Christians: please help me out with this

[Heathen Hammer]

What premise? I am challenging your premise that God's omniscience and our free will are mutually incompatible.

In this instance I referred to your entire premise of God.
You are attempting to counter what you claim is my incorrect assertion, with a baseless assertion.
IN any case I have clearly explained multiple times why the two are mutually exclusive; your objection amounts to a repetition of the word 'no'. Please clearly explain how both can coexist, or cease the disagreement. I have already clearly explained for you, multiple times. Have the courtesy to return the favor.

Not so. Based on what we know about God (even if this God is hypothetical to you), we can be sure He does not approve of everything we do.

You cannot be sure of ANYthing about him, because he's an hypothesis [for you as well].

Do you understand what that means?

Do you?

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.
The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 BC, in his book Prior Analytics, where he classified it as a material fallacy. Begging the question is related to the circular argument, circulus in probando (Latin, "circle in proving") or circular reasoning, though these are considered absolutely different by Aristotle.[1]
Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You are already presuming God, when the contradiction of the supposed properties of God, are in question.

Which one? Omnipotence? No. Omniscience? No. Omnipresence?

'No', what? What is the context of these replies? No, it's not this one which is in need of removing, or something else?

Not at all. It is perfectly reasonable for God to desire that none should perish, but desire more that those who don't come to Him freely.

His desire isn't the issue in this exchange here, the issue is he's not getting what he wants. It isn't that it's reasonable, it's that it isn't happening.

Nothing 'doesn't fit. The alleged contradiction is actually resolved by free will, not contradicted by it. God's ultimate will is for fellowship with humans who freely chose to follow Him. The consequence of that world is sin, evil and the reality that not all will be saved. There is no contradiction. It all makes perfect sense.

BEGGING THE QUESTION. The contradiction of free will cannot be resolved by free will. Free will is unproven, still. The idea of free will REMAINS UNPROVEN BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS AROUND IT WOULD LOGICALLY CANCEL IT OUT. Jesus Christ.

 

[Istina]

In this instance I referred to your entire premise of God.
You are attempting to counter what you claim is my incorrect assertion, with a baseless assertion.
IN any case I have clearly explained multiple times why the two are mutually exclusive; your objection amounts to a repetition of the word 'no'. Please clearly explain how both can coexist, or cease the disagreement. I have already clearly explained for you, multiple times. Have the courtesy to return the favor.

You are confused. The notion that God's omniscience and our free will are mutually exclusive is YOUR premise, therefore you are required to make the case. You have not done so.
You position seems to revolve solely around your view of God, a God who you now suggest is hypothetical. For you to make your point, at the very least you must define God for the purposes of your point. You have not done so.
So, assuming the Christian God, I asked you several times to explain why the fact that God knows our decisions in advance in any way reduces our free will. You have not addressed that, because, I suspect, you can't.

You cannot be sure of ANYthing about him, because he's an hypothesis [for you as well].

As I outline above, this is your thesis to prove, not mine. You have failed in the very first step, i.e. to define God, so I will help you. Work with the Judeo Christian concept of God, and explain why God knowing our decisions in advance removes our free will.

You are already presuming God, when the contradiction of the supposed properties of God, are in question.

You clearly have no understanding of the rules of debate. So I will restate. The premise is yours, and therefore the onus of proof is on you. It is your responsibility to define the elements of that premise, including God.
Your tactic of making a claim and then attempting to switching the onus of proof is as old as Adam.

'No', what? What is the context of these replies? No, it's not this one which is in need of removing, or something else?

It seems I need to restate what you wrote. "Then demonstrably he does not get all he desires. Somewhere in this equation we must lose one of God's omni-attributes." I asked which one?

His desire isn't the issue in this exchange here, the issue is he's not getting what he wants. It isn't that it's reasonable, it's that it isn't happening.

Again, you are not reading the exchange. And repeating an assertion isn't argumentation.

BEGGING THE QUESTION. The contradiction of free will cannot be resolved by free will. Free will is unproven, still. The idea of free will REMAINS UNPROVEN BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS AROUND IT WOULD LOGICALLY CANCEL IT OUT. Jesus Christ.

Again, for clarity. The conflict is YOUR assertion, and therefore it is your case to make. It is not my burden to prove free will. It is your burden to demonstrate that it is in conflict with an omniscient God. You can do that in one of three ways:

1. Demonstrate an omniscient God does not exist.
2. Demonstrate free will does not exist.
3. Demonstrate that the existence of an omniscient God and free will is logically incompatible.

You have failed to do any of these.

I understand God in the context of the Judeo Christian tradition. I understand free will in the context of our ability to make decisions that, whilst informed by culture and upbringing, are ultimately our own to make. I see no conflict between these, as you claim.

We have now some clarity with terms; the burden remains on you to make your case.

 

[idea]

...Your interpretation of these passages ....

I am not the only one who interprets the passages this way.

Hebrew Root Word Studies

[SIZE=+1]Child Root (Branches of the Tree)[/SIZE]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia] Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for. [/FONT]

The notion of God as the Creator is wrong, claims a top academic, who believes the Bible has been wrongly translated for thousands of years. - http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Freligion%2F6274502%2FGod-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html&ei=jkgWT-7hCKbg2AWv2oWcAg&usg=AFQjCNHt3e3B62NuTsNF2Jx0GKaVeXeVOw&sig2=A5tH8q60hq2A4hAvVzDQtA



etc. etc.

yes, you can interpret scriptures to fit your own ideologies, or you can study with an open mind unfettered by the incorrect traditions born of the dark ages, and see what is actually being said... Either you think God is a hypocritical monster who creates imperfect people - or see God as a perfect loving being who is adopting us - cleaning up a mess He did not create.

Romans 8:15...ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

adoption - where someone takes care of another they did not create...

(Old Testament | Genesis 2:4 - 5)
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew...

Do you know why there are two different account of the creation in Gen chapter 1 and chapter 2? with a different order for the creative days? It is because there were two different creations - the generations of the earth, and the generations of the heavens - a heavenly transformation period, and an earthly transformation period...


Num. 16:22 (27:16) God of the spirits of all flesh - He is our Heavenly Father because He is the Father of our spirits - spirits that will exist after we die, and spirits that existed before we were born.

Job 38:7 all the sons of God shouted for joy - we are the children of God - we were there before the earth was formed, we sang and shouted with God in anticipation of our life and chance to progress.

Eccl. 12:7 the spirit shall return unto God who gave it - we will return to our heavenly home one day.


Jer. 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee - God knew us before we were born.

Zech. 12:1 Lord ... formeth the spirit of man within him - our spirits were transformed by God before we came to earth

John 9:2 who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind - the apostles believed "this man" was able to sin before he was born - the apostles believed we existed before we were born.

Acts 17:28 poets have said, For we are also his offspring
Rom. 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate - there is a difference between predestined and foreknow - God knew us - not just destined us - to be where we are.

Eph. 1:4 chosen us in him before the foundation of the world - He knew us and chose us to come to earth before the earth was even formed.

Heb. 12:9 subjection unto the Father of spirits

Before the earth was formed, there was a council in heaven - God presented his plan of salvation, and Satan presented a different plan. Spirits who followed Satan became the fallen angels, spirits who followed God came to earth to receive a body here - everyone who has ever lived on earth kept their first estate...

Jude 1:6 angels which kept not their first estate
Rev. 12:7 Michael and his angels fought against the dragon - the war in heaven before the earth was formed...

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!

Wordsworth

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You are confused. The notion that God's omniscience and our free will are mutually exclusive is YOUR premise, therefore you are required to make the case. You have not done so.

I have over several posts. the idea that inerrant knowledge of a future choice and all subsequent outcomes, possessed by an omnipotent being who cannot be wrong, results in a practical lack of choice for the one making the choice. Because God is the progenitor and allower of ALL events, any choice is by his inerrant will. I have explained this SEVERAL TIMES NOW and will not repeat myself again..

You position seems to revolve solely around your view of God, a God who you now suggest is hypothetical. For you to make your point, at the very least you must define God for the purposes of your point. You have not done so.

Whether I claim God is hypothetical [he is] or not makes no nevermind to a debate about his supposed abilities or effects, becaase this entire discussion is in the abstract. That comment was simply a snark at your using the word 'hypothetical' in a negative connotation against me.

God has been loosely defined here already. We have asserted all his omni-properties and I have explained why they all cannot work together as regards free will.

So, assuming the Christian God, I asked you several times to explain why the fact that God knows our decisions in advance in any way reduces our free will. You have not addressed that, because, I suspect, you can't.

I suspect you read what I wrote and simply chose not to agree.

As I outline above, this is your thesis to prove, not mine. You have failed in the very first step, i.e. to define God, so I will help you. Work with the Judeo Christian concept of God, and explain why God knowing our decisions in advance removes our free will.

Are you attempting the tired tactic of trying to get me to quit by demanding I repeat myself over and over?

I, we, have been working with the Judeo-Christian version from the get go.

It seems I need to restate what you wrote. "Then demonstrably he does not get all he desires. Somewhere in this equation we must lose one of God's omni-attributes." I asked which one?

AND I EXPLAINED THAT YOU CAN TAKE OUR PICK. Remove one and some semblance of a rational condition might appear; that condition will be based on which omni-attribute you decide can be removed - it is a thought exercise to see what happens. Only then can I paint the picture. It's a hypothetical based on your whim. Your response was to give a short list and then inexplicably say 'no' to each one. You still haven't clarified what you were negating.

The statement "Then demonstrably he does not get all he desires" comes from the fact that not all are saved. If God desires all be saved, and not all are saved, then God does not get all that he desires. Savy?

1. Demonstrate an omniscient God does not exist. [side note: wth is this? An impossible demand? Prove a negative? trying to dazzle me via bs? Nothing to do with the issue. Just stop]
2. Demonstrate free will does not exist. [I have done so]
3. Demonstrate that the existence of an omniscient God and free will is logically incompatible. [ I have done so and explained why]

I understand God in the context of the Judeo Christian tradition. I understand free will in the context of our ability to make decisions that, whilst informed by culture and upbringing, are ultimately our own to make. I see no conflict between these, as you claim.

Posts 61, 93, 95, 105

In each of these I explained all or part of my rationale. Don't ask me to do so again. Read what I wrote and take it apart. Or pick something I did say, and ask me to clarify; and/or argue against it. That's all you can do. All you have done so far, is pretend I haven't posted, or simply said 'no' to whatever I post [which proves at least that I am posting and you are seeing it].

I think it's you who has no idea how this works.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Also, just realized there's a new thread growing on this subject as well
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/125773-problem-foreknowledge.html
Should be interesting.

 

[Istina]

I have over several posts. the idea that inerrant knowledge of a future choice and all subsequent outcomes, possessed by an omnipotent being who cannot be wrong, results in a practical lack of choice for the one making the choice. Because God is the progenitor and allower of ALL events, any choice is by his inerrant will. I have explained this SEVERAL TIMES NOW and will not repeat myself again..

This is simply restating your point, not arguing a case for it.
Your comment "results in a practical lack of choice for the one making the choice" is an assertion you have not supported.
Not only have you not supported it, but you have not addressed my thesis as to why God could have created a world that accommodated both His omniscience and our free will.

The statement "Then demonstrably he does not get all he desires" comes from the fact that not all are saved. If God desires all be saved, and not all are saved, then God does not get all that he desires. Savy?

I desire to eat a large cake for desert tonight. However I also understand that if I do, it will undermine my long term plans to improve my health and well being. So, I set aside one desire for a greater one.
God desires that no one should perish. Yet He is prepared that some do, because God's greater plan is to spend eternity with those who chose Him freely.

Posts 61, 93, 95, 105

In each of these I explained all or part of my rationale. Don't ask me to do so again. Read what I wrote and take it apart. Or pick something I did say, and ask me to clarify; and/or argue against it. That's all you can do. All you have done so far, is pretend I haven't posted, or simply said 'no' to whatever I post [which proves at least that I am posting and you are seeing it].

I think it's you who has no idea how this works.

Post 61 is by Chadley (is that you?), and states "That's exactly what I'm trying to understand!!! We aren't puppets but if god knows everything there isn't a point for him to have created us. Its the hardest thing I have ever tried to do. Really, truly looking at this paradox with an open mind is crazy. Everyone agrees god is all knowing but when you ask them about the life is a test thing, its like they forget about the omniscience of god." How is this argumentation?

Post 93 states "Since he cannot be wrong, it DOES determine them. This is God we are discussing, not simply a human who has foreknowledge; that is probably the source of your error. He knew what they would be before you made them. Or are you claiming he didn't know beforehand? that would be a different arbitrary definition for 'God'."
This post proves my point! Yes God knows beforehand! Yes He cannot be wrong! Now explain logically how that necessitates His determination of those decisions. Don't just restate your assertion.

I could go on, but I won't. Yes God our posts are not argumentation, they are assertions attempting to justify assertions.


At the core of this is your assertion that God's omniscience, specifically his foreknowledge of our choices, makes those choices not free.
Yet I place choices in front of my children all the time. Even in my limited capacity I can foretell the outcome, but I don't determine them.

Oh and by the way...I have made no demands for you to repeat yourself, quite the contrary. And I certainly don't want you to quit. However at some point you have to at least attempt to argue your thesis, not simply restate it in different words.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

This is simply restating your point, not arguing a case for it.
Your comment "results in a practical lack of choice for the one making the choice" is an assertion you have not supported.
Not only have you not supported it, but you have not addressed my thesis as to why God could have created a world that accommodated both His omniscience and our free will.

Oh, but it's not my place to address your thesis when you've refused to address mine as presented. You've done nothing, as I said, but state negation; you've not refuted nor even discussed any of it. I will return the favor.

I desire to eat a large cake for desert tonight. However I also understand that if I do, it will undermine my long term plans to improve my health and well being. So, I set aside one desire for a greater one.
God desires that no one should perish. Yet He is prepared that some do, because God's greater plan is to spend eternity with those who chose Him freely.

I realize you keep making anecdotes between you or some other mortal, and God, and you fail to realize why these are useless.

I understand the underpinnings of what is supposed to drive free will. the other thread is actually pretty good for such. However the effect or scale of human decision making and will exercise does not compare to that of the deity we are discussing. Apples and oranges.

Post 61 is by Chadley (is that you?), and states "That's exactly what I'm trying to understand!!! We aren't puppets but if god knows everything there isn't a point for him to have created us. Its the hardest thing I have ever tried to do. Really, truly looking at this paradox with an open mind is crazy. Everyone agrees god is all knowing but when you ask them about the life is a test thing, its like they forget about the omniscience of god." How is this argumentation?

No, that's not me; are you now accusing me of having alts? lol, I have none. I have support, where it occurs, from real people, thank you very much.
Ach, blast it, that was a typo, looking back I was looking at my frubal number

Post 93 states "Since he cannot be wrong, it DOES determine them. This is God we are discussing, not simply a human who has foreknowledge; that is probably the source of your error. He knew what they would be before you made them. Or are you claiming he didn't know beforehand? that would be a different arbitrary definition for 'God'."
This post proves my point! Yes God knows beforehand! Yes He cannot be wrong! Now explain logically how that necessitates His determination of those decisions. Don't just restate your assertion.

Oh, so you wish me to expound on my explanation then.

At least you are proving the lie in the statement by you that I never explained it.

God knows beforehand, a specific action by a specific person at a specific moment. He knew the event and the concrete outcome, essentially at the beginning of Time. He cannot be in error. The person will not surprise God.

If temporally the action is foreknown inerrantly, then the outcome is fixed from the beginning of God's awareness, especially by dint of God's direct control of all events via his Will. [Note that this quality is absent from 'human foreknowledge' even in the presumption of psychic type phenomena, and this is probably where all your anecdotal errors stem from]. Therefore practically there is no fork in the road; such an appearance is merely an illusion to the specified person who is brought to that point. Since God is the initial prime cause of all subsequent effect/causes, all such trees follow his design without variation and the specified person's action at the specified time proceeds, and can only proceed, along a single, God-chosen, foreknown path. Because there are countless other foreknown effects which must depend from that action, as the future beyond it unfolds..

By it's definition this is not free will. Free will requires that both [or more] choices be possible. Free in the sense that it is without constraining actions from without the particular person doing the willfull choosing. If it were free will, then God would be unaware of the outcome, and once it had been chosen, then he could initiate his 'judgment' over the morality of said outcome and decide how to regard that individual in his role as ultimate judge.

Via concrete foreknowledge by God, only one path is possible. And that path is what manifests. Every single time at every single node.

At the core of this is your assertion that God's omniscience, specifically his foreknowledge of our choices, makes those choices not free.
Yet I place choices in front of my children all the time. Even in my limited capacity I can foretell the outcome, but I don't determine them.

Apples and oranges. And actually his omniscience shares the core with his omnipotence and several other omni-s.

You cannot foretell the outcome. That's not what 'foretelling' actually is in this context. You merely make a guess. An educated guess based on your A. knowledge of a limited number of variables and B. your best assessment of how that incomplete set of variables will cause events to turn out. In addition but most importantly, you have no real influence over the actual manifestation of the outcome. You cannot wrench reality to make it so; you can only guide circumstance as best you are able, which isn't very. There are too many variables. You are merely an observer.

Oh and by the way...I have made no demands for you to repeat yourself, quite the contrary. And I certainly don't want you to quit. However at some point you have to at least attempt to argue your thesis, not simply restate it in different words.

Call it what you want to soothe yourself. And, quit? I don't quit, I would simply regard your posts as useless trolls and not treat with you further.

Now, above I have made a longer explanation. Handle it specifically, if you are able, which I suspect you can't. Then we can move on. I will not explain anything further to you without you first directly deal with this post.

 

[blackout]

Who says life is a test?

That's what I was thinking.

Didn't Paul talk about "running the race and winning the prize"?

That's kinda like a test.
A test of endurance or whatnot.

 

[Istina]

Oh, but it's not my place to address your thesis when you've refused to address mine as presented. You've done nothing, as I said, but state negation; you've not refuted nor even discussed any of it. I will return the favor.

Here's how this works. You submitted a thesis, let's call it the contradiction thesis. I have challenged your assertion, and asked you to provide at least some argumentation. At the same time I have suggested a counter thesis. You have neither supported your own thesis, nor countered mine.

I realize you keep making anecdotes between you orsome other mortal, and God, and you fail to realize why these are useless.

I understand the underpinnings of what is supposed to drive free will. the other thread is actually pretty good for such. However the effect or scale of human decision making and will exercise does not compare to that of the deity we are discussing. Apples and oranges.

My illustration explained the different levels of achieving what we desire, and applied to you, me or God. It simply showed that we can forgo a desire on one level for a greater desire on another level. And so can God.

God knows beforehand, a specific action by a specific person at a specific moment. He knew the event and the concrete outcome, essentially at the beginning of Time. He cannot be in error. The person will not surprise God.

If temporally the action is foreknown inerrantly, then the outcome is fixed from the beginning of God's awareness. Therefore practically there is no fork in the road; such an appearance is merely an illusion to the specified person who is brought to that point. Since God is the initial prime cause of all subsequent effect/causes, all such trees follow his design without variation and the specified person's action at the specified time proceeds, and can only proceed, along a single, God-chosen, foreknown path.

By it's definition this is not free will.

Rather than once again point out that you are using assertions to support assertions, I will try another tack.

You assertion is that God's knowing of an outcome in advance means that the choice regarding that outcome was never ours to make. It was determined; as you claim 'the outcome is fixed'.
Let's assume this pat of your assertion is correct; the outcome is fixed.
The outcome is only fixed because in God's relationship to time, He can see the decision in advance. He didn't determine it, He knows it. That 'fixes' it, but only because in God's perception of time, He knows the outcome in advance. The decision has already been made. But by us.

Apples and oranges. And actually his omniscience shares teh core with his omnipotence and several other omni-s.

You cannot foretell the outcome. That's not what 'foretelling' actually is in this context. You merely make a guess. In addition you have no real influence over the actual manifestation of the outcome. You cannot wrench reality to make it so; you can only guide circumstance as best you are able, which isn't very. There are too many variables.

God can influence an outcome. God can indeed 'wrench reality to make it so'. And He can allow us to make our own decisions all the same.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Here's how this works. You submitted a thesis, let's call it the contradiction thesis. I have challenged your assertion, and asked you to provide at least some argumentation. At the same time I have suggested a counter thesis. You have neither supported your own thesis, nor countered mine.

Really, what was your counter thesis?

My illustration explained the different levels of achieving what we desire, and applied to you, me or God. It simply showed that we can forgo a desire on one level for a greater desire on another level. And so can God.

"God desires that no one should perish. Yet He is prepared that some do, because God's greater plan is to spend eternity with those who chose Him freely." - your line

If God wishes for us to choose freely then he needs to cease exercising an unassailable will upon events. Since the Judeo-Christian definition of God we are using here did not merely set the universe in motion and sit back, but has influenced events on numerous occasions in his book, this is obviously not the case. In addition we have numerous mentions of the idea that 'nothing happens without God's will'.

Lastly, an aside, God wishing all should be saved and making it happen is morally more 'good' than allowing some to fall, since their fall leads both to God's own sadness for his loved ones, but eternal suffering for those who fall. God's omnibenevolence requires that his desire for fairness and disdain for suffering be a more important want than a possible erroneous choice by beings he knows to make many mistakes, even of this magnitude.

Thus my earlier snark that 'obviously God's not getting all that he wants'.

You assertion is that God's knowing of an outcome in advance means that the choice regarding that outcome was never ours to make. It was determined; as you claim 'the outcome is fixed'.
Let's assume this part of your assertion is correct; the outcome is fixed.
The outcome is only fixed because in God's relationship to time, He can see the decision in advance. He didn't determine it, He knows it. That 'fixes' it, but only because in God's perception of time, He knows the outcome in advance. The decision has already been made. But by us.

But he did determine it, by being the First Cause.
And because his 'Final Effect' must be according to his plan. In addition you cannot logically say 'the decision has already been made' if it is known before it is made. You are juggling tenses to make your counter argument, as well as skirting with begging the question. Here you are also conflating observation with unavoidable influence; human=/=God.

God can influence an outcome. God can indeed 'wrench reality to make it so'. And He can allow us to make our own decisions all the same.

This first line actually demonstrates my rebuttal above and weakens the statement it was made for. God does wrench reality. His very existence is the firmament of reality, and thus, he does not merely observe; his very act of observation fixes the outcomes, because he's not passive.

 

[Istina]

You are so mistaken. There are four books of scripture in the LDS canon: The Holy Bible (KJV), The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. All are considered as having the same legitimacy, because all are considered to have come from God.

Yes, that's what I said. And, as I also said, that means your position is that the entire canon of Christian theology until the early 19th century was in error with regards to the most fundamental of of doctrine, including the trinity, the Holy Spirit, Salvation, sin, heaven and hell...etc etc. Is this seriously your position?

None of the three unique LDS volumes of scripture contradict the Bible.

Oh really? How about these from the Book of Mormon...
Genesis 11:9 cf Ether 1:33-37 re the confusion of the languages.
Micah 5:2/Mathew 2:1 cf Alma 7:10 re the birthplace of Jesus.
Matthew 27:45/Mark 15:33/Luke 23:44 cf Helaman 14:20,27/3 Nephi 8:3 re the darkness that came at the time of the crucifixion.
Acts 11:26 cf Alma 46:13, 15 re the adoption of the name 'Christian'.

Do you want me to go on...there are many, many more.

Perhaps we could start on the numerous and glaring contradictions within the Book of Mormon, and between the Book of Mormon and the other LDS canon?

Disdain for the Bible? I can't decide whether you're malicious or just ignorant of the facts. The Bible has been described by one of our apostles as "foremost among our Standard Works." In case you're interested, here is a link to what another one of our Apostles has said about it:

The Miracle of the Holy Bible

Unless you read the article with your mind set on finding fault with it, I believe you should come away with a better understanding of the extent to which we value the Bible.

The LDS claim allegiance to the Bible because it gives the cult credibility, but in reality, the truth is in the quote I posted:
"The Bible is considered usable, but suspect due to its many errors and missing parts" (Articles of Faith No. 8, Ensign, January 1989, pp. 25, 27).

Apostle Mark E. Peterson said referring to the authenticity of our modern Bible, "Many insertions were made, some of them 'slanted' for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate falsifications and fabrications were perpetrated" (As Translated Correctly, p. 4).

Apostle Orson Pratt stated: "If it be admitted that the apostles and evangelists did write the books of the New Testament, that does not prove of itself that they were divinely inspired at the time they wrote.... Add all this imperfection to the uncertainty of the translation, and who, IN HIS RIGHT MIND could for one moment suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original?" (Divine Authority of the Book of Mormon, pp. 45, 47)

LDS Apostle Orson Pratt further proclaimed, "The Bible has been robbed of its plainness; many sacred books having been lost, others rejected by the Romish Church, and what few we have left, were copied and re-copied so many times, that it is admitted that almost every verse has been corrupted and mutilated to that degree that scarcely any two of them read alike" (The Seer, p. 213)


1 Nephi 13:28-29 claims that much was removed from the Bible, which is why Smith produced his own revision, without, I must say, any independent scholarly or manuscript support.

I quote from Gospel Principles “The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph to restore truths to the Bible that had been lost or changed since the original words were written”.

So the problem you have is that your understanding of the Bible comes from Smith, not thousands of years of careful scholarship and manuscript evidence. And Smith simply wasn't up to it. Here's an example:

"I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors…. Look at Heb. vi.1 for contradictions—“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection.” If a man leaves the principles of the doctrine of Christ, how can he be saved in the principles? This is a contradiction. I don’t believe it. I will render it as it should be—“Therefore not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works” (History of the Church [1950], 6:57, 58).

This exposes Smith's hopelessly inept ability, when he couldn't understand a simple passage such as this without needing to reinterpret it.

There is no evidence Smith was inspired by anything other than his own delusion.

 

[Istina]

PS...Please don't quote Mormon literature for me to read. I have studied LDS theology, and have a significant body of work on the history of the LDS movement and it's theology. That is also why I have little doubt my discussion with Idea has been escalated to you to play a little harder. You'll need to do much better.

 

[Istina]

Really, what was your counter thesis?

My apologies; I possibly haven't articulated this in one place, so here goes:
God desired fellowship. He decided to create beings who shared some of His attributes ('in His image'), specifically a spiritual dimension. The nature of the fellowship he desired was based on true love. He did not desire the sycophantic adoration of the dictator. And so He chose a world in which humans (His created beings) could choose to accept or reject Him. Those who accepted Him will spend eternity with Him in a place He has prepared for them. Those who reject Him will spend eternity separated from Him. God is omniscient, and therefore has foreknowledge of the decisions each human being will make. He allows the great game of life to play out so that those who freely accept Him can have free fellowship with him.
This is a logical explanation of not only the compatibility of God's omniscience and free will, but also of the existence of evil in the face of a good God.

"God desires that no one should perish. Yet He is prepared that some do, because God's greater plan is to spend eternity with those who chose Him freely." - your line

If God wishes for us to choose freely then he needs to cease exercising an unassailable will upon events. Since the Judeo-Christian definition of God we are using here did not merely set the universe in motion and sit back, but has influenced events on numerous occasions in his book, this is obviously not the case. In addition we have numerous mentions of the idea that 'nothing happens without God's will'.

Well you see that's why I have been careful to clarify that God's desire is multifaceted. Just like you and I, God has different levels of will and desire; not everyone is necessarily satisfied at every level - that is a decision God has made in order to grant free will. Let me put it this way...I don't want my son to smoke. My desire is that he doesn't start, but at the same time I also understand I need to prepare him to make decisions in the real world. I strongly urge him not to smoke, I even exert significant pressure upon him. But ultimately, I leave the final decision to him. In this scenario, my desire to have him not smoke is overidden by my desire to encourage him to make decisions for himself.

Lastly, an aside, God wishing all should be saved and making it happen is morally more 'good' than allowing some to fall, since their fall leads both to God's own sadness for his loved ones, but eternal suffering for those who fall. God's omnibenevolence requires that his desire for fairness and disdain for suffering be a more important want than a possible erroneous choice by beings he knows to make many mistakes, even of this magnitude.

Firstly, if we accept the Judeo Christian God, what is morally superior is ultimately God's ruling, not ours. Secondly, your final sentence assumes something that may not in fact be true. Ultimately, God may value the true love of free will over the feelings of those who reject Him.

But he did determine it, by being the First Cause. And because his 'Final Effect' must be according to his plan.

It does not necessarily follow that being the cause of all life means God determines all decisions of His creation. God's plan is that some will accept Him. The final effect is that some will accept Him. Again, there is no logical reason to infer from any of this that free will is excluded.

In addition you cannot logically say 'the decision has already been made' if it is known before it is made. You are juggling tenses to make your counter argument, as well as skirting with begging the question. Here you are also conflating observation with unavoidable influence; human=/=God.

What you are missing is the fundamental difference between knowledge and determination.
Because He is omniscient, and has placed us into a concept of time He sits beyond God foreknows. There is no logical argument to suggest that this negates our free will.
I know about the sinking of the Titanic, does that mean I determined it? Of course not. God just happens to have that knowledge in advance.

This first line actually demonstrates my rebuttal above and weakens the statement it was made for. God does wrench reality. His very existence is the firmament of reality, and thus, he does not merely observe; his very act of observation fixes the outcomes, because he's not passive.

It depends what you mean by 'outcomes'. If you mean the ultimate triumph of good over evil, absolutely. But of you mean whether or not my son smokes, or accepts God's will for his life, that's a different matter altogether.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, that's what I said. And, as I also said, that means your position is that the entire canon of Christian theology until the early 19th century was in error with regards to the most fundamental of of doctrine, including the trinity, the Holy Spirit, Salvation, sin, heaven and hell...etc etc. Is this seriously your position?

First you tell me what my position is; then you ask me if it's seriously my position. Mormons don't believe "the entire canon of Christian theology until the early 19th century was in error." No, we don't share all of the beliefs of traditional Christianity. The Trinity is a perfect example of a doctrine we don't accept. But our rejection of the Trinity is not a rejection of the Bible, but of the post-biblical Creeds. With respect to the Holy Spirit, salvation, sin, heaven, hell, etc., what in the world do you expect me to say? Mormons have much in common with other Christians with respect to these topics.

Oh really? How about these from the Book of Mormon...
Genesis 11:9 cf Ether 1:33-37 re the confusion of the languages.
Micah 5:2/Mathew 2:1 cf Alma 7:10 re the birthplace of Jesus.
Matthew 27:45/Mark 15:33/Luke 23:44 cf Helaman 14:20,27/3 Nephi 8:3 re the darkness that came at the time of the crucifixion.
Acts 11:26 cf Alma 46:13, 15 re the adoption of the name 'Christian'.

Yes, really. There are "contradictions" of this sort (if this is what you insist on calling them) throughout the Bible. There are even discrepancies in the four gospel accounts of Christ's life and ministry. Every one of the points you've mentioned can be easily explained. There are no contradictions when all of the facts are examined.

Do you want me to go on...there are many, many more.

Only if it makes you happy.

Perhaps we could start on the numerous and glaring contradictions within the Book of Mormon, and between the Book of Mormon and the other LDS canon?

If you'd like, we could, but I would suggest you start a new One-on-One Debate to do so, rather than further derail this thread.

The LDS claim allegiance to the Bible because it gives the cult credibility, but in reality, the truth is in the quote I posted:
"The Bible is considered usable, but suspect due to its many errors and missing parts" (Articles of Faith No. 8, Ensign, January 1989, pp. 25, 27).

Then direct me to the website where I can read it in the January, 1989 Ensign.

Apostle Mark E. Peterson said referring to the authenticity of our modern Bible, "Many insertions were made, some of them 'slanted' for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate falsifications and fabrications were perpetrated" (As Translated Correctly, p. 4).

I'm guessing you're one of those Christians who believes in Bible inerrancy. Well, that's your prerogative, but scholarship (and not just LDS scholarship) is against you.

You know what... they rest of your post is just an angry rant. I would suggest that you calm down some and start a new thread when you're able to discuss our differences in an adult manner. You're a newbie, so I'll cut you some slack this time around, but I do feel that I should warn you that derailing threads for the purpose of bashing other people's religions is not looked upon kindly by the staff here.

 

[Katzpur]

PS...Please don't quote Mormon literature for me to read. I have studied LDS theology, and have a significant body of work on the history of the LDS movement and it's theology. That is also why I have little doubt my discussion with Idea has been escalated to you to play a little harder. You'll need to do much better.

I don't need to do anything at all, Istina. But I will offer you some advice... I've been posting here on RF for almost 7 years now. Very few people have been around here longer. From time to time, an anti-Mormon such as yourself becomes an active participant for a short while, but for the most part, even non-Mormons on the forum have come to respect the LDS posters and their beliefs more for having taken the time to actually engage us in meaningful conversation. I have a reputation on this forum for providing accurate information about Mormonism. People have learned that they can trust me to tell the truth about what Mormons believe. If you think you can come on here and malign my beliefs and have people buy into your lies, you've got another think coming.

The ball's in your court. We can either communicate civilly (on another thread) or not at all. It's up to you. I'm sorry for having directed you to an LDS sermon on the Bible. I guess I was wrong in assuming that you were open-minded enough to find it worthwhile. Evidently, you'd prefer to form your opinions without actually reading material which would prove you wrong.

 

[Katzpur]

God knows everything. It created everything. It knows no time since it always was and always will be. There isn't a decision you could ever make that god didn't know you were going to make. God knew before it ever created you, whether or not you were destined for heaven. So my question is, How is life a test?

Hmmm. Well, maybe it's a test for us since we haven't made the decisions yet. How we choose will determine how well-prepared we are to go onto the next phase of learning.

I know that's not what you were really asking. I know you were really arguing that if God has perfect knowledge, we don't have free will. I don't see it that way. Let's say I have two little children, both of whom absolutely love candy, but one of whom is much more obedient than the other. I put them both in a room with a bowl of candy on the table in the middle of the room. I tell them both that I'll be back in a half an hour and that they are not to eat the candy. Then I leave. When I get back, several pieces of the candy are gone. Knowing them as well as I do, I can predict almost with perfect certainty, which child will have eaten the candy. There is no way my knowledge of these children's character caused the one to obey my instructions and the other to disobey them. They both made a decision that was entirely independent of my knowledge. Sure, the one I expected to be obedient could have been the one who ate the candy, and the one I expected to be disobedient could have been a perfect little angel and not touched it. In that case, I'd have been wrong. The difference between me and God is that God's knowledge isn't just almost perfect, but absolutely perfect. But His knowledge still doesn't bring about the result.

I personally tend to believe that while He knows each and every one of us perfectly, He does not micromanage our lives to such an extent that we are nothing more than His puppets. He gives us a myriad of experiences, none of which has been planned out in great detail ahead of time, and we make decisions based upon a great number of factors. I believe God is aware of us at all times, and knows how we will react under different circumstances, but He lets us make our own choices.

 

[Katzpur]

The existence of the Christian god says life is a test. At the root of it all it's a reward and punishment system. If you follow the word of god you get heaven. If you don't you get hell. I'm trying to understand why Christians ignore the fact that if god knew what would happen to earth before he made it, there was no point in it at all. look at it this way, I'm an atheist, so If I were to die as I'm typing this, I would go straight to hell.

Your first mistake is in assuming that all Christians believe you're going straight to Hell.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

My apologies; I possibly haven't articulated this in one place, so here goes:
God desired fellowship. He decided to create beings who shared some of His attributes ('in His image'), specifically a spiritual dimension. The nature of the fellowship he desired was based on true love. He did not desire the sycophantic adoration of the dictator. And so He chose a world in which humans (His created beings) could choose to accept or reject Him. Those who accepted Him will spend eternity with Him in a place He has prepared for them. Those who reject Him will spend eternity separated from Him. God is omniscient, and therefore has foreknowledge of the decisions each human being will make. He allows the great game of life to play out so that those who freely accept Him can have free fellowship with him.
This is a logical explanation of not only the compatibility of God's omniscience and free will, but also of the existence of evil in the face of a good God.

"Based on true love', that's a debatable phrase. Also, no, I would say this is not a good counter to the logical argument of 'the problem of Evil'.

Also, I will point out that God's idea of choice is basically that of a Hobson's choice: those who don't choose his way are not simply left alone, as you so blithely imply. 'Separation from him' = horrendous torture or destruction/obliteration, depending on your version of biblical interpretation. Nothing at all like 'true love'.

And again you assert incorrectly that God simply passively allows the game of life to play out; He doesn't, it's his concrete plan. It simply must play out exactly as he desires.

An aside, at all the points where you refer to God's ways as indicative of 'true love' I personally can come up with a far more moral effort and outcome. How is it that a mortal can do real love better than your God, who is made of it?

Well you see that's why I have been careful to clarify that God's desire is multifaceted. Just like you and I, God has different levels of will and desire; not everyone is necessarily satisfied at every level - that is a decision God has made in order to grant free will. Let me put it this way...I don't want my son to smoke. My desire is that he doesn't start, but at the same time I also understand I need to prepare him to make decisions in the real world. I strongly urge him not to smoke, I even exert significant pressure upon him. But ultimately, I leave the final decision to him. In this scenario, my desire to have him not smoke is overidden by my desire to encourage him to make decisions for himself.

it is also overridden by the fact that you cannot actually do anything to make him stop. Which is why your human/God anecdotes are useless as illustrations. Your 'significant influence' over your son is infinitesimal compared to God's over everyone.

Morally speaking its better if you prevented your son from smoking and preserved the length of his life and health, over allowing him to make his own mistake. His life and health are more morally valuable than the simple opportunity to decide to smoke.

Firstly, if we accept the Judeo Christian God, what is morally superior is ultimately God's ruling, not ours. Secondly, your final sentence assumes something that may not in fact be true. Ultimately, God may value the true love of free will over the feelings of those who reject Him.

Then that negates his true love. You are using a lot of feel-good words in a demonstrably not-feel-good system.

This also shows that God's morlity is ultimately 'might makes right'. It's good cuz HE SAYS it's good, not because it's actually good.

As I said earlier and you refused to participate, you need to lose at least one of God's omni-attributes for this system to make actual sense.

It does not necessarily follow that being the cause of all life means God determines all decisions of His creation.

But it does necessarily follow given all God's attributes in sum total.

God's plan is that some will accept Him. The final effect is that some will accept Him. Again, there is no logical reason to infer from any of this that free will is excluded.

the logical reason to infer it is that God gets everything he wants.

What you are missing is the fundamental difference between knowledge and determination.
Because He is omniscient, and has placed us into a concept of time He sits beyond God foreknows. There is no logical argument to suggest that this negates our free will. [false, I've given some]
What you are missing is that God's knowledge = determinism.
I know about the sinking of the Titanic, does that mean I determined it? Of course not. God just happens to have that knowledge in advance.

Again here you fail completely to seperate the idea of a human's foreknowledge with God's foreknowledge. I have already explained it. My argument is logical given ALL the 'facts' asserted no matter how many times you feel compelled to try adding strength to your erroneous argument by restating 'there's no logical argument'.

Also im sure many actual philosophers will be chagrined to learn that you declare that Hard Theological Determinism is illogical. :lol:

It depends what you mean by 'outcomes'. If you mean the ultimate triumph of good over evil, absolutely. But of you mean whether or not my son smokes, or accepts God's will for his life, that's a different matter altogether.

lol redefining terms now? By 'outcomes' I mean outcomes of choices.
We are not talking about your smoking son because as I have reiterated over a number of your false similies your influence and knowledge do not possess the same characteristics and effectiveness as God's. They cannot be used effectively as illustrations.

God's plan will play out without variation. Our choices are a part of that plan. God knew with certainty his desired ends would play out the instant all was set in motion before any 'choices' were temporally present to be considered by us.

This system is not logically valid.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Honestly, we've come as far as we're going to get on this.

We've already agreed on the omni-God. You've already conceded that he can brute-force events, that he desires everyone be saved, that he knows of all events before they happen, and that his Will will be done. It's a very simple process to put it all together and come to the conclusion that agrees with mine, but you won't. No explanation of why will be suitable for the forum rules.

It's really rather pointless to go further.

 

[Istina]

"Based on true love', that's a debatable phrase. Also, no, I would say this is not a good counter to the logical argument of 'the problem of Evil'.

It was the one articulated by CS Lewis, and subsequently expanded on by various other philosophers. I am yet to see n effective rebuttal, but as you seem not to rate it, perhaps you have the answer?

And again you assert incorrectly that God simply passively allows the game of life to play out; it doesn't, it's his concrete plan. It simply must play out exactly as he desires.

I have already addressed this in the context of degrees of desire. God does have an overall plan, but that doesn't negate individual free will.

An aside, at all the points where you refer to God's ways as indicative of 'true love' I personally can come up with a far more moral effort and outcome. How is it that a mortal can do real love better than your God, who is made of it?

That's a very different subject. We are assuming the Christian God. That concept of God is one in which God is the ultimate arbiter of the moral law.

it is also overridden by the fact that you cannot actually do anything to make him stop. Which is why your human/God anecdotes are useless as illustrations. Your 'significant influence' over your son is infinitesimal compared to God's over everyone.

This particular illustration was designed to demonstrate to you the way in which different levels of desire/will operate in the real world. This is a simple reality that undermines your point. That you refuse to address it is noted.

Then that negates his true love.

Not at all. In fact it informs it. Because God's love is in balance with God being just. God has given us the choice about our eternal future. He responds by rewarding those who choose Him.

As I said earlier and you refused to participate, you need to lose at least one of God's omni-attributes for this system to make actual sense.

I will respond when you offer more than conjecture.

This also shows that God's morlity is ultimately 'might makes right'. It's good cuz HE SAYS it's good, not because it's actually good.

God is the ultimate arbiter of moral goodness, because he is ultimately morally good.

But it does necessarily follow given all God's attributes in sum total.

Saying so doesn't make it so. God being the creator of all things does not negate free will. Or at least you haven;t offered any argument that it does.

the logical reason to infer it is that God gets everything he wants.

Again, you simply don't understand the nature of multiple levels of 'wants'. Perhaps this concept is new to you, but it isn't new. God has created a world in which He cannot have all possible desires satisfied. Because we have free will.

Again here you fail completely to seperate the idea of a human's foreknowledge with God's foreknowledge. I have already explained it. My argument is logical given ALL the 'facts' asserted no matter how many times you feel compelled to try adding strength to your erroneous argument by restating 'there's no logical argument'.

What you cannot grasp is the difference between knowledge and determination. I suggest that is now only because you don't want to.

God's plan will play out without variation. Our choices are a part of that plan.

This system is not logically valid.

And again you have this wrong. God's plan is worked out within the scope of our free will choices. His plan is one of gathering a people to Himself, freely via autonomous choice. Within that system free will is not only permissible, it is essential.