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

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to ttruscott]

Presupposing the existence of a deity who created everything, said deity would be the standard by which all morality and degrees of "perfection" would be judged. Therefore, said deity would necessarily represent "goodness" or "perfection" and any argument against such is meaningless and only shows an incorrect definition/understanding of the term that is being disputed.

[Goat]

There's no way an omniscient God could place blame on anyone he created; he created them knowing full well every choice they would make.

Since when does your knowledge of someone's future actions exclude their blameworthiness?

When you are their creator, and know what their actions will be before you create them.

I don't understand your argument, please explain. If I knew for sure that a friend of mine will go on a murderous rampage once I let him out of the house, that doesn't exclude his responsibility for his actions. The question who created whom is trivial, at least I don't see how it should be relevant.

That is because you are not the creator of your friend...

Supposedly, God is the creator.. and knew what his creations would do before he made them. He could have made them anyway he wanted.

Would you be responsible of a bomb you designed and made to blow up blew up?

[instantc]

There's no way an omniscient God could place blame on anyone he created; he created them knowing full well every choice they would make.

Since when does your knowledge of someone's future actions exclude their blameworthiness?

When you are their creator, and know what their actions will be before you create them.

I don't understand your argument, please explain. If I knew for sure that a friend of mine will go on a murderous rampage once I let him out of the house, that doesn't exclude his responsibility for his actions. The question who created whom is trivial, at least I don't see how it should be relevant.

That is because you are not the creator of your friend...

Supposedly, God is the creator.. and knew what his creations would do before he made them. He could have made them anyway he wanted.

Would you be responsible of a bomb you designed and made to blow up blew up?

A bomb is not a free creature, is it? It doesn't choose to do anything.

[Goat]

There's no way an omniscient God could place blame on anyone he created; he created them knowing full well every choice they would make.

Since when does your knowledge of someone's future actions exclude their blameworthiness?

When you are their creator, and know what their actions will be before you create them.

I don't understand your argument, please explain. If I knew for sure that a friend of mine will go on a murderous rampage once I let him out of the house, that doesn't exclude his responsibility for his actions. The question who created whom is trivial, at least I don't see how it should be relevant.

That is because you are not the creator of your friend...

Supposedly, God is the creator.. and knew what his creations would do before he made them. He could have made them anyway he wanted.

Would you be responsible of a bomb you designed and made to blow up blew up?

A bomb is not a free creature, is it? It doesn't choose to do anything.

Yet, it will do what it is destined by you, it's creator to do.

Now, God supposedly is all knowing AND your creator. If that is the case, then you don't choose do to anythihg either, you just have an illusion that you do,

[instantc]

Now, God supposedly is all knowing AND your creator. If that is the case, then you don't choose do to anythihg either, you just have an illusion that you do,

Nothing in God's or anybody else's knowledge excludes our free choices. God's knowledge can be chronologically prior to your choice but your choice may still be logically prior to God's knowledge. I.e your choice is not determined by God's knowledge, but God's knowledge is determined by your choice.

[Goat]

Now, God supposedly is all knowing AND your creator. If that is the case, then you don't choose do to anythihg either, you just have an illusion that you do,

Nothing in God's or anybody else's knowledge excludes our free choices. God's knowledge can be chronologically prior to your choice but your choice may still be logically prior to God's knowledge. I.e your choice is not determined by God's knowledge, but God's knowledge is determined by your choice.

You seem to be missing the point all together. God chronically knew what we would do before he started the act of creation. He could made us differently. Therefore, according to the Christian mythology, there is no free will. Period.

The key difference in the claim is 'God is the creator'. Your response does not take that into account.

[instantc]

Now, God supposedly is all knowing AND your creator. If that is the case, then you don't choose do to anythihg either, you just have an illusion that you do,

Nothing in God's or anybody else's knowledge excludes our free choices. God's knowledge can be chronologically prior to your choice but your choice may still be logically prior to God's knowledge. I.e your choice is not determined by God's knowledge, but God's knowledge is determined by your choice.

You seem to be missing the point all together. God chronically knew what we would do before he started the act of creation. He could made us differently. Therefore, according to the Christian mythology, there is no free will. Period.

I'm sorry Goat, that's an utter non-sequitur. There's nothing in God's knowledge or the fact that he could have made us different that excludes freedom of will. Whoever knows us well enough, knows what we are likely to do. It follows that someone who knows us and the circumstances perfectly also knows for certainty what we will choose, that's an inevitable fact. This has nothing to do with the freedom of those choices, which is a different topic entirely. You haven't made any arguments, just an empty assertion. Adding 'period' to the end of your sentence doesn't make it more true or axiomatic.

[Danmark]

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.

[Danmark]

...

None, but 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.

...

I believe that you chose this definition of perfect because it suits your agenda yet it is not proven that this definition of perfect is the definition GOD uses of HIMself when HE claims to be perfect. Since it destroys the idea of GOD as we know HIM, it probably isn't the correct definition, right?

GOD did not necessarily create from a need and I doubt if you can prove every desire or motivating impulse can only arise from a need but I contend such motivation may arise from an understanding of the consequences to the created beings and creation was for us, that is, our benefit and not for HIM.

Peace, Ted

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.

[Boosh]

I'm sorry Goat, that's an utter non-sequitur. There's nothing in God's knowledge or the fact that he could have made us different that excludes freedom of will. Whoever knows us well enough, knows what we are likely to do. It follows that someone who knows us and the circumstances perfectly also knows for certainty what we will choose, that's an inevitable fact. This has nothing to do with the freedom of those choices, which is a different topic entirely. You haven't made any arguments, just an empty assertion. Adding 'period' to the end of your sentence doesn't make it more true or axiomatic.

There is a definite connection between an omniscient God creating someone and his responsibility for their actions. Someone is no more free than a puppet on a string in this belief system. 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. Saying free will exists only means you are "free" to choose the only choice you ever would have made in the first place. No real choice exists, no real freedom exists.