Predestination is irrelevant, God's omniscience destroys our free will
Posted on: July 22, 2008 - 1:39am
Offline
Predestination is irrelevant, God's omniscience destroys our free will
I have been thinking alot about this lately - if the Christian God's omniscience includes 100% knowledge of all future events, does this not render us unable to make our own choices? Think about it this way - I cannot choose to do something contrary to what God knows will happen. I could try or want to do something that is contrary to what God knows will happen, but I will fail because I cannot contradict what God knows for sure will happen - thoughts anybody, especially Christians?
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
- Login to post comments
I know he did. But, like I said, even limiting it to a "christian god" does not necessitate other "omni qualities."
I for one am a christian.. and I don't accept any of the omni-qualities per se.. I don't really think they are important at all.
Now that he has clarified it, however, it changes the discussion.
By omnipotent.. do you actually mean "all powerful" as in, "can do anything"? Or do you limit omnipotence to "power to do whatever is logically possible"?
Ah, but they're not 'predetermined', because God-as-observer is observing the matter from a direction that is not time. 'Pre' has no place in this, because the decision is not, in fact, being observed from any other point in time. The decision exists only at that point in time, and observing that point in time from another point that is not on the same axis of progression cannot affect the observed point in relation to its axis of progression (ie: time).
Only if you're trying to convince them that God exists within Time. If God's outside of Time, then God's observation of Time doesn't affect Time whatsoever.
Even more conveniently, if God doesn't exist, then God's observation of Time effects Time even less!
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Well, the Judeo-Christian (Jews came first, folks, give 'em credit there) God most certainly does seem to exist within Time. Interestingly, Genesis begins with the Word/Spirit/Whatever moving across the 'waters'. So even if we accept the sometimes offered idea that Genesis is allegory for the creation of the universe, it seems the universe is already there.
Maybe Genesis can only be allegory for the Galaxy? Or the Solar System? Or just the Earth?
But I digress...
The Judeo-Christian God interacts with humanity along its own axis of progression: Time. Thus, JCG exists within Time, not as an outside observer. Given that... I think then it becomes important to know if we consider JCG's omniscience to be observational, predictive, or dictatorial.
So: Does the Judeo-Christian God know what's going to happen because:
A)he can see it all, through all time,
B)he can see everything as it IS, and is HIGHLY impressive with his probability mapping, OR
C)it happens that way because he said so.
It seems to me the question on this thread is: Does A=C? By knowing it, has he dictated how it will be? Or is his knowledge at the mercy of those making the decisions?
My guess is: No way to really tell, because I really, really think that a critter existing within Time that was capable of perceiving all points along the temporal axis of progression... would really, really quickly go insane.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
If you knew he was referring to the christian god, then why did you post the following...
You posted that before you spoke of; our limiting it to the christian god would not necessitate the other omni-qualities, those beyond omnipotence.
Why don't you accept the omni-characteristics? Are they not attributed to yahweh within the holy scriptures? If so, then why do you believe; sorry, think they aren't important at all?
There is no such thing as limited omnipotence. The word omnipotence comes from the Latin, Omni Potens, = all power (and unlimited power is the traditional Eng definition.)
Due to the many contradictions this original definition entailed, many theists and theologians squirmed for a while, then polluted the word omnipotence to have other meaning rather than the initial intended meaning. There would be no reason for christians and many other theists to alter the definition of omnipotence unless, for some odd reason, humans of intellect, logic and reason were trouncing them in debates about their chosen deity. Gee, I wonder how that happened.
There are even some atheists who will grant the definition, power to do whatever is logically possible, as "ok" for purposes of discourse. I presume this is usually done so that the butt-kicking can continue, with atheists simply employing other methods to attain victory. I'm sure another reason is that people of logic, prefer to reside within logic.
IMHO, theists need to create a new word or phrase for this overwhelming desire to stumble into a land, and call it limited omnipotence territory. Since, as a whole, theists aren't opposed to creation, that shouldn't be a problem.
Oh and please feel free to elaborate on how this discussion is now changed, and by all means list the changes based on the OP clarifications.
Actually, they're not. In the parts of scripture that deal with God, not with 'Dude X talking about God', YHVH is never clearly stated to be all-powerful, just powerful enough to make the world, deal with the enemies of Israel/Judea, and watch over them. Similarly, He isn't explicitly said to be all-knowing, only shown to be capable of either knowing or arranging future events well enough to commission prophets, and having a sufficiently wide and multi-focused awareness to know when his people have turned from him en masse. In fact, that most of the enforcement of 'The Law' is left to Men indicates limits on His awareness. After all, if YHVH is all-knowing and all-powerful, then why do you not get punished for your sins and transgressions against The Law until/unless you get caught by Men?
The omnis don't come into play until you're looking at human agents doing the standard 'My god is bigger than your god. He could totally beat your god up' routine. And that spirals up to the omnis pretty fast. So while you have claims in that direction from prophets (and I don't know that any of those claims actually include unlimited power, just that he's the biggest kid on the block), the real claims to the omnis don't kick in until you have scholars interpreting the scriptures.
And then there's Paul, who was such an egomaniac, he'd have claimed omnipotence for himself if he could get away with it, but then people might have asked why he never cured himself of the blindness he eventually stopped claiming The Lord healed him of.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Thanks BMcD,
I have read the xian bible several times, different versions, and so if what you are saying is correct then I, myself, have slightly misinterpreted various passages.
But your question:
"After all, if YHVH is all-knowing and all-powerful, then why do you not get punished for your sins and transgressions against The Law until/unless you get caught by Men?"
I always assumed from scriptures that god wanted men to experience judging other men. That is, to allow man to experience what its like to "sit in judgment"
Realistically, the only way he could do that would be to stay out of the process.
Trekian non-interference directive springs to mind.
Keep in mind, though, that the Christians got themselves a used God. They'd already had centuries, if not millennia, of religious scholarship to muck things up.
And yeah, God could be pulling a Prime Directive on the judgment thing, but that seems like over-engineering the system when he could've just made all of those offenses automagically trigger their respective punishments. After all, why would Men need to understand what it is to sit in judgment if He's gonna be doing all of the judging in the end anyway? So they can sympathise? "Poor God. All that power and he's still gotta be a disciplinarian"?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Because I assumed no more qualities than omniscience, I felt as if it didn't matter whether we were talking about the Christian God or "some entity."
Also.. I just don't. My belief in God is not predicated upon any of the omni-qualities. Yet, I still find things appealing about the Christian God that make me attach myself to that belief.
If this IS the case.. then God can do anything he wants.
If he wanted to create a system that allowed for freewill yet he still retained his all-powerfulness and omniscience, then he could.
That conclusion is logically necessitated by a non-limited definition of the word "omnipotent" and the giving of this attribute to a God figure.
I didn't limit it for my sake in the past, but for the person I was arguing with.
The argument ends if the attribute isn't limit.. I win by merely repeating "Because this omnipotent figure wanted it, it is so."
Firstly I find the idea of God existing outside of time a little cheap seeing as it's then impossible to define anything about it, but I'll go with it because it allows me to keep tying in with the painter analogy you prescribed
I don't think the suggestion has ever been that the act of observation decides the outcome of an event/decision. I think this sort of rationale has been inadvertently brought to the fore by the mathematical models and the idea of a state changing from 0 to 1 based on percentages.
The only way you can ever have 100% information on something is if that information cannot change.
The only way an art critic or painter looking at a picture can make any meaningful comment about form, texture and 'movement' of the piece is if the thing is complete. A line in the image can be said to start and finish according to the whims of the creator or by chance depending on the method of creation but the act of observation does not affect the picture. If a critic looks at the picture during creation he will see a half-finished product. He may have an opinion on what it may look like but that in no way affects how the picture will look. That is all decided by the method of creation.
The same is true of god. Omniscience suggests that god is looking at the finished product. He knows how it was created and he can describe it in its entirety. Our lives exist in lines on his picture. The only way he can say with 100% accuracy what our actions are going to be is if the picture is complete; our actions in our future are set in stone and thus free will does not exist. If he is a stats genius and can only guess the outcome of our actions with 99.9999999999999999999% accuracy then he doesn't know how all the lines will turn out, he only has a (fairly accurate) opinion of how they might appear, thus he is not omniscient.
M
PS- Interestingly the same argument can also be made if we allow god an additional degree of separation from the universe. Instead of actually observing the universe let us assume that god has never/is never/will never observe(d) the creation. The same rules apply without the act of observation. If god is able to see 100% of the picture but chooses not to, it doesn't change the fact that the creation is complete and we aren't free to change anything about it.
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
I've got news for you. The bulk of christians I deal with believe whole heartedly that God can do anything he wishes, including what appears to we humans as, the impossible. All those xians are outside of logic with this thinking yet they persist in the delusion anyhow.... their mantra, with god all things are possible. And they don't mean that in the same sense as Jesus supposedly meant when he used that phrase in the book of Matthew.
I was once a Christian who actually read the bible. Many times, many versions. And from what I've read in the bible, I agree that IF the christian god exists, then he is omnipotent. That also means he can set aside any of his omni-qualities anytime he wishes.
If you speak of winning an argument on the basis of ONLY omnipotence and free will as in the OP, then perhaps you would win the argument with an atheist. But only with an atheist who misunderstands the concept of free will; for under the system of the christian god there is no true free will. Further, if you are claiming one small battle victory does a war win (phrase sic)....then you've lost me. You've driven the discussion to a point where we part ways.... agree to disagree, so to speak.
Winning a single argument on omnipotence doesn't show your ability to prove the existence of the christian god. Ultimately, that is where the theists and theologians all fail. The burden of proof sinks your entire boat. If the xian god could be proven, everyone would be believers, and the Atheists, indeed atheism, wouldn't exist...unless of course there are Atheists hard headed enough that they would not accept all the rational, logical and irrefutable scientific evidence xians would need to find and put forth.
An actual appearance now and again by the deity would help as well. By the word appearance I mean... as your mom, dad, brother, sis, co-workers etc, might stop by your workplace desk or your home or ____ to visit you at any given time. Or, an appearance such as an ambassador from any tiny country coming to visit the American White House to meet with the big shot US Prez.
Not like a reported, alleged visit, such as greys in UFO's, bigfoot in my backyard, etc
The reason I find the original question irrelevant is not because of a dispute over omnipotence, but rather that free will does not exist under the christian god.
So, finally when you say, "If he wanted to create a system that allowed for freewill yet he still retained his all-powerfulness and omniscience, then he could", then I must dismiss it because "wanted" and "could" are not did.
Of course it does not. Did I say it would?
Explain. Because maybe I'm missing something here. Also, let me point out, I don't believe the Bible necessitates the existence of hell that most people believe in.. e..g, "a place of eternal torture."
I say that, just to sidestep the issue of "coercion" being inconsistent with freewill.
Oh, I am a Christian, btw.
So when the Bible writers had your Jesus describe hell as a place
"where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'"
it doesn't necessitate the existence of that hell as a place of eternal torture?
What is hell to you then if you are a Christian who takes the Bible seriously? "Not really a bad place - just kinda gloomy"?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Something along these lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism
No you didn't say that.
I must at this point mention that I find your cherry-picking of my quotes to be somewhat reminiscient of the cherry picking many, if not most, xians practice with the bible. So, if you also cherry pick from the bible, it would not surprise me. Nor should it surprise anyone else.
If the christian god exists, I speak of the world he created according to the bible. Not of the universe he could create or wanted to create.
Wow... you think you are in the minority now on this ? The Barna group did a survey a few years back that showed xians leaving their hell belief in in the dust. But let me back up for a moment.
Nevermind "necessitates" - Do you personally believe in Hell as described in the bible ? Do you personally believe there will be a place of eternal torture and suffering for those souls who don't accept christ, etc ?
Back to the dust... christians are leaving the idea of hell behind them because of many reasons and certainly one of them is that the concept itself, as presented in the bible, contradicts so much of what they want to believe or who they want to believe in. Additionally, it contradicts true free will. Hence, the changes in the way many christians percieve what they read in the "good book", e.g., "Hell is not a literal place. It just can't be." AND "All the passages mentioning hell are referring to a metaphorical place. It's only figurative." AND "It may be in the bible, but I just don't believe in it." and so forth.
You are funny, Rhad. Were you also good at dodgeball in grade school?
And lastly, yes, I saw the theist badge you wear.
From wiki..."Annihilationists base the doctrine on their exegesis of scripture, some early church writing, historical criticism of the doctrine of hell, and the concept of God as too loving to punish his creations for ever."
In other words, the doctrine of Annihilationists is pretty much baseless.
I think this is a bit unfair because, usually, I basically repost the original post and respond to each statement.
I didn't do that this time because I thought that this was the most relevant quote.
Okay.
I didn't give it much thought whether was in the minority or not.
Depends on what you think the bible describes. See the link I gave above.
I believe the bible can be interpreted many different ways.
No.
There is that "as presented in the bible." You're suggesting that these christian go against what is "presented in the bible"--yet, I do not believe that is the case. Perhaps they haven't figured out a way to fit their ideas with verse in the bible, but that does not mean there is no way.
It's a matter of interpretation.
Or.. see above link.
Perhaps this would fit into the "metaphorical place".. the language used in the bible that we interpret, now, as describing some place.. wouldn't have been thought of in such a way when it was written.
If I say "X is gay as [insert currently out-of-the-closet actor," you will probably interpret me suggesting X is a homosexual. But previous to the actor's status, if I had said "gay as [insert the then not out-of-the-closet actor," you might understand me to be speaking of his happiness.
That's all I'm saying.. perhaps the language used to describe what some view as hell.. was originally written for the purpose of describe permanence, divine judgment, or any number of things.
I am not saying I'm right, from a christian viewpoint or any other (but my own), merely that its possible to read it that way.
Dodgeball was sweet.
Well.. you think the belief in God is baseless.. so.. I'm not sure how to take your assertion. What could a Christian base a Christian doctrine on but exegesis of scripture, some early church writing, historical criticism of the doctrine, or their person concept of what God is like?
The verse I've seen most used to support this point is Matthew 10:28
I don't buy it though - it says "which is able", not "which will." I think it's a feel-good cop-out for Xians who don't believe that their God will actually send people to hell. And besides, of course a being who created everything there is too us would have no disability in destroying us. Jesus makes reference to hell as a place in Luke 16:22
It would seem as though according to the Xian worldview that there is such a place as hell (this is one of numerous references).
Rhad, I'm curious - you've said that you don't attribute omni's to the God of the Bible - do you personally believe that he is omniscient in the way of knowing things 100% for sure?
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Care to give other references? This one was part of a parable.. not the best support for reaching the conclusion that hell is a place necessitated by the Bible.
Hm. He could be, but, in order that I avoid the headaches caused by the idea "omniscience," I merely belief that he knows enough about the current state of the universe to be able to predict what will occur into the significant future and that these prediction more than likely to occur.
Revelation 20:7-15
It looks pretty clear here that non-believers will be "tormented day and night forever." It says that satan and his cohorts will be thrown into the "lake of burning sulfur," and then goes on to say that non-believers will be thrown in the "lake of fire." There doesn't seem to be much difference between the two, so one could logically conclude that they are the same place and that non-believers will go to hell rather than their soul being destroyed.
See here for more references. The Bible has numerous references to being "cast into hell," giving evidence to the fact of hell being a real place rather than a metaphor.
So what you're essentially saying is that God has a very high amount of knowledge, and along with his power (being able to control what happens) is able to "know" with relative ease what will happen in the future.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Revelation 20:14
In your quote it says "death and hades," but in the link you gave me it says "death and hell."
Can we assume they are synonymous for the time being?
If this is the case.. and if you are assuming "lake of fire" = hell, how can "hell" be thrown into itself? Even if "lake of fire" referenced the place where "things are tormented forever and ever," and "hell" merely referenced something else, does throwing "death and hell" into the "lake of fire" mean they will be no more or "tormented forever and ever"? Because the latter wouldn't make an sense.. but the former would be inconsistent with how "we" (for the sake of this discussion) are assuming "lake of fire" refers to.
I will only speak to references you give.
Being able to control what happens? "Control" in what sense? I will give a tentative yes to your question.
The actions from our perspective would still have to be predetermined in order for an outside observer to have 100% accuracy in determining our next actions, though. Time would have to be moving forward in an absolute linear fashion, with no variation, with God looking down on the timeline in order to know what was going to happen and when. Our fate would already have to be written; it's just a matter of getting there, as it were.
God's observation wouldn't effect it, no (necessarily it wouldn't; if it did, then he would no longer be able to absolutely know what was ahead) - but fate would certainly already have to be set in stone.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Damn Xainity of so many fools. Isn't religion hell !!! ? Was the story jesus, who wrote nothing, a religious idol worshiper ? Make up your own religion people ..... you can do better than our ancient ancestors .... Add to science, not more dogma interpretations, except to destroy dogma.
Here's maybe some help, Google "religious word dictionary"
I enjoyed some of this site, for destroying religion .... But some wacky stuff here too, like the "ghost spiritual stuff". Some of the essays here I found helpful, especially for debating and softening up some radical fundy friends ....
http://www.jesusreligion.com/biblewords
Hell - the state of mind believing it is separate from God and others; trapped in beliefs contrary to truth on either side of the grave.
Christ - God and man operating as One.
http://www.jesusreligion.com/writings.html
http://www.jesusreligion.com/ideas_of_god.html
Atheism Books.
The problem here is it sounds as if death and the holding tank called Hades or Sheol has been eliminated and will be no more. Sheol is the place where all the dead go in older Jewish belief. Somewhere around the time of Isaiah this begins to change as the Jewish prophets begin to implement sort of a fairness or justice principal in their writing. Surely their enemies would be punished in the next life.
Christians based a lot on this LSD inspired writing of John. Much of Revelation has it's basis in the Book of Enoch and of course Daniel and Ezekiel. The writing in all 3 of these books is a later development during the time the Jews have lost their homeland to Babylon. These books at minimum are claiming God will punish those that have caused the Jews harm. I'd say at the least a grudge against those that have oppressed them is put forth. Isaiah makes this clear in his doom prophecy for Babylon in 13:19 where he says
"And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. 20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there: neither shall the shepherds make their fold there."
Isaiah was clearly predicting God's vengeance upon Babylon which of course didn't happen. It does indicate the belief God would punish the evil of the world. Enoch which has the torture of evil angels in explicit detail was written likely at the time of the Maccabees in the 2nd century BCE. This period has much rebellion and war between the Jews and the Seleucid's. Again this adds to the Jewish belief that God will eventually punish the evil people of the world.
Many of these references refer to Hades, Hell or Sheol and only mean the place the dead go. As I said above, you can see the transition from a place they all go, to the view punishment will be meted out to the evil.
As Christianity took root in the Jewish world Hellenistic views were intermixed causing the original ideas of the Jews to be developed into the Hell concept put forth today. The NT scriptures clearly show this view though remnants of Judaism still remain.
See:
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/afterlife/AE_Afterlife_TO/AE_HeavenHell_Rose.htm
http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_heavenhell.htm
http://www.biblehistory.com/Hell%20Jewish.html
http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm#Gan
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
There you theists go again, try to have it both ways. If GOD is the designer of all things, then humans are the designers of nothing. So we humans can't truly have free will if you GOD exists. He created the illusion of free will in us.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Omniscience does not negate free will. You have to remember that free will is something that an individual experiences. Just because a deity out there already knows what we will choose all the time no matter what the circumstances that doesn't mean we aren't free to make those choices, and that we don't strugle with them, and that they aren't, in the end, or choices. What it does do, however, is make free will a moot point to god, as god himself has no free will, he also has to know what he will choose. It also calls into questions other aspects of god, such as god as benevolent, loving, or good. God knew when he created adam and eve what would happen, he didn't have to create the tree of knowledge, he didn't have to create satan, he didn't have to create any souls that would ever rebel against him. He created them anyway knowing full well what would happen and according to many christians that many souls would spend an eternity suffering in hell. This is an interesting idea that calls into question god's love, his goodness, or his omnipotence, and yes it also calls into question his omniscience by reductio ad absurdum. Because we reach a contradiction between how god must actually be by this description and these stories something is wrong. Either it's my analysis which is possible, or it's the original premise about God. The idea that a god who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and purely good would do anything he did in the bible creates logical contradictions that can either be addressed by ad hoc arguments, by special pleading arguments such as "a finite mind can't possibly understand an infinite god", or by acknowledging the problem. Another option which seems less likely to me, but is still on the table is to find an actually consistent and logical framework in which all of the information is reconcileable.
Good point...we could go all day on this and get no where...I guess we'll just find out when we get there.
Control in the sense of being able to intervene. Perhaps he is able to do more, but that is all I meant.
How would one "experience" free will?
We're free to make the choices he knows we'll make, but we're not free to make any other choices.
Wait...so God knows what both he and us will do, but we have free will and he doesn't? How exactly does that work...
I think we've reached the point in this thread where we agree that the Christian-Judeo God is not 100% omniscient.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.