Omniscience and Freewill - a Christian defense

[Steven Carr]

A problem for theists is that if God knew a million years ago that I was always going to write this post, then I was always going to write this post, and I must write this post - I had no choice.

There are some interesting Christian defenses to this.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/hasker.html

Craig writes 'On the assumption of (PEP5), the above implies that one has it within one's power to bring it about that the past should be different than it is, in that one can bring it about that God should have different beliefs than He has. This is not the power to alter or eliminate past events in sensu composito, which is absurd, but the power to bring it about that the past would have been different. For by acting differently now, one brings about the truth of different present-tense propositions and indirectly the past truth of different future-tense propositions. Since God is essentially omniscient, one thereby indirectly brings it about that He believed different propositions than He does.'

End of quote.

So if I did something differently from what God knew I would do, then God would have known that I would do that instead and have believed that!!!

Seems like dodging the question to me.

Look at Craig's sentence again :-
'Since God is essentially omniscient, one thereby indirectly brings it about that He believed different propositions than He does.'

So God believes now that I will write this post, but if I do not, then God would (10 years ago) have believed something else.

Craig sums up 'Once the proper distinctions are drawn, we see that Hasker has in no wise shown that one does not have the power to bring it about that God should have believed differently than He did.'

End quote

I did write this post, so God really had always believed I was going to write this post.

.........

But I have the power to ensure that he really had always believed I was not going to write it.....

ROTFL!

[Llyricist]

I recently went to an airshow starring Patty Wagstaff, and she didn't twist and turn her airplane as much as Craig twists and loops and tortures logic and the English language in those quotes :eek:

[Rational BAC]

Exactly why do you subscibe to this very strange idea called pre-destination? Do any substantial amount of Christians really believe in this very strange idea?

I know atheists seem to dwell on this queer notion. What exactly is your problem? A little behind the times maybe?

[Normal]

There are so many threads about omniscience and free will, that you think someone would of actually researched it and gotten an answer from somewhere other then an atheist message board.

Omniscience is knowing everything that will happen.

Free will is making choices based on your personal agency; that is, your frame of mind in a given situation in a given world.

With this free will concept, you don't take bribes at certain times because you choose not to, based on your personal choice. Omniscience would only entail knowing your state of mind at every single choice you make, and knowing which choice you will make before hand.

The common objection "But then we don't have a choice, we will always do what god knows we will do" is foolish. You don't have a choice ANYWAY as your choices are based on your desires at any given point. If you are frustrated, feeling down, and angry at the world, you will take the bribe. If you have your wits about you, you won't take the bribe. It is all based on your personal mood at the time. Your choice is based on your "mood", and god knows what your "mood" will be.

Do you choose your emotions, or are your emotions just inside you to observe? If you think you choose your emotions, wait until you get some life experience, and find yourself loving someone you don't want to love, crying when you don't want to cry, and try holding back a good mood or a bad mood next time one comes on.

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Exactly why do you subscibe to this very strange idea called pre-destination? Do any substantial amount of Christians really believe in this very strange idea?


Many Christians believe God can prophesy the future.

[Vicar Philip]

Originally posted by Normal
Omniscience is knowing everything that will happen.

Free will is making choices based on your personal agency; that is, your frame of mind in a given situation in a given world.

...

You don't have a choice ANYWAY as your choices are based on your desires at any given point. I'm confused. It appears that you are defining Free Will as making choices, then a few sentences later you state that we don't have a choice. Then in the same sentence you say choices are based on one's desires. Which is it?

Normal, do you believe in god? Do you believe in the classic Christian definition of the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god? It helps to take into account your perspectives to know where you're coming from.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Vicar Philip
I'm confused. It appears that you are defining Free Will as making choices, then a few sentences later you state that we don't have a choice. Then in the same sentence you say choices are based on one's desires. Which is it?

I think "free will" is nothing more then having an undisturbed sense of personal agency. You act on your desires.

Originally posted by Vicar Philip
Normal, do you believe in god? Do you believe in the classic Christian definition of the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god? It helps to take into account your perspectives to know where you're coming from.

The only thing I can say is that I am skeptical of all such ideas.

[Stew]

Originally posted by Normal
I think "free will" is nothing more then having an undisturbed sense of personal agency. You act on your desires.





Any limits or constraints on what might or might not disturb this sense of personal agency?


.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Normal
Omniscience is knowing everything that will happen.

...

Your choice is based on your "mood", and god knows what your "mood" will be.


Then omniscience is not just "knowing everything that will happen," but also why everything will happen; i.e., the reasons behind one's choice to do something.

[Jobar]

Let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees, here. Remember, 'free will' is a theistic concept offered as a defense against the classic Problem of Evil, in an attempt to salvage God's omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence.

Predestination is the idea that there is no free will; God decides, from the moment of creation, all human actions, and who goes to heaven and who to hell. Basically, it discards the notion of benevolence, makes all choices the direct responsibility of God, and renders 'divine justice' a bitter joke.

The 'free will defense' postulates that, for some unknown reason, God values the freedom of humans to make choices uninfluenced by God. This (supposedly) exonerates God from responsibility for the evils men do; trouble is, if God is truly omniscient, then He *cannot* but be aware of all human choices, from the moment of creation. In other words, the FWD attempts to save omnibenevolence, but at the cost of omnisicience.

(Yes, I know practically everybody here knows all this, but as a mod I feel I should sometimes offer a sort of synopsis of things, to help out those new to the forum.)

[Normal]

Originally posted by Stew
Any limits or constraints on what might or might not disturb this sense of personal agency?


.

Just the sense that it is within your power to do something and not do something, and that you do one over the other is based on desire.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Then omniscience is not just "knowing everything that will happen," but also why everything will happen; i.e., the reasons behind one's choice to do something.

Isn't that implicit in the definition? If you know everything that will happen, you know the reasons that everything will happen.

[Godless Wonder]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Any conclusion based on the presupposition of the existence of Free Will is on shaky ground. Can anyone perform an experiment which will have one outcome if they have Free Will, and another different outcome if they do not have Free Will?

The more scientists dig into how the brain operates the more likely to me it seems that we're are simply the matter we are made of, arranged in the way it is arranged., operating under the regular old laws of physics. (Not to say this means things are deterministic, in fact, they are probably not, but non-determinism does not automatically get you Free Will) It is difficult to see how free will as the concept is commonly represented, is anything but an illusion, without postulating magic.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Normal : Isn't that implicit in the definition? If you know everything that will happen, you know the reasons that everything will happen.

Not necessarily. A knowledge of events does not necessarily correlate with a knowledge of motives (i.e., thoughts and feelings that motivated the events).

If god's omniscience is only derived from omnipresence (his "awareness" is everywhere; past, present and future), then that could only mean that god knows all events, such as you will sit in your chair at five, but not the reason why you decided to sit in your chair at five.

In which case, god as moral agency as a determinant of salvation/damnation is negated. If god does not know what is in our hearts and minds, then he can know what we chose, but not necessarily why we chose it, only that we performed certain physical actions. Our motivations and ways would therefore be just as mysterious to him as his are (allegedly) to us (a necessary condition to truly have free will).

If not, then god as moral agency as a determinant of salvation/damnation means that god must not only know what are motivations are, but intervenes in our affairs in order to punish us for those motives (and intent and so on), which in turn means that we have no free will. If I am going to be punished for my choice to disbelieve in god, then how can my will be considered "free?"

There's more, of course, but I'm on low battery here in Blackout '03 NYC.

[Stew]

Originally posted by Normal
Just the sense that it is within your power to do something and not do something, and that you do one over the other is based on desire.


Okay.

Then this definition of free will, or sense of personal agency, implies simply being able to make the choice. To have the power to do or not to do something.

Does any external influence acting on the chooser impact the chooser's free will?


.

[Braveheart]

God's omnipotence and man's free will are no problem at all to the Christian. (Actually the term 'free' will is wrong-sinful will would be more accurate.)

I appreciate all the clever arguments which get trotted out to show there is a problem but nonsense is nonsense, even if we bring God's name into it.

How can the creature understand the creator? It's impossible-except by faith.

How can we understand the fusion of God's sovereignity and our own will/choices?

Is the fact that the creature cannot understand the creator (except by faith) evidence that God does not exist?

Why do sceptics have so much difficulty with admitting that there just might be something greator than humans around this universe?

b

[Howard]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Exactly why do you subscribe to this very strange idea called pre-destination? Do any substantial amount of Christians really believe in this very strange idea?
I know atheists seem to dwell on this queer notion. What exactly is your problem? A little behind the times maybe?
Nope, just taking what you believers tell us and pointing out the logical contradictions. Either God knew everything that would happen when he created the universe or he didn’t. If he is omniscient then he did. And if he knew everything, he also knew the ultimate fate of all human beings. That IS predestination.

But there’s more… God doesn’t just know our destinies, he planned our destinies. In fact, that’s why he knows them. And if our destinies are pre-planned, our fate has already been decided. We are powerless to change it, so where’s the free will?

Of all the logical holes in your omni-God, the free will/omniscient one is a monster.

[Howard]

Originally posted by Braveheart
Why do sceptics have so much difficulty with admitting that there just might be something greator than humans around this universe?
b

There “might be” all manner of things we know nothing about, but until we see some credible evidence for them, we are skeptical. That’s what makes us skeptics

[Rational BAC]

Originally posted by Howard
Nope, just taking what you believers tell us and pointing out the logical contradictions. Either God knew everything that would happen when he created the universe or he didn’t. If he is omniscient then he did. And if he knew everything, he also knew the ultimate fate of all human beings. That IS predestination.

But there’s more… God doesn’t just know our destinies, he planned our destinies. In fact, that’s why he knows them. And if our destinies are pre-planned, our fate has already been decided. We are powerless to change it, so where’s the free will?
----------
Of all the logical holes in your omni-God, the free will/omniscient one is a monster.

The free will/omniscient one is a monster which most everyone acknowledges. But it is moot.

I do not see why an omniscient God would necessarily be ominiscient about future events. I choose to believe He does not. It is quite likely that the future is by its nature unknowable -----even by an otherwise omniscient God. Or---------

-------- Even if He had the power to know the future, that does not mean He would use that power, or use it all the time. Prophecy can be defined as God using that power selectively to make some kind of point. God can do any damned thing He pleases or He would not be God.

I doubt very many Christians today believe in pre-destination. (Take away pre-destination and there is no "free will problem")

It is just one of those strawmen that atheists put up to so easily knock down. And has almost nothing to do with how most Christians believe.

[phil]

If God is omniscient about the past present and future then it would work like this:

Say you have a video tape of a football game. You watch the video tape. When you watch it again you can know exactly what will happen. Does that mean none of the players on the field made their own decisions?

Taking the analogy into the real world: If God has "seen the tape" then does that mean we do not have any say in the decisions we make?

-phil

[Howard]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
The free will/omniscient one is a monster which most everyone acknowledges. But it is moot. Maybe to you but not to a hell of a lot of other theists. Just check out some of the threads that are raging on this forum right now..


I do not see why an omniscient God would necessarily be ominiscient about future events. I choose to believe He does not. It is quite likely that the future is by its nature unknowable -----even by an otherwise omniscient God. Or---------
So you’re saying that when God created the universe he did not know how it would turn out? Well, that gets you out of the predestination/free-will problem, but it leaves you with a deity who’s a pretty poor designer. As an engineer, I’d get fired if the machines I designed didn’t function as specified…. eventually, at least.

Also, why don’t you check with your Christians friends and see how many agree with that idea. I’d be very interested in the result because when I ask my Christian friends about it, most don’t.


-------- Even if He had the power to know the future, that does not mean He would use that power, or use it all the time. Prophecy can be defined as God using that power selectively to make some kind of point. God can do any damned thing He pleases or He would not be God. That’s not the point. What we’ve been told by some theists is that God planned the universe and it’s outcome to the down the smallest detail, including the fate of every person. That’s one of the problems in this debate. Theists ascribe different and even contradictory characteristics to (supposedly) the same God. It would be a lot simpler if y’all could get on the same page.


I doubt very many Christians today believe in pre-destination. (Take away pre-destination and there is no "free will problem")

It is just one of those strawmen that atheists put up to so easily knock down. And has almost nothing to do with how most Christians believe. Again, look at the arguments going on and you’ll see it’s no strawman to a lot of theists. You don’t speak for them.

[Rational BAC]

I could be wrong of course, but I always thought that pre-destination has been long out of fashion among Christians. And I always thought it was mostly a Presbyterian thing-------not otherwise paid much attention to or taken seriously by other sects.

Again, I could be wrong. Any other theists want to step in here and comment about any preponderance or lack thereof of a common Christian belief in pre-destination?

[Howard]

Originally posted by phil
If God is omniscient about the past present and future then it would work like this:

Say you have a video tape of a football game. You watch the video tape. When you watch it again you can know exactly what will happen. Does that mean none of the players on the field made their own decisions?

Taking the analogy into the real world: If God has "seen the tape" then does that mean we do not have any say in the decisions we make? -phil

That’s not an appropriate analogy because it does not utilize the operating assumption here. The reason God is omniscient, i.e., he knows what’s going to happen, is because he planned it. He’s not just a cosmic fortune teller, he’s the Grand Designer.

IOW, he knows how the football game is going to come out because he fixed the game.

[Howard]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
I could be wrong of course, but I always thought that pre-destination has been long out of fashion among Christians. And I always thought it was mostly a Presbyterian thing-------not otherwise paid much attention to or taken seriously by other sects.

Again, I could be wrong. Any other theists want to step in here and comment about any preponderance or lack thereof of a common Christian belief in pre-destination? Predestination IS a Presbyterian concept, and if you ask a lot of Christians, many, if not most, would probably say they don’t believe in it But if you re-phrase the question and ask if they think that when God created the universe he know exactly how it would turn out, I’ll bet a lot would say “yes.” And that implies he knew everyone’s fate beforehand… which is predestination is it not?

[Rational BAC]

Depends on how you asked the question.

If you asked if God knew in a general way how things would turn out------like the competent engineer analogy---most Christians would say yes.

But, if you took it to the extreme (as atheists and I guess Presbyterians do) ----------That God knows exactly what I will be doing every minute of the day for my whole lifetime------that He knew beforehand that from exactly 9:30 to 9:45 in the morning I would be having 2 eggs, toast and bacon for breakfast and that I would fart exactly 90 seconds afterwards on the 17th of August 2003---

And of course by definition of pre-destination I had absolutely no free will on what I had for breakfast and when I farted---

----most Christians would say no.

[Howard]

Maybe, maybe not. It would be interesting to do an actual poll.
(Personally, I wouldn’t mind having flatulence foreknowledge.)

[Tenuous]

Originally posted by phil
If God is omniscient about the past present and future then it would work like this:

Say you have a video tape of a football game. You watch the video tape. When you watch it again you can know exactly what will happen. Does that mean none of the players on the field made their own decisions?

Taking the analogy into the real world: If God has "seen the tape" then does that mean we do not have any say in the decisions we make?

-phil

I'd look at it more that God has a big collection of tapes of this football match, every possibility played out, and then chooses the one whose result suits him.

Basically whatever choices you've made in this life, if there is an omniscient/potent God, he would have known all the possible paths you could have taken and therefore when he created the universe he effectively picked out the path for you. Is it really free will if someone else is really making the choices for you?

[Rational BAC]

Again -----

Take away all this pre-destination crap and the whole argument against free will becomes moot.

Why are seemingly all atheists quasi-Presbyterians?

A strawman.

[Howard]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Again -----
Take away all this pre-destination crap and the whole argument against free will becomes moot.
Why are seemingly all atheists quasi-Presbyterians?
A strawman.

You’re dead wrong. Scan through this thread: here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57799)

(And I can find many more like it.)

…and you’ll find four or five theists argue passionately that omniscience and free will are not contradictory. If it’s an atheist strawman, why are so many theists defending the idea The problem is on your side, not ours. We’d be more than willing to drop it.

[pmurray]

Originally posted by Steven Carr
A problem for theists is that if God knew a million years ago that I was always going to write this post, then I was always going to write this post, and I must write this post - I had no choice.

A defense I always liked was CS Lewis': "to see someone do something is not the same as to make them do it".

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by pmurray
A defense I always liked was CS Lewis': "to see someone do something is not the same as to make them do it".
But the foreknowledge Lews is talking about entails a pre-existing set of events, whether the foreknower is the creator of that event set or not. In other words, we don't have to make the inferential jump that God's foreknowing someone's action means God caused that person to act. It is possible that God is merely observing an event set that wasn't his creation.

It seems to me that, as long as there is an event set that can be known by some being B prior to those events occuring, it doesn't matter if B is the creator of that event set or not.

[Normal]

This question can be answered with an easy thought experiment:

When you make a choice, what is it based on?

Your thoughts?
Your desires?
Your feelings at that time?

If these are all the same at some time then you will do some action, right? If these are all the same at some time and it's possible for you not to do some action, then what is the choice based on? Randomness?

What can you possibly say of free will that is based on something random? That implies something is out of your control, ie. not dependant on what you decide.

"Free will", in the sense we are all talking about, is dependant on making the same actions in the same situations, and therefore god knowing this does not interfere with our free will.

[Braveheart]

Originally posted by Howard
There “might be” all manner of things we know nothing about, but until we see some credible evidence for them, we are skeptical. That’s what makes us skeptics


Yes. My point was actually meant for atheists rather than agnostics or sceptics. Sorry for confusion.

However, it does beg the question which has concerned me for some time. It is this. If there is a deity, what precisely has He to do to convince all peoples at all times that He exists?

Any thoughts? Start a new thread?


b

[Howard]

Originally posted by Braveheart
Yes. My point was actually meant for atheists rather than agnostics or sceptics. Sorry for confusion.

However, it does beg the question which has concerned me for some time. It is this. If there is a deity, what precisely has He to do to convince all peoples at all times that He exists?

Any thoughts? Start a new thread?
b Hello Braveheart,
First off, let me welcome you to the secular web. If you stick around for a while you’ll find it to be an interesting, challenging, enlightening, maddening. frustrating place, very much like real life but without all the taxes.

As for the relationship between atheists and skeptics, I’d say that pretty much all atheists are skeptics, but not all skeptics are atheists. However, very few atheists will say flatly state that God does not exist. We don’t deny the possibility, we just haven’t seen sufficient objective, credible evidence that would persuade us that God, or anything supernatural for that matter, exists.

Starting a “What would it take for God to convince people…” thread, is better than bringing it up here. That’s been done before, but don’t let that stop you. Everything’s been done before around here and we’re always getting new people jumping in as the older ones get worn out.

You do need to have a thick skin though - things can get pretty heated here.

[HRG]

Originally posted by Normal
This question can be answered with an easy thought experiment:

When you make a choice, what is it based on?

Your thoughts?
Your desires?
Your feelings at that time?

If these are all the same at [b]some time then you will do some action, right? If these are all the same at some time and it's possible for you not to do some action, then what is the choice based on? Randomness?
[quote]
Exactamundo. Otherwise it is not free will. Although it is not pure randomness (in the sense that not all outcomes are equally probable), some unpredictable remainder must be present.
[quote]
What can you possibly say of free will that is based on something random? That implies something is out of your control, ie. not dependant on what you decide.

If my control is not predictable (i.e. not determined), it iis indistinguishable from a random process. If it is determined, what is there left to decide ?


"Free will", in the sense we are all talking about, is dependant on making the same actions in the same situations,

Not at all. "Same outcome in same situation" is the definition of determinism.

Regards,
HRG.

[Braveheart]

Originally posted by Howard
Hello Braveheart,
First off, let me welcome you to the secular web. If you stick around for a while you’ll find it to be an interesting, challenging, enlightening, maddening. frustrating place, very much like real life but without all the taxes.

As for the relationship between atheists and skeptics, I’d say that pretty much all atheists are skeptics, but not all skeptics are atheists. However, very few atheists will say flatly state that God does not exist. We don’t deny the possibility, we just haven’t seen sufficient objective, credible evidence that would persuade us that God, or anything supernatural for that matter, exists.

Starting a “What would it take for God to convince people…” thread, is better than bringing it up here. That’s been done before, but don’t let that stop you. Everything’s been done before around here and we’re always getting new people jumping in as the older ones get worn out.

Hello and thank you for your welcome.

Yes, I appreciate that the 'what will it take to convince atheists' question has probably been asked before-as indeed have many other questions I would imagine.

Anyway. One more time. What would it take?

I genuinly would love to hear any responses.

Thank you,


b



You do need to have a thick skin though - things can get pretty heated here.

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by Braveheart
However, it does beg the question which has concerned me for some time. It is this. If there is a deity, what precisely has He to do to convince all peoples at all times that He exists?


There have been a few threads dealing with this question, but one oft-occurrring answer is that god could just "make it so".

The function of my belief in god could be as necessary as my function of breathing.

[Braveheart]

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
There have been a few threads dealing with this question, but one oft-occurrring answer is that god could just "make it so".

The function of my belief in god could be as necessary as my function of breathing.


I think it fair to say that the 'conflict' between God's omnipotence and man's responsibility/'free' will has perplexed Christians for centuries before atheism came into being!!

To me it is an antinomy ie two truths which appear to conflict but are both true.

As I have said before on the Sec. Web, it is inevitable that we can not fully understand God and how He works. How can a creature understand the Creator? On any view it's impossible.

But if we cannot understand God, is that evidence that He does not exist?


b

[Normal]

Originally posted by HRG
Exactamundo. Otherwise it is not free will. Although it is not pure randomness (in the sense that not all outcomes are equally probable), some unpredictable remainder must be present.

But if even a little remainder of randomness is present, how is that free will? Randomness by definition is not a chooseable aspect, it is a indetermined aspect. Randomness and free will are mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by HRG
If my control is not predictable (i.e. not determined), it iis indistinguishable from a random process. If it is determined, what is there left to decide ?

There is nothing "left to decide", only that you did decide to do something based on your feelings/thoughts/desires and not some random element beyond your control. Free will is only possible if you have full control of the event. If you attribute some part of the action to randomness, it wasn't "you" controlling the action, it was beyond your control. How do you reconcile a choice made beyond your control with free will?

Originally posted by HRG
Not at all. "Same outcome in same situation" is the definition of determinism.

Regards,
HRG.

Exactly, and free will is dependant on determinism.

[Keith Russell]

Braveheart asked:
Is the fact that the creature cannot understand the creator (except by faith) evidence that God does not exist?

No, but it is irrational to accept claims on faith.

Whether 'God' exists is beside the point, in this context.

It is not rational/not correct, sans evidence, to believe in 'God'--whether or not 'God' exists.

K

[Howard]

Originally posted by Braveheart
I think it fair to say that the 'conflict' between God's omnipotence and man's responsibility/'free' will has perplexed Christians for centuries before atheism came into being!!

To me it is an antinomy ie two truths which appear to conflict but are both true.

As I have said before on the Sec. Web, it is inevitable that we can not fully understand God and how He works. How can a creature understand the Creator? On any view it's impossible.

But if we cannot understand God, is that evidence that He does not exist?b The obligation is not on those of us who disbelieve to provide evidence God does not exist. Personally, I don’t have a clue how to do that. Rather, it’s up to the believers to provide evidence that he does. And the problem you have is not just suggesting that some external entity created all this, and that the entity be called God. That’s hard to debate because there’s nothing substantive there.

The problem is when you start ascribing specific characteristics and actions to God. Then you get into both logical problems, e.g., omniscience vs. free will, and evidentiary ones, e.g., evolution vs. Intelligent design. If you’re just positing a deistic God who poofed the universe into existence some 15 billion years ago, then packed his bags, you won’t get too much argument. But if you’re trying to sell us a Father/Son/Holy Ghost deity who sends people to eternal damnation for not believing some poor Jew got nailed to a cross 2,000 years ago, you will.

[beastmaster]

Originally posted by Braveheart
But if we cannot understand God, is that evidence that He does not exist? If we cannot understand God, then how can we know that He is good and not evil? If we cannot understand God, then how can we know if He is worthy of worship?

And don't say "by faith." Faith is simply a subjective attitude taken with respect to the absence of evidence. Faith does not *cause* God to be good. And faith does not *cause* God to be worthy of worship.

One way to formulate my atheism is that God is insufficiently defined or understandable to justify worship. I can see no justification for worshiping something I do not understand. And for me, if there is no entity worthy of worship, then that is tantamount to saying that God does not exist.

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by Braveheart
How can a creature understand the Creator? On any view it's impossible.

Why? Why is so perplexing to think that a creature can understand his creator?

I'd be interested in hearing you rationalize this limitation.

But if we cannot understand God, is that evidence that He does not exist?b

As noted above, Christians do claim to understand god all the time - they understand what he wants, doesn't want, wants us to do, the lessons we should learn, the reason for many evets, etc.

I tend to think Christians only claim that god is unknowable when there is conflict between our perceptions or knowledge, and biblical positions.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Do you "understand" your parents? Before you glibly answer "no," I would direct you to the quotes around understand. You not only "understand" your parents, you know precisely what's wrong with them as they know what's wrong with you.

It's a two-way street, which is why any theist allusion to "god as father" is always wrong. My father would not and did not treat me the way god allegedly treats his "offspring" and that's the point. The god depicted in the bible is the pedo-patricidal "Father" of so many children's living nightmares (which is, of course, precisely where it came from originally).

Cults arise out of disparity and trauma. Generations remain the same.

You now have the two main ingredients of (at least) christianity as it was then and it remains now. There have always been two kinds of atheists, IMO. Those who manipulate the norm and those who react to the norm.

I know this fuels many a fundy's fire, but my bet is on a handful of atheists who knew what was what and exploited the whole for a quick buck.

Look, for some reason, we glorify the past. We think that all those who came before us were inviolate. Pure. Flawed, but nonetheless sincere.

Horseshit. Every generation equals every other generation in a dynamic manner. At best, we're on a corkscrew; a corkscrew of human intellectual evolution, and, as a result, our intellect mirrors our adaptive needs. We no longer need our incisors, so we no longer seek to instruct individually based predatory hunting, etc.

We need to have sex, but no longer do we need to procreate. It is now a "choice."

The autopilot is finally able to be shut off.

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by Braveheart

As I have said before on the Sec. Web, it is inevitable that we can not fully understand God and how He works. How can a creature understand the Creator? On any view it's impossible.

But if we cannot understand God, is that evidence that He does not exist?




But it is evidence that he is not to be trusted.

After all, we may never understand God's perfectly good reasons for deceiving us with talk of Heaven, Hell, salvation etc (perhaps this is God's way of getting us to behave better by offering fake rewards).

If you can't understand God, how cna you be sure he is not telling us white lies?