Inaction

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what does that even mean? that there is no one better? that you fart rainbows? tell me what does a perfectly good being do?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the generally accepted notion of perfectly good God is to say that it cannot be more good

As for what I meant by saying "I make no claims to being perfectly good", I mean that there is no requirement for me to be a herbivore, green-peace activist, etc... because I don't champion any assertions made about *me* that I am perfectly good, or cannot be more good than I am.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
how about he knows all the choices you possibly can make. and living outside the time tree he knows all the universe possible. so you have free will to choose which path you take and god is omniscient. everyone wins.

No!!! If I ask you to pick a number between 1 and 100, I know all the choices you could possibly make despite knowing nothing about the choice you will make.

To say your God is omniscient means that for my instantiation in *this* universe it knows what choices out of the entire collection of permissible choices will be made by me.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
how about he knows all the choices you possibly can make. and living outside the time tree he knows all the universe possible. so you have free will to choose which path you take and god is omniscient. everyone wins.

Good answer. So idea one is a full-on multiverse, where each and every decision generates an equally real universe - in which case god already knows which versions of me will believe and which won't so where's my free will. Idea two is all the possibilities are trimmed off as decisions are made - in which god already knows what decision I'm going to make so where's my free will. Is there an idea three?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Good answer. So idea one is a full-on multiverse, where each and every decision generates an equally real universe - in which case god already knows which versions of me will believe and which won't so where's my free will. Idea two is all the possibilities are trimmed off as decisions are made - in which god already knows what decision I'm going to make so where's my free will. Is there an idea three?

God knows all the possible futures, but does not know which you will choose. However his infinite intelligence and infinite data allow him to know things on a statistical level. Thus his "omniscience" is more like 99.9999999% omniscience.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
God knows all the possible futures, but does not know which you will choose. However his infinite intelligence and infinite data allow him to know things on a statistical level. Thus his "omniscience" is more like 99.9999999% omniscience.

Omniscient, definition - "all knowing" "total knowledge" "infinite knowledge" "knowing all things". So, not omniscient then?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Good answer. So idea one is a full-on multiverse, where each and every decision generates an equally real universe - in which case god already knows which versions of me will believe and which won't so where's my free will. Idea two is all the possibilities are trimmed off as decisions are made - in which god already knows what decision I'm going to make so where's my free will. Is there an idea three?

that pretty much it.

if you allow for both an omniscient god and free will to exist then that is the only explanation. a god cannot know my next choice if i am free to choose my own choice. he might know probabilities of my next choice.

i maintain that when we make decision there isn't a precise point in the reasoning process where you will lean towards one decision and not the other. for example i might want to go swimming tomorrow. but it is rather cold outside. and i should fix the garden shed someday. so i consider each point carefully and assign let say each activity a priority. if i get to relive this moment over and over, will i always choose to go swimming? if yes, then we are simply more complex computers and free will is thrown out the window.


but thats another discussion

Originally posted by Agerg
No!!! If I ask you to pick a number between 1 and 100, I know all the choices you could possibly make despite knowing nothing about the choice you will make.

To say your God is omniscient means that for my instantiation in *this* universe it knows what choices out of the entire collection of permissible choices will be made by me.

yes, your point is?

there isn't absolute omniscience if you allow for free will.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, your point is?

there isn't absolute omniscience if you allow for free will.

My point? You just stated it.

Furthermore, to use the word omniscience in any sense other than complete knowledge (without some form of modifier to the word) is to sow confusion.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Omniscient, definition - "all knowing" "total knowledge" "infinite knowledge" "knowing all things". So, not omniscient then?

Basically. He's not empistemically (how tf do you spell that) omniscient, he's for all intents and purposes omniscient.

i think we have evovlved brains that have developped the capacity for free will, so we can understand our mind/being and reallign our wills with Gods Will. You could call it colonizing the galaxy. You could probably call it a lot of worse things too.

Imagine. The power to go flitting through time like the internet. Wild stuff, but , as the greys found out, very pointless unless you are using such power to "allign with the greater", , , but you know, the jug boils, we make another cup of tea, nothing deeper is really required

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You're not bothered by the contradiction there?

Life is full of contradictions. Some we can work out and others we cannot. To assume that our logic can work them all out is simply folly.

It seems to me that an all powerful God could create free will even though he may know what roads we choose in life, otherwirse, he would not be all powerful. For the naywayers, however, God will be confined to our logic that tells us it simply is not possible.

I will say that this thing we call free will is a mystery. I don't pretend to understand it, however, it seems odd how out of sorts we become once we feel as though it is being violated. There is no doubt, therefore, that it exists. The only question becomes, can an all powerful and all knowing God exist along side it? I say it is possible especially for an all powerful God. In fact, isn't it a contradiction to say that an all powerful God CANNOT praovide us with free will?

Originally posted by whodey
Life is full of contradictions. Some we can work out and others we cannot. To assume that our logic can work them all out is simply folly.

It seems to me that an all powerful God could create free will even though he may know what roads we choose in life, otherwirse, he would not be all powerful. For the naywayers, however, God will be confined to our l ...[text shortened]... t, isn't it a contradiction to say that an all powerful God CANNOT praovide us with free will?

In other words, you're content to just stick your head in the sand -- which is what you did when you ignored my earlier objection to your "otherwise, he would not be all powerful" line of reasoning.

Originally posted by whodey
Life is full of contradictions. Some we can work out and others we cannot. To assume that our logic can work them all out is simply folly.

It seems to me that an all powerful God could create free will even though he may know what roads we choose in life, otherwirse, he would not be all powerful. For the naywayers, however, God will be confined to our l t, isn't it a contradiction to say that an all powerful God CANNOT praovide us with free will?

In fact, isn't it a contradiction to say that an all powerful God CANNOT praovide us with free will?

Again, it is not a contradiction to say that an all powerful God could not bring about certain states of affairs (because such states of affairs happen to be logically impossible). The claim is not that God cannot bring about human free will. More like, God cannot bring it about that both He has infallible knowledge of our future willings and we are still free in the libertarian sense with respect to such willings.

Originally posted by whodey
Life is full of contradictions. Some we can work out and others we cannot. To assume that our logic can work them all out is simply folly.

It seems to me that an all powerful God could create free will even though he may know what roads we choose in life, otherwirse, he would not be all powerful. For the naywayers, however, God will be confined to our l t, isn't it a contradiction to say that an all powerful God CANNOT praovide us with free will?

so you're one of those who thinks your god can make a rock so heavy it can't lift then 😞

Originally posted by Agerg
so you're one of those who thinks your god can make a rock so heavy it can't lift then 😞

wiki
Peter Geach describes and rejects four levels of omnipotence. He also defines and defends a lesser notion of the "almightiness" of God.

1. "Y is absolutely omnipotent" means that "Y" can do everything absolutely. Everything that can be expressed in a string of words even if it can be shown to be self-contradictory, "Y"is not bound in action, as we are in thought by the laws of logic."[4] This position is advanced by Descartes. It has the theological advantage of making God prior to the laws of logic, but the theological disadvantage of making God's promises suspect. On this account, the omnipotence paradox is a genuine paradox, but genuine paradoxes might nonetheless be so.
2. "Y is omnipotent" means "Y can do X" is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs. This position was once advocated by Thomas Aquinas.[5] This definition of omnipotence solves some of the paradoxes associated with omnipotence, but some modern formulations of the paradox still work against this definition. Let X = "to make something that its maker cannot lift". As Mavrodes points out there is nothing logically contradictory about this; a man could, for example, make a boat which he could not lift.[6] It would be strange if humans could accomplish this feat, but an omnipotent being could not. Additionally, this definition has problems when X is morally or physically untenable for a being like God.
3. "Y is omnipotent" means "Y can do X" is true if and only if "Y does X" is logically consistent. Here the idea is to exclude actions which would be inconsistent for Y to do but might be consistent for others. Again sometimes it looks as if Aquinas takes this position.[7] Here Mavrodes' worry about X= "to make something its maker cannot lift" will no longer be a problem because "God does X" is not logically consistent. However, this account may still have problems with moral issues like X = "tells a lie" or temporal issues like X = "brings it about that Rome was never founded."[4]
4. "Y is omnipotent" means whenever "Y will bring about X" is logically possible, then "Y can bring about X" is true. This sense, also does not allow the paradox of omnipotence to arise, and unlike definition #3 avoids any temporal worries about whether or not an omnipotent being could change the past. However, Geach criticizes even this sense of omnipotence as misunderstanding the nature of God's promises.[4]
5. "Y is almighty" means that Y is not just more powerful than any creature; no creature can compete with Y in power, even unsuccessfully.[4] In this account nothing like the omnipotence paradox arises, but perhaps that is because God is not taken to be in any sense omnipotent. On the other hand, Anselm of Canterbury seems to think that almightiness is one of the things that makes God count as omnipotent.[8]