| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
server
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2003 4:27 pm Post subject: The Omnipotent/Omniscient Debate |
 |
|
| message unavailable |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
kamerynn
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2003 4:27 pm Post subject: Re: The Omnipotent/Omniscient Debate |
|
|
tellurian girl wrote:
| Quote: | Is it really possible for "a Being" to be more fundamental than
"being"? In my experience, "a being" is an organized epiphenomenon of
more basic characteristics of "being". I have nothing against the
concept of lesser gods, but the supreme thing IMO would be either
omneity or the paradigm of existance at best, and not such personified
as a creature-entity anthropomorphically referred to as "He".
The notion of "a being" associated with "omnipotent or omniscient" or
"supreme" has resonances of oxymoron unless someone can elaborate in
more detail how "a Being"'s actions, thoughts, and powers happen or
arise without precursor properties, rules, or inclinations that would
be more axiomatic than the Being.
^v^v^v^ Usha
|
Kamerynn responds:
Beings act on their desires and beliefs. These desires and
beliefs need not be more axiomatic than the being; they are
simply a part of being. Omniscience, I contend, consists in
knowing all true propositions. Hence, one's beliefs must
extend over all true propositions, and also, by process of
elimination, over all false ones, in order for one to be omniscient.
If I'm right about this, then there is no logical contradiction to
be had in an omniscient being.
Judging the possibility of an omnipotent being is much
more difficult because defining "omnipotence" is quite difficult.
The old familiar problems arise:
- can an omnipotent being create a rock bigger than it can lift?
- can such a being create a square circle?
- can such a being experience both omniscience and a change
of mind?
These questions are all related. The usual answer (in the
literature) is along the lines of, "omnipotence does not include
the ability to do the logically impossible. The logically impossible
is beyond any ability to do, and power only ranges over what
can possibly be done." |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bo Zimmerman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:57 pm Post subject: Re: The Omnipotent/Omniscient Debate |
|
|
[...]
| Quote: | Judging the possibility of an omnipotent being is much
more difficult because defining "omnipotence" is quite difficult.
The old familiar problems arise:
- can an omnipotent being create a rock bigger than it can lift?
|
The very question presupposes a material and/or limited nature to the
Omnipotent being. Can this question be asked without building a straw man?
| Quote: | - can such a being create a square circle?
|
No. Even Omnipotence must adhere to the principle of a thing being the same as
itself. Is that not omnipotent enough for ya? Most theists wouldn't mind. :)
| Quote: | - can such a being experience both omniscience and a change
of mind?
|
This question presupposes the omnipotent being bound by time (since only in
time can one change their mind). Can this question be asked without bringing
in another straw man?
| Quote: | These questions are all related. The usual answer (in the
literature) is along the lines of, "omnipotence does not include
the ability to do the logically impossible. The logically impossible
is beyond any ability to do, and power only ranges over what
can possibly be done."
|
Well said!
- Bo
(Thomist, at large) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
tellurian girl
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2003 1:30 am Post subject: Re: The Omnipotent/Omniscient Debate |
|
|
kamerynn <"Idon'tdoemail(sorry)"@me.com> wrote in message news:<3F041326.425C7FD6@me.com>...
| Quote: | Beings act on their desires and beliefs. These desires and
beliefs need not be more axiomatic than the being; they are
simply a part of being.
|
I'm afraid I still don't see how a being could be the most fundamental
thing there is. By your own description it sounds like a being is an
organized composite of more basic properties and values than itself
interacting with each other. Perhaps you or someone else could post an
example of a confirmed creature that is impervious to reductionism,
then maybe I could get a handle on grasping how this is possible with
invisible beings. TIA :)
^v^v^v^ Usha
- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
keith
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2003 8:53 am Post subject: Re: Why a Being cannot be Both Omnipotent and Omniscient |
|
|
"Uncle Rich" <uncle_rich@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<h3uFa.1197843$S_4.1215747@rwcrnsc53>...
| Quote: | Here is a simple explanation of why a being cannot be
*both* omnipotent and omniscient:
An omniscient being by definition knows the end result before he
even has the question, as such he not only has no free will (for
since he knows what he will do before doing it, he therefore MUST
act according to predestination), but cannot act contrary to the
way he will act. Therefore, if God is omniscient, he cannot
also be omnipotent.
|
I'd say: not at all. God knows what he will freely do before he freely
does it. But this doesn't mean doing something else instead will be
beyond his power. He knows that he *could* do Y but he *will* do X and
this different thing will be what he chooses.
| Quote: |
Also, the term "omnipresent" is also inconsistent with the
characteristics of omnipotence and omnsicience. Here's why:
For example, an omnipotent being can do anything. BUT, an
omnipresent being cannot decide to not be omnipresent for even a
moment; as such, an omnipresent being isn't omnipotent. Same
applies to omniscience. An omniscient being knows what it will do
before doing it; therefore it has no free will to do contrary --
as such, it isn't omnipotent.
|
You are proposing that God do a logically incoherent thing. You are
proposing that God make it so that a being who is necessarily
omnipresent NOT be omnipresent--that's contradictory and doesn't
cosntitute a "thing" God can't do. You might as well say that because
God cannot do [fill in gibberish] he isn't omnipotent.
Keith |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Denis Loubet
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2003 10:06 am Post subject: Re: Why a Being cannot be Both Omnipotent and Omniscient |
|
|
"keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0307101953.3da70da8@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | "Uncle Rich" <uncle_rich@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<h3uFa.1197843$S_4.1215747@rwcrnsc53>...
Here is a simple explanation of why a being cannot be
*both* omnipotent and omniscient:
An omniscient being by definition knows the end result before he
even has the question, as such he not only has no free will (for
since he knows what he will do before doing it, he therefore MUST
act according to predestination), but cannot act contrary to the
way he will act. Therefore, if God is omniscient, he cannot
also be omnipotent.
I'd say: not at all. God knows what he will freely do before he freely
does it. But this doesn't mean doing something else instead will be
beyond his power. He knows that he *could* do Y but he *will* do X and
this different thing will be what he chooses.
(snip) |
The fun part is if we attribute the quality of being eternal to the god,
then the god can not be the author of its decisions.
If the god is eternal, then its omniscience is eternal, and if its
omniscience is eternal, then it has never not known its decisions, and so
the god never had to make those decisions.
The question then becomes, What Did?
**Creepy Twilight Zone music.**
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
James Harris
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2003 4:56 pm Post subject: Re: Why a Being cannot be Both Omnipotent and Omniscient |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<JBrPa.72820$TJ.3858252@twister.austin.rr.com>...
| Quote: | "keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0307101953.3da70da8@posting.google.com...
"Uncle Rich" <uncle_rich@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<h3uFa.1197843$S_4.1215747@rwcrnsc53>...
Here is a simple explanation of why a being cannot be
*both* omnipotent and omniscient:
An omniscient being by definition knows the end result before he
even has the question, as such he not only has no free will (for
since he knows what he will do before doing it, he therefore MUST
act according to predestination), but cannot act contrary to the
way he will act. Therefore, if God is omniscient, he cannot
also be omnipotent.
I'd say: not at all. God knows what he will freely do before he freely
does it. But this doesn't mean doing something else instead will be
beyond his power. He knows that he *could* do Y but he *will* do X and
this different thing will be what he chooses.
(snip)
|
God will do the right thing, which by definition is whatever God does.
| Quote: | The fun part is if we attribute the quality of being eternal to the god,
then the god can not be the author of its decisions.
|
Yes and no. Gods are the authors of their own decisions but then
again, they have some limitations, not the least of which is that they
actually *always* know what they're doing.
Human beings can fail to understand because human beings can be tested
beyond their limits.
Gods can't.
| Quote: | If the god is eternal, then its omniscience is eternal, and if its
omniscience is eternal, then it has never not known its decisions, and so
the god never had to make those decisions.
|
Gods aren't omniscient because, why bother?
God is omniscient with regard to God's creation.
| Quote: | The question then becomes, What Did?
|
The Forces continuously create everything, but you see, They already
did it, but we in experiencing what They did, experience time.
But the Forces created everything outside of time.
Yeah, I know, you are probably tested beyond your limits in
contemplating those intriguing facts. So what?
James Harris |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
keith
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2003 11:03 pm Post subject: Re: Why a Being cannot be Both Omnipotent and Omniscient |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<JBrPa.72820$TJ.3858252@twister.austin.rr.com>...
| Quote: | "keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0307101953.3da70da8@posting.google.com...
"Uncle Rich" <uncle_rich@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<h3uFa.1197843$S_4.1215747@rwcrnsc53>...
Here is a simple explanation of why a being cannot be
*both* omnipotent and omniscient:
An omniscient being by definition knows the end result before he
even has the question, as such he not only has no free will (for
since he knows what he will do before doing it, he therefore MUST
act according to predestination), but cannot act contrary to the
way he will act. Therefore, if God is omniscient, he cannot
also be omnipotent.
I'd say: not at all. God knows what he will freely do before he freely
does it. But this doesn't mean doing something else instead will be
beyond his power. He knows that he *could* do Y but he *will* do X and
this different thing will be what he chooses.
(snip)
The fun part is if we attribute the quality of being eternal to the god,
then the god can not be the author of its decisions.
If the god is eternal, then its omniscience is eternal, and if its
omniscience is eternal, then it has never not known its decisions, and so
the god never had to make those decisions.
The question then becomes, What Did?
|
I'd say: your characterization is mistaken. Stipulating for the sake
of discussion that a decision must occur at some particular instant of
time, then perhaps it is correct that God doesn't make decisions in
that sense. But what's important about decisions is that they reflect
your will. If God's will is eternal--which is what you'd expect for an
eternal God--then as long as his actions reflect his will then his
actions are *relvantly similar* to the fre choices we finite humans
make to justify using the word "decision" as a reasonable way to
describe God's free actions.
Keith |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Daniel T.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2003 11:44 pm Post subject: Omniscient means fate (was: The Omnipotent/Omniscient Debate |
|
|
"Bo Zimmerman" <bo@zimmers.net> wrote:
| Quote: | God is omnipresent, which is typically meant to refer to time as well. As has
been stated many times by many others, to discuss God as having a time-limited
view (such as we have) is to construct a straw man to this argument. God
always knows what we did/are doing/will do because God exists in all time
periods at once (from His perspective). God sees the free choices we made in
the past, and will make in the future because God is already there witnessing
all of them.
|
How can you call that free choice? If god, or anybody for that matter,
knows the exact time and place of your death, then fate is real and you
will inexorably be drawn to that place at that time... If fate isn't
real, the no one can know the exact time and place of your death,
including god... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
keith
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2003 3:29 am Post subject: Re: The Omnipotent/Omniscient Debate |
|
|
"Bo Zimmerman" <bo@zimmers.net> wrote in message news:<bemvaa$6vkjn$1@ID-149169.news.uni-berlin.de>...
| Quote: | KEITH JUMPS IN AND RESPONDS: Smith's argument above has several
problems
1. The idea of 'changing the future' is incoherent. The future is
"that which will be". If you change the future then the original "that
which will be" wasn't really the way it would be at all, and no change
occurred. What Smith is probably trying to say is...
2...that if an omni-quality God knows he will do A at time T, then at
time T it will be beyond God's power to do other than A. But this
doesn't follow from God's knowing what he will do. That God *will* do
A doesn't mean that God *couldn't* do otherwise just that he *won't*.
You may say that if he *did* do otherwise then he would have been
wrong that he would do A. But in fact if he *did* do otherwise (he
won't) then he would have known *that* before.
God is omnipresent, which is typically meant to refer to time as well. As has
been stated many times by many others, to discuss God as having a time-limited
view (such as we have) is to construct a straw man to this argument. God
always knows what we did/are doing/will do because God exists in all time
periods at once (from His perspective). God sees the free choices we made in
the past, and will make in the future because God is already there witnessing
all of them.
|
I'd say: TO say that God is omnipresent means there is nowhere that
God isn't. If we apply this to time then it means there is no time
*when* God isn't. This says nothing about whether God exists at all
times "at once" (using this temporal metaphor to describe the
undescribable view that eternity is timeless). Even if we assume that
time is as we humans experience time, one moment at a time, still this
doesn't mean God doesn't know beforehand the future. And it doesn't
mean that God's power is limited to what he will in fact do.
Keith
| Quote: |
keith
- Bo
(Thomist, at large) |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Denis Loubet
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2003 12:59 pm Post subject: Re: Why a Being cannot be Both Omnipotent and Omniscient |
|
|
"James Harris" <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0307110356.18d0baad@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:<JBrPa.72820$TJ.3858252@twister.austin.rr.com>...
"keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0307101953.3da70da8@posting.google.com...
"Uncle Rich" <uncle_rich@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<h3uFa.1197843$S_4.1215747@rwcrnsc53>...
Here is a simple explanation of why a being cannot be
*both* omnipotent and omniscient:
An omniscient being by definition knows the end result before he
even has the question, as such he not only has no free will (for
since he knows what he will do before doing it, he therefore MUST
act according to predestination), but cannot act contrary to the
way he will act. Therefore, if God is omniscient, he cannot
also be omnipotent.
I'd say: not at all. God knows what he will freely do before he freely
does it. But this doesn't mean doing something else instead will be
beyond his power. He knows that he *could* do Y but he *will* do X and
this different thing will be what he chooses.
(snip)
God will do the right thing, which by definition is whatever God does.
|
That sounds like a pretty tight fit.
| Quote: | The fun part is if we attribute the quality of being eternal to the god,
then the god can not be the author of its decisions.
Yes and no. Gods are the authors of their own decisions but then
again, they have some limitations, not the least of which is that they
actually *always* know what they're doing.
|
The god cannot make decisions, it can only know what those decisions are.
Since the god does not make the decisions, what does?
| Quote: | Human beings can fail to understand because human beings can be tested
beyond their limits.
Gods can't.
|
Sure, the god supposedly knows what it's doing, but it cannot be the author
of what it does.
| Quote: | If the god is eternal, then its omniscience is eternal, and if its
omniscience is eternal, then it has never not known its decisions, and
so
the god never had to make those decisions.
Gods aren't omniscient because, why bother?
|
What?
| Quote: | God is omniscient with regard to God's creation.
|
Oh, you get to define omniscient as whatever you want.
That's handy.
| Quote: | The question then becomes, What Did?
The Forces continuously create everything, but you see, They already
did it, but we in experiencing what They did, experience time.
But the Forces created everything outside of time.
Yeah, I know, you are probably tested beyond your limits in
contemplating those intriguing facts. So what?
|
So you're bullshitting me.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Denis Loubet
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2003 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: Why a Being cannot be Both Omnipotent and Omniscient |
|
|
"keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0307111003.43170902@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:<JBrPa.72820$TJ.3858252@twister.austin.rr.com>...
"keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0307101953.3da70da8@posting.google.com...
"Uncle Rich" <uncle_rich@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<h3uFa.1197843$S_4.1215747@rwcrnsc53>...
Here is a simple explanation of why a being cannot be
*both* omnipotent and omniscient:
An omniscient being by definition knows the end result before he
even has the question, as such he not only has no free will (for
since he knows what he will do before doing it, he therefore MUST
act according to predestination), but cannot act contrary to the
way he will act. Therefore, if God is omniscient, he cannot
also be omnipotent.
I'd say: not at all. God knows what he will freely do before he freely
does it. But this doesn't mean doing something else instead will be
beyond his power. He knows that he *could* do Y but he *will* do X and
this different thing will be what he chooses.
(snip)
The fun part is if we attribute the quality of being eternal to the god,
then the god can not be the author of its decisions.
If the god is eternal, then its omniscience is eternal, and if its
omniscience is eternal, then it has never not known its decisions, and
so
the god never had to make those decisions.
The question then becomes, What Did?
I'd say: your characterization is mistaken. Stipulating for the sake
of discussion that a decision must occur at some particular instant of
time, then perhaps it is correct that God doesn't make decisions in
that sense.
|
Time is irrelevant to my argument. The god can't make decisions, in any
sense, because there is no reason for it to make decisions. It cannot make
decisions, it can only know those decisions.
| Quote: | But what's important about decisions is that they reflect
your will.
|
That's irrelevant if you don't make decisions.
| Quote: | If God's will is eternal--which is what you'd expect for an
eternal God--then as long as his actions reflect his will
|
You're presupposing the conclusion that the god has a will to be reflected
in its actions/decisions. If the god cannot make decisions, then its actions
are nothing more than the work of an automaton.
| Quote: | then his
actions are *relvantly similar* to the fre choices we finite humans
make to justify using the word "decision" as a reasonable way to
describe God's free actions.
|
If the god is omniscient, then you are correct that there would be a
simularity, but that simularity would be a complete lack of free will for
both parties.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Yorzu Perior
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2003 2:20 pm Post subject: Re: Why a Being cannot be Both Omnipotent and Omniscient |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
| Quote: | "keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0307111003.43170902@posting.google.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:<JBrPa.72820$TJ.3858252@twister.austin.rr.com>...
"keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0307101953.3da70da8@posting.google.com...
"Uncle Rich" <uncle_rich@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<h3uFa.1197843$S_4.1215747@rwcrnsc53>...
Here is a simple explanation of why a being cannot be
*both* omnipotent and omniscient:
An omniscient being by definition knows the end result before he
even has the question, as such he not only has no free will (for
since he knows what he will do before doing it, he therefore MUST
act according to predestination), but cannot act contrary to the
way he will act. Therefore, if God is omniscient, he cannot
also be omnipotent.
I'd say: not at all. God knows what he will freely do before he freely
does it. But this doesn't mean doing something else instead will be
beyond his power. He knows that he *could* do Y but he *will* do X and
this different thing will be what he chooses.
(snip)
The fun part is if we attribute the quality of being eternal to the god,
then the god can not be the author of its decisions.
If the god is eternal, then its omniscience is eternal, and if its
omniscience is eternal, then it has never not known its decisions, and
so
the god never had to make those decisions.
The question then becomes, What Did?
I'd say: your characterization is mistaken. Stipulating for the sake
of discussion that a decision must occur at some particular instant of
time, then perhaps it is correct that God doesn't make decisions in
that sense.
Time is irrelevant to my argument. The god can't make decisions, in any
sense, because there is no reason for it to make decisions. It cannot make
decisions, it can only know those decisions.
But what's important about decisions is that they reflect
your will.
That's irrelevant if you don't make decisions.
If God's will is eternal--which is what you'd expect for an
eternal God--then as long as his actions reflect his will
You're presupposing the conclusion that the god has a will to be reflected
in its actions/decisions. If the god cannot make decisions, then its actions
are nothing more than the work of an automaton.
then his
actions are *relvantly similar* to the fre choices we finite humans
make to justify using the word "decision" as a reasonable way to
describe God's free actions.
If the god is omniscient, then you are correct that there would be a
simularity, but that simularity would be a complete lack of free will for
both parties.
|
God is not omnipotent. He cannot create a rock so big that He can not
pick up. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Brian Fletcher
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2003 9:14 pm Post subject: Re: The Omnipotent/Omniscient Debate |
|
|
"keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0307111429.37fc62fe@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | "Bo Zimmerman" <bo@zimmers.net> wrote in message
news:<bemvaa$6vkjn$1@ID-149169.news.uni-berlin.de>...
KEITH JUMPS IN AND RESPONDS: Smith's argument above has several
problems
1. The idea of 'changing the future' is incoherent. The future is
"that which will be". If you change the future then the original "that
which will be" wasn't really the way it would be at all, and no change
occurred. What Smith is probably trying to say is...
2...that if an omni-quality God knows he will do A at time T, then at
time T it will be beyond God's power to do other than A. But this
doesn't follow from God's knowing what he will do. That God *will* do
A doesn't mean that God *couldn't* do otherwise just that he *won't*.
You may say that if he *did* do otherwise then he would have been
wrong that he would do A. But in fact if he *did* do otherwise (he
won't) then he would have known *that* before.
God is omnipresent, which is typically meant to refer to time as well.
As has
been stated many times by many others, to discuss God as having a
time-limited
view (such as we have) is to construct a straw man to this argument.
God
always knows what we did/are doing/will do because God exists in all
time
periods at once (from His perspective). God sees the free choices we
made in
the past, and will make in the future because God is already there
witnessing
all of them.
I'd say: TO say that God is omnipresent means there is nowhere that
God isn't. If we apply this to time then it means there is no time
*when* God isn't. This says nothing about whether God exists at all
times "at once" (using this temporal metaphor to describe the
undescribable view that eternity is timeless). Even if we assume that
time is as we humans experience time, one moment at a time, still this
doesn't mean God doesn't know beforehand the future. And it doesn't
mean that God's power is limited to what he will in fact do.
Keith
|
One moment at a time??? The ultimate oxymoron.
Brian |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Brian Fletcher
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2003 9:32 pm Post subject: Re: Why a Being cannot be Both Omnipotent and Omniscient |
|
|
"Yorzu Perior" <yorzp@antidiestablishmentarianism.net> wrote in message
news:beojsh$40t$1@pita.alt.net...
| Quote: | Denis Loubet wrote:
"keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0307111003.43170902@posting.google.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:<JBrPa.72820$TJ.3858252@twister.austin.rr.com>...
"keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0307101953.3da70da8@posting.google.com...
"Uncle Rich" <uncle_rich@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<h3uFa.1197843$S_4.1215747@rwcrnsc53>...
Here is a simple explanation of why a being cannot be
*both* omnipotent and omniscient:
An omniscient being by definition knows the end result before he
even has the question, as such he not only has no free will (for
since he knows what he will do before doing it, he therefore MUST
act according to predestination), but cannot act contrary to the
way he will act. Therefore, if God is omniscient, he cannot
also be omnipotent.
I'd say: not at all. God knows what he will freely do before he freely
does it. But this doesn't mean doing something else instead will be
beyond his power. He knows that he *could* do Y but he *will* do X and
this different thing will be what he chooses.
(snip)
The fun part is if we attribute the quality of being eternal to the
god,
then the god can not be the author of its decisions.
If the god is eternal, then its omniscience is eternal, and if its
omniscience is eternal, then it has never not known its decisions, and
so
the god never had to make those decisions.
The question then becomes, What Did?
I'd say: your characterization is mistaken. Stipulating for the sake
of discussion that a decision must occur at some particular instant of
time, then perhaps it is correct that God doesn't make decisions in
that sense.
Time is irrelevant to my argument. The god can't make decisions, in any
sense, because there is no reason for it to make decisions. It cannot
make
decisions, it can only know those decisions.
But what's important about decisions is that they reflect
your will.
That's irrelevant if you don't make decisions.
If God's will is eternal--which is what you'd expect for an
eternal God--then as long as his actions reflect his will
You're presupposing the conclusion that the god has a will to be
reflected
in its actions/decisions. If the god cannot make decisions, then its
actions
are nothing more than the work of an automaton.
then his
actions are *relvantly similar* to the fre choices we finite humans
make to justify using the word "decision" as a reasonable way to
describe God's free actions.
If the god is omniscient, then you are correct that there would be a
simularity, but that simularity would be a complete lack of free will
for
both parties.
God is not omnipotent. He cannot create a rock so big that He can not
pick up.
|
Can you pick up a cell in your own body?. With what would you pick it up, if
not an accumulation of other cells.
A good example of the limit of mental conceptualisation.
Brian |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
