New member, looking for discussion

[wasmit]

Would you please do me the favor of providing “a clear and logical demonstration of the incompatibility of creation/freewill/omnipotence/omniscience” which convinced you. All you’ve done here is state the premise. You do not logically prove it. You can’t seem to see the logic of belief in a Supreme Being.

1. Assume an omnipotent omniscient Deity named Brahma that created all humans.
2. he knows everything that occurred at all times, past, present and future. He can change anything at any time. (omniscience, omnipotence)
3. He can change a future event by changing any prior cause of that event. (omnipotence)
4. At the moment of creation of humans, he knew every decision that every human would make. (omniscience)
5. At the moment of creation of humans, he could have changed any decision made by any human by editing the act of creation of humans. (omnipotence, 3)
6. Further, he must have consciously chosen each decision, as even if god created all humans and then did nothing further, he was tacitly agreeing to all future decisions, as he knew about them. (5, omniscience)
7. each decision that is ever made by humans was therefore made by god in the act of creation, as he had the power to change any decision, therefore he chose the outcome of every decision.(5 and 6)
8. every decision that is ever made by humans was actually made by god (7)
9. there is no free will.

1. A Supreme Being must be omnipotent/omniscient in order to create the universe.
2. God (Christian God) is the Creator of the universe.
3. Therefore, God is omnipotent/omniscient.

1. no (burden of proof)
2. no (burden of proof)
3. This logically follows from 1 and 2.

 

[onelife1]

Wasmit, I am greiving for you now!
** I pray, for your change of heart.**

 

[steve_b]

Hi wasmit,

This argument is invalid. There are a couple of issues with it. One problem is premise 5.

In this premise you are implicitly assuming the conclusion (9.) and therefore the argument is circular. If God could have edited any decision made by humans (even indirectly) then free will does not exist, rather God does make our decisions for us and we are not free to act. But this is a premise of your argument, not the conclusion, so you are pre-supposing your conclusion in premise 5.

Now, you may say that free will contradicts 4., but this is not the case. Just because God knows what decisions we are going to make, it in no way follows logically that we, being free agents, are predetermined in the decisions we make. You have to remember that God transcends time and therefore isn’t constricted by time.

Consider what “free will” means: it means our actions are not completely predetermined by any “outside” cause. The corollary of that is that, in time, our actions can never be completely predictable even if one is omniscient. So if God existed completely “in time”, then 4. would lead to a contradiction of free will. However, God does not exist completely in time but transcends it, so all time lays before Him to view. Therefore free will and 4. are completely consistent.

Andy,

He plays by a double standard

He demands everyone here use evidence based reason to prove there is a God but that restriction doesn’t apply to him when he denies God exists. Just look at his arguments so far.

Example

when he posted this
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4822165&postcount=420

which was to justify this earlier post
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4806497&postcount=363

(emphasis mine)

:

1. Assume an omnipotent omniscient Deity named Brahma that created all humans.
2. he knows everything that occurred at all times, past, present and future. He can change anything at any time. (omniscience, omnipotence)
3. He can change a future event by changing any prior cause of that event. (omnipotence)
4. At the moment of creation of humans, he knew every decision that every human would make. (omniscience)
5. At the moment of creation of humans, he could have changed any decision made by any human by editing the act of creation of humans. (omnipotence, 3)
6. Further, he must have consciously chosen each decision, as even if god created all humans and then did nothing further, he was tacitly agreeing to all future decisions, as he knew about them. (5, omniscience)
7. each decision that is ever made by humans was therefore made by god in the act of creation, as he had the power to change any decision, therefore he chose the outcome of every decision.(5 and 6)
8. every decision that is ever made by humans was actually made by god (7)
9. there is no free will.

Note: Why begin with an assumption. If that was one of us in reverse, and we started out with an assumption He would stop them immediately demand they use proof NOT assumptions

I gurantee you, that if this was done in reverse to him, he would immediately respond with WHERE’S YOU’RE PROOF on EVERYTHING!!!

Given his response above, He doesn’t understand

the nature of God who he denies
newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm Nature of God

or

omnipotence
newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm

or

omnipresence
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm

All subjects he mischaracterizes in his assumptions above.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi steveb,

I don’t actually have a problem with him assuming an omnipotent and omniscient Diety in his first premise, as it is the step which lays out the ground-work for his argument. I see that he is trying to use the traditional properties attributed to God along with the doctrine of free will, and then move to find some sort of contradiction between the two in an attempt to actually deductively “prove” the non-existence of God.

The problem I have with the argument is that it is invalid, in fact it is circular, with serious issues in the major premises. I agree though that the likely source of the argument lies in a poor understanding of the key attributes of God, which you provided some good links to. Thanks for that

 

[rookieonedge]

Try to get past the whole “how could someone reject God?” thing.
To reject God, you would have to first know God directly.

What people reject is other people’s (and sometimes their own) ideas about God.
Just because some of these ideas have been formalized by one organized group or another, doesn’t change the fact they are just ideas to non-members of the group in question.

Regarding Fatima, not everyone perceived all the events exactly the same way.
I agree that there was a mass altering of people’s consciousness and perceptions.

Whether those perceptions were hallucinatory, symbolic, or objective reality is a matter of interpretation.
How each individual did interpret their personal experience determined their response to that experience.

How those of us not present at the events, respond to stories of those events, is now back to a question of interpreting words and ideas - not direct experience.

You said: “To reject God, you would have to know Him directly.”
What do you mean by “directly?” Try this statement: To reject Satan, you would have to know him directly. Do you reject Satan? Do you know him directly?

I agree that sometimes people reject other people’s and even their own ideas about God (as well as other once-held concepts). When new information is processed, old information may be re-processed with adjustments or rejected.

How do you know how people who were present during the miracle of the sun processed their perceptions? What we know from their own words, newspaper articles (like I said many nonbelievers were there–I would think they’d have to readjust their thinking), and the effects the miracle had (it had been raining continuously until the miracle; people with soaked clothing and muddy shoes found themselves to be completely dry) is solid evidence for the miracle. Read the book, “Meet the Witnesses” which is a compilation of the reactions of people who saw the actual miracle. It can be obtained through The Blue Army. Of course, Christians need not accept any apparition or visionary, but we believe the words of the apostles and gospel writers, so why can’t we be open to the claims of those who have witnessed an event? The apparitions of Lourdes and Fatima have been approved by the Church.

 

[steve_b]

Hi steveb,

I don’t actually have a problem with him assuming an omnipotent and omniscient Diety in his first premise, as it is the step which lays out the ground-work for his argument.

His assumptions didn’t stop there. All the points I highlighted in (red) …came from mischaracterizations of omnipresence and omnipotence that came from erroneous assumption.

Andy:

The problem I have with the argument is that it is invalid, in fact it is circular, with serious issues in the major premises. I agree though that the likely source of the argument lies in a poor understanding of the key attributes of God, which you provided some good links to. Thanks for that

Good luck :tiphat:

 

[rookieonedge]

1. Assume an omnipotent omniscient Deity named Brahma that created all humans.
2. he knows everything that occurred at all times, past, present and future. He can change anything at any time. (omniscience, omnipotence)
3. He can change a future event by changing any prior cause of that event. (omnipotence)
4. At the moment of creation of humans, he knew every decision that every human would make. (omniscience)
5. At the moment of creation of humans, he could have changed any decision made by any human by editing the act of creation of humans. (omnipotence, 3)
6. Further, he must have consciously chosen each decision, as even if god created all humans and then did nothing further, he was tacitly agreeing to all future decisions, as he knew about them. (5, omniscience)
7. each decision that is ever made by humans was therefore made by god in the act of creation, as he had the power to change any decision, therefore he chose the outcome of every decision.(5 and 6)
8. every decision that is ever made by humans was actually made by god (7)
9. there is no free will
10. no (burden of proof)
11. no (burden of proof)
12. This logically follows from 1 and 2.

Same old, same old. . . almost everyone on this thread has refuted your argument.

As for my syllogism, #1 is an axiom, which is “a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit; a proposition regarded as a self-evident truth.” (Webster) It stands on its own merit: A Supreme Being must be omnipotent/omniscient in order to create the universe. (It’s logical! Ground control to Major Tom. . .)
#2. stands on its own merit as well. Call God the Great White Spirit (GWS or FSM, if you prefer) who created the universe (how about set off the Big Bang?)
#3. is the conclusion that God (GWS) is omnipotent/omniscient.
#4. in addition: Since God (GWS) is all-powerful and all-knowing, He WILLED the Laws of Nature as well as Divine Law.
#5. He can cause anything or anyone to exist or not exist, according to the Laws of Nature which He set into motion according to His WILL.
#6. His will is free.
#7. He “made man in His image and likeness.”
#8 Therefore, He extends His Will to allow free will in angels, then in man.

 

[anon5216]

You said: “To reject God, you would have to know Him directly.”
What do you mean by “directly?” Try this statement: To reject Satan, you would have to know him directly. Do you reject Satan? Do you know him directly?

I do not know Satan directly, so all I can really reject is the mental image I may have of him, or the mental image someone else has that they ask me to reject.
Of course everyone would say they reject Satan (although there are always those few …).

However, I stand by my original assertion that the only things you can reject or accept are those you know directly, and for the most part that means our own ideas. (Those ideas could, of course, simply be borrowed ideas that we’ve accepted).

I agree that sometimes people reject other people’s and even their own ideas about God (as well as other once-held concepts). When new information is processed, old information may be re-processed with adjustments or rejected.

How do you know how people who were present during the miracle of the sun processed their perceptions? What we know from their own words, newspaper articles (like I said many nonbelievers were there–I would think they’d have to readjust their thinking), and the effects the miracle had (it had been raining continuously until the miracle; people with soaked clothing and muddy shoes found themselves to be completely dry) is solid evidence for the miracle.

Not everyone experienced the event identically. I never claimed to know how specific witnesses to the Fatima event processed their perceptions. I’m claiming they interpreted their experience based on their beliefs and life experience - that would include changing their belief systems if the event as experienced fit their personal criteria for a belief altering situation.

Everyone’s set of beliefs and corresponding life experience are different - therefore their processing of perceptions is necessarily different.

Specific people starting out rain soaked and suddenly finding themselves completely dry is certainly an example of the normal laws of nature being circumvented in some way.
How each specific individual interprets the significance of that experience is going to vary.

Read the book, “Meet the Witnesses” which is a compilation of the reactions of people who saw the actual miracle. It can be obtained through The Blue Army. Of course, Christians need not accept any apparition or visionary, but we believe the words of the apostles and gospel writers, so why can’t we be open to the claims of those who have witnessed an event? The apparitions of Lourdes and Fatima have been approved by the Church.

Thanks for the book suggestion. I don’t remember what book it was I had originally read about Fatima. (It’s probably somewhere in my collection, but …).

Regarding being open to claims of those present:
Believing they are honestly describing the experience and their response to it is one thing. Assuming their interpretation of the meaning of their experience is objectively accurate is another.

 

[rookieonedge]

I do not know Satan directly, so all I can really reject is the mental image I may have of him, or the mental image someone else has that they ask me to reject.
Of course everyone would say they reject Satan (although there are always those few …).

However, I stand by my original assertion that the only things you can reject or accept are those you know directly, and for the most part that means our own ideas. (Those ideas could, of course, simply be borrowed ideas that we’ve accepted).

Not everyone experienced the event identically. I never claimed to know how specific witnesses to the Fatima event processed their perceptions. I’m claiming they interpreted their experience based on their beliefs and life experience - that would include changing their belief systems if the event as experienced fit their personal criteria for a belief altering situation.

Everyone’s set of beliefs and corresponding life experience are different - therefore their processing of perceptions is necessarily different.

Specific people starting out rain soaked and suddenly finding themselves completely dry is certainly an example of the normal laws of nature being circumvented in some way.
How each specific individual interprets the significance of that experience is going to vary.

Thanks for the book suggestion. I don’t remember what book it was I had originally read about Fatima. (It’s probably somewhere in my collection, but …).

Regarding being open to claims of those present:
Believing they are honestly describing the experience and their response to it is one thing. Assuming their interpretation of the meaning of their experience is objectively accurate is another.

It sounds to me like you’re saying each person may experience the same phenomenon yet interpret (process) it differently. I can agree with that. The witnesses described their perception of the sun spinning and descending to earth according to their own understanding. Yet they all saw the event.

You said, “Assuming their interpretation of the meaning of their experience is objectively accurate is another.” (In this situation, the Church has to determine the accuracy of witnesses’ descriptions as well as the seers’ themselves). Eventually, the Church gave approval. (Some apparitions, such as those at Garabandal and Medjugorje do not have approval (as least as yet).

So the fact that there was a miracle seen by over 70,000 people in one place is objectively true. It seems to me that the thrust of your argument is to nullify objective truth,claiming that since each person sees with their own eyes (so to speak), each one sees a different picture (has their own interpretation) of the event, so what they are describing is just in their heads which no one else can verify. Are you postulating that truth is relative? That morality is relative? Do you accept the validity of the Fatima apparitions?

According the the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2467
Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it: “It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons. . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth.”

 

[anon5216]

It sounds to me like you’re saying each person may experience the same phenomenon yet interpret (process) it differently. I can agree with that. The witnesses described their perception of the sun spinning and descending to earth according to their own understanding. Yet they all saw the event.

You said, “Assuming their interpretation of the meaning of their experience is objectively accurate is another.” (In this situation, the Church has to determine the accuracy of witnesses’ descriptions as well as the seers’ themselves). Eventually, the Church gave approval. (Some apparitions, such as those at Garabandal and Medjugorje do not have approval (as least as yet).

So the fact that there was a miracle seen by over 70,000 people in one place is objectively true. It seems to me that the thrust of your argument is to nullify objective truth,claiming that since each person sees with their own eyes (so to speak), each one sees a different picture (has their own interpretation) of the event, so what they are describing is just in their heads which no one else can verify. Are you postulating that truth is relative? That morality is relative? Do you accept the validity of the Fatima apparitions?

According the the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2467
Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it: “It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons. . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth.”

Regarding your first paragraph: Yes, you interpreted my post as I intended.

I’m not trying to nullify objective experience, but am simply saying that everyone will interpret the meaning of that experience differently.
Say a group of us together all saw the sun turn blue during midday, with a golden halo and stars showing as if it were nighttime. (excuse the simplistic example)
If those colors remind you of the Mother of Jesus, you might interpret the experience to be a vision of her and greatly intensify your devotion to Catholicism.
However, another person might think of Krishna and interpret the same objective experience to awaken their faith and devotion to Sri Krishna.

Truth is not relative, but perceptions of truth are colored by a person’s beliefs and expectations.

Morality in practice is relative. Even staunch Catholics on this forum defend immoral actions described in biblical stories or Church history, by asking us to take into consideration the historical circumstances of the times.

I do accept that a profound supernatural event took place at Fatima, and that people honestly described their recollections and responses to that event. How their lives changed as a result was a subjective process that depended on what significance they each personally placed on their experience. I didn’t personally respond with acceptance of the Catholic Church as the only true and full path to God, on reading about it, however.

I agree with the Catechism text you quoted with a couple caveats:

1. I would replace the words “religious truth” with “spiritual truth”. This is because in my personal view, religions in general tend to cling to form over substance. I like the word “spiritual” better because it brings, to my mind at least, the thought of substance over external form.
2. Related to the “substance vs. form” issue, I don’t believe that Truth can be conveyed via words. Meaning that any teaching can only be symbols for Truth and hints at Truth, but not Truth itself. The only people (IMO), who can communicate Truth to each other without problems of misinterpretation or those who have both experienced directly the same aspects of Truth.

I do believe this is possible within the Catholic Church structure, as quite a few of the canonized saints demonstrate. I also believe this is equally possible in many other spiritual traditions as well.

 

[rookieonedge]

Regarding your first paragraph: Yes, you interpreted my post as I intended.

I’m not trying to nullify objective experience, but am simply saying that everyone will interpret the meaning of that experience differently.
Say a group of us together all saw the sun turn blue during midday, with a golden halo and stars showing as if it were nighttime. (excuse the simplistic example)
If those colors remind you of the Mother of Jesus, you might interpret the experience to be a vision of her and greatly intensify your devotion to Catholicism.
However, another person might think of Krishna and interpret the same objective experience to awaken their faith and devotion to Sri Krishna.

Truth is not relative, but perceptions of truth are colored by a person’s beliefs and expectations.

Morality in practice is relative. Even staunch Catholics on this forum defend immoral actions described in biblical stories or Church history, by asking us to take into consideration the historical circumstances of the times.

I do accept that a profound supernatural event took place at Fatima, and that people honestly described their recollections and responses to that event. How their lives changed as a result was a subjective process that depended on what significance they each personally placed on their experience. I didn’t personally respond with acceptance of the Catholic Church as the only true and full path to God, on reading about it, however.

I agree with the Catechism text you quoted with a couple caveats:

1. I would replace the words “religious truth” with “spiritual truth”. This is because in my personal view, religions in general tend to cling to form over substance. I like the word “spiritual” better because it brings, to my mind at least, the thought of substance over external form.
2. Related to the “substance vs. form” issue, I don’t believe that Truth can be conveyed via words. Meaning that any teaching can only be symbols for Truth and hints at Truth, but not Truth itself. The only people (IMO), who can communicate Truth to each other without problems of misinterpretation or those who have both experienced directly the same aspects of Truth.

I do believe this is possible within the Catholic Church structure, as quite a few of the canonized saints demonstrate. I also believe this is equally possible in many other spiritual traditions as well.

Concerning your example of a group seeing the sun at midday turning blue “with a golden halo and stars showing as if it were nighttime,” I would think that if the group agreed that they saw this objective reality, the person who interpreted the reality of the event as a vision of the Blessed Virgin, must be whacko (or at least delusional). In approved visions, either Our Lady appeared or she didn’t. Of course there are delusional people out there who
see the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich or image on the wall. I’m sure they can see her in the clouds too. I realize what you’re saying though. People have great imaginations.

So what about the miracles of Jesus? Surely, the gospels are sacrosanct? I mean, when the blind man’s vision was restored, I don’t think he was second–guessing. Actually, in that gospel, Jesus first cured him of his lack of sight and then cured him in regard to his perception. I’m sure Jesus could have cured him all in one shot, but I think He is teaching us something about our own perception.

You said, “Morality in practice is relative.” The example you gave of Catholics “defending”(?) the “immoral actions described in biblical stories or Church history” is stretching it. I doubt most Catholics “defend” immorality. The actions are wrong/evil in 2009 B.C. or 2009 A.D. Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce because of the “hardness of heart” (poor excuse, but be that as it may, Jesus set the record straight).

You said you didn’t accept the Church as the only “true and full path to God” upon hearing about the appartitions? Like I mentioned in another post, no Catholic is obliged to believe anything outside of the doctrines promulgated. Visions are outside the domain. However, although the Catholic Church may not be the ONLY way (we don’t know for sure), but in God’s GREAT MERCY, it is the BEST way.

Concerning the idea of “spiritual truth” as opposed to “religious truth,” I know what you are saying regarding “substance vs. form.” Nevertheless, it is often the case that “substance” is revealed in “form.” For example, many Catholics who miss the pre-Vatican II Mass say that the form of the liturgy expressed the substance (or essence) of what the Mass is about much more than the Novus Ordo.

In any case, I’m sure some of the others who were on this thread, like some of the senior members and other knowledgable posters, could expand on this discussion.

 

[redhen]

Regarding Fatima, not everyone perceived all the events exactly the same way.
I agree that there was a mass altering of people’s consciousness and perceptions.

Whether those perceptions were hallucinatory, symbolic, or objective reality is a matter of interpretation.

Hallucinations are individual episodes, there’s no such thing as “mass hallucination”.

So, your claim leaves you with objective, or symbolic. Care to elaborate on what you mean by symbolic?

 

[rookieonedge]

Hallucinations are individual episodes, there’s no such thing as “mass hallucination”.

So, your claim leaves you with objective, or symbolic. Care to elaborate on what you mean by symbolic?

But there is such a thing as mass hysteria though. I don’t think that’s the case regarding the Fatima apparitions.

 

[wasmit]

1. Assume an omnipotent omniscient Deity named Brahma that created all humans.
2. he knows everything that occurred at all times, past, present and future. He can change anything at any time. (omniscience, omnipotence)
3. He can change a future event by changing any prior cause of that event. (omnipotence)
4. At the moment of creation of humans, he knew every decision that every human would make. (omniscience)
5. At the moment of creation of humans, he could have changed any decision made by any human by editing the act of creation of humans. (omnipotence, 3)
6. Further, he must have consciously chosen each decision, as even if god created all humans and then did nothing further, he was tacitly agreeing to all future decisions, as he knew about them. (5, omniscience)
7. each decision that is ever made by humans was therefore made by god in the act of creation, as he had the power to change any decision, therefore he chose the outcome of every decision.(5 and 6)
8. every decision that is ever made by humans was actually made by god (7)
9. there is no free will.
10. Therefore humans cannot have free will while there exists an omnipotent omniscient entity that created all humans.

This argument is invalid. There are a couple of issues with it. One problem is premise 5.

In this premise you are implicitly assuming the conclusion (9.) and therefore the argument is circular. If God could have edited any decision made by humans (even indirectly) then free will does not exist, rather God does make our decisions for us and we are not free to act. But this is a premise of your argument, not the conclusion, so you are pre-supposing your conclusion in premise 5.

I agree that line (5) has basically reached the conclusion. However, (5) is not a premise(assumption), the only premise is (1). Also, (5) follows logically from the lines before it. Therefore, the argument is not circular.

 

[wasmit]

Also, I forgot to talk about the problem with premise 2. Premise 2. says:

1. he knows everything that occurred at all times, past, present and future. He can change anything at any time. (omniscience, omnipotence)

I agree that under this argument, our assumed being can do anythign that is not logically impossible (omnipotency).

If our hypothetical being enforces a change of will in a human, this is logically possible, because it is conceivable that we are all metaphorical puppets controlled by a puppeteer.

said another way, “God cannot enforce a change of our will if we are to remain free willed.” is not a logical impossibility, because our hypothetical being can just remove a particular person’s free will. Free will is not a universal unchangeable axiom.

said another way, Humans having free will is not an unquestionable certainty. It is conceivable that humans don’t have free will.

I hope I’m being clear.

So in other words, “He can change anything at any time” should be qualified with “, except the will of free beings” in the context of this argument. If you say that the God you are trying to disprove can do the logically impossible, then you are attacking a straw-man, for it is the traditional view that God cannot do the logically impossible.

 

[wasmit]

Andy,

He plays by a double standard

He demands everyone here use evidence based reason to prove there is a God but that restriction doesn’t apply to him when he denies God exists. Just look at his arguments so far.

Example

when he posted this
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4822165&postcount=420

which was to justify this earlier post
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4806497&postcount=363

(emphasis mine)

Note: Why begin with an assumption. If that was one of us in reverse, and we started out with an assumption He would stop them immediately demand they use proof NOT assumptions

I gurantee you, that if this was done in reverse to him, he would immediately respond with WHERE’S YOU’RE PROOF on EVERYTHING!!!

Given his response above, He doesn’t understand

the nature of God who he denies
newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm Nature of God

or

omnipotence
newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm

or

omnipresence
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm

All subjects he mischaracterizes in his assumptions above.

The reason that I deny fanciful claims such as the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the existence of Baal, or the predictive power of astrology, is from the principle of the burden of proof. This is not a double standard. I believe any claim only to the extent that it is supported by evidence.

The assumptions in line (1) are for the sake of the argument.

 

[wasmit]

Hi steveb,

I don’t actually have a problem with him assuming an omnipotent and omniscient Diety in his first premise, as it is the step which lays out the ground-work for his argument. I see that he is trying to use the traditional properties attributed to God along with the doctrine of free will, and then move to find some sort of contradiction between the two in an attempt to actually deductively “prove” the non-existence of God.

I’m not trying to prove the non-existence of the christian god, as this cannot be done. (just as I cannot disprove FSM).

The argument, if valid (which as far as i can tell, it is), shows that the four properties of omniscience/creation of humans/humans having free will/omnipotence cannot exist concurrently.

 

[rookieonedge]

I’m not trying to prove the non-existence of the christian god, as this cannot be done. (just as I cannot disprove FSM).

The argument, if valid (which as far as i can tell, it is), shows that the four properties of omniscience/creation of humans/humans having free will/omnipotence cannot exist concurrently.

Oh yes they can, because God is omnipresent. For God there is no time (time is a human construct to measure events on earth), for everything is present tense and exists all at once – a mystery to be sure.

For example, He sees us not just as we are now at this earthly moment, but He sees us as a blastocyst, embryo, fetus,
newborn, neonatal, etc. . . to the last nanosecond of our lives ALL AT ONCE (or all in one glance, so to speak). That is the eternal verity.

 

[anon5216]

Hallucinations are individual episodes, there’s no such thing as “mass hallucination”.

So, your claim leaves you with objective, or symbolic. Care to elaborate on what you mean by symbolic?

I don’t know about “no such thing as mass hallucination”. The “miracle of the sun” was not perceived the same by all present, and of course no one else not in the general area noted anything unusual about the sun that day. Some would call that a “mass hallucination”.

Personally, I believe there was a mass group of people who experienced an altered state of consciousness.

The visions were definitely not objective physical reality.
The sun made no such motions as were described

• (that could be seen by others not in the altered state).

I would call the vision symbolic because it was not a physical reality and would be interpreted by the experiencers in various ways, depending on their belief systems. The actual visual memory of what was seen may not even be what was truly experienced, but the mind’s translation of it. The meaning of the experience would be attached later, and the vision would symbolize the meaning each individual gave it.

 

[redhen]

No doubt, something was experienced by thousands of people that day in October. The fact that it was predicted makes it even more unique. I just don’t accept* mass hallucination *as a viable explanation since no such disorder exists in the field of psychology.