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

[Copernicus]

If you read again, you might understand the point.

Bye.

I got the point and noted that it was irrelevant to the discussion you were commenting on. I won't advise you to reread the discussion, because I don't think it would help.

 

[Copernicus]

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?

The irony is that vulnerable beings like us can do things that omnipotent beings cannot. It all has to do with the way in which the property of omnipotence leads us to paradoxical conclusions.

--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.

There are plenty of believers who still take such original just-so stories literally, and less gullible believers have found ways to get meaning out of scripture by interpreting them non-literally. I consider the non-literal interpretations testimony to the creativity and intelligence of believers. Human beings are nothing if not good at deluding themselves into believing what they want to believe with very little actual evidence to support their beliefs. The stories we find in Deuteronomy are repurposed stories and themes from older Semitic folktales. Even pagan Norse mythology starts out the human race with something like Adam and Eve--Ask and Embla.

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

And you not telling us how it is that the language used to describe your God's thoughts and actions manages to avoid telling us the same thing.

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

Nobody argues that believers aren't entitled to believe whatever they want, no matter how absurd. Nor is anyone arguing that they aren't "Divine attributes", only that the attributes attributed to divinities lead to absurd claims that require a lot of fancy mental footwork to remain lodged in the heads of those who believe in the divinities.

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

And it's your choice to defend the ideas when they lead to contradictions and inconsistencies. You claim that we should not take your words literally, but you fail to explain why anyone should take them any other way. You are motivated to do so, but us skeptics are not.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The irony is that vulnerable beings like us can do things that omnipotent beings cannot..

That's ridiculous .. mere play on words.
Can we lift stones of infinite weight? No.

..but you are claiming that means G-d is deficient in some way.

Human beings are nothing if not good at deluding themselves into believing what they want to believe with very little actual evidence to support their beliefs..

I agree, but that has little bearing on the topic at hand .. it goes for theist/non-theist alike.

..attributes attributed to divinities lead to absurd claims that require a lot of fancy mental footwork to remain lodged in the heads of those who believe in the divinities..

..as above .. and atheists have no business in defining Divine attributes .. they have to rely on
theists to explain them.

And it's your choice to defend the ideas when they lead to contradictions and inconsistencies. You claim that we should not take your words literally..

Not my words .. but translations of ancient Scriptures in particular.

 

[Copernicus]

That's ridiculous .. mere play on words. Can we lift stones of infinite weight? No.

..but you are claiming that means G-d is deficient in some way.

We really should be talking about mass, since weight varies in terms of the mass of objects interacted with. However, I wasn't thinking about a flaw in your concept of God so much as a flaw in your reasoning about your God's powers and the language used to describe them.

Human beings are nothing if not good at deluding themselves into believing what they want to believe with very little actual evidence to support their beliefs..

I agree, but that has little bearing on the topic at hand .. it goes for theist/non-theist alike.

It is one way to explain why people try so hard to ignore the cognitive dissonance surrounding God's so-called omniscience and omnipotence. And I made no comparison between theists and non-theists. Both are capable of making bad arguments.

..as above .. and atheists have no business in defining Divine attributes .. they have to rely on theists to explain them.

Atheists are perfectly within their rights to question the logic of the attributes that theists ascribe to their gods. Theists don't own the English language, and they can certainly be called to account for the words that they use.

Not my words .. but translations of ancient Scriptures in particular.

So, are you now claiming that the nonsensical English descriptions are due to bad translations? Do you have better translations to offer?

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is one way to explain why people try so hard to ignore the cognitive dissonance surrounding God's so-called omniscience and omnipotence..

An assumption i.e. that everybody sees Omnipotence and Omniscience as you do .. they don't !

Atheists are perfectly within their rights to question the logic of the attributes that theists ascribe to their gods..

Yes .. but you need to ascertain what they do believe, before criticizing. There are multiple creeds,
and some defy logic, yes.
..but not all.

Theists don't own the English language, and they can certainly be called to account for the words that they use.

Not so much words, as concepts and explanations.

So, are you now claiming that the nonsensical English descriptions are due to bad translations?

Too general .. you would need to be more specific to answer that.
..but we all know that Scriptures are interpreted differently according to creed .. and
translations have a bearing on this.
For example, I'm not an expert on Shakespeare, but some people are.
..and that's relatively recent prose.

 

[Copernicus]

An assumption i.e. that everybody sees Omnipotence and Omniscience as you do .. they don't !

This is non-responsive. You need to say how they see those concepts differently from the way I and others see them. You offer nothing specific for me to agree or disagree with.

Yes .. but you need to ascertain what they do believe, before criticizing. There are multiple creeds,
and some defy logic, yes.
..but not all.

Yes, we all know that there are multiple creeds. Again, you need to address specific issues rather than just make vague generalizations.

...
Not so much words, as concepts and explanations.

What concepts and explanations are you talking about? Be specific.

So, are you now claiming that the nonsensical English descriptions are due to bad translations?

Too general .. you would need to be more specific to answer that.

What? You are the one who mentioned a translation issue without any specifics. Now you are asking me to fill in the details for you?

..but we all know that Scriptures are interpreted differently according to creed .. and
translations have a bearing on this.
For example, I'm not an expert on Shakespeare, but some people are.
..and that's relatively recent prose.

Well, I feel I've been very generous in giving you opportunities to explain your objections to my description of the problems with omnipotence and omniscience, but I get nothing out of you other than hand-waving dismissals and demands for me to help you explain what you mean. Since this is going nowhere, I have other places to be.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Since this is going nowhere, I have other places to be..

Fine .. so re. the OP, you agree that knowledge in itself, is not causation?

 

[Copernicus]

Fine .. so re. the OP, you agree that knowledge in itself, is not causation?

I've already commented on why that is a straw man and why it is incoherent to talk about states causing events.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I've already commented on why that is a straw man and why it is incoherent to talk about states causing events.

"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion"

Well, that is the topic in question..
..and you have already agreed that a known future does not necessarily affect our free-will.

..but then you went on to add that G-d's free-will is affected.

 

[Copernicus]

"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion"

Well, that is the topic in question..
..and you have already agreed that a known future does not necessarily affect our free-will.

..but then you went on to add that G-d's free-will is affected.

Right. God cannot commit any action but the one he knows he will commit. Omniscience guarantees this. Humans are ignorant of the future, so they, unlike God, must go through the process of making a choice on the basis of imagined outcomes. Humans must guess at the future, but God cannot choose among imagined alternatives. God has only one path forward. We've gone over this many, many times, so I don't think the repetition is helping you to understand the problem with God having free will. You have to first accept the possibility that you could be wrong, and that seems to be a non-starter for you. You do, however, seem to understand why free will in humans is compatible with determinism. I give you points for that. But God knows every choice his creations will make, so he cannot blame them for their predetermined choices from his perspective.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Right. God cannot commit any action but the one he knows he will commit..

I've already explained that you are supposing that G-d has a past and future, in the same way as we do.
..but these are human perceptions, and not necessarily absolute.

Furthermore, the way G-d interacts with something that He has created i.e. space-time, has not been documented .. but you are telling it how it must be.

..and finally, it does not matter if G-d cannot commit any action other than that He knows .. because
that which He knows could have been chosen of His own free-will.

Omniscience guarantees this. Humans are ignorant of the future, so they, unlike God, must go through the process of making a choice on the basis of imagined outcomes. Humans must guess at the future, but God cannot choose among imagined alternatives. God has only one path forward.

One path forward in what??
G-d is not part of the space-time continuum.
I don't need to know what G-d knows or doesn't know in absolute terms, but I don't
believe in multiple gods .. neither do I believe all we see is mere coincidence.

I also don't really need to know HOW He knows.

Compared to human beings, G-d is Omniscient .. that is, All-knowing .. and He
created the universe.
That is "more-knowing" than you.

You have to first accept the possibility that you could be wrong..

I can always be wrong .. I'm a mere human like you.

But God knows every choice his creations will make, so he cannot blame them for their predetermined choices from his perspective.

Nope .. you do not describe G-d .. you describe a mere projection of your own.

We have responsibility for our deeds.
..and G-d has the ultimate responsibility. All Praise is due to Him.

 

[Copernicus]

I've already explained that you are supposing that G-d has a past and future, in the same way as we do.
..but these are human perceptions, and not necessarily absolute.

Furthermore, the way G-d interacts with something that He has created i.e. space-time, has not been documented .. but you are telling it how it must be.

Don't accuse others of anthropomorphizing your God, if the only means you have of describing him is with anthropomorphic traits. You are just enjoying your magical cake that allows you to eat it and still have it to eat when you are done with it.

..and finally, it does not matter if G-d cannot commit any action other than that He knows .. because
that which He knows could have been chosen of His own free-will.

"Could have been done..." That's a past perfect time and tense reference along with a modal signifying that God could have decided not to do what he knew that he would do. Thank you, and enjoy your grammar lesson concerning time and tense reference that takes place in your God's own personal timeline that is different from ours.

One path forward in what??
G-d is not part of the space-time continuum.
I don't need to know what G-d knows or doesn't know in absolute terms, but I don't
believe in multiple gods .. neither do I believe all we see is mere coincidence.

I also don't really need to know HOW He knows.

Yet you can't stop telling me that you know all about why I am wrong about God's traits and attributes. And you just know that there is only one god, because...well, you just know, even though you don't know. That makes perfect sense. To you, anyway.

Compared to human beings, G-d is Omniscient .. that is, All-knowing .. and He
created the universe.
That is "more-knowing" than you.

And you comparing your incomparable God to human beings but still accusing others of anthropomorphizing him.

I can always be wrong .. I'm a mere human like you.

A grudging admission, but I'm glad you admit to the possibility.

Nope .. you do not describe G-d .. you describe a mere projection of your own.

I'm just trying to make sense of your projection, which you admit you may have gotten wrong. I'm not telling you that you can't describe your God the way you do, only that it doesn't make sense to me and a lot of other people, including a lot of other believers who disagree with your version.

We have responsibility for our deeds.
..and G-d has the ultimate responsibility. All Praise is due to Him.

Sorry, but the particular version of your God that you describe does not sound all that worthy of worship, since he disclaims responsibility for the evil deeds of his creations that he knew they would commit and yet did nothing to impede those acts. To me, that sounds like depraved indifference to human suffering.

 

[muhammad_isa]

"Could have been done..." That's a past perfect time and tense reference along with a modal signifying that God could have decided not to do what he knew that he would do.

OK .. G-d chooses of His own free will .. G-d chose of His own free-will .. G-d will choose of His own free-will.
They all apply, as you have pointed out, the tense is irrelevant.

I'm just trying to make sense of your projection, which you admit you may have gotten wrong. I'm not telling you that you can't describe your God the way you do, only that it doesn't make sense to me and a lot of other people, including a lot of other believers who disagree with your version.

All I can do is try to explain .. there are billions of people who believe as I do
i.e. orthodox Muslims

..To me, that sounds like depraved indifference to human suffering.

G-d or no G-d, suffering is a fact of life.
What concerns me more, is how to alleviate suffering .. and disbelief does not provide the answers.
..for me.
This life is short compared to eternity .. and none of us know what will follow after death.
That is down to faith (or not).

 

[Copernicus]

OK .. G-d chooses of His own free will .. G-d chose of His own free-will .. G-d will choose of His own free-will.
They all apply, as you have pointed out, the tense is irrelevant.

No, I pointed out that tense is relevant, because you use it to describe your God's actions. That is the whole point, and you can't wriggle out of it by claiming that tense only applies to our timeline. God's timeline may be considered separate from ours in your narrative, but it is still a timeline. And you are still describing your God as behaving like a human being. You just don't want to admit that to others, and perhaps not even to yourself.

All I can do is try to explain .. there are billions of people who believe as I do
i.e. orthodox Muslims

I did not realize that you had such a large following. I kind of got the impression from reading history that Islam was a very diverse religion with lots of internal strife. Lots of other Muslims have different ideas and opinions about the nature of God, and they use the same anthropomorphisms in describing their version of God that you do. You do not speak for all of them.

G-d or no G-d, suffering is a fact of life.

The existence of suffering makes perfect sense in a godless universe. The problem is with the God version of the universe. That is why theodicy is a thing.

What concerns me more, is how to alleviate suffering .. and disbelief does not provide the answers.
..for me.
This life is short compared to eternity .. and none of us know what will follow after death.
That is down to faith (or not).

Disbelief doesn't try to alleviate suffering. Religions exist, in part, for that purpose, and that is one reason why they are so popular, even if there isn't any real evidence to support such beliefs.

 

[muhammad_isa]

God's timeline may be considered separate from ours in your narrative, but it is still a timeline.

..if you say so .. I do not. I cannot describe infinity, other than it does not behave like a finite 'thing'.

The existence of suffering makes perfect sense in a godless universe.

You said it !
G-d willing, there will be a better life to come, for the believers.
The disbelievers can only expect 'good' in this life, naturally.

 

[Copernicus]

...
You said it !
G-d willing, there will be a better life to come, for the believers. The disbelievers can only expect 'good' in this life, naturally.

The question you are dodging is why God permits suffering in this life, not whether he grants rewards in an afterlife. I think of it as a godlike Wimpy saying "I will gladly end your suffering on Tuesday for your good behavior today." But the divine Wimpy is wasting his breath, because he already knows what you will do and whether he will give out the reward on Tuesday. No need to make promises.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The question you are dodging is why God permits suffering in this life..

Now, you are merely diverting the conversation to another topic.
There are a few reasons that I can think of, but as I'm not G-d, you would be better off
asking Him?

If somebody smashed me into a pulp, either I would no longer suffer .. or maybe I would
continue to suffer .. I have no way of knowing.
The best I can do, is try to avoid it, by paying attention to the Scriptures.

..and of course, eating and drinking in moderation, if I am able etc.

"I will gladly end your suffering on Tuesday for your good behavior today."

It doesn't work like that, in my experience.
..but I do know one thing .. making a folly of faith is not advisable.
It's a personal thing, and we are all entitled to our opinions.
Each to their own.

 

[Ajax]

It doesn't work like that, in my experience.
..but I do know one thing .. making a folly of faith is not advisable.
It's a personal thing, and we are all entitled to our opinions.
Each to their own.

Mocking a belief does not infringe on anyone's right or ability to continue believing. Unfortunately killing someone for blasphemy, does.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Mocking a belief does not infringe on anyone's right or ability to continue believing..

Not directly, no .. so why do it?
The way I see it, it's not good for the person that does it ..

Community is important .. just as family is important.

 

[Copernicus]

Not directly, no .. so why do it?
The way I see it, it's not good for the person that does it ..

Community is important .. just as family is important.

Straw man. Nobody has argued that community or family are unimportant.

As for the "making folly of faith" remark, I hope you understood that my 'Wimpy' analogy was not meant to denigrate you or your religion, but to express the way in which I feel about the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient God giving benefits to people in exchange for worship. To me, it is just another way in which believers anthropomorphize their God--treating him as some kind of human monarch from whom they can gain favor by acts of obeisance. Wimpy, of course, is an iconic example of someone who gains the trust of others by promising some future reciprocal act of questionable value. To me, it is an absurd idea, and I think it fair in this context to express that feeling. My apologies to you if it came off as disrespectful.