^^ Free will.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I was just going to say that.Kmarion wrote:
^^ Free will.
Within many definitions of the Abrahamic god, the idea of omnipotence and omnipresence prevails. Philosophically, it presents a problem that such a being could be endowed with both of these properties.
However, more interestingly, if creation by a god who possesses these qualities will create beings who lack belief in his existence or mock his religion, then this god either ignores his knowledge that these beings will commit these acts as he endows them with these ideas. Thus, it would be logical to assume that this god intended to create these ideas. However, were the possibilities of punishment occur for non-belief, or even for acts of sin, then this god has created beings intended to be punished. On an individual level, then we can theorize about this god creating us for the purpose of being punished. If this fate is inescapable, then either this god lacks omnipotence or omnipresence, or he is malevolent. Either way, should this being exist, I would not willingly worship him. Free will is a difficult philosophical idea to use.
However, more interestingly, if creation by a god who possesses these qualities will create beings who lack belief in his existence or mock his religion, then this god either ignores his knowledge that these beings will commit these acts as he endows them with these ideas. Thus, it would be logical to assume that this god intended to create these ideas. However, were the possibilities of punishment occur for non-belief, or even for acts of sin, then this god has created beings intended to be punished. On an individual level, then we can theorize about this god creating us for the purpose of being punished. If this fate is inescapable, then either this god lacks omnipotence or omnipresence, or he is malevolent. Either way, should this being exist, I would not willingly worship him. Free will is a difficult philosophical idea to use.
Drakef you would have to believe in the existence of a persons soul to understand the nature of free will. I am not a religious person. I do however understand the rational behind the idea. I have often wondered why a God would create life for the purpose of being judged. To the religious this is understood in the afterlife.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I do not believe that I should be logically excluded from philosophically debating the idea of free will simply because I lack religion.Kmarion wrote:
Drakef you would have to believe in the existence of a persons soul to understand the nature of free will. I am not a religious person. I do however understand the rational behind the idea. I have often wondered why a God would create life for the purpose of being judged. To the religious this is understood in the afterlife.
God created man to be perfect, and man was perfect. God did not create man preloaded with ideas rebellious to God. God's omnipotence lies in that He could have decided to hardwire belief in Him into every man, but He didn't. Just because man sins or has rebellious ideas doesn't prove that God isn't omnipotent. Also, God didn't intend to create these ideas in man, but rather these ideas are a result of man's rebellion. God gave man the will to choose whether or not to obey Him, and man chose not to. In so choosing, sin results. Non-belief in God wasn't created by God. Therefore, along this line, your argument about God having created man to punish him is unreachable.Drakef wrote:
Within many definitions of the Abrahamic god, the idea of omnipotence and omnipresence prevails. Philosophically, it presents a problem that such a being could be endowed with both of these properties.
However, more interestingly, if creation by a god who possesses these qualities will create beings who lack belief in his existence or mock his religion, then this god either ignores his knowledge that these beings will commit these acts as he endows them with these ideas. Thus, it would be logical to assume that this god intended to create these ideas. However, were the possibilities of punishment occur for non-belief, or even for acts of sin, then this god has created beings intended to be punished. On an individual level, then we can theorize about this god creating us for the purpose of being punished. If this fate is inescapable, then either this god lacks omnipotence or omnipresence, or he is malevolent. Either way, should this being exist, I would not willingly worship him. Free will is a difficult philosophical idea to use.
Also, for you to be sure that your philosophical arguments conclusively prove that God is not omnipotent, you must be prepared to accept that human reasoning, based on the current logic, capacity of thought, and knowledge we have, is infallible and omnipotent.
That is a damn good question. Though, that judgment is part of your free will. God created life, imposed moral laws with rewards and consequences for following or ignoring them. If you aren't truly free, how can you be held accountable for your actions?Kmarion wrote:
I have often wondered why a God would create life for the purpose of being judged.
Though, I think I argued backwards here. Here, the idea is that man was created to be judged, and the free will aspect allows fair judgment. Why man is created solely to be judged? ... well, I don't know. I will try to think back to my studies of Dante. He discussed this quite a lot in Purgatorio.
To that I would reply with:Vub wrote:
Also, for you to be sure that your philosophical arguments conclusively prove that God is not omnipotent, you must be prepared to accept that human reasoning, based on the current logic, capacity of thought, and knowledge we have, is infallible and omnipotent.
Epicurus wrote:
“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?”
Huh? Did you feel I was excluding you? Or perhaps I was just elaborating on the thought process of those who place their faith in a god?Drakef wrote:
I do not believe that I should be logically excluded from philosophically debating the idea of free will simply because I lack religion.Kmarion wrote:
Drakef you would have to believe in the existence of a persons soul to understand the nature of free will. I am not a religious person. I do however understand the rational behind the idea. I have often wondered why a God would create life for the purpose of being judged. To the religious this is understood in the afterlife.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
There is distinct logical difficulties within your argument.Vub wrote:
God created man to be perfect, and man was perfect. God did not create man preloaded with ideas rebellious to God. God's omnipotence lies in that He could have decided to hardwire belief in Him into every man, but He didn't. Just because man sins or has rebellious ideas doesn't prove that God isn't omnipotent. Also, God didn't intend to create these ideas in man, but rather these ideas are a result of man's rebellion. God gave man the will to choose whether or not to obey Him, and man chose not to. In so choosing, sin results. Non-belief in God wasn't created by God. Therefore, along this line, your argument about God having created man to punish him is unreachable.
Also, for you to be sure that your philosophical arguments conclusively prove that God is not omnipotent, you must be prepared to accept that human reasoning, based on the current logic, capacity of thought, and knowledge we have, is infallible and omnipotent.
Ignoring that omnipotence and omnipresence is potentially contradictory, the idea of this supreme being possessing both of these qualities is difficult to comprehend when fitting in within most of the mainstream Abrahamic beliefs.
If this god possesses Omnipotence, then his creations would not act randomly. They would act only as he had created them to do so. The possibilities of what a man could do- sin, steal an apple from a tree- could only exist if this god willingly endowed people will that possibility. If I can commit x, y, or z, and 'choose' one of these options, then that option is only possible because I was created with the ability to choose that way. This god created the possibility to sin, y or z, by his own power, and imbued creations that would do so. Could an omnipotent god create beings that would act in unknown ways?
If this god possesses Omnipresence, then he is perfectly aware of what his creations would do even before he created them. He would know that Satan would rebel against him, that Eve would eat the apple, or that atheists would be punished for their 'sins'. The knowledge of these consequences before he created life means that it is predetermined that I will be punished in the afterlife, and he was aware of this before creation. Thus, I was created with the intent to be punished, and either he is malevolent, or lacks these qualities of omnipotence and omnipresence.
Free will is a difficult concept to have even within your religion. Choice is entirely an illusion if we consider that our 'choices' are merely the firing of neurons within our brains. Our brains are wired to perform certain actions at certain times, and if we had to 'choose' between x and y, our brain would respond accordingly by picking one. There is no randomness. On a thousand identical occasions, we would always pick the same object because our brains are wired to do so. We create the idea that we are making a choice, but there is zero possibility that we will pick the other one.