NYT: A God Problem

[older]

Most of you folks already know the arguments against the Christian god, but I thought this article in the New York Times outlined some of those arguments in a concise, well-written way.

 

The subhead reads: "Perfect. All-powerful. All-knowing. The idea of the deity most Westerners accept is actually not coherent."

 

https://nyti.ms/2Tz9QJb
 

[Hierophant]

I back track the free will argument even more. I would not let Plantinga get away with his argument because I find the principle baseless. God easily could have created beings with free will that did not invole delving into the evil spectrum. Picture a spectrum where on one end we have pure, unadulterated evil, and the other end, moral perfection. If God resides at the far right of moral perfection, then he could have created beings who could never cross the threshold into evil/sin, however you want to define it. Free will would be defined as the ability to freely choose from options that would fall into God approved.

 

A common response would be that God did not choose that option because then people would not "freely" choose him and be more like robots. I tell them to go back to the Bible and show me where YHWH doesn't want robots. All of the commands are commands to obey and fit a stereotype that God deems fitting. Nowhere do you pick up any theme that YHWH wants individuals, he demands drones. Anyone arguing differently is reading from a different book. Matter of fact, isn't the NT theme to "be like Christ"? Where exactly are we getting this idea God is looking for a variety in personalities? That is just some BS philosophers and apologists use to avoid a tight spot.

 

Would it not be better if they just admitted their God is not kind, or loving, or caring (in any way we understand), and quite frankly just demands us to conform or he is going to kick us in the teeth? The truth is the truth and it stands on its own. If Christianity happened to be true regardless of how we felt about it, then fine, it is true and what we are going to do about it is up to the individual. 

 

What I absolutely abhor is how pastors, apologists, and philosophers (like Ravi Zacharias) obfuscate the reality of their religion, the God they serve, ignore the blantent facts about our reality which we can investigate, and pull a bait and switch about their real doctrine. 

[LogicalFallacy]

On 3/27/2019 at 4:16 PM, older said:

The subhead reads: "Perfect. All-powerful. All-knowing. The idea of the deity most Westerners accept is actually not coherent."

 

I can't read the article - "No access" apparently. However some thoughts on the subhead: Bear in mind that modern theological thought does not accept a God that is all powerful in the manner which is logical incoherent. For example a God so powerful to make a rock he cannot lift. Most instead refer to a "maximally powerful" god - i.e. god is as powerful as anything could be while obeying the laws of logic. For modem theologians the contradictory all powerful god and the put down argument is not an issue. In fact they'd agree with you - God cannot be so powerful to create a rock he cannot lift simply because it defies the laws of logic.

 

This brings me to a side point: If God must obey the laws of logic and cannot alter or contradict them then ipso facto he did not create those laws, and they exist as superior to God. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I overstating the case here?

 

On free will: If free will exists then knowing the future cannot be possible. This is because of all the possible futures, beings with true free will can change actions that will alter events. Thus you cannot prophesy x y and z under free will because any of the factors leading up to x y and z can change... unless they are 'set in stone'.... in which case goodbye free will. 

[disillusioned]

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

This brings me to a side point: If God must obey the laws of logic and cannot alter or contradict them then ipso facto he did not create those laws, and the exist a superior to God. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I overstating the case here?

 

 

I used to make this argument,  in my final attempts to hold on to faith. I don't think there is a good rebuttal to it,  except to say that it doesn't provide a reason for belief, it just implies that one can believe if one wishes. 

 

Nowadays, when I hear someone make this kind of argument,  I usually point out that it amounts to saying "I don't need evidence,  or arguments, or even logic. I just believe." This is not just faith,  it is specifically blind faith. So I usually leave these conversations early,  saying "you're welcome to your faith,  but don't ask me to share it".

[Myrkhoos]

On 3/28/2019 at 12:27 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

 

On free will: If free will exists then knowing the future cannot be possible. This is because of all the possible futures, beings with true free will can change actions that will alter events. Thus you cannot prophesy x y and z under free will because any of the factors leading up to x y and z can change... unless they are 'set in stone'.... in which case goodbye free will. 

The explanation I heard from the Orthodox is that God has pre knowledge, but he does not predetermine anything. A somewhat poor exemple would be you know your friend very well, and if he goes into a bar, you know exactly what type of drink he is going to have, even though he is free in choosing. Of course this has other problems, namely that free will is constrained as we can easily see. I cannot choose to grow wings, or even to instantly have a deeper voice. So people do not have absolute free will from the start. I suspect that could not even exist, as it means the non existence of anything, In order to be limitless, the choices have to be limiteless, but if something exists, even if it that is infinite, it still has some kind of way of being, as you have a way of being, so you are limited by that. Limitless in that sense means non existence, but that means you could not be in order to exercise will, so that will vanishes. I feel that practically, the kind of free will most christians think they have is an unexamined illusion.

[LogicalFallacy]

I'm not sure that explanation works. Well at least not with the God that Christians claim. So God knows what is going to happen, but doesn't determine it. Wouldn't that mean there is a force greater than God that could be determining what God does? I'm not sure how they marry that concept up with Gods apparent plan for mankind. Apparently he has predestined the chosen which must mean predetermined fates... unless you want to reinterpret the bible entirely.

 

On the subject of free will, in line with Alex O'Connor and Stephen Woodford, I don't think true free will exists. Basically the idea is once set in motion (from the Big bang) everything that happened, had to happen that way (Including all your decisions) and if the clock was rewound and it all happened again, it would play out exactly the same way. For it to be different the initial starting conditions would have to be different. But its a bit late to continue killing brain cells with this level of thinking so I'm off to bed.