Do we got any real Christains here?

[Optimist Prime 197]

From the Casey Anthony thread:

 

Optimus, thanks for the reply. I would have to say that your view of Islamic belief is very Christian oriented. Jesus is an acknowledged prophet just as Moses, Elijah and Mohammed are. Their view of the Christian scriptures actually coincides very much with the view you expressed of the Hebrew scriptures from a Christian perspective. Actually, all the prophets, including Mohammed, are considered to be equal, Mohammed is simply God's last prophet, therefore he brought God's fullest Word (although they do believe Jesus will be the only prophet to come again, Mohammed is the last "new" one.) Once again, this distinction is many ways is most closely correlated with the distinction you expressed between the Hebrew Word and Christian Word (of course with a dramatic difference in Jesus' role) as seen from a Christian perspective.

 

Further, with regard to what God is worshiped, I can argue that all Christians do not worship the same God either. The God worshiped by Orthodox Churches is vastly different than those by right-wing denominational Christians, with varying differences in the middle.

 

In many ways, the Jesus between (at least Catholics) and a lot of Protestants (at least Presbyterian) is very different also. I had a fairly unique experience of growing up both in a Catholic and Presbyterian religious background simultaneously (I actually attended both Mass and service on the weekends) with no pressures from either direction. The path to salvation and practical application of Jesus' teaching, the experience of Jesus and His focus are entirely different. As you pointed with regard to the Abrahamic God, the characteristics are entirely different and at least as I read your point, therefore the Jesus is different also.

 

I am very aware that Islam considers Jesus a prophet, but to say that their views of Christian scripture coincides with how a Christian would view Jewish scripture is a very big stretch. I think how Jews view Christian scripture can be said to coincide with how Christians view Islamic scripture, but not the other way.

 

Here's what I mean. The Christian view of the Hebrew Bible is the same as their view of the New Testament. They do not deny the authority nor the Inspiration of it. But, for a Muslim, the Hebrew and Christian scriptures are considered worthy of reference, but not to be considered authoritative. Only the Quran is authoritative. There are assertions explicitly stated in the Bible that Islamic belief directly contradicts, such as the death and resurrection of Jesus. With differences like this, how can they have the same view toward Christian scripture as Christians have toward Jewish scripture?

 

Christians saying that Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish scriptures is not the same as Muslims saying that Christian scripture is corrupted and got it wrong on many points, but is still worth reading, since it records actions Jesus took. Jews were actively looking for the Messiah who would fulfill all the prophecies made in the Old Testament, the ones I mentioned in the previous post and more. Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies and brings the New Covenant forth that has been promised by God in the Old Testament. Christian scripture says that Jesus died for our sin and that we should worship him. Muslim scripture disagrees with this and says that is not right.

 

All Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who manifests himself through Jesus Christ. All Christians would agree to the words of the Nicene Creed and respect the authority of Scripture as to who God is.

 

There is room to disagree on certain topics, but overall, the same God is there. It is like me asking you to describe your best friend to me, then asking one of their other friends to describe them. The answers will be different, with different focuses, but it is still the same person. When you ask a Christian who Jesus is, they may respond differently. But all will agree that he is the incarnation of God through whom all things were made, taught love and a servant's heart, healed the sick, exorcised demons, and went to the cross where he died for our sins, then he rose from the dead and shall come again.

 

I will give you that Jews would not think that Christians are worshiping the same God, because of the Trinity. But, because of the Christians' views of Hebrew scripture, it is much closer than Islam is to either Judaism or Christianity.

 

I'm not sure if the whole Ishmael/Isaac thing is worth mentioning as a difference, since it really doesn't change the God of Abraham. But, Christians and Jews both claim to worship the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.

[Harklessonfire 40]

Is there a God? Was there a Messiah? I just don't know.

[AcuWill 45]

From the Casey Anthony thread:

 

 

 

I am very aware that Islam considers Jesus a prophet, but to say that their views of Christian scripture coincides with how a Christian would view Jewish scripture is a very big stretch. I think how Jews view Christian scripture can be said to coincide with how Christians view Islamic scripture, but not the other way.

 

Here's what I mean. The Christian view of the Hebrew Bible is the same as their view of the New Testament. They do not deny the authority nor the Inspiration of it. But, for a Muslim, the Hebrew and Christian scriptures are considered worthy of reference, but not to be considered authoritative. Only the Quran is authoritative. There are assertions explicitly stated in the Bible that Islamic belief directly contradicts, such as the death and resurrection of Jesus. With differences like this, how can they have the same view toward Christian scripture as Christians have toward Jewish scripture?

 

Christians saying that Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish scriptures is not the same as Muslims saying that Christian scripture is corrupted and got it wrong on many points, but is still worth reading, since it records actions Jesus took. Jews were actively looking for the Messiah who would fulfill all the prophecies made in the Old Testament, the ones I mentioned in the previous post and more. Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies and brings the New Covenant forth that has been promised by God in the Old Testament. Christian scripture says that Jesus died for our sin and that we should worship him. Muslim scripture disagrees with this and says that is not right.

 

All Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who manifests himself through Jesus Christ. All Christians would agree to the words of the Nicene Creed and respect the authority of Scripture as to who God is.

 

There is room to disagree on certain topics, but overall, the same God is there. It is like me asking you to describe your best friend to me, then asking one of their other friends to describe them. The answers will be different, with different focuses, but it is still the same person. When you ask a Christian who Jesus is, they may respond differently. But all will agree that he is the incarnation of God through whom all things were made, taught love and a servant's heart, healed the sick, exorcised demons, and went to the cross where he died for our sins, then he rose from the dead and shall come again.

 

I will give you that Jews would not think that Christians are worshiping the same God, because of the Trinity. But, because of the Christians' views of Hebrew scripture, it is much closer than Islam is to either Judaism or Christianity.

 

I'm not sure if the whole Ishmael/Isaac thing is worth mentioning as a difference, since it really doesn't change the God of Abraham. But, Christians and Jews both claim to worship the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.

Thanks for you reply and perspective. It seems to me that your perspective regarding Islam is still very Christo-centric. I am not an Islam expert, but I do have a fair amount of experience with it and have had quite a bit of faith based discussion with regard to differences and similarities with it and Christianity. My wife is an Islam scholar and actually specializes in the expression of Islam in popular culture contrasting with real fundaments and practices of the religion. I see some similarities with her work and what you are expressing as well.

 

I find it hard to explain my point, but what I am trying to say is: There is a big difference with looking at the similarities and differences of the religious base from a Christian starting point or from an Islamic starting point. For example, I do not think they would acknowledge the difference of following the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob from God of Abraham. Although there is the delineation with Ishmael's separation from Abraham, the prophetic history of Islam does not separate from the Hebrew history at that point, frankly, I don't think it separates anywhere at all. Isaac, Jacob, Job, Elijah, David, Solomon, John the Baptist etc. are all prophets of Islam. Muhammed doesn't show up until about 570 CE, so pretty much everything pre-570 CE that pertains to the Abrahamic lineage is included in Islam. There is evidence of this as the Koran even includes a description a miracle of Jesus where he turns clay into birds that is included only in the Gnostic gospel of Thomas. Now, with Muhammed's arrival there is a true delineation, so for example (although you have expressed differences, I am just using it as an example) the Book of Mormon has no bearing or lineage aspects from a Islamic perspective.

 

Of course, there are differences with how individual Muslims and Islamic teachers identify themselves. And the practice of modern Islam is vastly different from Christian practice, but I still think the identification of how a Muslim does it with regard to lineage and how a Christian does it with regard to lineage is very different.

 

Thanks for the conversation.

[Optimist Prime 197]

Yeah, we somehow switched the topics of these threads. I blame Hardnocks.

 

The sugar-coating comment wasn't directed at you personally, I was saying that the explanation given by the religion as a whole seems to be sugar-coating. I should have made that more clear.

 

Fair enough.

 

So we've established that from the very beginning God made man and gave him the option to be evil, knowing that he would in fact choose to be evil, for the purpose of establishing that worshiping God is the right choice. He creates this world and immediately dooms its first inhabitants to failure on purpose as a lesson to all the other humans who come after them. Given this, we must conclude that Adam and Eve were if fact not given the choice to be good. Their lives were used to establish what humanity is not supposed to do. Not off to a good start here.

 

Not sure I follow your logic here. Because Adam and Eve were given the option to do evil, they were not given the option to do good?

 

I also feel like pointing out that they were deceived by the serpent, so it wasn't solely by their own evil intent that they made the wrong choice, but they were manipulated to make it.

 

Whether or not you think that is fair, presenting that choice was the only way to establish free will. Without an opposing option in front of them, there is no choice.

 

Also, Adam and Eve were not condemned after they sinned. God was still very present in their lives and it would be safe to infer that he welcomed them into his Kingdom once they died.

 

What would have been a fairer way for the situation to have taken place in your opinion? (Questions like this could come off sounding snarky and condescending in this online format, but I am honestly asking here)

 

Now we've expanded the problems encountered in the Adam and Eve scenario to include all of human history from the beginning up until the flood. By your own admission, God knew that humanity would take this course. He created the choice to be evil and created beings that he knew would choose to be evil enough to require the Old Testament laws to be necessary.

 

This is what I meant when I said God created the conditions that made the laws necessary in the first place. You can argue that they're necessary to save humanity from evil, but the evil they're supposed to save people from was explicitly created by God in order to establish the necessity of his worship. Therefore, the laws are not a response to the evils of man, but were in fact planned from the beginning. Either that, or we have to accept that God didn't realize what the result of his creation was going to be, and for that we must admit that God is fallible, which clearly cannot be the case.

 

Again, I am not sure that you could say that God is at fault for the evil choices of man. He allowed them the option to turn away from himself, but he also has mercy when they do and welcomes them when they turn back to him. And it wasn't the necessity of his worship that the laws were created for, it was the choice to worship him. And just because God foreknew the evil that would occur does not mean that they weren't reactionary. If I know that when drivers down a certain road will want to turn left onto a street that is one way in the other direction, I put a sign that says they cannot turn left. Was this one way street then created only so that people would know not to turn left onto it?

 

And now the problem expands yet again. Everything from creation through the flood, all the way up to Jesus was done solely to create the conditions necessary for Jesus to come to Earth. If we come to any other conclusion, we necessarily show that God is fallible and made a mistake at some point.

 

That means every evil that was visited upon Earth during that time, or for that matter any and all times, was done on purpose by God, whether he gives the illusion of free will or not. There was never a choice. Not by the people doing the evil, nor by the people having evil done to them. They were all used to establish the necessity of Jesus. Their lives had no other purpose.

 

I will agree that there were people God specifically hardened the hearts of, such as Pharaoh, to make his glory known. This is an issue I still struggle to understand at times and will not claim to know the full answer to these questions.

 

But, again the evil that came into the world was not simply for the purpose of evil and condemnation and to make an example of people. Again, the problem is that without the introduction of a wrong choice, then there is never actually a right choice being made.

 

It would be one thing for God to send men out into a world of evil choices and then send a law down and not ever interact with them, but that isn't the case. God has always been actively involved in the world and in the lives of people. He pushes for the right choice to be made time and time again.

 

This presents us with a huge moral problem. A god with the power to make his creations understand the difference between good and evil instead chooses to make vast quantities of them necessarily evil in order to provide a reference point to a relatively small number of others. He sentences countless human beings to lives of incredible misery and pain for no other reason than to establish a reason for others to choose to worship him. These do not sound like the actions of a loving god.

 

First, I will say that God did not make "vast quantities" of men necessarily evil. He allowed them to make a vast amount of choices, which ultimately led them to being evil. And I also think you should read this: 1 Peter 3:18-22.

 

So, now we see that those men who did not have the law, and whom God punished for their evil were granted mercy. Jesus preached to those who died during the flood. Those same people who were the most evil of all men. That is the mercy of God, and I cannot say what else he has done in his mercy to those we consider to have died without much of a fair chance to turn to him.

 

In order to get around this problem, we would have to show that all humans begin their lives with an equal chance of being able to make the choices God wants them to make. We know this not to be the case. There are countless humans who will live out their entire lives never even knowing that Christianity exists, and never having the opportunity to accept Christ and be saved. In those cases, we have to believe either that God chooses to punish those people based on something their distant ancestors did (and again, we've shown that those people never had a choice), or we have to believe that he willfully creates people who have no chance of making the correct choices. Either way, an objective observer would be hard pressed to conclude that this God even comes close to being moral or just.

 

I don't think we do need to show that all humans are born with an equal chance to make the right choice.

 

Another passage worth reading: Luke 12:42-48

 

From this passage, it is possible to conclude that God does not simply condemn outright those who did not know of Christ to Hell, but that he allows a less harsh punishments for some. It is still wrong to sin, but to not be presented with the law and then to sin would allow for mercy. I will not go as far to say that this is definitely the case, but the passage could very much be pointing toward something of similar frame.

 

Now, this: Romans 2:5-16

 

I feel that I should clarify, only through Jesus Christ are we granted salvation. But, it seems that God in his infinite mercy is much more complex than we could even imagine. I do not know the fate of those who die without hearing the the Good News of salvation, but with the law written on their hearts and God's abounding love and compassion, I do not think that they are completely hopeless on the matter.

 

Keep in mind, I am not a scholar by any means. I just find these topics fascinating.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Not sure I follow your logic here. Because Adam and Eve were given the option to do evil, they were not given the option to do good?

 

I also feel like pointing out that they were deceived by the serpent, so it wasn't solely by their own evil intent that they made the wrong choice, but they were manipulated to make it.

 

Whether or not you think that is fair, presenting that choice was the only way to establish free will. Without an opposing option in front of them, there is no choice.

 

Also, Adam and Eve were not condemned after they sinned. God was still very present in their lives and it would be safe to infer that he welcomed them into his Kingdom once they died.

 

What would have been a fairer way for the situation to have taken place in your opinion? (Questions like this could come off sounding snarky and condescending in this online format, but I am honestly asking here)

 

If God is omnipotent, he can create any type of being he wants. He's not limited to creating humans as they actually are. He could have created us with an unerring knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. Instead, he created humans that, as you pointed out in your other post, he knew would be susceptible to making evil choices. That's a trait put in us by him. There can be no unintended consequences of creation if the creator is omnipotent and omniscient.

 

With that in mind, a look at the Garden of Eden situation leads us to conclude that he had full knowledge that Adam and Eve would be deceived by the serpent (also, I might point out, created by God). So how can we say that they really had a choice if God created them with specific traits that would allow them to be deceived by another being he created, and had full knowledge of what the outcome of an interaction between the two beings would be? Whatever choice they might have had was an illusion.

 

There is a very clear conflict between the concepts of free will and an omniscient creator. How is it possible for an omniscient god to create beings that will act in ways he did not intend? Any such act would necessarily violate his omniscience. So one of two things must be true: either God is not omniscient, or free will is only an illusion.

 

Again, I am not sure that you could say that God is at fault for the evil choices of man. He allowed them the option to turn away from himself, but he also has mercy when they do and welcomes them when they turn back to him. And it wasn't the necessity of his worship that the laws were created for, it was the choice to worship him. And just because God foreknew the evil that would occur does not mean that they weren't reactionary. If I know that when drivers down a certain road will want to turn left onto a street that is one way in the other direction, I put a sign that says they cannot turn left. Was this one way street then created only so that people would know not to turn left onto it?

 

The problem with your analogy is that you did not create the drivers, nor are you omniscient. In that scenario, you're interacting with presumably equal beings while having some knowledge of their tendencies. In our broader discussion, we're talking about an omniscient creator who is responsible for the existence of all interacting parties, and who necessarily has complete knowledge of how those parties will interact with each other. It's not possible for the evil to be an unintended consequence which has to be counteracted by God.

 

But, again the evil that came into the world was not simply for the purpose of evil and condemnation and to make an example of people. Again, the problem is that without the introduction of a wrong choice, then there is never actually a right choice being made.

 

It would be one thing for God to send men out into a world of evil choices and then send a law down and not ever interact with them, but that isn't the case. God has always been actively involved in the world and in the lives of people. He pushes for the right choice to be made time and time again.

 

This is precisely my point. By conceding that evil is necessary to establish which choices are right, we are showing that its existence is intentional. That God interacts with people and tries to get them to make the right choices is irrelevant. He's still responsible for the wrong choices. He's not trying to protect us from some opposing force that tries to counteract his influence. He is the opposing force.

 

First, I will say that God did not make "vast quantities" of men necessarily evil. He allowed them to make a vast amount of choices, which ultimately led them to being evil. And I also think you should read this: 1 Peter 3:18-22.

 

So, now we see that those men who did not have the law, and whom God punished for their evil were granted mercy. Jesus preached to those who died during the flood. Those same people who were the most evil of all men. That is the mercy of God, and I cannot say what else he has done in his mercy to those we consider to have died without much of a fair chance to turn to him.

 

I didn't want to leave this part out and give the impression that I'm ignoring it, but these actions only have meaning if I accept free will as something that can exist within the context of an omniscient God, which I've already rejected. There's not much I can say about this that I haven't already said above.

 

I don't think we do need to show that all humans are born with an equal chance to make the right choice.

 

Another passage worth reading: Luke 12:42-48

 

From this passage, it is possible to conclude that God does not simply condemn outright those who did not know of Christ to Hell, but that he allows a less harsh punishments for some. It is still wrong to sin, but to not be presented with the law and then to sin would allow for mercy. I will not go as far to say that this is definitely the case, but the passage could very much be pointing toward something of similar frame.

 

Now, this: Romans 2:5-16

 

I feel that I should clarify, only through Jesus Christ are we granted salvation. But, it seems that God in his infinite mercy is much more complex than we could even imagine. I do not know the fate of those who die without hearing the the Good News of salvation, but with the law written on their hearts and God's abounding love and compassion, I do not think that they are completely hopeless on the matter.

 

Keep in mind, I am not a scholar by any means. I just find these topics fascinating.

 

Punishing people less severely for their ignorance does nothing to alleviate the fact that they're still being punished for their ignorance. I have a huge problem with this.

 

This leads me to ask you a question: If God does something or commands something to be done, is it automatically a moral action because it is done or commanded by God?

 

If so, how is it possible for imperfect beings such as ourselves to distinguish between a moral act and an immoral act?

 

If not, how do we avoid arriving at the conclusion that God is an immoral being, assuming that we accept the veracity of the stories in the bible?

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I'll also point out that I'm doing my best to make my arguments within the context of what you believe. That makes things a bit difficult, since I'm obviously not as well versed in your beliefs as you are.

 

I believe free will exists, I just don't believe in any type of god. That's not to say I reject the possibility of the existence of a god. I just don't believe any exist.

 

Atheism often gets labeled as a claim of knowledge that gods do not exist or are impossible. And I suppose that to some people who self identify as atheists that's what it means. But for me, it's a matter of answering one question: Do you believe in the existence of a god? If the answer is yes, you're a theist. If it's no, you're an atheist. There are several directions you take from there in either direction. Agnosticism, as far as I'm concerned, is an unnecessary distinction because it's not possible for any of us to have direct knowledge of how all this stuff actually works whether you believe in a god or not.

[Optimist Prime 197]

I probably should have clarified that I am very familiar with the examples you listed of the Israelites following other gods. I probably cost you some time on unnecessary research. Sorry about that.

 

For me, the fact that the Israelites so easily abandoned the accepted religion for the tribe in favor of some melted down jewelry shaped like a farm animal cast some doubt on the authenticy of the miracles that they reportedly saw in the first place. I mean, if I saw a body of water part right down the middle, let me walk through it, and then immediately destroy the Egyptian garrison that was trying to kill me; I would become an immediate believer for life. That would definitely qualify as hard evidence in my book but I digress.

 

Isn't the fact that the Israelites were subsequently punished for following a different god proof that they, in fact, were not given free will to worship the god of their choosing? I know there are plenty of examples in the old testament of God punishing his people for that very offense.

 

Sure, I can grant you that. But, Israel also had a very different relationship with God than any other people. Like previously mentioned, they were shown signs and miracles. They had prophets come to them and speak the word of God to them. Prophets who warned them continuously to turn from their evil ways lest God's wrath should fall upon them.

 

Keep in mind, Israel was God's chosen people. Much like a parent would treat their own children more strictly than they would treat other children, God was harsher on Israel because they should know better (they had firsthand witness of his love and power). He selected them to be a blessing to all nations, and to assure that purpose, he kept them in knowledge of himself. He also redeemed them to himself every time he punished them, so that's gotta count for something, right?

 

And about Israel's unbelief after witnessing miracles. It is not that they denied the existence of God or anything like that. It had been a very long time since Moses went up to the mountain (or since they left Egypt), and they thought God would leave them in the desert. So, they asked Aaron, a priest, to cast for them a god to worship (maybe they expected him to call on the spirit of another god to come down and manifest in the golden calf). It was much more a lack of trust than of belief. I am sure you realize this, but I think it is worth pointing out.

[Optimist Prime 197]

I'll also point out that I'm doing my best to make my arguments within the context of what you believe. That makes things a bit difficult, since I'm obviously not as well versed in your beliefs as you are.

 

I believe free will exists, I just don't believe in any type of god. That's not to say I reject the possibility of the existence of a god. I just don't believe any exist.

 

Atheism often gets labeled as a claim of knowledge that gods do not exist or are impossible. And I suppose that to some people who self identify as atheists that's what it means. But for me, it's a matter of answering one question: Do you believe in the existence of a god? If the answer is yes, you're a theist. If it's no, you're an atheist. There are several directions you take from there in either direction. Agnosticism, as far as I'm concerned, is an unnecessary distinction because it's not possible for any of us to have direct knowledge of how all this stuff actually works whether you believe in a god or not.

 

I appreciate the thought you've put into your posts. It's also hard on my part, as I am doing my best not to simply speak out of my own personal opinion, but base my statements on scripture and traditional Christian thought. It is very easy in these discussions, as a Christian, to just try and answer questions posed with what we think should be the right answer rather than what the Bible says or what the Church Fathers have agreed upon. Again, I am no scholar, simply a student eager to learn.

 

I don't know if you got around to looking up the Problem of Evil and Alvin Plantinga's Free Will defense, but it's a good read and it seems something you would be interested in. This link is actually much better than the wikipedia link I posted previously.

 

I know what you mean about the problem of defining atheism. Recently, more people have been separating the categories as "weak" and "strong" atheism. The former being along the lines of what you believe, and the latter being deniers of a god existing the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, et al (I don't want to sound like a snob, but I just can't turn away from a chance to use the term "et al").

 

I am about to take a trip out of town, so I don't know that I will be able to get to my computer until next week. I will try to get to your response when I can, though.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I don't know if you got around to looking up the Problem of Evil and Alvin Plantinga's Free Will defense, but it's a good read and it seems something you would be interested in. This link is actually much better than the wikipedia link I posted previously.

 

I did, but I don't find that explanation to be satisfactory. It gives a reason for the existence of evil, but doesn't speak to the morality of a god who creates such a world, which is my primary complaint.

 

This is where the difference between omnipotence and omniscience becomes important. Even if we accept that omnipotence only allows for things which are logically possible, and as such we cannot avoid a world where evil exists if we are to have free will, we still have to address how it can be that true free will can be instilled by an omniscient creator.

[Optimist Prime 197]

I did, but I don't find that explanation to be satisfactory. It gives a reason for the existence of evil, but doesn't speak to the morality of a god who creates such a world, which is my primary complaint.

 

This is where the difference between omnipotence and omniscience becomes important. Even if we accept that omnipotence only allows for things which are logically possible, and as such we cannot avoid a world where evil exists if we are to have free will, we still have to address how it can be that true free will can be instilled by an omniscient creator.

 

Okay. I get your point now. I am wondering why foreknowledge must then also predicate the control of an action. I have a friend who likes to give an example like this:

 

When God created the world, I like to imagine him looking through a series of periscope-like objects. Through each of these periscopes he sees a different possibility for how all of time could play out. He then chose which of those infinitely different possibilities would render the greatest good, and created it.

 

It's a very loose analogy, but I think it works. Foreknowledge of an action does not mean that freedom of choice was taken from the actor.

 

Let's look at Harry Potter. When they use the Time-Turner, they are not able to actually interfere with the timeline (even though they may try to) because what they are seeing played out before them is what they know to have already happened. Upon realizing this is when Harry summoned his Patronus that scared away the Death Eaters.

 

Another loose example, but it's the best I've got off the top of my head.

 

But, I am glad that I now understand where you are coming from with these questions.

 

It seems that your belief in free will necessitates you not believe in an omniscient god. I would say they are not so incompatible, and honestly unless we each took a week writing up responses I don't think we will get much further in this conversation unless we were to met face to face.

 

I will look over your other response and see if there is something in it that can add to this conversation (I haven't fully read through it yet) and hopefully get back to you by next week if I find something.

 

But, for now I feel that any further talk (at least on this topic) will simply be reiterations of each other's previously made points.

 

I have really enjoyed talking with you. Please let me know if you feel I am wrong in my assessment of our correspondence.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Okay. I get your point now. I am wondering why foreknowledge must then also predicate the control of an action. I have a friend who likes to give an example like this:

 

When God created the world, I like to imagine him looking through a series of periscope-like objects. Through each of these periscopes he sees a different possibility for how all of time could play out. He then chose which of those infinitely different possibilities would render the greatest good, and created it.

 

It's a very loose analogy, but I think it works. Foreknowledge of an action does not mean that freedom of choice was taken from the actor.

 

It does when the omniscient entity is responsible for creating the beings who are supposedly making the choices. At that point, he's not simply an observer who happens to know which choices will be made, because he created whatever mechanism (in this case, the brain) will be used to make the choice.

 

Look at it like this: If God creates a being capable of making a choice that God cannot predict with absolute certainty, we cannot call God omniscient because there would be a piece of information (which choice will be made) that is not known to God. So if we are dealing with an omniscient god, it must be the case that he knows which choices will be made at all times. If he creates a being that he knows will make choice A over choice B (which must be the case, lest we sacrifice omniscience), what can we say about that? Can we say that choice B is a possibility for that particular being? No, because in order for choice B to even be possible, there would have to exist a possibility that God's knowledge is wrong. That also violates his omniscience. Choice A is the only possibility, because anything else shows that God has either incorrect or incomplete knowledge. Either of those things even being possible will, by definition, contradict omniscience. This does not mean that different paths cannot exist. He can still create other beings who will make choice B, or C, or so on. But in each individual instance, his omniscience requires knowledge of which choice will actually be made, therefore excluding the possibility of any other choice being made in each situation.

 

This also doesn't require God to directly control every decision. I'll try my own poor analogy: Let's say I write a computer program which is designed to hack into bank accounts and either deposit money or withdraw money depending on some non-random factor. What exactly the factor is doesn't matter, only that a decision must be made by the program, and that the decision is not random. To draw a parallel to the omniscience of God, we assume that I have complete knowledge of which decision the program will make in any given account.

 

Now, when I run this program I'm not in direct control of which decision it makes in each account. I'm not sitting at a computer making each decision for the program. It does it on its own. But I did write the code which influences the program to choose to deposit or withdraw. Every time a new account comes up, the program makes a decision based on instructions I instilled in it. And since I know with absolute certainty which decision the program will make given certain details of each account, it's true that I made the decision for the program, even if I'm not directly controlling it at the time each decision is made, because I created the criteria by which it evaluates each decision.

 

Let's look at Harry Potter. When they use the Time-Turner, they are not able to actually interfere with the timeline (even though they may try to) because what they are seeing played out before them is what they know to have already happened. Upon realizing this is when Harry summoned his Patronus that scared away the Death Eaters.

 

Another loose example, but it's the best I've got off the top of my head.

 

Irrelevant because in that case the people with knowledge of the events did not create them in the first place. They are passive observers. The key point to my argument is that an omniscient creator renders free will impossible. Omniscience in the hands of a passive observer doesn't necessarily preclude free will. That's not in contention here. It's omniscience of the creator that causes problems.

 

But, I am glad that I now understand where you are coming from with these questions.

 

It seems that your belief in free will necessitates you not believe in an omniscient god. I would say they are not so incompatible, and honestly unless we each took a week writing up responses I don't think we will get much further in this conversation unless we were to met face to face.

 

I will look over your other response and see if there is something in it that can add to this conversation (I haven't fully read through it yet) and hopefully get back to you by next week if I find something.

 

But, for now I feel that any further talk (at least on this topic) will simply be reiterations of each other's previously made points.

 

I have really enjoyed talking with you. Please let me know if you feel I am wrong in my assessment of our correspondence.

 

Fair enough. At least we're talking about something though. I've never seen this site have less active discussion going on than it does right now.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Im a Secular Humanist

 

I believe the possibility of a god is extremely small but >0