Have I "debunked" God's existence?

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;163152 wrote:

If God has free will, yet knows all of his actions through his omniscience, can He freely act against his knowledge?

Volition is not a property in which God possesses. God is not a thing, so God can not possess any properties.

God's relationship to free will is that he is it. You could say that freedom is only achieved through God.

God is omniscient but only about what exists. Boethius famously argued that God has no foreknowledge of future events because the future does not yet exist. You can play with that however you'd like, but it does bring up an alternative view of your paradox.

2 Replies

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;163161 wrote:

Volition is not a property in which God possesses. God is not a thing, so God can not possess any properties.

God's relationship to free will is that he is it. You could say that freedom is only achieved through God.

God is omniscient but only about what exists. Boethius famously argued that God has no foreknowledge of future events because the future does not yet exist. You can play with that however you'd like, but it does bring up an alternative view of your paradox.

I see, but if God is nor thing nor possessive of properties to postulate hitherto existence, what, or whom, is God?

2 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;163172 wrote:

I see, but if God is nor thing nor possessive of properties to postulate hitherto existence, what, or whom, is God?

That is what we have been trying to figure out throughout the history of man. The only true answer is that there can never be a complete answer.

We can only come to know God by looking at what he is not because he isn't immediately present. The idea of the divine has always been understood as merely existing as traces through our material lives.

This has traditionally been the idea of describing Gods nature Via Negativ a, and in my opinion this has historically been the most rational way to describe it.

In short, you could say God is existence. But then what is existence?

3 Replies

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;163174 wrote:

This has traditionally been the idea of describing Gods nature Via Negativ a, and in my opinion this has historically been the most rational way to describe it.

That's my favorite too. I like the polygon with an infinite number of sides in Cusa. Negative theology meets proto-calculus. I feel that it's little known how sophisticated some theology is. There are no shortage of those who feel that religion has been nothing more than some hypocrite on television.

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

"God" is an idea for the ideal Man (as in Mankind since one single man cannot be God).

As a planet united in mutual love and respect and understanding where all man is created equal and treated equally then God would have been created.

It seems to me that the world is headed that way by unattended emergence. Perhaps another 1,000 years and God will be manifested.

0 Replies

@MMP2506,

God is omniscient but only about what exists. Boethius famously argued that God has no foreknowledge of future events because the future does not yet exist. You can play with that however you'd like, but it does bring up an alternative view of your paradox.[/QUOTE]

God is eternal (at the end as at the beginning) therefore future events post no problem to Him, He is outside of time which is mans measurement between two happenings.

2 Replies

@mark gamson,

mark gamson;163378 wrote:

God is omniscient but only about what exists. Boethius famously argued that God has no foreknowledge of future events because the future does not yet exist. You can play with that however you'd like, but it does bring up an alternative view of your paradox.

God is eternal (at the end as at the beginning) therefore future events post no problem to Him, He is outside of time which is mans measurement between two happenings.

Right, he will be at the end of time. I don't completely understand everything about Boethius, but what he says does make sense.

Omniscient means knowledge of everything. The future, is not a thing, it has not yet occurred. Anything that occurs at all is known by God, but God is something which things do not occur to. He simply is One with occurring. The future exists now only in potential, and God is omnipotent, which means that through his power all potential can be realized, but it is not yet realized, so cannot be known.

0 Replies

@mark gamson,

Quote:

God is eternal (at the end as at the beginning) therefore future events post no problem to Him, He is outside of time which is mans measurement between two happenings.

How Saint Augustine of you. In saying that he is outside time you imply that he created time as a part of the physical universe, rather than something in which the beginning/creation of the universe and its end would happen in. However, how can such a being interact with this timely, physical universe to cause anything at all? And if time does not necessitate existence for God, then why would he deviate from what works for him and create a universe that has time in it? -You might say that the creation or start of something presupposes time, they are created in unison (the creation of something and its mark in time). So....God cannot create anything and not create time as well, to ask otherwise would be impossible, thus he is not omnipotent. The questions go on and on.

If you cannot supply an adequate theory as to how this interaction between a non physical, untimely creator and his physical, timely creation can take place, other than the usual 'God is omnipotent and the laws of physics which he is responsible for do not apply to him', then I'd say refrain from using the God is outside time thing. It's weak at best and almost equivalent to a child changing the rules of a game during play.

1 Reply

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;163172 wrote:

I see, but if God is nor thing nor possessive of properties to postulate hitherto existence, what, or whom, is God?

I quite agree that an adequate conception of god is not ours to offer (neti, neti).
Nevertheless I think the most acceptable presentation is something along the lines of god as the ordering, rational and creative principle of the universe.
So you may have pointed out some contradictions in the traditional conception of god, but there are many other notions of divine action and divine attributes.

0 Replies

@Allergic2BS,

Allergic2BS;165220 wrote:

How Saint Augustine of you. In saying that he is outside time you imply that he created time as a part of the physical universe, rather than something in which the beginning/creation of the universe and its end would happen in. However, how can such a being interact with this timely, physical universe to cause anything at all? And if time does not necessitate existence for God, then why would he deviate from what works for him and create a universe that has time in it? -You might say that the creation or start of something presupposes time, they are created in unison (the creation of something and its mark in time). So....God cannot create anything and not create time as well, to ask otherwise would be impossible, thus he is not omnipotent. The questions go on and on.

If you cannot supply an adequate theory as to how this interaction between a non physical, untimely creator and his physical, timely creation can take place, other than the usual 'God is omnipotent and the laws of physics which he is responsible for do not apply to him', then I'd say refrain from using the God is outside time thing. It's weak at best and almost equivalent to a child changing the rules of a game during play.

Thank you sir for your kind remarks,

God is omnipresent inside and outside of time and if God is God what has impossible got to do with it, have you read a Bible, He can will as He chooses. I can also see you like to play games, let me say one mans weakness is another mans strength.

By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches and honor and life.

0 Replies

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;163174 wrote:

This has traditionally been the idea of describing Gods nature Via Negativa, and in my opinion this has historically been the most rational way to describe it.

In short, you could say God is existence. But then what is existence?

Spot on, in my view. So here you are entering the threshold of contemplation, in this very question. The point about the 'way of negation' is that it is not intellectual. One of the things it negates is all your opinionation, to coin a word, about that of which we know nothing. But 'the gate is narrow' and the way hard, and few will go through with it. According to the practitioners of this discipline, there is a (metaphorical) desert to cross, which consists of 'subduing the passions' or slaying the dragons of the unconscious, and other trials.

This is all central to the Taoist, Buddhist, and Orthodox traditions. Also Meister Eckhard, the Cloud of Unknowing, and the Buddhist way of negation which is the Madhyamika. They all have their own unique way of putting it though. Well worth reading up on in my view.

---------- Post added 05-19-2010 at 10:07 AM ----------

a philosophical note which hardly anyone gets - 'God' neither exists, nor doesn't exist. Everything that exists has a beginning and an end in time and is composed of parts. 'God' is not like that. The most common argument against God amongst ignorant modern people is that they can't imagine something like that, therefore it can't exist. (This is the essence of Dawkins' supremely sophisticated philosophical outlook.)

---------- Post added 05-19-2010 at 10:26 AM ----------

and actually the via negativa, for this very reason, is not rational. Which is not to say it is irrational. But it does not rely on reason in the sense that the word is commonly defined. Perhaps 'trans-rational'.

0 Replies

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;163174 wrote:

In short, you could say God is existence. But then what is existence?

Well put. What is existence? Isn't it strange that we look for the "supernatural" when the "natural" is already so mysterious?

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

Who is it you are trying to convince? Presumably your demographic is the religious, which, if true, can easily circumvent your argument by stating, 'our minds are to feeble to understand god's ways', or something of the sort. Remember that they have a monopoly over god's attributes and orders. It is very likely impossible to prove either way.

1 Reply

@gavin25,

gavin25;166324 wrote:

Who is it you are trying to convince? .

Depends on who you mean by 'you'. There are a number of people contributing to this thread.

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 04:39 PM ----------

Oh I see. You are addressing the OP directly. Sorry, I didn't think of that.

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;163152 wrote:

If God has free will, yet knows all of his actions through his omniscience, can He freely act against his knowledge?

1) how should we know?

2) if he has desires, and his better judgement contradicts the desire, then yes.

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

Quote:

Who is it you are trying to convince? Presumably your demographic is the religious, which, if true, can easily circumvent your argument by stating, 'our minds are to feeble to understand god's ways', or something of the sort. Remember that they have a monopoly over god's attributes and orders.

You sure do paint with a pretty wide brush. Was there nothing more constructive to say?

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;163152 wrote:

If God has free will, yet knows all of his actions through his omniscience, can He freely act against his knowledge?

Sorry, but this doesn't debunk God's existence at all. God knows all of his past, present, and future actions BECAUSE he has omniscience and free will. By definition, his free will allows him to act however he wants, which allows him to decide what he wants to do at any point in time. (Presumably, he has already made this decision.)

God's knowledge of his actions seems to be more of a plan than a steady-state, unchanging knowledge. He has knowledge of all his actions because he has a plan concerning them.

He doesn't "change his mind" because doing so would imply that his original plans were insufficient and therefore required changing. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, however, all his plans are perfect, and therefore not in need of changing.

I typed that in a hurry...might need to clarify it later.

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;163152 wrote:

If God has free will, yet knows all of his actions through his omniscience, can He freely act against his knowledge?

There is no proof that God is omniscient, this is just an unsubstantiated claim of mainstream philosophy/religion. In my view, God is NOT omniscient.

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

MMP2506 wrote:

God is not a thing, so God can not possess any properties.

Well this is certainly true. And because there is no God that possesses any properties, we can happily (truly, I'm very happy) conclude that no God exists.

Whew, I'm glad that's over with.

1 Reply

Have I "debunked" God's existence?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know