God, Free-will, and the knowledge of God - Is his knowledge causation?

[Copernicus]

You said "God is powerless to make a stone to heavy to lift"..

Can G-d lift stones of any weight? Yes.
Can we lift stones of any weight? No.

..so it is INDEED the property of the stone that causes the problem i.e. "a stone that is too heavy to lift"
It's like a double negative .. that's all you have .. sly tricks.

Being an advocate of the devil is a serious business. The devil isn't interested in your welfare.
Honour amongst thieves is a false myth. When the chips are down..

OK, Muhammad. Here is the same sentence with one tiny addition--the two words in brackets:

"God is powerless to make a stone too heavy [for God] to lift."

That is what I meant. That is what everyone who ever debated this topic has meant. And I am quite convinced that that is what you knew I meant. However, I shortened the sentence by leaving out the redundant reference to the agent of lifting--in this case God. So you then went off on a tangent that apparently tried to proclaim that the sentence attributed some kind of special property to the stone such that it could not be lifted by any agent and which had nothing to do with God's special attribute of being omnipotent. And you are maintaining that I was engaging in some kind of "sly trick" by not accepting your weird interpretation of the sentence. That makes me an "advocate of the devil", if I understand your convoluted reasoning. Is that right?

 

[muhammad_isa]

God's existence can not be proven..

Never said it could..

If G-d knows that you will choose x (even through your own "free-will"), whether you had/have/will have free will for choosing or not, becomes completely irrelevant and unnecessary..

Fine .. no problem then.

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK, Muhammad. Here is the same sentence with one tiny addition--the two words in brackets:

"God is powerless to make a stone too heavy [for God] to lift."

That is what I meant..

Obviously.
..and it doesn't matter if the stone is of infinite weight, it's still not "too heavy".
Oh, the games that people play.

 

[Hawkins]

Humans are creatures made to live along the axis of time on which the concept of cause and effect is developed. Cause and effect basically means how an event occurred in a point of time (on the axis of time) affects another point of time (on the "later" point of the same axis).

The question boils down to, do other existences (of intelligence) need to follow the same paradigm to live? The Christianity God claims that He doesn't live along the same time axis as ours. He's the Alpha and Omega existing outside of the axis of time we are sitting on. At the same time then, it's not possible for us to figure out how God lives and is, because our mindset is developed and fixed on the "cause and effect" based reasoning.

 

[firedragon]

"God is powerless to make a stone too heavy [for God] to lift."

That's a logically impossible thing.

 

[Copernicus]

That's a logically impossible thing.

Yes, and, if you've been following along, it is impossible because God is imagined to be omnipotent.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, and, if you've been following along, it is impossible because God is imagined to be omnipotent.

I didn't just say "impossible". I said "Logically impossible".

You defining him as omnipotent is the disqualifying factor of such a logically absurd requirement of God making something he cannot lift. It's a contradiction. It's not a thing. The question itself is flawed. Only a person who has never read up on simple logic and philosophy or researched this matter will make this fallacious question.

Please do some research about it from a philosophical or logical standpoint. Understand what an analytical truth is. Understand what a logical impossibility is.

 

[Copernicus]

I didn't just say "impossible". I said "Logically impossible".

You defining him as omnipotent is the disqualifying factor of such a logically absurd requirement of God making something he cannot lift. It's a contradiction. It's not a thing. The question itself is flawed. Only a person who has never read up on simple logic and philosophy or researched this matter will make this fallacious question.

Please do some research about it from a philosophical or logical standpoint. Understand what an analytical truth is. Understand what a logical impossibility is.

Sorry, but you don't sound like someone who has ever had any training in logic or philosophy, so I would respectfully advise you to take your own advice. You are parroting Muhammad's already-answered response to my argument, so you can go back and read all of that discussion, if you think you have something useful to contribute.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry, but you don't sound like someone who has ever had any training in logic or philosophy,

Google these so that you get some information.

Logical Impossibility
Analytical truth

Simple.

 

[Copernicus]

Google these so that you get some information.

Logical Impossibility
Analytical truth

Simple.

If you think so, follow your own advice. Then reread the post in which I agreed with you on logical impossibility and explained why. Then help me figure out why you thought I disagreed.

 

[firedragon]

If you think so, follow your own advice. Then reread the post in which I agreed with you on logical impossibility and explained why. Then help me figure out why you thought I disagreed.

Alles Gut. If you agreed, and I didn't understand it, it's my bad. So I apologize.

Cheers.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..you then went off on a tangent that apparently tried to proclaim that the sentence attributed some kind of special property to the stone such that it could not be lifted by any agent..

It can't .. it's "too heavy to lift" by definition.

 

[Copernicus]

It can't .. it's "too heavy to lift" by definition.

Too heavy FOR GOD to lift. Don't forget the implicit agent in the statement. Also, learn what a definition is and how it differs from a claim.

 

[Copernicus]

It can't .. it's "too heavy to lift" by definition.

Too heavy FOR GOD to lift. Don't forget the implicit agent in the statement. Also, learn what a definition is and how it differs from a mere descriptive claim.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Too heavy FOR GOD to lift. Don't forget the implicit agent in the statement. Also, learn what a definition is and how it differs from a claim.

Makes no difference. .. it's logically impossible to lift a stone that is "too heavy to lift".
..but we have already declared that G-d is not limited and is of infinite nature, so it's
contradictory.

In other words, it is no surprise that G-d cannot make such a stone, given His omnipotence.

 

[firedragon]

Too heavy FOR GOD to lift. Don't forget the implicit agent in the statement. Also, learn what a definition is and how it differs from a claim.

Logic works with axioms and definitions. When a square is defined by "four sides", it "BY DEFINITION" cannot be a triangle. A circle, by definition cannot be a square.

What's your contention with this?

 

[Copernicus]

Logic works with axioms and definitions. When a square is defined by "four sides", it "BY DEFINITION" cannot be a triangle. A circle, by definition cannot be a square.

Excellent. I see that you have been studying geometry. Totally irrelevant to my discussion about omnipotence, but I don't want to discourage you from improving your knowledge.

What's your contention with this?

None at all. Why would you think I have a problem with the definition of geometric shapes?

 

[Copernicus]

Makes no difference. .. it's logically impossible to lift a stone that is "too heavy to lift".
..but we have already declared that G-d is not limited and is of infinite nature, so it's
contradictory.

In other words, it is no surprise that G-d cannot make such a stone, given His omnipotence.

Yes. Now you understand the irony. God can perform any action other than one that diminishes his power, and that is because of how we define omnipotence, not how we define physical objects such as stones. It is also true that God cannot make himself forget anything or fail to know something, even though biblical stories occasionally describe him as if things happened while he wasn't paying attention--for example, when the serpent was tricking Eve into eating the forbidden fruit that he had forbidden his creations to eat, while apparently knowing full well they would eat it and disappoint him such that he would then punish them for the disobedience.

God cannot be ignorant of evil deeds that his creations will perform, and God cannot perform any action that he does not know in advance that he will perform. In other words, he cannot change his mind about anything at all. God is simply an automaton without any power to stop himself from doing what he is predestined to do. He never changes. He never makes choices in the same sense that his creations make choices. Did he ever have a choice but to condemn people for the sins that he knew they would commit? Did he ever have a choice but to forgive his creations for the sins he forgave and not forgive them for the sins he did not to forgive? Not if God is truly omniscient.

So believers have to find some way to reconcile all of the cognitive dissonance, and that takes a lot of work. Weekly or daily worship sessions help. Nonbelievers don't have to deal with all of that conceptual baggage. So perhaps you can understand why some of us are just too intellectually lazy to become believers.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes. Now you understand the irony.

There is no irony.
If you ask the question "Can G-d make a stone that is impossible for Him to lift?", the answer is "No".
What's ironic about that?

--for example, when the serpent was tricking Eve into eating the forbidden fruit that he had forbidden his creations to eat, while apparently knowing full well they would eat it and disappoint him such that he would then punish them for the disobedience..

That's a separate topic .. particularly if you want to take everything literally, rather than in the sense of
a simile/parable.

God cannot be ignorant of evil deeds that his creations will perform, and God cannot perform any action that he does not know in advance that he will perform. In other words, he cannot change his mind about anything at all.

..back to telling us how G-d must perceive time in the same way that we do.

Did he ever have a choice but to forgive his creations for the sins he forgave and not forgive them for the sins he did not to forgive? Not if God is truly omniscient.

Same old deceptions "truly omnipotent" .. "truly omniscient" .. mere word games.
Believers are entitled to believe what they like about such concepts. We don't all share the same
understandings, because they are not straightforward concepts i.e. they are Divine attributes

You merely attempt to pin them down, and ridicule them .. your choice.

 

[firedragon]

Excellent. I see that you have been studying geometry. Totally irrelevant to my discussion about omnipotence, but I don't want to discourage you from improving your knowledge.



None at all. Why would you think I have a problem with the definition of geometric shapes?

If you read again, you might understand the point.

Bye.