Faith, Logic, and Freedom

[Edgarcito]

40 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Okay.  So what you're saying here is that absolutely nothing in your response is even remotely relevant to the topic currently under discussion, which is salvation via god's whim.  Gotcha.

I told Walter I don't know.  I don't know whether God judges them on their actions alone.  I don't know.  That ok?  I'm not sure there's a consensus even among the very knowledgeable.  It appears to me that there is always a group of people that opt out of choosing God.  And it is relevant because God would actually know their hearts rather than conclude and act.  Surely you made that connection, right?

 

Your assumption is that all people are ultimately good and that circumstance places them in an anti-God scenario?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Your assumption is that all people are ultimately good and that circumstance places them in an anti-God scenario?

I don't think we can blame "circumstances" for placing them in an anti-god scenario, while simultaneously accepting your claims that god is in control and has a plan for everybody.  If your claims are true, the obvious implication would be that god placed them in an anti-god scenario, knowing they would end up in hell as a direct result.  I know you told Walt you don't know; but I don't believe that you genuinely do not know.  You do know but would rather not have to admit it or discuss it.  But I don't want to get too involved in the conversation until Walt and DarkBishop have a chance to respond.

[Edgarcito]

A few posts back I mentioned creating all the possible scenarios....i.e. what God offers and the result and if there was always a just out for his stages of presence vs. humanity.  Would be nice if you would use your logic to see if there are gaps and where they actually are, and the knowledge available regarding the options for those group(s).  

 

For example, A&E didn't choose correctly, so they were banned, first death, and given things to do/feel.  

Then the Law and the result.

Then the New Covenant and the result.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But I don't want to get too involved in the conversation until Walt and DarkBishop have a chance to respond.

In the meantime, please enjoy this drawing of humping bunnies.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

+1 for the pic.

 

Seems like the entire thing rests on free will.  So why don't we propose an experiment given we assume we possess adequate knowledge.  This is something almost all of us can appreciate given our backgrounds.  Please consider it.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Seems like the entire thing rests on free will.

Except, as Walt has demonstrated, it does not rest on free will.  Remember that A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time.  This means that free will (A) and predestination (not-A) cannot both be true at the same time.  Yet the bible claims both.  

 

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

So why don't we propose an experiment given we assume we possess adequate knowledge.  This is something almost all of us can appreciate given our backgrounds.  Please consider it.  

Let's see what Walt and DarkBishop have to say first.  Then we can consider an experiment.  They both have questions outstanding.  It's only fair to give them the opportunity to pursue those questions with you.

[walterpthefirst]

I know that you told me that you don't know, Edgarcito.

 

But I didn't ask you if you knew the true and exact answer about salvation.

 

Here's what I wrote yesterday.

 

 

Billions are consigned by god to hell, just because they were born in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

 

Is that fair?  Just?  Merciful?  Loving?  Good?

 

 

So what I'm asking you to do is to comment on the moral condition of a god who would such a thing.

 

Do you think that god is fair, just, merciful, loving and good to do this?

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

A few posts back I mentioned creating all the possible scenarios....i.e. what God offers and the result and if there was always a just out for his stages of presence vs. humanity.  Would be nice if you would use your logic to see if there are gaps and where they actually are, and the knowledge available regarding the options for those group(s).  

 

For example, A&E didn't choose correctly, so they were banned, first death, and given things to do/feel.  

Then the Law and the result.

Then the New Covenant and the result.

 

 

Could you please address the issue at hand. You've repeatedly made claims that A and E had a choice to make the "right" decision. You've said they had "free will".

 

But it could have just been God's will that they transgress his commandment. He could have left the garden. Knowing the serpent was there. Hardened Adam and Eve's heart just so they would make the wrong decision and initiate God's plan for salvation. That otherwise wouldn't have been needed if God had softened their hearts and made them obedient. 

 

The scripture Walter posted isn't the only one that reflects this. 

 

Exodus 14

4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord. And they did so.

5 And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?

6 And he made ready his chariot, and took his people with him:

7 And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them.

8 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.

 

Everybody knows he hardened Pharaoh's heart. 

 

Here Isaiah is begging God and asking why God hardened his peoples hearts. 

 

Isaiah 63

15 Look down from heaven, and behold from the habitation of thy holiness and of thy glory: where is thy zeal and thy strength, the sounding of thy bowels and of thy mercies toward me? are they restrained?

16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O Lord, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

17 O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.

 

Walter and RNP are right. You can't possibly have free will, predestination, a god that hardens and softens the hearts of whoever he wills, and a God that loves everyone and doesn't want anyone to perish. Those are called contradictions. But the Bible says all of it. 

 

How do you know your free will cherry picking is correct? Maybe its the other scriptures that are correct. It would certainly fit more into the A and E scenario in genesis weve been discussing. 

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

53 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Could you please address the issue at hand. You've repeatedly made claims that A and E had a choice to make the "right" decision. You've said they had "free will".

 

But it could have just been God's will that they transgress his commandment. He could have left the garden. Knowing the serpent was there. Hardened Adam and Eve's heart just so they would make the wrong decision and initiate God's plan for salvation. That otherwise wouldn't have been needed if God had softened their hearts and made them obedient. 

 

The scripture Walter posted isn't the only one that reflects this. 

 

Exodus 14

4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord. And they did so.

5 And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?

6 And he made ready his chariot, and took his people with him:

7 And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them.

8 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.

 

Everybody knows he hardened Pharaoh's heart. 

 

Here Isaiah is begging God and asking why God hardened his peoples hearts. 

 

Isaiah 63

15 Look down from heaven, and behold from the habitation of thy holiness and of thy glory: where is thy zeal and thy strength, the sounding of thy bowels and of thy mercies toward me? are they restrained?

16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O Lord, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

17 O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.

 

Walter and RNP are right. You can't possibly have free will, predestination, a god that hardens and softens the hearts of whoever he wills, and a God that loves everyone and doesn't want anyone to perish. Those are called contradictions. But the Bible says all of it. 

 

How do you know your free will cherry picking is correct? Maybe its the other scriptures that are correct. It would certainly fit more into the A and E scenario in genesis weve been discussing. 

 

DB

You're right, could have been.  I don't know what happens to the people that each of you think get the shaft from circumstance, free will or none, or predestination.  Maybe the answer is outside of time.  Maybe it's lost in axioms and theorems.  I don't know.  I choose to believe there is a good, just, and hopeful answer. Or, if it's free will, that there are people that won't choose God regardless of how much they know.  

 

Hoping this answers your present and future questions.  I going to go don't blood now....you know, life.  

 

Thx.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't know what happens to the people that each of you think get the shaft from circumstance, free will or none, or predestination. 

What about the people who get the shaft from god, Ed.  IF god is in control, IF god has a plan for everybody, then nothing happens by "circumstance"; it all happens because god wills it.  So, what happens to all the people on Walt's map?  What happened to Rosa after she was killed without the opportunity to complete her Confirmation?  What happens to the indigenous tribes in the jungle who never hear the gospel, or the Mohammedans who are not allowed to accept jesus on pain of torture, death, and the persecution of their families?  

 

All of this happens according to god's plan, Ed.  So what happens to these people?  What does the bible say, Ed?  Where do these people go when they die?  What does eternity hold for them, according to god's plan?   Doesn't the bible mention something about a lake of eternal hellfire and brimstone?  Doesn't it say something about outer darkness where worms never die?  About weeping and gnashing of teeth?

 

You do know, Ed.  We all know; and we all know that you know, too.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 10/30/2022 at 8:34 AM, mwc said:

   I don't know if I am reading you correctly here but I'll give a quick thought and find out.  What I'm thinking, after reading this bit, is that some of what we're having problems with the meaning of good in more than one way?  We have Adam and Eve not knowing good and evil but at the same time we have a problem of us not really knowing either in that we can't really tell what is supposed to be a good in the moral sense and what is not.  When Eve says the food is good for eating we assume she can't mean morally good so she must mean good in another sense.  When god is said to declare something good is it good in any and all ways or simply in a more narrow sense?  The both senses can allow a paradise but the more narrow sense removes the idea of moral perfection and allows more for a perfect construction in a neutral sense.

 

Good thought, I'm sorry it has taken so long to respond. But I wanted to look into some stuff. And like I said. I didn't have much time. 

 

Could it be that she is only going off of what God and her husband had said. They said it was good. So it must be good. But God didn't tell them that being naked wasn't good. They learned that when their eyes were opened. My initial thought that I posted was that God had said everything was good. But what made it good? According to the fruit being naked is bad. So from gods point of view. Did them not knowing good from evil make it good. Because they weren't held accountable for what they didn't know? This was along the lines of what the assembly taught us. 

 

On 10/30/2022 at 8:34 AM, mwc said:

So Enkidu loses his paradise thanks to a woman and the carnal knowledge he now possesses.  This would run a counter-point for a civilization that lived in the city as opposed to one that is rural (which is more reflected in Genesis).

 

Its interesting that in this myth that its the carnal knowledge that sets him apart and makes the animals run from him. I think this myth could have definitely influenced later canaanite beliefs. Maybe this female Influence in the story set the stage for more misogynistic teachings later. 

 

As I've been looking up more more on ancient canaanite beliefs the past few days I've seen a lot of interesting things. One of the things I saw was that Adonis is a cross over God to Greek mythology. In canaanite mythology it was Adon. In Greek it is Adonis. Both were gods with the exact same traits. 

 

 

 

On 10/30/2022 at 8:34 AM, mwc said:

It also raises a couple of issues.  Does god place the power into these objects or, less likely, does god derive his power from these objects? 

 

I don't know why the tree of life is even such a major part of the story if God is all powerful. I wish there was more on these trees. I can't help but imagine there was once a story that explained them a little more. Maybe that was lost during the oral tradition period. 

 

I found this about the tree of life in Egyptian mythology. Look at some of the similarities. 

 

https://www.twinkl.com/teaching-wiki/the-tree-of-life-in-ancient-egypt#:~:text=or literal sense.-,In Ancient Egypt%2C the Tree of Life was a representation,portray the process of creation.

 

1. Ancient Egyptians believed that eating the fruit of the sacred Ished Tree of Life that had been offered by the gods was a guarantee of eternal life.

 

2. In Egyptian mythology, the Tree of Life was thought to have held the Knowledge of the Divine Plan. This was essentially a plan or timeline of all creation, starting at the very beginning of time.

 

3. The Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt was home to the Phoenix, also known as the Bennu Bird. As such, it held strong links with resurrection and represented the rising sun.

 

4. At the foot of the Tree of Life were four river sources. The sources of these rivers would provide water to the world. The orientation of these four rivers was important, as they all correlated with a cardinal point of the compass. Each point of the compass, and its corresponding river, was associated with a specific element. For example, water was associated with the North Point, fire was associated with the South Point, air was associated with the East Point, and earth was associated with the West Point.

 

How many rivers came from the Eden in genesis? 4 right? 

 

Genesis 2

 

9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

 

This article talks about how canaanite beliefs were affected by all other religions in the region and also that canaanite beliefs affected their beliefs and traditions as well. 

 

https://brewminate.com/the-religion-of-the-ancient-canaanites/

 

"Canaanite religion was strongly influenced by their more powerful and populous neighbors, and shows clear influence of Mesopotamian and Egyptian religious practices. "

 

I found this interesting as well in another article. 

 

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/cana/hd_cana.htm

 

"Excavated at Ugarit, the tale of Baal’s conquest of the sea is described in an epic cycle of six tablets. After a rather obscure opening, the god Yamm (the Sea) sends a message to the divine assembly demanding that Baal surrender. El, the aging chief deity, agrees to the request. He demands that Baal surrender to Yamm’s messengers. But Baal resists. With the encouragement and assistance of Kothar-wa-Hasis, the craftsman god, Baal engages the Sea in battle. He pummels Yamm with his mace and defeats him.

Following the victory, Anat, El’s daughter who is also called Baal’s sister, goes on a rampage and slaughters human enemies presumably allied against Baal. Afterward, Baal pursues the construction of a magnificent royal palace on his sacred mountain. The craftsman Kothar-wa-Hasis suggests that the palace have windows, but Baal disagrees so that Yamm/Nahar cannot enter stealthily. Cedars are brought from Lebanon together with silver, gold, and precious stones to adorn the palace. When the building is finished, all the deities celebrate with a great feast. Afterward, Baal defeats all of his enemies in surrounding territories in order to form an empire for himself. Now flush with victory, Baal sends a courier to Mot, son of El and ruler of the Underworld, to declare his kingship. But Mot in his reply turns the tables on his adversary and invites him to come to the Underworld. When Baal accepts and descends, he becomes trapped in the vise of death, which results in the cessation of rain. Anat, Baal’s sister and the goddess of hunting and war, goes in search of him. Finding him in the realm of the dead, she confronts Mot, attacks him with a knife and winnowing fork, and burns his body, which is then eaten by birds. Now rescued, Baal resumes his place on the royal throne. But Mot revives and the two giants of the heavens battle. Finally, Mot capitulates and declares Baal to be the rightful ruler of the cosmos."

 

This is obviously from a theology that reflects Ba'al as the ruler of the cosmos after defeating Mot. In essence this is an overthrow of EL it looks like. 

 

I think in the bible we see the response of the worshippers of El. To the people that worshipped Ba'al. In both both peoples minds they were worshipping the more powerful deity. Also in this it describes El as the aged chief. Indicating that he was weaker because he was older. Maybe this is why El needs the tree of Eternal life?

 

On 10/30/2022 at 8:34 AM, mwc said:

Yeah, the whole idea is when this story was put together exactly what did the author(s) know and from where was it drawn?  There seems to be clear signs, especially in the flood narrative, where all the later knowledge of sacrificial animals, comes through (with the bringing of two animals each and then the second telling to bring seven of the clean animals)

I definitely believe the flood myth was influence by the Gilgamesh and the tree of life was influence by Egyptian mythology. Later on the Christian Hell is obviously influence by Greek mythology. 

 

When you start to see these things you begin to realize this was the ancient isrealites version of everyone else's myths. To the point that some God's cross over between pantheon. Like Adonis as I mentioned earlier. 

 

On 10/30/2022 at 8:34 AM, mwc said:

Yeah, this could be the case.  I'm not sure people have to be illiterate though.  Lots of fully literate people, of all education levels, believe in magic and miracles today.  I don't want to discount all these people as maybe being simpletons because they lived a long time ago.

But you have to admit. That for those that were illiterate, which would have been the majority of the population. They were dependant on those that were literate to tell them what Gods word said. They couldn't sit here like we do and analyze everything they were told. 

 

This is a good conversation. Let's keep it going if we can. 

 

A few years ago I was looking up what the Ankh symbolized in Egyptian mythology and it represents the breath of life. As much as it looks like a cross. I have to wonder if even that was influence by Egypt. 

 

DB

 

Ps. Forgive any typos please. I'll edit them out later. Going out trick or treating again lol. 

[walterpthefirst]

Ok Edgarcito,

 

You've been in an extended dialogue with the Prof, DB and me in this thread.  During this dialogue questions have been asked and answered by all of us.  You've just responded to DB and so, in this spirit of asked and answered questions I now politely ask you to answer my question to you. 

 

For the sake of clarification this is the same kind of question as the ones I asked you about the rattlesnake endangering your children.  There you knew that the responsibility for the safety of your children was exclusively yours.  You also knew that since you had the responsibility and means to protect your children you would have killed the snake immediately.

 

You knew those answers because you have an internal moral compass that tells what is right and wrong, what is good and evil, what is moral and what is immoral.  Using your moral compass you knew that it was wrong, evil and immoral to let the snake harm your children.  In the same way, using your moral compass you knew that it was right, good and moral to protect them from the snake.

 

And that is what my question is designed to evoke from you.  A response from your moral compass.  I would like you to use that compass to judge if it is right, good and moral for god to consign people to hell on the basis of where and when they were born.  

 

Please note that this question doesn't ask you to rely on biblical knowledge, science, anything technical or esoteric.  Furthermore, on the basis of your answers about the rattlesnake, you can't not know what is right and wrong here.  You can't not know what is good and evil here. You can't not know what is moral and immoral here.

 

Therefore, please answer by using only your moral compass.

 

Is it right, good and moral for god to consign people to hell on the basis of where and when they are born?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

You're right, could have been.  I don't know what happens to the people that each of you think get the shaft from circumstance, free will or none, or predestination.  Maybe the answer is outside of time.  Maybe it's lost in axioms and theorems.  I don't know.  I choose to believe there is a good, just, and hopeful answer. Or, if it's free will, that there are people that won't choose God regardless of how much they know.  

 

Hoping this answers your present and future questions.  I going to go don't blood now....you know, life.  

 

Thx.

 

Basically the same answer you gave last time you hit a dead end. 

 

I guess we'll just find out when we die and the good lord tells everyone what up right?

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

25 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Ok Edgarcito,

 

You've been in an extended dialogue with the Prof, DB and me in this thread.  During this dialogue questions have been asked and answered by all of us.  You've just responded to DB and so, in this spirit of asked and answered questions I now politely ask you to answer my question to you. 

 

For the sake of clarification this is the same kind of question as the ones I asked you about the rattlesnake endangering your children.  There you knew that the responsibility for the safety of your children was exclusively yours.  You also knew that since you had the responsibility and means to protect your children you would have killed the snake immediately.

 

You knew those answers because you have an internal moral compass that tells what is right and wrong, what is good and evil, what is moral and what is immoral.  Using your moral compass you knew that it was wrong, evil and immoral to let the snake harm your children.  In the same way, using your moral compass you knew that it was right, good and moral to protect them from the snake.

 

And that is what my question is designed to evoke from you.  A response from your moral compass.  I would like you to use that compass to judge if it is right, good and moral for god to consign people to hell on the basis of where and when they were born.  

 

Please note that this question doesn't ask you to rely on biblical knowledge, science, anything technical or esoteric.  Furthermore, on the basis of your answers about the rattlesnake, you can't not know what is right and wrong here.  You can't not know what is good and evil here. You can't not know what is moral and immoral here.

 

Therefore, please answer by using only your moral compass.

 

Is it right, good and moral for god to consign people to hell on the basis of where and when they are born?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

I tend to think it’s a possibility Walter

[Edgarcito]

26 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Basically the same answer you gave last time you hit a dead end. 

 

I guess we'll just find out when we die and the good lord tells everyone what up right?

 

DB

I like to think I’m smart enough to marry free will and predestination.. it just hasn’t come to me yet lol.  Going to defer to my friend Pantheory for a lifeline

[walterpthefirst]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I tend to think it’s a possibility Walter

 

Then please engage your moral compass once more and try to explain how it is right, good and moral for god to do this.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I like to think I’m smart enough to marry free will and predestination.. it just hasn’t come to me yet lol.  Going to defer to my friend Pantheory for a lifeline

 

The most brilliant scholars, thinkers and philosophers in history haven't been able to marry these two incompatible things, Ed.

 

So what makes you think that Pantheory, or anyone else here can do what they cannot?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

23 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I tend to think it’s a possibility Walter

 

Or putting it another way Ed...

 

If your moral compass tells you that it is a right, moral and good thing for you to defend your vulnerable children from a rattlesnake, does your moral compass tell you that it is right, moral and good for god to consign millions of vulnerable children and babies to hellfire, just on the basis of where and when they were born?

 

What does your moral compass tell you about these screaming babies and children, writhing in everlasting fire?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I like to think I’m smart enough to marry free will and predestination.

No, you're not, Ed.  I don't mean that as an insult; none of us are smart enough.  This is because A and not-A cannot both be true.  This has nothing to do with dogma or theology..  This is not some kind of profound mystery that god will reveal some glad morning.  It is a simple law of logic that we can also easily observe in the universe around us.  Matter cannot also be energy at the same time.  An object cannot be both here and not here at the same time.  And god cannot have a plan for everybody and everybody also have free will.  It is simply not possible.  

 

And that is the dilemma you face.  Because, either god has a plan for everybody (predestination), or everybody is free to choose their own path (free will).  But they cannot both be true.  This is not one of those times when logic is too limited to give us a valid conclusion.  Rather, the conclusion logic gives us here is observable, testable, and repeatable.  A and not-A cannot both be true, Ed.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This runs parallel right alongside the point that Walt is making about god's moral nature, @Edgarcito.  See, god cannot be all-loving and have a plan that involves billions of people burning in hell.  god cannot be omnibenevolent and have a plan for Rosa Maria to be trafficked, raped, and murdered at the tender age of 7.  god cannot be omnipotent and not able to forgive "sin" without the shedding of blood.  Because A and not-A cannot both be true. 

 

You'd have better luck getting rain (A) out of a clear sky (not-A).  Or eating a steak that is both well-done (A), and simultaneously still raw (not-A).

 

You have to have faith, Ed; precisely because your god begins where logic ends.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Do you realize,  @Edgarcito, that if god has a plan for everybody, then there is absolutely no reason to have faith?  There's no reason to repent, or seek god, or pray, or do good works, or any of the rest of it.  It is all completely pointless.  Because if god has a plan for everybody, then the people god has planned to be saved, will be saved.  Irrespective of what they do, say, or think here on earth, they will find themselves in heaven, according to god's plan, in the everlasting arms of the sweet baby jesus, just as happy as a whore in a dick tree.

 

So, predestination cannot be true, because god wants us to have faith, right?  That means free will must be true.  Except, if free will is true then god cannot be omniscient.  Because if I have free will, that means I can make a choice that god doesn't know I will make.  And if he doesn't know what I am going to choose, then he also doesn't know what the outcome will be.  So, god cannot be omniscient. 

 

But, wait, that means free will cannot be true; because, of course god is omniscient.  Predestination must be true, instead, right?  Except that if god has already predetermined the choices I will make, then that means that I cannot change the choices, nor can I change the outcome of them.  But neither can god... which means god is not omnipotent...

 

A and not-A cannot both be true, Ed.  god cannot be omniscient and not-omniscient; he cannot be both omnipotent and not-omnipotent.  He either is, or he ain't.  There is no in-between on this one.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do you realize,  @Edgarcito, that if god has a plan for everybody, then there is absolutely no reason to have faith?  There's no reason to repent, or seek god, or pray, or do good works, or any of the rest of it.  It is all completely pointless.  Because if god has a plan for everybody, then the people god has planned to be saved, will be saved.  Irrespective of what they do, say, or think here on earth, they will find themselves in heaven, according to god's plan, in the everlasting arms of the sweet baby jesus, just as happy as a whore in a dick tree.

 

So, predestination cannot be true, because god wants us to have faith, right?  That means free will must be true.  Except, if free will is true then god cannot be omniscient.  Because if I have free will, that means I can make a choice that god doesn't know I will make.  And if he doesn't know what I am going to choose, then he also doesn't know what the outcome will be.  So, god cannot be omniscient. 

 

But, wait, that means free will cannot be true; because, of course god is omniscient.  Predestination must be true, instead, right?  Except that if god has already predetermined the choices I will make, then that means that I cannot change the choices, nor can I change the outcome of them.  But neither can god... which means god is not omnipotent...

 

A and not-A cannot both be true, Ed.  god cannot be omniscient and not-omniscient; he cannot be both omnipotent and not-omnipotent.  He either is, or he ain't.  There is no in-between on this one.

 

Sounds like you had a revelation of your own RNP good stuff  

[walterpthefirst]

Edgarcito,

 

When I presented you with the 'rattlesnake in your garden' scenario your moral compass was able to give answers that were clearly moral, right and good.  So, it seems that if I can present you with a scenario that speaks to you personally and that you can easily relate to, your moral compass will operate freely and give definite answers.

 

Therefore, to focus your mind, here is another scenario for you.

 

The U.S. government enacts a law that criminalizes being a Texan.  All Texans must be imprisoned, not because of any other law they have broken, but simply because they were born with the state of Texas.  If you are a Texan you are immediately found guilty without a trial and you have no right of appeal either.  You must go to prison for being a Texan.

 

Regardless of how impractical it would be to pass or implement such a law Edgarcito, please use your moral compass to judge if this law is fair and just to Texans.

 

 

What is your answer?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

There is a third option, though; isn't there, @Edgarcito?  While it is not possible for A and not-A to both be true, it is possible for them to both be not true.  As an example, I have a bioreactor here at work.  When it is full (A), it contains 100L; and when it is empty (not-A), it contains 0L.  But it is possible for it to contain 70L; in which case it is not full (not A) and simultaneously not empty (not not-A).

 

This underscores the dilemma you face in attempting to define god in terms of absolutes.  Absolutes are tricky; because if just one exception can be found (sometimes even just imagined), then the "absolute" is no longer an absolute.  It goes back to the age-old adage, "There are no absolutes" which is, itself, an absolute and therefore disproves itself.  god cannot be described in anything less than absolutes; because anything less than an absolute would describe something less than god.  But, as I have shown you, every absolute with which god can be described, either has an exception, or creates a contradiction with some other attribute with which god is ascribed.

 

The example of omniscience is sufficient to explain this.  god cannot be omniscient if we have free will; because omniscience implies that there is absolutely nothing that god does not already know, but free will implies that we can make choices that god has not predetermined and therefore he does not know the outcome.  To get around this obvious contradiction, about the only direction in which this can be taken is the idea that god does already know all of the possible choices and the outcomes of each (omniscience); but leaves the choice up to us (free will).  There is an inherent flaw with this idea, though.  Does god know all of the choices and the outcome of each; but does not know what each of us will choose in any given situation?  If so, then we are right back to god not being omniscient.  Conversely, does god know all of the choices and the outcome of each; and also knows what each of us will choose in any given situation?  If so, then we are right back to predestination.  So, the (red herring) attempt to get us around the obstacle, actually just brings us right back to where we started.

 

The same holds true for any other absolutes with which we try to describe god.  Omnipotence raises the question of god having the ability to change the choices we make or the outcomes thereof; and leaves us right back at free will versus predestination.  Omnibenevolence and omnipresence both push us right back to the problem of evil.  An all-loving god cannot also have a plan that allows Rosa Maria to be trafficked, raped, and murdered; and an omnipresent god, who was there the entire time Rosa endured her ordeal, is simply evil.  Moreover, both of these absolutes speak directly to god's own free will.  Could he have freely chosen to deliver Rosa?  Could he have changed his plan?  If not, then he is not omnipotent.  If so, then why did it happen?

 

Unfortunately, anything less than absolute would describe something less than god.  A "god" who knows a lot but not everything is hardly a god worth seeking wisdom from.  And who is he to withhold the knowledge of good and evil from us, when there's stuff he doesn't even know?  A god who can do a lot but not everything is hardly a god worth praying to for protection, let alone salvation (what if salvation is one of those things he can't do?).

 

Getting back to the possibility that A and not-A can both be not true, is it possible for god is omniscient and god is not omniscient to both be not true?  Certainly.  If god does not exist, then god is not omniscient (A is not true), nor is god not not omniscient (not-A is also not true).  Again, logic demonstrates that god cannot be what the bible describes him as.

 

At the end of the day, Ed, you reject logic because it is limited.  You reject science and knowledge because they are limited.  You think you accept faith because it is unlimited; but of what value is having unlimited faith in such a limited god?  You have spent a lifetime searching for The Absolute, in logic, in objective morality, in perfect knowledge; only to place your faith in a god who cannot be Absolute.  It's tragic, really. 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

There is a third option, though; isn't there, @Edgarcito?  While it is not possible for A and not-A to both be true, it is possible for them to both be not true.  As an example, I have a bioreactor here at work.  When it is full (A), it contains 100L; and when it is empty (not-A), it contains 0L.  But it is possible for it to contain 70L; in which case it is not full (not A) and simultaneously not empty (not not-A).

 

This underscores the dilemma you face in attempting to define god in terms of absolutes.  Absolutes are tricky; because if just one exception can be found (sometimes even just imagined), then the "absolute" is no longer an absolute.  It goes back to the age-old adage, "There are no absolutes" which is, itself, an absolute and therefore disproves itself.  god cannot be described in anything less than absolutes; because anything less than an absolute would describe something less than god.  But, as I have shown you, every absolute with which god can be described, either has an exception, or creates a contradiction with some other attribute with which god is ascribed.

 

The example of omniscience is sufficient to explain this.  god cannot be omniscient if we have free will; because omniscience implies that there is absolutely nothing that god does not already know, but free will implies that we can make choices that god has not predetermined and therefore he does not know the outcome.  To get around this obvious contradiction, about the only direction in which this can be taken is the idea that god does already know all of the possible choices and the outcomes of each (omniscience); but leaves the choice up to us (free will).  There is an inherent flaw with this idea, though.  Does god know all of the choices and the outcome of each; but does not know what each of us will choose in any given situation?  If so, then we are right back to god not being omniscient.  Conversely, does god know all of the choices and the outcome of each; and also knows what each of us will choose in any given situation?  If so, then we are right back to predestination.  So, the (red herring) attempt to get us around the obstacle, actually just brings us right back to where we started.

 

The same holds true for any other absolutes with which we try to describe god.  Omnipotence raises the question of god having the ability to change the choices we make or the outcomes thereof; and leaves us right back at free will versus predestination.  Omnibenevolence and omnipresence both push us right back to the problem of evil.  An all-loving god cannot also have a plan that allows Rosa Maria to be trafficked, raped, and murdered; and an omnipresent god, who was there the entire time Rosa endured her ordeal, is simply evil.  Moreover, both of these absolutes speak directly to god's own free will.  Could he have freely chosen to deliver Rosa?  Could he have changed his plan?  If not, then he is not omnipotent.  If so, then why did it happen?

 

Unfortunately, anything less than absolute would describe something less than god.  A "god" who knows a lot but not everything is hardly a god worth seeking wisdom from.  And who is he to withhold the knowledge of good and evil from us, when there's stuff he doesn't even know?  A god who can do a lot but not everything is hardly a god worth praying to for protection, let alone salvation (what if salvation is one of those things he can't do?).

 

Getting back to the possibility that A and not-A can both be not true, is it possible for god is omniscient and god is not omniscient to both be not true?  Certainly.  If god does not exist, then god is not omniscient (A is not true), nor is god not not omniscient (not-A is also not true).  Again, logic demonstrates that god cannot be what the bible describes him as.

 

At the end of the day, Ed, you reject logic because it is limited.  You reject science and knowledge because they are limited.  You think you accept faith because it is unlimited; but of what value is having unlimited faith in such a limited god?  You have spent a lifetime searching for The Absolute, in logic, in objective morality, in perfect knowledge; only to place your faith in a god who cannot be Absolute.  It's tragic, really. 

Do you have a goal for me here.   Let me ask one question that popped into mind....more reasoning within or outside the Bible, a disclaimer now.  The Bible says that God knew us before we were formed.  What do you make of those verses please.  I'm not asking you to participate in a Bible study, but kind of enjoy the MWC type visits more than let's hang Ed on a daily basis. Thx. (and a preemptive strike.....I'm mostly through with the thoughts that were at hand....so I'm not anticipating moving back to those points.)  Thx.