Free will and omniscience?

[lew0049]

According to many multiverse models today matter and energy have always existed, making the "first cause" problem irrelevant. A multitide or even infinite number of universes may be constantly dying and being reborn. One can hypothesize a creator god exists, but one is not needed.

Don't you mean, according to many proposals or theories? There is no solid evidence to support these proposals either - scientists are trying to find ways to discount the chance of an creator. These theories are nothing more than beliefs - they are simply trying to construst a thoery that can refute the odds of producing an atom, mankind, planetlife which are astronomically small, something like 1 chance in 10 to the 700 power (And this is quite conservative). I have read what Dawskins believes, the wave structure of matter and Wolf-Haselhurst; and they all lack anything worth considering as evidence.

 

[lew0049]

If God knows something is going to happen... not just think it might, but knows it for sure, then logically he should never suddenly feel pleased or displeased about it. Ever.
The bible claiming that this is what God does shows it was written by imperfect humans who did not think these things through fully.

Refer to my posts on mankind being constrained by a time function.

 

[camanintx]

via E-mail actually.
We are constrained because we are the creation. But lets look at this from a scientific perspective since that will appeal to you moreso and will disregard philosophical questions like "do we truly exist" or "is matter real"

There are really two ways to explain our existence: we were created(there was a beginning) or there was no beginning(matter has always existed).

Why do you think these are the only two answers? Couldn't there be a beginning without a cause?

Can Everything Come to Be Without a Cause?

 

[yossarian22]

Don't you mean, according to many proposals or theories? There is no solid evidence to support these proposals either - scientists are trying to find ways to discount the chance of an creator. These theories are nothing more than beliefs - they are simply trying to construst a thoery that can refute the odds of producing an atom, mankind, planetlife which are astronomically small, something like 1 chance in 10 to the 700 power (And this is quite conservative). I have read what Dawskins believes, the wave structure of matter and Wolf-Haselhurst; and they all lack anything worth considering as evidence.

really?
How do you know it is unlikely for us to have formed? And tell me where you pulled this conservative estimate from. I am quite interested in probability theory so tell me. How did this number come about?
And you consider the wave nature of matter to be lacking in evidence? There is plenty of empirical evidence for them. Now quantum mechanics are rather nasty things, and tend to be hard to falsify, but we can falsify them. The forefront of any new science is a hydra of a beast, with hundreds of theories.

 

[agent_smith]

I agree. But wouldn't He also let things happen that He doesn't like. For example, murder, rape, etc. I doubt God wants it to happen but He lets it happen.

If God is omnipotent, then he either...

• Wants "sins" like rape and murder to happen, OR
• Logically cannot avoid these things from happening.

If he wants them to happen, he would never get angered.
If he doesn't want them to happen, but knows they will happen, he would never get angered.

Wouldn't letting people choose evil be part of His plan too? People choosing evil wouldn't make Him happy even though He knows they will choose it.

Logically, God should never feel happy either, for the same reasons that he should never be angered.

Exactly, but we still have to make the choice. If we don't actually make those choices then God wouldn't be omnicient because His knowledge would be false.

It's not our choice if God made the decision for us.

 

[Sola'lor]

If God is omnipotent, then he either...

• Wants "sins" like rape and murder to happen, OR
• Logically cannot avoid these things from happening.

If he wants them to happen, he would never get angered.
If he doesn't want them to happen, but knows they will happen, he would never get angered.

Must it only be those two?

Couldn't it also be that He:

• Disapproves of sins, but allows them to happen as part of this life.

Logically, God should never feel happy either, for the same reasons that he should never be angered.

Why shouldn't God feel happy?

It's not our choice if God made the decision for us.

We aren't talking about God making decisions for us we are talking about God seeing the choices we have made, are making, and will make. It's two different things entirely.

 

[logician]

The problem with most "god" discussions, and the problem with Christianity or any religion that believes god became man is that these god concepts basically assign the attributes of homo sapiens to a god. This is arrogant, self-centered, and illogical. I am an atheist, but I certainly think that if some supernatural entity existed that could create a universe, or multiverse, it would essentially be beyond our comprehension, and would have none of the attributes of a lowly species like homo sapiens.

 

[Sola'lor]

The problem with most "god" discussions, and the problem with Christianity or any religion that believes god became man is that these god concepts basically assign the attributes of homo sapiens to a god. This is arrogant, self-centered, and illogical. I am an atheist, but I certainly think that if some supernatural entity existed that could create a universe, or multiverse, it would essentially be beyond our comprehension, and would have none of the attributes of a lowly species like homo sapiens.

It makes sense in Mormonism with our belief in exaltation. Also since our scriptures tell us we were made in His image. So technically it wouldn't be us applying human attributes to God, but rather God appling godly attributes to humans.

 

[Storm]

These theories are nothing more than beliefs - they are simply trying to construst a thoery that can refute the odds of producing an atom, mankind, planetlife which are astronomically small, something like 1 chance in 10 to the 700 power (And this is quite conservative).

The number I've heard is 1 in 10 to the 40th power, not 700th. While there may be different numbers, yours is far from conservative.

 

[agent_smith]

So you agree with me that to negate free will, God must be omnipotent as well as omniscient?

That is one way that free will can be negated, yes.
If you reverse this logic, and assume we do have free will, it is clear that an omnimax God (such as the Christian God) is impossible.

 

[Storm]

That is one way that free will can be negated, yes.
If you reverse this logic, and assume we do have free will, it is clear that an omnimax God (such as the Christian God) is impossible.

I think "impossible" is overstating the case. It's logically incoherent.

 

[agent_smith]

Must it only be those two?

Couldn't it also be that He:

• Disapproves of sins, but allows them to happen as part of this life.

The only way he would allow them to happen if he disapproved of them (if he is omnipotent) is if that's the only possible way to carry out his plan. Which is exactly what I stated in the second bullet point.

Why shouldn't God feel happy?

Because he already knows everything that is going to happen. He already knows the end result of his entire plan. He has no reason at all to feel angry, or happy, or pleased, or disappointed, at any stage during the plan.

We aren't talking about God making decisions for us we are talking about God seeing the choices we have made, are making, and will make. It's two different things entirely.

You've just ignored the entire point of this thread. Go back and read it please.

 

[agent_smith]

I think "impossible" is overstating the case. It's logically incoherent.

Logically incoherant = impossible. It's the same thing.

 

[Storm]

Because he already knows everything that is going to happen. He already knows the end result of his entire plan. He has no reason at all to feel angry, or happy, or pleased, or disappointed, at any stage during the plan.

What about the simple, deep joy of having created something?

 

[agent_smith]

What about the simple, deep joy of having created something?

Now you're trying to give God human characteristics, and appealing to emotion.

If you are 100% sure that you can do something, you would not feel any joy from doing it.

 

[Storm]

Now you're trying to give God human characteristics, and appealing to emotion.

How is what I'm doing any different from what you're doing? And how is it an appeal to emotion?

If you are 100% sure that you can do something, you would not feel any joy from doing it.

I know 100% that I can write a poem, but it still pleases me to do so.

 

[Storm]

Logically incoherant = impossible. It's the same thing.

Not when dealing with a theistic God. There's always the old standard of "beyond our comprehension".

 

[Sola'lor]

[/list]The only way he would allow them to happen if he disapproved of them (if he is omnipotent) is if that's the only possible way to carry out his plan. Which is exactly what I stated in the second bullet point.

So what in your view is God's plan?

Because he already knows everything that is going to happen. He already knows the end result of his entire plan. He has no reason at all to feel angry, or happy, or pleased, or disappointed, at any stage during the plan.

It doesn't make sense. Even if I watch a movie time and time again. I know exactly what will happen but it can still move me emotionally. It's not as if he's suddenly surprised and feel upset or happy. But the knowledge of people doing good would make Him happy.

You've just ignored the entire point of this thread. Go back and read it please.

Really? Ok, just a second.

 

[agent_smith]

How is what I'm doing any different from what you're doing? And how is it an appeal to emotion?

I'm only giving God characteristics that the church says he has.
You're saying "Isn't it wonderful to create something?" which is a human emotion that you are assuming God has too. It is an appeal to emotion because you are trying to say God has emotions because we do; which is not a logical argument.

I know 100% that I can write a poem, but it still pleases me to do so.

If you were omniscient, you would know every possible combination of words - therefore saying that writing a poem would "please" you is a complete assumption without logic.

 

[agent_smith]

So what in your view is God's plan?

I don't think God exists

It doesn't make sense. Even if I watch a movie time and time again. I know exactly what will happen but it can still move me emotionally. It's not as if he's suddenly surprised and feel upset or happy. But the knowledge of people doing good would make Him happy.

That's because you're only human, not omniscient. If you knew every single pixel colour throughout the whole movie, every sound wave that is emitted, every aspect to the story, etc perfectly then why would you still be moved by it? You wouldn't even need to watch the movie to remember what happens!