Does God exist?

[Bio]

Thanks for the input, Bio. I feel at peace when reading something from you, not because you are taking a neutral position, but rather you write brief, easy-to-follow paragraphs. I like your style; my style differs in that I type as much as I would talk; my typing is more realistically inclined (that is, sounds more like someone just speaking it (I guess), whereas yours is short and to the point and is easy to follow.

I appreciate that very much, Turk. Especially coming from someone as intelligent as you. =)

At this point, I fully realize that the main argument is that omniscience cannot exist when free will does, or a paradox (impossibility) will ensue. Does anyone else feel like explaining that there is actually logic in the existence of the two? I'm going to end up repeating myself, though most of the time I don't mind it. Just want to see other theists' point of views...I'm Muslim, in case anyone didn't figure that out already.

Okay, I will try to put my two cents into this.

I'll create my own scenario that I noticed from browsing websites: A Father leaves food sitting out in the kitchen and walks away to see if his child, once he walks into the kitchen, will eagerly eat it.

The child still could have went to his father first out of courtesy, but he didn't, and his father knew that he wouldn't. What the father knew, however, did not deny that the child had a decision in that instant. His father just has an intimate understanding of his child. In this scenario, choice and foreknowledge co-exists.

Then we may interject by saying that Dad rigged the situation. But then we would be talking about two different things. To rig something is to deny a choice (like a slot machine that only triggers a win every 500 turns); denying the ability to take an alternative. However, that ability (choice) was still undeniably present with the child.

 

[Napalmbrain]

That's just it though Napalm, there isn't only one possible outcome. You make the decision for yourself. If God created you, he knows how you operate and would be able to figure out which decision you are going to make. He has absolutely no influence. Let's go back to your example of Mr X. He wrote down orange on the piece of paper if I remember correctly. But you don't have any idea what he wrote down so you are still making the decision between the two, he just knows that you're going to choose the orange.

Yes, but if he knows you're going to choose the orange, then it is logically impossible for you to pick the apple. It seems like you have a free choice because you're not being coerced into a decision by anyone, but actually it is fate itself that is 'forcing' you to pick the orange (otherwise, the omniscience premise would be violated).

I'll create my own scenario that I noticed from browsing websites: A Father leaves food sitting out in the kitchen and walks away to see if his child, once he walks into the kitchen, will eat it. The child still could have done nothing, but he didn't, and his father knew that he wouldn't. What the father knew, however, did not deny that the child had a decision in that instant. His father just has an intimate understanding of his child. In this scenario, choice and foreknowledge co-exists.

Then we may interject by saying that Dad rigged the situation. But then we would be talking about two different things. To rig something is to deny a choice (like a slot machine that only triggers a win every 500 turns); denying the ability to take an alternative. However, that ability (choice) was still present with the child.

Nice try, but that argument is flawed, because the dad does not know the outcome of his child's choice with absolute certaintity. He is just making an educated guess based on past experiences, so unlike the omniscient being, there is the possibility of the dad being wrong (for example, maybe the dad predicts his child will eat the food, but the child doesn't feel like eating that kind of food today).

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

That's just it though Napalm, there isn't only one possible outcome. You make the decision for yourself. If God created you, he knows how you operate and would be able to figure out which decision you are going to make. He has absolutely no influence. Let's go back to your example of Mr X. He wrote down orange on the piece of paper if I remember correctly. But you don't have any idea what he wrote down so you are still making the decision between the two, he just knows that you're going to choose the orange.

Yes, but if he knows you're going to choose the orange, then it is logically impossible for you to pick the apple. It seems like you have a free choice because you're not being coerced into a decision by anyone, but actually it is fate itself that is 'forcing' you to pick the orange (otherwise, the omniscience premise would be violated).

I'll create my own scenario that I noticed from browsing websites: A Father leaves food sitting out in the kitchen and walks away to see if his child, once he walks into the kitchen, will eat it. The child still could have done nothing, but he didn't, and his father knew that he wouldn't. What the father knew, however, did not deny that the child had a decision in that instant. His father just has an intimate understanding of his child. In this scenario, choice and foreknowledge co-exists.

Then we may interject by saying that Dad rigged the situation. But then we would be talking about two different things. To rig something is to deny a choice (like a slot machine that only triggers a win every 500 turns); denying the ability to take an alternative. However, that ability (choice) was still present with the child.

Nice try, but that argument is flawed, because the dad does not know the outcome of his child's choice with absolute certaintity. He is just making an educated guess based on past experiences, so unlike the omniscient being, there is the possibility of the dad being wrong (for example, maybe the dad predicts his child will eat the food, but the child doesn't feel like eating that kind of food today).

This is why I brought up the whole thing with God not CAUSING it. In defense of my case I had to bring it up, somehow I took your word for it when you said to shy away from that. Anyways, he also has no influence over one's free will in a normal situation (of course this isn't saying He's not omnipotent, I lol at those who might get that notion). God knows you're going to pick the orange, not because He CAUSED it to happen, or that it was fated or meant happen, but simply because He knows. Free choice and and omniscience are compatible with one another.

Napalmbrain, your point is this, isn't it:

If the absolute future is known, then there is no free will. And since there is free will, omniscience cannot logically exist. Either that, or we really don't have free will we only think we do and everything is fated to happen. In other words, if omniscience exists, then so does destiny, and destiny implies that no matter what you do, the outcome will always reach what it was made out to reach.

I gotta run, got class in 3 minutes.

 

[Shadow*91]

i still don't get it, your argument is not making sense. if the future is known then that means no free will. more like the illusion of free will exists. their just can't be free will and omniscience.its an impossibility

 

[Napalmbrain]

Napalmbrain, your point is this, isn't it:

If the absolute future is known, then there is no free will. And since there is free will, omniscience cannot logically exist. Either that, or we really don't have free will we only think we do and everything is fated to happen. In other words, if omniscience exists, then so does destiny, and destiny implies that no matter what you do, the outcome will always reach what it was made out to reach.

Yeah, basically. You can have an all-knowing God or you can have humans with free will, but you can't have both together.

 

[Bio]

Nice try, but that argument is flawed, because the dad does not know the outcome of his child's choice with absolute certaintity. He is just making an educated guess based on past experiences, so unlike the omniscient being, there is the possibility of the dad being wrong (for example, maybe the dad predicts his child will eat the food, but the child doesn't feel like eating that kind of food today).

Well, it's just an example.

Whether or not Dad had the potential of being wrong is kind of beside the point I was making. My point is that his child's ability of making a choice did not have anything to do with what his Dad could have known, so if foreknowledge was in the situation, it doesn't eliminate the existence of choice. It's probably not the best analogy to use, though.

--

I'm going to back up for a moment and try to deduce again from what you've been saying, Turk. I think there have been three significant elements that I believe have been re-iterated several times by you and others and are central to our discussion:

1. Our future is not preset by God.
2. God is omniscient, and thus knows everything about us and our future.
3. God is omnipresent, and thus exists at all periods of time at once.

All three of these seem to be a correct and large part of your side of the argument, right?

(thanks, ssbb lover, for the edit)

 

[ssbb_lover]

Sorry, Bio. I'm an idiot and accidentally edited your post instead of quoting you. I recovered all of your post except for the reference quote. My apologies..

1. Our future is not preset by God.
2. God is omniscient, and thus knows everything about us and our future.
3. God is omnipotent, and thus exists at all periods of time at once.

I believe what you're looking for there is "omnipresent". Or you explained omnipotent incorrectly, which just means "all-powerful".

 

[Bio]

Ah, I see. Thanks. Yup, I got my definitions mixed up. And yeah, I see the post accident, haha, but I have now corrected it so it's alright. :]

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

i still don't get it, your argument is not making sense. if the future is known then that means no free will. more like the illusion of free will exists. their just can't be free will and omniscience.its an impossibility

While you may say that my argument makes no sense, there are people who believe that my argument makes complete and perfect sense, and are just as if not more open-minded than I am. If I were to try to prove to you that 5+2 is 6, I wouldn't be making any sense no matter WHAT I told you. But the reality of it is that you're viewing it as such, when I'm telling you this whole time it actually equals 7. Because I believe (naturally) the opposing argument to be the flawed one, I see it as you telling me that 5+2 is 6.

So, back to what I was saying, this whole case is only an APPARENT (by apparent I mean it only appears to be so at first glance) contradiction, but upon analysis we see that it is only a possibility for God. For instance, unless Mr. X was code for God, Mr. X cannot be omniscient, it is an impossibility in itself. It is a quality that belongs to the omnipotent, all-knowing Creator Himself (God), no human or living thing can possess it, it is unrealistic. God, however, can know the future, and by knowing it does not force the outcome, rather He knows the outcome that you will make.

But, even if a human being WAS omniscient, his/her being omniscient may cause his/her own destruction. By knowing the future, he/she has created a future for THEMSELVES that involves knowing the future! If someone knew their own future, they could do nothing to change it. God can interact in peoples' present lives which contribute to the greater future, which is already known. Just because God knows whether you are going to heaven or hell already by no means equates to your future being set. Thus, it is still completely logical that God can exist 'omnisciently'.

 

[Shadow*91]

basically what you said right there is that only a god can do impossible things. that's your entire post in one sentence.

 

[Napalmbrain]

Well, it's just an example.

Whether or not Dad had the potential of being wrong is kind of beside the point I was making. My point is that his child's ability of making a choice did not have anything to do with what his Dad could have known, so if foreknowledge was in the situation, it doesn't eliminate the existence of choice. It's probably not the best analogy to use, though.

The fact that an omniscient being cannot be wrong is a necessary premise in my argument, so to consider it "besides the point" in your counter-example is completely missing the point.

So, back to what I was saying, this whole case is only an APPARENT (by apparent I mean it only appears to be so at first glance) contradiction, but upon analysis we see that it is only a possibility for God. For instance, unless Mr. X was code for God, Mr. X cannot be omniscient, it is an impossibility in itself. It is a quality that belongs to the omnipotent, all-knowing Creator Himself (God), no human or living thing can possess it, it is unrealistic. God, however, can know the future, and by knowing it does not force the outcome, rather He knows the outcome that you will make.

But, even if a human being WAS omniscient, his/her being omniscient may cause his/her own destruction. By knowing the future, he/she has created a future for THEMSELVES that involves knowing the future! If someone knew their own future, they could do nothing to change it. God can interact in peoples' present lives which contribute to the greater future, which is already known. Just because God knows whether you are going to heaven or hell already by no means equates to your future being set. Thus, it is still completely logical that God can exist 'omnisciently'.

Look, Mr. X is just a hypothetical being I made up in order to get away from your presumptions about God's supposedly good nature, because it's not relevant to the argument. You can think of Mr. X as a human, a hyper-advanced computer, or even as another god if you like.

Also, on what grounds do you claim that only God can be all-knowing?

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

Well, it's just an example.

Whether or not Dad had the potential of being wrong is kind of beside the point I was making. My point is that his child's ability of making a choice did not have anything to do with what his Dad could have known, so if foreknowledge was in the situation, it doesn't eliminate the existence of choice. It's probably not the best analogy to use, though.

The fact that an omniscient being cannot be wrong is a necessary premise in my argument, so to consider it "besides the point" in your counter-example is completely missing the point.

So, back to what I was saying, this whole case is only an APPARENT (by apparent I mean it only appears to be so at first glance) contradiction, but upon analysis we see that it is only a possibility for God. For instance, unless Mr. X was code for God, Mr. X cannot be omniscient, it is an impossibility in itself. It is a quality that belongs to the omnipotent, all-knowing Creator Himself (God), no human or living thing can possess it, it is unrealistic. God, however, can know the future, and by knowing it does not force the outcome, rather He knows the outcome that you will make.

But, even if a human being WAS omniscient, his/her being omniscient may cause his/her own destruction. By knowing the future, he/she has created a future for THEMSELVES that involves knowing the future! If someone knew their own future, they could do nothing to change it. God can interact in peoples' present lives which contribute to the greater future, which is already known. Just because God knows whether you are going to heaven or hell already by no means equates to your future being set. Thus, it is still completely logical that God can exist 'omnisciently'.

Look, Mr. X is just a hypothetical being I made up in order to get away from your presumptions about God's supposedly good nature, because it's not relevant to the argument. You can think of Mr. X as a human, a hyper-advanced computer, or even as another god if you like.

Also, on what grounds do you claim that only God can be all-knowing?

Because the Bible says so!

Haha that's a joke I'll get back to you later, can't now.

Ok so as I was saying before, I had to bring up Mr.X because the only way for him to be omniscient is that in fact He IS God, omniscience in itself cannot exist and cannot be experienced by any human being or living thing for that matter. It is impossible, unless God himself grants it, which goes against His nature and will never be done. Omniscience is a quality only God has. It comes with being omnipotent and omnipresent. A human being or anything else on this planet being truly omniscient couldn't CHANGE their future that they see, as it would always lead to the same conclusion no matter what they do. It would be a future that involves seeing the future. Interestingly enough, no human being has never or will never be exposed to such a thing. God on the other hand knows the future that you will create for yourself before you create it, that's all. If you were given the sure knowledge of the future, then the 'greater future' would include you looking into your future! The future is what you make of it, including any intervention from God. This intervention from God was known to happen by God himself.

Could you say that everything that has happened up until now was supposed to and absolutely meant to happen from cause and effect which lead to another cause and effect starting from the birth of a child? There are people who believe that free will doesn't exist and that this is the case, but it is untrue, free will does exist, but those people who say this have a flawed understanding of what free will actually is.

As to why does God have to be an all-knowing being, most of this answer comes about believing in Him to begin with, you would pretty much have to believe that God hears and sees everything that you do and that this life is but a test. And only a just, watcher of everything, who also created everything, can make the ultimate decision of heaven or hell (He knows better than people themselves their own deepest intentions, etc.). In order for God to exist and test us fairly, Ge must be complete and absolutely perfect. Knowing the future is something that belongs to Him alone, after all. If he wasn't omnipotent, than He has the potential of suddenly disappearing, if He had partners, it would imply that He needed their aid and that He is not perfect, and neither are His partners. There would be chaos if more than one God existed, in case you then ask why multiple Gods couldn't exist.

 

[navarre]

I know God exists; I have come to the conclusion via empirical experience and personal revelation. Oddly enough, chemistry alone strengthens my convictions of His existence. And the fact that the Jews are still around after all these years should at least be sufficient for anyone inquiring as to whether the Abrahamic God exists.

 

[Shadow*91]

turk, once more you've essentially repeated the same thing

basically what you said right there is that only a god can do impossible things. that's your entire post in one sentence.

but that's just the whole 'god works in mysterious ways' excuse worded differently.

it's impossible for free will and omniscience to exist together. if the future is known, then that means it's set. if the future is set then free will doesn't exist and everything was fated or destined to happen a certain way. but yet we have free will so it's impossible to know the future, or we have the illusion of free will and i was meant to type this.

 

[Napalmbrain]

I know God exists; I have come to the conclusion via empirical experience and personal revelation. Oddly enough, chemistry alone strengthens my convictions of His existence. And the fact that the Jews are still around after all these years should at least be sufficient for anyone inquiring as to whether the Abrahamic God exists.

In what way is that sufficient proof of God's existence? The Australian Aborigines have been around for at least 40,000 years, does that make their Dreamtime stories real?

For me, chemistry (and science in general) has done nothing to convince me there is a God. In fact, it's made me less inclined to believe, because I've learned to look at things more sceptically, and with the benefit of knowledge.