Christians: please help me out with this

[Heathen Hammer]

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

CS Lewis wasn't that smart.

Perhaps I have the answer to what?
I don't need to come up with anything further as the logical Problem of Evil remains.

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.

I saw, but degrees of desire do not overrule the ultimate result being attained.
Basically what you propose here is that the phrase 'God desires that everyone be saved' is a useless emotional hyperbole designed to make a God who deliberately allows many to not be saved, seem less like a monster and a touch more as a sympathetic figure to those he dooms. If God 'well, sorta kind of wishes everyone would be saved, but hey, oops! those silly mortals are gonna make a wrong decision and well then whoops off to Hell', then don't even make the prosy statement "God wants EVERYone saved!" because it's a non issue if an omnibeing cannot be bothered to alter his own plans for the literal sake of millions of lost souls under his 'loving' care. He is completely capable of having it happen. It's just not high enough on his list.... So it's blatantly false doggerel, then. Don't say it. It's essentially offensive. lol I can barely contain myself putting this all together from what you've written.

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.

Hence why I called it an aside. But it also casts doubt on the issue of 'true love' which you kept highlighting as important to various of your points.

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.

As I keep pointing out though it's an inept comparison, for the reasons I keep stating. The real world and God's world are not comparable.
[Oh, my, 'it's noted'?]

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.

That all has yet to be proven. If my assertion is correct he's unjust and we don't have a choice.
In any case you failed to complete the thought with 'and punishes/destroys those who don't" which again negates his true love aspect.

I will respond when you offer more than conjecture.

We both know you will never respond to that particular question.

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

In order to be so he must always demonstrate such; in this case he fails to. As well in several other minor points we both mention. Universal Claims without constant demonstration = the claim is invalid.

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.

You haven't offered any argument that it does not. Saying it's not so doesn't make it not so.

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.

I fully grasp a wants hierarchy. I also mentioned it earlier regarding the other thread. You simply don't understand that it's irrelevant to the end achievement of all his wants.

So we finally get around to you negating one of his omni properties?
God does NOT get all he desires. That is your final answer? He is NOT omnipotent?

Or are you saying we can't have all desires satisfied in God's world? That's possible too from the wording...

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

And I suggest you are rejecting my arguments because of cognitive dissonance stemming from being a member of the system I claim is illogical. You simply don't want to recognize that it is; I see that all over the place.
What you fail to grasp is that thare is no difference between knowledge and determination where God is concerned.

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.

then some parts of all the sum properties of the system must be removed for this to be logically valid. It appears you choose it to be omnipotence; I can live with that. We have our answer at last.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't know, maybe you wish me to write it out in a numbered list to make it 'formal' and to allow you to 'recognize' it as some sort of logical argument? I really don't know at this point what it is you want or what you think it's lacking..

Dashing some off:

1. God exists
2. God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, possesses perfect love
3. God wishes none to be lost and all to be saved
4. Omnipotence requires that God achieve all aims
5. Free will requires that more than one choice exist for any specific chooser other than God at any specific moral choice node, including 'incorrect' choices, free of outside constraint
6. God's aims include that all choices eventually lead to his Ultimate Final Aim at the end of all Time
7. Given a cause-effect system with a specific Cause and a specific End Effect, there are a finite number of possible cause-effect sequences leading from the beginning Cause to the final End Effect
8. God knows all manifest cause-effect chains
9. not all are saved

So, either 2 3 and 4 negate 9
5 negates 2 3 and 4
5 and 9 negates 2 3 4 6and 8
7 with 2 3 4 and 8 negates 5
[a few other combos are possible]

or 1 is false and we needn't worry


You realize also, at this point some of both of our objections are eventually going to get us reported.

 

[Istina]

I saw, but degrees of desire do not overrule the ultimate result being attained.
Basically what you propose here is that the phrase 'God desires that everyone be saved' is a useless emotional hyperbole designed to make a God who deliberately allows many to not be saved, seem less like a monster and a touch more as a sympathetic figure to those he dooms. If God 'well, sorta kind of wishes everyone would be saved, but hey, oops! those silly mortals are gonna make a wrong decision and well then whoops off to Hell', then don't even make the prosy statement "God wants EVERYone saved!" because it's a non issue if an omnibeing cannot be bothered to alter his own plans for the literal sake of millions of lost souls under his 'loving' care. He is completely capable of having it happen. It's just not high enough on his list.... So it's blatantly false doggerel, then. Don't say it. It's essentially offensive. lol I can barely contain myself putting this all together from what you've written.

You're trying to invert the argument. The degrees of desire was a response to your argument that for God to get his own way, the outcome must be determined. You were wrong. God's ultimate desire is fellowship with humans. To obtain that, He acknowledges that some will perish. I really can't see what there is about this relatively simple concept you can't grasp.

Hence why I called it an aside. But it also casts doubt on the issue of 'true love' which you kept highlighting as important to various of your points.

Not at all. Love is a straight forward concept, so is justice.

As I keep pointing out though it's an inept comparison, for the reasons I keep stating. The real world and God's world are not comparable.

Not so. The real world is a creation of God, and we test truth against it, truth God set in place.

That all has yet to be proven. If my assertion is correct he's unjust and we don't have a choice.
In any case you failed to complete the thought with 'and punishes/destroys those who don't" which again negates his true love aspect.

Not at all. God has given everyone a clear choice. His love extends to even those who reject Him, as does His forgiveness. However there are conditions, conditions clearly laid out by God. If these conditions are not met, then we remain in sin, and those with unforgiven sin cannot inhabit God's presence. God is just, and consistent.

You haven't offered any argument that it does not. Saying it's not so doesn't make it not so.

A reminder...this is YOUR thesis, not mine. The burden is on you, much as you try to avoid it.

I fully grasp a wants hierarchy. I also mentioned it earlier regarding the other thread. You simply don't understand that it's irrelevant to the end achievement of all his wants.

So we finally get around to you negating one of his omni properties?
God does NOT get all he desires. That is your final answer? He is NOT omnipotent?

Which just proves you don't grasp this at all.
Try this. God is logically consistent. God cannot enjoy two mutually exclusive desires. God's plan for us to choose Him freely is mutually exclusive with everyone being saved. God's unlimited power could perhaps have used a different methodology. But He chose this one.

And I suggest you are rejecting my arguments because of cognitive dissonance stemming from being a member of the system I claim is illogical. You simply don't want to recognize that it is; I see that all over the place.
What you fail to grasp is that thare is no difference between knowledge and determination where God is concerned.

The difference between knowing something in advance and determining it as an outcome can only be denied if you refuse to accept the attributes of God. Just as you accuse me of inept comparisons, you clearly have a concept of God that is too human for you to see through the mist to what is a relatively simple concept.

then some parts of all the sum properties of the system must be removed for this to be logically valid. It appears you choose it to be omnipotence; I can live with that. We have our answer at last.

There is no logical contradiction between God's foreknowledge and our free will. There is no contradiction between God's omni properties and the world as we know it.

 

[Istina]

I don't know, maybe you wish me to write it out in a numbered list to make it 'formal' and to allow you to 'recognize' it as some sort of logical argument? I really don't know at this point what it is you want or what you think it's lacking..

Dashing some off:

1. God exists
2. God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, possesses perfect love
3. God wishes none to be lost and all to be saved
4. Omnipotence requires that God achieve all aims
5. Free will requires that more than one choice exist for any specific chooser other than God at any specific moral choice node, including 'incorrect' choices, free of outside constraint
6. God's aims include that all choices eventually lead to his Ultimate Final Aim at the end of all Time
7. Given a cause-effect system with a specific Cause and a specific End Effect, there are a finite number of possible cause-effect sequences leading from the beginning Cause to the final End Effect
8. God knows all manifest cause-effect chains
9. not all are saved

So, either 2 3 and 4 negate 9
5 negates 2 3 and 4
5 and 9 negates 2 3 4 6and 8
7 with 2 3 4 and 8 negates 5
[a few other combos are possible]

or 1 is false and we needn't worry


You realize also, at this point some of both of our objections are eventually going to get us reported.

Oh I doubt that, but I do appreciate the way you have set out your premise, so I'll have a go at a response:

1. Agreed.
2. Agreed, with the minor variation that God IS love.
3. Agreed, with the provision that these desires are subservient to God's ultimate plan - to fellowship eternally with humans who have chosen freely to follow Him.
4. Disagree. <a> God's omnipotence does not transcend illogic. For example, God cannot create a two sided triangle. If two competing desires self contradict, even God's omnipotence cannot achieve them. <b> In granting free will, God has granted us the chance to displease Him, meaning we can choose outcomes that He does not desire. This is not a dilution of His omnipotence, rather it is voluntary suspension of His omnipotence for the greater goal.
5. Agree, to a point. I suggest that the expression "free of outside constraint" needs defining. For example the influence of cultural and parental factors on our decision making is acknowledged.
6. Agreed.
7. Your point assumes a direct correlation between every free will decision and a cause event. I'm not sure that assumption can apply universally. I'm also unsure whether it is mathematically possible for there to be an infinite number of possible permutations.
8. Agreed.
9. Agreed.

Your alleged negations are explained in my responses above, specifically to 4. and 7.

 

[Istina]

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.

The deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and their tri-unity with God the Father in the Godhead is testified to in the Biblical canon, which is why it has been an accepted element of Christian theology for thousands of years. To claim to be Christian, as the LDS movement does, and yet deny such a fundamental tenet of Biblical theology is just plain dishonest. The fact that many other Christian doctrine has also been distorted by Smith's ignorance just makes matters worse.

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 know why we are aware of the alleged contradictions in the Bible? because of the science of textual criticism, a science the Bible has been subjected to for millennia. The contradictions I speak of are not just within LDS canon, but between LDS canon and the Bible. Some of these (eg the use of the word Christian) are just plain errors by the LDS.

 

[Istina]

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.

So I've touched a nerve. But in my experience not an untypical response.

To begin, I don't give a rats for your tenure or reputation. I care only about truth.

I understand much about the LDS movement, about its false association with Christianity. And I have studied the Book of Mormon, and can provide you with numerous examples of absurdities, grammatical and spelling errors, fraudulent language, and contradictions with the Bible.

I can outline the 1000 changes, many significant, made to the Book of Mormon between the 1830 and 1837 editions.

And I can provide numerous examples of plagiarism between LDS canon and other text/elements.

I will happily debate you and expose the LDS movement at any time, because, frankly, the task isn't a difficult one.

The really sad thing is that the charlatans that pass as your church leaders withhold material from your members that would expose the LDS movement for what it is. A cult and a sham.

 

[cottage]

There is no logical contradiction between God's foreknowledge and our free will. There is no contradiction between God's omni properties and the world as we know it.

I'm sorry but a direct contradiction is demonstrated where there is foreknowledge and free will - if it is held at the same time that God is omnipotent. The only way to escape the impasse is to undermine the concept, which of course would be a further contradiction.

 

[idea]

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.

sounds like you have studied anti-Mormon literature, but have not studied the real deal...

I'm not on here as much as katz is, and don't have as much patience as katz - everything you bring up has already been discussed ad-nausium of coarse, you can just go to fairlds.org, or if you want to get into apologetics you can go to places like Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board ...

there are 38,000 + different Christian religions, each of them claim to have the inside scoop for how to correctly interpret the scriptures etc. etc. Take the Scribes and Pharasees - they had the original scriptures in the original language - did not have to translate them - and even with all of that, they missed the whole point and killed Jesus.

LDS theology meshes wonderfully with the Bible, explains some of the internal inconsistencies which are found in the Bible, provides testimony of Jesus from people other than the Jews to show that God speaks to the whole world, not just the Jewish people. You can rationalize/justify any theology that you like (everyone does) in the end it comes down to going to God directly, and recieving a personal witness from Him. I converted to the Mormon religion because of a spiritual experience that I had there, and continue to have there - most Mormons are there for the same reason. Apologetics is a side-issue that is fun to dabble in, but does not strike to the core of it - someone can give you all the scientific/logical/researched reasons why a bee cannot fly, but if you have seen a bee fly, you will ignore all of their reasons because you know from personal experience that they are wrong... I have seen what I have seen, and know what I know - the rest are details.

 

[idea]

I'm sorry but a direct contradiction is demonstrated where there is foreknowledge and free will - if it is held at the same time that God is omnipotent. The only way to escape the impasse is to undermine the concept, which of course would be a further contradiction.

yea! back on topic.

I'll take the side that foreknowledge and free will can coexist, and I'll try to explain how if anyone is still interested in this thread (sorry, I don't get on here as often as I would like).

take the TV - I know what will be on the TV (foreknowledge) but I did not cause it - so I did not take away anyone's free will through merely knowing what will be on. Knowing and causing are of coarse two very different things. Free will concerns who causes something. We have free will, because we can be our own cause - we can act (not just react) so the cause originates entirely within ourselves - within our own personal choices - so this is free will. Just because God knows us / our personality / well enough to know what we will do, does not mean he caused us to do what we will do....

did that make sense? So I think the future is set in stone, but I also think that we set our own future in stone... God knows who we are and what we will do, but we don't know who we really are, or what we would really do - so the experience is for us I think. just my $0.02 though.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You're trying to invert the argument. The degrees of desire was a response to your argument that for God to get his own way, the outcome must be determined. You were wrong. God's ultimate desire is fellowship with humans. To obtain that, He acknowledges that some will perish. I really can't see what there is about this relatively simple concept you can't grasp.

I grasp it well enough to show you it's not born out by the system.

Not at all. Love is a straight forward concept, so is justice.

True. This system does not display either one, as I've pointed out.

Not so. The real world is a creation of God, and we test truth against it, truth God set in place.

Not demonstrated by our tests.

Not at all. God has given everyone a clear choice. His love extends to even those who reject Him, as does His forgiveness. However there are conditions, conditions clearly laid out by God. If these conditions are not met, then we remain in sin, and those with unforgiven sin cannot inhabit God's presence. God is just, and consistent.

Far from clear.
And not just. But keep declaring it.

A reminder...this is YOUR thesis, not mine. The burden is on you, much as you try to avoid it.

I have fulfilled that burden no matter how many times you want to pretend I didn't.

Which just proves you don't grasp this at all. [lol w/e]

Try this. God is logically consistent.

try this: i've shown he isn't and that that claim is false.

God cannot enjoy two mutually exclusive desires.

Hence why this system is not logically consistent

God's plan for us to choose Him freely is mutually exclusive with everyone being saved.

Making his being 'made of love' as you put it, inconsistent with the rest

God's unlimited power could perhaps have used a different methodology. But He chose this one.

The difference between knowing something in advance and determining it as an outcome can only be denied if you refuse to accept the attributes of God.

If you accept them you must accept the logical effects. I do, you do not. Accepting them all results in the contradictions I've addressed.

Just as you accuse me of inept comparisons, you clearly have a concept of God that is too human for you to see through the mist to what is a relatively simple concept.

lol, oh, how precious.
I demonstrate that the system shows a very non-human God; whereas your comparisons practice the continued error of comparing God's attributes with a human possessing the same.

There is no logical contradiction between God's foreknowledge and our free will. There is no contradiction between God's omni properties and the world as we know it.

Say it again! Say it again!
Repeat a falsehood often enough and eventually you'll believe it's true.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

4. Disagree. <a> God's omnipotence does not transcend illogic. For example, God cannot create a two sided triangle. If two competing desires self contradict, even God's omnipotence cannot achieve them. <b> In granting free will, God has granted us the chance to displease Him, meaning we can choose outcomes that He does not desire. This is not a dilution of His omnipotence, rather it is voluntary suspension of His omnipotence for the greater goal.

I understand that concept [the voluntary suspension]. It's just that at this scale it breaks down. Hence why I went back to 'one of these omni's doesn't belong'.

7. Your point assumes a direct correlation between every free will decision and a cause event. I'm not sure that assumption can apply universally.

We would be delighted if you could come up with an uncaused cause, other than God, for us.

 

[filthy tugboat]

yea! back on topic.

I'll take the side that foreknowledge and free will can coexist, and I'll try to explain how if anyone is still interested in this thread (sorry, I don't get on here as often as I would like).

take the TV - I know what will be on the TV (foreknowledge) but I did not cause it - so I did not take away anyone's free will through merely knowing what will be on.

Indeed, this analogy is however, not an apt comparison to reality under the assumption of an omnipotent and omniscient God. God did cause the universe(apparantly), you did not cause the show to be on at what times on the tv.

Knowing and causing are of coarse two very different things.

Yep, and what makes God(in this sense) and free will incompatible is that he both had knowledge and caused everything to be the way that it is.

Free will concerns who causes something. We have free will, because we can be our own cause - we can act (not just react) so the cause originates entirely within ourselves - within our own personal choices - so this is free will.

I doubt the truth in what you just said. Are our actions anything other than reactions to stimuli based on pre-existing un-chosen characteristics? Probably not. We don't choose who we are, we don't choose what we want, we don't choose what to think. These are all things that exist because of outside circumstances, We don't choose who we are, that is a product of our genetics and everything that happens to us.

Another way to think about it is this, if our will is not determined, then what is it? Is it random? That seems to be the only other option. Determined basically means it is the result of a causal chain that if repeated the exact same result would occur. Random essentially means that it is not the result of causes, our will would result in our choosing to do anything. Suicide out of the blue would be just as reasonable as going for a walk to someone who's will was random.

Just because God knows us / our personality / well enough to know what we will do, does not mean he caused us to do what we will do....

Did this God also create the universe? If God is omniscient then he would know of every possible universe that could be created, he would also know everything about all of those universes including how they would pan ou in every single way and from every possible perspective. His action to create one universe over another essentially determined that universe. He chose how everything would turn out by creating one thing over another. if we are the sum of our parts if everything ever done is the result of a causal chain then God is the direct source of that causal chain, he started everything off and by doing so, ensured that we are exactly the way we are and that we will do exactly what we will do. he determined our lives by creating the universe the way he did. his foreknowledge means he did so intentionally.

did that make sense? So I think the future is set in stone, but I also think that we set our own future in stone... God knows who we are and what we will do, but we don't know who we really are, or what we would really do - so the experience is for us I think. just my $0.02 though.

This is a really good start, a lot of people don't think the future is set in stone, this means you can already grasp the concept of everything happening as the result of a causal chain. So we are in agreement in that respect. Now if you concede that God started that causal chain, with knowledge of how it would pan out in it's entirety, from every possible perspective and that he could have done it differently but specifically chose to do it this way, what conclusion is there other than, "we don't have free will granting the preliminary assumptions of God's existence, God's creative authority, God's omniscience and God's omnipotence."

 

[cottage]

God's omnipotence does not transcend illogic. For example, God cannot create a two sided triangle. If two competing desires self contradict, even God's omnipotence cannot achieve them. <b> In granting free will, God has granted us the chance to displease Him, meaning we can choose outcomes that He does not desire. This is not a dilution of His omnipotence, rather it is voluntary suspension of His omnipotence for the greater goal.

Again, I’m sorry, but this is surely quite wrong. To say we can choose outcomes that God does not desire is a contradiction many times over. Self-evidently God cannot be sometimes omnipotent and sometimes not. And if God needs to empower humans (the very creatures who depend on him for every minute of their existence), weakening himself at the same time, then there is something seriously amiss with his creative abilities. Free will is logically impossible if God is omnipotent.