Omniscience

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
Quote:

The fact the God knew what man would do played no part in man's decision to do evil.

SO in creating a creature capable and prone to 'evil', with complete foreknowledge of this 'flaw', your deity is somehow absolved of all responsibility for this flaw? How exactly?

That's like creating a bomb and blaming it for exploding.

BTW you accusing me of illogic was intentional satire, right?

You'll never meet a more logical mofo than myself, of that I can assure you

Man was not 'prone to evil'.

Man chose evil. It's called free will.

Freewill is fantasy. Anyhooo...
Would you not say that evil, in order to be chosen(assuming the specious concept of 'freewill'), must have preceded man? At least within the mind and foreknowledge of your deity?
Would not the ability and aptitude (you said yourself, all men sin) for evil be an intentional part of our design?
Unless of course you are implying a flawed design? (flawed designer?)

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:
Doktor S wrote:
Quote:

The fact the God knew what man would do played no part in man's decision to do evil.

SO in creating a creature capable and prone to 'evil', with complete foreknowledge of this 'flaw', your deity is somehow absolved of all responsibility for this flaw? How exactly?

That's like creating a bomb and blaming it for exploding.

BTW you accusing me of illogic was intentional satire, right?

You'll never meet a more logical mofo than myself, of that I can assure you

Man was not 'prone to evil'.

Man chose evil. It's called free will.

Freewill is fantasy. Anyhooo...
Would you not say that evil, in order to be chosen(assuming the specious concept of 'freewill'), must have preceded man? At least within the mind and foreknowledge of your deity?
Would not the ability and aptitude (you said yourself, all men sin) for evil be an intentional part of our design?
Unless of course you are implying a flawed design? (flawed designer?)

Since you don't believe that we have a free will, then why do you attempt to persuade others that your view is correct if they couldn't choose to adopt that view?

Have you ever criticized someone for their point of view, or their actions? Wasn't that a rather pointless and mindless thing to do if they had no alternative?

0 Replies

Dok can't be right all the time. That is left up to me. Laughing

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

A: Works pretty good, real. It allows for God to have the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively.

Chumly wrote:

Given that this precept of yours would be pivotal to your understanding god's word, I must assume "scriptural evidence" of this would be clear, definitive and in abundance. Show me.

neologist wrote:

Starting with one from 2Peter 3:9: "Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance."

The words repent and obey would have little meaning if our fates were already determined, would they not?

You are making an inference based on scriptural text, note that there are many contradictions to your specific inference vis-a-vis the tree of knowledge and it's implications of the lack of free will.

Remember I did not ask about inferences as per free will or the lack thereof. I asked "Given that this precept of yours would be pivotal to your understanding god's word, I must assume "scriptural evidence" of this would be clear, definitive and in abundance."

By that, where in the Bible does it abundantly, explicitly and unequivocally say "God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively"? Given that this precept of yours would be paramount to your understanding god's word, surely it's spelled out in no uncertain terms!

neologist wrote:

Sorry, chum. You know you may choose your libation any time you visit me in Seattle.

Sure, I wander down to Washington / Oregon from time to time.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Since you don't believe that we have a free will, then why do you attempt to persuade others that your view is correct if they couldn't choose to adopt that view?

If what you say is true that Doc does not "believe that we have a free will" then logically he does not have the free will not to "attempt to persuade others" irrelative of the outcome of his efforts. The Myth of Sisyphus comes to mind.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Since you don't believe that we have a free will, then why do you attempt to persuade others that your view is correct if they couldn't choose to adopt that view?
If what you say is true that Doc does not "believe that we have a free will" then logically he does not have the free will not to "attempt to persuade others" irrelative of the outcome of his efforts. The Myth of Sisyphus comes to mind.

You are free to choose your own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You are free to choose your own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark.

And how do you know I am "free to choose (my) own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark"?
What argument do you put forward that I am "free to choose (my) own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark"? Simply your personal belief I have free will? That's not worth the phosphors it's illumined with unless you can rationally substantiate it.

Go ahead, stake your claim that I am "free to choose (my) own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark". I have not had lunch yet and things are not going well today so you get this. You were prolly being funny.

Thus the lack of food, and things not going well (in whole or in part) determined my response.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

You are making an inference based on scriptural text, note that there are many contradictions to your specific inference vis-a-vis the tree of knowledge and it's implications of the lack of free will. . .

If anything, the story of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad is an argument for free will.

0 Replies

And who's free will are you refering to? But again, where in the Bible does it abundantly, explicitly and unequivocally say "God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively"? Given that this precept of yours would be paramount to your understanding god's word, surely it's spelled out in no uncertain terms!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

And who's free will are you refering to? But again, where in the Bible does it abundantly, explicitly and unequivocally say "God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively"? Given that this precept of yours would be paramount to your understanding god's word, surely it's spelled out in no uncertain terms!

I don't know what you expect. The bible doesn't forbid crack use explicitly. Anyone care to guess whether it might be ok?

0 Replies

Some things are very clearly spelled out such as shellfish and pork being an abomination. As to your reference to crack, I would expect that if the Bible is indeed the word of god, there would be a bit on it, yes.

As to why the Bible does not advise on crack but advises on pork and shellfish, I have no idea. Remember it's not my responsislbty to answer those questions to you, it's your god who saw fit to advise you on shellfish and pork but not on crack.

But getting back to my point (which you cannot deter me from with irrelevancies as to why there is no reference to crack but there is to pork) you have made it abundantly clear a number of times that "God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively".

Surely if the word of god can explicitly and unequivocally advise on pork and shellfish, the word of god in the Bible must explicitly and unequivocally advise on something so important as per "God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively".

So which is more important in terms of Christianity:

a) Don't eat pork?
b) God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively?

Also I note you did not answer my question as per "And who's free will are you referring to? "

0 Replies

The dietary regulations of the law were removed after Jesus' death. If that subject is important to you, start another thread. As for crack, the admonition to Christians to avoid spiritism was conveyed by the Greek word 'pharmakia'. Sound familiar? Were that not enough, both the OT and NT condemn drunkenness. If God were to have included crack in the scriptures, what would he have called it? Perhaps you can counsel God.

To demonstrate the concept of God given free will, it is necessary only to show that God offers choice. Whether you believe the bible is God's word or not, that it says as much should be evident.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

The dietary regulations of the law were removed after Jesus' death. If that subject is important to you, start another thread. As for crack, the admonition to Christians to avoid spiritism was conveyed by the Greek word 'pharmakia'. Sound familiar? Were that not enough, both the OT and NT condemns drunkenness. If God were to have included crack in the scriptures, what would he have called it? Perhaps you can counsel God.

Should I then start making reference to the version of the Bible you believe is the word of god, so that I can further my argument that there are many items of lesser importance with explicit references?

I would expect you to accept the argument that there are a number of items of lesser importance than "God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively" that are explicit in whatever version of the Bible you believe is the word of god. If you are still not willing to accept this consider: you yourself mention that the Bible explicitly and unequivocally and scripturally both in the OT and NT condemn drunkenness.

neologist wrote:

To demonstrate the concept of God given free will, it is necessary only to show that God offers choice. Whether you believe the bible is God's word or not, that it says as much should be evident.

Again if you agree there are many items of lesser importance with explicit references in the version of the Bible you believe is the word of god, why would the Bible not explicitly and unequivocally and scripturally advise "God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively"?

Why would the word of god leave such an apparently pivotal idealization to speculative theological rumination, when there are so many items of lesser importance with explicit references? It makes no sense.

You have not made your case that the Bible explicitly and unequivocally and scripturally advises that "God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively", nor have you made your case that it does not need to be explicit given the fact that there are many items of lesser importance with explicit references.

So which is more important in terms of Christianity:

a) Don't get drunk?
b) God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively?

Also I note you did not answer my question as per "And who's free will are you referring to? "

BTW if I wander down Seattle way and say hi, I'm not much into introspective / theological / philosophical face to face. A smile and a beverage works.

0 Replies

I'm sorry the bible wasn't written to your specifications.

The bible teaches something as inconsequential as the hairs of our head are numbered.

It also admonishes us to choose to obey.

Under the premise that the bible is God's true message to us, no other conclusion makes sense. That's why even Dok beats up on real life over it.

Of course, if you don't believe the bible, you can chart your own course here.

0 Replies

Oh, and if you come to Seattle, I promise not to hit you with my bible. Laughing

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

To demonstrate the concept of God given free will, it is necessary only to show that God offers choice. Whether you believe the bible is God's word or not, that it says as much should be evident.

Well said. Cool

0 Replies

Well then, since Neo has failed to make the case that the Bible explicitly and unequivocally and scripturally advises that "God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively", and has failed to make the case that it does not need to be explicit given the fact that there are many items of lesser importance with explicit references, I challenge you to show why the word of god leaves such an apparently pivotal idealization to speculative theological rumination, when there are so many items of lesser importance with explicit references.

So which is more important in terms of Christianity:

a) Don't get drunk?
b) God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively?

0 Replies

I am equally mistified by the preoccupation with literal interpretations of the Bible both by Protestant believers and by secularists who wish to prove an atheistic view of existence. I am a Christian, but I recognize that the Bible was written by men, not by God. The books of the new Testament were written in the period beginning about thirty years after Christ's death. The selection of exactly what writings were included in the new Testament was done by men and the process was, to a degree, arbitrary. Both Old and New teataments have numerous apparent contradictions and omissions. They either have no particular meaning other than as historical curiosities or they are meaningful in a deeper sense and often must be interpreted allegorically or symbolically. It is basically meaningless to quibble over a particular omission of specification: there are many to choose from, but they do not alter the basic message of the New Testament.

I don't wish to resurrect an earlier argument about first causes and metaphysics, but would remind Chumley that science offers as many gaps and contradictions as he sees in the Bible - and most of them are far more consequential than those cited here.

0 Replies

You can take anything, at any time, to be allegorical-interpretive in any way you choose. Nevertheless Neo and RL, as per the Bible, have claimed the Bible is the word of god, and often argue it on a literalist perspective when convenient, but then argue it on an
allegorical-interpretive basis when convenient. Hence my challenge to them remains unanswered on the basis of their literalist idealizations.

As to your claim that "science offers as many gaps and contradictions as he sees in the Bible" in order to substantiate your claim, you would need to fill in the blanks on the side of Christianity:

- Show me any rational proof of the existence of a Christian god.

- Show me any rational proof of the predictive ability of Christianity.

I'll fill in the blanks on the side of science:

- I show you the rational proof of the existence of science: The demonstrable, repeatable scientific principles of electromagnetism that allow the design, construction, and implementation of ignition coils for gasoline engines.

- I show you the rational proof of the predictive ability of science: F = MA.

0 Replies

Chumley,

I believe you are demanding a meaningless symmetry here, The result is merely a semantical exercise. I certainly don't deny the existence or (limited) predictive ability of Science. Moreover, I don't assert the existence of any predictive ability on the part of religion, Christian or otherwise. Further, I don't even assert an ability to prove the existence of "a Christian God" as you term it.

We have been over this before. I believe there are fewer leaps of faith required for the belief in a creator than are required for belief in the ability of science to one day unlock the mystery and origin of our existence (and that of the material world).

I most certainly do not accept the Protestant, Calvinist-Fundamentalist version of Christianity or the literalism with respect to scriptural text that often accompanies it. Despite this, I am a Christian. That is a matter of belief and conscious acceptance of the ethical and spiritual values embodied in the essential features of Christianity as I perceive them. I wouldn't force these beliefs on anyone else, and I wouldn't silently accept anyone's attempt to force something else on me.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know