Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This week, I've been hammering at a particular point, which none have managed to successfully refute. So I thought I'd put it out on Dakka for wider discussion.

The statement is as follows.

We are told that the Abrahamic God is omniscent, ominpotent and omnipresent. In short, absolutely all knowing and all powerful. We are also told that he is our creator. Addtionally, he gave mankind free will, essentially the ability to say 'no' to him, and thus condem myself to hell. Yet, if he is my creator, and the three o's listed above, then he already knows the outcome of my life. How can he not, being omniscent? Therefore he has known from the inception of my personal creation whether I will turn from him or not, thanks to Free Will. Yet, this knowledge defies free will, instead making my life (or certainly the end result) pre-determined. And in creating me, knowing I will never accept his existence, and instead being of a rational scientific mind, he has chosen to condem me. Therefore, we have proof of God as a malevolent entity.

So, off you go. Pick holes, test the theory. This came up on a thread where we are discussing evolution vs creationism, and rather than trying to prove God is malevolent, and looking for your validation, I reckon there is at least one gaping flaw in the above statement, but I can't see it.

Enjoy!

P.S. Not saying whether this is or is not my personal stand point. It's a statement to be taken in isolation.

A thread debating free will? Why hasn't anyone thought about that before?

Frank Herbert wrote a book about this once.

This is why Perceval/Parzifal is a much more satisfying Graal/grail hero than Galahad.

The latter is so endowed with grace it is a forgone conclusion he will acheive the Holy Grail.

No references to Monty Python if you please!

Honestly I think this is an argument against free will as there seems to be a compulsion to debate this over and over and over.

And yet if an omniscient entity did create us, he already knows who will and will not join this discussion, therefore predeterminism is seen.

Is there enough mass in the universe to contain data about everything in the universe?

If we did have free will, then the fact that God knows what were are going to do isn't the same as making us do it.

I don't think this has ever been better explained than the Dragon's monologue in Grendel.

If you haven't read it, you should. John Gardner wrote it and frankly it blew my mind more than once.

dogma wrote:Is there enough mass in the universe to contain data about everything in the universe?

Depends on what you count as Data. I could spout absolutely gibberish of no real value (and often do. You might have noticed) so does that count, or is it accurate data?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But yes, rather than discussing the various interpretations of free will etc, I am looking for comments on my statement in particular.

God determines what shall happen, we are left to our free decisions, which will eventually lead there. So there are a whole bunch (near limitless) amount of paths to choose, so you COULD define that as not free will, but that many options is still pretty good.

Sounds it may be worth checking out Monster.

micahaphone wrote:God determines what shall happen, we are left to our free decisions, which will eventually lead there. So there are a whole bunch (near limitless) amount of paths to choose, so you COULD define that as not free will, but that many options is still pretty good.

Ah, but as you said, God has determined what the outcome is, therefore there is no freewilll, as no matter the choices made and indeed when, the destination is of course pre-dertermined.

Theoretically a willful omnipotent and omniscient being that exists outside of causal logic could very well both coexist with free will and be something that would seemingly conflict with free will conceptually.

It all depends on how willing you are to imagine states of existence that are separate from human logic. For a being to be omnipotent and omniscient it necessarily has to exist outside of that which it views and controls, otherwise it has no frame of reference by which it can be independent at all.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Sounds it may be worth checking out Monster.

Oh it is, if you're into that sort of thing. Very, very good.

Mr Mystery wrote:

micahaphone wrote:God determines what shall happen, we are left to our free decisions, which will eventually lead there. So there are a whole bunch (near limitless) amount of paths to choose, so you COULD define that as not free will, but that many options is still pretty good.

Ah, but as you said, God has determined what the outcome is, therefore there is no freewilll,

No, he hasn't.

Knowing isn't causing.

Not really an original question, i am sure that Orlanth or some other educated theist can come up with (at least on some level) an adequate/intelligent answer, but i think it simply boils down to "does that answer really suffice?"

Why do i have the urge to stare at a womans arse if she bends over to pick something up? Or stare at the hot woman on the movie poster? Is it because God created me broken and wishes me punished for the sin of doing what i appear to be programmed to do (lusting) ?

Or is it because it is a perfectly natural response from an evolved creature that is required to breed for its species survival?

Personally i am not a believer because it appears to be a grand nonsense. And considering evolution is a proven fact and pretty much the whole of the first page of genesis is now known to be flat out wrong, how can the rest of the book be trusted?

I honestly dont believe for a moment that Religion would exist if it wasnt forced onto children at a young age. Most devout people are raised to be that way, barring of course people who suffer great personal trauma as this also seems to lead people to "God"

The simple fact is that the universe makes far far more sense without a theistic God. Im all up for some sort of intricate "prime mover" or Deistic analogy sort of "God" but i am absolutely 100% certain that there is no God who sits and watches absolutely all of us and disaproves of me masturbating.

So seriously, where is the flaw in my argument? I want it deconstructed and critiqued.

Apologies if any of my posts seem confrontational. They aren't intended that way.

Mr Mystery wrote:

dogma wrote:Is there enough mass in the universe to contain data about everything in the universe?

Depends on what you count as Data. I could spout absolutely gibberish of no real value (and often do. You might have noticed) so does that count, or is it accurate data?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But yes, rather than discussing the various interpretations of free will etc, I am looking for comments on my statement in particular.

Basically agree with your statement,and have used similar in various theological debates.

An all knowing Deity who,despite knowing that his creations will fail to meet his standards and thus be condemned to an eternity of misery,yet continues to create them,doesn't sound very all loving to me.

But that's just my opinion.

Mr Mystery wrote:So seriously, where is the flaw in my argument? I want it deconstructed and critiqued.

Apologies if any of my posts seem confrontational. They aren't intended that way.

An Omnipotent Omniscient being that exists outside of causal logic (as god is described as doing) can be both conflicting with the idea of free will while coexisting on it. An omnipotent being that exists outside of logic can do pretty much anything. By some arguments and opinions if god wanted to lift a taco so heavy he couldn't lift he he could despite the rule of him not being able to lift it even after having done so holding together as truthful. Objectivity and logic are not concrete when discussing things capable of violating them. That is the flaw in your argument.

Better be bloomin good Monster coz I just bought a used copy!
£0.30 plus £2.75 shipping from Atlanta

I'll be sending you the bill if I don't like it!

FITZZ wrote: An all knowing Deity who,despite knowing that his creations will fail to meet his standards and thus be condemned to an eternity of misery,yet continues to create them,doesn't sound very all loving to me.

It depends on how much one values their Free Will, I suppose. What are some of the other options? Not being created at all? Everyone being a robot built solely for worshiping their creator?

Then there's the different ways of considering the afterlife of someone who isn't a believer. Not all Christian denominations buy into the eternal torment gimmick.

Mr Mystery wrote:So seriously, where is the flaw in my argument? I want it deconstructed and critiqued.

Apologies if any of my posts seem confrontational. They aren't intended that way.

Knowledge of something does not determine anything (unless our thoughts entail the things we see in some strange brain in a vat sense), therefore omniscience is not relevant to the point. The being in question would have to exercise his omnipotence in order to negate any sort of free will, but since the initial argument includes the premise that the being induces free will in the universe, it can be supposed that he is actively exercising his omnipotence to maintain free will.

Whether or not you accept that idea depends on your stance regarding omnipotence and contradictions.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Better be bloomin good Monster coz I just bought a used copy!
£0.30 plus £2.75 shipping from Atlanta

I'll be sending you the bill if I don't like it!

That's so cool! I'm sure you'll enjoy it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:So seriously, where is the flaw in my argument? I want it deconstructed and critiqued.

Apologies if any of my posts seem confrontational. They aren't intended that way.

Knowledge of something does not determine anything, therefore omniscience is not relevant to the point. The being in question would have to exercise his omnipotence in order to negate any sort of free will, but since the initial argument includes the premise that the being induces free will in the universe, it can be supposed that he is actively exercising his omnipotence to maintain free will.

Exactly what I would have liked to have said if I was a bit more articulate.

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote: An all knowing Deity who,despite knowing that his creations will fail to meet his standards and thus be condemned to an eternity of misery,yet continues to create them,doesn't sound very all loving to me.

It depends on how much one values their Free Will, I suppose. What are some of the other options? Not being created at all? Everyone being a robot built solely for worshiping their creator?

Then there's the different ways of considering the afterlife of someone who isn't a believer. Not all Christian denominations buy into the eternal torment gimmick.

Interesting points MR,as I've said,I'm not a Christian so..some of the tenants/beliefs are a unknown to me...I wasn't aware that there are Christians who don't believe in "Hell".

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote: An all knowing Deity who,despite knowing that his creations will fail to meet his standards and thus be condemned to an eternity of misery,yet continues to create them,doesn't sound very all loving to me.

It depends on how much one values their Free Will, I suppose. What are some of the other options? Not being created at all? Everyone being a robot built solely for worshiping their creator?

Then there's the different ways of considering the afterlife of someone who isn't a believer. Not all Christian denominations buy into the eternal torment gimmick.

Interesting points MR,as I've said,I'm not a Christian so..some of the tenants/beliefs are a unknown to me...I wasn't aware that there are Christians who don't believe in "Hell".

There's a few ways that the "undesirable post-death condition" can be determined. It's sometimes referred to as "the grave" so there's those that believe it's just eternal death with no afterlife, tormented or otherwise.

It's a very confusing book at times, I'll grant you.

I don't really fancy having another big debate about free will, but since God was mentioned I thought I'd leave this here:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
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?

- Epicurus

The Dreadnote wrote:I don't really fancy having another big debate about free will, but since God was mentioned I thought I'd leave this here:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
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?

- Epicurus

Theodicy is a pretty tough issue.

As a believer, I think its kind of a fallacy to try and put one's own understanding on the same level as a deity. That's just my take on it.

Monster Rain wrote:

The Dreadnote wrote:I don't really fancy having another big debate about free will, but since God was mentioned I thought I'd leave this here:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
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?

- Epicurus

Theodicy is a pretty tough issue.

As a believer, I think its kind of a fallacy to try and put one's own understanding on the same level as a deity. That's just my take on it.

This is one of the things concerning God existence/non-existence that I often find myself mulling over.

I have no problem accepting death,pain,misery,war,etc as all part of the "human condition"...particularly as a "non believer".
However...the idea of a "higher power" observing these events in a "dis attached" manner,or in a manner "I can not understand because I am not that higher power"..bothers me.

The concept of a loving and caring deity who allows his "children" to suffer in such manners is indeed perplexing.

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote: An all knowing Deity who,despite knowing that his creations will fail to meet his standards and thus be condemned to an eternity of misery,yet continues to create them,doesn't sound very all loving to me.

It depends on how much one values their Free Will, I suppose. What are some of the other options? Not being created at all? Everyone being a robot built solely for worshiping their creator?

Then there's the different ways of considering the afterlife of someone who isn't a believer. Not all Christian denominations buy into the eternal torment gimmick.

Interesting points MR,as I've said,I'm not a Christian so..some of the tenants/beliefs are a unknown to me...I wasn't aware that there are Christians who don't believe in "Hell".

There's a few ways that the "undesirable post-death condition" can be determined. It's sometimes referred to as "the grave" so there's those that believe it's just eternal death with no afterlife, tormented or otherwise.

It's a very confusing book at times, I'll grant you.

There's also various interpretations of hell from the distinctly medieval 'getting bummed off Satan for ever and ever and ever' to the more benign sounding 'abscence of God's grace'.

Personally, I'm agnosticish (bordering atheism, but that's a lot of hard work) and I genuinely believe this is all we get!

Then there's the idea that if there is a God and he is malevolent you should still most likely do what he damned well says!

It ccould be argued that the distancing of the soul from God's grace is the torment, symbolised by the tormenting devils and hell flames.

but that is a discussion about eschatology and not the classic predetermination/freewill debate.

so I'll shut up.

except just to add that maybe hell is an eternal online debate about freewill or otherwise!