Would an Omnipotent being have a Need/Want to do ANYTHING?

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to instantc]

Think of it this way instantc. Compare God to a computer programmer.

Say I write a program or a line of code and I know everything there is to know about this creation. I know what it will do when executed. After my creation of it, I do not alter it or stop it in any way, it is free to act as it will. This does not resolve him of responsibility when the program turns out to be a virus and harms a network, because he knew what it was when he created it and executed it. This is the same with people. An omniscient creator would know what he is creating and would therefore know the consequences of his creation and be responsible for them.

[instantc]

[Replying to instantc]

Think of it this way instantc. Compare God to a computer programmer.

Say I write a program or a line of code and I know everything there is to know about this creation. I know what it will do when executed. After my creation of it, I do not alter it or stop it in any way, it is free to act as it will. This does not resolve him of responsibility when the program turns out to be a virus and harms a network, because he knew what it was when he created it and executed it. This is the same with people. An omniscient creator would know what he is creating and would therefore know the consequences of his creation and be responsible for them.

If you think of people as computer programs, then there is no free will in any case. My point is, God's knowledge is not the decisive factor here, it doesn't add or remove anything from the free will equation.

[instantc]

When it is no longer possible for you to act contrary to God's plan you are not free. As Goat said, its only an illusion of freedom.

I think the problem with your thinking is that you are drawing a false connection between the lack of free will that you describe and God's knowledge of your actions. In my opinion free will is an incoherent concept in any case. As long as your actions are based on any reasons whatsoever, those reasons necessarily determine the said actions in advance. If on the other hand free will is possible, then God's omniscience certainly doesn't do anything to hamper with it. It is true that if it's impossible for you to act contrary to God's plan, then you are not free. However, the mere fact that God knows which option you will freely choose doesn't exclude the freedom of that choice.

In essence, I think free will doesn't exist even as a coherent concept. But if it does, God's omniscience certainly wouldn't add or remove anything from it.

Consider time travelling, which might be possible in theory. Suppose you travel into the future and watch your friend walk into a cafe and order a cappuccino. When you travel back to the present moment, you know for sure which choice your friend will make, as you've already seen him make it and nothing has changed in the scenario. Does that mean that your friend's choice of coffee is not freely made anymore? Would the possibility of time travelling also exclude freedom of will?

[instantc]

I wrote, ...an omnipotent, perfect god. That's how the scholastics got themselves into so many logical conundrums. Their god was perfect. Perfection means among other things, he has no needs, no desires; he lacks nothing; therefore, he does not need to and no desire for freely given love.

Stated differently since he needs nothing, he has no need to create. That is the problem with positing such an absolute and perfect god. If god needed or wanted to create us, then he must have had needs and wants and therefore was not perfect.

I'm not claiming any of this has anything to do with reality. It's just a logic puzzle they created for themselves by reaching too far in conjuring such a perfect god.

BUT [and that's a BIG but]* I believe you have had more training than I have had in formal logic, so I'm interested in reading what you think about this.

I think 'perfect' can only be meaningfully defined in a specific context. For example, a tool can in theory be perfect for changing a tire or hammering a nail, but a tool cannot just be perfect, that doesn't make much sense.

In any case, I don't think that a logical contradiction can be found here. Even if there were a contradiction, it wouldn't be destructive for theism to give up God's omnipotence and continue to believe that a very powerful creator exists.

I agree with this. In fact that is my point. Christianity got themselves into more than one sticky wicket by overreaching and claiming to believe in an absolutely 'perfect' god. When I was a Christian I handled this [to my satisfaction, if no one else's] by assuming god was as great as he could be and still be 'god.' This is also a way to handle the problem of evil; that god is the greatest force in the universe, but even god has limitations.

I wonder why that argument is not brought up by theist more often as a response to the Problem of Evil, it seems at least a better option for a debater than admitting that God doesn't exist.

[Boosh]

In essence, I think free will doesn't exist even as a coherent concept. But if it does, God's omniscience certainly wouldn't add or remove anything from it.

That's a much easier case to make than pushing your current argument imo. Supposing free will does exist I think it cannot coexist with a truly omniscient creator.

Consider time travelling, which might be possible in theory. Suppose you travel into the future and watch your friend walk into a cafe and order a cappuccino. When you travel back to the present moment, you know for sure which choice your friend will make, as you've already seen him make it and nothing has changed in the scenario. Does that mean that your friend's choice of coffee is not freely made anymore? Would the possibility of time travelling also exclude freedom of will?

There's a difference here between you and God. You didn't create your friend, all his attributes and his future can exist independent of you. If God is true your friend's existence is entirely dependent on him. Your comparison doesn't fly when you consider this. You must make a comparison that says something you create for a purpose can do whatever it wants regardless of how you designed it. Even if you do that its kind of shaky because you aren't omniscient, you could make mistakes in your design. God is not allowed this concession. He must get it right.

[ttruscott]

...

Thanks Ted. As I said in my most recent reply to Instanc, I did not choose this definition. I simply used one that a segment of Christianity insisted upon. It's quite possible to believe in a lesser god, one that is simply the most powerful god that logic permits; a limited 'god;' a god that merely has hegemony over other gods or entities, or forces.

In fact as a non theist I am open to the idea that there is a god, but not one with a personality; not a god that is personal.

You did not choose this definition? Then you offer another definition? Which means, does it not, that you had a reason to refer to this definition and not any other...which is all I claimed.

I too think this definition of perfection as taught by the churches that be IS inimical to good sense and the Christian religion but I do not dwell on that to downgrade Christianity but to motivate some serious non-inimical thought about these things...along the style you later offered but within the idea of a personal GOD.

Peace, Ted

[instantc]

In essence, I think free will doesn't exist even as a coherent concept. But if it does, God's omniscience certainly wouldn't add or remove anything from it.

That's a much easier case to make than pushing your current argument imo. Supposing free will does exist I think it cannot coexist with a truly omniscient creator.

Consider time travelling, which might be possible in theory. Suppose you travel into the future and watch your friend walk into a cafe and order a cappuccino. When you travel back to the present moment, you know for sure which choice your friend will make, as you've already seen him make it and nothing has changed in the scenario. Does that mean that your friend's choice of coffee is not freely made anymore? Would the possibility of time travelling also exclude freedom of will?

There's a difference here between you and God. You didn't create your friend, all his attributes and his future can exist independent of you. If God is true your friend's existence is entirely dependent on him. Your comparison doesn't fly when you consider this. You must make a comparison that says something you create for a purpose can do whatever it wants regardless of how you designed it.

Goat originally suggested that there would be a contradiction between free will and God's omniscience, but now you seem to be suggesting that what excludes free will is not God's knowledge but the fact that he created us.

You seem to accept that time travelling doesn't exclude free will. Consequently, the fact that a person knows the outcome of your future choice for certainty doesn't exclude the freedom of that choice. In other words, an omniscient person could coexist with free will.

For clarification, are you saying that if person A created person B, then the choices of person B are not freely made, or is that the case only if person A created person B and had complete knowledge of his future actions?

[Joman]

Atheism presents a strawgod.
Atheism's strawgod is illogical according to the reasoning of atheism.
Yet, they never notice? Really?

It is irrational to argue that God is omnipotent and then reason he must do as creatures predict.

[Joman]

The God of the Holy Bible is not the imaginary god of atheism nor theism.

What would a perfect God desire?
Perfection!

Now, how hard was that to figure out?

What is hard is perfecting imperfect creatures.

Of course atheist and whatnot think god is magical.
In that simpleminded view a god merely waves a whatever and poof!
They like that because that agrees with their simpleminded theory that everything in nature poofs into existence, poofs into a new thing from time to time etc etc ad nauseum.

The true God of the Holy Bible is far beyond such simple headed notions.
But, the atheists and other unbelievers can't go there because, if they raise their comprehension to high they have to give up foolish notions of existence without God.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to instantc]

Think of it this way instantc. Compare God to a computer programmer.

Say I write a program or a line of code and I know everything there is to know about this creation. I know what it will do when executed. After my creation of it, I do not alter it or stop it in any way, it is free to act as it will. This does not resolve him of responsibility when the program turns out to be a virus and harms a network, because he knew what it was when he created it and executed it. This is the same with people. An omniscient creator would know what he is creating and would therefore know the consequences of his creation and be responsible for them.

AGREED!

BUT GOD is loving and the harm done to people HE loves by 'writing' them to follow such a program (life) makes it impossible to believe that this is how it was done. The self revealed attributes of GOD deny this approach.

But the churches hold onto it because they've been sucked into ancient (Platonic Greek) ideas about the nature of perfection and omniscience rather than asking GOD HIMself about it all. Omniscience is in fact a made up word not found in the Bible at all.

It is the definitions of perfection and omniscience that are wrong, not HIM, not HIS program, not the theology, but the religion.

GOD did NOT decree or create the results of anybody's true free will decisions so HE did not know, except as possibilities, what they would choose.

And that is enough to satisfy the Biblical renditions of "all knowing" as per: Acts 15:18 'Known unto God are all his [created] works from the beginning of the world.' no matter how Plato side tracked the Church into philosophic foolishness for so many centuries.

A tempest in a tea cup at least has an allusion to something real, tea and teacups, but this flailing about at the meaning of GOD's omniscience defined by Greek philosophy which rejects that same GOD has nothing at its core at all.

It would be more productive to all try to dance on the heads of pins...

Peace, Ted