God Is A Psychopath

[Cheerful Charlie]

If God does not create man with a good moral nature, our free will is constrained to do evil. God cannot escape blame for all moral evil.

You have to construct a coherent theology (atheology) in which God can't create (initially good or neutral) beings with free will who can freely choose to disobey His commandments - ie. be evil contrary to Gods will.

I see no theological impediment to a loving God doing this. In fact, I can't see any alternative apart from free will. Why would God create robots then punish/reward them for doing exactly what He pre-programmed them to do.

Remember - God is ALL powerful. Nothing can go wrong if humans go rogue and turn against Him

My atheology argument is based strictly on claims made about God. God created everything. And so logically, God must design us. And our moral natures.

There is no "moral nature" without the freedom to choose between good or evil.
A dishwasher isn't doing anyone an altruistic favor by washing their dishes. It didn't choose to help out around the kitchen.

Our free will logically, is constrained by our nature.

No, no, no. That's self-contradictory. An oxymoron. "Constrained" by our free will ???
A being that is constrained - by its nature - to only ever act a certain way would entirely remove the moral dimension of its behaviour. You're asking God why He didn't create us with a universal, involuntary compulsion to act 'good' while, at the same time, having a "moral nature" that entails the ability to choose good or evil.
That's incoherent.

No. Our free will is constrained by our moral nature. God had to design our moral nature to create us. Good, bad, or indifferent. Free will then, if you claim God created us is impossible. Verily, verily, tiz a problem for theology. God has to create us with a moral nature if God creates us. God cannot avoid doing so. God must choose one or the two other choices.

The only way out is that of Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin and others. declare God is incomprehensible, inscrutable, it is all a mystery and abandon reason and rationality in face of the problem.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

All this has been covered in a previous post which you did not respond to (I wonder why). Here is a link to the post:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?15861-God-Is-A-Psychopath&p=593638&viewfull=1#post593638

I didn't respond because that post was itself merely a gainsaying response to what I had plainly stated.
What do you want me to do? Re-post my exact same position again?
You say omniscience prevents/compels God - limiting His divine prerogatives.
I say that God is entirely free to selectively know whatever He wants. And He is able to create beings with spontaneous free will - God can literally (if He wants) not know what free choice they will make.

And I really don't feel like arguing with Wikipedia.
If you don't like my definition of omniscience that fair enough.
But how about you have the intellectual grit to acknowledge that my definition DOES get around the alleged paradox you cling to.

So how does god choose what not to know, without first knowing it and deciding he doesn't want to know it? And having decided that, how does he avoid an infinite loop of checking it out because he doesn't know it, deciding not to know it, checking it out because he doesn't know it...

Your entire position on this question is complete nonsense.

You can sustain it only by abandoning the entire concept of knowledge, reason, and logic. Getting around a paradox by totally abandoning sanity is not a win for your position; It is a 'solution' that destroys itself.

You have succeeded in salvaging your claim that god is omniscient, by defining 'omniscient' to mean 'doesn't know everything'. Congratu-fucking-lations

Now you just need to define 'omnipotent' to mean 'limited in power', and all the worst paradoxes just melt away.

Any number of well known theologians have bent themselves all out of shape trying to redefine omniscience to avoid these sorts of puzzles.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And I really don't feel like arguing with Wikipedia.
If you don't like my definition of omniscience that fair enough.

Omniscience only has one definition. If you have another than the one everybody else knows and understands, then you are wrong. If we get to define common usage words as we feel like, these are worthless in conversation.

A good thing about Wikipedia, is that it's reliable. Just ask any Catholic priest. Catholic priests tend to be reliable because they've gone through seminary. They're forced to learn proper theology, and know what omniscience means. They should also have been taught the omniscience and omnipotence paradoxes. So ask your priest. He should be able to set you straight.

But how about you have the intellectual grit to acknowledge that my definition DOES get around the alleged paradox you cling to.

Unfortunately your definition is the wrong one. So it doesn't matter.

edit: I suggest reading Thomas of Aquinas. He explains why Catholic doctrine is the way it is. I'm sure your priest also knows.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yeah yeah.
I've read The Doctor.
I never got past "A" in the philosophy encyclopedia.
Aristotle. Augustine. Aquinas.

 

[Lion IRC]

What do you want me to do? Re-post my exact same position again?

No. I would like you explain how Biblegod's omniscience works, and how this omniscience is compatible with Biblegod's alleged omnipotence

See that everyone?

 

[bilby]

What do you want me to do? Re-post my exact same position again?

No. I would like you explain how Biblegod's omniscience works, and how this omniscience is compatible with Biblegod's alleged omnipotence

See that everyone?

Yup. It's you pretending that not defending your position is a defence of your position.

You might want to stop doing that, if you care at all about being taken seriously.

 

[Lion IRC]

Omniscience is the ability to know anything - anytime you want to know.

Do internet search engines know everything or do they summon up data on demand?
If Marty McFly wants to know what will happen in 2088 or what happened in 1888 he can easily know what happened by fast forwarding or rewinding time at will.

Please don't make this into another idiotic speakpigeon "definition of infinity" thread where folks go on page after page after page insisting that there's only one allowable interpretation of a METAPHYSICAL idea.

 

[DBT]

Omniscience is the ability to know anything - anytime you want to know.

Definition of omniscient

1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight an omniscient author the narrator seems an omniscient person who tells us about the characters and their relations —Ira Konigsberg

2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge/ the omniscient God

 

[Lion IRC]

Oh FFS
/thread

See how phands never came back to me?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Omniscience is the ability to know anything - anytime you want to know.

Do internet search engines know everything or do they summon up data on demand?
If Marty McFly wants to know what will happen in 2088 or what happened in 1888 he can easily know what happened by fast forwarding or rewinding time at will.

Please don't make this into another idiotic speakpigeon "definition of infinity" thread where folks go on page after page after page insisting that there's only one allowable interpretation of a METAPHYSICAL idea.

So ... you’re saying that bad things happen to good people as a result of willful ignorance on the part of God?

He could stop all the child rapes but chooses not to because he doesn’t want to give himself spoilers?

I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to get at with him having the ability to know everything as opposed to just plain knowing it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Omniscience is the ability to know anything - anytime you want to know.

Do internet search engines know everything or do they summon up data on demand?
If Marty McFly wants to know what will happen in 2088 or what happened in 1888 he can easily know what happened by fast forwarding or rewinding time at will.

Please don't make this into another idiotic speakpigeon "definition of infinity" thread where folks go on page after page after page insisting that there's only one allowable interpretation of a METAPHYSICAL idea.

There are any number of theories about what omniscience is and how it works. God is out of time and for God, past, present and future exist. God's knows all by simple inspection. Or God is existent at all times and places in a timeless Universe. God's immanence. Or God has created a determinate Universe, LaPlace's demon. God knows from the state of existence at Time-1 what will happen at Time-2. Or God plans all from the beginning, predestination as stated in the Bible. God causes all the happen as it does. Not all theologies hold God is omniscient. Process theology for example. And other theories besides.

 

[atrib]

What do you want me to do? Re-post my exact same position again?

No. I would like you explain how Biblegod's omniscience works, and how this omniscience is compatible with Biblegod's alleged omnipotence

See that everyone?

Yup. That's you refusing to take a rational position regarding your Biblegod's abilities, or acknowledge the points other people are making that destroy your non-claims, hints and allegations.

Omniscience is the ability to know anything - anytime you want to know.

Blah blah blah. Even assuming your description is correct, which it is not, Biblegod is still nothing more than a dishwater, just a program being executed. This is the part you ignored in my last post:

For the sake of argument let us assume that Biblegod only chooses to "maintain consciousness about" certain things at certain times, just to shut the door on that nonsense, and say:

Biblegod has the ability to know what the future is with 100 percent accuracy, which would mean that the future is set in stone and cannot be changed. Because otherwise, what he chooses to know about the future today could be different from what he might choose to know about the future tomorrow, or whenever he chooses to "maintain consciousness about" the future. Do you understand what I am saying?

Note that I said "has the ability to know", having accepted your claim that Biblegod only "maintains consciousness about" certain things and not everything.

Do you have the intellectual grit to concede that Biblegod cannot logically be omni-anything?

 

[DBT]

If there is something God that is not aware of, or does not understand, God is unaware or ignorant of that thing. Consequently, God is not Omniscient.

Omniscience allows no exceptions. God is either Omniscient or God is not Omniscient. There is no middle ground.

 

[phands]

Do you have the intellectual grit to concede that Biblegod cannot logically be omni-anything?

No, he doesn't. Because lack of said grit. And xtianty means no conflicting view can ever be correct.

 

[steve_bank]

The general point is the origins of the ancient biblical god is not an idealized perfect entity, it is a reflection of us humans, and in particular male patriarchy. In ancient tmies the male had total control if the family. In Rome power of life and death over family.

We see it reflected today in the conservative Muslim family male dominance over all aspects of a woman's life and honor killings.

 

[atrib]

See that everyone?

Yup. That's you refusing to take a rational position regarding your Biblegod's abilities, or acknowledge the points other people are making that destroy your non-claims, hints and allegations.

Omniscience is the ability to know anything - anytime you want to know.

Blah blah blah. Even assuming your description is correct, which it is not, Biblegod is still nothing more than a dishwater, just a program being executed. This is the part you ignored in my last post:

For the sake of argument let us assume that Biblegod only chooses to "maintain consciousness about" certain things at certain times, just to shut the door on that nonsense, and say:

Biblegod has the ability to know what the future is with 100 percent accuracy, which would mean that the future is set in stone and cannot be changed. Because otherwise, what he chooses to know about the future today could be different from what he might choose to know about the future tomorrow, or whenever he chooses to "maintain consciousness about" the future. Do you understand what I am saying?

Note that I said "has the ability to know", having accepted your claim that Biblegod only "maintains consciousness about" certain things and not everything.

Do you have the intellectual grit to concede that Biblegod cannot logically be omni-anything?

I guess not.

Remember the story I had told you about my Christian friend who believes the Bible to be the literal word of God, but never lies to others to cover up the factual and logical inconsistencies of his beliefs? Now he has integrity.

 

[steve_bank]

When the RCC ruled religion up until the Reformation the Vatican dictated what you had to profess as a Christian and how to interpret the bible. There was a time it was illegal to translate the bible into local languages. It weeknd the Vatican hold on people to have anyone read the bible.

Along came the Reformation and any individual can interpret scripture and presume to know the mind and will of god. It can be seen in all the radio and TV Christian shows where leers all claim to know god personally and what it wants from the believers.Christians interpret freely what god is and want he, she, or it wants and derives apologetics accordingly.

If religion was formally evaluated psychologically it would be labeled a disorder. Hearing a spirit talk to you. Such an evaluation or even a medical proposal would incite serious responses.

To do a take on Pogo's 'we have met the enemy and he is us', we have met god and he is us. It is the only logical explanation of the tribal origins of god.