresented your position, I once again beg your pardon for such boorish behaviour.

Originally posted by Brother Edwin
Since god knows(and has chosen) exactly where we will end up why dosent he skip it all and just put is in heaven or hell straght away.

The answer is so obvious! He cannot send you to hell until you have sinned! (and rejected him or whatever).
Besides, he knows it will happen so he can hardly stop it from happening and change the future that he knows.

The actions of a being outside time are almost impossible to comprehend as the very word 'action' implies some sort of time component. Almost all related concepts such as justice, free will etc are also very time dependant.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Have you got children? If so, Were you negligent in having them? Maybe you should have kept life to yourself given the risks?

There is a vast difference between the choice of having children and risking all the problems they may run into or not having them, and the choice of creating people imperfect in an imperfect world or creating them perfect in a perfect world.
Are you implying that this is the best God could do? That his only other choice would be to not create the universe?

I find that whole religion just contradicts itself.
Don´t get me wrong I have been raised as a christian and lived as a christian for almost 18 to 19 years in total.
But it doesn´t make any sense and don´t say it makes no sense to us humans but for god.

If for God all time areas (past, present and future) are the same what is the point of the whole story.

allright I build a big park. Then I plant a tree which I know will make my "beloved" children suffer. Then I allow the snake to enter my garden.
Then I give them all the sins (after kicking my children out of home) and yada yada yada but tell them not to try that.
If he knows in the first place that Adam and Eve will sin whats the point ?
And even if I had free will he would know about my choice in the first place.

That leads me to following conclusions:

God is either:

- A sadistic watcher

- a child with an ant hill and he plans nothing (stolen from a movie, I know)

- by far not as powerful as we think and therefore not worthy to be worshipped.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by Halitose
[/i]You're right. I had no reason to turn this into personal insults, and for that I sincerely apologise. Bear with me for a moment though as I go through your thought processes (the emotive, response eliciting barbs notwithstanding) and unearth why I labeled your previous posts (and you) as arrogant and disingenuous.

I wish to question your fundamen ...[text shortened]... misrepresented your position, I once again beg your pardon for such boorish behaviour.[/b]

Ok. Now we can talk. When I find some spare time, I will come back to this. Promise.

Originally posted by telerion
Ok. Now we can talk. When I find some spare time, I will come back to this. Promise.

I'll be waiting. 🙂