Jewish and Christianity Question - Is God all knowing?

[Q]

Now I think you're just arguing in circles. "Don't know the answer so move on but don't ask where to because that's dangerous also".

Precisely.

I think if irrational thinking could account for as much human progress as rational thinking, you might have a point.

Irrationality is an inherent part of the human condition whether we like it or not, and in this case it is indespensible if we are to even approach an understanding of our existence because I believe that the ultimate answer is illogical. This is all just my opinion, of course, and nothing more, but I believe that it is the truth, nonetheless.

And here I suspect that you're still arguing for the first point when I thought we had moved on to the second. So please allow me to try again: What does mankind do while leaving things "unsought"?

We can attempt to improve ourselves to the point to where we can actually handle the answer and in the meantime resign ourselves to ignorance in this matter and learn to be content with it for the time being. I believe that it is our "purpose", in fact, our responsibility, if not to a god, then, at the very least, to ourselves to learn as much about the universe in which we live and, especially, every facet of our nature as is humanly possible before we can even attempt to deal with this issue with any reasonable expectation of success. We are as yet ill-equipped to do so at the present time, IMO. We must evolve.

Your "leave everything alone" solution doesn't sound like much of a solution to me. In fact it sounds rather apathetic.

"Apathy is death."

Perhaps it is, but for the moment it may be the only sane way to deal with this question until we are more capable.

 

I mean absolutely no disrespect whatsoever and I don't want to challenge your belief system, but are you sure that you're an atheist? If so, why should the question of existentialism even matter to you? Shouldn't the theories of the Big Bang and Evolution answer all of your questions? Of course they can't, any more than the Bible can.

 

Please do not be offended by my statements, as it is not my desire nor my intent to insult you in any way.

[True_Avery]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able, and willing?Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

 

I tried to post more, but I couldn't post without writing out something that was politically incorrect enough to get me infracted.

[tk102]

It's not a question of if events influence our decisions, it's a question of which.

I don't think that's the question. The question is whether the actor made a decision at all. That is, does the volition to act come from within or from without? If it comes from within, then the actor is a prime mover and has free will (ie. will to act that arises independently). Even if outside conditions influence him, his choice is still his own.

 

The alternative is that there is no choice made whatsoever by the actor. He is an automaton even if he does not know it.

We got this idea of choosing freely from somewhere, most likely our morality.

I don't see it as anything more than a boolean condition describing the deterministic or non-deterministic nature of the universe including us. Free will is typically a pre-requisite to morality, but the idea of freedom can be discussed completely independent of morality.

We hold people responsible for some actions and not for others. However, when you look closely at actions that are in real life considered freely chosen, never in any case do they disregard physical law. So does that mean they're determined by laws of physics? Not exactly. I would say that it demonstrates that the laws of physics are simply not relevant to what is and what is not "freely chosen."

After reading the last two paragraphs in your response, I see what you're getting at but this still sounds like you're putting the cart before the horse as its phrased. When discussing whether our action are predetermined or not, the laws of physics are most certainly relevant to the discussion. Is the core of our nature, the "I" that makes the choice, something that is subject to physical laws or not? If so, where does the experience of independent volition arise from? Or any experience for that matter? What is consciousness in materialistic terms? These are all questions that beg for physical explanations.

It might be said that what people consider freely willed actions are irrelevant to what actually are freely willed actions.

In practice outside of a philosophical debate, you are correct.

If we want to say we could be wrong about what a free-willed action is, then surely we must have some way to find out that it actually is or is not free. After all, for a doubt to exist there must be logical room for it. But given the parameters such a question would be asked under (a metaphysical/libertarian free will is unprovable and by corollary cannot be disproven either), I don't see that such a way is possible unless it is completely arbitrary - and something arbitrary is uninteresting to us here.

And this is completely true. We're inside the system and can't validate it or invalidate it from here. Perhaps someday we'll be able to create an artificial intelligence with a mind completely indistinguishable from our own. Even if that did happen and we were able to prove universal laws were dictating consciousness, we'd be in the same boat as we are today when it came to choosing A or B. We would need to have the ability to accurately predict every action that would be chosen -- only then could fully come to know our lack of freedom. That is, we would have to be omniscient ourselves to truly escape from the illusion of free will.

Because of this, I'm comfortable just going with what we know, which is how we in fact do use the idea of freedom in relation to our actions. I'd say that, regardless of whether or not you believe in an omniscient God, we're free to choose our actions in every meaningful sense.

And I too come to this same conclusion because it is the only practical one that we can use in our lives with our finite knowledge. It doesn't mean free will is true, but it works.

[Litofsky]

Because of this, I'm comfortable just going with what we know, which is how we in fact do use the idea of freedom in relation to our actions. I'd say that, regardless of whether or not you believe in an omniscient God, we're free to choose our actions in every meaningful sense.

 

I'd like to raise a point here, if I might. I believe that we're free to choose our actions, but, I believe that if there is a God, that God would not be omnipotent in any sense.

 

However, back to my point: would not free-will be to rid oneself of any prior experiences, knowledge, and act (during this situation) with no prior judgments, in order to be completely objective, and then act (after having rid oneself of all bias, would not then they be completely free from all decision-effecting elements)?

 

...on a side note, why wasn't Islam included in this question? I'm not an expert, but Islam is an Abrahamic religion, and I should imagine that the 'basics' are the same.

[The Doctor]

Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent

Not entirely correct. Malevolence implies a desire to see wrongs come to fruition. If two kids are fighting over a toy, a parent can decide to let them work it out themselves, despite being perfectly able to stop them. That doesn't make the parents malevolent in any way. Allowing us to sort out our own affairs after the chaos his past interference caused seems more likely to me than any malice on God's part.

[Jae Onasi]

Note that all comments below represent my opinion.

 

Regarding free will--let me give a more down to earth example. I can pretty much predict what my kids will do in a given situation when presented with certain choices. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop them from making the wrong choice (unless it's something obviously dangerous), because I know they'll learn from that choice and it may ultimately be beneficial to them in the long run. So while I may know what they're going to do, I have not forced them into either one choice or the other. They have had free will in those situations, and my fore-knowledge did not pre-determine their action.

 

So the Creator of the universe knows everything. Omniscience doesn't require action on His part unless He chooses to do so. That's the part that people get stuck on--if He knows everything, why is He making the choices He makes with regard to the world, not necessarily His knowledge of it.

 

I'm rather glad He's omniscient. If He'd made some kind of mistake in His physics calculations, imagine the comment, "Oops, forgot to carry the 2 there, and a quarter of the universe is now getting sucked into a gigantic black hole. Guess I really screwed up on that one."

[tk102]

Regarding free will--let me give a more down to earth example. I can pretty much predict what my kids will do in a given situation when presented with certain choices. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop them from making the wrong choice (unless it's something obviously dangerous), because I know they'll learn from that choice and it may ultimately be beneficial to them in the long run. So while I may know what they're going to do, I have not forced them into either one choice or the other. They have had free will in those situations, and my fore-knowledge did not pre-determine their action.

If your foreknowledge was perfect in every regard you would know exactly how they would act and there would be no chance for them to make the wrong decision. They would act in a way absolutely predictable pattern. That doesn't mean your foreknowledge caused them to not have freedom, but it simply allowed you to see that this freedom is an illusion.

I'm rather glad He's omniscient. If He'd made some kind of mistake in His physics calculations, imagine the comment, "Oops, forgot to carry the 2 there, and a quarter of the universe is now getting sucked into a gigantic black hole. Guess I really screwed up on that one."

Who knows, maybe he did for a near eternity before things worked.

[JediMaster12]

 

Presumably because we're talking about the Christian/Jewish deity known as 'God.'

Just for clarity "Allah" in Arabic means "God" so if an Arab Christian refers to God they would say Allah.

 

As to the all knowing, I have no idea what to think considering that I have developed a sort of warped existence that doesn't comply with my parents' ideals of a "good Catholic girl."

 

Somehow though I am reminded of that Bible passage that says a day is but a thousand years and a thousand years is but a day under heaven. It makes me wonder if God is really on the same page given the omniscience. If he is omnicient, then wouldn't God be removed from us? I know that is contradictory to what Christians say about him being a part of your lives, etc., but there are some instance where he seems removed frm daily life.

[Arcesious]

I used to beleive that perhaps God wasn't all knowing, but was all powerful. My idea was that he uses his power to conduct 'experiments' in pursuit of omniscience.

 

The thing about omniscience, is, if you already possess omniscience, you are all powerful. After all, "knowledge is power'. This is because If you're all knowing, you know how to be all-powerful or to make yourself all-powerful.

 

 

Basically, the idea is that you can't start off all powerful and become omniscient, but you can start off omniscient and become all powerful.

 

I'll bet that this idea will get disected quickly by some brilliant argumentor or via the use of occam's razor.

[jrrtoken]

Being an agnostic theist, I have a less traditional opinion on God. I believe that he is not omnipotent, to an extent, but I do believe that he is is omniscient - to an extent, though.

 

Simply, I believe that life, the universe, and everything is a row of dominoes, i.e., all of nature's processes s, including evolution, gravity, and many other scientific principles, were all predetermined to work at the time of the Big Bang, as some sort of sadistic experiment set up by God. No, really, I believe that the only time that God had to show off his/her/its omnipotence was when pushing that first domino, the Big Bang. Once that first domino was pushed, a chain reaction began, creating all that is known today through trillions of years. To put it in layman's terms, our universe is God's guinea pig, and we are its droppings. Whether the experiment succeeded or failed is yet to be known, but we must also ask ourselves if the experiment is even completed.

 

I know all of this might sound a bit... eccentric, but that's probably due to my exhaustion at the moment, but it's also probably also due to my own eccentricity as well.

[Jae Onasi]

The thing about omniscience, is, if you already possess omniscience, you are all powerful. After all, "knowledge is power'.

 

"Knowledge is power" is a trite phrase, although the sentiment behind it is generally meant to be an encouragement for education. The infinite knowledge of something does not necessarily translate to infinite power. I can tell you all sorts of things about the physics and meteorology of tornadoes, but I have zero power to do anything about them, except maybe to contact friends and relatives to get out of the path if it's heading their way, or take my family and me to the basement if it's heading my way.

[Tommycat]

I liken free will and God's omniscience to this: Perhaps in allowing one evil you stop a greater evil. Perhaps even in that evil something beneficial comes. An example of that could be Hitler. Very few people would say that he was good(a very small group), however we got V2 rockets that eventually led to led to the space program. We got the jet turbine engine. We also got a greater appreciation for our fellow people around the world. From evil we also got modern triage techniques.

 

Keep in mind that there was also the idea of "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime." If God provides everything and we want for nothing, why advance? Why learn to build boats? Why learn to do anything if we have everything handed to us?

[Achilles]

Precisely.

Again: I don't find this to be an acceptable answer. It might be the one that you are advocating and you're welcome to, however there are serious issues that deserve our attention and ignoring them won't cause them to go away on their own.

 

Irrationality is an inherent part of the human condition whether we like it or not, and in this case it is indespensible if we are to even approach an understanding of our existence because I believe that the ultimate answer is illogical. This is all just my opinion, of course, and nothing more, but I believe that it is the truth, nonetheless.

There are lots of things that are "an inherent part of the human condition". That doesn't mean that we leave the bar lying on the ground and use "our inherent condition" as an excuse to do no better.

 

For instance, none of us are born "potty trained".

 

We can attempt to improve ourselves to the point to where we can actually handle the answer and in the meantime resign ourselves to ignorance in this matter and learn to be content with it for the time being.

You're still not tell us what "be content" means. Does it mean that theists should put aside their belief and try to be the best moral people they can while trying to advance the human race? Well then they're humanists. And what kind of argument do you think they are going to find persuasive? How many fundies do you think are going to subscribe to this way of thinking once exposed to the argument?

 

I believe that it is our "purpose", in fact, our responsibility, if not to a god, then, at the very least, to ourselves to learn as much about the universe in which we live and, especially, every facet of our nature as is humanly possible before we can even attempt to deal with this issue with any reasonable expectation of success.

I'd like to point out that it tends to be theists that block progress in this endeavor. Plan, meet the reality of the situation. Reality of situation, meet plan.

 

We are as yet ill-equipped to do so at the present time, IMO. We must evolve.

Some of us are, yes.

 

"Apathy is death."

Perhaps it is, but for the moment it may be the only sane way to deal with this question until we are more capable.

I seem to recall social conservatives making very similar arguments when it came to the civil rights movement

 

Unfortunately, I still fail to see the merit in the argument that humankind's potential should have to "slow up" (borrowing from Dr. King here) so that some of us have time to "come around" (a proposition they've shown no sign of being willing to do).

 

I mean absolutely no disrespect whatsoever and I don't want to challenge your belief system, but are you sure that you're an atheist?

I don't know. How does one test the degree to which they don't hold a belief about something? I understand all the words that you typed, however taken together as a sentence, they don't make sense.

 

If so, why should the question of existentialism even matter to you? Shouldn't the theories of the Big Bang and Evolution answer all of your questions? Of course they can't, any more than the Bible can.

Relevence...to anything?

 

Please do not be offended by my statements, as it is not my desire nor my intent to insult you in any way.

None taken. I'm sure at some point, your arguments will being to crystalize and I will be able to make more sense of exactly where you are coming from.

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able, and willing?Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

I think this just about sums it up.

 

I can pretty much predict what my kids will do in a given situation when presented with certain choices.

You also don't claim to be the omnipotent creator of the universe. Apples and oranges? Or are you positing that you play by the same rules as god and/or that god plays by the same rules as you?

 

That doesn't mean I'm going to stop them from making the wrong choice (unless it's something obviously dangerous), because I know they'll learn from that choice and it may ultimately be beneficial to them in the long run.

So when god, being omniscient, knows about the imminent rape of a woman? Or the killing of an innocent baby by his or her certifiably insane mother? Or when a pedophile stops to give a child a ride home?

 

If god is omniscient, then he knows about all of these things before (I'm guessing long before) they occur. So if he knows, then he's either a) unable to stop them (which calls into question his omnipotence) or b) unwilling to stop them (which calls into question his omnibenevolence).

 

We can absolutely say that it is all part of god's plan. There is no way for us to disprove this hypothesis. However there is no way to do so without breaking at least one of the eggs in his basket (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence). I'll refer you back to Avery's post above.

 

So while I may know what they're going to do, I have not forced them into either one choice or the other. They have had free will in those situations, and my fore-knowledge did not pre-determine their action.

I'm sure the last of my lingering questions will fall into place once we answer the question above re: you and god playing by the same rules.

 

I'm rather glad He's omniscient. If He'd made some kind of mistake in His physics calculations, imagine the comment, "Oops, forgot to carry the 2 there, and a quarter of the universe is now getting sucked into a gigantic black hole. Guess I really screwed up on that one."

Yeah, we just get to deal with entropy and the big rip instead. We can debate this further in a few hundred million years when the slow, gradual increase in the sun's temperature has boiled away all of our oceans and life ceases to exist on Earth.

[Q]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able, and willing?Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

I believe that the ultimate answer is illogical.

Again: I don't find this to be an acceptable answer. It might be the one that you are advocating and you're welcome to, however there are serious issues that deserve our attention and ignoring them won't cause them to go away on their own.

It may be irrelevant in any case. With our technology advancing as fast as it is, we may find ourselves running head-on into the truth (or at least part of it) before our conscious minds are ready and equipped to deal with what our subconscious minds deal with on a daily basis.

There are lots of things that are "an inherent part of the human condition". That doesn't mean that we leave the bar lying on the ground and use "our inherent condition" as an excuse to do no better.

 

For instance, none of us are born "potty trained".

True, but confining one's thought process to logic and logic only makes the answer, which I believe to be illogical, unattainable.

Does it mean that theists should put aside their belief and try to be the best moral people they can while trying to advance the human race?

No, because as flawed as they are (and they are very flawed, IMO; such is the nature of man), I believe that the answer lies somewhere within their beliefs. If I am correct about this, then all the more's the pity because as far as I can tell from their behavior, the vast majority of them do not actually believe in anything other than using religion for their own personal gain.

How many fundies do you think are going to subscribe to this way of thinking once exposed to the argument?

About as many as those who believe that all answers can be attained through logic, and only logic.

I'd like to point out that it tends to be theists that block progress in this endeavor.

Well, here is where they're wrong. Their obstructionism is due to their fear that science challenges their belief system. I believe that this fear is unfounded, because though science is indeed being used by some in an attempt to disprove their beliefs it is ultimately, IMO, as fruitless an endeavor as any attempt to use science to prove them. This is what I meant in the Senate Chambers when I described such efforts as "counterproductive."

We are as yet ill-equipped to do so at the present time, IMO. We must evolve.

Some of us are, yes.

Most of us are. I wasn't trying to be melodramatic (though I understand that it may appear that way) when I stated that the answer is dangerous, and could very well be disastrous if I'm right.

I seem to recall social conservatives making very similar arguments when it came to the civil rights movement

 

Unfortunately, I still fail to see the merit in the argument that humankind's potential should have to "slow up" (borrowing from Dr. King here) so that some of us have time to "come around" (a proposition they've shown no sign of being willing to do).

Where did I say that we need to slow up progress? I seem to recall saying the opposite. I just think that the answer will come on it's own without our wasting our efforts in actively trying to seek it; efforts that would be better used in improving ourselves by learning what's actually learnable.

I don't know. How does one test the degree to which they don't hold a belief about something? I understand all the words that you typed, however taken together as a sentence, they don't make sense.

 

Relevence...to anything?

None, other than satisfying my curiousity as to your motives. Thank you for your honesty.

I'm sure at some point, your arguments will being to crystalize and I will be able to make more sense of exactly where you are coming from.

I'm trying, but it may be beyond my capabilities to adequately explain anything as deeply personal and completely subjective as this matter is. I'm doing my best to do so without coming off looking like a kook.

[Jae Onasi]

The OP asks if God is all-knowing. This presumes God exists. Please take any arguments for atheism to the atheism/theism thread. Thanks.

 

Where is it said God is omni-benevolent?

[Adavardes]

A quick question, then I'll get out of your hair, as I am really not at all religious and have no opinion on this matter. Still, I think this needs saying, for clarification purposes.

 

Shouldn't the title of this thread be "Jewish, Christianity, and Islam Question - Is God all knowing?" Because, to the best of my knowledge, you all share the exact same God, just with different names, and you have different messiahs. I'm just curious as to why Islam was left out of the mix.

[Jae Onasi]

I'll leave that up to the OP to address either here or with jonathan7 or me via PM.

[Achilles]

It may be irrelevant in any case. With our technology advancing as fast as it is, we may find ourselves running head-on into the truth (or at least part of it) before our conscious minds are ready and equipped to deal with what our subconscious minds deal with on a daily basis.

This ignores the fact that theists not only seek to prevent scientific/technological advances but even go so far as to undo them. I don't think we need to look any further than the ID movement in public schools or the islamic push for the re-establishment of the caliphate for evidence of this.

 

True, but confining one's thought process to logic and logic only makes the answer, which I believe to be illogical, unattainable.

Confining one's thoughts to terms of what is or is not will cause someone to miss the third option? What would this third option be?

 

No, because as flawed as they are (and they are very flawed, IMO; such is the nature of man), I believe that the answer lies somewhere within their beliefs. If I am correct about this, then all the more's the pity because as far as I can tell from their behavior, the vast majority of them do not actually believe in anything other than using religion for their own personal gain.

Without details, I can't make heads or tails of any of this.

 

It now appears that while we can't do something, and we also can't do anything, we shouldn't stop ourselves from doing nothing, because somewhere in there is the key.

 

About as many as those who believe that all answers can be attained through logic, and only logic.

Nitpick: rational thinking.

 

Yes, all the answers can be obtained by rational thinking. That's a challenge I feel comfortable making. Think about it for a second: even if irrational thinking did happen upon something useful (via a process like brainstorming), it's rational thought that distinguishes the useful ideas from the bad ones.

 

Well, here is where they're wrong. Their obstructionism is due to their fear that science challenges their belief system. I believe that this fear is unfounded, because though science is indeed being used by some in an attempt to disprove their beliefs it is ultimately, IMO, as fruitless an endeavor as any attempt to use science to prove them. This is what I meant in the Senate Chambers when I described such efforts as "counterproductive."

This is all great, but none of it addresses my point. Whether you think it is wrong, or not, has nothing to do with my pointing out that's occurrence impedes your ideal scenario.

 

Most of us are. I wasn't trying to be melodramatic (though I understand that it may appear that way) when I stated that the answer is dangerous, and could very well be disastrous if I'm right.

Again, without telling us what that means, it's impossible for me to comment (and follow your half of the conversation).

 

Where did I say that we need to slow up progress? I seem to recall saying the opposite. I just think that the answer will come on it's own without our wasting our efforts in actively trying to seek it; efforts that would be better used in improving ourselves by learning what's actually learnable.

Err...in the section I quoted.

 

And as I keep trying to point out the conflict over the question itself prevents this from happening. The whole thing is very circular.

 

None, other than satisfying my curiousity as to your motives. Thank you for your honesty.

Eh...no problem

 

I didn't actually say anything

 

I'm trying, but it may be beyond my capabilities to adequately explain anything as deeply personal and completely subjective as this matter is. I'm doing my best to do so without coming off looking like a kook.

Ok, well in that case, there probably isn't much more to say here. The final word is yours, sir.

 

Where is it said God is omni-benevolent?

I will accept this as your answer. Thanks.

[Jae Onasi]

This ignores the fact that theists not only seek to prevent scientific/technological advances but even go so far as to undo them. I don't think we need to look any further than the ID movement in public schools or the islamic push for the re-establishment of the caliphate for evidence of this.

Are you making a blanket statement about all theists, and if so, why, when you know that's fallacious?

 

Where is it said God is omni-benevolent?

I will accept this as your answer. Thanks.

The example with my kids was just to give someone a more concrete example that they can wrap their minds around, not to claim equivalence with God. You can deal with the esoteric concepts, but not everyone else has made it to that level intellectually because of youth. A 'real life' analogy can be useful in explaining a more difficult concept.

 

CS Lewis handles the issue of why God allows bad things to happen in his book "The Problem of Pain" for those interested.

And that was a legitimate question on omni-benevolence--where is it ever said in the Bible/Torah that God is omni-benevolent? It speaks of pure holiness, but that is not the same thing. The argument posted by True_Avery presumes omni-benevolence, but since God is not that, the argument falls apart at that point.

 

We need to steer this back to just omniscience, however.

[Achilles]

Are you making a blanket statement about all theists

No, but then again I don't need to for the statement to be true.

 

The example with my kids was just to give someone a more concrete example that they can wrap their minds around, not to claim equivalence with God.

I hope you'll understand my confusion, as whenever I try to provide similar examples you tend to run right to the "human behavior is not the same as god's behavior" argument. You using that the opposite argument here might make it seem as though you are trying to have it both ways, depending on which side of the argument better suits your position at the time. As always, consistency would help to alleviate this confusion.

 

You can deal with the esoteric concepts, but not everyone else has made it to that level intellectually because of youth. A 'real life' analogy can be useful in explaining a more difficult concept.

It's either apples and oranges or it's not.

 

CS Lewis handles the issue of why God allows bad things to happen in his book "The Problem of Pain" for those interested.

Lewis, like all apologists, offers his stab at the problem, however his book, like all apologist writings, is nothing more than a guess.

 

By all means though, read the Lewis book, but then also read God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer by Bart Ehrman. Then, properly equiped with the arguments from both sides, determine which set of arguments are superior.

 

And that was a legitimate question on omni-benevolence--where is it ever said in the Bible/Torah that God is omni-benevolent? It speaks of pure holiness, but that is not the same thing. The argument posted by True_Avery presumes omni-benevolence, but since God is not that, the argument falls apart at that point.

As I stated earlier, I will take that as your answer. All I wanted to know is which one of the eggs would break in your basket.

 

We need to steer this back to just omniscience, however.

Sounds good.

[Ray Jones]

I don't see how the existence of an omniscient being would contradict the concept of free will.

 

Just because you know all possible results for y = x + 1 doesn't mean x is definite in any way.

[vanir]

In my quick glean of the topic Qliver seemed to have his finger on the pulse. Let's face it, much of the points in this discussion can best be satisfied by things like listening to talented song lyrics or signing yourself into a mental institution. If you ask me the Bible is a human story, where the mistake often made is the assumption it is a divine one. In the latter case it would hardly have genuine value to people now, would it?

 

The really, truly interesting part about the Bible amid scriptures in general is the truly human nature of that story. It is more than a mere series of mythology. It is a burning bush.

 

And back to my initial point here, perhaps Qliver's also. Allow me to define a burning bush, as done best, with song lyrics:

 

Overwhelmed as one would be

placed in my position

Such a heavy burden now...to be the One

Born to bear and bring to all the details of our ending

To write it down for all the world...to...see

But I forgot my pen

{poo'd} the bed again...typical

Strapped down to my bed

Feet cold, eyes red

I'm out of my head

Am I alive or am I dead?

Sunkist and sudafed, gyroscopes and infrared, won't help

I'm brain dead

Can't remember what they said

God damn, {poo'd} the bed

 

I think the interesting thing, at least one point to be made is the sheer attraction of insanity to youth. You see the young human is always looking for an easy way out, deep down he wants to beat his chest and she wants him to take her by force. Both want everything all at once. It is basic instinct. We're animals contemplating what it might be like to be something removed, deluding ourselves into thinking intellectual complication achieves this.

Perhaps the Bible was evolved by a series of (classically educated) scholars between 12BCE and 15CE and designed to be a piece of philosophical rope. A new political tact, instead of dictatorship, psychology. The overtones of strict psychology among Hebrew scripture and interpretation as a means of forming an effective sociology amid nomadic culture are not only clearly outlined but generally plainly recognised (sectarian departures such as Kaballah aside).

 

Jesus is the story of a social victim. The problem with secular Christianity is that it ignores extended investigation of scripture, so any value to this observation might well be lost.

[Jae Onasi]

As I stated earlier, I will take that as your answer. All I wanted to know is which one of the eggs would break in your basket.

There's no basket of eggs in the first place, because it's a false conclusion made on the false assumption that our conception of God's goodness is necessarily His, in addition to falsely equating omni-benevolence with ultimate holiness. God obviously does not want rape, murder, theft, and a host of other evils, because there are rules set down against these things in the Bible and the Torah. The fact that God allows someone to make the choice to do good or ill is neither a reflection on his omniscience nor his omnipotence. What we consider 'good' and what God considers 'good' may ultimately be different. A particular event at a specific point in our unique life may be bad, but in the overall scheme of the entirety of humanity it may allow for the best possible outcome while allowing humanity free will to ultimately accept or reject God. It also assumes that an omniscient God is required to act.

 

Apples and oranges comment--no, the example is not entirely equivalent, and as I said, I didn't intend it to be that, nor did I ever intend it to be any kind of argument. I just wanted to give a concrete, 'down here on earth' way to explain that yes, you can know what's going to happen, allow that person to make a free will choice anyway, and then deal with the decision accordingly, because it's not an easy concept. If the picture allows someone to get a better grasp on the rudiments of omniscience and free will, fine, then they can move on to the theoretical level from there. I'm only trying to teach the basics of a concept to some others using a real world example as a starting point, not make that a specific argument itself. It's really not that big of a deal. If you have a specific teaching point or example that you think would work better for pre-teens and 13 or 14 year olds to explain how omniscience works in with free will, please feel free to chime in and add them.

[vanir]

If you have a specific teaching point or example that you think would work better for pre-teens and 13 or 14 year olds to explain how omniscience works in with free will, please feel free to chime in and add them.

How 'bout this "Son, you know watching football isn't knowingly gay..."

[Achilles]

There's no basket of eggs in the first place,

Of course there is. Theists believe very specific things about their deities. Christians are no different. But of course, you are positing the opposite above, so...

 

because it's a false conclusion made on the false assumption that our conception of God's goodness is necessarily His

Well I see that as being a very big problem, and it should come as no surprise to you because I've pointed this out before.

 

God dictates that we should kill our disobedient children in the public square, yet somehow we've deemed that to be an immoral act. So either "our goodness" is better than his (in which case, why even bother to listen to what he has to say at all if we're only going to pick and choose which parts we adhere to), or his really is better than ours and our laws are seriously out of compliance with what he's told us to do.

 

Yet again, another one of those situations that we cannot have both ways.

 

...in addition to falsely equating omni-benevolence with ultimate holiness.

There are far too many subjective terms used here for me to understand the underlying point. Would you mind trying again with objective terms?

 

God obviously does not want rape, murder, theft, and a host of other evils, because there are rules set down against these things in the Bible and the Torah.

Err, except the parts where he instructs followers to do some of those things specifically. Unless of course we're going to use special pleading to say that this doesn't apply to chosen people (which of course begs the question why god plays favorites, but that's another issue entirely.

 

The fact that God allows someone to make the choice to do good or ill is neither a reflection on his omniscience nor his omnipotence.

Sure it is for reasons that both Avery and I have already illustrated. Either he doesn't know, knows and can't do anything about it, or knows and doesn't care. Clearly it is unavoidable that his is alleged omniscience and/or omnipotence is called into question.

 

We could get even more fundamental than that and ask why there is evil in the first place. If god created everything then that includes evil doesn't it?

 

What we consider 'good' and what God considers 'good' may ultimately be different.

No doubt. Which makes me wonder why we seek to punish people with our mortal laws when it may be that someone was acting within god's definition of good. Seems a bit conceeded of us to think that we know better than he does (assuming that he/she/it even exists).

 

A particular event at a specific point in our unique life may be bad, but in the overall scheme of the entirety of humanity it may allow for the best possible outcome while allowing humanity free will to ultimately accept or reject God.

I think this completely ignores the specific examples I provided earlier, but I know you well enough to know that there isn't much to be gained in chasing you down on this point.

 

It also assumes that an omniscient God is required to act.

No it doesn't. It simply asks why he doesn't if he's capable. If he's capable of preventing a mother of murdering her own children in his name, why doesn't he? Because mankind is better served by allowing this to happen? It sure would seem to cast a strange light on all the alleged miracles we hear about.

 

Apples and oranges comment--no, the example is not entirely equivalent, and as I said, I didn't intend it to be that, nor did I ever intend it to be any kind of argument. I just wanted to give a concrete, 'down here on earth' way to explain that yes, you can know what's going to happen, allow that person to make a free will choice anyway, and then deal with the decision accordingly, because it's not an easy concept.

Ok, if the example isn't equivalent, then I don't know what purpose it serves. If you're admitting that the analogy is only useful in human terms, then I can't imagine how it would benefit a situation in which human terms don't apply.