Would you take the pleasure and pain in your life and cancel it out, and believe in the balance of non-suffering and the remainder of pleasure?
They are inevitable paradoxes if such terms are applied, as understood, in the same reality. One can remove such paradoxes by reality only allowing one (or none), or by changing the meaning of the terms. You have suggested only one is allowed / in play at any given moment, but, as I have argued, this still requires a changing of the meanings, as, with the words as currently understood, any moment of omniscience precludes that notion of Free Will, even if it is not "active" while Free Will is in play. Inadequate they may be, but a better term would be inaccurate. We have an understanding of what those terms mean. They tend to create paradoxes, as identified, so those words, with the meanings given, and applied to a single reality, are troublesome. If one still wants to use those words but with different meanings then the onus is to explain that meaning. At best, here, all we have is the acceptance that the current meaning is inadequate, but let's still God "omniscient", or "omnipotent" - without ever explaining the new meaning behind those words. I understand that, and I am highlighting that your arguments, as presented, are flawed, for the reasons given. So it is unscientific and thus a matter of faith. Yes. And, perhaps, picking apart what some have previously attributed to God. I don't think we disagree in that regard, only in the manner / arguments to try to do that. Sure, and it is with the logic of your arguments I am mostly disagreeing with. "Deny" was the wrong word, so apologies. What I meant was that you are arguing for X rather than not-X, but actually only managing to support not-X with your argument, as I have attempted to highlight and explain previously. Even if discussing that, if a character was described as omniscient we would be having the same arguments. I.e. logic is as logic does. The only way out would seem to be semantic. Yet... Sure, but the words we use do have the meanings we ascribe to them. If it is shown that X and Y can not logically co-exist in the same reality, yet it is a given that they do, then either X or Y do not mean what we have assumed them to mean. I.e. it is a matter of semantics. Even you, above, have said: "Presumably, God - and his powers, preceded our invention of the terms of omniscient and omnipowerful. We have to allow for the likelihood omniscient and omnipowerful are inadequate, human words." This is an argument about semantics. We can happily talk about any and all X and Y co-existing until such time as we want to put meaning behind X and Y. To say that omniscience and Freewill can happily co-exist and not result in a paradox until someone raises the issue of what those words might mean is... baffling to me. Or are you really saying that we can claim things while not having an understanding of what we are claiming? It becomes comforting when you see it as the end of the line of the issue. i.e. to "semantics" becomes comforting when one can simply go "ah, it's just a matter of changing the definition then," without ever explaining what the new definition is, such that arguments that use the new meaning are no longer invalid etc. It's comforting when it becomes a handwave. Yes. It's not about suspending disbelief but rather just an intellectual look at the claims and the system / environment in which they are claimed to operate. Belief or disbelief never comes into it. And I'm all for that, which is why I'm still here. So, to summarise: It is a matter of semantics if you want to avoid the paradoxes. What do you suggest the new meanings should be so as to avoid those paradoxes. If it's just a case of "oh, our words are insufficient" then that is a comforting appeal to semantics. I'd rather an honest "I don't know". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And if it helps: I don't know, either.
I find the labels 'omniscient' et al boring to discuss and besides the point. I don't know why they have to enter the conversation at all. Why not simply discuss this notion of Free Will from first principles without constraint of those labels? God made the universe. God made animals. He controls them or at least gave them limited self-initiative. God made humans smart enough to control their own destiny because he wanted to see what they would do.
That aligns with the bible. God regretted making man(Genesis 6:6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.), meaning God didn't like the way things worked out so God DID want to see what His creation would do, just like you say. Remember Omniscient is bound by this universe, God is not.
I was going to reply to the above with something like the many worlds interprtation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation But that is only human logic. Is a god what you make it for the purpose of belief or for a 'discussion'?
Well I'm just using the biblical God in my answering, it seems like a adequate fit for the discussion Dave was having. Did I answer your question?
And your use of omniscient is mentioned in the bible or is it something you assume? (My bold below) Who else in our universe would have omniscience if not the bible god? I would model this god having omniscience over all its own creations, universes ect ect. You do know I ask questions to try to understand where you are coming from? I will say you answered it sort of???
Would you believe in ultimate power? It doesn’t have to be all powerful, to be as strong as nature will allow. IMO God sent the angel of omnipotence into the mortal realm where He lives as a human with human power, but nature is omnipotent. If humans were omnipotent over their environment they would destroy it.
Considering God created everything, He(the bible) created omniscience, He created water, but does He have to drink it? I understand, Thanks.
Omniscience is not a need like water for humans, a god may have omniscience or not. Can this god turn it on and off, since he created it I suppose he can. Which leads to... If in the future when humans are long gone, will this god find gaps in its recalling the past when its omniscience was turned off because of human freewill, if so, then will this mean this god is not omniscient but limited?
You missed the point. Replace water with anything, they are all things. God is Love(1 John 4:8). According to the Christian bible. Not omniscience, water or rhubarb. Probably yes(in this universe).
You beat me to it. How do we know the extent of God's abilities? I doubt God told us.p And the Bible is a human-made claim about things beyond their ken, so I wouldn't put too much faith in it. Yes, he created the universe. that's pretty up there. But the moment you try to define it with words like omniscient, and omnipowerful you create paradoxen, generally of the form 'Can God create a rock so big even he can't lift it?' That's been done to death. That seems utterly non sequitur to the discussion. Can't we just have a philosophical discussion without the sermon?
I don't know what that means. Taken at face-value, it is certainly not true. Nature is bound by the laws of physics. Sperm whales and bowls of petunias aren't spontaneously called into existence several miles above the surface of a planet.
I said God is love to distinguish Him from all the other names being attributed to Him. Straight from the horses mouth so to speak, to put this philosophical debate on a straighter line.
Sorry, all it does is obfuscate the issue. The phrase is a Deepity - a statement that is apparently profound but actually asserts a triviality on one level and something meaningless on another. On the contrary, it derails it.
