Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple

Brian Sapient on Twitter

Brian Sapient

Celebrity Atheists

List of atheist sites

Ask the atheist

Antiques and Art

Caposkia and TGBaker discussion

Posted on: May 3, 2011 - 10:03am

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

Caposkia and TGBaker discussion

Does God exist? IS Christianity valid? Is the New Testament inerrant and a proof of God? There are several ways to begin this discussion. Having been a Christian before "falling from grace"1.* I would suggest that the evangelical approach would be to share the good news or try to give an explanation that would cause me to consider acceptance of Christ as my savior.

1.*) Galatians 5:4 (NASB) You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. I know depending on your denominational background that even the meaning of this text will be debated.

Again I will share that the loss of my faith came from actual scholarly studies of the scripture. I see philosophically no way one would arrive at a theism through a natural theology without a presupposition of a god and it being derived from holy scripture. To me Christians defend their believe in their faith based upon cultural bonds with their context. It is hard for them to develop a temporary skeptical approach to their faith claims that they may see if those claims hold up from an objective prospective. Most Christian presentation seems apologetic with secondary arguments that support the primary unproven premises. Hey but that is just me.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: July 1, 2011 - 3:55pm #51

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote:Ehrman is a

TGBaker wrote:

Ehrman is a pretty good scholar. The gospels were written even later than he contends I think based on my studies but I can see we are going no where this. You have no concept of the 2 centuries of biblical research that has been done and the conclusions. The fact that you do not understand the common claims of Erhman is telling. Your responses to him do not even obtain any historical basis. None of the writings of the NT are by apostles except the self styled apostle Paul. And only part of those attributed to him really come from him.

I lost a bigger post here, but I'll sum it up. I wonder about your credibility here. You claim I don't understand the "common claims" Erhman is telling and yet it seems I have given you good reason to believe I do understand... You claim I responded with no historical basis and yet to claim most of what is said, you need historical basis. You claim so matter of factly that "none of the writings of the NT are by apostles" and yet you agree that the authors are unknown. The bigger question is eye-witness accounts. Regardless whether they were written by apostles or not (which historical evidence suggests as referenced that some could be) there is clear evidence in the writings of an eye-witness account... so the credibility of the story is now in question. How can you be so sure there was no eye-witness account of these stories when a lot of historians, (non-believers included) suggest that the Gospels are really a compilation of other documents... most of which we don't have access to at this time. Are you sure not one of those other sources (including Q) weren't eye-witness accounts?

You seem very knowledgeable, but when it comes to contradictory reasoning, you fall to the denial phase and not stick to the guns of fact. This makes me question your whole stance on the subject. I'm here to challenge what i know and I'm willing to accept any reasonable evidence to the contrary. I know you're a non-believer and I don't expect to be changing your mind, but give credit where it's due.

Ehrman may be a good scholar, but every good scholar knows that personal preference plays a part in what comes out of your work. He seems to be ignoring a reference to the unknown and concludes as if he knows more than everyone else that his perspective is true. I know good scholars personally. Many times, i refer to them when the history goes beyond my knowledge. Good scholars can be a subjective understanding. My basis is their passion for what they do. The ones I know have a passion for history. therefore, they take pride in getting it right. They work hard at taking personal preference out of the picture. Though some are believers like me, even they don't conform to the masses of Christianity in their belief. Erhman strikes me as one who does conform. Erhman uses "common claims". My friends take common claims and dissect them. This way if the claim actually holds water, we'll know for sure.

the reason for dissection of common claims is because they're common for a reason. It's what everyone sticks to when they don't have any other answers. If these claims were as matter of fact as Erhman seems to think they are, then they'd be written down in the books as fact, the Gospels would be stricken from the Bibles (or most of them anyway) and Christians would be Jewish.

Posted on: July 1, 2011 - 4:10pm #52

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote: IT IS NOT

TGBaker wrote:

IT IS NOT HARD FOR ME TO look at for me. You are completely oblivious to what I am saying. ONCE MORE if a t's hard for you understand think of it as different than your powerball. You are not the creator. You do not see what will happen if you create. If you know the whole history of a world and its causation and create it then there is no choice but that it will happen if you create it. There is no freedom in such a world. If the complete contents of a world is known before it is made then made by the knower there is no choice but that everything must happen as it is known. It's simple. It's predetermined with act of of creating it. It can not happen otherwise. There IS no choice. It IS not a matter OF BELIEF. It's simply a MATTER of LOGIC.IT is simply a matter of the unfolding of that which is ENFOLDED in the knowledge of god. There can be no variation or choice about it. I am not trying to BLAME a god I don't believe in. I am trying to show you the problem of such a god thus defined. He ain't a powerball knower. He knows what will happen in every moment of the world if he creates it and does do anyway. He is thus to blame if he were real. Look at it this way god sees 50 worlds he can create. he knows what will happen if he choices any of the worlds. He must if he is omnipotent. World 1 has ABCD....., world 2 has EFGH,....., world 3 has GHIJ..... He can see world 2 has EFGH if he creates it and makes it real. He does so there can not be anythin gother than EFGH ... It can't have anything lik AB I OR J. or god is wrong. Likewise he has known it beforehand So he has determined what is in that world beforehand ( predetermined that world). There can be no variation in any world that god thoroughly knows and actualizes ( creates). It's quite simple.

I am not at all oblivious to what you're saying. I know exactly what you're saying. You see God as defined as a creator that couldn't possibly create without knowing all that was going to happen. I'm telling you that's not true.

It's like an auto manufacturer. The designer knows the car inside and out... better than you, I or your neighborhood mechanic will ever know your car... Though the designer knows every aspect of your car, what it will do under certain stresses, what will happen if you do X to it and how it'll handle through age, probably down to each year, the designer will never know where you're going to drive it. He can deduce that you're not going to drive it anywhere besides planet Earth, but from there, there are an infinite number of roads in the world and just as many choices for you to make with that car.

No the designer never claims to be omnipotent or all-knowing... though if you ask him, he will say he knows everything there is to know about your car. With some basic driving facts from you he could probably tell you what you've needed to fix and what's going to happen to your car in the next year... but does that make him in control of you and causing you to have no control or choice over your car? of course not, he just knows what he made. If this guy happened to be your dad, then he likely would know even more about the choices and even location of where you're going to drive and probably could predict what will happen to the car for the next 10 years, but again, does that make you no longer in control nor allowed to choose? of course not.

But you're saying knowledge and understanding of design has nothing to do with it and that this car designer has programmed the car with a microchip to drive exactly where he decides it's going to drive and eventually crash at a point that you are unaware of until it happens. whether you live or die in the crash is completely up to the designer.

Though he has control over how much power he gives you under the hood and how many feet it takes you to stop, he could never have that much control over your car. God on the other hand as you are making it abundantly clear could make that choice, but scripture has made it clear that we make our own choices and as God is described, both perspectives are possible, empirically, the free choice perspective wins out.

I think you've been missing what I'm saying. I'm telling you it's knowledge and understanding.. you're telling me it's created to play out like a movie where we have no choice on how it's going to end.

Posted on: July 1, 2011 - 4:12pm #53

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote:You obviously

TGBaker wrote:

You obviously have not done any major biblical research and are parroting apologists. The scriptures weer poorly preserved. So I do not know where you get that apart from some minister or apologist. Read some real textual history and look at the vaoious remaining texts. READ METZGER who is conservative. Read Erhman instead of bashing him before you critique him. His Misquoting Jesus is plethora of textual vatiations and their history.You could not have read those scholars because you do not know what they say. You are assuming,.

I'll read them... I only critiqued what I saw. If you saw it as bashing, then you need to consider what was said. It's only bashing if the evidence presented goes against what was claimed. i will be critical of everything I read.

Posted on: July 1, 2011 - 8:27pm #54

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Ehrman is a pretty good scholar. The gospels were written even later than he contends I think based on my studies but I can see we are going no where this. You have no concept of the 2 centuries of biblical research that has been done and the conclusions. The fact that you do not understand the common claims of Erhman is telling. Your responses to him do not even obtain any historical basis. None of the writings of the NT are by apostles except the self styled apostle Paul. And only part of those attributed to him really come from him.
I lost a bigger post here, but I'll sum it up. I wonder about your credibility here. You claim I don't understand the "common claims" Erhman is telling and yet it seems I have given you good reason to believe I do understand... You claim I responded with no historical basis and yet to claim most of what is said, you need historical basis. You claim so matter of factly that "none of the writings of the NT are by apostles" and yet you agree that the authors are unknown. The bigger question is eye-witness accounts. Regardless whether they were written by apostles or not (which historical evidence suggests as referenced that some could be) there is clear evidence in the writings of an eye-witness account... so the credibility of the story is now in question. How can you be so sure there was no eye-witness account of these stories when a lot of historians, (non-believers included) suggest that the Gospels are really a compilation of other documents... most of which we don't have access to at this time. Are you sure not one of those other sources (including Q) weren't eye-witness accounts?
You seem very knowledgeable, but when it comes to contradictory reasoning, you fall to the denial phase and not stick to the guns of fact. This makes me question your whole stance on the subject. I'm here to challenge what i know and I'm willing to accept any reasonable evidence to the contrary. I know you're a non-believer and I don't expect to be changing your mind, but give credit where it's due.
Ehrman may be a good scholar, but every good scholar knows that personal preference plays a part in what comes out of your work. He seems to be ignoring a reference to the unknown and concludes as if he knows more than everyone else that his perspective is true. I know good scholars personally. Many times, i refer to them when the history goes beyond my knowledge. Good scholars can be a subjective understanding. My basis is their passion for what they do. The ones I know have a passion for history. therefore, they take pride in getting it right. They work hard at taking personal preference out of the picture. Though some are believers like me, even they don't conform to the masses of Christianity in their belief. Erhman strikes me as one who does conform. Erhman uses "common claims". My friends take common claims and dissect them. This way if the claim actually holds water, we'll know for sure.
the reason for dissection of common claims is because they're common for a reason. It's what everyone sticks to when they don't have any other answers. If these claims were as matter of fact as Erhman seems to think they are, then they'd be written down in the books as fact, the Gospels would be stricken from the Bibles (or most of them anyway) and Christians would be Jewish.

I am done with your credibility HOW BOUT THAT I suggest you read something before you try to dicuss it.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: July 1, 2011 - 8:28pm #55

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
IT IS NOT HARD FOR ME TO look at for me. You are completely oblivious to what I am saying. ONCE MORE if a t's hard for you understand think of it as different than your powerball. You are not the creator. You do not see what will happen if you create. If you know the whole history of a world and its causation and create it then there is no choice but that it will happen if you create it. There is no freedom in such a world. If the complete contents of a world is known before it is made then made by the knower there is no choice but that everything must happen as it is known. It's simple. It's predetermined with act of of creating it. It can not happen otherwise. There IS no choice. It IS not a matter OF BELIEF. It's simply a MATTER of LOGIC.IT is simply a matter of the unfolding of that which is ENFOLDED in the knowledge of god. There can be no variation or choice about it. I am not trying to BLAME a god I don't believe in. I am trying to show you the problem of such a god thus defined. He ain't a powerball knower. He knows what will happen in every moment of the world if he creates it and does do anyway. He is thus to blame if he were real. Look at it this way god sees 50 worlds he can create. he knows what will happen if he choices any of the worlds. He must if he is omnipotent. World 1 has ABCD....., world 2 has EFGH,....., world 3 has GHIJ..... He can see world 2 has EFGH if he creates it and makes it real. He does so there can not be anythin gother than EFGH ... It can't have anything lik AB I OR J. or god is wrong. Likewise he has known it beforehand So he has determined what is in that world beforehand ( predetermined that world). There can be no variation in any world that god thoroughly knows and actualizes ( creates). It's quite simple.

I am not at all oblivious to what you're saying. I know exactly what you're saying. You see God as defined as a creator that couldn't possibly create without knowing all that was going to happen. I'm telling you that's not true.
It

Well that is fine then you are saying he is not omniscient....

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: July 2, 2011 - 7:09am #56

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote: I am done

TGBaker wrote:

I am done with your credibility HOW BOUT THAT I suggest you read something before you try to dicuss it.

uh... that's fine. I didn't mean it to be offensive. I was just being blunt. I'm telling you what I see when I present something. My reply was based of a presentation Erhman made. Therefore, my critique of him was based on his own presentation which if his writings are different then very much misrepresented him. Though if this is the case, the Erhman should stick to writing and not present.

I don't understand how reading something from him would have been any different than listening to a presentation from the same guy. One would assume he would present from the same perspective he writes from.

I looked into Bruce Metzger. Be it that Erhman studied under Bruce, I find it reasonable to look into Bruce's writings first. I have skimmed a few pages from one of his books on the NT. This guy I like. He obviously has done his homework and I respect that. It is funny that some people seem to comment that reading his stuff will cause you to become a non-believer and yet it seems he was highly respected in the Christian realm up to his death. Something doesn't add up there. He seems to be highly revered by believers and non-believers alike. I can't wait to read more from him.

Reading through some pages of his book, it seems so far that he only reassured what I have already said, that the NT is based on many sources and not just themselves. The fact that Bruce mentions there are over 5000 separate writings that make up the NT as we see it today blows Erhman's claim that the Bible has no outside sources out of the water. I've always said the Bible is just a summary. Yes, I'll bet you'll say I'm missing the point here. Of course. Because there are so many different documents that make up the NT that must mean what is written can't possibly be true. Too many different perspectives right? I'll wait to see what you have to say about that before going on.

Beyond that. While looking up Metzger's work, is there anything specific I should be looking for that he has written that might better represent your perspective and the point you're trying to make with me? There are a few writings from him I'm already interested in reading, but they likely aren't relevant to our conversation. One including a book on Revelation.

TGBaker wrote:

Well that is fine then you are saying he is not omniscient....

Dude what is your definition of omniscient? I understand it to be all-knowing. The dictionary defines it as "having infinite knowledge or understanding" You're adding to that to say it includes predestination and puppeteering.

Infinite knowledge. The dictionary defines knowledge as; "1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation. 2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning. 3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience or report."

In all of those definitions, I see nothing about omniscience controlling the future or outcomes of anything. By definition having knowledge is simply being familiar or "understanding" facts, truths or principles by being familiar with them, studying them, and having experience with them. To have infinite knowledge is to say that you have familiarity and understanding of everything and how it all works down to the molecule. You have no need to study or investigate because you know everything inside and out.

What i"m trying to tell you is God is so familiar, he understands everything so much, that he can see outcomes due to his understanding of his creation. It's like a computer manufacturer. If me, the consumer pushes the enter button under a specific circumstance, the manufacturer I bet would be able to tell me what's going to happen before it happens... why? because he knows his creation. The difference with a computer is a computer can't make a choice on its own, I would have to make the choice for it. With us, God knows what will happen if we choose to do X, but he doesn't know exactly what might be chosen when necessarily. He might know us well enough to know what choices we might make in a specific circumstance, but again, we can make the choice, so there is an unknown regardless of how familiar God is with his creation.

e.g. If I insult your integrity, God knows before it happens that it'll make you angry and you'll retaliate in a specific manner. He may not know exactly what you're going to say or how you're going to go about doing it, but he knows your reaction would be negative and would have a likely outcome.

Simply, omniscience is complete understanding and familiarity and not in any definition a dictation of the future. Nowhere is it defined as predefining or controlling outcomes.

Posted on: July 2, 2011 - 5:19pm #57

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I am done with your credibility HOW BOUT THAT I suggest you read something before you try to dicuss it.
uh... that's fine. I didn't mean it to be offensive. I was just being blunt. I'm telling you what I see when I present something. My reply was based of a presentation Erhman made. Therefore, my critique of him was based on his own presentation which if his writings are different then very much misrepresented him. Though if this is the case, the Erhman should stick to writing and not present.
I don't understand how reading something from him would have been any different than listening to a presentation from the same guy. One would assume he would present from the same perspective he writes from.
I looked into Bruce Metzger. Be it that Erhman studied under Bruce, I find it reasonable to look into Bruce's writings first. I have skimmed a few pages from one of his books on the NT. This guy I like. He obviously has done his homework and I respect that. It is funny that some people seem to comment that reading his stuff will cause you to become a non-believer and yet it seems he was highly respected in the Christian realm up to his death. Something doesn't add up there. He seems to be highly revered by believers and non-believers alike. I can't wait to read more from him.
Reading through some pages of his book, it seems so far that he only reassured what I have already said, that the NT is based on many sources and not just themselves. The fact that Bruce mentions there are over 5000 separate writings that make up the NT as we see it today blows Erhman's claim that the Bible has no outside sources out of the water. I've always said the Bible is just a summary. Yes, I'll bet you'll say I'm missing the point here. Of course. Because there are so many different documents that make up the NT that must mean what is written can't possibly be true. Too many different perspectives right? I'll wait to see what you have to say about that before going on.
Beyond that. While looking up Metzger's work, is there anything specific I should be looking for that he has written that might better represent your perspective and the point you're trying to make with me? There are a few writings from him I'm already interested in reading, but they likely aren't relevant to our conversation. One including a book on Revelation.
TGBaker wrote:
Well that is fine then you are saying he is not omniscient....
Dude what is your definition of omniscient? I understand it to be all-knowing. The dictionary defines it as "having infinite knowledge or understanding" You're adding to that to say it includes predestination and puppeteering.
Infinite knowledge. The dictionary defines knowledge as; "1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation. 2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning. 3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience or report."
In all of those definitions, I see nothing about omniscience controlling the future or outcomes of anything. By definition having knowledge is simply being familiar or "understanding" facts, truths or principles by being familiar with them, studying them, and having experience with them. To have infinite knowledge is to say that you have familiarity and understanding of everything and how it all works down to the molecule. You have no need to study or investigate because you know everything inside and out.
What i"m trying to tell you is God is so familiar, he understands everything so much, that he can see outcomes due to his understanding of his creation. It's like a computer manufacturer. If me, the consumer pushes the enter button under a specific circumstance, the manufacturer I bet would be able to tell me what's going to happen before it happens... why? because he knows his creation. The difference with a computer is a computer can't make a choice on its own, I would have to make the choice for it. With us, God knows what will happen if we choose to do X, but he doesn't know exactly what might be chosen when necessarily. He might know us well enough to know what choices we might make in a specific circumstance, but again, we can make the choice, so there is an unknown regardless of how familiar God is with his creation.
e.g. If I insult your integrity, God knows before it happens that it'll make you angry and you'll retaliate in a specific manner. He may not know exactly what you're going to say or how you're going to go about doing it, but he knows your reaction would be negative and would have a likely outcome.
Simply, omniscience is complete understanding and familiarity and not in any definition a dictation of the future. Nowhere is it defined as predefining or controlling outcomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience#Omniscience_vs_Freewill

Omniscience vs Freewill

See : Determinism, Freewill and argument from free will

[edit]

The Omniscience Paradoxes

The Omniscience Paradox can be defined by these questions,

"Can an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, timeless, boundless, limitless, and uncontained Entity create that which it doesn't already know?"

"If information is the substance and causation to all that exists, would an omniscient entity not literally be everything and anything in, or of existence?"

Well if such an entity is boundless and limitless to which is uncontained, its omniscience would thus need to be infinite. Thus saying it could create that which it doesn't already know would defy its omniscience on an equally infinite scale. If it were omniscient without bounds or limits, it would defy its omnipotence, boundlessness, and limitlessness. It would even collapse its status of being uncontained. And if it were eternally Omniscient without bounds or limits, how could it create anything at all? If information theory is correct, would not this entity be the sum total of all that exists?

This also brings us to the question of how one can "know" how to create the following, which also seems to be the foundation of cause to our own existence. That is, how can an entity design and bring all the following listed objects or concepts into existence, when it requires, or may require them to exist itself? How can one thus be omniscient without them?

Reality
Existence
Information
Intelligence
Consciousness
Logic and mathematics
Time (the process to create time would in itself require time)
Complexity
The five basic senses (Touch, Smell, Hear, Sight, Taste) (In order to be an observer, and know anything including its own existence, a conscious mind will require the tools of observation in order to know, experience, perceive, respond, or act)

When we approach this subject of the paradox of knowledge, or the creation of, we can notice many of these problem areas that concern omniscience and knowledge in regards to such supposed omniscient entities. Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute. Especially in the case or state of absolute Omniscience. We can explore these problems in religious ideologies such as Christianity (as an example amongst others). In Orthodox Christianity there is a set of specific attributes to which they use to describe their God with. Among these attributes are as follows:

St John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge:

Abstract 1:
"The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the boundless, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefinable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and communicating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

Abstract 2:
"And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

Omniscient
Boundless
Unlimited
Uncontained
The containing and sustaining of all things
Timeless
Omnipresent

These seven attributes also led many to question if those with such religious beliefs are unaware that they are seemingly depositing the idea of pure solipsism. Here the argument can be made that even if such an entity would deny the existence of other minds or not, it would still be solipsism. Under this argument in regards to omniscience, one person just stating there isn't any other individual minds would be equal to said entity saying there are no other individual minds. Thus we have to consider that all minds that exist are of this entity's own mind. In light of this, anyone arguing against the argument would be The entity arguing with itself just for the sake of doings so, or for the amusement of doing so. Regardless of what reply anyone might have to this, the six attributes on that list can only mean pure Solipsism in order to be Omniscient without bounds, limits, or containment. This includes number 5 on the list in regards to containing and sustaining all things. These attributes also directly conflict with inherent omniscience stance, or our own individualism since it would be placing limits to a said to be limitless, uncontained, boundless God. However, the worst part isn't any of the above. The worst part is that even if one would argue that such an entity was only to be all knowing in regards to what is knowable, or existent, it would still be depositing the idea of Solipsism as noted in the example below:

Omniscient Solipsism from a Designers Perspective:
(This as if you are the Omniscient Entity about to design and create something into existence. Such as a human being)

I =: reference to all information that gives I an Identity, substance, dimension, value, an awareness, an existence, an intelligence, or a consciousness.

I'm Omniscient
I have an idea of something I want to build, construct, or make existent
I know infinitely everything about this thing, person, or place infinitely before, and infinitely after I have constructed it, or even thought of it.
I would know in my design everything it will infinitely ever do.
I would know everything about my design's essence or being to the point of actually, and literally being that of my design (object, entity, thing, or place) in every infinitely literal way. (and we must pay close attention to the term infinite)
I would know all the above infinitely in the past, present, and future.
This thing I designed would only be able to do what it was designed to do, and what I already infinitely know it will do, even to the point of it actually being literally me, and literally me doing all those things myself in every infinite way imaginable.
Even if I wanted to state that I am only omniscient to which is knowable, 5, 6 (past, and present), and 7 would all be knowable. Omniscience would translate to I, the said entity being existence itself in the best case possible, or everything that is existent in every infinite way.

Anterograde Omniscience

Anterograde Omniscience is the type of Omniscience used to incorporate complete knowledge of the future into God. It has been often criticized by the opponents, stating that Free-Will is incoherent with Anterograde omniscience.

A common objection towards free-will is the fact that God knows the future, and what is already known is not considered part of free-will, thus is considered predestination. Moreover stating that predestination and free-will are incoherent, because God would perfectly know everything about the future. Moreover if heaven were eternal, God would know everything the people would do during their time in bliss, laying an infinite series of determinism.

If the future was given the definition of Physics, it can be drawn down to this. The past is something that's known, the future is something that is not known but may have an infinite series of possible branched time-lines and the present is the eliminator of possibilities. If God were to know the future very precisely, it wouldn't even be considered the future since it's a logical fallacy to call it the future if given the specific definition. Therefore the future wouldn't exist. Moreover, the present wouldn't exist, thus everything would be considered "the past" since the past is something that's known with certainty, not a possibility (according to physics). The problem would persist within the nature of God himself, such as he, having a future or even things about what's he's gonna think next.

A possible correction is to state that God doesn't know the future. If this were true, it wouldn't compete with his omnipotence, since no one else would know the future ahead of God. Another correction would be that God knows all possible future events, meaning that he would see an infinite number of timelines laid out on a plane, and such time lines would still remain to exist even if not chosen. Such a God would know every possible way of how something was going to be. However, if this were true, God still wouldn't be omniscient, as his knowledge would be nothing more than mathematical; every possible hand in a poker game is known, but which one is not know before dealt.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: July 3, 2011 - 9:56am #58

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker

TGBaker wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience#Omniscience_vs_Freewill
Omniscience vs Freewill

See : Determinism, Freewill and argument from free will

[edit]
The Omniscience Paradoxes

The Omniscience Paradox can be defined by these questions,

"Can an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, timeless, boundless, limitless, and uncontained Entity create that which it doesn't already know?"

"If information is the substance and causation to all that exists, would an omniscient entity not literally be everything and anything in, or of existence?"

Well if such an entity is boundless and limitless to which is uncontained, its omniscience would thus need to be infinite. Thus saying it could create that which it doesn't already know would defy its omniscience on an equally infinite scale. If it were omniscient without bounds or limits, it would defy its omnipotence, boundlessness, and limitlessness. It would even collapse its status of being uncontained. And if it were eternally Omniscient without bounds or limits, how could it create anything at all? If information theory is correct, would not this entity be the sum total of all that exists?

This also brings us to the question of how one can "know" how to create the following, which also seems to be the foundation of cause to our own existence. That is, how can an entity design and bring all the following listed objects or concepts into existence, when it requires, or may require them to exist itself? How can one thus be omniscient without them?

Reality
Existence
Information
Intelligence
Consciousness
Logic and mathematics
Time (the process to create time would in itself require time)
Complexity
The five basic senses (Touch, Smell, Hear, Sight, Taste) (In order to be an observer, and know anything including its own existence, a conscious mind will require the tools of observation in order to know, experience, perceive, respond, or act)

When we approach this subject of the paradox of knowledge, or the creation of, we can notice many of these problem areas that concern omniscience and knowledge in regards to such supposed omniscient entities. Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute. Especially in the case or state of absolute Omniscience. We can explore these problems in religious ideologies such as Christianity (as an example amongst others). In Orthodox Christianity there is a set of specific attributes to which they use to describe their God with. Among these attributes are as follows:

St John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge:

Abstract 1:
"The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the boundless, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefinable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and communicating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

Abstract 2:
"And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

Omniscient
Boundless
Unlimited
Uncontained
The containing and sustaining of all things
Timeless
Omnipresent

These seven attributes also led many to question if those with such religious beliefs are unaware that they are seemingly depositing the idea of pure solipsism. Here the argument can be made that even if such an entity would deny the existence of other minds or not, it would still be solipsism. Under this argument in regards to omniscience, one person just stating there isn't any other individual minds would be equal to said entity saying there are no other individual minds. Thus we have to consider that all minds that exist are of this entity's own mind. In light of this, anyone arguing against the argument would be The entity arguing with itself just for the sake of doings so, or for the amusement of doing so. Regardless of what reply anyone might have to this, the six attributes on that list can only mean pure Solipsism in order to be Omniscient without bounds, limits, or containment. This includes number 5 on the list in regards to containing and sustaining all things. These attributes also directly conflict with inherent omniscience stance, or our own individualism since it would be placing limits to a said to be limitless, uncontained, boundless God. However, the worst part isn't any of the above. The worst part is that even if one would argue that such an entity was only to be all knowing in regards to what is knowable, or existent, it would still be depositing the idea of Solipsism as noted in the example below:

Omniscient Solipsism from a Designers Perspective:
(This as if you are the Omniscient Entity about to design and create something into existence. Such as a human being)

I =: reference to all information that gives I an Identity, substance, dimension, value, an awareness, an existence, an intelligence, or a consciousness.

I'm Omniscient
I have an idea of something I want to build, construct, or make existent
I know infinitely everything about this thing, person, or place infinitely before, and infinitely after I have constructed it, or even thought of it.
I would know in my design everything it will infinitely ever do.
I would know everything about my design's essence or being to the point of actually, and literally being that of my design (object, entity, thing, or place) in every infinitely literal way. (and we must pay close attention to the term infinite)
I would know all the above infinitely in the past, present, and future.
This thing I designed would only be able to do what it was designed to do, and what I already infinitely know it will do, even to the point of it actually being literally me, and literally me doing all those things myself in every infinite way imaginable.
Even if I wanted to state that I am only omniscient to which is knowable, 5, 6 (past, and present), and 7 would all be knowable. Omniscience would translate to I, the said entity being existence itself in the best case possible, or everything that is existent in every infinite way.

Anterograde Omniscience

Anterograde Omniscience is the type of Omniscience used to incorporate complete knowledge of the future into God. It has been often criticized by the opponents, stating that Free-Will is incoherent with Anterograde omniscience.

A common objection towards free-will is the fact that God knows the future, and what is already known is not considered part of free-will, thus is considered predestination. Moreover stating that predestination and free-will are incoherent, because God would perfectly know everything about the future. Moreover if heaven were eternal, God would know everything the people would do during their time in bliss, laying an infinite series of determinism.

If the future was given the definition of Physics, it can be drawn down to this. The past is something that's known, the future is something that is not known but may have an infinite series of possible branched time-lines and the present is the eliminator of possibilities. If God were to know the future very precisely, it wouldn't even be considered the future since it's a logical fallacy to call it the future if given the specific definition. Therefore the future wouldn't exist. Moreover, the present wouldn't exist, thus everything would be considered "the past" since the past is something that's known with certainty, not a possibility (according to physics). The problem would persist within the nature of God himself, such as he, having a future or even things about what's he's gonna think next.

A possible correction is to state that God doesn't know the future. If this were true, it wouldn't compete with his omnipotence, since no one else would know the future ahead of God. Another correction would be that God knows all possible future events, meaning that he would see an infinite number of timelines laid out on a plane, and such time lines would still remain to exist even if not chosen. Such a God would know every possible way of how something was going to be. However, if this were true, God still wouldn't be omniscient, as his knowledge would be nothing more than mathematical; every possible hand in a poker game is known, but which one is not know before dealt.

Looks like we've found our focus.

I keep losing my posts, so I'll have to transfer from a word document. Hopefully this won't mess anything up.

By definition, Omniscience is knowing everything within your own creation. Every aspect including choices made for the future.

I again had a larger explanation, but lost it. I’m going to write in Word from now on so that doesn’t happen again. I will try to summarize it.

It is the consensus of the explanation above and the online encyclopedia that we must look at Omniscience beyond the definition to include understanding the future events be it that God would know every aspect of his own creation including every choice that would be made by that creation and every action and reaction in any given circumstance (circumstances also already known) thus there is no future only predestination because Omniscience means that every aspect has to be known. Therefore God’s omniscience is null and God is not real… or is it?

Here’s the main problem. God created everything we are aware of, existence as we know it is created. Everything we can observe is created by God. Our feelings, emotions… Not once did the post mention choice.. though choice would have to be created by God too.

The Bible states that God “created man in his own image”. This would mean that though God created everything, part of his creation was made using a preexisting idea, namely God. Now many take this idea to many different levels. Let’s take it to the most literal… that would mean we don’t only look like God, but we also act like God, have emotions like God and react to those emotions like God. Obviously with variance in personality, but God is all personalities combined.

Herein lies the problem. If Gods creation takes into account a preexisting idea, then did God actually create it or just imply it into the creation. If implied, then God can hold onto omniscience and still not have every understanding of what choices might be made exactly due to the implication of emotion and reaction choice that already existed.

The other aspect not mentioned in the post is spiritual influence. We know that God has choice, that’s the only way we can try to blame him for something, therefore choice was also a preexisting idea and therefore was not created by God. Not only do we use choice to decide future outcomes, but spiritual influence is implied by the choice of the spirit. Most Christians accept the idea through scripture that there is a spiritual battle happening constantly around us. This would mean that there are spiritual influences bombarding everyone constantly throughout our existence. Each bombardment a choice from an evil or Godly spirit. This thus influences the choice we make next.

Taking all of that into consideration and taking into consideration that God, though he created everything we know including our personalities and emotions and how we’d react, took the idea of choice, emotion, reaction choice from a preexisting idea, namely himself (God couldn’t logically have created himself) God can still be Omniscient and not completely know due to the preexisting ideas put into creation what was going to happen next specifically.

This doesn’t mean he doesn’t have any idea and likely does know every possible path laid out on a table for a future, but only has a ratio spectrum of what likely will take place and when. There seem to be inevitable outcomes and likely many future paths cross each other or flow with each other for times. In no way does this mean that the future is known or predestined.

For us to decide that God is or isn’t omniscient is to look beyond our comprehension of God to conclude. You are set on predestination. I still don’t’ see it. I get the explanation that If God was Omniscient then he would have to know everything that was, is and will be. Though that is only if he literally invented all of it himself, as to which I made clear he didn’t. Also, predestination doesn’t add up scripturally.

By definition, God doesn’t need to know the future to be omniscient, just needs perfect understanding of his creation down to the T. This perfect understanding of creation then would literally have to apply only to what God invented and not what God implied into creation that already existed before God started to create.

For God to be as the post explains, then we would have to be robots and there would be no point in anything. God would not even have to tell us about him, we would be under his complete control and therefore emotion would no be needed, choice would not be an aspect and we could be completely happy in marching in a straight line through eternity. We’d be happy because again God is in complete control and he would decide that we were happy doing that. Thoughts would not apply because we would be puppeted by God.

Posted on: July 5, 2011 - 6:08pm #59

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

Herein lies the problem.

If god does not have every understanding he is not omnipotent for he rfails to understand and since he fails to understand then is is also not omnipotent since he has failed ( not all powerful).

Either god knows all possible worlds and choices one to actualize which means it must become actually as it was viewed and therefore lacks freewill or god knows all possible worlds but did not actualize any of them and therefore those worlds while completely known were not made so by god and are free of his determination. They have no choice on the otherhand but to act as god knows that they will act. So in some since even weak determinism forbids freedom.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: July 8, 2011 - 1:13pm #60

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote:Herein lies

TGBaker wrote:

Herein lies the problem. If Gods creation takes into account a preexisting idea, then did God actually create it or just imply it into the creation. If implied, then God can hold onto omniscience and still not have every understanding of what choices might be made exactly due to the implication of emotion and reaction choice that already existed.
If god does not have every understanding he is not omnipotent for he rfails to understand and since he fails to understand then is is also not omnipotent since he has failed ( not all powerful).

Either god knows all possible worlds and choices one to actualize which means it must become actually as it was viewed and therefore lacks freewill or god knows all possible worlds but did not actualize any of them and therefore those worlds while completely known were not made so by god and are free of his determination. They have no choice on the otherhand but to act as god knows that they will act. So in some since even weak determinism forbids freedom.

I would say that God has every understanding. He could have control over the exact number of nosehairs you choose to pluck out tomorrow morning. It is understood that God chooses not to have that kind of control over his creation. He made things, set the wheels in motion, then left it up to us/nature to run itself.... with a few interventions along the way.

Technicalities and debates come on those interventions. If God can choose to intervene at any time to manipulate an outcome to his advantage/preference, then do we ever really have a choice? My angle on that is, can you still deny God? God would not choose to have people deny him, he would force you to follow him if indeed he predetermined your actions according to his preference.

Do we have free will, freedom of choice, yes we do. We can make a choice that is not predetermined by God regardless of what God knows or not. Just because he knows the choice you're going to make doesn't mean he made you make that choice. You may know that if your son was faced with a choice of banana, strawberry, or grape flavored ice pops, he'd pick his favorite flavor... whatever one that is. Regardless of what choices you put in front of him, you already know what he'd choose... does that mean, because you already know his choice that you predetermined that choice for him? or that you made him make that choice? of course not. He was free to take any flavor he chose, but he chose the one you knew he'd choose because he has grown to understand that he likes that flavor and would enjoy that more than the others and you know him well enough to know that. It's the same idea with God. he knows us well enough to know the choices we'll likely make even though we might have many options in front of us. You could deny the preferable choice, but you'd likely have a good reason to do so and still God would have understood that, but yet not predetermined that. I'm not sure how many more ways I can put it really.

Again though there are many options, yet many influences that can manipulate your choice, does this then mean that your choice was still predetermined? No. If it was, you wouldn't have a choice. It'd be Grape... take it or take it. you wouldn't even be able to choose not to have it.

It seems to me that the only way your future isn't matted out for you is that God must not understand what is going to happen next. for that to be the case, then everything you know before it happens is apparently completely in your control... because you understood its outcome before it happened.... therefore you determined it was to be before and the results are completely on your shoulders.

Posted on: July 10, 2011 - 8:45am #61

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Herein lies the problem. If Gods creation takes into account a preexisting idea, then did God actually create it or just imply it into the creation. If implied, then God can hold onto omniscience and still not have every understanding of what choices might be made exactly due to the implication of emotion and reaction choice that already existed.
If god does not have every understanding he is not omnipotent for he rfails to understand and since he fails to understand then is is also not omnipotent since he has failed ( not all powerful).

Either god knows all possible worlds and choices one to actualize which means it must become actually as it was viewed and therefore lacks freewill or god knows all possible worlds but did not actualize any of them and therefore those worlds while completely known were not made so by god and are free of his determination. They have no choice on the otherhand but to act as god knows that they will act. So in some since even weak determinism forbids freedom.
I would say that God has every understanding. He could have control over the exact number of nosehairs you choose to pluck out tomorrow morning. It is understood that God chooses not to have that kind of control over his creation. He made things, set the wheels in motion, then left it up to us/nature to run itself.... with a few interventions along the way.
Technicalities and debates come on those interventions. If God can choose to intervene at any time to manipulate an outcome to his advantage/preference, then do we ever really have a choice? My angle on that is, can you still deny God? God would not choose to have people deny him, he would force you to follow him if indeed he predetermined your actions according to his preference.
Do we have free will, freedom of choice, yes we do. We can make a choice that is not predetermined by God regardless of what God knows or not. Just because he knows the choice you're going to make doesn't mean he made you make that choice. You may know that if your son was faced with a choice of banana, strawberry, or grape flavored ice pops, he'd pick his favorite flavor... whatever one that is. Regardless of what choices you put in front of him, you already know what he'd choose... does that mean, because you already know his choice that you predetermined that choice for him? or that you made him make that choice? of course not. He was free to take any flavor he chose, but he chose the one you knew he'd choose because he has grown to understand that he likes that flavor and would enjoy that more than the others and you know him well enough to know that. It's the same idea with God. he knows us well enough to know the choices we'll likely make even though we might have many options in front of us. You could deny the preferable choice, but you'd likely have a good reason to do so and still God would have understood that, but yet not predetermined that. I'm not sure how many more ways I can put it really.
Again though there are many options, yet many influences that can manipulate your choice, does this then mean that your choice was still predetermined? No. If it was, you wouldn't have a choice. It'd be Grape... take it or take it. you wouldn't even be able to choose not to have it.
It seems to me that the only way your future isn't matted out for you is that God must not understand what is going to happen next. for that to be the case, then everything you know before it happens is apparently completely in your control... because you understood its outcome before it happened.... therefore you determined it was to be before and the results are completely on your shoulders.

Cap I have demonstrated logically that if god knows a world and actualizes it it is determined and must occur as he knows it will or he is not omniscient or omnipotent because the outcome will be different than he intended there fore he failed and is not omnipotent and he was wrong because it was other than he thought. The person in such a world therefore has no choice regardless of all your simply stating that it is not. You are simply expressing desires and no logical proof , no reasons against the logic. It is simply a common conclusion of logic and why many theologians have backed away from god being omniscient or omnipotent.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: July 15, 2011 - 10:10am #62

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote:Cap I have

TGBaker wrote:

Cap I have demonstrated logically that if god knows a world and actualizes it it is determined and must occur as he knows it will or he is not omniscient or omnipotent because the outcome will be different than he intended there fore he failed and is not omnipotent and he was wrong because it was other than he thought. The person in such a world therefore has no choice regardless of all your simply stating that it is not. You are simply expressing desires and no logical proof , no reasons against the logic. It is simply a common conclusion of logic and why many theologians have backed away from god being omniscient or omnipotent.

What if God did know everything that might or will happen, but chose not to intervene and allowed us to make the choice? He would also know that any intervention would result in an alternate outcome therefore confirming that the future is not predetermined, only understood by his extensive knowledge of his own creation.

You have demonstrated that if God knows a world and actualizes itis determined and must occur as he knows it or he is not omniscient. You fail to take into consideration God knowing an outcome through a choice made that could be changed at any moment if God chose to intervene. You try to blame God for all outcomes because if he knows, then it must have been predetermined and has to happen that way because God is the one who actualizes it. What is not logical is that because it's known, then its outcome is determined by God and not anyone else by choice. You are demoting Gods creation to nothing more than a home computer. It doesn't make logical sense if that is the case that he would instill a sense of choice into the creation or even a preference for anything for that matter. What is and how we feel is how it is suppose to be, therefore, we might as well not have emotion or preference or even be fooled into thinking we have a choice. Instead, we have no choice whether we like not having a choice or not so it wouldn't matter anyway.

Logically, if your perception is true, then emotion, thought, choice/decision making were all a waste of input and illogical to add to a creation that cannot determine any of those themselves and ultimately, to a creation cant' use them anyway.

Posted on: July 16, 2011 - 5:54am #63

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Cap I have demonstrated logically that if god knows a world and actualizes it it is determined and must occur as he knows it will or he is not omniscient or omnipotent because the outcome will be different than he intended there fore he failed and is not omnipotent and he was wrong because it was other than he thought. The person in such a world therefore has no choice regardless of all your simply stating that it is not. You are simply expressing desires and no logical proof , no reasons against the logic. It is simply a common conclusion of logic and why many theologians have backed away from god being omniscient or omnipotent.
What if God did know everything that might or will happen, but chose not to intervene and allowed us to make the choice? He would also know that any intervention would result in an alternate outcome therefore confirming that the future is not predetermined, only understood by his extensive knowledge of his own creation.
You have demonstrated that if God knows a world and actualizes itis determined and must occur as he knows it or he is not omniscient. You fail to take into consideration God knowing an outcome through a choice made that could be changed at any moment if God chose to intervene. You try to blame God for all outcomes because if he knows, then it must have been predetermined and has to happen that way because God is the one who actualizes it. What is not logical is that because it's known, then its outcome is determined by God and not anyone else by choice. You are demoting Gods creation to nothing more than a home computer. It doesn't make logical sense if that is the case that he would instill a sense of choice into the creation or even a preference for anything for that matter. What is and how we feel is how it is suppose to be, therefore, we might as well not have emotion or preference or even be fooled into thinking we have a choice. Instead, we have no choice whether we like not having a choice or not so it wouldn't matter anyway.
Logically, if your perception is true, then emotion, thought, choice/decision making were all a waste of input and illogical to add to a creation that cannot determine any of those themselves and ultimately, to a creation cant' use them anyway.

Cap you are just not getting it. God if he sees everything that would happen if he made the world then makes the world it will have to happen. The only way that it would not if god chose not to know. Think of it like this he sees a big sphere with eveything in it laid out all the events that will happen in that world but it has too much evil so he looks at another and sees everything in that wolrds future it was not as bad. he keeps looking and chooses this world. he sees everything that will happen if he presses the start button and he does. It must therefore happen.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: July 19, 2011 - 4:51pm #64

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote:Cap you are

TGBaker wrote:

Cap you are just not getting it. God if he sees everything that would happen if he made the world then makes the world it will have to happen. The only way that it would not if god chose not to know. Think of it like this he sees a big sphere with eveything in it laid out all the events that will happen in that world but it has too much evil so he looks at another and sees everything in that wolrds future it was not as bad. he keeps looking and chooses this world. he sees everything that will happen if he presses the start button and he does. It must therefore happen.

I get what you're saying... we're just talking on different levels. "The problem here arises from what it means to know anything in general and what it would mean to know the future in particular." (Nash)

Let's bring up the concept of time. Because you're stuck on the idea that to know the future, God would have had to predetermine it. If he didn't then he doesn't know the future and therefore is not omniscient.

Basically, it is understood and I think you'd agree that God is outside of time. We see knowing the future as an inevitability if it is truly a known and believed proposition. To believe the proposition of a future event and to know it's going to happen is an inevitability of it's happening, otherwise it wouldn't be known or it would be falsely believed.

Now, the analogy of God's vision of the future and a human beings perception of the present is crucial to this case. When you observe something happening in the present, you see it happening without directly affecting the outcome or the action taking place... e.g. you watch your wife itch her nose. You had no influence on her itching her nose and just because you watched it doesn't mean you caused the action. You had no affect on her actions in the present. What a person perceives in the present is simple vision and vision cannot cause or make necessary what is being perceived. In the same manner, what God might perceive in the present would lack any affect from God on the outcome because it's happening as he watches it. Because God is outside of time, (He exists timelessly) everything God sees is happening in his eternal present. There is no future for God, there is no past. Everything that happens on our humanistic future and everything that has happened in our humanistic past is eternally present in God's consciousness.

This is another angle we can take on this. Be it that we're questioning God's omniscience and whether he is responsible for what happens or not, we must look at all possibilities. It is generally accepted in Christiandom that God is not subject to time and I believe you'd agree. I quoted Nash above because as I look into this futher, it seems that this subject has come up many times in the past and has many times been refuted and resolved many times. His quote is the same problem you and I are having here. The Bible does word prophesy as a vision and not a prediction or deterministic events to come.

Posted on: July 23, 2011 - 6:12am #65

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Cap you are just not getting it. God if he sees everything that would happen if he made the world then makes the world it will have to happen. The only way that it would not if god chose not to know. Think of it like this he sees a big sphere with eveything in it laid out all the events that will happen in that world but it has too much evil so he looks at another and sees everything in that wolrds future it was not as bad. he keeps looking and chooses this world. he sees everything that will happen if he presses the start button and he does. It must therefore happen.
I get what you're saying... we're just talking on different levels. "The problem here arises from what it means to know anything in general and what it would mean to know the future in particular." (Nash)
Let's bring up the concept of time. Because you're stuck on the idea that to know the future, God would have had to predetermine it. If he didn't then he doesn't know the future and therefore is not omniscient.
Basically, it is understood and I think you'd agree that God is outside of time. We see knowing the future as an inevitability if it is truly a known and believed proposition. To believe the proposition of a future event and to know it's going to happen is an inevitability of it's happening, otherwise it wouldn't be known or it would be falsely believed.
Now, the analogy of God's vision of the future and a human beings perception of the present is crucial to this case. When you observe something happening in the present, you see it happening without directly affecting the outcome or the action taking place... e.g. you watch your wife itch her nose. You had no influence on her itching her nose and just because you watched it doesn't mean you caused the action. You had no affect on her actions in the present. What a person perceives in the present is simple vision and vision cannot cause or make necessary what is being perceived. In the same manner, what God might perceive in the present would lack any affect from God on the outcome because it's happening as he watches it. Because God is outside of time, (He exists timelessly) everything God sees is happening in his eternal present. There is no future for God, there is no past. Everything that happens on our humanistic future and everything that has happened in our humanistic past is eternally present in God's consciousness.
This is another angle we can take on this. Be it that we're questioning God's omniscience and whether he is responsible for what happens or not, we must look at all possibilities. It is generally accepted in Christiandom that God is not subject to time and I believe you'd agree. I quoted Nash above because as I look into this futher, it seems that this subject has come up many times in the past and has many times been refuted and resolved many times. His quote is the same problem you and I are having here. The Bible does word prophesy as a vision and not a prediction or deterministic events to come.

YOU STILL DO NOT GET IT> JUST because god know all of the future incidents in a world does not cause it to be predetermined by god. It is him knowing it AND THEN actualizing it. It then must be as he know is will. Around and a round we go.....

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: July 23, 2011 - 6:46am #66

un0

Posts: 23

Joined: 2006-11-05

Offline

Hold up one second,

Hold up one second, guys.....

... Continue.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.

http://unpleasantcharacters.blogspot.com

Posted on: July 26, 2011 - 4:58pm #67

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote:YOU STILL DO

TGBaker wrote:

YOU STILL DO NOT GET IT> JUST because god know all of the future incidents in a world does not cause it to be predetermined by god. It is him knowing it AND THEN actualizing it. It then must be as he know is will. Around and a round we go.....

You keep saying I don't get it. Ok fine, I'll play. What's the difference between predetermining and actualizing a future event?

Why couldn't it be that God created "choice" into the creation and allows the creation to progress on its own? you seem to be confusing knowledge and action. Are you implying that God is constantly acting and making everything up to the buttons I push on my keyboard happen as if he was a puppeteer? (lemme reword that.... If God was real..... and then the question)

Posted on: July 28, 2011 - 7:52pm #68

TGBaker

Posts: 1367

Joined: 2011-02-06

Offline

caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
YOU STILL DO NOT GET IT> JUST because god know all of the future incidents in a world does not cause it to be predetermined by god. It is him knowing it AND THEN actualizing it. It then must be as he know is will. Around and a round we go.....
You keep saying I don't get it. Ok fine, I'll play. What's the difference between predetermining and actualizing a future event?
Why couldn't it be that God created "choice" into the creation and allows the creation to progress on its own? you seem to be confusing knowledge and action. Are you implying that God is constantly acting and making everything up to the buttons I push on my keyboard happen as if he was a puppeteer? (lemme reword that.... If God was real..... and then the question)

Hey Cap I just had my transplant today so I will keep it short. The difference is in knowing soming and causing something you know to occur. If I know all things in a contaniner that will exit if I make it real and make it real it will be as I saw it regardless if I try to say that the things in it have free will or not. They will be in a bag that becomes real because I made caused it to become real. There is no change from what has been seen nor can there be. It is therefore not only pre-known ( or epistemologically determined) it is also determined as it was known and viewed to be ( ontologically determined ).

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism

Posted on: July 31, 2011 - 8:12am #69

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

TGBaker wrote:Hey Cap I

TGBaker wrote:

Hey Cap I just had my transplant today so I will keep it short. The difference is in knowing soming and causing something you know to occur. If I know all things in a contaniner that will exit if I make it real and make it real it will be as I saw it regardless if I try to say that the things in it have free will or not. They will be in a bag that becomes real because I made caused it to become real. There is no change from what has been seen nor can there be. It is therefore not only pre-known ( or epistemologically determined) it is also determined as it was known and viewed to be ( ontologically determined ).

Hey, I understand what you're going through during our discussions. If there's ever a time we need to put our conversations on hold, I will completely understand. Take care of yourself and spend time with your family.

Epistemology is the study of the origin and extent of human knowledge, which by definition if a human knew something was going to happen before it happened, logically it would be understood that they determined the event. but the debate continues on whether they just knew the entities involved enough to come to a rational conclusion on the outcome and be correct. Though a rational conclusion can't be guaranteed whereas God's prophesy can be. We can't compare God's knowledge to epistemology. The limit of human knowledge is barely scratching the surface of God's knowledge and understanding.

Ontology is a branch of metaphysics that studies origin. Origin has nothing to do with actualizing a future event unless you're implying that God is constantly reoriginating life and is constantly hitting the reset button to assure the processes that happen next are exactly what he wants them to be. (sounds like what you're implying with the different worlds example)

My belief is that God created and set the wheels in motion with nature and living beings... He designed it in such a way that it would be self sufficient... In other words, hes not a puppeteer, he let it go to do its thing. I see nature and life as an automated thing that God has created and not something that God dictates.

Our debate here is whether God is constantly creating (actualizing the future or determining it's outcome) or whether creation took place during a period of time described in Genesis and then it was done. I see no Biblical evidence or otherwise suggesting that creation is continuous.

Posted on: September 11, 2011 - 8:33am #70

caposkia

Posts: 2701

Joined: 2007-05-15

Offline

checking in

Hey, just seeing how things are. It's been a while and I know what you were going through last we talked. I hope you're doing alright. Not that it means anything to you now, but I'll keep you in my prayers. I hope you're getting better. Take care.