Inaction

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Revelation from Him. Just because He tells us about Himself doesn't mean He tells us everything He knows.

Do you think God has a penis?

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 😞

You put limitaions on him, not whodey. My guess is that he is not stupid, however.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]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. M ...[text shortened]... r future willings and we are still free in the libertarian sense with respect to such willings.[/b]

In other words, an all poweful God cannot defy your logical reasonings. Have it your way.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Neither is the answer a 'trick' answer. You cannot possibly know the motivations behind allowing human history to continue without interference until you know the answer to the question I put to you.

You're just avoiding answering the question. Why don't you just answer it? Feel free to add in your evangelist claptrap while you're at it.

Well, the nature of inquiry, generally, is to make some observations, postulate an idea or theorem and then initiate some proof. Then, once a theory is established, amend the theory according to the reception of new evidence/ variables.

Most of the argumentation as regards the existence of God tends to presume a desired result in either direction.

So, generally, I don't think that method of inquiry yields unbiased results.

When Einstein was developing his theories, he threw out all preconceptions, including the existence of any preconceived ideas...at all. So, in his mind, there was no physics, no science...no assertions and no denials, just an absolutely clean blank slate.

So, I think that is really necessary for an honest and comprehensive method of inquiry.

"The Tao of Physics" and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" are two books that compare the world views of quantum physics to mysticism. While seemingly quite odd, they are extremely interesting books. And it seems that there are some very interesting parallels.

For example, they found a "particle" that does not respond to causality...at least not as we understand it. It "just is" and "just does" and is not part of a chain of initiation and resultant effect.

Nikolai Tesla was a big fan of Swami Vivekananda, an Eastern mystic who came to the US around 1900.

Benjamin Franklin and Isaac Newton...two of the world's greatest geniuses, both believed in God. As did Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln - both minds of great power of intellect and deduction.

Today there are many professional scientists with Phd's who believe in God.

Then there is testimonial evidence. We have the testimony of billions of people over the course of thousands of years that God exists. When data exists in that kind of volume, it is no longer qualitative. It may not be definitive proof, but it is indeed some level of quantitative evidence. It is observed phenomena, by such a huge volume of observers, that it can not be immediately dismissed.

Then there are professional scientific studies on the power of prayer, on ESP and various kinds of supernatural phenomena.

And why have law enforcement agencies been using psychics for decades? and before that, kings using them since civilization began?

Hypnotism is a recognized scientifically provable tool. It comes from shamanism, not science.

So, to utterly and entirely dismiss the world of God and the supernatural, does not seem to fit into a professional methodology of inquiry.

Originally posted by whodey
You put limitaions on him, not whodey. My guess is that he is not stupid, however.

Hmm...so you support the idea your god can make a rock so heavy it can't lift.
What other things defy "human" logic?...
- How about can your God choose to be not God? Would it defy it's omnipotence if it couldn't do this?
- How about perhaps is it capable of making itself not omnipotent yet still be limitless in capability?
- Can it make squares be the same thing as the number 17 or jelly?

Can your concept of God do anything we can think of? logically coherent or not? 🙄

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You have failed to show how anyone's knowledge of anything in any way, shape or form alters the event. Does my knowledge of last year's Super Bowl winner--- either while watching the event unfold or after the fact--- impact the same?

While gold hovered around $600/ounce, I noted all of the signs indicating that its trading value was ready for a big bol ...[text shortened]... her. I could have acted (but did not) and even this would have had no impact on the price.

For all intents and purposes, to say your god knows infallibly the future is tantamount to the assertion the future is fixed. There can no variability. Saying it knows all future is no more informative than me knowing all possible choices you could make if asked to pick a number from 1 to a hundred. If however with knowledge of all choices I infallibly knew you'd pick 37 then if the statement "I know you will choose 37" is to be true, then you are compelled to pick 37 (else my knowledge was fallible).

Please tell me how if your god knows I will do X tomorrow I can choose to do ~X

For your last point you had a strong inkling of the outcome (and you may even argue you knew all possible outcomes) but not *infallible* knowledge about the particular outcome which would be manifest.

Originally posted by Agerg

Can your concept of God do anything we can think of? logically coherent or not? 🙄[/b]

I think it a very coherent endevor for an all powerfull God to create "free will". After all, anything else would be like playing chess with yourself. What fun is that? I think that this is the source of his interest in us even though we seem insignificant in scope to the scale of the universe. Even though we are insignificant in terms of our size and power, we at least have been given the power to defy an all powerful God.

Originally posted by whodey
I think it a very coherent endevor for an all powerfull God to create "free will". After all, anything else would be like playing chess with yourself. What fun is that? I think that this is the source of his interest in us even though we seem insignificant in scope to the scale of the universe. Even though we are insignificant in terms of our size and power, we at least have been given the power to defy an all powerful God.

Whodey, you forgot to say omniscient + freewill; it is the conjunction of these terms which is incoherent.

Or is your usage of the word "omniscient" contrary to it's commonly accepted definition which is *infallible knowledge of all things*

Originally posted by whodey
In other words, an all poweful God cannot defy your logical reasonings. Have it your way.

My way seems to be the coherent way. You can hold that God could bring about even logically impossible states of affairs (like He could bring about a square circle, etc). Or you can hold that God, even supposing he is 'omnipotent', cannot bring about logically impossible states of affairs.

I think the former understanding of omnipotence is incoherent nonsense. In that case, if someone claims that it is logically impossible for both God to know infallibly our future willings and for us to still be free in the libertarian sense with respect to these willings; you can respond that it does not matter because God could still bring it about. (I'm not sure why anyone should take you seriously in that case, though.) If the latter, then you need to address the claim on its actual merits. If indeed it is logically impossible for God to infallibly know our future willings and for us to still be free with respect to them, then it is no more absurd to claim that God cannot bring this about than it is to claim that God cannot bring about a square circle.

So, would "your way" commit us to the idea that God could bring about such things as square circles? If so, I think your way is nonsense. And I think it is rather shameful the way you just sort of stick your head in the sand when confronted with what seems like a contradiction within your views. If you were confronted with a contradiction in many of your views in everyday situation, you would be quite responsive to the need to amend your view; somehow, though, if it relates to the subject of God, you are willing to just suspend reason and resolve to just call the whole thing a bit mysterious. Did you borrow this tack from knightmeister?

Originally posted by whodey
I think it a very coherent endevor for an all powerfull God to create "free will". After all, anything else would be like playing chess with yourself. What fun is that? I think that this is the source of his interest in us even though we seem insignificant in scope to the scale of the universe. Even though we are insignificant in terms of our size and power, we at least have been given the power to defy an all powerful God.

As has been pointed out to you again and again and again: the source of conflict is not merely in your wanting to have it that God gave us free will. It is in your additionally wanting to have it that God also holds infallible foreknowledge of our willings.

Originally posted by r99pawn77
Well, the nature of inquiry, generally, is to make some observations, postulate an idea or theorem and then initiate some proof. Then, once a theory is established, amend the theory according to the reception of new evidence/ variables.

Most of the argumentation as regards the existence of God tends to presume a desired result in either direction.

S the supernatural, does not seem to fit into a professional methodology of inquiry.

So, to utterly and entirely dismiss the world of God and the supernatural, does not seem to fit into a professional methodology of inquiry.

That is true. A more responsible line to adopt is that of contingent naturalism. This line does not simply dismiss out of hand supernatural explanation, but it does place a justified priority on the search, or even extended search, for natural explanations.

Other than that, I don't understand how anything you mention in your post sheds much plausibility on the idea that God exists or on any supernatural explanations in particular. Perhaps, if you think anything there in particular is particularly God- or supernatural-indicating, then you could start a separate thread to explain why you think so. That would be good for discussion.

Originally posted by Agerg
Whodey, you forgot to say [b]omniscient + freewill; it is the conjunction of these terms which is incoherent.

If you drop a ball are you throwing it to the ground? It seems to me that you have merely decided not to hold and possess it. Does this then mean you have no idea what the fate of that ball will become? No. This is perhaps the best analogy of what I am trying to say. It is the best case scenrio for an all powerful and all knowing being wishing to relinquish control on some level. Of course, I believe "free will" to be much more complex of an issue. How can I then discuss what I do not fully comprehend? It would be akin to Adam and Eve in the Garden trying to figure out what it means to know good and evil before the fall. Until they experience it for themselves, all they can do is take other people word for it. Its a little thing called faith that indiviudals like yourself scoff at.

Originally posted by whodey
If you drop a ball are you throwing it to the ground? It seems to me that you have merely decided not to hold and possess it. Does this then mean you have no idea what the fate of that ball will become? No. This is perhaps the best analogy of what I am trying to say. It is the best case scenrio for an all powerful and all knowing being wishing to relinqu people word for it. Its a little thing called faith that indiviudals like yourself scoff at.

Dude...you're forming analogies that have no bearing on the situation you propose. For your ball analogy, it's final resting place in some specific instance of time is determined by mechanics.
To help you out (changing it from a problem governed by physics to one governed by a "free choice" on the part of some other entity); perhaps I infallibly know that some particular dog with a red collar will come along, catch the ball mid flight, run off for a distance of 214.3 meters, sit down and chew it to pieces. This being the case, if we are to engender no contradictions with my infallible knowledge it cannot be the case that the dog mentioned above chooses *not* to do as I described.
It is not enough to say that I know this scenario might happen along with an infinite number of other outcomes...I have to know that precisely the event I described will occur (and no other event than this (ie; no cats with red collars or dogs with blue collars etc...)).


If you are incapable, as you admit, of comprehending the absurdity of your proposal, then you have no right to ask we take you seriously.


*edit* Anticipating the lame counter argument "dogs have no free will" (which ignores the point I'm making) feel free to substitute human for dog with red collar, and bounce it up and down for chew it to pieces

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?

Yeah, I see. Once you get to the point in a discussion where your position is shown to be logically inconsistent you just stick in a bit more magic and pretend that inconsistency is actually a strength. God gave you (well, not you so much - let's say 'us' instead) the gifts of rationality and logic simply in order to confuse the issue of his own existence, that about right?