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

[Boosh]

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?

What I read in Goat's post was that because God is omniscient and created you free will is impossible. That's one of the first things he said when I was quoted. My position has always been that God as the omniscient creator contradicts free will. I don't remember ever stating different. Maybe it came out that way at some point but it was never my intent.

An omniscient person could coexist with free will. If God is not real then people are not created to follow any unchangeable path. Life is what someone makes of it, not what God planned for them the instant the universe began. You could be omniscient and know what Bob is about to do, but you didn't create him to do it. Whatever choice Bob makes is still his. I think you may have an objection to this line of reasoning, I'll wait and see what you say before expounding on this paragraph.

To clarify, I contend if Person A created B with 100% accurate knowledge of all their future actions then no, B does not have free will. It may appear so to B that he has free will, but its illusory. B was only "free" to pick what A explicitly created his existence for. Not really free if you ask me.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to instantc]

I would have to agree with the conclusion you have come to that there is no such thing as true free will. Free will, in essence, is an illusion. As Schopenhauer excellently put it, "Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

The deterministic nature of the world is an inevitable, logical conclusion.
Maybe I missed a post, or jumped in at the wrong time, but I was merely pointing out the seeming contradiction between purported omniscience/omnipotence and benevolence. Any hypothetical deity cannot be both.

@Joman
Atheism presents no god. Its proponents merely point out the inherent illogicality of the one presented by other religions (in this case Christianity)
It is irrational to argue that an omnipotent, benevolent, perfect God would create an imperfect, evil creation.


@ttruscott
The problem with your theory is with the nature of possibility itself. Possibilities are simply predictions of possible outcomes based upon a LACK of total knowledge. If you claim God only knows what is POSSIBLE to happen, then he is not omniscient because he is lacking the complete knowledge to fully understand the outcome. If your problem is truly with the definition of omniscience, than you should probably take it up with the guys who wrote the book upon which you have based your life, not the people who are correctly using the word today.

[ttruscott]

...

@ttruscott
The problem with your theory is with the nature of possibility itself. Possibilities are simply predictions of possible outcomes based upon a LACK of total knowledge. If you claim God only knows what is POSSIBLE to happen, then he is not omniscient because he is lacking the complete knowledge to fully understand the outcome. If your problem is truly with the definition of omniscience, than you should probably take it up with the guys who wrote the book upon which you have based your life, not the people who are correctly using the word today.

When I claim He knew everything HE did not decree to be created into reality as a possibility that includes (of course) the working out of all of reality once set into motion. If an electron has possibilities, He knows not only what they all are but which one will be the result of what HE set in motion.

IF HE cannot know possibilities then HIS understanding is bound by / limited by reality...* I contend HE is not limited by reality as you claim but knows also that which is possible but will never become reality, so whose definition is the most full?

As for the guys who wrote the book: if this is a veiled reference to scripture then please quote for me which verse you use to define HIS all knowing omniscience because my definition that "all knowing" refers to that which HE has created, works just fine in every context except Greek philosophy. If you know for instance where scripture quoted Plato, I'd love to see it.

Peace, Ted
* PS: IF HE cannot know possibilities, how could HE ever come to create anything as before creation all there was were possibilities in HIS mind.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 93 by ttruscott]

Colossians 1:16
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him

This claims he created everything. You claim he is all knowing with respect to all things he has created. Ipso facto he is all knowing (omniscient) with respect to everything.
I haven't previously, nor do I now need to quote Plato.
So where do these "possibilities" of yours come into play?

Jeremiah 1:5 - evidence of the Bible claiming God's understanding of people before their creation:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

1 John 3:20 - explicitly states that God is omniscient:
"If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."


The Bible's claims of God's omniscience are very clear, no amount of mental gymnastics can get around that.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 93 by ttruscott]

Colossians 1:16
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him

This claims he created everything. You claim he is all knowing with respect to all things he has created. Ipso facto he is all knowing (omniscient) with respect to everything.

Are you so sure all = everything? All men are saved means every man is saved? 1 Timothy 2:4...who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 1 Tim 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.

Lk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

Mark 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Acts 22:15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

All???

Heh 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

IF all things like us humans means everything like us then confusion reigns: Was Jesus Christ begat of a man? How about, was He born of a woman who was not a virgin when He was born? Was He conceived in sin and shapen in inequity like the rest of us? For all these things must have been if indeed, He was made in all things like His brethren without limitation!

I haven't previously, nor do I now need to quote Plato.

The assertion that all = everything possible is known as a reality and only reality is known, is a Platonic idea I believe.

So where do these "possibilities" of yours come into play?

GOD did not CREATE the results of our true free will decisions so HE did not know them as reality. Since this was before the creation of the physical universe, there were no physical possibilities to force us to chose anything, and in our spiritual state, to ensure our free will was indeed free from all coercion and constraint, HE did not create any coercions upon or within us by which HE could predict which possibility we would choose to be made real by our true free will decision.

Acts 15:18 'Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.'

HIS works do not include that which HE did not HIMself create. Since HE did not create the results of our true free will decisions but left that for us to create by our choice, HIS knowing all of HIS works does not apply.

Jeremiah 1:5 - evidence of the Bible claiming God's understanding of people before their creation:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

...evidence that we all existed in sheol before our birth on earth as humans.

1 John 3:20 - explicitly states that God is omniscient:
"If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."

Defining this "everything" by Acts 15:18, all HIS works, that is, EXCLUDING that which HE did not create as a work, is more scriptural than defining it as meaning all that can be conceived of being as real as has been erroneously accepted.

A "like" for your post though as clear and good natured!
Peace, Ted

[nayrbsnilloc]

IF all things like us humans means everything like us then confusion reigns: Was Jesus Christ begat of a man? How about, was He born of a woman who was not a virgin when He was born? Was He conceived in sin and shapen in inequity like the rest of us? For all these things must have been if indeed, He was made in all things like His brethren without limitation!

Indeed, confusion does reign. I do not have to explain inconsistencies in the Bible. Quite the contrary, I am pointing them out.

GOD did not CREATE the results of our true free will decisions so HE did not know them as reality. Since this was before the creation of the physical universe, there were no physical possibilities to force us to chose anything, and in our spiritual state, to ensure our free will was indeed free from all coercion and constraint, HE did not create any coercions upon or within us by which HE could predict which possibility we would choose to be made real by our true free will decision.
Acts 15:18 'Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.'

HIS works do not include that which HE did not HIMself create. Since HE did not create the results of our true free will decisions but left that for us to create by our choice, HIS knowing all of HIS works does not apply.

This is in direct conflict with the quote from Colossians which states that "all things have been created through him and for him."

...evidence that we all existed in sheol before our birth on earth as humans.

That is mere speculation with no founding in evidence or even biblical scripture.

1 John 3:20 - explicitly states that God is omniscient:
"If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."
The assertion that all = everything possible is known as a reality and only reality is known, is a Platonic idea I believe.

It is not platonic. It is merely using the definition of the word used. All = everything, inclusive. Nothing excluded without previous stipulation.

If I say I want all of those M&M's it means I want all of them, it is not leaving room for speculation that I REALLY meant all of those [red] M&M's.

Defining this "everything" by Acts 15:18, all HIS works, that is, EXCLUDING that which HE did not create as a work, is more scriptural than defining it as meaning all that can be conceived of being as real as has been erroneously accepted.

What reasoning should there be to define it as anything other than written by the author, as simply "everything"? If the author meant to define it the way they did in Acts with those stipulations, why didn't they?

A "like" for your post though as clear and good natured!

Much appreciated.

[Danmark]

...

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

[emphasis applied]
Ted, I'm not sure I understand you, or your point. I only intended to argue that this absolute perfect god concept is wrong. I see you agree. I don't see the evidence of any god, but at least we can put to rest this ridiculous notion of some mathematically perfect god that leaves no reason for common sense. For a god to be personal and not be evil, he MUST be a lesser god. Frankly, it makes more sense to me to chuck out the concept of a personal god. To me this reduces god to a mere being. I'm with Tillich here* in that if there is a god, he is not a 'being', but the very 'ground of being.'

To suggest a personal god is to claim God IS a mere being. Perhaps the most powerful being in the universe, but a mere being nonetheless. This god is not a god at all; he is just a super powerful alien who can create planets and people.

I'm not trying to 'downgrade' Christianity, I simply think it paints a false picture of reality. If that is a 'downgrade,' then 'mea culpa.'
____________________
*Tillich would disagree with me since he claims there somehow is some middle ground between a God that merges with the universe and a god who exists as a being.

[ttruscott]

...

Ted, I'm not sure I understand you, or your point. I only intended to argue that this absolute perfect god concept is wrong. I see you agree.

...

Not quite...I claim the definition of perfect is wrong, not that GOD is not perfect. As a perfect person, HE is only not perfect if HIS perfection is defined wrongly.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

double post

[Danmark]

...

Ted, I'm not sure I understand you, or your point. I only intended to argue that this absolute perfect god concept is wrong. I see you agree.

...

Not quite...I claim the definition of perfect is wrong, not that GOD is not perfect. As a perfect person, HE is only not perfect if HIS perfection is defined wrongly.

Peace, Ted

Interesting. Are you saying then that his perfection is not absolute?
Do you have a biblical basis for defining his perfection?

Or can we just say God is beyond definition?