What do you want?

[Robertanthony]

That is a pretty serious accusation.

But the tri-omni qualitiy is the one which is contended. So you cannot present it as an “axiom”.

This is far from evident. How do you plan to prove it?

Certainly.

I am sure there are.

Why would we be concerned about irrational people?

Excellent challenge. I will have to give you more than one answer, since God’s attributes are notoriously ill-defined. I mean, if I ask ten theists about the attributes of God, I will get (at least) eleven answers (and all of them are honestly given).

Of course I cannot answer for the world, but I can answer for myself.

Answer number 1: Suppose that God is like the one I imagine him: someone who created the world, and then observes it without ever interfering. He knows that any interference ruins or contaminates the experiment. Obviously in this case my behavior would not change at all.

Answer number 2: Suppose that God is like the “relatively liberal” christians assert: someone who usually does not interfere, only in dire circumstances, who expects people to be decent, kind, loving, helping… and when someone fulfills these requirements, then will be rewarded. The fate of those who do not, is usually not mentioned. But these apologists cannot reconcile infinite torture with finite “misdeeds”. In this case, again, I would not change a bit. I already try to be as “good” as I can, so there is nothing to be afraid.

Answer number 3: Suppose that God is like the die-hard super-orthodox people assert. Then I would be in real trouble. First, I could try to fake a change of heart, could try to engage in “worshipping” practices, **but God would know that I am dishonest, and simply try to avoid infinite torture. **As such these attempts would be futile - one cannot outsmart God. Of course the God - as depicted by these apologists - is the most horrible, despicable being ever invented, not just infinitely cruel, but also wishes to bask in the light of his own “goodness” - as all the tyrants did across the ages. Fortunately, this scenario is impossible. The concept of this ultra-hard God is filled with internal contradictions (I will mention only one here: justice and mercy are contradictory. A judge can be either merciful or just when issuing a sentence, but cannot be both), so he is as impossible to exist as a married bachelor.

I had rather non-complimentary words for you, so being on your “ignore list” would not come as a huge shock. That aside, in Catholic theology there is this concept called “imperfect contrition”, whereby as a Catholic you go to the sacrament of Reconciliation and confess your sins not out of reverence for the majesty of God against whom you have trespassed but out of fear of Hell. In the confessional, and only in the confessional from my understanding, this si valid. Faking worship would be something else, but strictly speaking, regret of sin and firm purpose not to commit it again for the purpose of avoiding Hell is acceptable. Of course one is expected to grow spiritually and go from that motivation to a purer one (i.e. avoiding sin out of love and reverence for God). Being sincere in your desire to, over time, amend your life and bring its elements in closer harmony to the ideal of the Gospel is the name of the game. If you have that, don’t fear God or his judgement.

 

[zro_x]

Unfortunately I am unable to reply, since I have no idea what this “spiritual happiness” might be.

I cannot find out if there is a contradiction or not, since the whole proposition is without meaning for me.

would it help it if “Spiritual happiness” is replaced with “happiness in the afterlife?”

The logical problem here is that from the existence of free will it does not follow logically that there will be anyone who actually rejects God. Sure, the ability and the possibility follows logically, but the actuality does not. In other words, there are infinitely many possible worlds and in infinitely many of them EVERYONE accepts God, and NO ONE rejects him. And since God is free to actualize any one of them… you draw the conclusion.

This part is very difficult to explain, and someone other than myself could probably do a far better job.

It is not logically possible to create the world in such a manner that people with free will always choose God. It is possible that all the people will choose God, but there is nothing God can do to actualise that possibility without reducing free will. The only ones who can make that possibility a reality are the people themselves. Some will accept God, Some will reject him, but there is nothing God can do to change that if he wants people to have free will. I hope that makes sense.

Oh… it is easy to endure someone else’s misfortune.

Remember that I am arguing from a utilitarian perspective. If the joy that comes from being freely united to God is far more powerful than the pains felt by people on earth or the sorrows of those
in Hell, God is justified in making world number 3).

 

[zro_x]

That is a pretty serious accusation.

yes, it is. However, I am not actually making that accusation. I said it merely to point out the true converse of your statement, which* is* a serious accusation:

And that is the number one problem. I can come over to your side and incorporate God into my framework, and see where that leads. The believers, however are unable to be objective

This is far from evident. How do you plan to prove it?

I can’t prove it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. I reached that conclusion from a “top-down” perspective, rather than proving it in a '‘bottom-up’ perspective. Through a combination of my own philosophical reasoning, reading the reasonings of others, and through certain empirical evidence, I came to the conclusion that God probably exists. From there, I heard arguments that any first cause must be necessary, and that God is the essence of existence, and therefore necessary. I can’t logically prove God is necessary, and I doubt that anyone can. Still, it is intriguing to know that there is such a proof. Perhaps someday, someone will discover it.

To elaborate further on God’s qualities:

Nope, this is where we disagree. If one stipulates God as the ultimate creator, there is only ONE feature that follows in a logical manner: “God is so powerful, that he could create the universe”. Nothing else follows logically. The creator could be loving and caring, but could also be indifferent, and could even be malevolent. From the existence of power literally NOTHING follows. And the concept of “perfect in every respect” is simply undefined.

Directly, you’re correct. However, other conclusions flow from God’s power to create the universe. First, We would gather that since God created time and space, God is beyond time and space, or transcendent, eternal, and immutable. From these qualities, we reach the conclusion that God is omniscient. A non-omniscient God can increase his knowledge, which would be a violation of his immutability. We might also gather that since God is not contingent on any other being or substence, he must be necessary. A necessary being must be stable and is likely simple, which fits with God’s immutability. In personality, God could range anywhere from omnimalevolence to omnibonevolence. I assert that omnibonevolence provides the most stable and simple personality. I’m not sure how God’s omnipotence arises logically here, but If God can create and manipulate the universe and us, he is virtually indistinguishable from an omnipotent God. What is there that an omnipotent God could do that he could not?

Why would we be concerned about irrational people?

a good question. May I remind you that you were the first to bring up irrational people when you spoke about religious people being unable to be objective? You were attacking the irrational theists, not the rational ones.

Excellent challenge. I will have to give you more than one answer, since God’s attributes are notoriously ill-defined. I mean, if I ask ten theists about the attributes of God, I will get (at least) eleven answers (and all of them are honestly given).

very true. One of the most frustrating aspects of theists is our widely varrying ideas on what and who God is. However, that uncertainty was meant to be part of the mental excerscise. Though you would know that God exists, you wouldn’t know what type of God he was.

Answer number 1: Suppose that God is like the one I imagine him: someone who created the world, and then observes it without ever interfering. He knows that any interference ruins or contaminates the experiment. Obviously in this case my behavior would not change at all.

Answer number 2: Suppose that God is like the “relatively liberal” christians assert: someone who usually does not interfere, only in dire circumstances, who expects people to be decent, kind, loving, helping… and when someone fulfills these requirements, then will be rewarded. The fate of those who do not, is usually not mentioned. But these apologists cannot reconcile infinite torture with finite “misdeeds”. In this case, again, I would not change a bit. I already try to be as “good” as I can, so there is nothing to be afraid.

Answer number 3: Suppose that God is like the die-hard super-orthodox people assert. Then I would be in real trouble. First, I could try to fake a change of heart, could try to engage in “worshipping” practices, but God would know that I am dishonest, and simply try to avoid infinite torture. As such these attempts would be futile - one cannot outsmart God. Of course the God - as depicted by these apologists - is the most horrible, despicable being ever invented, not just infinitely cruel, but also wishes to bask in the light of his own “goodness” - as all the tyrants did across the ages. Fortunately, this scenario is impossible. The concept of this ultra-hard God is filled with internal contradictions (I will mention only one here: justice and mercy are contradictory. A judge can be either merciful or just when issuing a sentence, but cannot be both), so he is as impossible to exist as a married bachelor.

On the whole, I think that your responses probably fit closely with what you personally would do if God was proven to exist and his personality were known. There are of course, other variations of God, But you covered the most prevelent here.

 

[Trurl]

would it help it if “Spiritual happiness” is replaced with “happiness in the afterlife?”

Yes, of course. Now the question is: why does God not concentrate on both the temporal and the “spiritual” happiness? Doesn’t God have “time” to arrange both of them?

It is not logically possible to create the world in such a manner that people with free will always choose God. It is possible that all the people will choose God, but there is nothing God can do to actualise that possibility without reducing free will. The only ones who can make that possibility a reality are the people themselves. Some will accept God, Some will reject him, but there is nothing God can do to change that if he wants people to have free will. I hope that makes sense.

I am aware of this line of argument, and it is incorrect. It is a standard teaching that “knowledge” or “foreknowledge” has no impact of free will. Also that God is free to choose which of the possible worlds to actualize. I don’t think that anyone would argue that God “closes his eyes and randomly actualizes” one of the possible worlds. As such God already knows who will and who will not reject him. Now, there are infinitely many possible worlds, and among those there are infinitely many worlds where no one would reject God. As such God could choose either one of these worlds (even randomly), and everything would be just fine. The only counter argument could be, that these is no such world, that there is a **logical necessity **that at least someone MUST reject God - which would be a foolish argument - since it would deny free will.

The presented argument, that BY selecting any one of the worlds, God already deprives the inhabitants of their freedom - by the virtue of selecting that world - is ridiculous - because in that case there would be no “freedom” in any of the worlds - since God actually instantiates ONE of them.

Remember that I am arguing from a utilitarian perspective. If the joy that comes from being freely united to God is far more powerful than the pains felt by people on earth or the sorrows of those in Hell, God is justified in making world number 3).

But that is an incorrect way of viewing the utilitarian principle. A simple analogy: “one is not supposed to butcher person ‘A’ to get his body parts to save the lives of ‘B’ and ‘C’, etc…”. If other words, it is not justified to bring ‘X’ and ‘Y’ into heaven, if the price is payed by ‘Z’.

 

[Trurl]

From there, I heard arguments that any first cause must be necessary, and that God is the essence of existence, and therefore necessary. I can’t logically prove God is necessary, and I doubt that anyone can. Still, it is intriguing to know that there is such a proof. Perhaps someday, someone will discover it.

Necessary are contingent existence is just a word game. A very short analysis:

1. A “possible world” is one which contains no logically contradictory state of affairs.
2. A necessary being is one which exists in ALL the possible worlds.
3. A contingent beings is one, which exists in some, but not all possible worlds.
   There is no stipulation on how “complicated that world must be”. As such there is a possible world, where there is only one “quark” and nothing else. And there is another possible world, which is composed of a different “quark”. The intersection of these two worlds is the “empty world”, and therefore there is no being which would exist in all the possible worlds, and as such there is no “necessary being”.

Directly, you’re correct. However, other conclusions flow from God’s power to create the universe. First, We would gather that since God created time and space, God is beyond time and space, or transcendent, eternal, and immutable.

No, that does not follow. What does follow that God is independent of OUR space and time. But since God created the world, and the creation is an action - and action means a change, and change brings along a “before” and an “after”, as such: “time”. What “kind” of time is that, is not relevant. And since God acted, he is not immutable.

From these qualities, we reach the conclusion that God is omniscient.

No it does not follow. It only follows that God knew “enough” to create the world. Besides, “omniscience” is undefined.

A non-omniscient God can increase his knowledge, which would be a violation of his immutability.

Immutability is already refuted. Any action brings along a change.

We might also gather that since God is not contingent on any other being or substence, he must be necessary.

That is not the correct definition of “necessary”. See above.

A necessary being must be stable and is likely simple, which fits with God’s immutability. In personality, God could range anywhere from omnimalevolence to omnibonevolence. I assert that omnibonevolence provides the most stable and simple personality.

Benevolence, malevolence and indifference are equally simple and stable.

I’m not sure how God’s omnipotence arises logically here, but If God can create and manipulate the universe and us, he is virtually indistinguishable from an omnipotent God. What is there that an omnipotent God could do that he could not?

Omnipotence is also undefined.

On the whole, I think that your responses probably fit closely with what you personally would do if God was proven to exist and his personality were known. There are of course, other variations of God, But you covered the most prevelent here.

I certainly tried. Now, one more remark. It would be wonderful if this life would not be “all there is”. After all it is far too short. It would be great if I could see my deceased parents and other friends who passed away. But the two options of “heaven” and “hell” are equally repulsive to me. There is no REAL difference between eternal “bliss” and eternal “suffering”. Both are horrible. But this is my personal opinion, nothing more.

 

[zro_x]

Yes, of course. Now the question is: why does God not concentrate on both the temporal and the “spiritual” happiness? Doesn’t God have “time” to arrange both of them?

The only way God can maximize our happiness in the afterlife is by allowing the possibility for unhappiness here on earth. God does the best he can, and he does give us physical happiness whenever it doesn’t hurt our spiritual lives in any way. However, in order to maximize our total happiness, he must give us free will so that we can freely love, since this is how we achieve our highest possible state of joy. Once we have free will, we can commit evil acts, which are the source of all physical unhappiness. God could make a happier physical world by nagating or limmiting our free will, but only at the cost our potential joy after our death. Of course, this argument rises or falls depending on whether or not your argument about God being able to actualize worlds in which people freely choose him is sound.

I am aware of this line of argument, and it is incorrect. It is a standard teaching that “knowledge” or “foreknowledge” has no impact of free will.

true, but I’m not sure how that fits in with the rest of this section.

Also that God is free to choose which of the possible worlds to actualize.

If you mean that the Catholic church’s standard teaching is that God can actualize worlds in which people with free will always choose him, I find this a highly dubious claim. Where in official Catholic teaching does it say this? This view may be held by many or even the majority of Catholics, but that doesn’t mean that it is official Catholic teaching. To be clear, I do not agree with this “standard teaching”.

I don’t think that anyone would argue that God “closes his eyes and randomly actualizes” one of the possible worlds. As such God already knows who will and who will not reject him. Now, there are infinitely many possible worlds, and among those there are infinitely many worlds where no one would reject God. As such God could choose either one of these worlds (even randomly), and everything would be just fine.

We may have reached an impasse here, but I’m going to give it another shot. Though there are possible worlds in which all the people freely choose God, God is not able to actualize those worlds. The only ones who are able to actualize this world are the people themselves. How would God go about actualizing such a world? He could make physical changes in the universe, But our free will is not affected by physical things. No matter what physical world God creates, those who reject God would still reject him, and those who accept God would still accept him. On the other hand, God could make changes in us directly, but if he did that then we wouldn’t have free will anymore. If we truly have free will, then there is nothing God can do, no world he can actualize, which changes whether we accept him or reject him.

The presented argument, that BY selecting any one of the worlds, God already deprives the inhabitants of their freedom - by the virtue of selecting that world - is ridiculous - because in that case there would be no “freedom” in any of the worlds - since God actually instantiates ONE of them.

That is correct. If God can choose to actulize the world in such a way that we accept him, then God is the one choosing, not us. You seem to be thinking of deterministic models, not worlds in which the people are actually free.

But that is an incorrect way of viewing the utilitarian principle. A simple analogy: “one is not supposed to butcher person ‘A’ to get his body parts to save the lives of ‘B’ and ‘C’, etc…”. If other words, it is not justified to bring ‘X’ and ‘Y’ into heaven, if the price is payed by ‘Z’.

This may be the way of thinking of most utililitarians, but I don’t think that it represents pure utilitarianism. In pure utilitarianism, the only thing that matters is maximizing overall utility. In such a worldview, we are morally obligated to butcher A for his body parts if it is the only way to save B and C. Pure utilitarianism is concerned with happiness, not justice.

 

[zro_x]

Necessary are contingent existence is just a word game. A very short analysis:

1. A “possible world” is one which contains no logically contradictory state of affairs.
2. A necessary being is one which exists in ALL the possible worlds.
3. A contingent beings is one, which exists in some, but not all possible worlds.
   There is no stipulation on how “complicated that world must be”. As such there is a possible world, where there is only one “quark” and nothing else. And there is another possible world, which is composed of a different “quark”. The intersection of these two worlds is the “empty world”, and therefore there is no being which would exist in all the possible worlds, and as such there is no “necessary being”.

There are several problems with this analysis. When you speak about a world in which nothing exists except a quark, do you mean in nothing else physically exists except the quark, or that nothing at all, except the quark, exists. If you mean the former, then all you’ve done is show that there is nothing physical in that world. That doesn’t matter, because God isn’t physical. If you mean the latter, such a world is impossible. Mathematical truths would still exist in this world, for example. Even in a physically empty world, mathematical truths and all other necessary truths would still exist. If God’s existence is necessary, than the truth of his existence would still exist in a physically empty world.

No, that does not follow. What does follow that God is independent of OUR space and time. But since God created the world, and the creation is an action - and action means a change, and change brings along a “before” and an “after”, as such: “time”. What “kind” of time is that, is not relevant. And since God acted, he is not immutable.

It would seem that you don’t grasp the concept of God’s eternity. You can think of time as the fourth dimension; an infinite series of still frame universes. God sees all times at once, and acts in all times at once. From God’s perspective, he is creating the world right now, and has been creating the world for all time, and will continue to create the world for all time to come. He is speaking to moses right now in the burning bush, and has been for all time and will for all time to come. He is bringing about the end of the world, has been for all time, and will for all time to come. You can see that God undergoes no change at all throught this process. Any act he does is continuous and does not end, so God is immutable.

No it does not follow. It only follows that God knew “enough” to create the world.

omniscience follows from God’s immutability, not the fact that he created the universe.

Besides, “omniscience” is undefined…Omnipotence is also undefined.

I suppose you mean here that different Christians have different deffinitions of omnipotence and omniscience. Fair enough. I define omniscience as all-knowing, and always being conscious of that knowledge. I do not believe that God limits his own knowledge for any reason. omnipotence is the ability to bring about any possible state of affairs.

That is not the correct definition of “necessary”. See above.

Hmmmmm… you may have a point here. It would seem that I have been placing things under two categories. Everything was either necesssary or contingent. I suppose that something could be non-contingent and unnecessary. Interesting!

Benevolence, malevolence and indifference are equally simple and stable.

I disagree, but I don’t think either one of us can actually prove our assestions. The relative stability and simplicity of omnibonevolece will have to remain an open question for now. Let me try a different approach.

Our knowledge is imperfect. when we say we know someone, we know them only minimally. We know certain aspects and qualities of that person, and we start to construct a version of that person in our heads. God, however, having perfect knowledge, knows himself so perfectly that this knowledge is another person, a “duplicate” of God, if you will. There is perfect understanding and trust between these two persons, and therefore, perfect love. God’s omnibonevolence is thus shown without even bringing the third person of the trinity!

I certainly tried. Now, one more remark. It would be wonderful if this life would not be “all there is”. After all it is far too short. It would be great if I could see my deceased parents and other friends who passed away. But the two options of “heaven” and “hell” are equally repulsive to me. There is no REAL difference between eternal “bliss” and eternal “suffering”. Both are horrible. But this is my personal opinion, nothing more.

if that’s the case, what would your ideal experience in the afterlife be if not everlasting bliss?

 

[Trurl]

The only way God can maximize our happiness in the afterlife is by allowing the possibility for unhappiness here on earth.

Now where did THAT come from??? Is the happiness in the afterlife somehow inversely proportional with the happiness here and now? This assertion of yours makes me wonder if there is any reason to continue…

If you mean that the Catholic church’s standard teaching is that God can actualize worlds in which people with free will always choose him, I find this a highly dubious claim.

I have no idea if there is ANY teaching about this subject, and it is not needed anyhow. We only need the definition of “possible worlds”, which is fully secular concept, and the claim, that God is able to do anything, except create a logically contradictory state of affairs. No further assumption is needed.

We may have reached an impasse here, but I’m going to give it another shot. Though there are possible worlds in which all the people freely choose God, God is not able to actualize those worlds.

So now you advocate that God is unable to actualize a logically feasible (not contradictory) state of affairs. Is this an “official” teaching? God’s omnipotence is really shrinking now.

The only ones who are able to actualize this world are the people themselves.

No problem. Because FIRST God must actualize those people. And then letting them go on their merry way, and perfoem their free actions.

How would God go about actualizing such a world?

Ok. I will show you how. Let’s take a very simple world, with ONE moral agent who faces ONE morally charged dilemma. There are only TWO possible worlds: 1) where the agent freely chooses the moral option (world A), and 2) where the agent freely chooses the immoral option (world B). What you say is that God is UNABLE to actualize either world ‘A’ or world ‘B’ since by actualizing either one, he would deprive the agent of his free will. As such you argue that there is no free will. Just be aware that this is what you advocate.

So how did either world ‘A’ or world ‘B’ come into existence? Who created either one of them?

This may be the way of thinking of most utililitarians, but I don’t think that it represents pure utilitarianism. In pure utilitarianism, the only thing that matters is maximizing overall utility. In such a worldview, we are morally obligated to butcher A for his body parts if it is the only way to save B and C. Pure utilitarianism is concerned with happiness, not justice.

Since I am unaware of anyone would would advocate this kind “PURE” utilitarianism, I will leave this unanswered. An empty argument needs to answer.

 

[Trurl]

There are several problems with this analysis. When you speak about a world in which nothing exists except a quark, do you mean in nothing else physically exists except the quark, or that nothing at all, except the quark, exists. If you mean the former, then all you’ve done is show that there is nothing physical in that world. That doesn’t matter, because God isn’t physical. If you mean the latter, such a world is impossible. Mathematical truths would still exist in this world, for example. Even in a physically empty world, mathematical truths and all other necessary truths would still exist. If God’s existence is necessary, than the truth of his existence would still exist in a physically empty world.

You bring up the concept of “abstract objects” which leads to all sorts of problems. I am willing to pursue that line of thought, of course. But at the end it is clear that “mathematical concepts” do NOT exist if there are no minds to formulate them. Concepts are not ontological entites. The “object” of Hamlet did not exist before Shakespeare came up with it, and if all the copies would be destroyed and everyone would forget about it, it would disappear. Think about it, because it is most pertinent.

It would seem that you don’t grasp the concept of God’s eternity. You can think of time as the fourth dimension; an infinite series of still frame universes. God sees all times at once, and acts in all times at once. From God’s perspective, he is creating the world right now, and has been creating the world for all time, and will continue to create the world for all time to come. He is speaking to moses right now in the burning bush, and has been for all time and will for all time to come. He is bringing about the end of the world, has been for all time, and will for all time to come. You can see that God undergoes no change at all throught this process. Any act he does is continuous and does not end, so God is immutable.

Sorry, but this is sheer nonsense. We do not exist across all “eternity”, or “Moses” does not exist across all eternity, so to say that God speaks to Moses “right now” is nonsensical. The point is that God is supposed to be “active”, and with all actions comes a before and after, and as such: “time”.

I suppose you mean here that different Christians have different deffinitions of omnipotence and omniscience. Fair enough. I define omniscience as all-knowing, and always being conscious of that knowledge. I do not believe that God limits his own knowledge for any reason.

Not just different christians. “Omniscience” is a secular concept, but there is no coherent definition of it. What you offered is a “hollow” defintion. What exactly is “all-knowing”? Can God “know” the contents of a book, which was and will never be written, since the author was never born and will be never born? Just playing out the Molinist “middle knowlege” here.

omnipotence is the ability to bring about any possible state of affairs.

And yet, in your other post you asserted that the “possible state of affairs, where no one rejects God” is impossible for God to “bring about”. Careful my friend… I do pay attention to what you say.

Our knowledge is imperfect. when we say we know someone, we know them only minimally. We know certain aspects and qualities of that person, and we start to construct a version of that person in our heads. God, however, having perfect knowledge, knows himself so perfectly that this knowledge is another person, a “duplicate” of God, if you will. There is perfect understanding and trust between these two persons, and therefore, perfect love. God’s omnibonevolence is thus shown without even bringing the third person of the trinity!

Ugh… that is sheer “mysticism”. As a matter of fact, let’s get back to the staring point: “God created the world”. From that assumption it does not even logically follow that the creation was intentional. It could be that the creation of the world was an unintended “by-product”. It does not even follow that God was/is a conscious being.

if that’s the case, what would your ideal experience in the afterlife be if not everlasting bliss?

Mine? To live in an ever changing world, to participate in forming it, and when I get tired of the whole shebang… maybe in a few hundred thousand years, quietly “bow out” an disappear into oblivion. Though I find it hard to imagine to get tired of constant exploration. Of course it presumes an ongoing health and productivity. The poor “struldbrug”-s in Gulliver’s Travels are the most horrifying concoctions, ever. But, let me try it, and see what happens.

 

[zro_x]

Now where did THAT come from??? the happiness in the afterlife somehow inversely proportional with the happiness here and now?

That isn’t what I meant at all. The best way to maximise our happiness after death is by freely choosing God. In order to freely choose God, we need free will. free will means the possibility of sin, which means the possibility of unhappiness in this life. That’s all I meant.

I have no idea if there is ANY teaching about this subject, and it is not needed anyhow. We only need the definition of “possible worlds”, which is fully secular concept, and the claim, that God is able to do anything, except create a logically contradictory state of affairs. No further assumption is needed.

So now you advocate that God is unable to actualize a logically feasible (not contradictory) state of affairs. Is this an “official” teaching? God’s omnipotence is really shrinking now.

I’m saying that causing a world to exist in which it is certain that free people will accept God is a contradictory state of affairs.

No problem. Because FIRST God must actualize those people. And then letting them go on their merry way, and perfoem their free actions.

precicely. God actualizes the people. He does not actualise the people’s actions by doing so. God makes the people, the people make the actions.

Ok. I will show you how. Let’s take a very simple world, with ONE moral agent who faces ONE morally charged dilemma. There are only TWO possible worlds: 1) where the agent freely chooses the moral option (world A), and 2) where the agent freely chooses the immoral option (world B). What you say is that God is UNABLE to actualize either world ‘A’ or world ‘B’ since by actualizing either one, he would deprive the agent of his free will. As such you argue that there is no free will. Just be aware that this is what you advocate.

that’s not what I’m advocating. But perhaps it would help if you looked at it as if it were.
If God, rather than the moral agent, actualised either world, how could the moral agent possibly have free will?

It is impossible for God to actualise either world. One of the two worlds comes into existence, but only because the moral agent actualised one of them, not God.

So how did either world ‘A’ or world ‘B’ come into existence? Who created either one of them?

God created the physical world, But the moral agent caused World A or B to come into existence.

Since I am unaware of anyone would would advocate this kind “PURE” utilitarianism, I will leave this unanswered. An empty argument needs to answer.

*I *advocate this kind of pure utilitarianism. That isn’t to say that I’ll go buthchering people to attempt to save others’ lives. I have imperfect knowledge, and can not say for certain what the consequences of my actions would be. This is why God gave us laws. The best way for me to bring about the greatest possible happiness is by following these laws. God, however, has perfect knowledge, and he is omnibonevolent. God is justified in allowing some people to go to heaven and others to go to hell, if he knows that the net increase in utility is positive.

This assertion of yours makes me wonder if there is any reason to continue…

That’s too bad. If I don’t hear from you again on this thread, I enjoyed the discussion. I know I learned a lot from it.

 

[zro_x]

You bring up the concept of “abstract objects” which leads to all sorts of problems. I am willing to pursue that line of thought, of course. But at the end it is clear that “mathematical concepts” do NOT exist if there are no minds to formulate them. Concepts are not ontological entites. The “object” of Hamlet did not exist before Shakespeare came up with it, and if all the copies would be destroyed and everyone would forget about it, it would disappear. Think about it, because it is most pertinent.

Sorry, but this is sheer nonsense. We do not exist across all “eternity”, or “Moses” does not exist across all eternity, so to say that God speaks to Moses “right now” is nonsensical. The point is that God is supposed to be “active”, and with all actions comes a before and after, and as such: “time”.

Not just different christians. “Omniscience” is a secular concept, but there is no coherent definition of it. What you offered is a “hollow” defintion. What exactly is “all-knowing”? Can God “know” the contents of a book, which was and will never be written, since the author was never born and will be never born? Just playing out the Molinist “middle knowlege” here.

And yet, in your other post you asserted that the “possible state of affairs, where no one rejects God” is impossible for God to “bring about”. Careful my friend… I do pay attention to what you say.

Ugh… that is sheer “mysticism”. As a matter of fact, let’s get back to the staring point: “God created the world”. From that assumption it does not even logically follow that the creation was intentional. It could be that the creation of the world was an unintended “by-product”. It does not even follow that God was/is a conscious being.

Mine? To live in an ever changing world, to participate in forming it, and when I get tired of the whole shebang… maybe in a few hundred thousand years, quietly “bow out” an disappear into oblivion. Though I find it hard to imagine to get tired of constant exploration. Of course it presumes an ongoing health and productivity. The poor “struldbrug”-s in Gulliver’s Travels are the most horrifying concoctions, ever. But, let me try it, and see what happens.

 

[zro_x]

arrgh! I just wrote out a long response, and somehow it got deleted. I’ll try to write it again from memory as best I can.

You bring up the concept of “abstract objects” which leads to all sorts of problems. I am willing to pursue that line of thought, of course. But at the end it is clear that “mathematical concepts” do NOT exist if there are no minds to formulate them. Concepts are not ontological entites. The “object” of Hamlet did not exist before Shakespeare came up with it, and if all the copies would be destroyed and everyone would forget about it, it would disappear. Think about it, because it is most pertinent.

There is a difference between mathematical truths and Hamlet. The former is necessary, while the latter is contingent.

Besides, even if abstract objeccts do need a mind to exist, there is one. God!

Sorry, but this is sheer nonsense. We do not exist across all “eternity”, or “Moses” does not exist across all eternity, so to say that God speaks to Moses “right now” is nonsensical. The point is that God is supposed to be “active”, and with all actions comes a before and after, and as such: “time”.

Yes, I could have done a much better job of describing eternity and I have before. The following is one of my posts from a different thread, modified somewhat to fit this one.

Picture a regular Sunday comic. To the characters, time seems to flow along normally, but the artist can meddle in any panel within the comic. In the real world, the fourth dimension is time, and perhaps the best way to visualize this is to consider an infinite number of still frame universes that we are being pulled through very rapidly, much like film through a projector. God simply injects himself into certain parts of history, like thecomic strip artist, and affects nature in such a way that Moses sees a burning bush, and Adam and eve hear a voice reprimanding them for eating of the fruit. Now think of time as a line, with events starting with point A on the left and moving to point B in the middle and and then on to point C on the right. This time line extends from the beginning to the end of the universe. Now imagine that we stretch this line vertically so that it becomes a plane of timelines that are exact replicas of each other. In fact, we stretch this line so that the plane extends infinitely up and down, meaning an infinite number of identical timelines. My understanding of how god experiences time is that he experiences it as a series of these lines, from top to bottom if you prefer, rather than as a series of points from left to right. This is the reason for “a day is as a thousand years to god, and a thousand years as one day.” the whole of history of creation exists in one moment of god’s “time”, but each moment of our time is experienced forever by God! In this way, God stays immutable.

Of course, this isn’t entirely accurate because it portrays god as moving through some other “dimension” of time rather than experiencing an endless NOW. Still, I hope this makes a little more sense.

 

[zro_x]

ahh, that’s why it was deleted. It was too long. This is the continuation of the previous post.

Not just different christians. “Omniscience” is a secular concept, but there is no coherent definition of it. What you offered is a “hollow” defintion. What exactly is “all-knowing”? Can God “know” the contents of a book, which was and will never be written, since the author was never born and will be never born? Just playing out the Molinist “middle knowlege” here.

unfortunately, I can’t think of a good way to communicate my definition of omniscience other than answering yes or no questions. My answer to this one is a tentative yes. in any case, the question doesn’t seem to have an impact on the matter at hand.

And yet, in your other post you asserted that the “possible state of affairs, where no one rejects God” is impossible for God to “bring about”. Careful my friend… I do pay attention to what you say.

I asserted that the possible state of affairs, where no one freely rejects God, is impossible for God to bring about. And therein lies the paradox: It is an impossible state of affairs for God to bring about the possible state of affairs in which people freely choose him. If God brings out that state of affairs, the people can not be free.

Ugh… that is sheer “mysticism”. As a matter of fact, let’s get back to the staring point: “God created the world”.

a good idea. My argument is that God’s creative act leads to the knowledge that God was powerful enough to create the universe and that God is eternal. God’s eternalness leads to immutability, which leads to omniscience, which leads to the trinity, which leads to omnibonevolence. Obviously, any flaw in this line of reasoning brings down everything built on it. Best to build the base first.

From that assumption it does not even logically follow that the creation was intentional. It could be that the creation of the world was an unintended “by-product”. It does not even follow that God was/is a conscious being.

True, if you assume that God is eternal and immutable, God being unconscious, or having no knowledge, is consistent with immutability. However, I find such a version extremely improbable, in the same way atheists consider God improbable by the null hypothesis. I think I may have found a way around our burden of proof, but it only works if God is a conscious being. But to get into that is to get into the very reason I beleive in God at all…

Mine? To live in an ever changing world, to participate in forming it, and when I get tired of the whole shebang… maybe in a few hundred thousand years, quietly “bow out” an disappear into oblivion. Though I find it hard to imagine to get tired of constant exploration. Of course it presumes an ongoing health and productivity. The poor “struldbrug”-s in Gulliver’s Travels are the most horrifying concoctions, ever. But, let me try it, and see what happens.

In that case, you’re in luck! Along with the eternal joy that comes with agape love, you also get to contantly explore God’s mysterious nature! and there’s no ageing! Act now, While you still can!

I can see why some consider it too good to be true.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Please discuss.

World with no evil is Heaven. Which I definitely want. But I can’t get there unless I have a world with evil and choices to make. So, I’ll take this world as is, because God made it perfectly to fulfill His purpose and Heaven, dear God help me, when I pass.

 

[JamesATyler]

I’ll take the world with no evil and every choice costs a nickle.

 

[englishredrose]

World with no evil is Heaven. Which I definitely want. But I can’t get there unless I have a world with evil and choices to make. So, I’ll take this world as is, because God made it perfectly to fulfill His purpose and Heaven, dear God help me, when I pass.

We have been taught we can’t get there unless we have a world with evil and choices to make

but if we are to challenge then we could think then may be we can just get there, some other route may be???

 

[Peter_Plato]

For some reason, I don’t really care about free will. Not to have free will would, in many respects, be quite liberating.

I mean, if I was about to chose the wrong thing, I would rather some one forcibly stopped me from doing so. If God chose to cancel everyone’s free will, and to micro-manage the whole Universe, I would welcome it. Then, we could just sit back a watch things go by and say “It’s all the action of God.”

I don’t mean to find fault with the way God is doing things now- but ‘free will’ is, in my opinion, the most over-rated thing out there. God’s wants us to surrender our will to Him, just like Jesus.

This is only true if a necessary ontological connection between personal identity and free will does not exist. Suppose the only way that you could have personal subjective existence as a possibility is with a will that is free, so taking away your free will is identical to taking away you as a person? That would, indeed, make a huge difference in terms of your “caring” if you had free will or not.

I don’t believe we “surrender” our will, but, instead, actively will his will. It is more like a harmonizing of wills than a loss of one’s own. Jesus said, “My will is to do the will of the Father.” He didn’t say, “I have no will of my own.” He still had a will and, more importantly, used it. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have been Jesus, the person, but Jesus the programmed robot.

 

[triumphguy]

All the people in Heaven must feel like miserable slaves, it could be argued that they have no choice but to love God. We ought to qualify them as poor souls. Or robot souls.

Englisredorose, I think you’re the kind of person I’d like to have tea and scones with while having a pleasant chat. And I’m NOT a tea lover!

Er… no. They’ve found their way there through free choice, and gifted by grace.

You don’t end up in heaven by not participating in the imperfect world below.

And she drinks scotch neat and eats ginger nuts

 

[englishredrose]

Er… no. They’ve found their way there through free choice, and gifted by grace.

You don’t end up in heaven by not participating in the imperfect world below.

And she drinks scotch neat and eats ginger nuts

i would if i could drink scotch neat but can’t get it past my nose, fumes are too strong… and not bothered on ginger nuts either but love chocolate and a good glass of red wine…

 

[Trurl]

That isn’t what I meant at all. The best way to maximise our happiness after death is by freely choosing God. In order to freely choose God, we need free will. free will means the possibility of sin, which means the possibility of unhappiness in this life. That’s all I meant.

This is overly complicated. The ONLY freedom is necessary (according to your scenario) is to actively worship God - or to decline to worship God. We have that freedom. There is absolutely no need to ALSO have the freedom of torture or rape or mutilate others. So “temporal” unhappiness is not a logical corollary.

It is impossible for God to actualise either world. One of the two worlds comes into existence, but only because the moral agent actualised one of them, not God.

No so fast. Let’s take it one step at a time.

1. God has not created anything yet. Since the world is not eternal, there is no problem here.
2. God contemplates creating “Joe” (a moral agent) who will be confronted with a dilemma.

At this point we have a “fork”.

3a) God sees that Joe will make the choice correctly (if the world is created). As such, God gives the “go ahead”, creates the world, and lets the events unfold. It will be Joe, who freely makes the correct choice, NOT God.
3b) God sees that Joe will make the choice INcorrectly (if the world is created). Therefore God does not create the world.

At this point we can conclude that in the case of 3a) God could actualize a world without morally incorrect choices. And that is precisely what I was asserting.

But we need to look at option 3b. After all there is no reason to stop after one unsuccessful experiment.

So God will do a recursive action by going back to 2), but contemplate “Jack”, instead of “Joe”. There are two possible outcomes, either “Jack” will fall under “3a)” and everything is well, or “Jack” will again fall under “3b)”… thereby “forcing” God to do the recursion again.

And at that point we have two outcomes, again. Either God EVENTUALLY can find someone who will freely choose the moral option, and then the recursion ends, or there is NO ONE at all, who would freely choose the moral option. In this case, there is no freedom for even one person to make the moral option - therefore there is no “free will”.

Here is is in simle pseudo code.

world_is_created = FALSE
there_is_another_person = TRUE
x = 0
WHILE (world_is_created == FALSE AND there_is_another_person == TRUE)
    God contemplates person(x) confronting a moral dilemma
    IF ( God sees that person(x) will solve the dilemma correctly) THEN
         God creates world
         world_is_created = TRUE
         ' this will end the while loop
    ELSE
        x = x + 1
        IF (person(x) does not exist) THEN
            there_is_another_person = FALSE
            ' this will also end the while loop
        END IF
    END IF
END WHILE
IF (world_is_created == TRUE) THEN
    we have a world, where there are no immoral actions
ELSE
    there is no person who would solve the dilemma morally 
    as such there is no free will
END IF