Do God's Omniscience and Omnipotence Contradict?

Photobucket






Atheists think it is. I've seen many a knock down drag-out fight, multiple threads, lasing for days, accomplishing nothing. I wrote that dilemma off years ago before I was an internet apologist, so long ago I don't remember when. I wrote it off because at an early date I read Boethius who, in his great work The Consolation of Philosophy (circa 524), puts to rest the issue by proving that foreknowledge is not determinism. In this essay I will demonstrate not only that this is true but the atheist error about omniscience and omnipotence contradicting are actually hold overs from the pagan framework which Boethius disproved.

___________________ 
Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius
(480?-524)
 Aurthor The Consolation
 of Philosophy
___________________

For years my debates on the matter were marked by silly repetition. I would constantly argue that just knowing that someone does something is not controlling it. But atheists were always cock sure that it was. I used the follow analogy: I know how the Alamo turned out. Travis and the men stepped over the line and chose to stay and die. I know they did that, does my knowledge of it mean that I made them do it? Of course the atheist say "O of course not, but you are not in the past, you are knowing this by a look back in history to see what they already did." Of course, but God doesn't know about events before they have happened in time, he knows about them because he's beyond time and he sees everything in time as a accomplished fact. From our perspective in time God's knowledge is "foreknowledge" becasue it is for us. But it's not foreknowledge for God, he doesn't know before it happens, he knows about events because form an eternal perspective its a done deal. Just as my knowing what the men at the Alamo already did does not give me control over their choices, so God's knowledge of facts we have already accomplish does not give God control over our choices.

Of course, predictably, the atheists dismiss this idea as "nonsense" and go right on asserting that to know of an action is to control, but they can't tell me why. They can tell me a  theoretical reason but they can't tell me why if my knowing about the Alamo ex post facto does not control those actions why would God's knowledge of a past even already done control the past event? Why are these not analogous if God is outside time and sees all things in time as accomplished facts? They can't tell me but they are certain the idea is nonsense. The reason they give initially is this. Say that God knows today that I will go to the store tomorrow. That means that i can't tomorrow morning decide "I don't want to go tot he store, I hate the walk." I can't decide that and follow it because God already knows I went so I have to go. But the problem is they are not following a modern concept of God knowing becuase he's outside of time. They are still stuck in the pre Christian framework which has clung to modern Western Philosophy lo these many centuries. That frame work can be clearly seen in Boethius because that's what he was arguing against. The fame work is the Greek Gods were controlled by the fates, but they also had foreknowledge, so they were trumping the fates, to whom they were really subject. That creates an issue. Moreover, foreknowledge was about things that had not yet taken place, thus that is a contradiction; it hasn't taken place, how can it be known what one will do, to know it is to set in stone and thus not free will. But that only holds in the case of god in time not outside of time. It doesn't apply to the idea of God transcendent of time and thus that's why they can't answer me, but because they know the philosophers they read still assert the old Greek idea they must cling to it.


We can see the exact kind of thinking the atheists use in the Consolation and it is the framework against which Boethius toils. This quotation is form a summary in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The summary is by John Marenbon.


The first point which needs to be settled is what, precisely, is the problem which Boethius the character proposes? The reasoning behind (7) seems to be of the following form:
  1. God knows every event, including all future ones.
  2. When someone knows that an event will happen, then the event will happen.
  3. (10) is true as a matter of necessity, because it is impossible to know that which is not the case.
  4. If someone knows an event will happen, it will happen necessarily.(10, 11)
  5. Every event, including future ones, happens necessarily. (9, 12)
The pattern behind (8) will be similar, but in reverse: from a negation of (13), the negation of (9) will be seen to follow. But, as it is easy to observe, (9–13) is a fallacious argument: (10) and (11) imply, not (12), but
  1. Necessarily, if someone knows an event will happen, it will happen.
 (emphasis mine)
 The summary of the problem he's working against indicates exactly the problem I frame it, that the atheist (following the Greeks) is not assuming transcendence of time but is working on the assumption that God's knowledge is prior to the completed nature of the action. This was framework in which Boethius found the problem in his own contemporary scene which came from the pre-christian Hellenistic world. Even when the philosopher writing the article sums it up he still speaks form the same perspective:


The fallacy, therefore, concerns the scope of the necessity operator. Boethius has mistakenly inferred the (narrow-scope) necessity of the consequent (‘the event will happen’), when he is entitled only to infer the (wide-scope) necessity of the whole conditional (‘if someone knows an event will happen, it will happen’). Boethius the character is clearly taken in by this fallacious argument, and there is no good reason to think that Boethius the author ever became aware of the fallacy (despite a passage later on which some modern commentators have interpreted in this sense). None the less, the discussion which follows does not, as the danger seems to be, address itself to a non-problem. Intuitively, Boethius sees that the threat which divine prescience poses to the contingency of future events arises not just from the claim that God's beliefs about the future constitute knowledge, but also from the fact that they are beliefs about the future.There is a real problem here, because if God knows now what I shall do tomorrow, then it seems that either what I shall do is already determined, or else that I shall have the power tomorrow to convert God's knowledge today into a false belief. Although his logical formulation does not capture this problem, the solution Boethius gives to Philosophy is clearly designed to tackle it.
He's speaking form the perspective of future events which have not yet happened, being known before they happen. But that leaves out the assumption that's God's is not actuality foreknowledge so much as translucence eternal knowledge that sees the events as an accomplished fact because it sees the the end result from a perspective after the event is accomplished. That's the wider perspective. Transcendent eternal knowledge is the knowledge of all time as the "eternal now" not "foreknowledge" in the sense of known only prior to the doing of the event. Then there is also an issue about the nature of the knower. This is a point Boethius may be making but it's hard to say. God knows form the standpoint of eternity but he speaks within times arrow to us so it appears to be foreknowledge, knowledge of that which has not yet transpired. Thus the illusion of determinism is created. But the fact of it is the knowledge comes from viewing all events as accomplished facts. It's in the perspective of timeless transience which only God can have.

This latter issue of the nature of the knowledge is marked by the summary and by the text itself as "modes of cognition." The Constolation of Philosphy is the old fashioned Philosophical dialogue which no one writes anymore, the kind Berkelely write (out of date in his day--early 1700's).

Erronious: "hi fallacious how's it going?"
Fallacious: "great, I'm now considering a new idea"
Erronious: "prey tell good sir what idea might that be?"

And they go on to discuss and provide endless house of fun writing Monty Python style paradiges of themselves. Then burst into a course of "Rene Descartes was a Druken fart, 'I drink therefore I am.'

But before they do that they discuss issues and the philosopher places his arguemnts in the mouth of the character. In the Consolution the Charactor Boethius is agonizing over philosphy when Philosophy personfie as a beautiful woman comes to him and gives him the answers. That's the context in which this reviewer states the following:

Her view, as she develops it (in V.5 and V.6), is based on what might be called the Principle of Modes of Cognition: the idea that knowledge is always relativized to different levels of knowers, who have different sorts of objects of knowledge. Although she initially develops this scheme in a complex way, in relation to the different levels of the soul (intelligence, reason, imagination and the senses) and their different objects (pure Form, abstract universals, images, particular bodily things), for most of her discussion Philosophy concentrates on a rather simpler aspect of it. God's way of being and knowing, she argues, is eternal, and divine eternity, she says, is not the same as just lacking a beginning and end, but it is rather (V.6) ‘the whole, simultaneous and perfect possession of unbounded life.’

Boethius did not have the knowledge of modern cosmology, the big bang, quantum theory or any of the other scientific data that we have so he did not possess the concepts of being outside of time. He did however have an understanding of eternity that came form his own spirituality, and it seems to coincide remarkably with the modern notion. What's he's saying is that God an eternal perspective. He can see the events of what to us are the future but to him is an eternal now. So he's not knowing something that hasn't happened yet, he knows something that to him has happened, but to us has not yet happened. Without the big bang Boeithius still has the concept of God being outside of time and he saw that as the basis of non-deterministic events in time which known to God as completed events due to God's unqiue persective.

A being who is eternal in this way, Philosophy argues, knows all things—past, present and future—in the same way as we, who live in time and not eternity, know what is present. She then goes on to show why, so long as God knows future events by their being present to him, this knowledge is compatible with the events’ not being determined.

Through the mouth of philosophy Boethius speculates that there two kinds of necessity. The first is:

Simple necessities are what would now be called physical or nomic necessities: that the sun rises, or that a man will sometime die. By contrast, it is conditionally necessary that, for instance, I am walking, when I am walking (or when someone sees that I am walking); but from this conditional necessity it does not follow that it is simply necessary  that I am walking.

Although some philosophers disagree,  she is not noting the scope fallacy above but is actually using Aristotelian modality to argue about the eternal perspective. All things are known to God as though they were in the present. Future events for God are necessary in just the way that present events are necessary for us. What I'm doing writ now I am necessarily doing because I'm really doing it. But because it's my choice to do it and I'm doing it now (as opposed something I already did five years ago) my will to do it is not negated. I can stop doing it and so something else. But I can't go back five seconds ago and stop doing it in the past. All moments are known to God from this perspective.

Now so far so good. But there are two problems:

(1) Most philosophers today do not accept this reading of the issues.

It is important to add, however, that most contemporary interpreters do not read the argument of V.3–6 in quite this way. They hold that Philosophy is arguing that God is a-temporal, so eliminating the problems about determinism, which arise when God's knowing future contingents is seen an event in the past, and therefore, fixed.
That's going to be a problem for me becasue it means that timeless state of "beyond time" would mean God is "frozen" unable to act and thus can only act in time and thus the temporal problem. Rather, God sees as past and while may not control past is also not free to act in the past becuase it is a done deal.

(2) Philosophy seems to swing to a predestination view at the end.

She make God the determiner of events. There are also interpreters who see the Consolation as a satire that should be called "the insufficiency of philosophy." The only problem for me is that atheists will read this part of hte article and say "O see Metacorck is stupid because he didn't read the whole article." Marenbon argues that Boethius purpose is complex it can't be summarized as either "philosophy is insufficient" or "the whole issue is decided." what he's really saying is that philosophy is an ongoing concern. The true consolation of philosophy is not that such issue can be put to rest and summed up easily in nice little easy to understand phrases that only take a few syllables but we can have partial solutions and we can continue to work on problems and continue to seek answers and the act of so doing is a consolation even if we never find clear and easy answers. The interpretation of the  Consolation is a literary problem, not a theological one. I will, therefore, bracket that until such as a time as I work on literary criticism.

The first problem is of much greater concern but I have an answer. I think I've analyzed Boethius' claims in the section where philosophy answers the issues of foreknowledge,I think I have that right and it works. It doesn't seem to work when we extract it form the framework of his day and place it in the world of modern cosmology, but it works again when we extract it from the framework of modern  cosmology and place it in the framework of my theology (the Berkeley-Gaswami argument). My theological frame work differs from the modern cosmological in this way: I do not see God as a big man in the sky existing beyond the big bang which is a timeless void. I see God as the mind that thinks the universe, and the universe is therefore, analogous to a thought in a mind. I say "analogous" becuase it's a metaphor. If it was literal it might be more deterministic than any other view because it would mean that all events are thoughts in the mind of God in a litteral sense. I do not think that. The Gaswami part comes in where I take a page form the book of physicist Amit Gaswami (a Hindu vedantist who teaches physics at University of Oregon. Like Gaswami I see mind as the fundametnal stuff of the universe rather than energy or mater. I don't mean that in the sense of the universe being a mind, but that is related to mind in the way that a thought is related to a mind. I take that as a metaphor because like
Bishop George Berkeley I accept the premise "to be is to be perceived." God is the observer that collapses the wave function and causes the universe to be by beholding it. God is observing a thought that he has set up to run on it own. He's not making it happen or thinking every event at a microscopic level.

Two analogies that will clarify the difference. In the standard view God's relation to the world is like that of a man standing in a big room holding a world globe. The room is the timeless void beyond our space/time. The man is God, of course, and the globe is our space time. That puts God as a thing in "creation" or at least a timeless void, it makes God subject to the laws of physics and the problem of time. It makes God out to be a big man in the sky, although really far up in the sky. My view we have the room and the globe, no man. The room is the mind of God. the globe and the empty void of "timeless" are both thoughts in the mind of God. What this means is God is not subject to either time or the problem of non time. Both are pseudo problems for God because they are just ideas he thought up to create a framework for our world, which is a further thought of that preliminary thought in his mind. God is no more subject to the problems of time or even non time than we are to our day dreams and momentary fleeting fantasies that cross our minds.

This has many implications that have to be weighed. For one thing we just forget about the issues surrounding the omnis,, let them go completely. Not that God is not all knowing or all powerful, but the concepts "all knowing" and "all powerful" are hazy shadowy concepts that do more to confuse us than to help us. These are Aristotelian ideas and they hold overs from Greek philosophy. These things enter Western philosophy from Greek thought and they preserved by the prejudices of Western European philosophers. Modern philosophers still think the Greeks were the summit of human civilization, even the Church adopted ht language of Greek philosophy to discuss doctrine so we should look to the Greeks. The Hebrews were corn pones and the early Christians were Greeks themselves so Greek ideas hang on in philosophy. Thus the older meaning of "foreknowledge" and it's problems adhere to all modern discussions. The chruch began to use the language of Aristotle after the Apostolic age so we continue to speak of "omnipresent." "Omnipotent" even though the Bible doesn't so speak. We should scrap the language of "all knowing" " all powerful" because it communicates badly. Rather than these we should say, not that God is the "most powerful" that's a mistake too (from a Tillichian perspective) but that God can do whatever is logically doable. God knows whatever is logically knowable.

The problem is ni speaking of God as "doing" and "knowing' we give the importation of God as a big man and God's knowledge as the kind of knowledge city zoning board use to plan things. All of this anthropomorphic language is bring God down to the level of a thing in creation. It's not preserving the transcendent nature of God's knowledge which so different form ours we can't even know what it's like. What we can be sure of is that God has left us free will and he's not violating it. God knows whatever is logically knowable. It may not be logically knowable for God to know how it feels to be not God. But at the same time, he does know empathy, he knows the heart he knows the mind, he can take a much better intuitive feel of what that might be like than even we can ourselves. He even knows first hand what it's like to be human.

God does not have to make rocks he can't lift. That is a childish trap set for eighty grade apologetic hobbyists in Sunday school classes. I know because I'm still smarting from falling for it in eighth grade.God can't smell next Tuesday because days don't have smells. The eager beaver atheist can say "there's something God can't do." I say "so?" God cannot do nonsense, ok so what? We need to redefine the omnis and come up with a new term  ( I don't like "maximal greatness" too easy to confuse with "most power being"). The import this has for this issue is that there is no contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence because those are not helpful words and they don't really mean that much so they don't really describe God's attributes well. Since God is beyond the problems of either time or non-time he is not in the big room of timeless void so he's not frozen. Thus God's knowledge can come form all perspectives, from the eternal now and from time's arrow.

Might there actually be aspects of time God chooses not to see? The problem with that question is it assumes God is a rubber-necking tourist roving the expanse of all  existing matter and observing it as one would observe the country side of France from a  train window. Because God is not a big man in the sky, not anthropomorphic we can come up with other metaphors to compare God to, and that indicate that God's relationship to time is one we can't understand. Compare God to the strong force, to the unified field, to the laws of physics, the Hegelian dialectic. The Zeitgeist. I don't believe that God is impersonal but I do think it's a good exercise to think of him that way at times just to break the habit of thinking of God as a big man in the sky.

Such a God cannot waste his time worrying about conflicts between one badly worded phrase that doesn't really describe him and another badly worded phrase that doesn't describe him. Thus the problem is now reduced to a pseudo problem. It' an antiquated problem because it's rooted in the pre-Christian Greek understanding of God and time and the world, and it's also rooted in thinking of God as a big man in the sky rather than the transcendent and immanent ground of all being that God is.

Comments

im-skeptical said…
First, I recommend you read up on the Problem of Evil. It is not that omniscience and omnipotence are contradictory. But it is the combination of those things with omnibenevolence. Basically, you can have any two of them, but the third would e contradictory. This is a well-known argument that you should be familiar with (but apparently you aren't).

Of course, predictably, the atheists dismiss this idea as "nonsense" and go right on asserting that to know of an action is to control, but they can't tell me why. They can tell me a theoretical reason but they can't tell me why if my knowing about the Alamo ex post facto does not control those actions why would God's knowledge of a past even already done control the past event? Why are these not analogous if God is outside time and sees all things in time as accomplished facts
- The problem here is not an issue of understanding your concept of God being outside time. I get it. He sees it all, as if it's written in a book. The real problem is that he's not just a passive observer. He's the author of the book. He made it all to come out exactly the way he intended. He is solely responsible for every single word - everything that happens.

Joe Hinman said…
First, I recommend you read up on the Problem of Evil. It is not that omniscience and omnipotence are contradictory. But it is the combination of those things with omnibenevolence. Basically, you can have any two of them, but the third would e contradictory. This is a well-known argument that you should be familiar with (but apparently you aren't).

That is nothing more than your way of setting up the issues but It changed nothing in my argument. as for "But it is the combination of those things with omnibenevolence." Holy explicating the obvious Batman.

MeOf course, predictably, the atheists dismiss this idea as "nonsense" and go right on asserting that to know of an action is to control, but they can't tell me why. They can tell me a theoretical reason but they can't tell me why if my knowing about the Alamo ex post facto does not control those actions why would God's knowledge of a past even already done control the past event? Why are these not analogous if God is outside time and sees all things in time as accomplished facts


Him- The problem here is not an issue of understanding your concept of God being outside time. I get it. He sees it all, as if it's written in a book. The real problem is that he's not just a passive observer. He's the author of the book. He made it all to come out exactly the way he intended. He is solely responsible for every single word - everything that happens.

That is an assertion not imn evidence. There is no reason to to think God plans things out to come out exactly as he wants them to and not merely generally as he wants them to.

"He is solely responsible for every single word - everything that happens. "


That is preposterous! Nothing in Bible implores that kneed of determinism. Why pray God's will be done on earth?
im-skeptical said…
Holy explicating the obvious Batman.
- Let's talk calmly, shall we? What's obvious to me is that you didn't present the position of most atheists accurately. You didn't even mention omnibenevolence, but that is an essential part of the atheists' argument. I have never heard a single one say that "God's Omniscience and Omnipotence Contradict".

That is an assertion not imn evidence. There is no reason to to think God plans things out to come out exactly as he wants them to and not merely generally as he wants them to.
- Yet that is exactly what many "sophisticated" theists believe. In fact, it is the position of Dr. Dennis Bonnette that every single thing that happens in nature, right down to individual quantum events, is the intention of God.

That is preposterous! Nothing in Bible implores that kneed of determinism. Why pray God's will be done on earth?
- This is a conflict between ancient unsophisticated concepts of God and newer "sophisticated" theism. If God is omniscient, and he is the creator of all things, then he must have made our world with full knowledge of every outcome. I don't see how you can then claim that he only provides some vague kind of "general" guidance.
Joe Hinman said…
Holy explicating the obvious Batman.

- Let's talk calmly, shall we? What's obvious to me is that you didn't present the position of most atheists accurately. You didn't even mention omnibenevolence, but that is an essential part of the atheists' argument. I have never heard a single one say that "God's Omniscience and Omnipotence Contradict".

you do not speak for atheism. I have been doing this for 20 years, I've argued with thousands of atheists. Most of them argue a simple contradiction between God's knowledge of future and our free will. One could complicate the issue by dragging God's love vs the human condition, but that must be answered anyway. So it makes no difference to the apologist weather that is brought in or not.

Me:That is an assertion not imn evidence. There is no reason to to think God plans things out to come out exactly as he wants them to and not merely generally as he wants them to.


Him:- Yet that is exactly what many "sophisticated" theists believe. In fact, it is the position of Dr. Dennis Bonnette that every single thing that happens in nature, right down to individual quantum events, is the intention of God.

That's a red herring. You are arguing with me not that guy.


Me:That is preposterous! Nothing in Bible says that kind of determinism. Why pray God's will be done on earth?



Him:- This is a conflict between ancient unsophisticated concepts of God and newer "sophisticated" theism. If God is omniscient, and he is the creator of all things, then he must have made our world with full knowledge of every outcome. I don't see how you can then claim that he only provides some vague kind of "general" guidance.

It does not follow that knowing an outcome necessitates controlling the outcome read the OP and you'll see I spelled that out


2/04/2019 02:21:00 PM Delete
im-skeptical said…
you do not speak for atheism. I have been doing this for 20 years
- You don't understand any real atheistic philosophical position. The argument you present here is NOT what any actual atheists argue.

That's a red herring. You are arguing with me not that guy.
- OK. Fair enough. Now tell me how an omniscient God can intentionally create everything, knowing all along exactly what will happen in his creation, and still not be in control of the outcome. And please remember, if he doesn't like anything at all about what happens in this world, all he has to do is change his creation to make it more to his liking, because he is omnipotent, after all.

It does not follow that knowing an outcome necessitates controlling the outcome read the OP and you'll see I spelled that out
- It's simple logic, Joe. God has the power to create whatever he wants, and he knows exactly how it all turns out. Right down to the last quark. Your position is incoherent.
Joe Hinman said…
Joeyou do not speak for atheism. I have been doing this for 20 years


- You don't understand any real atheistic philosophical position. The argument you present here is NOT what any actual atheists argue.

You are an idiot. You don't understand your ass from a hole in the ground. Like most stupid people you think rejection of your stupid ideas means one doesn't understand

JoeThat's a red herring. You are arguing with me not that guy.


- OK. Fair enough. Now tell me how an omniscient God can intentionally create everything, knowing all along exactly what will happen in his creation, and still not be in control of the outcome.

He knows the future from outside,he doesn't have to control it. The real question is about being outside time but no way to understand it, but it's not a contradiction.

And please remember, if he doesn't like anything at all about what happens in this world, all he has to do is change his creation to make it more to his liking, because he is omnipotent, after all.

false. It will never be as simple as saying if he doesn't like something. It's always going to be weighing thousandths of counter veining variables, vs desired outcome. Even God night have to allow stuff to achieve certain things,

JoeIt does not follow that knowing an outcome necessitates controlling the outcome read the OP and you'll see I spelled that out


- It's simple logic, Joe.

you don't know logic

-God has the power to create whatever he wants, and he knows exactly how it all turns out. Right down to the last quark. Your position is incoherent.

I just got through telling you why that's wrong. You are trying to over simplify for your own ends,you are not thinking,

2/05/2019 08:08:00 AM Delete
im-skeptical said…
You are an idiot. You don't understand your ass from a hole in the ground. Like most stupid people you think rejection of your stupid ideas means one doesn't understand
- It doesn't matter whether I agree with you. The argument you presented is NOT that argument that atheists make. Because YOU don't understand the atheists' position.

He knows the future from outside,he doesn't have to control it. The real question is about being outside time but no way to understand it, but it's not a contradiction.
- I didn't say that being outside of time and seeing everything at once was a contradiction. But I did say that God is not just a passive observer. He is the creator. He makes the whole story of human existence, and he makes it knowing exactly how everything turns out. That logically implies that he is in full control. The only contradiction would be to say that he could willfully make something, knowing exactly what he is making, and with the power to make whatever he wants, but not be in control of what he is making. That's absurd. Your position is incoherent.

false. It will never be as simple as saying if he doesn't like something. It's always going to be weighing thousandths of counter veining variables, vs desired outcome. Even God night have to allow stuff to achieve certain things
- Joe, he's superman. He can do it all. Trillions of variables - no problem. He can handle it. Let's not forget - you think this guy fine-tuned the entire universe to make it turn out exactly the way he wanted it. Now you're claiming that he's not in control? You don't make any sense. He's superman when you need him to be in control, but when a different argument comes up, he can't handle all those variables. I don't buy it.

you don't know logic
- I actually have to use logic in my work. And if it isn't correct, I fail. I would have been fired many years ago. What do you do for a living? Lay in bed and collect disability checks while writing fantasy stories about God for your numerous blogs?

I just got through telling you why that's wrong. You are trying to over simplify for your own ends,you are not thinking
- I explained to you why you're wrong. Your ideas about your imaginary God have no connection to reality.
Joe Hinman said…
You are an idiot. You don't understand your ass from a hole in the ground. Like most stupid people you think rejection of your stupid ideas means one doesn't understand


- It doesn't matter whether I agree with you. The argument you presented is NOT that argument that atheists make. Because YOU don't understand the atheists' position.

Yes it is. I've argued with thousands of atheists you do not know what they all say.

God Delusion: "If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent." 77-78.

you also ignore what I said in the essay (you did not read it all O quoted tyr source on that formation of the problem:This quotation is form a summary in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The summary is by John Marenbon.)

MeHe knows the future from outside,he doesn't have to control it. The real question is about being outside time but no way to understand it, but it's not a contradiction.

Him- I didn't say that being outside of time and seeing everything at once was a contradiction. But I did say that God is not just a passive observer. He is the creator. He makes the whole story of human existence, and he makes it knowing exactly how everything turns out. That logically implies that he is in full control. The only contradiction would be to say that he could willfully make something, knowing exactly what he is making, and with the power to make whatever he wants, but not be in control of what he is making. That's absurd. Your position is incoherent.

That's not my position. God is in full control but he does mot makes our decisions for us. It's nor contradiction to say that God is in full control so he allows space for free will. He does have the power to make such space, he is not an automatic force that can only act one way



Mefalse. It will never be as simple as saying if he doesn't like something. It's always going to be weighing thousandths of counter veining variables, vs desired outcome. Even God night have to allow stuff to achieve certain things


Him- Joe, he's superman. He can do it all. Trillions of variables - no problem. He can handle it. Let's not forget - you think this guy fine-tuned the entire universe to make it turn out exactly the way he wanted it. Now you're claiming that he's not in control? You don't make any sense. He's superman when you need him to be in control, but when a different argument comes up, he can't handle all those variables. I don't buy it.

you think everything is produced by gravity, an unconscious force. You think the concept of God is a big man in the sky you have an extremely naive and primitive God concept.

Meyou don't know logic


- I actually have to use logic in my work.

Meaningless, doesn't mean you use it well.Most of your arguments are circular

And if it isn't correct, I fail. I would have been fired many years ago. What do you do for a living? Lay in bed and collect disability checks while writing fantasy stories about God for your numerous blogs?


My work involves knowing God is real if I did not know that I would be fired, so I must be right,


I just got through telling you why that's wrong. You are trying to over simplify for your own ends,you are not thinking


- I explained to you why you're wrong. Your ideas about your imaginary God have no connection to reality.

I just disproved your explanation.

2/06/2019 09:50:00 AM Delete
Kristen said…
I don't usually write like this, but IM-- you really are being a jerk, you know? To throw a man's disability in his face as a reason not to respect him, is just plain despicable.

You say Joe isn't addressing atheism's argument -- by which you mean your argument -- and then you imply that all Christians make the same arguments and that he has to address one he hasn't made. If you don't agree with the atheist argument Joe addresses, if that's not your position, then why are you in this discussion?

I don't think you read the opening post all the way through, because it answers the questions you keep raising. This pretty much reduces your response to "Is Not!" Not helpful.
im-skeptical said…
Yes it is. I've argued with thousands of atheists you do not know what they all say. God Delusion: ...
- If you had all these exchanges with thousands of atheists, you should be aware that they generally don't refer to this issue as a contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence, but rather it is a thorny problem that shows itself as a conflict between God's omniscience and his freedom to act in a manner that is logically impossible. There is a distinction, because one might say that as long as God has the freedom to act, he could do anything, so he would still be omnipotent. Most Christians who claim that God is omnipotent will still admit that he cannot do what is logically impossible. Nor do atheists usually dispute that. And this is no different. You should know that Dawkins merely gave a two sentence summary of this logical conundrum posed by someone else, which he went on to quote in full. The actual argument, made by logician Karen Owens says "Can omniscient God, who Knows the future, find The omnipotence to Change His future mind?" Dawkins' unfortunate repetition of the word 'omnipotent' here makes the same mistake that you are making. The real issue is one of the logical consistency of God's freedom to act, given his omniscience.

you also ignore what I said in the essay (you did not read it all O quoted tyr source on that formation of the problem:This quotation is form a summary in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The summary is by John Marenbon.)
- Again, this isn't about a contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence. It is about the conflict between omniscience and God's (logically consistent) freedom to control what happens. The word 'omnipotence' doesn't even show up in this article.

im-skeptical said…
That's not my position. God is in full control but he does mot makes our decisions for us. It's nor contradiction to say that God is in full control so he allows space for free will. He does have the power to make such space, he is not an automatic force that can only act one way
- And you completely ignored my argument. I would buy what you say IF God opened the book of the world and saw what happens, as if he was reading it for the first time. As a passive observer, he would not decide what happens. But that's not the situation. He creates all of it himself. He creates the players, and he writes the ending. And all of this is in a SINGLE ACT OF CREATION, of which God is in full control (as you say). It's all known to God at once. There is no 'future' from his perspective. But logically, there is also no room for any alternative outcome, because the outcome is already completely fixed by the SINGLE ACT OF CREATION. Logically, nobody has the ability to undo that which is already done. The so-called "modes of cognition" argument is nothing more than a recognition that free will is an illusion. And this is especially true if all of creation (including all outcomes produced by the activities of man) is is a single and unchanging act of God.

Meaningless, doesn't mean you use it well.Most of your arguments are circular
- You live in a fantasy world where logic doesn't come into play. You have no idea what it takes to actually make things work in reality.

My work involves knowing God is real if I did not know that I would be fired, so I must be right
- Fired from what? You've never done a day's work in your life, and you certainly never had to make anything work. There's a difference between saying you have knowledge of logic and proving it by actually putting it to practice and producing things that function correctly is the real world.

I just disproved your explanation.
- You haven't even understood my argument, let alone provided any cogent refutation. (HINT: if you just refer to some stuff from an article you found in answer to what I say, you need to be sure that it actually addresses the issue I raised. None of the material you have discussed do far actually addresses my issue.)
im-skeptical said…
I don't usually write like this, but IM-- you really are being a jerk, you know? To throw a man's disability in his face as a reason not to respect him, is just plain despicable.
- Whatever. Joe hurls insult after insult at me, and now you're bothered that I might have damaged his delicate feelings. Bullshit.
Kristen said…
Oh come on. Calling someone a name, and attacking someone based on their disability, are on two entirely different levels. You know I've said something to Joe before about his name-calling here and elsewhere, many times. Don't give me the "But he--" excuse.
Kristen said…
Joe, a few thoughts:

Another way of wording your argument might be to say that in creating free agents that can also affect outcomes, God has created a universe in which from one standpoint God knows, not all occurrences, but only all potentialities. Then from a different perspective, God knows which potentiality was realized. God may even have created a multiverse where other potentialities also become realities. Who knows?

Second, in terms of God not understanding what it's like to be human, of course Christian theism responds that God did experience humanity. However, I would say God probably doesn't have first-hand-knowledge of what it's like to be a turtle, or a bluebird.
im-skeptical said…
Don't give me the "But he--" excuse.
- It's all about giving people equal treatment, isn't it? When the day comes that my own ad hominem attacks rise to the level of Joe's, then I'll expect to hear from you about it.
Kristen said…
There's ad hominem attacks, and then there's attacking someone on the basis of something like disability. What you're saying, analogically, is, "Look, I know I took out a gun and shot him. But didn't you notice how he slapped me?"

Please.
im-skeptical said…

Let me make another point, Kristen. Yes, what I said is an insult. And I would never have said something like that to someone who doesn't make it his regular practice to throw insults and lie about me and my achievements, as well as my motivations. But in case you didn't notice, I WAS making a valid point. Joe accused me of not understanding logic. But I have to use logic in my professional work, which I have been doing successfully for many years. Joe, on the other hand, has no such work experience. He has NEVER had to actually make it work. That's the point.

Kristen said…
Then say it like that. Don't drag in the other stuff. Good grief.

That's the problem with these blogs and Internet boards. You'd think it would be possible for someone to say, "Yeah, that was a blow below the belt and unworthy of me; I apologize." An "insult" based on someone's disability is no different than a racial slur. Admit you were out of line, say you're sorry, and let's get back to the actual topic.
im-skeptical said…
The next time Joe makes one of his slurs against me, I suppose you will just as bothered by it as you are by what I have said? Just like you were the last thousand times it happened?

Kristen said…
I have a moral duty to call out discriminatory slurs based on race, sex, disability, sexual orientation, etc.-- not simple name calling. You insist on acting like one is the same as the other. I've made my point. I don't believe you're unable to grasp it. I refuse to spend any more time on this ridiculousness.
im-skeptical said…
I have a moral duty to call out discriminatory slurs based on race, sex, disability, sexual orientation, etc.-- not simple name calling. You insist on acting like one is the same as the other. I've made my point. I don't believe you're unable to grasp it. I refuse to spend any more time on this ridiculousness.
- With all due respect, I think your umbrage is rather one-sided. Joe goes beyond simple name-calling. He lies about me, and he does it often. At least I'm not lying.
im-skeptical said…
I have a moral duty to call out discriminatory slurs based on race, sex, disability, sexual orientation, etc.
- I notice you didn't say 'religion' or more particularly, lack thereof. Is that not on your list morally offensive bases for discrimination? Because you don't have to look hard to find examples of Joe making discriminatory (and untrue) statements about atheists. You have twice now accused me of making offensive discriminatory remarks. The first time, it was entirely in your imagination. The second time, the remark may well have been offensive, but there was nothing discriminatory about it. I don't treat Joe in any way unequal, or deny him any opportunities. Joe clearly regards himself as an intellectual superior in these arguments, so the fact of a disability doesn't weigh on his own opinion. But he he does display what could easily be seen as a discriminatory hatred of atheists. Does he treat me as a lesser person? Yes, absolutely, he does. Does it bother you? Not a bit.
Kristen said…
I don't know what part of "I refuse to spend any more time on this ridiculousness" you didn't understand. If you want to keep saying things, I can't stop you, but you can't make me continue the discussion either. Let the other readers judge between you and me.

Joe, I'm sorry I had to do that-- it may have made things more uncomfortable for you, and for that I apologize. But I did feel it was a moral obligation.

Kristen said…
Going on with the real discussion: Joe, I like your analogy of mind being the fundamental nature of the universe. I think our minds and our consciousnessness arise out of God as flowers from the soil. It's becoming apparent that our human thoughts actually produce a sort of creative energy, and that this energy can have an effect on our own selves and on our surroundings. Psychologists are saying more and more often that we can change our response to a set of circumstances by changing the stories we tell ourselves about them. Changing our responses to more positive ones based on more positive stories can, of course, positively impact what happens next. For instance, the story "I failed that test, I'm a failure," has a very different effect than "I failed that test, but I learned where I need to study harder next time, and I'll pass this class in the end!" - not just in what we do next, but in the energy we bring to our actions. What do you think about these ideas?
im-skeptical said…
I refuse to spend any more time on this ridiculousness
- Ridiculousness is right. I've heard more than enough from you, with your crocodile tears over phony accusations of discrimination.
Joe Hinman said…
I showed two sources using the position I'm attacking he just writes it off as a mistake, "Dawkins made a mistake"but he only acknowledged one.

He also ignores the fact that I show his different approach doesn't change anything. That's just face saving bullshit. I gave two sources that prove some atheists do make the arguments I',m answering (that piece was written in 2011)
Joe Hinman said…
Let's look at the weassle's dishonesty in claiming I always insult him
This us a typical tactic of the Dawkamenatalist. Here'd the exchange when I called him an idiot:

Him - You don't understand any real atheistic philosophical position. The argument you present here is NOT what any actual atheists argue.

Me"You are an idiot. You don't understand your ass from a hole in the ground. Like most stupid people you think rejection of your stupid ideas means one doesn't understand."

He just told me I don;t know anything about atheistic Phil position forbore he said I don;t know mercantilism He; telling me I don;t know my own stuff. I study philosophy and history of science in Doctoral work but i am willing to let it slide but he starts expanding his empire. So that I don;t know anything he knows it all.

I am Irish. Push me enogh I push back.

Like most Dawkies he can never accept that his behavior could set off mine.
Joe Hinman said…
KristenJoe, I'm sorry I had to do that-- it may have made things more uncomfortable for you, and for that I apologize. But I did feel it was a moral obligation.

Think nothing of it Kristen. You are the only one who ever jumped in to back me up here except for few times JB did..but not as extensively,I'm usually alone against Skep and Pixie.

I;ve been through this scene on the net many times,it's meaningless, like the dew of the morning quickly fades.
Joe Hinman said…
risten said...
Going on with the real discussion: Joe, I like your analogy of mind being the fundamental nature of the universe. I think our minds and our consciousnessness arise out of God as flowers from the soil.

so you are saying God is dirt? ;-) no, but I love that imagery.


It's becoming apparent that our human thoughts actually produce a sort of creative energy, and that this energy can have an effect on our own selves and on our surroundings. Psychologists are saying more and more often that we can change our response to a set of circumstances by changing the stories we tell ourselves about them. Changing our responses to more positive ones based on more positive stories can, of course, positively impact what happens next. For instance, the story "I failed that test, I'm a failure," has a very different effect than "I failed that test, but I learned where I need to study harder next time, and I'll pass this class in the end!" - not just in what we do next, but in the energy we bring to our actions. What do you think about these ideas?

Interesting, could you say more about how you tie it in?



Anonymous said…
The premise that God is all-knowing, called "omniscience", is incorrect. That is the answer to this "dilemma". I have copied an article written by the late Otis Q Sellers about 50 years ago that addresses this perfectly. For those who care to learn the truth of this quality of God, read it.


"This concept of God's knowledge is called His omniscience, a word that means all knowing, and it is constantly cited as one of His attributes. This view of God is one that is seldom questioned, and anyone who acts so recklessly as to suggest that it needs to be reexamined is apt to be classed as one who is out of his mind. It seems that the attributes of God have come to be considered as some quality in the character of God that men have attributed to Him, but this could easily lead to some very erroneous concepts. Men could be right in some things and wrong in others.

Therefore, we must acknowledge that in truth the attributes of God are the qualities He has declared concerning Himself in His Word. That God is omnipotent is a fact declared in many passages where His unlimited power is set forth. The answer to the question, "Is anything too hard for the LORD?" (Gen. 18:14) has to be, "No, positively no!" Nevertheless, to say that He is
always exerting His power in all His acts is pushing omnipotence to an unscriptural position.

The same is true of His omniscience. We need to ask the questions: "Does God
know everything, or does He know only what He wants to know?" "Does He take
knowledge to Himself of every event even to the minutest detail, or does He take knowledge only of those things that are related to His purposes?" Nothing but scripture can provide answers to these questions.

At the present time quite a bit of literature is being circulated that stresses the absolute knowledge of God concerning all events - past, present and future. Certain groups are making this the one doctrine that is to be emphasized and promulgated. Furthermore, this idea is being projected to make it teach that all future events are established and fixed by the fact that God knows in advance that they will be; therefore, they must happen according to His foreknowledge of them; otherwise, His knowledge of the future would be erroneous.

(continued...)
Anonymous said…
In application of this idea, let us say that God knows in advance that two cars will crash head-on next month and the two drivers will die in the flaming crash. If it is true that God has foreknowledge of this, then that accident must happen. This I do not believe, for it is my conviction
that I have averted death on many occasions by safe, sane, sober and careful driving. We are also being told that the exact moment of a person's death is fixed by the foreknowledge of God. If this is true, then we cannot extend our lives a single day by clean and careful living or shorten it one day by committing suicide. It can be seen that all of this leads to a terrible fatalism (whatever will be will be), the only variation being that everything is fixed by the foreknowledge of God. It is also being said that God is constantly observing and storing in His memory all the wicked acts that men are committing. This is being declared in spite of the fact that we are told that "He is of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look upon
iniquity" (Hab. 1:13). Nevertheless, they would have us believe that God is a front-row observer of all the impure, filthy, immoral acts that are constantly being committed all over the world.

It is, of course, to be expected that those advocating these views would turn to the Bible to find support for them. This they have done, and we are pointed to Acts 15:18, which says: "Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world." This is one of the most difficult passages in the Book of Acts. However, it is clear that it speaks of God's works, and not of those of wicked men.

Ephesians 1:11 is cited as proof. This passage declares that those who qualify as believers, have "obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will." This passage has nothing to do with the extent of God's knowledge. It has to do only with those things set forth in the context. Furthermore, the words "all things" is ta panta, a Greek idiom which means "all this" or "all these" as the context may demand.

The strongest passage set forth in proof of the idea that God is now cognizant of every detail of our lives is Psalm 139:2. In this David says: "Thou knowest my downsitting and my uprising, thou understandest my thoughts afar off." This statement of King David is extrapolated to make it include everyone. They ignore the fact that David was God's anointed king over Israel, and that He was the most important link in the theocracy that governed that nation. They also ignore the fact that the basis of this declaration was that God had searched him, as declared in the opening verse: "Thou hast searched me, and known me." William Wilson says of this Hebrew word: "The general import seems to be to examine with pains, care and
accuracy, in order to make a full and clear discovery, or a complete, exact
calculation.”

As God's anointed king of Israel, David was an absolute monarch. It was his
supreme duty to interpret and enforce the laws that God had given. Being also a prophet (Acts 3:30), it was his duty to announce any new decrees or directives that God might give to Israel. In doing this he would seat himself upon the throne, an act that indicated that the royal court was in session; and when he arose from it, it signified that the session was over. Inasmuch as God (Yahweh) was in all this official business, it was essential that He take to Himself knowledge of each session of the divine rule in Israel. He needed to know David's thoughts and every word that was in his tongue. Everything that David did was of critical importance to God.

(continued...)
Anonymous said…
On my part I feel it would be insufferable pride and egotism for me to think that God takes knowledge every time I sit down or get up. I am not that important in His sight, and neither is anyone else at this time.

Psalm 147:5 is cited as proof that God knows everything about everyone, past,
present and future. In this passage we are told: "His understanding is infinite." But this is far removed from being proof that God took and retained within Himself knowledge of what I had for dinner two weeks ago or what I will eat for breakfast two weeks from today. These acts of mine are in no way related to His purposes and they pass by without him taking any notice. It is evident, therefore, that the answer to the question, "Does God know?" is that He knows everything He wants to know, that He can enter into knowledge of anything He wants to search out, also that knowledge cannot be forced upon Him.

However, the question that now arises is: "Is there Scripture in support of this?" I believe that there is. Genesis 11 takes us back to a time when the human race decided to build a city and a tower, in order to make a name for themselves lest they be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth. As the work progressed we are told: "The LORD came down to see the city and tower which the children of men builded." From this we can see that the LORD paid no attention to their activities up to a certain point when something
occurred that caused Him to look in on what they were doing. He did not like what He saw and dealt with them accordingly.

In Genesis 18, the LORD declared to Abraham: "The cry of Sodom and
Gomorrah is great, and their sin is very grievous" (v. 20). This the Lord knew and He so declared it. However, to this He added: "I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto Me; and if not, I will know." (v. 21).

Not being a party to all the secrets of the Deity, I will readily admit that I cannot say what is meant by "the cry of Sodom is great," but it would appear that something came to the ear of God that moved Him in regard to the grievous sin of this city. He determined to check it out and see if the inhabitants had done altogether according to the cry of it. If not, He would know. This is a clear example of God taking knowledge to Himself. It is proof that God knows only what He wants to know. We can rejoice in this revelation of Himself, for it is impossible to conceive of One who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity being an observer of all the filthy acts that were committed daily in Sodom.

In Jeremiah 19:5 the LORD spoke of those who offered their sons as burnt offerings unto Baal. Concerning this He declared most emphatically that He had not commanded it, nor spoke it, neither had it come into His mind. How could He say this if He knew in advance what they planned to do?
Therefore, we can say on the basis of what God has revealed that He knows only what He wants to know and that knowledge cannot be forced upon Him.

Furthermore, since nothing is past or future with God, He can bring every detail of anyone's life before Him in a split second, whether that one is living or dead. This is what He will do at His blazing forth (epiphaneia), even His kingdom (2 Tim. 4:1). He will make a determination concerning all who are living and all who are dead. Then the life that each one lived will cry out "thief," "liar," "murderer"; or "forgiven," "redeemed.""
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
I showed two sources using the position I'm attacking he just writes it off as a mistake, "Dawkins made a mistake"but he only acknowledged one.
- The one time you have ever agreed with Dawkins (and I admit I forgot he said that) is when he makes the same mistake you are making. But the fact remains that Dawkins got that wrong. And I did not ignore your other reference. The SEP article you cited does not frame this issue as a contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence. You can't quote anything from that article that says what you claim, because it doesn't say that. Read the article, Joe. It is about God's freedom to do something that is purported to be a logical contradiction. In this situation, I (and most other atheists) am in complete agreement with most theists. It's not a question of omnipotence, and the SEP article never even mentions omnipotence. So you didn't show two sources - you showed one. Now go ahead and find an actual atheist philosopher who holds that position.

He also ignores the fact that I show his different approach doesn't change anything.
- No, you did not address my issue. Just saying that God isn't in complete control of everything is not a coherent answer. I agree with you about how God existing outside of time would see everything at once. He would not have a past, present, and future, and so he would not know things "before they happen" from his own perspective. I get all that. Joe, and I've told you that many times before, but you won't take yes for an answer. But I also raised another issue that you have completely ignored. You think because you have an answer, the problem is solved, but that's naive. You describe God as an "observer" of what happens in the world, and he's not in control of what people do. The problem that you keep ignoring is that he's NOT an observer. He's the creator. He's the first mover that causes everything to happen, and it's all of his own making. There is no possibility of a human doing something different from what God has already made, and changing the outcome that God already knows. This is not in disagreement with your understanding of God being outside of time. It is a consequence of that understanding. All you need to do is think it through. But that's something you have always refused to do.

He just told me I don;t know anything about atheistic Phil position forbore he said I don;t know mercantilism He; telling me I don;t know my own stuff. I study philosophy and history of science in Doctoral work but i am willing to let it slide but he starts expanding his empire. So that I don;t know anything he knows it all.
- You do not understand atheistic philosophical positions. Dawkins is not a philosopher, and sometimes he gets his philosophical arguments wrong. Are you (an avid Dawkins hater) going to disagree with me about that? Show me a philosophical reference that says what you claim. The SEP article you cited does NOT say that.

And speaking of knowing atheistic philosophical position, you claimed that as an atheist, I must descend into nihilism and meaninglessness. You seem to think that this is what existentialism is all about. I told you that you don't understand existentialism. It is actually about rising out of that condition and creating meaning. I quoted straight out of the SEP article on existentialism, and you said that had "nothing to do with it", and I was a moron. Then you cut off comments, so I couldn't respond any more. Stupid is as stupid does, Joe.
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous, I am delighted to see your contribution. You and Kristen bribing new ideas and fresh faces I really appreciate it. My only complaint is not the length but don't quote a whole article. Link to it.If it was your original writing that would be fine. Probably don't want to get any longer.

As for the idea I have considered that idea. I've actually argued for it at times. But I elect to assume God beyond time as it is more compatible with Big Bang cosmology.

Joe Hinman said…
I showed two sources using the position I'm attacking he just writes it off as a mistake, "Dawkins made a mistake"but he only acknowledged one.

- The one time you have ever agreed with Dawkins (and I admit I forgot he said that) is when he makes the same mistake you are making. But the fact remains that Dawkins got that wrong.

there is no essential difference in this and your position, It involves the very same universe and my answer is the same. Even so your answer is silly because you call it a mistake only because you assert atheists don't argue that way but obviously they do.


And I did not ignore your other reference. The SEP article you cited does not frame this issue as a contradiction between omniscience and omnipotence. You can't quote anything from that article that says what you claim, because it doesn't say that. Read the article, Joe. It is about God's freedom to do something that is purported to be a logical contradiction. In this situation, I (and most other atheists) am in complete agreement with most theists. It's not a question of omnipotence, and the SEP article never even mentions omnipotence. So you didn't show two sources - you showed one. Now go ahead and find an actual atheist philosopher who holds that position.

this is my quote from the article this is the article not me

QUOTE___________________________


The first point which needs to be settled is what, precisely, is the problem which Boethius the character proposes? The reasoning behind (7) seems to be of the following form:
God knows every event, including all future ones.
When someone knows that an event will happen, then the event will happen.
(10) is true as a matter of necessity, because it is impossible to know that which is not the case.
If someone knows an event will happen, it will happen necessarily.(10, 11)
Every event, including future ones, happens necessarily. (9, 12)
The pattern behind (8) will be similar, but in reverse: from a negation of (13), the negation of (9) will be seen to follow. But, as it is easy to observe, (9–13) is a fallacious argument: (10) and (11) imply, not (12), but
Necessarily, if someone knows an event will happen, it will happen.
(emphasis mine)
end quote____________

In that quote he his setting up the issue I talk about.He does say it



Joe Hinman said…
He also ignores the fact that I show his different approach doesn't change anything.

- No, you did not address my issue. Just saying that God isn't in complete control of everything is not a coherent answer. I agree with you about how God existing outside of time would see everything at once. He would not have a past, present, and future, and so he would not know things "before they happen" from his own perspective. I get all that. Joe, and I've told you that many times before, but you won't take yes for an answer. But I also raised another issue that you have completely ignored. You think because you have an answer, the problem is solved, but that's naive. You describe God as an "observer" of what happens in the world, and he's not in control of what people do. The problem that you keep ignoring is that he's NOT an observer. He's the creator. He's the first mover that causes everything to happen, and it's all of his own making. There is no possibility of a human doing something different from what God has already made, and changing the outcome that God already knows. This is not in disagreement with your understanding of God being outside of time. It is a consequence of that understanding. All you need to do is think it through. But that's something you have always refused to do.


You are a liar because I did deal within at length, here is where you show your profound inability to understand sophisticated concepts. God can be creator and not be deterministic. God can have full control,and not use full control.I already dealt with this

Joe: He just told me I don;t know anything about atheistic Phil position forbore he said I don;t know mercantilism He; telling me I don;t know my own stuff. I study philosophy and history of science in Doctoral work but i am willing to let it slide but he starts expanding his empire. So that I don;t know anything he knows it all.


Skp- You do not understand atheistic philosophical positions. Dawkins is not a philosopher, and sometimes he gets his philosophical arguments wrong. Are you (an avid Dawkins hater) going to disagree with me about that? Show me a philosophical reference that says what you claim. The SEP article you cited does NOT say that.

No Dawkins not a philosopher and neither are you! your knowledge of philosophy sux. But I'm not talking about philosophers but atheists apologists.

And speaking of knowing atheistic philosophical position, you claimed that as an atheist, I must descend into nihilism and meaninglessness. You seem to think that this is what existentialism is all about.

where did I say that? I think you are asserting that I must think that way because I'; a Christian. I'm also existentialist..


Skp I told you that you don't understand existentialism.


And you are full of shit, I have been studying existentialism all my life,I know far more bout it than you do. I first read Sartre's Roads to Freedom in 1975.

It is actually about rising out of that condition and creating meaning.

yes that's part of it but I would not say that as an answer to "what is it about?" Besides without God the meaning is futile.


I quoted straight out of the SEP article on existentialism, and you said that had "nothing to do with it", and I was a moron. Then you cut off comments, so I couldn't respond any more. Stupid is as stupid does, Joe.

that article was about Boethius not existentialism. are you talking about the article by John Marenbon?
im-skeptical said…
QUOTE___________________________ ... end quote____________
- There is not a single word there about omnipotence. You understand nothing. The issue is about God's inability to do what is logically impossible. I already told you, most theists and atheists agree about that.

You are a liar because I did deal within at length, here is where you show your profound inability to understand sophisticated concepts. God can be creator and not be deterministic. God can have full control,and not use full control.I already dealt with this
- Just making an assertion is not "dealing with" the issue. I understand that God might choose not to exercise full control, even if he has the power to do that. But that's not the problem. The problem is that it's all decided at the moment of creation. Past, present, and future are all set in stone. Nobody can change what is already cast in stone. That's simple logic, and you nave NOT addressed the problem. You don't get it.

where did I say that? I think you are asserting that I must think that way because I'; a Christian. I'm also existentialist..
- It's in your own blog. I didn't make it up.

And you are full of shit, I have been studying existentialism all my life,I know far more bout it than you do. I first read Sartre's Roads to Freedom in 1975.
- You just don't understand it. You disagreed with what the SEP says about it.

yes that's part of it but I would not say that as an answer to "what is it about?" Besides without God the meaning is futile.
- Oh. Now that I point out that I was quoting from the SEP (which you didn't realize before), you're changing your tune. You said it had nothing to do with it.

that article was about Boethius not existentialism. are you talking about the article by John Marenbon?
- I was talking about an earlier thread, where you made similar claims that you know atheistic philosophy and I don't. I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert. But I know for a fact that I understand atheistic philosophical positions better than you do. And the start of this post is solid evidence that you don't have a clue about it.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
QUOTE___________________________ ... end quote____________


- There is not a single word there about omnipotence. You understand nothing. The issue is about God's inability to do what is logically impossible. I already told you, most theists and atheists agree about that.

It takes deep stupidity not to see the omnipotent here, this is the word of a word twisting litteralist who an;treason past the instructions. but wait he is right it doesn't use the word.Actually that was in the essay because Of what it says bout Boethius, Bit I have better quotes now (essay was written 2011). that's coming.

You are a liar because I did deal within at length, here is where you show your profound inability to understand sophisticated concepts. God can be creator and not be deterministic. God can have full control,and not use full control.I already dealt with this


- Just making an assertion is not "dealing with" the issue. I understand that God might choose not to exercise full control, even if he has the power to do that. But that's not the problem. The problem is that it's all decided at the moment of creation. Past, present, and future are all set in stone. Nobody can change what is already cast in stone. That's simple logic, and you nave NOT addressed the problem. You don't get it.


you have done nothing more then make assertions.

where did I say that? I think you are asserting that I must think that way because I'; a Christian. I'm also existentialist..


- It's in your own blog. I didn't make it up.

you are re shaping the statement to fit your bull shit. It's distorted I;ve said things similar but you are ignoring context and caveats.

And you are full of shit, I have been studying existentialism all my life,I know far more bout it than you do. I first read Sartre's Roads to Freedom in 1975.

- You just don't understand it. You disagreed with what the SEP says about it.

You didn't quote what they say you rework their statement to fit your view. You don't even seem to know it has to do with freedom and more than with absurdity and meaninglessness,you you can't even tell me the work that brings that into the philosophy.


Joe Hinman said…
here is new list of sources that show atheist do use use the formulation of omnipotance contradicting omniscience. among others. some of these suggest it is quite common.


https://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/#SH3b



Another form of deductive atheological argument attempts to show the logical incompatibility of two or more properties that God is thought to possess. A long list of properties have been the subject of multiple property disproofs...The combination of omnipotence and omniscience have received a great deal of attention. To possess all knowledge, for instance, would include knowing all of the particular ways in which one will exercise one’s power, or all of the decisions that one will make, or all of the decisions that one has made in the past. But knowing any of those entails that the known proposition is true. So does God have the power to act in some fashion that he has not foreseen, or differently than he already has without compromising his omniscience? It has also been argued that God cannot be both unsurpassably good and free. (Rowe 2004).



https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto-philosophy/chapter/arguments-against-the-existence-of-god-overview/

The omniscience paradox contests further problems between omnipotence and omniscience, such as a lack of ability to create something unknown to God.






http://www.humanreligions.info/god_is_impossible.html





Joe Hinman said…
https://www.quora.com/What-are-atheists-arguments-against-god-being-omnipresent-omniscient-and-omnipotent



Why? Because something omniscient knows everything that will happen, but has no ability to change what will happen, because any change they make they already know they will make, and so that is what happens anyway. There is no possibility of free thought or changing anything that has ever happened or ever will happen.



https://www.skeptic.ca/Impossibility_Arguments_for_God.htm


All such arguments depend crucially on sets of divine specifications. A core traditional notion of God is one that specifies him as necessarily existent, omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect. God is also traditionally conceived of as being a free creator, and is often spoken of as immutable or transcendent. Some impossibility arguments attack a single attribute - attempting to show that the notion of omniscience is logically incoherent on its own, for example. Others attack combinations of attributes - arguing that it is not logically possible for a being to be omniscient and a free creator, for example. If either form of argument succeeds, we will be able to show that there can be no God as traditionally conceived.


https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox



The omnipotence paradox refers to the apparently paradoxical ability of an omnipotent entity to both limit its powers and remain omnipotent.

The paradox is used both as an argument against an omnipotent God and against the concept of true omnipotence.


Joe Hinman said…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will


The argument from free will, also called the paradox of free will or theological fatalism, contends that omniscience and free will are incompatible and that any conception of God that incorporates both properties is therefore inherently contradictory.[note 1][1][2]These arguments are deeply concerned with the implications of predestination.



https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/how-to-prove-that-god-doesnt-exist/5216/


https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/how-to-prove-that-god-doesnt-exist/5216/


Let’s consider three of God’s best-known divine attributes: his omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence....


This brings us to the claim of God's omnipotence. Is there any philosophical contradiction that can be drawn out of God's infinite power? As we have noted, God cannot sin because he is morally perfect, the perfect standard of what it means to be good. Thus God has the power to do all logically possible things—that is, he has the power to do all meaningful things. That is why he cannot create a four-sided triangle (which is really nothing at all).

this tread is now closed
im-skeptical said…
this tread is now closed
- Why do you always do this when the discussion is not yet concluded? I was just about to congratulate you for refuting what I said. I asked for evidence that people actually make this argument, and you showed it. So I concede the point to you.

This brings us to the claim of God's omnipotence. Is there any philosophical contradiction that can be drawn out of God's infinite power? As we have noted, God cannot sin because he is morally perfect, the perfect standard of what it means to be good. Thus God has the power to do all logically possible things—that is, he has the power to do all meaningful things. That is why he cannot create a four-sided triangle (which is really nothing at all).
- You hit the nail on the head. This is the real issue, as I already pointed out. (See 2/07/2019 11:35:00 AM and 2/08/2019 10:03:00 AM). This is what I've been saying all along. I'm glad you agree with me.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
this tread is now closed

- Why do you always do this when the discussion is not yet concluded? I was just about to congratulate you for refuting what I said. I asked for evidence that people actually make this argument, and you showed it. So I concede the point to you.

It's over when I say it's over

This brings us to the claim of God's omnipotence. Is there any philosophical contradiction that can be drawn out of God's infinite power? As we have noted, God cannot sin because he is morally perfect, the perfect standard of what it means to be good. Thus God has the power to do all logically possible things—that is, he has the power to do all meaningful things. That is why he cannot create a four-sided triangle (which is really nothing at all).


- You hit the nail on the head. This is the real issue, as I already pointed out. (See 2/07/2019 11:35:00 AM and 2/08/2019 10:03:00 AM). This is what I've been saying all along. I'm glad you agree with me.

that's pretty dense to understand the basic premises but you can't pull it all together because you ideology says otherwise. that means there is no contradiction between God's power and his knowledge.

Skepy I will admit your omniscience contradicts your ideology,
im-skeptical said…
that's pretty dense to understand the basic premises but you can't pull it all together because you ideology says otherwise. that means there is no contradiction between God's power and his knowledge.
- In your previous comment, you correctly identified the real issue. We are in agreement. Why can't you take yes for an answer? Why must you dispute every single thing I say?

My point is this: You believe that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. You must not think those things are contradictory, because that would imply that you think your own beliefs are contradictory. Most atheists also agree that it is not a contradiction to say that an omniscient God can't do what is logically impossible. WE AGREE ABOUT THIS. But you insist on claiming that this is the atheist position. IT ISN'T. You found some reference to this as a philosophical argument, but that doesn't mean that all atheists accept it. THEY DON'T. Do you think Lowder does? Or any accomplished atheist philosopher?

If you weren't so busy trying to paint a false picture of atheists as being intellectually inferior, you might recognize that there is some room for intellectual common ground. As long as you refuse to see this, you will be seen as an ideologically-driven sophist.
Joe Hinman said…
Blogger im-skeptical said...
that's pretty dense to understand the basic premises but you can't pull it all together because you ideology says otherwise. that means there is no contradiction between God's power and his knowledge.


- In your previous comment, you correctly identified the real issue. We are in agreement. Why can't you take yes for an answer? Why must you dispute every single thing I say?

I don't ;-)

My point is this: You believe that God is both omniscient and omnipotent. You must not think those things are contradictory, because that would imply that you think your own beliefs are contradictory. Most atheists also agree that it is not a contradiction to say that an omniscient God can't do what is logically impossible. WE AGREE ABOUT THIS. But you insist on claiming that this is the atheist position. IT ISN'T. You found some reference to this as a philosophical argument, but that doesn't mean that all atheists accept it. THEY DON'T. Do you think Lowder does? Or any accomplished atheist philosopher?

why does it have to be agreed to by all atheists to be worthy of answer? This blpog is to help christens do apoloetics they could run into this out there/

You are not a member!


If you weren't so busy trying to paint a false picture of atheists as being intellectually inferior, you might recognize that there is some room for intellectual common ground. As long as you refuse to see this, you will be seen as an ideologically-driven sophist.

you see yourself as the bog super guardian of atheism. Wrecking atheism is not that importst to me. Mot atheists are idiots they are not important,
Joe Hinman said…
now it's closed

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

More evidence for the Historical Truth of David and Goliath

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity

Cosmological Argument: from contingency

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

Distinguishing between moral ontology and moral epistemology